Jack & Jill Politics

rikyrah: -er, -um "Whycome" I'm sitting here with the CRICKETS*****??

Mr. Obama is campaigning and isn't making HEADLINES!!! What's up with that??? :>) :>) :>) :>)

Oh! Wait. . . .He didn't do anything wrong! :>)


NEWS FLASH: The 99 Cent store is "raising" its prices!! :>) to 99.99cents!!
O.K. we are in a DEPRESSION!! :<)

rikyrah: From WashPost:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...
Lawsuit To Ask that Cheney's Papers Be Made Public

Vice President Cheney has said he does not have to make his papers public after leaving office because he is not part of the executive branch. A lawsuit to be filed today says they are covered under the 1978 Presidential Records Act. (By Alberto Pellaschiar -- Associated Press)

Rikyrah: HEAD BOW to the victims!!

http://www.newser.com/story/36849/ike-slams-cub...
Ike Slams Cuba; 600 Dead In Haiti

I'm so worried about Ike going to the Gulf coast and folks not taking it seriously. Ike has been no joke.

rikyrah: From Daily KOS:

http://www.jedreport.com/2008/09/what-more-of-t...
What More Of The Same Really Means

The pic - priceless

Olbermann tried last night to get through to Barack about the exclamation points in his speech. This is an emergency.

Barack needs an intervention!

He continued to talk ABOUT things from a distance, instead of experiencing them in the moment. I don't know if he's in the campaign bubble and not aware of how things are being perceived out here in the real world. He slaps down his own responses before they can come out....sucks the oxygen and energy from sentences by beginning them passively. The net effect, is sentences with zero emotional impact.

Olbermann asked about the sense of urgency, and Senator Obama talked about it like a lab specimen. He didn't sound like he FELT the urgency. This is a problem.

I don't know how much effect this will have on the ultimate outcome. We won't know until we know.

EARTH TO OBAMA!

I think he was more animated when talking about the fannie mae problem than Team McCain's attacks. I get the feeling when he thinks something is BS he talks about it from a distance. It's that no drama obama thing which can be a double edge sword.

rikyrah: This comes under the heading - "See You Around":

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/9/0010...
Total Recall: Arnold Schwarzenegger Faces Removal From Office

Seems as if the California Prison Guards Union has been working without a contract since 2006! So they are planning to take some action against the "Terminator"!

No wonder he couldn't go to the GOPARTY!! :>) :>)

p.s. I hope he neva commits any crime that lands him in prison! Hmmm. ">)

rikyrah: HONORING Charlayne Hunter-Gault - 1st African American woman to graduate from the University of Georgia -1962. Civil Rights Leader!!

http://blackpoliticsontheweb.com/2008/09/08/cha...

CONGRATULATIONS!

Is Bush trying to start a war with Pakistan before 11/4?

I am really not given to conspiracy theories...but US activities over the last seven days w.r.t. Pakistan (Post Musharraf) are very...very surreptitious.

The situation is tense...more tense than Iraq or Georgia...Why? Because Pakistan has a nuclear weapon.

ok. My people....

I must say, the vibe is definitely right up in here. I'm doing my thing - entering data and what not...all while jamming to some house music. yes, deep house. that's how I like it!

Brothas walking in here - with the cuteness. Ready to volunteer for Obama.

A father is sitting next to his daughter and they are both doing a bit of phone banking.

A crowd of legal secretaries walked in about 20 minutes ago...looking at my stash. Well, I had to give them part of my stack. I'm not mad. I'm sure they can jam through it in about a minute.

People walk in here with home made cooked stuff. Someone brought ribs in here the other day. No barbeque sauce...well...we know it wasn't from Uncle Larry's house.

It's 8p in the evening and people are walking in here like it is Saturday morning.

We got this people. Stay up.

Texas, where are you? At the new Obama office on Motor?

Texas: MAJOR PROPS to ya!! :>) :>) :>)

Thanks for taking us with you!!! :>) :>)

yaaay, texas girl! i'm a native l.a. girl myself.

all the way down in s.d. now though, and we're FIRED UP down here too!

Has anyone seen the McCain Mavericks commercial? It sounds like a cowboy story movie trailer. I was LMAO.

Hey msmartin,

I'm at the HQ in L.A. and all I could get was the telephone number for the Chicago HQ. Well, I only asked one person. If I get more, I will let you know.

866.675.2008

I'm sure they will know of all the offices in Ill.

Hey Texas girl, thanks. I'll try that number and I'm going to the Obama site. I really want to register voters right here in my community.

Any one else shocked by this?


I'm all for party diversity, and until we are free from the limiting two party system that we are currently working under, this is the way it's going to be. But still, I really did not expect this.


Most of the Indigenous Americans I know are so far left. We'll be at meetings looking at each other like "I got your back". I should mention that most of the people at these meetings are usually of the majority persuasion.

No, I'm not shocked by that. In fact, if the Republicans weren't so racist, they'd probably have a lot more people of color from all ethnicities. I'm sure they'd be able to attract a lot more Black people on "cultural" issues like abortion and gay rights. Republicans are adept at getting people to vote against their own well-being.

rikyrah: Russia Will Leave Georgia - Except for. .. .

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7604376.stm

Let's see! Hmmmm!??

I have decided that I am going to be the jjp official cheerleader. No more gloom and doom. So when I am online, I will be trying to boost morale, when I am out on the streets I will boost the morale of other Obamites..... We can and we will.

So nice to have someone join the team. He-ey!

I actually watched the RNC with the intention of saying something nice. And I think I did a pretty good job. Since then I've been trying to stay positive in a general sense. But it's so nice to have some back up.

Just so you know, uniforms are not mandatory during rehersals. But they are a must during game days, the debates and elections (local and national). And not matter what, always Bring It On!

BRing It on!

rorysmomma: Wait . . . Let me get my pompoms!! :>) :>) I'm joining U!! :>) :>)

"Hit 'em on the left! Hit 'em on the right!
Get down team; and FIGHT! FIGHT!! FIGHT!!! " Wheeeee!!! :>) :>)

Check mate!Checkmate!Checkmate! (obama chess references.) Oh lord, I am such a nerd LOL

Our team is what? Fired up! Our team is what? Red Hot ! Our team is RED HOt! Whoooooooo!

Is anyone watching CNN's presentation on Palin's religion? Really interesting and the commentators were on point, especially Roland. Bae Buchanan said she supports Palin because of her religion and that she pro life, pro gun. Roland told her being pro gun isn't christian. He also told her she couldn't separate blacks from christians, because a lot of blacks are christians when she suggested christians are supporting Palin because they are like her and blacks are supporting Obama because their like him. (Can you believe she said that?)

Hold it down Roland, hold it down. My man.

saw it. You can always count on him to keep it real.

CNN is lifting the veil on a lot of extreme religious ideas. I am anxious to see if America cares. Okay, TD Jakes is about to be on Rachel Maddow!?!??!??!

I didn't see CNN, I was watching MSNBC. I don't want to spend to much more energy on this woman until we see an actual interview with her, but I think Keith, and Rachel should tread very carefully with discussing her religion. This has the opportunity to offend not just the right wingnuts, but others who belong to religions where they get a little, eh "excited".

Keith was joking about the "talking in tongues" thing and I just had a feeling that was going to turn off some folk. My fear, which was realized just a moment ago was that criticism of her religion would steer the conversation back to Jeremiah Wright. And it did, Pat Buchannan brought it up on Rachel's show.

Honey,

Ordinarily, I'd agree with you, if this weren't the ENTIRE REASON THIS WOMAN WAS CHOSEN.

Everything that they bulshat about Jeremiah Wright IS on the money with this woman and her church - 10x over.

The racism. The anti-Semitism - not from speeches 7 years ago, but 2 months ago. She's the equivalent of the Christian Taliban and needs to be exposed as such.

Yes, with the typical Pat B twist. White people's religious beliefs =treated with deference, black people's religious beliefs = carnival side show.
Sigh.

I think Americans like religion as a conceptual idea.CNN has been playing this message all day long. I was sick today and while I was resting in and out of sleeping CNN nailed this message all day long. I am unsure just how much people will be comfortable with speaking in tongues, and etc.

It remains to be seen if they will just slide this right under the table with all other Palin information.

All the pundits have it right though it's seriously limiting coverage of real issues. I think the only idea that might stick is the Alaska Independence Party information. Only time will tell.

JJai: Feel better!! :>) :>)

I do today. You are such a sweetie pie!

Thanks, I almost forgot Rachel's show started tonight. Jakes is speaking sensible truth.

An Open Letter to Senator Obama: Hillary Clinton for Secretary of Defense

Finally, someone who sees the light: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michelle-kraus/ga....

I made this suggestion weeks ago. Like it or not, Hillary Clinton is likely the ONLY person that can salvage your campaign. I'm not going to say picking Biden was a mistake, because I like Biden, but I have to wonder what was this Campaign's plan for holding on to the white female vote in the event that McCain picked a woman, any white woman? It's just too hard to believe that after losing as many primaries as they won after the Wisconsin primary, that this entire team of supposed talented strategists and seasoned pols could have underestimated and undervalued the passion of Hillary Clinton's female voters to see a woman in the White House, any white woman.

Hillary Clinton made clear today that she has no intention of engaging in public "catfight" with Sarah Palin. Quite frankly what's her interest? Her only interest is preserving her future presidential prospects, which means she's deciding whether her chances are better taking on two-term Governor Palin in 2016 or incumbent Vice President Palin in 2012 (McCain too, but he'll be irrelevant just keeping the chair warm for Palin).

Others may and will likely differ, but I can't see how she thinks she would have any advantage as a sitting Senator in taking on an incumbent Vice President almost 20 years younger, more attractive with the OFFICIAL title and responsibilities as Vice President. Her proximity to power as wife of Bill Clinton and ground-breaking candidacy were her biggest advantages. After Palin makes history the novelty will wear off, so what would be refreshing or galvanizing about Clinton's candidacy? Nothing!

However, Secretary of Defense would put her leaps and bounds above all competitors in 2016, even Joe Biden, but especially Sarah Palin.

Senator Obama, name your cabinet today, starting with Governor Richardson as Secretary of State, a moderate Republican as Chief of Staff, a Black Secretary of Education who supports vouchers, and most importantly Senator Clinton as Defense Secretary.

The added treate will be to force McCain's hand to show that whether he'll govern from the Right or as a "maverick." His base is looking for a conservative cabinet, make him show now he's willing to go against his base. He won't.

I've thought about Clinton as Secretary of Defense, too, but didn't really know how to justify it based on her credentials. But, next to Palin as VP, she looks like General Effing Patton.

rikyrah: From TPM: http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com...
McCain Camp Piles Up New Falsehoods ON Bridge to Nowhere

McCain Campaign Piles Up New Falsehoods On Bridge To Nowhere
By Greg Sargent and Eric Kleefeld - September 8, 2008, 6:23PM

McCain and his advisers are now conceding that, yes, Sarah Palin was for the Bridge to Nowhere before she was against it -- but they're casting this as more proof of her reform credentials.

In so doing, the McCain camp is piling new falsehoods atop the old ones.

McCain himself rolled out the new push-back on the campaign trail today, saying the following:

"The fact is that Gov. Palin learned that earmarks are bad and she did say, we don't need our bridge to nowhere, and we will pay for it ourselves if we need it. I mean, that is just a fact."

Meanwhile, McCain adviser Tucker Bounds appeared today on MSNBC, where he acknowledged that Palin used to favor the bridge, but said she turned against it for good reasons.

"But as it became more wasteful, the budget ballooned, it became a staple for wasteful spending, she said No," Bounds said. "And she was the one that drove the nail in the coffin that killed the bridge to nowhere."

Nope.

It's bogus to say that Palin turned on the project because the costs ballooned. The real reason she came around to opposing it was not that the overall costs went up -- the project was always a boondoggle, and costs were always going up -- but that one particular element of the project's cost ballooned: The portion that Alaska would have to pay, instead of getting the money through federal pork.

In her statement finally ending the project, Palin explicitly lamented that fact. "Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329-million short of full funding for the bridge project," Palin said at the time, "and it's clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island."

As for the claim that Palin drove a stake into the project's heart, the project was practically dead already by the time Palin officially shut it down, as the non-partisan CQ's PolitiFact section pointed out. She shut it down after it became clear that Congress would no longer fund it -- meaning that Alaska would have to use its own $329 million to build it, thus leaving Palin no other choice but to shut it down.

Bottom line: Palin did not tell Congress, "Thanks, but no thanks," on the bridge. It was Congress who cut off the money to Alaska. Oh, and she didn't Say No To Pork, either -- when Congress wouldn't spend that money on the Bridge, Congress did allow her to keep it for other projects. And she did.

sounds like flip-flopping to me

Flip flops only matter if you are a Democrat.

nickwah22: Guess it's HEREDITARY!! :>) :>)

Translation to this: "I got just 4 more months, I can do what I wanna, say what I wanna...."

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Monday there are too few black Americans in the State Department.

"I have lamented that I can go into a meeting at the Department of State -- and as a matter fact I can go into a whole day of meetings at the Department of State -- and actually rarely see somebody who looks like me. And that is just not acceptable," Rice said.

She was delivering the keynote speech at the annual Conference of the White House Initiative on National Historically Black Colleges and Universities.

"Like so many African-Americans who were fortunate enough to have the benefits of education and all the access that I have had, my story starts with parents and aunts and uncles, and indeed in my case a grandparent, who got their start at historically black colleges," Rice said.

She praised partnerships between federal government departments and agencies and black colleges.

Last year, such colleges received $5 million in scholarships and grants from the State Department for language training, study abroad and exchange programs.

"It's good for the students, but it is good for America, too," she said. "Because when I go around the world, I want to see black Americans involved in the promotion and development of our foreign policy. I want to see a Foreign Service that looks as if black Americans are part of this great country."

Condi ain't voting for no McCain..y'all know that.

Condi knows which way is up, and I personally believe, it's an affront to her - intellectually - for McCain to have chosen this unqualified religious zealot.

You're right. I think Condi's about to bust.

I get the feeling that somewhere around Oct 4th, there will be a rally somewhere in Michigan with like 30,000 and Colin Powell will endorse Obama. It'll be the dagger.

Ride or Die Condi? Could it be? Between this statement and her half-hearted "endorsement" of Gov. Palin today, it looks like ole girl might take the opportunity to keep it real before she leaves office.

