Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Will Obama's Aggressive New Tone Work?

Barack Obama

Obama's strategy to refocus the campaign comes as national polls show a tight contest and in response to criticism from many Democrats that the campaign is letting the race slip away. (AP Photo/Steve Helber)

Barack Obama's campaign is seeking to retake the offensive in the contest against John McCain today with a renewed focus on the economy. The tactical shift comes as national polls that show a dead heat in the presidential race and in response to criticism from many in Democratic circles who think Obama is letting the race slip away.

The strategy, which was previewed in a story in the New York Times today, rolled out this morning in three parts: two new television ads -- one of which bashes McCain for his computer illiteracy , a memo from campaign manager David Plouffe entitled "Heading into the Final Stretch," and a conference call with Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin and Illinois Rep. Rahm Emanuel. All of the activity came before 9:30 this morning. (The Fix, as regular readers know, likes his sleep. The Obama campaign apparently does not.)

"This is a campaign that has come down to a choice -- do you want someone who will make an authentic change...or do you want someone like John McCain who doesn't believe in change," said Emanuel on the call, summing up the message being pushed on all fronts today by the Obama campaign.

The full-scale assault begs two critical questions: why now and will it work?

Let's unpack them one at a time.

'Why now?' is the easier of the two questions to answer.

For the majority of the summer, the Obama campaign was on offense in the race. The Illinois senator dictated the terms of the debate and the McCain campaign was forced to respond.

But, ever since McCain began pushing the "Obama as celebrity" meme it has been the Republican side that has been controlling the day-to-day back and forth in the campaign. The selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as McCain's running mate further cemented the Republican ticket's control of the debate; since she was picked late last month Palin has absolutely dominated the coverage of the race -- a trend that is likely to continue over the weekend as ABC continues to trickle out its interview with Palin.

For some in the Democratic Party -- which is always waiting for the other shoe to drop on the presidential level -- the events of the past six weeks (or so) have begun to eerily resemble the late summer and fall of the 2004 presidential campaign when Sen. John Kerry watched as Republicans (and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth) reshaped the debate and reelected a somewhat unpopular president.

Asked directly about comparisons to the 2004 campaign, Durbin insisted: "We lived through it once, we won't again."

While the Obama campaign has long pronounced itself immune from the advice and concerns of the Washington chattering class, it also knows that the professional political class in Washington can help fuel campaign narratives -- with unhelpful background quotes, etc. -- and that something had to be done to quiet the nerves of these influential Democrats. Need evidence? The preview of the strategy in the New York Times -- the paper of record for donors -- was a dead giveaway.

The answer to the second question Obama's new campaign tactics raise -- 'will they work?' -- is much harder to know so soon after their unveiling.

At the center of Obama's appeal to voters -- in both the primaries and the general election to date -- is his promise for a new kind of politics, a less partisan brand of governing that is far more solutions-oriented than the past eight years under George W. Bush.

Given that, the fight over the next week or so between the two campaigns will be about whether Obama's push back is nothing more than fair play in light of the tone of the McCain campaign of late or whether it is over the line and a fundamental departure from the post-partisan political brand that has served Obama so well to date.

The debate on that front has already started.

Emanuel, on the call this morning, argued that the new strategy "doesn't fundamentally alter that people see Barack as the candidate of the future," adding that "the American people know this is a big election."

Tucker Bounds, a spokesman for the McCain campaign, was out within minutes of the conclusion of the Obama conference call with a push back. "What is becoming clear to the American people is the fact that Barack Obama has no record of bipartisan legislative accomplishment, no history of bucking his party and no chance of bringing change," Bounds said.

One other potential complication that presents itself when considering the efficacy of Obama's new aggressive approach is that it is focused entirely on painting McCain as out of touch on the economy at a time when many Democrats are clearly itching for the Illinois senator to go at Palin in a meaningful way.

The liberal base of the Democratic party detests Palin in a visceral way and wants to destroy her, regardless of whether it is a sound political strategy or not. Several of the questions asked on today's conference call were centered not on the idea that McCain is out of touch on the economy but rather on why the Obama campaign wasn't hitting Palin more aggressively on some of her perceived weaknesses.

While it's clear that the economic message is the right one for Obama -- take a look at any recent national poll and you will see it as BY FAR the most pressing issue on the minds of voters -- in order to get that attack to stick, the Illinois senator probably needs the activist base as well as the party's chattering class on board. The question is whether anything other than a full frontal assault on Palin will energize the base in the way that can help Obama carry the fight to McCain.

The onslaught by Obama is a clear attempt to reshape the debate in the race, which they have lost control of in recent weeks. To our mind they have picked the right ground on which to fight -- the economy -- but politics is a chess game and this is just the first move. Now we wait to see how the McCain campaign reacts.

By Chris Cillizza  |  September 12, 2008; 12:15 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Friday Line: Defining the Playing Field
Next: Ad Wars: Coleman Throws a Howitzer

Comments

So, it's come down to "my base fighting their base". O.K. Here it goes. Since family values are so important to the Repubs in this election by their parading Sarah's kids out for all America to see, I don't think it should be out of bounds in my judgmental way to say that the Palin's are not a very good parents. If any other cultural group in our society pulled such a stunt, they would have been ostrocized. Only the self-rightous right wingers can get a way with being so hypocritical. Maybe the Palin's are not as much at fault as the McCain handlers.

Posted by: ann | September 15, 2008 2:11 PM | Report abuse

McCain has shown that he is multitalented in being able to channel Richard Nixon in lying campaign commercials, George Bush in foreign policy, and Herbert Hoover in essentially saying prosperity is just around the corner.

Posted by: ejgallagher1 | September 15, 2008 12:56 PM | Report abuse

It's a shame that so many appear to have been reduced to the level of simpering idiocy by listening to Rush Limbaugh and watching Fox 'News'. They seem unable to perceive the basic truth that the neocon movement has failed, the Publican party has failed, and that the peabrains who have been manipulated to vote and act against their own interest over most of the past thirty years have at last brought the country to the brink of ruin. WE ARE BANKRUPT, YOU IDIOTS. How are McCain the lame brain and Palin the dim bulb going to FINANCE the next round of ill advised adventures they propose? Oh, yeah- they'll ask our good friends, the Chinese and the Saudis, to lend us the money IN RETURN FOR OWNING THE REST OF THE COUNTRY. You are moral and intellectual cowards too afraid to confront the enormity of your betrayal of the United States. After the last eight years, it might already be too late.

Posted by: salerno | September 14, 2008 9:43 PM | Report abuse

Can you see through Barak Husein Obama? Free enterprise in America is far from his agenda. Socialism is more government control over every average citizen. Take away the goal of prosperity and there is no middle class. The elite like Obama stay on top and the rest of us working americans get our weekly ration no mater how hard we work. The government gets the rest to keep the elite on top. More Government!

Posted by: Oh No | September 14, 2008 7:25 PM | Report abuse

I think that Obama needs to go after McCain hard, not using dirty tactics as McCain has been using, but going after him with the truth.. Expose McCain for being dishonorable, for not putting country first. For not being able to be honest with his dealings with the American people by endorsing those ads that are filled with lies and distortions. By using the tragedies of 911 for political gain. Obama has to show alot more passion, without being angry. He needs to take a strong stand against McCain and not Palin. Treat her as irrelevant, put no more focus on her because that is what the Republican wants. Leave that to the news media and bloggers. Obama needs to show that he is strong and will fight back. He has to show a stronger image, because we need a fighter in the White House. Someone that will take the bull by the horns and pin him down into submission. Obama said he wants to change the way politics works in Washington and I admire that and I admire him for sticking to his guns on that issue. It shows that he has the stregth to stand up for what he believes in> He does not have to get down in the mud, but he has to throw a punch to show he means business.