I was going to post this here too. Interesting comments from Condi... although I don't agree w/ her politics, I agree w/ her point here. We need more diversity in all branches of govt and cabinet level agencies.

Ed Rendell is officially in the campaign

Gov. Ed Rendell decried a double standard in the treatment of Sarah Palin on Monday, saying that if it was he who was at the center of the "troopergate" investigation, the press would be calling for his head.

"She [claims to be] a reformer," said the Pennsylvania Democrat. "And yet she is being investigated on the charge that she used her power as governor to fire someone who was going through a messy divorce with a relative of hers. Could you imagine if I was doing the same thing in Pennsylvania? You would be calling for my impeachment."

10 Reasons Why Obama Supporters Should Chill

A must read.

craig: I read! I gathered: Calm your head - Work your butt off!!!!

Good idea!!! :>) :>)

OMG!! PLANS in the works to have a SO YOU THINK YOU CAN DANCE PRESIDENTIAL DANCE-OFF!! :>) :>) :>) :>) CNN showed the promo - of ACTORS/ACTRESSES!! :>) :>) FUNNY!! :>) :>)

rikyrah: Brought this back from Brotha Roland!!

http://essence.typepad.com/news/2008/09/why-oba...
Why Obama Needs Every Available Black Vote

If someone wrote a column or blog saying Sarah Palin needs every available woman's vote or McCain needs every available white vote, we'd be screaming. As it is, many of us are screaming about the McCain choice of Palin as "pandering to the woman's vote." I don't know, I guess I feel that black people who vote for McCain shouldn't be degraded for their choice.

Black people who jig on these news shows and put down black people in general SHOULD be degraded by others and often.

Town: The last part of the post showed the barriers that this campaign has to overcome as exemplified by the statements of the 89 years living white woman. I think that that was the purpose of the article. IMHO :>)

"Why Obama Needs Every Available Black Vote"

My response: "But he's not running for president of Black America"... AND because he's made the choice to try to go out of his way to appeal to certain peculiar segments of White voters... he thought demonizing and pathologizing Black folks was cool.

So, Obama acts like he doesn't need every available Black vote. Ask them misinformed brothers down in Florida. In unprecedented fashion, Obama encouraged them to vote for somebody else with his bad self. So don't come playing the race card now...

Wanna know what makes me roll my eyes? The Chuck Todds, "...the Obama campaign is completely flat-footed right now..." The Jake Tappers, "...seemingly nervous about palin's popularity...", the Mark Halperins, "...never seen the Obama campaign so flummoxed...they don't like surprises..."

Is this just conjecture by the press? How do they know this? Like, didn't they expect the Obama campaign to adjust to take into account a new face in the race? I, like everyone else, knew McBush WAS going to pick a VP, right?

The only thing that kinda threw ME off stride was the blatant co-opting of Obama's change message. McBush's campaign tried once before and failed but saw an opening to do so again when Gov. McB*tch came onboard. And, the press seems to be allowing them to do so, with the possible exception of NBC Sunday Morning who started their program this past Sunday with something like this, "Is the McCain campaign STEALING Obama's message..."

But, I don't know why all the hyperventilating, because the fact that he is co-opting Obama's theme means that Obama's in the driver's seat, right?

Color me stupid, but I have decided to keep my eye on the ball, and remain unaffected by the talking heads.

Obama/Biden '08

T.
(reposted from Jed's)

and there you have it.

Our ancestors got hosed, beaten with whips, strung up from branches of trees, chased through the woods in the dead of night by rabid dogs . . . . and we are complaining why? This should get you fired up and ready to kick a**. Blow up the phones calling the media letting them know exactly how you feel about not reporting the facts etc. Write letters . . . do what you have to but get in the middle of this thing and fight for our rights because if we lose this election . . . we won't have any.

Go Obama/Biden/WE THE PEOPLE 08

Co-sign with T. i for one will remain focused. this is like when the Original Community Organizer was in the wilderness for 40 days and nights and was tempted. He *still* kept his eye on the prize. We are not blind to any of this.

The MSM ignoring the fact that McCain has blatantly co-opted the change message bothers me a great deal. They actually PRAISED McCain OVER Obama on "This Week" yesterday. McCain is hoodwinking people and the MSM is letting them.

No disrespect intended, but what have YOU done to let the media know that you don't like their reporting?

That is what this campaign is about: GETTING INVOLVED. That's why I'm so much in Obama's corner because he encourages the people to take responsibility for this country, for our lives and get involved.

Yes, the MSM is shady as hell but for so long WE, THE PEOPLE have sat back and allowed them to get away with spreading lies and deception. We don't realize that we have the power to change how things are run in this country. Hell, look at our ancestors for inspiration. If all they did was sit back and complain about how the system is, we would still be living on the plantation.

It's time to go Nat Turner, Jim Brown, Harriet Tubman with a sprinkle of MLK, Malcolm X and Big Momma and nem on these mofos. Yeah, it's gonna be hard and yeah, some days we're gonna feel discouraged but we have to keep fighting and encouraging each other to continue fighting.

DON'T GIVE UP.

Have I let the media know that I don't like their reporting? Yes.

The MSM is hoodwinking people.

The MSM is hoodwinking people.

It is our job to remind them of such.

This is more like the Micheline I first became acquainted with and then respected.

I'm loving the can do attitude I see from JunePearl, et al. Yes we can. This is the right candidate at the right time for the right campaign. Yes we can!

Remember, keep your eyes on the prize; don't be distracted by the bulfeathers, not even the body blows. Be like Bruce Willis as John McClane in Live Free and Die Hard - take a licking and keep on ticking. It's not how many times you get knocked down; it's the number of times you get back up. The coward dies many deaths, the hero only one. Never say die. Be optimistic. YES. WE. CAN!

"It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat."

99% Sure: Appreciatin' that quote!! :>) :>) Thank you!!! :>) :>)

i'm scared. and worried.

virginia sent out terrifying letters to students who registered to vote. telling them they might lose their student aid, their parents may not be able to count them as dependents, they might lose health care.

ohio sent out 600,000 do not forward letters to registered voters. any that come back as undeliverable will result in that person being purged from the rolls.

people are believing mccain and palin. believing these liars. i simply cannot make myself believe that more than 50% of my fellow americans are so fucking stupid as to vote for these two maniacs.

Registering people to vote is the first half of the battle. Getting them to the polls and actually having them vote is another story.
When I used to live in Philadelphia there were a lot of unethical practices going on with the polls. unmarked/hidden polling locations, canceled registrations, planted Republican thugs to scare people, 3+ hour lines to vote near college campuses to discourage people from voting, etc

If we organize and get a strategy we can avoid a lot of the problems that there will no doubt be.

nothing to be scared about.

Buckle down, knock on doors, donate and VOTE.

Now , who received letters and does someone have copies of this? Having this information is valuable and we can escalate.

Otherwise - focus, life is not easy. We shouldn't be. This race is HARD because the Republicans don't want to release the hold on the American people. Losing this race is NOT AN OPTION.

Go Obama/Biden/WE THE PEOPLE

I've seen these stories in a couple of places. In the story about Virginia Tech, everyone interviewed said that no one has ever challenged a student's status, insurance, or scholarship based on voter registration. It is clearly an attempt to quell student participation in the election. The bad thing about it is that Republicans WILL try to push this issue, even if the law has never been used in this manner before. I hope Obama's legal team is on it.

You aren't allowed to express fear and anxiety. See previous comments.

***VIDEO*** Michelle Obama on Ellen
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=ngqUSlVQfbY part 1
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=MqxW0dTQs2g part 2

Riddle me this: Is it possible that Obama will lose the popular vote, but win the electoral college a la Bush in '00?

And if that happens, will we see a renewed and vigorous push to get rid of the electoral college?


Discuss.


LOL

Oh hell yeah, they might get some sort of fake court order to prevent him from taking office. You saw how many times the goalpost got moved in the primary, you already know what'll happen.

Yeah. It will not be pretty. Republicans do "outrage" much better then Dems.

I don't know why Obama (or anyone) wants to be the president of this crazy place. When he wins, the Republicans will come after him with knives. Sigh. The fight won't be over on November 4. We'll have to be on point for 8 solid years. Exhausting!

Gov Ed Rendell: If I was Palin, I'd be Impreached
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/08/rendel...

Gov. Ed Rendell decried a double standard in the treatment of Sarah Palin on Monday, saying that if it was he who was at the center of the "troopergate" investigation, the press would be calling for his head.

"She [claims to be] a reformer," said the Pennsylvania Democrat. "And yet she is being investigated on the charge that she used her power as governor to fire someone who was going through a messy divorce with a relative of hers. Could you imagine if I was doing the same thing in Pennsylvania? You would be calling for my impeachment."

Classic Rendell here:
"First of all, let me say it should be embarrassing for the Republican ticket that Rick Davis, Sen. McCain's campaign manager, said 'this election is not about issues.' Good lord, with all the challenges facing America it has to be about issues...They don't want to talk about issues because when the truth comes out about issues the American people will favor Sen. Obama tremendously."

The Republicans, he added, "would make the all time all-star team for spiders the way they can spin."

But most questions, as has been the case since the Palin announcement, were focused on the Alaska governor.

Would she siphon of Clinton supporters in Pennsylvania? No, said Rendell, who expected Obama to receive somewhere along the lines of "95,96, or 97 percent of the vote."

Was she qualified to serve as VP? Absolutely not, he bemoaned.

The McCain camp argues that, "Governor Palin, because of her executive experience as a mayor of a small 9,000 person town and governor of Alaska for 20 months, has that experience. Well, I refer you to a McCain camp document they put out when [Virginia] Gov. Kaine was considered to be vice president. They attacked his experience and derided Richmond [where Kaine was formerly mayor] because it was the 105th largest city ... I think Gov. Palin was mayor of the 50,000th [most populated] city in the America... It was fair game to say Gov. Kaine was not qualified because of his credentials. If they are going to be consistent then they believe that Gov. Palin is unqualified to be vice president."

That's a great line of attack. If other Governors say the Troopergate scandal is unacceptable....it's very compelling. If they ask their constituents how they'd feel if their Governor had done this, it's a very strong attack. Rendell doesn't shy away from attacking her on qualifications.

This is great.

Lotsa y'all clutching your heads and wailing I see.

SNAP THE HELL OUT OF IT!

Eye on the ball...

FOCUS....

T.

I flagged this for the double post...if you can remove that would be great. tx.

Lotsa y'all clutching your heads and wailing I see.

SNAP THE HELL OUT OF IT!

Eye on the ball...

FOCUS....

T.

It's worth saying twice--leave it.

O's response:

John McCain has been peddling this story about me increasing taxes. When every independent analysts have said my tax cuts provide three times the amount of tax relief to middle-class families then do John McCain's. What he wants to do is essentially to continue the Bush tax cuts to the very wealthiest Americans but he wants to double down with $200 billion in additional tax cuts to corporate America including Exxon Mobil. I said I want to provide tax cuts to 95% of the American people. Because I have a different economic theory than George Bush's and John McCain.

Some responses are too passive. When I watch them, It doesn't feel strong enough, then when I read the transcript, things like "I want to.." jump out at me. "I want to.." is not the same as "I will..." "I want to.." leaves the impression that success is determined by external forces that he can't control.

To start off a response with "John McCain has been peddling this story about me increasing taxes." Duh, why do you need to repeat the offensive thing? It's too much preamble, and something we already know. Attack the charge directly. Call it a lie, then go on to say what the truth is.

There is an air of being perplexed that the word of independent analysts isn't enough to prevent McCain from "..peddling that story.." As if all you need is an analysts word to neutralize attacks. What does "double down" mean to the average person? It's economic jargon that most people don't understand.

Because I have a different economic theory than George Bush's and John McCain.

Is it just a "theory" then? Are they different but equal? Is it just a friendly difference of opinion....or a choice between life and death?

What he wants to do is essentially to continue the Bush tax cuts to the very wealthiest Americans

This part is more aggressive, but the "What he wants to do..." part is passive. It should be "He WILL continue..." But you can't say it effectively if you don't believe it, if you don't have that rage in your belly.

I said I want to provide tax cuts to 95%

Why "I said..."? It is in the past tense, why not bring it into the present and say it again.

Obama cannot embody the "war hero" archetype; but, he can match McCain by being the "economic warrior", the "avenging angel", the "hero". He did that effectively at his acceptance speech, but fell back into a passive, non-confrontational framework afterward. I know, because I'm highly confrontational..or so I've been told.

My question is...who is reviewing these tapes and coaching him?

Very astute analysis, Truthseeker.

A lot of my consternation about Obama this week is the way he speaks. He does need to simplify his message quite a bit. I would add to your analysis:

1. Stop equivocating. There are always two or more sides to an issue, but Obama needs to let the other side tell their story instead of acknowledging it.

2. Stop stuttering. It's just good public presentation to speak without umming, ahhing, and aaanding. He is the only one of the 4 presidential contenders who does this. He sounds like an amateur who isn't sure what he thinks.

3. Get to the point. Stop explaining stuff. Undecideds don't care about the solution, they only care that you know what the problem is. All policy positions should be able to trip off his tongue in 10 words or less.

4. Know your talking points. Twice this weekend, Stephanopoulus got him off message. When explaining "change," he only talked about policy positions. He didn't talk about partisan rancor, extreme ideologies, treating each other as enemies-- all the things that made his acceptance speech so effective.

5. Turn every answer into an attack on McCain. Make McCain into a boogie man. People who aren't paying attention think it will be okay to vote for McCain because he seems like a benevolent, grandfatherly war hero patriot. He has to make a vote for McCain a vote for recklessness, inexperience, and economic and foreign policy DISASTER. This will be hardest for Obama, but right now, he's not making it clear enough how awful McCain will be for this country.

6. To Truthseeker's point, if he doesn'tt believe it strongly, he shouldn't say it. Obama is a terrible liar, and when he makes unfounded accusations, he backs down when pressed. Republicans lie with aplomb, Obama doesn't, so he needs to make sure he strongly believes everything he says.

7. Never back down. Once Obama has taken a position, he needs to stick with it to the end. Capitulating only makes him seem weak.

Anyway, I guess I'm just talking to air. I'm sure he's heard these suggestions a thousand times by now.

I think his strategy has worked so far. He cant be the attacking, angry black guy but instead has to be the accomadating, friendly black guys who gets you to agree with him because he's cool.

Your 7 point plan is what the surrogates need to do.

taritac: Even IF he has heard these suggestions a thousand times by now., please send them to his web site for that 1001 time! :>) :>) It can't hurt!!

GOOD POINTS! :>) :>)

Co-sign

Hey taritac,

This resonates...all of it. I especially like #5. I get the feeling that O is showing respect to McCain as a Senate colleague, and as a gentleman. That's fine..in the Senate. But he is not battling him on those terms in the election. He is battling McCain on behalf of Americans; and, from that viewpoint, McCain is not a great guy...he is literally THE ENEMY.

I understand if O has a problem taking up a confrontational stance with anyone. But, he's got to figure out a way to overcome, or compensate for that inability. He seems to think there's no way of attacking McCain without being cruel. It seems to me, a moral struggle within him. It could easily be resolved if he realized how many people will die if he's not elected.

I think you are right. He was "raised right," meaning he's a gentleman and won't beat up on a woman or an old man. He's got to get over that, because they are willing to reject every principle they've ever learned about fighting fair.

They don't have principles - the goal is to win at any cost!

That, I think, was part of the benefit of the interview with O'Reilly: he needed someone to slap him down and make him take his language out of the conditional / subjunctive and into the simple present / future tense. O'Reilly did some of that. I hope it sticks.

(This is why Barack is such a poor debater... it's that law professor in him that craves precision and correctness, and backs off when he can't be 100% sure of what he's saying. Which is also why he's pretty resistant to gaffes).

it's that law professor in him that craves precision and correctness, and backs off when he can't be 100% sure of what he's saying

I don't think it's the lawyer in him.

I think it's the part of him that has a healthy respect for the fact that words mean something.

The part of him that ensures that he resonates true.

In contrast, we have sociopaths who make sh** up without blinking an eye.

I meant law professor, sorry!

If you can't learn to debate at Harvard Law school, where can you learn to debate? Wouldn't you be mad if you hired an attorney to represent you and that attorney was luke warm or seemingly unconvicted in defending you?

I agree. It still troubles me though, that he needs to be pushed. Rev Wrights, bombastic confrontation pushed O into taking a stronger stance. For campaigning, this presents a challenge.

Another thing:

There is a kind of passivity that comes from religious belief. Rev. Wright alluded to it when he said something along the lines that if god intended it for Obama, then nothing he said could hurt O. He said this while he was busy twisting the knife in Obama's ribs.

I don't like O's response at Saddleback that "we will get the President we need..." It smacks of religious submission. The idea is, there's an external force that makes things work out the way they OUGHT to. It's not that it's a wrong idea...it's that it can become a convenient excuse for not examining the self. Simple errors are not looked at, and corrected. It denies that the focus, interest and energy we bring to events, don't have a transforming effect.

There is a kind of passivity that comes from religious belief.

You are dead wrong. Even though you say you don't believe in God, reading the Bible would be a great help in dispelling this lie that has been passed down from generation to generation by all of the churches and their various denominations, then spread by so-called Christians and supposed agnostics/atheists.

There is nothing passive about God/Jesus; as God in the Old testament, He is filled with wrath demonstrated against disobedient Jews and non-believers alike (the wandering Jews, the plagues, the confusion of language at the building of the Tower of Babel), yet He is a merciful God who demonstrated compassion on the chosen people as well as non-believers, i.e., Abraham and Sarah, Ruth and Naomi, the people of Nineveh, Lot and his family (though not his wife) at the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, Noah and his family, David, Jacob.

As the God man/Jesus in the New Testament, there is chapter after chapter of his non-passivity whether with his disciples or in the temple or confronting Satan; even at the crucifixion, which was a necessary thing else no one could be saved. Each and every time he was confronted by the Pharisees and the Saduccees, he was aggressive in his response and he didn't back down. Because he willing went to the cross and STOPPED TALKING to Pontius Pilate, people exrapolate from that that he was passive and there is no bigger lie making the rounds than that. He stopped answering Pontius Pilate after telling him that, if he wanted to he could call down the powers of heaven to prevent the crucifixion but that was not the will of his father who sent him.

Maybe this lie flourishes because of the turn the other cheek parable. But that is what that is - a parable so that those who are not saved having ears to hear hear not. Another thing - the Bible is a book of progressive revelation in that there were times when the ability to interpret the prophetic books, including Revelation, is gradually revealed at certain times in history.

As a true believer, I have yet to make a passive post - I don't swear and I don't blaspheme but I'm not passive. I am genteel, but I am not passive. True Christians are never passive because there is passion in "the word of God, sharper than any two-edged sword to the dividing asunder." Even for non-believers, passive and passionate don't go together.

I didn't really want to get into a religious debate, 'cause I'm not really in the mood, and this is a political blog..as I've been told....but what the HELL.

Christians believe the omnipresent, omniscient God controls events.
The Bible is an archaic collection of writing that contains Allegory, metaphor, tiny bits of history and ancient law.

There is nothing passive about God/Jesus; as God in the Old testament, He is filled with wrath demonstrated against disobedient Jews and non-believers alike (the wandering Jews, the plagues, the confusion of language at the building of the Tower of Babel), yet He is a merciful God who demonstrated compassion

What is the evidence of said "wrath"? Who "demonstrated" said wrath? Babel and the plagues are not historical fact.

The passivity I talk about is a conflict. It becomes a convenient excuse for every result. Christians act on something, get a positive result...and give the glory to God. Other times they act on something, get a negative result and say it's God's will. Still, other times they don't act on something, get a negative result and still say it's God. The only constant here, it the choice to act, or not.

Prayer isn't about God making things right: it's about making yourself right. The things we can do, we do; the things we can't, we commend to God or whatever Force you believe in.

Sometimes that attitude does lead to passivity, because "society" or "politics" seems so big that it's beyond us. That's why good organizing is so important, bringing things down to the level where you can see the difference. We have to believe that we make a difference -- enough to pick up that cell phone and start making those calls to battleground states.

you are killing me... This is a political blog. Can you focus on politics for one second and not focus on tying perceived missteps to faith in God?

Don't you believe god plays a roll in all things?

I do.

You just don't seem to have any respect for faith. IMHO, you are exhibiting the converse reaction to extreme right Christans by showing an intolerance of divergent views.

BTW, true faith does not breed passivity. Faith without works is dead.

You shouldn't need my respect for something that is a personal, mental construct.

BTW, true faith does not breed passivity. Faith without works is dead.

That's another stunning contradiction that only superstition can produce.

If you see no need for respect then I can't make the case for it.

Ridicule, intolerance, and judgement. If that isn't the pot calling the kettle black. (smile)

bless~

You shouldn't see any need for my respect.

Why do you feel, ridiculed, judged and not tolerated?

You have given me powers I never knew I had, which is a common manipulative tactic.

Girl, you are a mess! I am certain in my beliefs. You are certain in yours.

If you don't want to respect faith don't do it. I will respect you because I think everyone deserves respect. But, I'm done talking with you on this because you are a wee bit unreasonable.

Go on ahead and have the last word. You know you want it. Tastes good like the last piece of cake. =-)

Faith is not a person, and therefore cannot in itself be "respected". There's dissonance when you argue for the respect of a concept: faith...as opposed to a person: you.

I like cake.

Obama cannot embody the "war hero" archetype; but, he can match McCain by being the "economic warrior", the "avenging angel", the "hero". He did that effectively at his acceptance speech, but fell back into a passive, non-confrontational framework afterward. I know, because I'm highly confrontational..or so I've been told.

My question is...who is reviewing these tapes and coaching him?

Have you seriously considered that Senator Obama might possibly be enacting an actual strategy that is bigger than each specific piece alone -- even if some of the pieces or moments in time don't feel good to you as stand-alones? Have you seriously reflected on the dynamics of lies and truth in this kind of society Senator Obama is trying to lead and on the dynamics of strategy you have already seen him enact over time?

Obama does have an effective, wide-ranging strategy, but it is clear that this election is going to come down to fighting for every single vote. Becoming a more effective interviewee and debater is a SMALL thing that will have BIG dividends.

Every time I see him in non-scripted settings, I wonder where his coaches are. These are simple "Debate Team 101" principles that he isn't effectively employing.

I do believe he has gotten better. When he first began campaigning he was even worse.

Yes, I have considered that.

rikyrah: Just received this. By Bob Woodward - The War Within -A Secret White House History 2006 - 2008

Admittedly, I don't know how to assess this. So, y'all can assist. Thanks! :>) :>)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-adv/emails/bwo...

Al Giordano: Quarantine Time for the Chicken Littles?

Every single day Obama, Biden and their staff have been hitting McCain hard. The Obama campaign sends out an average of 10 to 20 email attacks and counterattacks a day to every reporter in the country (if you’re not on the Obama campaign “daily reporters” email list, write to Hari Sevugan hsevugan@barackobama.com or Bill Burton bburton@barackobama.com or Tommy Veitor tveitor@barackobama.com or Nick Shapiro nshapiro@barackobama.com and sign yourself up).

McCain (and now Palin) can’t open their mouths anywhere or put out a single ad without fact-checks and talking points flying out to confront them. But those emails are just the preliminaries, the setting of the stage, for what again and again has come later: the body blow. Get yourselves on the front end of the attacks and counter-attacks that are consistent with – and not contradictory of – the campaign’s messaging, and write your diaries on those things instead. That would be far more productive than pretending that Obama isn’t on the attack, or trying to convince us who know damn well that he is.

::

Ever since the convention I've been moving toward the overall attitude expressed in this excellent essay.

Thanks, Craig. I've been trying to spread Giordano's stuff wherever I can. He also wrote a piece awhile back (don't have time to find it now) likening Obama to Mohammed Ali ... absorbing enough blows to wear his opponent out, and then going in for the kill...

I had to smile when I listened to Biden complementing Palin on her delivery style... yet chicken littles all over the place were flailing, not seeing the long term plan as Biden deftly raises the bar for her debate performance.

Thanks Craig! I'm about to get on the lists now!

Thank you so much Craig.

This new wave of -- well, what he so clearly describes -- has been driving me NUTS.

When you say things like “Obama has to start hitting” all you’re doing is demonstrating that you haven’t paid attention all year long to the repeated steps of absorbing a blow, playing rope-a-dope, and waiting for the moment when the opponent inevitably overshoots to connect with an effective smackdown.

Seriously, why haven't people really been paying attention? Why can't people use their skills of observation to notice what is really going on?

Al does a good job of naming and counteracting Chicken Little syndrome. He did it in the primaries and he has been doing it since. He is wise to do this. I am glad to know you're feeling this, Craig.

craig: Good information!!! O -B playing CHESS! !!!! Whoo! Hoooo! :>) :>)

Obama and Biden Go Back to a Losing Message
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-romm/obama...

Obama's basic message is that John McCain is a good person who has same policy positions as George Bush. Biden's basic message is that Sarah Palin is a good and "smart, smart, smart, smart, smart" and "tough, tough, tough, tough, tough, tough, tough" [I may have miscounted] woman who has the same policy positions is George Bush.

The message itself is flawed on multiple levels. In particular, because it simply isn't true, it gives the GOP a free pass to keep lying over and over again. Second, it is weak and wonkish (yes, I know that is redundant, but Obama apparently doesn't), and the public naturally prefers tough, tough, tough and attacking.

Neither McCain nor Palin are "good people" as most Americans use the term. They are serial liars who have invented phony positive stories about themselves and phony negative ones about Obama. See for instance "In His Big Speech, McCain's 10 Energy Lies Top Palin's 4 Energy Lies" and "Palin Repeats GOP's Big Energy Lie -- Plus Four Other Energy Lies, Too" and "Lies, Damn Lies, and the McCain Campaign."

Look, seriously.

I have spent my entire life struggling with what to do about the many many lies that are in play all the time in this society I live in. Every day. All around. Extremely painful.

I have a huge amount of data and experience on this point, collected involuntarily because this is the reality of my life and how I experience the world. I can't not see and feel these lies. It's basically like a disability or something.

I haven't figured it all out.

But there is something I do know despite not wanting it to be the case:

Calling out liars as liars, especially when you have to interact with them directly or indirectly, is most likely to increase drama, energize the liars and lead into new and ever-expanding lies and denials and distortions.

It is a horrorshow.

People like the author of that essay at the huffingtonpost might not want to know this. They might not want to know that speaking truth in itself has NO POWER in a society in which words are about spin and not meaning and no one is truly accountable to use words wisely or well.

He says Senators Obama and Biden don't understand how things work. But I think he's the one who doesn't understand.

He doesn't understand that saying someone is lying does not mean anything in itself because lying is actually a way of life in this society at such a deep level that it is extremely easy for practicing liars to deflect.

I know Senator Obama knows what's going on with these lies and I know he has a real relationship with truth. He does address the lies, I posted a comment of his that addressed what is going on (re: you can't just make stuff up).

But I think he understands something that I don't: how to deal with liars in a way that does not energize them.

And this I know: Senator Obama is also a veteran of a battle with an opponent who lied and lied and lied, who built false ground to stand on, made of lies -- the primaries, Hillary Clinton. He won that fight.

I think people concerned about this need to better observe what happens when truth is spoken in a way that calls out the lies and deceptions of those who stand on lies and deceptions as a foundation.

And one more thing. In blogland and similar arenas, this is what happens, from what I have observed, when people call out lies and the ones they are calling out are part of the interaction:

You call out a lie. The people who already agree with you rally around you and congratulate you. The people who this "offends" usually want to have an argument. Drama ensues. The callers-out get all self-righteous and get into a rigid "we're the good guys" stance which limits flexibility. The result is often a loss of energy, shift in focus, and a distorted picture of what it means to speak truth about liars and deceptions if you are truly trying to work with a collective of many different people.

Addition to my original comment (More on the lying/strategy thing):

I fully expect to learn some things watching Senator Obama and his team address the lies and deceptions this time around. So I am observing closely.

I think I see Senator Obama and his team setting up a thread of conversation between Senators Obama and Biden, and the voters. This conversation thread is about McCain and Palin lying. A related conversation thread is about McCain and Palin thinking voters must be stupid. This overall conversation is about Senator Obama's respect for the intelligence and perspective of the voters he's talking with.