Posted by: cokomo | September 14, 2008 3:54 PM | Report abuse

I pay only a very little attention to what Chris Cillizza writes in his articles. I am, rather, here to sow discord and to malign those who support a candidate different than mine as being unAmerican, unintelligent (* although keep in mind that this is a sarcastic charge, as a truly intelligent candidate would understand that these accusations make no sense), immoral (for definition of "moral," see "Swaggart, Jim..." uh, "Bakker, Rev. Ji-" uh, "Thomas, Clar-" uh, I mean, "Christ, Jesus"), and just generally unAmerican (It's a vaguely-defined point which I just keep hitting, and so should you.)

Also, for other self-made conservative activists like me, some advice: it's important to note that any message which you feel is really important should have NUMEROUS SPELLING AND GRAMMATICAL ERRORS. This is necessary in order to convince others "of the flock" that you are genuine in your fervor, and do not have so much book larnin' that you're all smarty-pants and think yer better than the others on your production line (or in line waitin' fer gubmint assistance, or standin' around a fiery cross on Sunday evenin' with all the rest o' your kin.) Very important to reassure your conservative reader that yer jist as dumb as him, prolly even dumberer.

Posted by: Average 'Fix' Reader | September 14, 2008 12:11 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin is a Vice Presidential candidate! She is not the one running to be president, John McCain is. So why on earth would anyone advice Obama to "take on" Sarah Palin? Why has the media turned this into an Obama vs. Palin campaign? Quite frankly, the immaturity that tends to show itself in how the media in the U.S. conducts itself is enough to make people stay away from politics. Obama can still run an aggressive campaign that is based on the current struggles Americans are facing without going negative.

Posted by: Sam Castilla | September 14, 2008 11:02 AM | Report abuse

Yes, Obama is on the right track. The Sleazy McCain camp is on an aggressive campaign of silliness, divisiveness and distraction to confuse the sheeple of America.

They want Americans to associate Obama with everything bad and scary. It is really an impressive pavlovian experiment. Enter voting booth, see Obama, feel bad (issues won't come to mind since McCain doesn't dicusss them) and vote McCain (without really knowing why. Get screwed over the next 4 years.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 14, 2008 10:11 AM | Report abuse

It would be a sad reflection on America if,as implied by a lot of the blogs I have read, the decision of who should be President depends on colour or sex or who is best at denigrating the other! Why not just concentrate on the very major issues-the economy,health care,the state of the planet,security and not being so reactive as to result in more suffering and waste?

Posted by: outside observer | September 14, 2008 6:32 AM | Report abuse

It now appears that the Republicans are on the defensive. Wot, so soon?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 14, 2008 1:59 AM | Report abuse

I can't believe Americans are seriously considering voting for these Republican phonies. THEY ARE LIARS!

Remember this frontpage of UK newspaper after the re-election of Bush in 2004: HOW CAN 57 MILLION PEOPLE BE SO DUMB?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/53461/Daily-Mirror-on-George-Bushs-Reelection?query2=katie%20bair

Don't make the same mistake, America.

VOTE FOR OBAMA!

Posted by: NB | September 13, 2008 11:37 PM | Report abuse

JOHN McCAIN IS NOTHING BUT AN OLD WINE IN A NEW BOTTLE CALLED SARAH PALIN. WE NEED A BIG CHANGE IN THIS COUNTRY AND OBAMA WILL BRING US THAT CHANGE. COME NOV. 4TH 2008 BARRACK OBAMA BY THE MERCY AND BLESSING OF GOD WILL WIN THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. GOD IS WATCHING AND VICTORY WILL BE OBAMA'S. YOU CAN ARGUE ALL YOU WANT, BUT GOD WORKS IN A MYSTERIOUS WAY. OBAMA'S ON HIS WAY TO VICTORY.

Posted by: CAC | September 13, 2008 8:04 PM | Report abuse

Hi,

I wanted to draw your attention to this important petition that I recently signed:

"Impeach Senator Barack Obama"
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/obamaimpeachment?e

I really think this is an important cause, and I'd like to encourage you to add your signature, too. It's free and takes less than a minute of your time.

Thanks!..................................................................

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/obamaimpeachment?e

Posted by: WillNotBeFooledByObamaNATION | September 13, 2008 7:50 PM | Report abuse

- energy independence
- social security
- job outsourcing
- oversite of the banking industry
- oversite of oil market manipulation

Who would trust McCain any more than the current incumbant with these problems? Not me.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 13, 2008 7:10 PM | Report abuse

Now how do we know she has the 'natural ability' to make hard, yet correct, decisions?

Did that come from the talking points this morning, or do you just 'sense' that? or do you know by your own observation?

Just wondering.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 13, 2008 7:05 PM | Report abuse

.


Sarah Palin just starting running for Vice President - the national media is just getting to know her - I can tell you this - I feel 1000% more comfortable with her in command in a National Security crisis as compared to Obama.


Obama has been in war games (scenarios which are run as part of seminars) as legislative training -


Other Senators have commented on how Obama hesitates when asked to make a decision, refuses to order the use of troops (in a war game situation) and will not order the bombs to be dropped (in a war game scenario.)


The Senators who have made public statements expressed doubt that Obama had the ability to handle an actual crisis.


Sarah Palin has the natural ability to lead this nation in a National Security Crisis - the nation can have confidence in her


.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 13, 2008 6:47 PM | Report abuse


.


Sarah Palin has the right instincts: She will order the shooting first and ask Charlie Gibson about the doctrines later.


The Palin Doctrine:


1) Yes it was their fault.


2) Yes they deserved it.


3) Yes I don't care what the doctrine says.


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | September 13, 2008 6:35 PM | Report abuse

Nothing is going to work. He's finished. Outdone by a hockey mom in lipstick.

Posted by: thinkwithyourbrain | September 13, 2008 6:04 PM | Report abuse

You guys do know the real reason McCain can’t use a computer. Hint it has nothing to do with his mental aptitude. It’s the same reason he’s unable to tie his own shoes and comb his own hair. It has to do with having all of his fingers being broken while in the care of those wonderful people of Communist North Vietnam.

Posted by: Batgeek | September 13, 2008 5:23 PM | Report abuse

Obama Cancels SNL Appearance

"In light of the unfolding crisis in Texas, Senator Obama has decided it is no longer appropriate to appear on Saturday Night Live tomorrow evening," his campaign said.

========================================

Since it is learned that the actual candidate that bumps off mutual opponent first will automatically win November's elections and it has nothing to do with issues and popularity polls, wonder if Obama's decision to cancel SNL show this morning and head back to Chicago tonight after rally in NH, is an orchestrated public distraction from his specific attempt to bump off mutual opponent in the middle of the night tonight instead?

Apparently the mutual opponent exposed corruption within both parties and is specifically targeted. It is also learned this party is wealthy so this is another motivation to bump person off.

The question is will Obama solicit an OJ Simpson convict type with jail time to do the bumping off? Will the Dem party employ the popular law enforcement practice of 'sweetheart deals' where such crimes/murders are committed by convicts in exchange for less jail time, conveniently covered up and real culprits publicly unsuspected?

Should we too have to worry about our family's safety as our habits and plans are known in advanced via bugging devices both in private and public places frequented? For example, should we worry when we do our routine jog, shop or are asleep in the middle of the night in the privacy of our home?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 13, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse

As a manager from the computer field I review references and double check resumes before deciding who works for me. This is what the American voter must do.

Too many times I watched peers hire the wrong person and have paid dearly for their mistake. I'm afraid most voters don't do due diligence before going into the voting booth. As for me I wouldn't hire O for anything..

People do your research, don't hang your hat on what CNN, MSNBC, ABC etc report. Fact check anything the media reports (you will be surprised that they don't tell you (the rest of the story).

Posted by: Mgr | September 13, 2008 3:27 PM | Report abuse

All of a sudden McCain and his cohort are hurting with the response to his attacks coming back to hunt him. I think the excuse that the injuries from his detention being the cause of his computer illiteracy is vacuous. McCain has never been a cerebral person and all he ever talks about is war in an age when the world needs meaningful construction. Besides he graduated at the bottom of his class. Please be honest for once Mccain is an antiquated doughnut with nothing between his ears. If his injuries as a POW hinders his computer skills, I think he may be grossly incompetent for high office. I shudder to imagine that McCain who should not be trusted with a pair of scissors is seeking to control America's war arsenal. God save us all.

Posted by: Laitan | September 13, 2008 3:13 PM | Report abuse

.

Voted one of the Nation's Top 5 Blogs for the 2008 Election:


http://www.myspace.com/37thandostreet

.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 13, 2008 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Obama, the next President of the Unites States.

McCain is a liar, thief, crook and mentally challenged.

He dumped his cancer ravaged wife for a millionaire - real family value.

And he has no idea how many houses he has, just like you and me.

He flips and flops whatever direction the wind blows.

Any person with an ounce of brains would not believe a word that this guy says. He is also a member of the Keating-5 - the people who ripped us off of millions.

He can brag about the polls taken on land phones, but the cell phone voters are not reflected in these McCain touting polls.

Stay tune for change with Obama or more of the same with Bush-McSame.

Posted by: Kevin Aslanian | September 13, 2008 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Joan and Catherine,

I dont think how educated you are matters at all. Because i guess you have only been educated the last few weeks and ignored the travesty this country has suffered under the GOP the last 7 years. Do you like high gas? having the constitution stepped all over? Then go ahead and vote GOP, because when we go further down that slope you will have nobody to blame but yourselves....

Posted by: Huh? | September 13, 2008 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Obama thinks he knows what is best for me and my family. He doesn't. He doesn' know me. He doesn't know my preferences. I don't prefer Western healthcare.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 13, 2008 10:15 AM

This is an excellent point and really the hallmark of the Elitist beliefs of the Left. They think they know better.

They think they know better than me as a parent, and want to teach my first grader about condoms.

They Think they know better how to raise my kids. So they want to take them and instill their beliefs and values.

It's sick.

Stay out of my life.

Teach addition, teach subtraction. don's step on my toes as the parent and teach about homosexuality to my third grader.

It is absolutely their belief, and that they know better. That is none of your business.

More and more Americans are opting out for Home schooling, charter schools and Parochial schools.

Posted by: dano | September 13, 2008 1:40 PM | Report abuse

I am a highly educated young voter, and I know many highly educated young voters--none of us are voting for Obama. However, it doesn't take an educated person to figure out that he is not only not ready to lead but he is a socialist who wants to oppress the working class with more and more taxes to fund his socialist programs--aka give away to lazy people who think that the government should take care of them. Be advised that his policy ideas are not about caring about the poor; they are about the government getting more and more control over our lives--telling us what we should believe and what we should do with our money. He is so out of touch with mainstream American.

Posted by: Catherine | September 13, 2008 1:25 PM | Report abuse

Truth is that the democrats chose a very poor, inexperienced candidate based on his celibrity status amoung young voters, the media, and hollwood elitists. He is no where near a candidate of the people. He is a spoiled elistist and now when he loses the election because the poor baby can't handle real politics (as opposed to the cuddleing by the media that he is accustomed to),I am going to laugh so hard--this choice really was comical. How can the people depend on a party who can't even chose a decent candidate much less one that could actually run a country.

Posted by: Joan | September 13, 2008 1:11 PM | Report abuse

You know i am sick of hearing about women moving to McCain because Obama didnt pick Hillary. Where was your enthusiasm in 84? I bet you werent enthused. I like Hillary but she has way to much baggage and nothing concrete to stand on. For those on this blog who are women who say they are not voting Obama because he wouldnt pick Hillary just shut up. You seem to forget that a African American with mixed blood and an Islamic surname which really seems to get the rednecks and racists all rilled up is a bigger thing than a woman running. African Americans have only been able to vote for about 40 years. Yes they have had the chance to vote longer but thanks to the tests the southerners gave them when they tried to vote it has been much harder for them than women. I havent heard of any white women being lynched because of their color. Just remember this, if you act this way now, Hillary will have no chance in 2012 or any other year. There may be 18 million of you but there are many more americans than just 18 million women. And trust me we will remember your childish antics the next election. So go ahead and let your childish actions set women back another 50 years. It will only be your fault....

Posted by: Huh? | September 13, 2008 12:29 PM | Report abuse

I think this NY Times article summs it up very nicely:

As we watched Sarah Palin on TV the last couple of days, we kept wondering what on earth John McCain was thinking.
If he seriously thought this first-term governor — with less than two years in office — was qualified to be president, if necessary, at such a dangerous time, it raises profound questions about his judgment. If the choice was, as we suspect, a tactical move, then it was shockingly irresponsible.
It was bad enough that Ms. Palin’s performance in the first televised interviews she has done since she joined the Republican ticket was so visibly scripted and lacking in awareness.
What made it so much worse is the strategy for which the Republicans have made Ms. Palin the frontwoman: win the White House not on ideas, but by denigrating experience, judgment and qualifications.
The idea that Americans want leaders who have none of those things — who are so blindly certain of what Ms. Palin calls “the mission” that they won’t even pause for reflection — shows a contempt for voters and raises frightening questions about how Mr. McCain and Ms. Palin plan to run this country.
One of the many bizarre moments in the questioning by ABC News’s Charles Gibson was when Ms. Palin, the governor of Alaska, excused her lack of international experience by sneering that Americans don’t want “somebody’s big fat résumé maybe that shows decades and decades in that Washington establishment where, yes, they’ve had opportunities to meet heads of state.”
We know we were all supposed to think of Joe Biden. But it sure sounded like a good description of Mr. McCain. Those decades of experience earned the Arizona senator the admiration of people in both parties. They are why he was our preferred candidate in the Republican primaries.
The interviews made clear why Americans should worry about Ms. Palin’s thin résumé and lack of experience. Consider her befuddlement when Mr. Gibson referred to President Bush’s “doctrine” and her remark about having insight into Russia because she can see it from her state.
But that is not what troubled us most about her remarks — and, remember, if they were scripted, that just means that they reflect Mr. McCain’s views all the more closely. Rather, it was the sense that thoughtfulness, knowledge and experience are handicaps for a president in a world populated by Al Qaeda terrorists, a rising China, epidemics of AIDS, poverty and fratricidal war in the developing world and deep economic distress at home.
Ms. Palin talked repeatedly about never blinking. When Mr. McCain asked her to run for vice president? “You have to be wired in a way of being so committed to the mission,” she said, that “you can’t blink.”
Fighting terrorism? “We must do whatever it takes, and we must not blink, Charlie, in making those tough decisions of where we go and even who we target.”
Her answers about why she had told her church that President Bush’s failed policy in Iraq was “God’s plan” did nothing to dispel our concerns about her confusion between faith and policy. Her claim that she was quoting a completely unrelated comment by Lincoln was absurd.
This nation has suffered through eight years of an ill-prepared and unblinkingly obstinate president. One who didn’t pause to think before he started a disastrous war of choice in Iraq. One who blithely looked the other way as the Taliban and Al Qaeda regrouped in Afghanistan. One who obstinately cut taxes and undercut all efforts at regulation, unleashing today’s profound economic crisis.
In a dangerous world, Americans need a president who knows that real strength requires serious thought and preparation.