I have noticed in my own experience that talking about liars and lies in a dialogue that does not include the liars OR their allies (declared or undeclared) as participants can mitigate some of the bad results of direct calling-out.

The key in this scenario, from what I have seen, is trust and respect between those who are having the dialogue. In particular, the ones who are calling out the lies have to have a pretty high level of trust and respect for in the discernment of those who they are talking to and with.

If I understand this correctly, the Obama campaign is acting from its foundational deep respect for voters, coming out of Senator Obama's faith in the American people. It is foundational because it is part of the basis of why Senator Obama is running for President in the first place.

I'm watching all this with great interest and as I said above, I expect to learn a lot.

Michelle I think you are on to something.... My co-worker who is still mostly undecided is really leaning towards Obama because, she likes how respectful he has been to Mccain and Palin. She also likes how he talks about the issues instead of being insulting.

Michelle: SPEAK!!! :>) :>)

Hear, hear! We live in an "attention economy" now. Look at how the GOP used jujitsu on us to put Palin in the middle of the media whirlwind. All news is good news. We have only ourselves to blame, going into a frenzy over the baby mama.

rikyrah: Speaking of Biased Media

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/08/new-yo...
New York Post Endorses McCain: What Role Did Murdoch Play?



Back in May, NewsCorp CEO Rupert Murdoch admitted that he had "played a role" in the decision of the New York Post (which he owns) to endorse Barack Obama over home state Senator Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary.

So what is one to presume now that today's Post features an "enthusiastic" endorsement urging "the election of Sen. John S. McCain as the 44th president of the United States."

Here's a bit from the editorial:

McCain has been in Washington for many years now, but he is not of Washington. He knows where the levers of power are located - and how to manipulate them - but he is not controlled by them.


McCain's selection of the charming, but rock-solid, outsider Sarah Palin as his running mate underscores the point.

Neither plays well with others.

And this is an unalloyed asset at a time when special interests - lobbyists, lawyers and organized labor chief among them - wield enormous influence in the nation's capital.

Obama and Sen. Joseph Biden, on the other hand, are leaders of "a party constructed of special interests - public-employee unionists in particular," the editorial states. Of course, the Post adds, "None of this implies an iota of disrespect toward Obama."
HA!!! What a JOKE!!! :>(


This is another area to watch --- MEDIA ENDORSEMENTS

Whew!! Media Bias Deep Breaths!!! :>) :>)

The New York Post is very conservative so I am not surprised

Micheline: Thank you very much!! I am serious about requesting input! I continue to have much to learn!! :>) :>) And, I enjoy it!! :>) :>)

Again, thank you!! :>) :>)

Let's be positive. Sara Palin and John Mccain are not going to win. Period. God has his hand in this thing. For those who do not believe, that is okay too. Karma..... He is going to get it, and she is too. She is going to have some sort of gaffe because it is inevitable. We need to stay focused and fired up. Hope...... Jesus gave us hope. Moses gave the children of isreal hope..... Don't give up. Don't give in.... We are ready to jump overboard, and we haven't even had a debate. Our guy wasn't even really in the running when this thing started. Hell, I didn't think he had a chance to win, but look where we are now. Keep your eyes on the prise.... We are experiencing a valley moment, and that is okay. We know they want to steal the election, we know these familiar spirits because we recognize them. Keep your head up, and remember the speech. If you need a dose of good cheer, youtube the speach. Let us all keep our eyes on the goal. Palin, is just that, an empty dress..... The people saying that they support her were not going to support Obama anyway. Remember, just because they say it doesn't make it so.

Just think what we would be talking about if there weren't back-to-back conventions, if we had an opportunity to have a week of celebration and awe over our first official black presidential nominee of a major party in the western world.

Karl Rove sent in Sarah Palin to take that away from us.

Don't you get it?

We never got to fully celebrate our nation's gall.

Well, I say fuck Karl Rove.

I'm going to continue to celebrate by keeping my eye on the prize, and by doing everything in my power to convince others to do the same.

If we don't feed the monster, she doesn't get fed.

FUCK. Karl. Rove.

We've got an election to win.

Long live Barack Obama.

yes, that's right: FUCK KARL ROVE!!!

trust and believe, damn near the whole state of CALIFORNIA is celebrating with you!!! barack was right--we'll get the president we need, and america needs BARACK OBAMA.

VIVA BARACK OBAMA !!!

rorysmomma: MAJOR CO-SIGN!!!!

Thank you for this encouragement!! :>) :>)

Now, where's my choir robe?? :>) :>)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmR1YvfIGng
Mahalia Jackson - We Shall Overcome

rorysmomma: MAJOR CO-SIGN!!!!! :>) :>)

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=bYjg7ftO6nU
Gospel Organ - Victory Is Mine

Now, where's my choir robe??? :>) :>)

Right on rorysmomma! We're not going to win this election cowering in fear or hating the other party... we are going to win because we love our country, our world, our fellow Americans (even the ones who hate us) and we will enact that love through forceful ACTION

rikyrah: 2 things:

1. I just say Chucky T with a "NEW TOY" - an ELECTORAL COLLEGE counting program! Now if he could keep this going, this would display additional DATA! :>) :>)

2. That woman - "The Gov." just keeps spinning her lies in front of Repug audiences which looks impressive to the "common pea brain [ my sister's concept :>)] I wonder how much the REPUG Media is showing Mr. Obama in relation/comparison to "McAncient"/The Gov. >

Time for someone to do a STUDY!! Air time comparison: Dems vs Repugs

I'm watching billary now on MSNBC!! We'll see!! :>) :>)

Wow. Is this how people are living now? I am new to JJP, but have the people who are co-opting the "woe is Obama" meme, been his supporters since way back when. You know, the good ol' days when the media was coronating Hillary, and he was down 30% in the polls.

You know what stops progress? Preparing for defeat before you have even marched to the battle. Instead of playing the shoulda, coulda, woulda game, I say get energized and get focused. Now is not the time for handwringing and second guessing.

Research voter registration in your state and start your own voter reg drive. Hold policy parties. Do something. But please stop planning Obama's demise.

Thank you! Lets get focused people, there is history to be made and an election to win!

Major co-sign with Lilytiger!! FIRED UP!! READY TO GO!!!

It's official the government has "taken over" Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." This is an unmigitated diasaster for the tax payers of this country. In short we have been nailed to a CROSS OF BONDS

FNM and FRE buy mortgages from banks giving them cash to relend, put the mortgages of the same duration(the mortgages come due at the same time) and then sell the bonds to investors. The people owning the mortgages receive no help to pay their mortgages from the bank except if the bank choses to do so voluntarily. If you cannot pay you lose your home and your credit. Your home then goes on the market further driving down the value of all the homes around you. This decreases the tax base for your community as no one is paying taxes on the property. Creating a vicious cycle that doesn't end.

Under this deal however the bondholders do not loss anything. This is despite the fact that the underlying mortgages in the bond are in partial default(When bonds are priced default rates are taken into account and prepayments as well.) Normally In a bankruptcy the bondholders get first crack at the assets at repayment based on the value the conservator can get for them. Instead taxpayer dollars are paying the difference between the still successful mortage payers and the non successful ones, while doing nothing to stop the downward spiral of house prices and the consequent downward pressure on the economy.

I know that it would be better for everyone if bondholders, taxpayers, mortgage payers, non payers took the pain. I want a bill passed forcing the mortgage orginators to reopen the mortgages for everyone, reflect the current value of their homes and readjust to a standardized mortgage reflecting the new risk and credit realities of their situation(yes that means a massive standardized reappraisal). That means EVERYBODY losses regardless of your situation especially as far as the value of your home is concerned.

Without it we will all bleed on the cross of bonds as the spiral of deflation hits our homes and income.

As for all the people who are worried about institutions and sovereign governments dumping their bonds, i would not. America in a depression suppress' world wide demand for everything -not as quickly as it once did. Every country that is growing their economy is doing so currently by being net exporters of goods and services while we(USA) are still a net importer. Few of our trading partners are capable of ramping up internal demand without raising incomes(money) at home. That money comes from exports. So they would have to make a decision hang seperately by dumping the bonds and inducing a world wide panic or hang together and take some pain on their FNM FRE and private company housing bonds.

Rob M, this is a disaster for taxpayers, for sure, especially those of us who benefited not at all from the runup in housing prices because we were responsible in sitting out the bubble.

(a) What can we do individually to shield ourselves in the coming months?

(b) Given that we're going to finance this with more debt (even as we send $1B to Georgia), what's the best way to mitigate the risk of this bond-spiral you describe?

Town

They were always queasy(quasi) government entities since 1938. US govt set them up to facilitate mortgages. In past you had a few years of payment then a big ballon payment. The reason was a bank giving a mortgage for 30 years had no way to get that money back to make other loans(Banks lend short term and borrow long term). By buying the mortgage from the bank and packaging them together as bonds the market for housing was expanded. It got out of control basically since Pres Clinton as more and more demands were made of the institutions(there original standards were 20% down, good credit and an upper limit on how much could be lent).

Anderkoo

The first thing you do is look at your own mortgage. Go to the bank and make them explain every last word of it. Then go to any organization that is helpng w/ mortgage's and have them explain it to you.I Your goal is not to KNOW what you have but to UNDERSTAND it.

If you have an exotic mortgage refinance into a conventional 30 yr mortgage w/ the help of your bank do so. If you have a conventional one(see budget) pay a little extra even if it is only a dollar(watch for prepayment penalties). The reason is in the first 20 years or so the money goes to INTEREST not PRINICIPAL. That extra money reduces the prinicipal which determines how much interest you owe and reducing the time you will pay and gives you EQUITY in your home.

Pay down all your credit card debt ASAP. Do not close any accounts as this will lower your credit score. Credit agencies have to give you a look at your credit history for free. Ask for your records and clear up any discrepancies(there are 3 main co's). You must use your credit cards every six months or so to keep them active or your company may close them(remember if you lose credit for any reason it works against you).

Start RESERVE FUND for hard times. The kind Mudbone talked about, "times was so hard they didn't have a name. They were just Hard Times ." The typical six months of expenses you read about(see budget).

If you have more than the FDIC amounts in one bank account you have two choices, you can buy additional insurance(I personally think its a negative given the returns you receive) or move balances to another bank. An alternative for excess and not needed immediately(10 years or more) is annuities. Their drawback is you are penalized on the return if you withdraw the money before age 591/2. If you keep it until age 59 1/2 your return is not taxed until it is withdrawn. When money is withdrawn you are taxed only on the return portion not the prinicipal.

Take advantage of any tax free accumlulation vehicles Uncle Sam offers(I won't suggest what to put it in as everyones need's are different). IRA's, Keough's, 401k's and college funds are usually tax deductible in the current tax year. College funds as long as used for education are not taxed on the return.

Set up a BUDGET. Sit down and look at ALL YOUR EXPENSES(what do you spend eating out for work, snacks , lottery tickets, cigerattes, booze , cd's. video's, toilet paper, dry cleaning, Gasoline)ALL YOUR EXPENSES. Then after about 60 days make the adjustments where you can. This means plan trips out the house. You can't just run to the grocery store and just buy milk. Figure out the day and go shopping, pick up the dry cleaning, hit Sam's club, Home Depot, et al. Bring lunch from home a couple days a week.(benefit is you will eat healthier and it will increase the variety of foods you eat.)

Get on your children about their responsiblities: no dashing out the house to get foam for the planetary science project.put them on an allowance and give them age appropraite chores-I know this goes to your income but giving your kid when young a quarter everytime they take out the garbage teaches them about work(some work is about your family and it is EXPECTED regardless of family income).

After all of this you should have some extra money. First allocate some of it to pay down the Prinicipal on your mortgage. Two, splurge on a family event or on yourself that makes everybody happy. Three, put the balance into your reserve fund.

.

Wow! Someone needs to take this and turn it into a new post. I know it's not about "politics," but it's important and something we all need to know to get our financial houses in order.

Rob M: I took my number. I've taken my seat. I'm patiently waiting my turn with a GENIUS financial planner! :>) :>) :>)

Palin claimed today that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mae had grown too big and expensive for the taxpayers.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, of course, were privately owned.

But Palin is right! Fannie and Freddie are too big, and they have become very expensive to bail out.

Barack Obama retreated on another key policy yesterday, and this one has repercussions for his entire economic and spending plan. Obama acknowledged in an interview on ABC that rescinding the Bush tax cuts in a recession — as he has described the economy — would be destructive. If so, Obama just eliminated a significant amount of the funding for his hundreds of billions in new government spending.

Looks like Obama agrees with John McCain...yet again!

Palin is DEAD WRONG.
Andrew Jakabovics, an economic analysts for the progressive think tank, Center for American Progress: "It is somewhat nonsensical because up until yesterday there was sort of no public funding there. Even today they haven't drawn down any of the credit line they have given to Treasury. 'Gotten too big and too expensive' are two separate things. The too big has been a conservative mantra for a while and there is something to be said of that in that they hold about half of the mortgage guarantees that are out there. And in the last year they have been responsible for roughly 80 percent out there. The 'too expensive to tax payers,' I don't know where that comes from."

Even conservative analysts acknowledged that the statement simply did not hold true.

Word from Jim Roger on FNM & FRE situation:
It’s not bailing out the homeowners who are in trouble, by the way,” Rogers said. “It’s not bailing out people who want a mortgage – it’s just bailing out financial institutions. This is not my idea of the way things are supposed to be, but if that’s what America wants, you know, it can elect people who are going to do it. I think it’s a mistake.”

Read the whole thing:
http://businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080...

Fannie and Freddie were privately owned. The gub'ment didn't have to bail them out at all.

That swooshing sound you just heard? Was reality going right over your head. Sarah Palin didnt know that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were privately owned companies....PERIOD. There is no "right" about that.

I love the smart posters on this board. Thanks for breaking it down!

Heard the saying deja vu all over again?

Well, this is George Bush all over again.

Please tell me there is video of this! It would be the perfect ad!

LOL

Where will you be on November 4th? I know it's early to start planning but this morning I've been debating where I will be as the election results are revealed and Obama becomes President. Big party (which means I can't listen closely to ever comment made on every channel), with family (which could be a nice gathering and I can't wait to see the look on my dads face), sitting in front of my computer posting like a crazy person, analyzing everything?

As I weigh this heavy decision I am wondering if any of you have any thoughts on where you will be in the big, historic night?

Would it be a good idea to via early (via absentee ballot) if Early Voting is available in our state? How would we sure that our vote counts if we vote via absentee ballot?

I don't know what the official answer is, but I remember in previous years encouraging early voting because that's a vote in the bag no matter what might happen (getting sick, being stuck on a trip). Plus if you're really Fired Up it frees you to go and campaign on E-Day!

I'm gonna be in NH with my wife and in-laws -- we are going to be phonebanking and doorknocking for the 5-6 days leading up to V-Day!!!

If you're feeling anxious or crazy about the outcome, get out and do something about it! If only 11 more people had voted for Kerry in Ohio in 2004, that would have been the end of George W.

rikyrah: This is a "response" to the "stupid" question. :>) I'm hoping that this will be of some encouragement to JJP peeps. Please, do not go down the "discouraged/fear" road!! :>)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jamie-lee-curtis/...

Continue to use your energy for action!! :>) :>)

FIRED UP! READ TO GO!! to COMMUNITY ORGANIZING WORK!!!

We can do this!! :>) :>) :>)

Current Tactic: Make up a lie, then try and bully your will onto others over the lie you made up.

(CNN)-The Florida Federation of Republican Women made the decision to boycott the Oprah Winfrey Show Saturday, after the media mogul refused to have Gov. Sarah Palin as a guest on her show until after the election wraps up.

"Women in Florida helped build Oprah into the icon she is today," Linda Ivell, President of the FFRW said in a statement. "We are deeply disappointed in Ms. Winfrey's decision to sit out the greatest political moment in the history of women since suffrage."

The talk show host denied accusations Friday, that she was even considering the vice presidential nominee as a guest.

"At the beginning of this presidential campaign when I decided that I was going to take my first public stance in support of a candidate, I made the decision not to use my show as a plat for any of the candidates," Winfrey wrote in a statement, responding to a story from The Drudge report claiming her staff was "sharply divided" on whether they should book the Alaska Governor.

Winfrey agreed Palin would be a "fantastic interview," but wouldn't invite her on until after the November elections.

The Florida Federation of Republican Women, the "largest political organization in Florida," celebrating the groups 58 year anniversary is also encouraging members to cancel subscriptions to O Magazine, Ivell said.


"We find it to be an abuse of her power -gained on the backs of our patronage of her advertising empire - to use her program to so blatantly support Obama in the face of this historic moment. So, we are tuning out and canceling our subscriptions to O Magazine and encourage other women to do the same," Ms Ivell said.

Winfrey came under fire from some of her supporters in December after campaigning with the Democratic nominee in South Carolina.

Ivell did not say the Florida Republicans would be tuning out indefinitely, but at least until 'after the election.' Adding, she and her members respect the decision to support Obama, "as every American is entitled to their personal opinion and vote."

Of course, you know they've been looking for an excuse to take Oprah down ever since she endorsed Barack.

Problem is, they're not the source of her success. And, in light of Oprah's recent promotion of spirituality that could be termed "new age", she hasn't enamored herself to religious fanatics anyway.

This is what the Obama campaign/surrogates should say:

Maybe Sarah Palin needs to accept the invites from political news shows such as MTP, CNN....etc. before trying to appear on an ENTERTAINMENT show.

MMMMMMaaannn fck you! Last time I checked it was called the "Oprah Winphrey Show". How you gonna tell her who she should put on HER show?

She needs to be interviewed by the Political/News/Journalist. Not a talk show host. The funniest part about all this, this woman isn't even doing interviews with the media....ain't this a b!tch.

This is a "set up". I don't believe Oprah or her staff ever discussed having Palin on her show. This is just a ploy to create sympathy for Palin.

..yep...and undermine her support of Obama. It was a planted story.

Very similar to the propaganda machinery of the Nazi's.

DIng DIng Ding! You're absolutely correct, Oprah said so. They are straight up lying.

The Republicans are some of the biggest hypocrites. They just want to embarrass Oprah Winprey and sow division among the Democrats

Jay: GREAT COMMENT!! Think they'll bring back the POLL TAX and TESTS!! :>) :>)

Naaaah! Not enough time - THIS YEAR!! :>) :>)

Thanks Jay, that's a great article.

Interesting: Condoleeza Rice Does Not Give Ringing Endorsement to Palin....Avoids Answering:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09...

In a less-than-hearty endorsement, Rice declined to say anything more positive about Palin than "she gave a terrific speech" and "she's a governor of a state here in the United States" during her interview with Zain Verjee of CNN.

Asked point-blank if Palin has enough experience, Rice said, "These are decisions that Senator McCain has made. I have great confidence in him." Confidence in Palin? Rice didn't say.

Rice added: "I’m not going to get involved in this political campaign. As Secretary of State, I don’t do that. But I thought her speech was wonderful."

Comparing Vice President Cheney's foreign policy background Palin's, the interviewer asked Rice to respond to critics who say she "just won't be able to handle it."

Rice's response: " There are difference kinds of experience in life that help one to deal with matters of foreign policy."

More Rice: "You know, she’s governor of a state here in the United States."

Say what you want about Condi, but she's too damn smart NOT to be insulted by the choice of this woman.

Clearly. I'm sure she's not down with the (race) tactics that her party has turned to to win this thing.

I wonder how many black republicans there will be after this is over?

If only she would use her powers for good. *sigh*

Mudflats has a terrific new diary up on the AIP

This person is doing the job that the media SHOULD be doing.

rikyrah: ABSOLUTELY!! He/she is brave. And the Alaskan Daily News 2!:>)

WHOA........
From the video of the AIP's Vice Chair speaking:
Our current governor, we mentioned at the last conference, the one we were hoping would get elected, Sarah Palin, did get elected. There’s a joke, she’s a pretty good looking gal, there’s a joke goes around we’re the coldest state with the hottest governor. (laughter) And there was a lot of talk about her moving up. She was an AIP member before she got the job as a mayor of a small town — that was a non-partisan job. But to get along and go along — she eventually joined the Republican Party, where she had all kinds of problems with their ethics, and well, I won’t go into that. She also had about an 80% approval rating, and is pretty well sympathetic to her former membership.“

Obama: You know, tax hikes in a recession may be a bad idea

Barack Obama retreated on another key policy yesterday, and this one has repercussions for his entire economic and spending plan. Obama acknowledged in an interview on ABC that rescinding the Bush tax cuts in a recession — as he has described the economy — would be destructive. If so, Obama just eliminated a significant amount of the funding for his hundreds of billions in new government spending:

Democrat Barack Obama says he would delay rescinding President Bush’s tax cuts on wealthy Americans if he becomes the next president and the economy is in a recession, suggesting such an increase would further hurt the economy.

Nevertheless, Obama has no plans to extend the Bush tax cuts beyond their expiration date, as Republican John McCain advocates. Instead, Obama wants to push for his promised tax cuts for the middle class, he said in a broadcast interview aired Sunday.

“Even if we’re still in a recession, I’m going to go through with my tax cuts,” Obama said. “That’s my priority.”

Obama has proposed almost $300 billion in new spending in his presidential campaign. If he can’t raise taxes, at least in his calculation, all of that becomes deficit spending. He wants to accuse McCain of fiscal irresponsibility for supporting the extension of the Bush tax cuts, but his spending plans now have no revenue. How exactly does that express responsibility?

Not only that, but Obama has essentially conceded the Republican argument on those extensions. Obama says he’ll use his middle-class tax cut as a balance, but overall Obama will raise taxes on corporations and employers, all of which will indirectly hit middle-class buying power. It will also result in lower revenues overall as the dynamic effect of these tax increases will curb economic growth, resulting in lower profits and less tax revenue — a point Obama makes himself in this statement.

Obama has campaigned successfully on economics mostly through populist rhetoric and class warfare. He has cast the Bush cuts as egregious without explaining the five years of solid growth they produced. Now that he has to start getting past the slogans and start producing specifics, he seems lost and self-contradictory. Small wonder that McCain has closed the gap on economic stewardship from 19 points to three in the latest polling. Voters have begun to realize that Obama is making it up as he goes along.

NBC drops Olbermann and Matthews as anchors.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...

If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times: We have GOT to flex our media muscle in whatever way possible.

The other media outlets try to palm themselves off as "objective" by acting as if Obama doesn't exist. MSNBC at least dispelled and disproved the lies and distortions that are expectedly associated with a Black man who would run for president.

That's why their out, it's too close, they're thinking the *(#$% might actually win. Well, I'm here to tell them, they can change their whole lineup, programming, location and move the sun to the moon and they can't stop this. OBAMA WILL WIN!

Sometimes I wonder if they REALLY wanted those jobs.

I want to cry. I just want to cry.

I see how they are trying to steal this election again, and I'm so scared that Americans won't see what's going on.

Then you have to get out there and tell them face-to-face.

Wipe those tears away and let's get to work.

We need ACTION.

We can't win this election in the blogosphere alone.

Actually, many Americans DO see what's going on. And they're OK with it.

You see, today's predominantly-white mainstream media are a lot like brutality-prone cops. They get away with outrageous behavior, because they know that most Americans won't get too mad about it.

Their anchoring of the conventions was pretty disastrous, I must say. Especially Chris Matthews. Keith O is getting the boot for calling out the Republican convention for it's war porn by apologizing to the viewers.

McCain's campaign should just admit their new campaign slogan out loud instead of coopting Barack's message of change. The wingnuts are shouting:

FASCISM IS COMING!!!

The media is becoming totalitarian in their desperation to influence the outcome of this election and anybody with a brain knows it.

Maddow's show starts tonight--tune in and show support.

Good luck with that, Craig, because it seems people like concentrating on the negative more than accentuating the positive. People have become obsessed with this worthless woman and it's too sickening to watch.

Notice that since McCaint announced his VP pick, hundreds of blog entries and diaries have been created on certain popular progressive sites where people obsess and obsess and obsess and obsess and obsess, ad infinitum, about this cuckoo McCaint choice, rather than venting their spleen at McCaint and McCaint only.

It's totally out of hand but, thankfully, there are sites like The Field and 538.com and Democratic Underground where they are primarily focused on WINNING and shoring up Obama/Biden rather than heaping a lot of attention on this batty choice.

One thing about the repugs, they know how to effectively distract and depress progressive supporters - they just throw a red herring out there and most all of the progressives jump at it, leaving the place where they ought to be - concentrating on how much better their candidates are - to snap at an illusion. McCaint accomplished exactly what they wanted - pulling attention away from the outstanding Democratic convention and Obama's superb speech.

Obama and his speech didn't even get 24 hours of positive support from his supporters let alone the media because everyone has been pathologically obsessed with tearing down and commenting about this women who doesn't deserve even one-tenth of the attention she's getting from supposed Obama supporters.

It is pathetic how people have lost their marbles and are woe is me-ing all over the place, as if this woman will make a difference in the election, which is 50 some odd days away. Get over it, move on, do something positive for the candidate you say you support - Obama. I wish JJP would do as Al Giordano and other sites have done - declare a moratorium on any posts about this woman who isn't worth the time or trouble of even posting her name. I notice that TPM only posts about facts surrounding her record and the entries are short and pithy often not even mentioning her name.

This is where JJP and its commenters ought to be at this point. It's time to let it go, just let it go and talk about something that is positive to Obama/Biden. It's been ten days since the annoucement. Let. it. go.

99% Sure: MAJOR CO-SIGN!!! :>)

How about an OBAMA-BIDEN[Positive]THREAD - all positive, running for X number of days!?? I just asked my "SISTA-DETROIT" about her knowledge of Mr. Obama's legislative record. She said, well why don't they put that in the newspapers??

Because THEY are BIASED!! She just said, like I would have B4 JJP - "Oh! I didn't know that?" Now she has grown and we are all the better for it! :>) :>)

So, MAJOR PROPS to JJP!! And, a charge to continue to help keep us FOCUSED!!!! :>) :>)

Very good point, 99%.

An explanation of the new poll numbers from DAILY KOS:

The so-called "McCain Poll Lead", what it really means
by MrChris
Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 05:49:01 AM PDT
DAILY KOS
I woke up this morning to the sounds of gnashing of blue teeth and increased sales of red-blood flavored "kool-aid" and wondered what has going on. The I saw the headlines "McCain leads national poll by 10%".

Being a self-professed wonk I had a closer look, here's what I saw.

Jump with me....

* MrChris's diary :: ::
*

One of the practices I recommend when the MSM tries to sell us the "Race is tight" meme is to look at Pollster. It usually tells a different and more detailed story.

Now I don't want to say this too loud because the McCain camp might hear me but the good news is that even if these numbers are accurate they mean nothing.

First, This poll is a poll based on "likely voters", people who voted in the last two elections.
This leaves out newly registered voters and voters who may have just stayed home last election. The name of the game has been register new voters. The name of the game has also been to energize the young.

Second, The USA Today/Gallup likely voter poll has been in McCain's favor consistently. See above factors for probably reason.

Third, Their poll's "registered voters" sample is relatively small. Under 1000 interviews. This means a relatively larger standard error and a large margin of error. This is increased when the sample is made smaller by narrowing the vision to likely voters.

The Most Important Factor

Most of here are more familiar with the electoral process as we actually pay attention to the U.S. Constitution and know that its about electoral votes.

If you look at Pollster you will see the estimates indicate that Sen. Obama has about 260 electoral votes leaning his way. Sen. McCain has 179. This leaves 99 electoral votes in states too close to call coming from: Nevada, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Virginia, and New Hampshire.

Looking further into the polls we find that Sen Obama holds slight leads in all but Florida (-2.1%), North Carolina (-3.1%), and North Dakota (-0.1%).

The Dream Sequence is of all of these States vote Obama. The final count will be 354-184.

The nightmare is all of them leaning toward McCain and a result of 278-260.

The more likely scenario probably a 312-226 outcome. I won't mention which states (even though it's easy to figure out). All the states are important.

So, now, do you feel a bit better, I hope so...

Hope wins this election sports fans. The polls are like Las Vegas oddsmakers. What really counts is the score at the end of the game. To us, gametime is November 4th and we are all in the starting line-up.

delfinajones,

LOL! I just typed a similar response to taritac's post below. I haven't read the DailyKos piece yet, but it looks like they're on the same page. Again, you won't see the msm talk about the electoral college . . . it's bad for ratings.