Posted by: Couldnt have said it better | September 13, 2008 12:24 PM | Report abuse

God, I miss Hillary. With whatever negatives Hillary brought, they could be surpassed by her temperament, decision-making, and real understanding of the American people. Obama has breathed the rarified air of Hyde Park, Columbia and Harvard Yard. His community organizing was a little social experiment, his internship. Even his recent past does not make him "of the people," and his rock star tour,...er...campaign...just has magnified the phony that he is. The DNC tried to capture what they thought was lightning in a bottle. But the storm has passed, the fog has cleared, and we see Obama for what he is: idealistic, thoughtful, narcissistic and ambitious. But not the leader we need him to be. A good politician would have made the calculation that Hillary on the ticket was better than Hillary off the ticket, and he should have paid homage to Pres. Clinton long before he did. He is very much like George W. Bush in his supreme overconfidence paired with very limited experience. The final straw for me---though I very much thought the ticket should be reversed---was when Hillary was passed over.

I truly hope the Republicans are successful this time around. At least John McCain is what he is, and he is not a phony like Obama. WYSIWYG. With Obama, that changes with the audience, the polls, and the prevailing CW.

The DNC deserves to bear the brunt of the fallout from this election. Whoever was behind this plan to finagle an Obama victory in the primaries should be held to account. I, for one, can't wait to read the tell-all that is in the making.

Hillary 2012

Posted by: Dem for Life Til Now | September 13, 2008 11:55 AM | Report abuse

The only fools that claim that HRC supporters are fully behind NObama now are Nob's media prostitute pals and Nob woshipping gutter rat groupies.

It cracks me up how media prostitutes like Roland Martin and other Non pimps claim on TV that all HRC supporters are behind Nob now. How would these pimps know? From day one, these media prostitutes have been pimping for Nob and trashing HRC using race and sex cards. Now they speak for us?

I don't see any more polls lately how many HRC supporters are for NOb or Mac, and how many will sit home. Perhaps the media prostitutes are afraid to do those polls, because it will burst their gas bubble. The last time we checked, around the time of Nob coronation in Denver, fully 1/3 of HRC supporters were supporting Mac now, and only 1/2 were committed to Nob.

Is it any surprise that there has been a 20 pt swing among white women towards Mac away from Nob since Palin selection? Where do the gutter rat groupies of Nob think those swings came from? From HRC supporting women, that's who.

So, take all your theories such as "HRC supporters will never vote Mac, and against their own interest", and stuff them in your nether regions. HRC supporters know our self interest is in seeing HRC in the WH on Jan 21, 2013. And the only way that can happen is if we vote against Nob on Nov 4, 2008.

Posted by: intcamd1 | September 13, 2008 11:40 AM | Report abuse

One really has to question Obama's recent tactics -- getting aggressive in an irresponsible, negative way makes him seem even more irrelevant. The more I hear from Obama, the less I feel he is Presidential. His best audience is comprised of college students, professors and arrogant intellectuals who have no idea what the rest of the country is about.

My sister sent me a YouTube link that really says it all about national security and whose really qualified to lead our military in these challenging times. Please copy and paste the link below into your browser window. It's a video made by a member of our armed services stationed in Iraq who knows something about service to country and its impact on the world.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4fe9GlWS8

Posted by: MobileMouth | September 13, 2008 11:36 AM | Report abuse

I fell sorry for the republicand that are really blind. I cannot beleive the people of this country can vote for another republican when we have been for more than 7 years of the worst ever goverment in american histoy. How convenient is distance himself from Bush at this time, very convenient. If McBush wins election and in four years from now the country is even in a worst situation than now(and that will be a fact, wait and see what happens after the mortgage resets in 2010 and 2011!) I can see the next republican candidate claiming that he is not the same as McCain, that he is a maverick, that he is an independant. I guess you american want to see you country in ruins devastated to react. And I thougth that there were stupid people only in my country!

Posted by: C Lamas | September 13, 2008 11:24 AM | Report abuse

NO, not most educated people are voting for Obama, most african american people are voting for obama, dont see why people are afraid to say that, thats why he is where he is, they dont care if hes bin laden blood, they just want a candidate that can chit chat with oprah and listen to rap, they just want a black president plain and simple....well u in for a big surprise

Posted by: willie calderon | September 13, 2008 11:06 AM | Report abuse

Wow, yet another flip flop by the Obama campaign. He will use public finance before he won the nomination, he won't use public finance after he is the nominee. He supports the idea of town hall debates with McCain before he was the nominee, then he is against town hall debates once he is the nominee. He will change politics as usual in Washington with bipartisanship, but in campaigns he goes negative against his opponent with same style negative politics in Washington. We just can't trust Barack Obama.

Posted by: reason | September 13, 2008 10:56 AM | Report abuse

You know we are in dire times here in this country. All i see on this blog and other blogs are innuendos, half truths and just blatant racism. People our country is in bad shape. So what do we do about it? Nothing but add more fuel to the already growing fire that is the problems facing our nation. If you want to support your candidate please feel free to do so, but stay with the facts. The stuff i see on these blogs makes me sick. We seem to be more stuck on whether either candidate paid their paper boy like that is somehow going to fix our country's problems. Here is what we need to focus on:

1. Which candidate is better prepared to get us out of Iraq.

2. Which candidate is going to stop high gas prices.

3. Which candidate will fix our education problems.

4. Which candidate will fix our healthcare.

5. Which candidate will do what is right for our country instead of what is right for big business.

We have seen over the past 7 years that poor leadership is the anchor around our necks. So stick with the issues. The rest you can keep to your selves....

Posted by: Pained by the stupidity of my fellow countrymen | September 13, 2008 10:54 AM | Report abuse

I can't wait to vote for McCain and Palin.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 13, 2008 10:23 AM | Report abuse

They can't handle the truth! -- to paraphrase Jack Nicholson.

USS Forrestal 1967...our long voyage into the night continues...
___________


Honesty equals character. Let's do a little fact check on McCain's honesty/character. These are all things


McCain has said:

On Palin:

Palin sold state airplane on e-bay for a profit: False

Palin opposed and killed the "Bridge to Nowhere": False

Palin gained foreign policy expertise by being nominal head of the Alaska National Guard: False

Palin gained foreign policy experience because Alaska is geographically proximate to Russia: Are you kidding?

Palin is a reformer because she has fought earmarks: Wildly false.

On Obama:

Obama supported legislation to teach sex education to
kindergarteners: Offensively false.

Obama referred to Palin as a pig: False

Obama claimed racism against McCain: Completely false.

On McCain:

McCain supports tax cuts for the middle class: False

McCain supports reform of any kind other than simple re-tooling of the current system: False

McCain has any interest in a lasting peace anywhere in the world: False. (Without on-going war, McCain has no reason for being on the national stage.)

McCain is opposed to the influence of lobbyists: Other than his entire campaign staff, True.

McCain is opposed to earmarks: True, only because he favors massive spending without using earmarks, and without making them "revenue neutral" as his idol, Reagan did.

McCain knows anything about the economy: False

McCain knows how many houses he owns: False


Sum: Zero honesty equals zero character.


Posted by: Michael in Los Angeles | September 13, 2008 8:55 AM

Posted by: USS Forrestal 1967 | September 13, 2008 10:19 AM | Report abuse

Obama thinks he knows what is best for me and my family. He doesn't. He doesn' know me. He doesn't know my preferences. I don't prefer Western healthcare. I prefer raw foods and holitic healthcare.
I think that everyone should take personal responsibility for their healthcare and prescrptions should be few and far between.
I want everyone on this board to know that the United States government pays private companies $800-$900 a month or allots that same amount for Medicare per senior citizen for their healthcare.

With Obama's Universal healthcare and with the government administering that you can bet it will double or more.