I've seen the MSM talk about the electoral college on 2 occasions: 1) when Obama broke the 50% mark and 2) to start the "It Could Be An Electoral Tie!" memo. Chuck Todd was on this morning doing the later. MSNBC has their own electoral board now.

Synchronicity B-Serious! I am emailing the diary to nervous friends who are not as blog obsessed as I am with digging online. FIREDOGLAKE also has good info on what she- Christy--thinks will be the big Repub. move on voter suppression--absentee ballots--must read article people!!!

The vote suppression issue is very scary.

McCain has big convention bounce.

Analysis by MyDD.com

I know many of you say that we shouldn't panic, but this campaign is deeply in trouble. Not because of the convention bounce so much, but because the MSM will run with this with glee. This is the "rightful order" of things, and instead of looking at McCain more intensely as the new frontrunner, they will pile on Obama because he's not winning anymore.

It's going to be: oh, what happened, Obama? How did the wheels come off the campaign? I guess he's not able to convince voters about the change he brings, etc. etc. They will fail to look critically at Palin's experience and qualifications, they will continue to promote McCain as a "maverick" who is going to shake things up in Washington without asking him specifics about how he plans to do this, they will fail to question how McCain's economic and foreign policies that are JUST LIKE BUSH'S will produce different results than Bush.

I am getting worried. Obama has to retool or we've got a trainwreck on our hands.

I'm starting to wonder about you. Of late, all of your comments have been negative and fear laced. You're bring down the crowd.

McCain will 'shake things up in Washington" by:

* Promising to veto any bill containing earmarks.

* Promising to achieve energy independence through an 'all of the above' approach to resources and development.

* Promising School Choice. Accountability to parents and students.

* Promising to prepare the unemployed for the jobs of today, using community colleges to help train people for new opportunities. For workers in industries that have been hard hit, McCain promises tol help make up part of the difference in wages between their old job and a temporary, lower paid one while they receive retraining that will help them find secure new employment at a decent wage.

Democrats are stuck with the McSame meme but these reforms clearly show why McCain is the REAL reformer.

How can Obama 'retool'? He has no record of meaningful reform. He is a product of Democrat Chicago 'machine' politics and his inside the Beltway running mate is the antithesis of a 'new brand of politics."

'Promising'? A promise is a comfort to a fool.

You really cant be serious! How's McCain going to achieve energy independence when the oil companies are funding his campaign? Oh, have you forgotten that the current's deficit is the Republicans own creation? And, by the way, do you really think that "school choice" is really going to solve our education crisis for blcks and brwn folks; especially since any attempt by blcks and brwns to take their kids to predominantly whte schools will be seen as Armageddon. You know, I read stuff like what you just typed or hear similar stuff from other folks and that leads me to believe that maybe, just maybe, we as a country and people, deserve our George Bushes, our dick cheneys, our sarah palins, our al gonzales.

Perhaps, those of us who believe in a different and better world need to start thinking that perhaps, America is not the right country for us.

These are not reforms to Washington. These are policy positions.

McCain is no real foe of earmarks. He will veto the first bill, but after lobbyists and his friends in Congress lay into him, there will be no more of that. This is not a serious proposal. Any fool can see through this.

The other positions he simply stole from Obama, just like he stole his "Change" meme. McCain is a joke.

Coming from a "tool" this post is meaningless.

McCain record of reform occurred in the 90's why didn't he stand up to Bush when it mattered.

McCain's convention bounce is expected. However, I agree, this should light a fire under the Democrats (the ticket AND its supporters) to stay on the grind. With that being said, I don't see reason to panick (contrary to what the media would have us believe . . .).

I do think that this is a close race, right now. But that doesn't mean that Obama isn't in a strong position. This election could tip one way or the other. But consider this . . .

Obama currently leads the electoral college 260 to 179 (270 needed to win). If the election were held today, Obama would win this election, 309 to 229. (pollster.com) But the pundits ain't talkin' about that now are they?

It's bad for tv ratings . . . it's harder to sell a close election when you've got an Obama 309>229 landslide (I'm not necessarily predicting an Obama landslide, but I'm not ruling it out either).

I also agree with your assessment of the media. The media keeps trying to create a self-fulfilling prophesy. You will never hear the pundits say Obama's in a strong position. It's bad for ratings. Remember, even when Obama held a 10% national lead, the pundits did nothing but ask, "Why isn't he up by more?" The objective is to constantly raise the bar for Obama, while simultaneously lowering the bar for McCain/Palin. The media is not asking for specifics from the Republican ticket. They prefer to sell personality instead of policy . . . assuming that McCain and Palin are "one of us" with no need to explain or prove themselves to the American voter.

Again, it's a self-fulfilling prophesy to have a close election when you raise the bar for one candidate while lowering it for the other. Remember, the Democratic Primary was never as close as the media portrayed it. We might be seeing a similar pattern with the media's coverage of McCain.

"Likely voter" polls seem to underestimate groups like blacks, and young voters (Obama strongholds). Chuck Todd already said McCain's 10% lead among likely voters is an outlier. If it had any credibility we'd be seeing an impact on the state polls. We have not seen that yet. Pay attention to the state polls and toss-up states. That's where the math matters.

Forget Chuck Todd; go to The Field or Nate's 538.com to get real polling data/explanations.

Obama is in fine shape to take the nomination and he is doing what he needs to do to put states in play that haven't played well for Dems in years - he's visiting Indiana today for the THIRD time, he's been in Ohio, Joe's covering Ohio and Pennsylvania.

They play by the electoral numbers; they're not sitting around wringing their hands and getting freaked at every seemingly dire corporate media prediction, no matter how obviously biased they are.

I'm following the candidates' lead because my mother taught me never to follow the crowd because they are very often wrong - like now. Even the crowd of supposed supporters. Pay attention to them and corporate media and you'll be as whacked and depressed as they are.

Some Obama supporters are pathetic, chicken little scaredy cat gutless wonders who are afraid of their own shadows. Weak-kneed lily-livered double-minded cowards.

/rant

Some Obama supporters are pathetic, chicken little scaredy cat gutless wonders who are afraid of their own shadows. Weak-kneed lily-livered double-minded cowards.

Hey, THANKS, 99% Sure!! Way to insult your fellow Obama-ites!!

Disagree with me as is your right, but really, how are ad hominem attacks going to help?

I am not pathetic, gutless, afraid of my own shadow, weak-kneed, lily-livered, double-minded, or a coward. But you wouldn't know that because YOU DON'T KNOW ME.

You were right about one thing-- I AM scared. I have seen the media and Republicans work hand in hand to take down the more qualified, smarter, better candidate in two elections, and it is happening again. Obama has been a masterful candidate thus far, but right now I am WORRIED that he is too insulated in an echo chamber to hear the train barreling down the tracks at him.

I feel that I am JUSTIFIED in my worry. No, one poll does not mean everything. I hope that you are right that Obama has already figured this shit out, but right now, I'm doubtful. He hasn't changed his game at all since the general. We're three weeks from the debates, and he STILL can't give an answer in 25 words or less or without stuttering, umming and ahhhing. These things are petty, but they DO matter, especially to undecided voters. If he is the only person on the stage umming and ahhing and stuttering, while everyone else gives pithy, straightforward answers, he's going to look like an amateur.

Anyway, I won't use JJP anymore to write about my fears, release my anxiety, or question Obama. I thought this was a place for ideas and community, and was strong enough to handle a little fear, but I see I am wrong.

Feeling justified has nothing to do with it and strength and fear are not synonymous; usually the weak are the most fearful. If your hand-wringing woe is me-ing was constructive and selfless, I'd be silent but it is not. It is just spitting in the wind.

Let me ask you - how many elections have you won? How many campaigns have you run? Because you are right; I have no right to judge you as chicken hearted, particularly if you've demonstrated success in the political field. On the other hand . . . .

As for criticizing Obama's method of speech here or anywhere else on the web, how is that going to change Obama's manner and method? Is that lifting Obama up or tearing him down? You either dance with the one who brung you with positive reinforcement and constructive criticism designed to help achieve the W, or you're working with the opposition by demeaning him at every turn beause YOU don't like the way he operates. There are other candidates; if you feel as you do, then choose one of them; perhaps they're more to your taste.

Worrying about how Obama speaks and berating him on blogs because of it is not going to improve his manner of speech nor his debating skills. All it does is to show the opposition how weak his supporters are and how little confidence and respect they have for the candidate they say they support. It is inappropriate behavior that shows a lack of trust in your own decisions, as well asbeing discourteous and unmannerly.

No, there's nothing wrong with constructive criticism but the criticism I'm seeing on this and other sites isn't constructive; it is ill-mannered and disrespectful, and it won't change a thing except undecideds' minds - in favor of the opposition. God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things that I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.

You are not going to change how Obama debates or speaks by berating him here; even if you knew him, it would be difficult to change how he speaks - he is who he is and either you accept the whole enchilada with or without salsa or you order the burrito and move on.

Courage and wisdom and trusting in the skill and the abilities of the candidates is what is needed along with hard work and positive public support, else you're no different than McCaint.

Now you can take your bat and ball and go home because you don't like being called out about your fear and panic not changing anything only depressing people OR you can decide to do something constructive to encourage supporters, whether it is donating or phone banking or talking to you neighbors or whatever. Handwringing and publicly demeaning the candidate will not get it done.

I take your and Craig's point that action is a good antidote to worry, and msmartin, I certainly don't mean to get on your nerves or depress anyone. But I take issue with the notions that 1) Obama can never be criticized, 2) that I have somehow demeaned him by having something critical to say, 3) that because I'm not a politician, then I should just stay quiet, and 4) most importantly, that because I have a problem with certain aspects of his campaign, then I should just vote for someone else.

99%, publicly castigating those who are worried about another 4-8 years of Republicans in the White House doesn't actually do anything either. Actually, it does one thing: shut down participation. That may be what you are aiming for, but that doesn't help elect Barack.

You know what does help? When you or Craig or whoever highlights a positive article or aspect that me or one of the other worriers may not have seen. It really does help. In a community, we do better with support and encouragement rather than ridicule. Right now, I just feel attacked for being concerned.

My concern has less to do with my confidence in Obama and more to do with knowing how the media operates. Last week during the peak of the Sarah Palin coming out party, I was FIRED UP. I had to talk a few of my friends off the ledge, and I donated more money that I don't have. But this weekend, when I saw the media fawning over the Republican ticket in spite of all we know about them, I just got depressed and discouraged. I saw how the media coverage for rest of this campaign season is likely to go. So, I posted about my fears here, expecting people to tell me how wrong I was and that I have nothing to fear. Instead, I mostly got nastiness and insults calling me a Republican.

I am a person who is honest and expressive about my feelings, good and bad, but if being honest brings everyone down, I'll stop. This community is more fragile than I anticipated, and I don't want to contribute to bringing "doom and gloom".

I am sorry you feel picked--people are just nervous.

Thanks, because he/she was really starting to get on my nerves. It's as if they've come her to bring doom and gloom and fear.

I'm glad I know better though. Things are not often what they appear to be. If Obama weren't doing so well, the Republicans wouldn't be fighting so hard.

Exactement, msmartin.

The following will be my signature line for awhile:

"It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat."

Amen.

Hey Bserious...

The info you posted regarding te electoral college is interesting. I didn't know Obama was leading.

So, you honestly think the media is purposefully telling us that the race is getting tight, when it's really not? I'm not even trying to be smart, I'm just honestly curious. While I know the media no doubt wants high ratings, I'm just surprised that they would hold out on key information if it was truly accurate. Not completely surprised, but a little (especially with the media's daily obsession with poll numbers).

Big M,

I apologize in advance for this (very) long response:

Yes, I think the media deliberately tailors its coverage to create the impression of a close race even when the race is not as close as they'd have you believe.

No, I don't doubt that this is a close race at present (I do think it's close). But the numbers do suggest that the media is seriously overselling Obama's weaknesses and overestimating McCain's strengths. The media has neglected the electoral map at Obama's expense. Their fixation on national polls has misled viewers into believing that Obama is weaker than he actually is and that McCain is stronger than he actually is.

As such, the media has put Obama's campaign in a political straight-jacket of high expectations that will not allow him to "break away" (open a significant lead) in the eyes of its viewers.

This is not to lay all responsibility on the media (Obama has made his share of mistakes). BUT the media does bear some of this responsibility nonetheless. We've seen the media refuse to ask McCain/Palin questions on subjects for which they've spent entire months grilling Obama (and have even created media narratives in some circumstances).

The DNC and RNC conventions could have changed some of the numbers. But we will not know for sure until a couple of weeks from now when we have a fresh string of state polls and McCain's post-convention bounce has played itself out.

The Democratic Primary was a perfect example of the media expectations game. That race was over the moment Obama won WI in late February. And anyone following the delegate math understood that Clinton had no real mathematical shot at the nomination once she failed to win OH AND TX by double digits on March 4.

But the media did its best to prolong that race. Thus ensued a long stretch of coverage where the media maintained that the math wasn't important; and no one dared ask Clinton to drop out for fear of being labeled a sexist (sound familiar).

The media didn't care about little facts like MATH and PLEDGED delegates much like they don't care much about issues and policy positions today (why else would they sit silent while the McCain camp dodges interviews and literally tells them, "this election will not be about issues).

At that time, the media seemed more concerned with maintaining the soap opera. So (as I stated before) when it was clear that Obama had pretty much wrapped up the nomination in March, the media instead shifted its attention to question Obama's weakenesses (why can't he win blue collar voters? why can't he win latino voters? women voters? why can't he "close the deal" etc.).

The media kept raising the bar for Obama, all while erasing the bar for Clinton. Hillary stayed in that race because she said so and the media wasn't about to stop the circus (indeed, one of the famous quotes from her campaign came from a Hillary supporter who said . . . "It's not over until the woman in the pantsuit sings" -- enter the creation of "Hillaryland"). Nevermind the fact that John Edwards, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney and a host of other candidates bowed out for the good of their parties before they were mathematically eliminated? Hillary was allowed to play by a separate set of rules all because the media didn't have the guts and strength to take on a political bully (sound familiar?).

Back to this election:

Although I see a close race, I'm of the opinion that this election can tip towards Obama's favor quite easily. I'm also of the opinion that an examination of the electoral map conveys the exact opposite narrative from what the media keeps saying about these two candidates. In essence, at present, I think McCain is a seriously weak candidate by the numbers.

The latest state polls show that Obama is on the threshold of a landslide victory (309>229). True, we've yet to see a string of polls post-RNC convention. However, it would still take a significant shift to change the dynamics of this race (i.e., Obama's floor vs. McCain's ceiling).

Let me explain:

It's a matter of how the media frames the debate. If you want to make Obama look weak, you focus on the national polling (Gallup Daily Tracking Poll, etc.). Why? Because the generic Democrat outpolls the generic Republican by double digits. Thus, you'll have people like Buchanan and Scarborough ask: "Well, why isn't Obama leading by more in a Democratic year . . . it must be because he's a weak candidate, etc."

BUT. . . if you focus on the electoral college map, the center of scrutiny shifts to McCain. Why? Remember 2004's electoral map:

Bush beat Kerry 286>252. If you look at that map, you'll see the area Republicans won in 2004. Compare that map to 2008 and you'll see that McCain is underperforming in comparison to Bush four years ago.

Compared to Kerry's 2004 map, Obama only has one state (NH) that is a legitimate toss-up at the moment (note: I personally count toss-ups as states where the margin between the candidates is 5% or less). PA and MI are still blue (7% and 5% respectively) though we'll have to keep an eye on them.

McCain? Well, compared to 2004, McCain has 11 states that are legitimate toss-ups at the moment. Those states are MO, NC, VA, FL, OH, NM, NV, CO, MT, ND and IA. All of these states have the candidates within 5% of eachother. Of these states, McCain trails Obama in OH, VA, IA, NM, CO and MT. That accounts for roughly 57 electoral votes that could legitimately swing Obama's way this election. 57 + 252 (Kerry's states from 2004) gives you 309 electoral votes for Obama in November. That's if everything goes Obama's way.

But for arguments sake, let's say things don't go his way in most of those states . . .

Just take the Bush states where Obama has a strong (5%+ lead). That would swing, IA and NM. Those two states give Obama 12 electoral votes. Add that to Kerry's totals and Obama has 264. Subtract NH's 4 electoral votes (worst case scenario) and that gives Obama a floor of 260 electoral votes (conversely, take 12 electoral votes away from the Republican column; give them NH and you've got McCain with a ceiling of 278).

260. . . that is my base of "safe" electoral votes for Obama at this moment. . . . that's his starting point right now. Which means that he's only 10 shy to be President. Although McCain's ceiling just barely gets him elected, McCain's floor falls well short of 270 (around 179).

Revisiting the list of toss-ups, Obama could take any combination of toss-up states to get to 270:

- Take either OH, FL, VA or NC and Obama is our next President.

Hold NH and take CO (rumored to seriously be on the brink of turning blue) = 277

Take any combination of CO + NV, MT or ND and Obama is our next President.

Leave CO, but take NV, MT AND ND (less likely) and Obama is still our next president.

I'm sure that there are a few other combinations.

This is why Obama planned a 50 state strategy. He's got more options than McCain, thus placing him in a stronger position as the Democratic nominee.

Now remember this. . . Obama opting out of campaign finance will allow him to outraise and outspend McCain in the final month of this campaign in targeted swing states like OH, FL, CO, NV, VA and NC. It appears that this is why Obama spent so much effort building a grassroots ground game that's superior to McCain's; opening new offices in deeply red counties throughout the country.

Back to the media:

IF the media focused on the electoral map instead of national polls (which DO NOT determine the presidency) they'd have to discuss just how weak McCain is in states that were solidly Bush just four years ago. Here are some sample questions they might ask:

1. Why is McCain seriously underperforming in NC (McCain leads by 3%, Bush won by 12%)?

2. Why is McCain underperforming in VA (McCain trails by 1%, Bush won by 8%)?

3. Why can't McCain close the deal in CO, NV, MT, FL and OH?

4. Does McCain have a problem with rural whites in places like NC and VA? What accounts for his weak showing there?

Considering the crazy narratives the media helped spin about Obama, it seems that they could do the same with McCain. (e.g., "Sure, McCain is winning the white male demographic . . . but is he winning by enough?")

The numbers (excluding the wildcard "Race" factor) all say that, in the words of Chuck Todd: This is Obama's race to WIN.

If any candidate looses a landslide, it's going to be McCain. That's what the numbers say. Yes, this is currently a close race, but McCain is NOT as strong as the media makes him out to be. Just the same, Obama is nowhere near as weak as the media makes him out to be.

Again . . . raising the bar for Obama while lowering the bar for McCain creates a situation that is much closer than we have reason to believe (based on the most current numbers).

Obama supporters have every reason to be cautiously optimistic. I stress the word "cautiously."

For our part (Obama supporters), I'd pay close attention to the states of MI and PA. We're in trouble IF we see significant, sustained Republican surges in those two states. The Republican base thinks Palin is the answer. . . they will win or lose, in part, because of Palin's strength or lack thereof.

Which brings us full-circle back to the media. . . more specifically, the media and its kid-gloves approach to Sarah Palin. The media is, in effect, heaping praises and powers onto her that she has not yet earned or even demonstrated (e.g., Morning Joe swearing she has mass appeal with working-class mothers when they have no objective evidence to point to).

Palin SHOULD NOT be touted as the candidate for working moms when she has yet to even discuss how her policies will help the people she claims to speak for. This strikes me as terribly irresponsible journalism.

Yet the media let's the McCain camp get away with weak answers like (and I'm paraphrasing an actual quote I heard from the camp) "Sarah Palin's background proves that she's already for the working-class mother). The media should be much more aggressive in its approach . . . Otherwise they risk making Sarah Palin seem stronger (and by extension the McCain/Palin ticket, stronger) without ever having to put forth a plan or policy (let alone having said policies contested by the Democrats). This is how a weak media shapes an election. It's not that voters actually have policy stances to grasp onto when they discuss Sarah Palin . . . it's just that the media keeps telling rural America, "Palin is your girl. She's one of you" -- without much of any proof to substantiate that claim (i.e., parroting Republican talking points).

Again . . . raising the bar for the Democratic ticket while lowering it for the Republicans.

In conclusion, while I understand feelings of concern, I have not stepped over the "panic" threshold as it relates to Obama's campaign. In fact, I won't even make a strong prediction of where this thing is headed for another week 1/2 to 2 weeks. Let McCain's "bounce" finish it's course and see where those state polls stand in the next couple of weeks.

Brilliant post, thanks!

Hold NH and take CO (rumored to seriously be on the brink of turning blue) = 277

Oops. I meant 273

Update: The latest post-RNC Convention poll out of Michigan has Obama's lead dropping from 5% to 4%. Like I said, we'll have to keep an eye on that.

So, you honestly think the media is purposefully telling us that the race is getting tight, when it's really not?

Yep. Think about it: During the the primaries, the MSM swore up and down that Obama and Clinton were close. Now, that the primary is over, they're admitting that the primary was over on Feb. 19th!

Studying numbers and analyzing what they mean is "too hard" and "not sexy."

For instance, Obama numerically had the Dem. nomination wrapped up in Feb. But the MSM kept pushing this meme of "it's getting tight, it's getting close" all the way until June. Everyone got rapturous over Tim Russert declaring the race over after the IN/NC primaries but Chuck Todd is the one (back in Feb) who stated that after WS it was mathematically impossible for Hillary to get the nomination based on pledged delegates.

So it's not surprising that nobody in the MSM is breaking down what the numbers really mean and how polling was conducted etc and they have already begun their "Why is Obama losing?" tour.

I have not seen any new state polling data since the conclusion of the RNC.

The state polls have yet to fully reflect the impact of Palin nor McCain's acceptance speeches.

It is so typical of obama supporters to 'blame the media' for Obama's decline, but I submit that it has more to do with the weakness of the candidate.

Let's not forget that Obama finished the primary season losing to Hillary.

Is this all you've got after an explanation like the one B-Serious just gave you?

You, McCain and Palin and your lack of intellect are sure reasons you republicans should be removed and never allowed to return to the whitehouse.

John McCain finished fifth from the bottom and Palin went to six schools in five years JUST to get a journalism degree. Should the American public be subjected to more idiocy and knuckle dragging nimrods?

"Let's not forget that Obama finished the primary season losing to Hillary."

...and what kind of crack cocaine have YOU been smoking?

Where are these people coming from and why are they coming here after cooking up and taking a hit of crystal meth?

Because they ain't on no crack; McCaint's people are meth users. I'll bet their skin is as messed up as their brains.

"Where are these people coming from and why are they coming here after cooking up and taking a hit of crystal meth?"


Wasilla. The capital of meth production of all of Alaska.

LMAO!!!! Well....when you're right..you're right.

A little self indulgence that was probably more for my own entertainment than anything else - Palindromic Free Verse - "I Love Me, vol.1"

I'm going to start sounding like Hillary Clinton and her "w-w-w-Hillary-Clinton-dot-com" routine, but the estimated 8 million Negroes who are not registered to vote are 8 million too many.

Let's get busy!

Christian Fascism
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/8/7345...

I can't say I'm an animal activist, but this is so inhumane. Palin's wolf hunting program... Hunters paid $150 to CUT OFF the left foot of a wolf and present it for their bounty.

http://www.salon.com/env/feature/2008/09/08/sar...

Remember the infamous jet she put on ebay (that didnt actually sell on ebay):

After going unsold for months, the jet was put into the hands of Turbo North Aviation, an Anchorage aircraft broker, which put an asking price of $2.45 million on the nearly $2.7 million jet. It quickly sold to Alaska businessman Larry Reynolds for $2.1 million ($31,000 of which went to Turbo Aviation). Today the Westwind II jet spends its days ushering wealthy hunters around Alaska and Russia

McCain's temper: He pushed a women in a wheelchair.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/07/report...

From Hotair.com:

Obama: Palin's Family is Off Limits, Except When It Isn't

Barack Obama, Sept. 2:

"We don't go after people's families; we don't get them involved in the politics. It's not appropriate, and it's not relevant," he added. "Our people were not involved in any way in this, and they will not be. And if I ever thought that there was somebody in my campaign that was involved in something like that, they'd be fired."

Howard Gutman, on the Laura Ingraham Show, Sept. 5:

“If my daughter had just come home at 17 years old and said, ‘Mom, Dad, I’m pregnant, we have a family problem,’ I wouldn’t say, ‘You know what we’re going to do? We’re going to take this private family problem … I’m going to go on the international stage and broadcast it to the world’,” he said.

Gutman later added: “If you take a daughter who’s got this emotional strife and subject her to the most intense scrutiny of the world at this time in her life, I think you’ve put your career above your family.”

No sign that Gutman has departed the Obama campaign. In fact, we're getting a rerun of something we saw earlier this year. Whenever we saw an Obama surrogate — say, Wes Clark, George McGovern, Jay Rockefeller, Tom Harkin, Democratic congressional candidate Bill Gillespie, Ed Schultz or Tony McPeak — attacking John McCain's war record, the response was always the same - a short, curt, pro forma "we disapprove" statement from a spokesman, with no real consequences for the surrogate who stepped out of line.

Surprise, surprise, here's the response from the Obama campaign:

“Obviously these comments do not reflect our frequently stated, crystal-clear view that families of the candidates should be off limits, and we hope that supporters on both sides will act accordingly,” Obama spokesman Bill Burton said in an e-mail, pointing out that Gutman has apologized in a statement to ABC News.

Ironic that a man named "Gutman" has exposed his preferred candidate as so gutless.

I love how Repubs want Obama to play referee with every Tom, Dick, and Harry, when McCain said early on he would not.

I have yet to hear him talk down about the tactics that members of his party have used, and the things that they have said. But what am I thinking? He's a maverick and that's all that matters.

I love how Repubs want Obama to play referee with every Tom, Dick, and Harry, when McCain said early on he would not.

I have yet to hear him talk down about the tactics that members of his party have used, and the things that they have said. But what am I thinking? He's a maverick and that's all that matters.

I love how Repubs want Obama to play referee with every Tom, Dick, and Harry, when McCain said early on he would not.

I have yet to hear him talk down about the tactics that members of his party have used, and the things that they have said. But what am I thinking? He's a maverick and that's all that matters.

Repubs: Obama said not to talk about this. If you don't stop, I'm gonna tell Obama what you did. Help, Obama save us - the mean blogs are talking about our knocked-up teenager again!

Shut the hell up, and take it like a man.

Disgusting.

Voter Registration by Students Raises Cloud of Consequences

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/08/education/08s...

Students told that if they are registered to vote using their college address they can no longer be claimed on taxes by their parents.

Ageism, plain and simple.

Voter caging and suppression, which is why a lot of blacks aren't registered.

The repugs stole the election in 2004 and 2008 but no one talks about that. They either suppressed votes or didn't count certain votes that supposedly got lost or were changed to reflect a vote for Shrub.

deleted.

Why am I starting to feel like sports and entertainment will be the only "progress" we'll make as a people in this country? Am I the only one who is starting to re-think Biden is a politically prudent pick, not just because it allowed McCain to out maneuver Obama in picking a female running mate, but Biden's performances on the talk shows the last two weeks have been awful, God awful. Is he off message or playing fifty with Obama?

Looking at the polls, it's seems that we're getting out real answer as to whether white people are willing to vote for a black man. It looks like Sarah Palin has given many an excuse not to.

Senator Obama's campaign is out of our hands and may be out of his. Hillary Clinton may be the only one that can save it. She has to decide does her furture prospects lie better in following an Obama presidency or taking on Saray Palin in 4 to 8 years.

I am beginning to feel that Obama should have picked Hillary.

This makes no sense. You people have no confidence, no heart.

I've got to get up out of here.

If Barack picked Hillary, McCain would have been free to pick Lieberman. Palin fires up the right-wing base the same way that Hillary fires up the right-wing base, just in a negative way. That would allow McCain to play a two-fer. Right-wing women HATE HIllary the same way left-wing women HATE Palin.

A Hillary Clinton VP pick would have been disasterous for Obama:

Hillary Clinton would have energized people in the OTHER direction because Hillary voters would have been complaining that Hillary should be at the TOP of the ticket instead of bringing up Obama's rear. The GOP would be loving their chance to sink both Hillary and Barack in one fell swoop.