Obama doesn't know me and he doesn't know what's best for me and I don't care if he can lead, because I am not willing to follow him. He's a power-hungry street thug.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 13, 2008 10:15 AM | Report abuse

O needs to get back on message. Go back to what got him here: a broad message of hope that has excited and energized 100s of millions around the world. Don't waste anymore time on Palin. Don't take the bait and go "angry black man" because the folks who are telling you to do that would then turn around and crucify you.

Palin is no more qualifed than that fool, Elizabeth Hasselbigot. The press has given Palin a free pass. Just deal with it: She has yet to submit to a legitimate interview (Gibson's of course does not count). Her own campaign admits she cannot be interviewed because she is not qualified. The media seems not a bit bothered by her plans to go to war with Russia, her dream of Alaska seceding from the Union, her belief that dinosaurs walked with man, and her devotion to Pat Buchanan's views about fellow Americans of differnt backgrounds (as detailed on the AntiDefamation League site), and her [alleged] racial slurs against Obama, AAs, and Eskimos (as reported by journalist Charley James in laprogressive.com).

If the press isn't going to do their job, it will be tough sledding, but just deal with it. Also man-up and have a (listen, woman) private, in-your-face, one-on-one with HRC: tell her to cut the BS and start campaigning or there will be no Hillary 2012, -16, -20, or -24. It'll be all right. As Maya said, "Strong men, keep a'comin'."

Cap

Posted by: Captain America | September 13, 2008 10:09 AM | Report abuse

I think it interesting to juxtapose this story "Will Obama's new aggressive tone work?" Against the story running on Politico "Why McCain is going so negative, so often." This article supports and encourages Obama's "new aggressive tone" and suggests that it demonstrates a new hard edge to a candidate, who has lied, distorted and manipulated the "truth" to fit his own reality since the beginning of this campaign. On the other hand, Politico's article, chatises McCain, the cynical old war dog, for going "negative" and leaving behind the old "straight talk express" in favor of gutter politics.

The fact of the matter is that both candidates are doing and saying what their campaign staff think they need to do to win. This is nothing new in American politics and, when the stakes are this high, will be played out again just as rough and just as dirty again four years from now.

These two stories demonstrate well the media bias for the liberal democrat and against the conservative republican, but one only need to tune in talk radio to discover the exact opposite.

It is for the American people to do, to wade through political double speak and cast their vote for the the candidate they think most able to lead this country in what will be a very scary and challenging world environment. It is important that we, as voters, not get to caught up in the process, but focus down on what we think the two presidential candidates will bring to the world stage. Palin and Biden will both be post scripts within 3 months of the election, so neither "heartbeat" really matters that much.

This is going to be a nasty, down in the trenches, down and dirty confligration. The candidate who emerges will be all the tougher and the more prepared for the more important battles to come. After the election we will not come together as a nation, and we never have. People either loved or hated Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John Kennedy, etc. They all became more loved and less reviled as the decades passed. We are an imperfect political system that continues to produce imperfect leaders. But those leaders often rise to the occasion and perform in crises in ways we would never have imagined. We will continue to be divided over race, ethnicity, class, and shared values as we are in our families, in our cities and towns, from state to state and in nearly every facet of our lives. America is the greatest human experiment ever undertaken on this earth. One candidate will win and one will lose, and there will be great hand wringing and gnashing of teeth. And then we will get on with it. No country on earth provides the kinds of opportunities that America provides to her citizens...........and so the contest to lead her must be as brutal and uncivilized as it is. No risk no reward. Take heart people, we all win for the process.

Posted by: Ron Adolph | September 13, 2008 8:57 AM | Report abuse

Honesty equals character. Let's do a little fact check on McCain's honesty/character. These are all things McCain has said:

On Palin:

Palin sold state airplane on e-bay for a profit: False

Palin opposed and killed the "Bridge to Nowhere": False

Palin gained foreign policy expertise by being nominal head of the Alaska National Guard: False

Palin gained foreign policy experience because Alaska is geographically proximate to Russia: Are you kidding?

Palin is a reformer because she has fought earmarks: Wildly false.

On Obama:

Obama supported legislation to teach sex education to
kindergarteners: Offensively false.

Obama referred to Palin as a pig: False

Obama claimed racism against McCain: Completely false.

On McCain:

McCain supports tax cuts for the middle class: False

McCain supports reform of any kind other than simple re-tooling of the current system: False

McCain has any interest in a lasting peace anywhere in the world: False. (Without on-going war, McCain has no reason for being on the national stage.)

McCain is opposed to the influence of lobbyists: Other than his entire campaign staff, True.

McCain is opposed to earmarks: True, only because he favors massive spending without using earmarks, and without making them "revenue neutral" as his idol, Reagan did.

McCain knows anything about the economy: False

McCain knows how many houses he owns: False


Sum: Zero honesty equals zero character.


Posted by: Michael in Los Angeles | September 13, 2008 8:55 AM | Report abuse

Get over the lipstick comment. Obama was NOT referring to Palin, but should have been. Or is that insulting to pigs?

The truth: Being last in your class, responsible for crashing 6 planes, a POW, abandoning your wife after a horrible car accident for a younger wife, and a history of voting with Bush 95% of the time DOES NOT MAKE MCCAIN QUALIFIED for anything other than our sympathy. We can feel sorry that he was captured and tortured. That does not mean he should be president, or like someone else said, that would make Guantanamo an Executive Training Facility.

Palin had to go to 5 colleges in 6 years to graduate with C's. Her son entered the military because he was offered jail-time or service time last year for an offense. Her 17-yo daughter is pregnat. These are not attacks, these are the truths. So get off your high-horse Republicans, because you have it so wrong.

Posted by: Paula | September 13, 2008 8:51 AM | Report abuse

"Most educated people are voting for Obama."

My husband and I aren't. Between us we hold 5 advanced degrees, including 2 PhDs in science and applied math.

Posted by: educated and voting red | September 13, 2008 8:46 AM | Report abuse

Obama went groveling at the feet of Bill Clinton this past Thursday, presumably to learn from the master of deceit and obfuscation.

It won't work any better now than it did when Bill campaigned for Hillary.

How can Obama get back "on message" when he never had one to begin with? Change and hope? Suddenly, he is reverting to all of the tired cliches espoused by Dick Durbin and Rahm Emmanuel. Change and hope is the campaign strategy for every politician.

Posted by: pickled herring | September 13, 2008 8:38 AM | Report abuse

Oh, my gosh, a McCain supporter grasping at a few words, taking them out of context, and distorting them into supporting sex education for children. No, such a thing could never happen! The bill was intended to teach children how to AVOID molesters. A simple reading of it, and Obama's words, make this plain. So much for "Straight Talk."

Obama should take McCain apart over the kindergarten "sex ed" ad. Any one knows that Obama's legislation was meant to protect children from harm. McCain's ad reveals that, at his heart, McCain has no character and, frankly, no reliable sensibility. His reputation for acting before thinking needs to be exposed, and he needs to be prevented from inflicting that on the nation.


Perhaps reading the text of the bill vs. what Senator Obama said it was for would point out the ad is in fact true

Posted by: Michael in Los Angeles | September 13, 2008 8:21 AM | Report abuse

"Obama should take McCain apart over the kindergarten "sex ed" ad. Any one knows that Obama's legislation was meant to protect children from harm. McCain's ad reveals that, at his heart, McCain has no character and, frankly, no reliable sensibility. His reputation for acting before thinking needs to be exposed, and he needs to be prevented from inflicting that on the nation.

Posted by: Michael in Los Angeles | September 13, 2008 7:59 AM "


Perhaps reading the text of the bill vs. what Senator Obama said it was for would point out the ad is in fact true

Posted by: BTY767 | September 13, 2008 8:11 AM | Report abuse

this country lost all its respect and standing around the world.....guess why....because what you see now in the election....lies, plus all the white people supporting mccain just b'coz he is white....thats way stupid.....this is one more reason why our country is also struggling economically....and what not...god save this country ...i hope people realize whats at stake...obama is the best candidate i have seen in years...why cant americans just give him a chance....so deeply in race and gender....i'am a white and i dont look at our country as how other see...i will vote for obama

Posted by: john | September 13, 2008 8:06 AM | Report abuse

Obama should take McCain apart over the kindergarten "sex ed" ad. Any one knows that Obama's legislation was meant to protect children from harm. McCain's ad reveals that, at his heart, McCain has no character and, frankly, no reliable sensibility. His reputation for acting before thinking needs to be exposed, and he needs to be prevented from inflicting that on the nation.

Posted by: Michael in Los Angeles | September 13, 2008 7:59 AM | Report abuse

It's amazing that Obama would stoop so low to mock John McCain's war injury.

Posted by: C.M. | September 13, 2008 7:41 AM | Report abuse

.

Voted one of the Nation's Top 5 Blogs for the 2008 Election:


http://www.myspace.com/37thandostreet

.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 13, 2008 7:15 AM | Report abuse

Obama seems to be completely losing it. The man of Hope seems to have abandoned it. Anger and hostility now rules the day.

Posted by: Hope of the past | September 13, 2008 7:11 AM | Report abuse

Obama's party invented the Internet (remember Gore) and sent coded messages to his Hussein brothers in the middle east. BTW, What was Barack Hussein doing in Pakistan in the early years. Any MSM care to investigate instead of looking for trash in Alaska's dumpsters

Posted by: Anonymous | September 13, 2008 7:10 AM | Report abuse

No longer can Americans trust the media, which was given special constitutional privileges to look out for the folks."Obama is an empty suit. From the day he was sworn in to the Senate to the date he declared his run for the presidency, is only 145 days on the job. He has literally no experience. (Not figuratively, literally!) He's not qualified to run a Dairy Queen.

Proven Obama has most liberal voting record in the U.S. Senate. Obama is to the left of Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Russ Feingold, Pat Leahy and Barbara Boxer. That's extremely difficult to do. Obama is a textbook big-government, tax-and-spend liberal. He plans to raise income tax rates, capital gains tax rates, Social Security taxes (by virtue of eliminating the cap), dividend taxes, inheritance taxes, and introduce a slew of new taxes. His plan will destroy this country

To ALL the obamakins and of course the bias CNN & MSNBC I have one simple request. Please spare me the hope and the change bull, and the Bush's third term, McSame etc… Please just tell American voters what qualifies Barack Obama to run this country. What qualifies him to oversee our $14 trillion economy, the largest on earth? What qualifies him to be commander-in-chief of the U.S. armed forces in a time of war? Please just give me one single solid qualification. And race does not qualify!! That would be one more than anyone including cable media has provided to date. WE ALL HAVE GROWN EXTREMLY TIRED OF MEDIA SAINTED OBAMA….

Aug. 22 (Bloomberg) -- Nigerian Stock Exchange Chief Executive Officer Ndi Okereke-Onyiuke is being investigated after holding a fund-raising event linked to U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama, Agence France-Presse reported.
U.S. electoral laws forbid donations from foreigners to electoral campaigns.

Obama keeps reaching back to Chicago political past for policy advisers, and pulling one despicable, vile, and even evil “rabbit” after another out of his hat.
The list of Barack Obama’s radical associations is long and it keeps getting longer. Some are now well-known, but many are not. They need to be.

23 years at TUCC with Jeremiah Wright and James Meeks. racist sermons on Youtube.
He chose the most radical church in the country; chose to immerse himself in hard-core ideological radicalism. Never before has this country considered such a radical leftist for its chief executive.

Michael Pfleger and his hateful and race-hating ramblings, Obama met while carrying out his own radical social activism as community organizer at ACORN, (radical organization)

Penny Pritzker, heads Obama camp National Finance Committee was president of Superior Bank - massively failed and she literally bought her way out of jail paying $460 MILLION fine; was the very epicenter of subprime loan scandal” that would come to eat this nation’s financial system alive.

Fannie Mae CEO Jim Johnson, former head of Obama’s vice presidential selection committee, discovered he benefited from sweetheart loans from subprime king Countrywide.

Tony Rezko certainly and his federal indictments and financial dealing with Obamas of course and William Ayers, US terrorist bomber, Obama-co-lecturer, fellow board member, neighbor, and friend.

Communist Frank Marshall Davis, obama mentor; Saul Alinsky and Gerald Kellman (Kellman’s Woods Fund is how Obama hooked up with terrorist William Ayers)

Chicago lawyer Mazen Asbahi, appointed as Obama camp national coord for Muslim n affairs also stepped down after news about his stint on the fund’s board - which includes fundamentalist imam - prompting The Wall Street Journal inquiries about relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood and his long personal relationship with Hamas Jamal Said.

Obama desperately needs voters to forget hes the son of a Muslim father who served an incredibly brutal and corrupt Kenyan government; to forget he attended a madrassa in Indonesia and practiced Islam; forget that he campaigned in Kenya on behalf of Raila Odinga, who relied upon chaos, corruption, and violence in his campaign; numerous associations with radical Muslims; forget the photographs of Obama in traditional Muslim clothes, hanging with Muslim radicals such as Mazen Asbahi and anti-Semite Rashid Khalidi.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 13, 2008 7:08 AM | Report abuse

Enough. Obama need not take the same old low road paved by Rove. He IS the candidate of change - and should ignore all advice to campaign otherwise. He does not need to rally a base, he needs to continue to win over intelligent independents and republicans - and the only way to do that is to stick to the issues and contrast the differences between the McCain/Bush/Neocon agenda, and his agenda for peace and prosperity.

Posted by: Franco | September 13, 2008 6:55 AM | Report abuse

Current members of Congress have received $3.8 million from the [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] since 1998 (including only their candidate committees). Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), chairman of the Senate banking committee, collected the most from the employees and PACs of both mortgage buyers at $133,900. Democrat Barack Obama collected the most from individuals associated with Fannie Mae at $101,150 and a total of $122,850 from both companies, putting him behind Dodd. Obama's opponent in the presidential election, John McCain, has received only $21,300 from both since 1989.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 13, 2008 6:29 AM | Report abuse

Obama's latest ad mocks John McCain's inability to use a computer ignoring that, due to his war-time injuries, McCain is unable to type on a keyboard.

We already knew Obama has a habit of talking down women, but the fact that his campaign now also mocks disabled people is news to me !

Posted by: Mbruno | September 13, 2008 6:27 AM | Report abuse

All Recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Campaign Contributions, 1989-2008

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/update-fannie-mae-and-freddie.html

Barack Hussien Obama was number three in the list coming in at $111,000 received from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Yeah, Obama represents change.

Suckers.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 13, 2008 6:26 AM | Report abuse

McCain CAN'T use keyboards - or tie his own shoes or comb his own hair - for a physical reason: His war injuries. So it's not a matter of being out of touch. It's a matter of a physical disability earned while serving our nation. Are the Democrats making fun of him for that??? That's pretty low.

Posted by: Lee | September 13, 2008 6:25 AM | Report abuse

I laughed seeing the NY Times front pager on Obama's gonna get tough. Do tough people say "OK, now I'm gonna get tough". The campaign bellowing about new toughness is universally understood as the sign of fearing loss, and being weak. Tough guys don't say they'll get tough -- they act tough all along.