Let's say Obama HAD picked Hillary. McCain probably STILL would have gone with Palin to blunt the Hillary/woman voter factor. Then they would have drawn distinctions between Hillary and Palin by elevating Palin's motherhood, and feminity...in essence they would have said "Look Sarah is a GOOD woman, the type American women should aspire to be, Hillary Clinton is a shrew, she's a bitch, she hates men, etc."

Which is why siccing Hillary on Sarah Palin probably won't work. Since this election is no longer about the issues (per the McCain campaign), then the Obama campaign needs to make an issue out of the character of McCain / Palin with the issues:

Sarah Palin is a good mom who loves her children. She has the right to provide them with the choices she believes will help them be good citizens. But Palin has slashed funding for teen moms, dislikes programs that will cut down on the number of teen moms and slashed funding for special needs children. Why does Sarah Palin want to provide her children with choice, but not yours?

It's in Hillary Clinton's best interest for McCain / Palin to WIN because she will be up against McCain / Palin and she can tear them down with her voters plus most of the Obama voters.

Because let's keep it real: most black people WILL say "Well they weren't gonna let a black man win no way" and they WILL pull that lever for Hillary Clinton if she's up against McCain / Palin.

Okay. So why didn't he pick one of the three female Democrat governors? Aren't there female Democratic senators and reps. Cabinet members?

No, he went with the safe bet.

And why did he need to pick a female? Is picking the BEST person for the job NOT good enough anymore?

A female giving you virtual dap. I am so sick of these whining women thinking just because you're a woman you should automatically considered. If you really want something get in the game and win it!

It is not out of our hands. We will work harder, smarter, longer and not succumb to the politics of FEAR AND INTIMIDATION.

WE CAN DO THIS.

http://www.jedreport.com/2008/09/not-really-an-...

Mon Sep 8, 1:17 AM Pacific
Not Really An Interview
Looks like I need to modify the countdown widget to track the time until Sarah Palin sits down for an interview without preconditions, because as Josh Marshall observes, the Charlie Gibson interview isn't really an interview after all.

For starters, it will take place in multiple sessions over multiple days, giving Palin incredible leverage over Gibson -- if she or her handlers don't like a question, they'll just cancel the remaining sessions, all but insuring that Gibson won't ask any tough questions.

Moreover, Gibson has already preemptively agreed to the McCain campaign's demand that he not ask questions of a personal nature, writing last week that "Once you know about her daughter's pregnancy, once you know about her husband's political interest in the Alaska Independent Party, once you know about the special nature of their latest child, I think that's enough."

It's simply breathtaking that Gibson would make such a statement. How can he possibly take off the table questions about her and Todd Palin's involvement in the Alaskan Independence Party? (Perhaps he doesn't know that the party advocates Alaska's secession from the U.S.A., given that he doesn't know how to spell it.)

Also worth noting: the interview is scheduled to take place on both Thursday and Friday, September 11 and 12. Given that her son is scheduled to leave for Iraq on 9/12 (not 9/11 as she claimed last Wednesday), it's hard to imagine Gibson won't ask her about that -- as he should. But if he's going to ask about her son's military service, why isn't it okay to ask about her own ties and her husband's ties to the secessionist movement? And why isn't it okay to ask other questions of a personal nature?

So my bottom-line here -- unless Charlie Gibson proves me wrong by conducting a no-holds barred interview -- is that this does not meet the criteria of an interview without preconditions, and I'm going to update the widget to reflect that fact.

Charlie Gibson is the same jackass (along with George Staph Infection) who jumped Obama at the ABC Debate. That's why ABC's ass got shut out of the Presidential Debates. I wouldn't expect Gibson to seriously dig into Palin's ass at all.

Town: Co-sign! A NON-INTERVIEW in the making [literally - making it EASY for "The Gov." !!] :>)

The interview is on 9/11. They will talk about Palin being a MOM™, and her son going off to Iraq, and how much she loves her daughter Bristol (which will be news to Bristol), and baby Trig, and repeat her Republican Talking Points and Good Time Charlie will throw her wiffle balls and Nerf balls during the "interview" and they'll all proclaim it hard hitting journalism.

Town: "Whycome" U R soooooo ON POINT!!!??????

I think that I'm feeling some frustration because I don't have/know the "strategies" for combating REPUG-BIASED MEDIA!!!

Hmmmm!??

Town: Co-sign! A NON-INTERVIEW in the making [literally - making it EASY for "The Gov." !!] :>)

Media manipulation at its best.

So, Gibson thinks that Palin shouldn't be questioned about her husband's membership in a group that is anti-American??? Yet, he and Georgie S. interrogated Obama about a blasted flag pin and his connection to William Ayers?!?!?!?

"Do you think Rev. Wright loves this country?" ---George Staph Infection, ABC Debate.

more chipping away of the separation between church and state

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...

Today, if a group of people wanted to go somewhere to find religious freedom. To practice what they wanted or wanted to practice nothing without judgment and forced to live until the religious rule of others... where could we go? I'm feeling like I want to be a Pilgrim...

*BREAKING*: Environmental shocker: Palin’s cat seen scratching claws on rare Alaskan pine tree (NYT’s). Also, Palin’s dog caught rooting in neighbor’s trash (CNN Political Ticker).

rikyrah: How ABSOLUTELY WONDERFUL!!

Serena [and Venus] = REPRESENTIN'

AND, by "accident", I discovered how to make words BOLD!!


Whoo! Hoo!! :>) :>) :>)

On the photo. Big up to Serena and to Venus, outlasting the competition over the years, outdueling competitor conspiracies, withstanding what must at some point get to the core of any human being, the early, vocal, and documented racist rejection of tennis fans worldwide.

Like Arthur Ashe, they always always stayed above the level of those who criticised them, especially the elder media professionals who often dropped their professionalism to get personal with them. Yet, still in Ashe tradition, they neither ignored nor excused the ill treatment as some black players have done in order to be conciliatory.

No, they simply acknowledged it with dignity, not crying about it (Yes I felt it. Yes I saw it. I know what it was.) and then went out and kept hustlin' (Now, I have a match to play.)

Puts a lot of this stuff in perspective. Whining doesn't have much place in the game. To complain is to reveal that complaining is the only weapon you have left. The game will change by the degree to which we hustle harder.

hustleandfloe: WELL SAID!!!! :>) :>)

Take heart, me hearties, yo ho!

Keith O will be back on the air Monday followed by Rachel Maddow's new show. At least we'll have two hours of progressive reporting to look forward to.

Did anyone find it strange that Keith was in NY while the rest of the MSNBC talking heads were in Minnesota for the RNC? Was he being punished?

I'm still really disturbed by this. The media needs to stop taking its marching orders from the RNC. Don't tell me Keith Olbermann is any more ideologically transparent than the gang over at Fox News.

And don't tell me you're concerned about a shift to the "left" when you give Pat Buchanan and Joe Scarborough all the air-time they want. Those two do more than enough to balance any percieved bias from Olbermann. Chris Mathews is a weather vane. He can be as fickle as anyone on cable news. In fact, he's been championing that "Sarah Palin's one of us" line for the past week.

And speaking of Scarborough . . . Don't tell me you don't want analysts in traditionally neutral position when you've got "Morning Joe" for your morning talk show. Morning Joe does nothing but editorialize and guess which way they lean? It sure as hell ain't towards the left. Morning Joe is the MSNBC version of Hannity and Colmes. Mika gives absolutely no pushback against Joe's conservative talking points. The only "Democratic" perspective is a centrist, DLC member.

Morning shows carry a certain sense of credibility. That's because they're assumed to be "neutral" (Today, Good Morning America, etc). In fact, most morning talk shows go kinda light on the political coverage (often focusing on other, lighter topics besides politics). Morning Joe is nothing but three hours of conservative talking points repackaged for us as an "honest" left/right debate. Such bs.

Even more, there are many times when Joe and Mika spill over into the next time slot to serve as (gasp) news anchors.

This is a complete cave-in by MSNBC. The only difference between Olbermann and Gregory is that Olbermann doesn't claim or pretend to be neutral like Gregory does. Gregory parrots Republican talking points all the time. And he'll surely parrot Republican talking points when it's time to analyze who won or lost the debates.

I can hear Gregory already: "I'd like to throw this to the panel. Why is Obama afraid to say that McCain was right on the surge and he was wrong?"

or

"Biden raised his voice in tonight's debate with Palin. Won't a lot of women see that as sexist and be turned off by that?"

That's the type of questioning we'll hear from Gregory. . . parroting conservative talking points.

B-Serious: Good analysis! :>) :>)

How do we - as bloggers- COMBAT the REPUG-BIASED MEDIA???? I'm looking for a LIST of STRATEGIES so that I can pick the ones in which I can play a role??

Thank you/y'all for considering this. :>) >:)

I hate that David Gregory MoFo! Him, and that CNN bastard that goes by the name John King. Two MoFo snakes that always pretend to be neutral when they not they arent.

Anthony: Co-signing on the 2 SSSSSSSSSnakes!! :>) :>)

eclecticbrotha: THANK YOU!!

I'm practicing making words BOLD, Look, this is ALL NEW ta me!! :>) :>)

***VIDEO***
O'Reilly Sees Obama's Got Balls?
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_SOvB5VNvY

***VIDEO****
Spellman College Barack the Vote Rally
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=1FZ_rNXrQTw

Jasmine Guy is an amazing speaker.

I'm mad I didn't know about this and I live 5 seconds from Spelman.

I don't know if they send out e-mail notices when you sign up for events in your area?...

TruthSeeker: I picked this up from the screen that you picked out! :>)

THANK YOU VERY MUCH :>) :>)


Look! I accidently learned how to BOLD today~!!!

Whooo! Hoooo! !!!!!

The screen I picked out???

Try "I" for italics and "blockquote" to quote.

TruthSeeker: Yes! When I was watching the video, there were OTHER videos available. Sooo, I picked up - http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=z3PbiplAXTo&featu...

Oh! I forgot ta paste the video. This is it! :>) :>) :>)

Got so excited about the bold! :>) :>) LAWD Ha'mercy! :>)

This blog has tons of crazy documents on Palin… http://liz-seattlespeak.blogspot.com
Like 50 thousand dollars spent on CARPET during renovations on the governor’s mansion
http://www.gov.state.ak.us/omb/09_omb/budget/Ad...

also Jesus General gave a helmet tip to her today for a document FROM palin that outlines this policy

“Faced with the prospect of so many Alaska Guardsmen and soldiers returning home after suffering traumatic brain injuries (TBI), Gov. Sarah Palin reached deep into Alaska's coffers to allocate one hundred dollars to teach health care professionals how to recognize TBI cases.”
http://www.gov.state.ak.us/omb/09_omb/budget/bi...

There is a post now with an mp3 of a call with her or some sort of recording with here where she talks about her “disappointment” in reclassifying polar bears as endangered. There is also a letter talking about her opposition to classifying beluga whales as endangered!

It’s a goldmine over here!
http://liz-seattlespeak.blogspot.com

The way to shut down Palin is to turn her off with female voters. The way to turn her off with female voters is to portray her as that mean queen bee who laughs at the less fortunate and picks on the other kids. The Obama campaign or somebody needs to gather up some PTA moms and have them whining in an ad about how Palin picked on community organizers like the PTA. We all know there's one mom in the PTA or Band Boosters who's an overbearing bully. Dry up female support for Palin, that will dry up support for McCain-Palin.

I know many hear will not want to hear this, but the Obama Campaign may very well rest in the hands of Hillary Clinton.

Many of us may not want to admit this but we underestimated and underappreciated the emotional investment of Hillary Clinton's female supporters for a female president. We assumed (or hoped) they would show the political maturity we've always show by puting Party before racial grievance. And despite witnessing it throughout the history of this country, we didn't gauge the media's desire to write the story of Obama's quick accent AND fall. What black man hasn't the media turned on include Dr. King?

I haven't completely given up hope, but I am resigned to reality. Obama's team, perhaps because of political inexperience or sheer short-sightedness, didn't see the Palin pick coming. McCain made a political pick Obama made an executive pick. While in theory, a sober, rational and thoughtful decision should win the day, but it didn't. McCain chose right, and Obama chose wrong. McCain listened to GOP base. Obama in contrast listened to HIS base, which includes me, rather than the Democratic base of which 50% belongs to Hillary Clinton.

It's now Hillary Clinton's call. Does she take on Sarah Palin now as a first term governor or Sarah Palin in 2012 as an incumbent VP? The only other hope is Biden withdraws, and that's not going to happen.

Does it make any sense now not to have put her on the ticket? Just asking.

I'm happy with Biden, thank you very much.
I don't seee Hillary burning up the airwaves.
Hillary is about Hillary.

Me too. These people need to let this Hilary stuff go - she lost the primary, she couldn't be vetted to be VP and she is not running with Obama. The people who are dwelling on Hilary based on moose woman are soft supporters who probably aren't going to vote for Obama. So be it. Move on and stop the whining.

Obama/Biden is a great ticket and it is the winning ticket in November.

found on MYDD

Did anyone see Napolitono outside of McCain's speech in NM yesterday? She said..

"You know the difference between Dick Cheney and Sarah Palin? -- Lipstick!"

ROFL!

Huffington has this Palin/Bush picture which does the same trick.
http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/37709/thum...

Pretty good line.

Does anyone know of a site where I can find out what time polls open in my state?

The link that Truth listed below, you can also check to make sure that you are registered. As time goes on, it will be able to tell you where to vote. Please pass the word.

Go to barackobama.com
https://www.voteforchange.com/index_obama.php#

Thanks! Wasn't that easy to find but that voteforchange website is good.

More Voters Rolls Purged in:

OH, NV, NM, CO, MI, KS, FL, LA

Many of the voters purged? Those who lost their homes to foreclosures.

This is what's going on while they distract us with Sarah Palin.

The world is watching.

What are we going to do about this?

Did anyone call this into the Obama campaign and to the Democratic Party?

Send this article to Roland Martin, Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow.

Send an email to the Tom Joyner Morning Show!

Do you have the info? Have you already emailed? People need to be aware of this and voters need to check to make sure that they are registered.

I sent an email to news@blackamericaweb.com. Hopefully they will announce this.

ok. I will do the same. Thanks

jelana: Thanks for this address. I just asked them to remind people of any/all DEADLINES related to the Voter Registration process!! :>) :>)

Again, THANK YOU :>) :>)