Posted by: Rodger Lodger | September 13, 2008 5:54 AM | Report abuse

If Obama is so smart, and so nuanced, and is such a great decision maker and leader. Why isn't Hilary the VP? The one big decision he had to make, the one that would have put him in an no lose position, and he blew it for LACK OF COURAGE.

Posted by: ableto | September 13, 2008 5:49 AM | Report abuse

Obama's coming apart in the general election because he's a LIBERAL EXTREMIST:

- DEFEAT in IRAQ;
- NO DRILLING, NO NUCLEAR ENERGY;
- BIG BLOATED GOVERNMENT;
- MORE ABORTIONS;
- SUBMISSION to ISLAMIC TERROR;
- More TAXES.

His ideas are REPULSIVE.
His RECORD = ZERO.

Obama is AGAINST AMERICA.

Posted by: Obama_Rolls_Over_&_Sinks | September 13, 2008 5:48 AM | Report abuse

Chris, you take care. Thanks for the chance to comment.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 13, 2008 5:16 AM | Report abuse

I don't know about McCain supporters in general, but some of them here are blowhards and boors.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 13, 2008 5:14 AM | Report abuse

Oh, I think that new ad is not as good as his others. It's sinister and has lost the playfulness of the "What a Wonderful World" ad, which I realize is the point. Gloves off. It's aggressiveness might work. I dunno.

McCain supporters are already arguing that McCain's war wounds make it difficult for him to type and so Obama is essentially picking on a gimp war hero. In addition, he's picking on seniors and the poor, despite the fact that many of those seniors are computer literate and many poor have access to computers in school. These assertions are being derided in blogs but that won't be enough. They'll need to be answered on tv and in print too, I think.

I don't think Sen. Obama needs to worry so much about Gov. Palin. I doubt it will be a cake walk for her after seeing the Charles Gibson interview.

People are fed up with Rovian tactics. Period.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 13, 2008 5:05 AM | Report abuse

I haven't seen the ads. But I think Senator Obama needs to be aggressive tough, not aggressive mean. Cool-headed and affable.

I notice Obama's supporters are fighting back. Big time. I wonder how many of them have participated in the election polls everyone cites. Not many, I would guess. I haven't. I don't answer the land line phone. I am not young.

Contrary to what Rove would have Obama believe, many people like Senator Obama. He needs to redouble his efforts and reach outside his base. He knows that.

Sounds silly perhaps, but I hope he's exercising, eating right, and sleeping. It's important. He needs to remain the picture of health compared to his senior opponent.

Have fun. I see he's planning to on Saturday Night Live. Excellent.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 13, 2008 4:29 AM | Report abuse

Palin, actually whacked corruption in her own party in Alaska... several times. Which seems to be one of the reasons McCain picked her; as he's gone after Republicans in the past as well.

Obama changed nothing coming up through Chicago, then picked a D.C. insider as his VP.

So who's going to change D.C. for the better?

Obviously Obama is saving his energy, which is why he went along with corruption in Chicago... or something. Right?

Because he's going to change things; even if he hasn't yet anytime he's had the opportunity to do so... I hope?

Wait, is that the hope and change?

Posted by: Gekkobear | September 13, 2008 4:18 AM | Report abuse

mccain send emails constantly, although they are dictated to his aids or his wife because he cannot use a keyboard.

mccain has been a leader in the senate on technology, as chairman of the commerce committee, and in his 2000 run innovated how the internet could change politics, a path that was mimicked 4 years later by howard dean and eventually barack hussein obama.

obama attacking mccain because of his war injuries is easily the lowest shot in political history, and would be equated to if bill clinton had mocked bob dole for being unable to shake hands with his right hand or write his name.

obama owes disabled vets around the country an apology.

Posted by: max | September 13, 2008 4:10 AM | Report abuse

Listen up all of you people that generalize & so easily categorize others into BUNDLES. Educated people DON'T DO THAT.

I have noticed that a large number of Obama supporters are especially guilty of "miscalculating" people that don't agree with THEM, the dogma dictates of their con-artist ObamaMessiah, and his lavish "rockstar" (so-called) principles.

This behavior is repetitive and near-robotic. Most often the responses are as predictable as Obama's - the One over whom they swoon & idolize!

"Oh, it's just the same old Washington politics" he said/she said.......
"What this country needs is a NEW KIND of politics based on HOPE [gag] and change.." [double gag].

Bizarre.

Do any of you Obama supporters EVER ask HIM any questions? Do any of you REALLY want to know the TRUTH? Is any one of you capable of independent thinking?

Assuming you supporters are truly on a quest for TRUTH and "independent thinking" happens to be within the range of all of your vast capabilities, perhaps you Obama supporters should be asking YOUR candidate WHY he continues to cite Factcheck.org as HIS independent fact-checking source in HIS GROWING "Fight-The-Smears" campaign? Perhaps certain of you people should verify your rockstar candidate's claims instead of just blindly believing everything he says.

What's the biggie, anyway? There's no worry, no loss & no harm done IF all of your candidate's claims are true, correct?

There is absolutely ZERO RISK!

Take a stand! Ask your leader why he continues to cite as independent a fact-checking source over which he presided and continues to have enormous influence? Just ask HIM, the Obama, how "Annenberg Factcheck.org" can offer the "independent" verification so critically necessary to his "fight-the-smears" responses?

If the thousands of (unprecedented) charges leveled against him are truly lies as Obama repeatedly states, then why does Obama support those claims by checking them against his personal affiliation & conflict-of-interest site, FactCheck.org?

If the claims are, in fact, LIES -then wouldn't you think Obama smart enough to "check the facts" with alternative sources with which he is unaffiliated?

Just think: Obama could immediately quash all of this adversity by simply authenticating his claims and versions of TRUTH against a truly independent fact-checking source.

Yet, Obama has failed in this regard. To my knowledge, Obama was unrestrained when he decidedly enlisted a source with which he has a conflict-of-interest to support his claims that the so-called "Republican" allegations against him are all lies, lies - NOTHING BUT A PACK OF SAME-OLD-POLITICS LIES!

In essence, Obama used HIMSELF to support HIMSELF.

Ahhhh......INTERNAL regulation at its best....

The ONLY POSSIBLE explanation for Obama's reckless reliance on "Annenberg FactCheck.org" is - if and only if - the stated allegations are TRUE.

Oh. There is one other remote possibility: repeated instances of stupidity & negligence.

What of the two stated options do you Obama supporters find more appealing, if any? Huh? Or - which amongst you will resort to the "same ole......same ole...rhetoric" and instead go on the offensive by attacking ME, the messenger?

Certainly, Obama should be secure with himself and in his message. At this point Obama should ONLY strive for UNFILTERED TRUTH. His supporters should mimic Obama in that regard and strive for the same. Transparency should not pose a threat to Obama as long as Obamas "Truths" are NOT the SMEARS in disguise. Obstruction & secrecy just doesn't cut it.

You see, ALL of Obama's "truth" claims come into question once there is a challenge to his source of factual proof. The most disturbing of all is the reason behind Obama's proof-positive decision.

No, I'm not a Republican. I'm a Democrat, far left of center. But, I don't like lies, cheating, fakery, persuasion, caucus fraud & the resulting disenfranchisement. I vote based on experience.

Never would I vote for Obama - a man who I understand is guilty of many things and therefore untrustworthy. Moreover, the fact that Obama questions dissent is troublesome. Obama knows quite well that there is no democracy without dissent. Obama and his PRO spin-cycle media all know quite well that many of us who don't support Obama are also well-educated. Some of us even have Ph.D.'s! Huh? Imagine that!

Posted by: AMockery08 | September 13, 2008 3:56 AM | Report abuse

The democrats want to take the US back to 9-11.

Here is some information

NONE OF THE 9-11 Hijackers were from Afghanistan.

Osama Bin Laden and the entire Al Qaeda leadership are not from Afghanistan.

If the war on terror is just about Afghanistan please explain all of this.

9-11 happened cause the US allowed what was going on in the mideast to continue.

9-11 was the price of doing nothing about the mideast.

The main reason for terror is that middle east regimes and elites encourage it.

Posted by: Jonathan | September 13, 2008 3:25 AM | Report abuse

Sure he could hunt and peck with one finger, but since it is painful, why should he? He reads newspapers every day, as do I, and I am a software engineer with a CPSCI degree. It's far easier for him to use a cell phone or simply speak to his staff. His routine is also to read his email with his wife, and then dictate responses. There are numerous Internet references to this, as well as his chairing the Senate Technology Committee during his 2000 run in which his campaign used the Internet to great effect. You are simply wrong, as is Obama's campaign. The complaint is not unlike making fun of Roosevelt's wheel chair, and they will look even more ridiculous in the coming response, gaining ridicule for making fun of a disabled vet. They will continue the free-fall right up to the election, taking some Congressional Democrats with them.

Posted by: FlyDiesel | September 13, 2008 3:16 AM | Report abuse

Repubs are very good at projecting out onto the Dems whatever they are trying hard to get away with...ie...all attacks on palen are now sexist remarks yet when they went off on Hillary in the primaries it was not sexist - you guys need to show the comparison to get ahead....you are on the fefensive and need to get back on the offensive quickly...Palen is a distraction - that your surrogates go after her. You need to press the point that Palen can go after the Dems that gives the Dems the right to respond in kind...she is a pit bull according to her own words then she should expect to be hit with questions that are hard as a pit bull can take....last, but not least, Hillary is not out there campaigning very hard for you - I really feel, deep in my heart, that she wants McCain to win so she can go after him in 2012????not that she will win.....

Posted by: kathy mac | September 13, 2008 3:15 AM | Report abuse

The Messiah can do no wrong, heretic!

Posted by: Soothsayer | September 13, 2008 3:13 AM | Report abuse

What kind of person would make fun of a war veteran who has trouble using a keyboard because of the torture inflicted on him during service to our country?

How can you do this and hold yourself up as a candidate for presidency of this country?

Posted by: No excuse for this one. | September 13, 2008 3:10 AM | Report abuse

Actually, Sen. McCain is not in the US Congress, Mr. Snippy. And certainly, his office and campaign make good use of all available technologies.

Posted by: flamingo | September 13, 2008 3:08 AM | Report abuse

Microsoft operating systems have come equipped with 'helper' services for the disabled since 1993. I know, because I have configured them for disabled, computer-literate persons since that time.

Posts stating that Senator McCain cannot utilize a personal computer due to disability -- a result of his being tortured -- are emotionally resonant, and absolutely false.

Surely the U.S. Congress has employees like myself who can enable Senator McCain's computer with adaptive technologies for the disabled. Or, lacking that, I'm certain the Senator could hire his own staff to perform this function.

In today's age, when so many disabled citizens enjoy an improved quality of life due to various computer technologies -- from screen readers to TTY to voice recognition software -- there simply isn't an excuse for not knowing how to utilize a computer. If Senator McCain doesn't know, he hasn't tried to know.

Posted by: billducks | September 13, 2008 2:55 AM | Report abuse

A new ad from Obama making fun of McCain because he can't send email. Uh, a little googling would reveal that McCain's hands were broken and thus he can't use a keyboard. Yup, mocking disabled vets will get Obama votes. Smart strategy that, like his trashing rural women, senior citizens, and pregnant girls. Oh, that's right, it isn't working, as his recent poll numbers show.

Posted by: slickerwick | September 13, 2008 2:54 AM | Report abuse

Can Obama lead? No he can't. Sure Obama can promise things as president, but he can't deliver. He can only ask Congress to do things. With 50% of the voters against Obama, chances are slim that anything of his will pass. Obama has a better shot of getting thing done as a senator, but spending just 140 some days in his two years of office isn't going to do anything.

Obama has been helped by spending $40 million a month and having bands open up for him. He has very little in terms of loyal followers. That's why he is trying to bribe people with sweet tax deals and universal health care. That money of course will be coming from their own pockets so it;s like taking $20 out of your wallet and then putting it back into your wallet and then claiming you got $20 more.

On the international level, he will be known as the Bay of Pigs kind of flip flopper. Nobody will bond with him because he will just change his mind midstream, especially if he watches poll numbers. Obama doesn't want to get stuck in an unpopular international issue even if it's the right thing to do.

I believe that President Obama will just be boxed in and ineffective. At least McCain has made real friends on the Democratic side and around the world. Obama has nobody to turn to.

Posted by: Greg | September 13, 2008 2:52 AM | Report abuse

When is Charlie Gibson going to ask Obama about his views on homosexuality? After all, Obama has inside knowledge.

Posted by: flamingo | September 13, 2008 2:34 AM | Report abuse

Good point about McCain. Most people don't realize that a military pilot has to take
courses in advanced mathematics and engineering. These are not easy subjects.

Posted by: GJM | September 13, 2008 2:30 AM | Report abuse

What do you think of a man that will prosecute a war even if it lasts 100years PROVIDED THERE ARE NO LOSS OF LIVES. I guess you'll describe such a person as insane. This was McCain brainlessly boasting about fighting in an illegal war in Iraq.

Posted by: I love the USA | September 13, 2008 2:28 AM | Report abuse

It's not going to work with me. Obama was the candidate of change, remember? Well, apparently he forgot, and now is coming out of the closet as a conventional politician.

Posted by: Mary Eckertz | September 13, 2008 2:28 AM | Report abuse

Senator Obama said we had 57 states,did not know that Russia had a veto in the UN Security Council, was against the surge and thinks the president has to call in the Joint Chiefs in order to pull out of Iraq(as commander-in-chief
he does not need their advice on this).
One could go on and on.

The press would be all over Sara Palin on
these things.

And you people are scared of Sarah?

My point here is that any candidate can make a mistake.

Posted by: GJM | September 13, 2008 2:27 AM | Report abuse

First, we have Joe Biden encouraging a handicapped, wheelchair bound MO State Senator Chuck Graham to stand up for a crowd.

And now we have the latest ad from the Obama/Biden camp making fun of John McCain for not being able to use a computer or send email. Obama/Biden poke fun at McCain, suggesting he is old and doesn't get the new technology.

One small problem. John McCain's hands were so severly crushed by his torture as a POW, he can't use a keyboard (During the 2000 election both the Boston Globe and Slate coved this.). It is physically impossible for him. John McCain cannot brush his own hair or tie his own shoes. He is a brilliant man, but he cannot lift one of his arms higher than his elbow. Prior to being tortured and having his bones broken over and over, John McCain could fly jets. So let's not pretend McCain is some doddering buffoon who doesn't understand technology.

Posted by: Paul | September 13, 2008 2:22 AM | Report abuse

Imagine this sorry scenario for God's Own country: A senator seeking the highest office in the land talking about Czechoslovakia; probably thinks Canada is in Europe and Mexico is in Asia. He has no clue about the greatest invention of our time and is supported by a pretty face with so much foreign policy experience derived from her proximate residence to Russia. The next we'll hear is that Pageantry is sufficient qualification for. How are the mighty falling.

Posted by: Laitan | September 13, 2008 2:18 AM | Report abuse

Georgia an independent, sovereign country wants to join NATO a mutual, DEFENSIVE
alliance.
Russia invades and occupies this sovereign nation. That is acceptable?
The whole point of NATO is to pre-emptively
prevent this from happening. The expectation that military action would ensue is enough to dissuade any aggressor.

Posted by: GJM | September 13, 2008 2:12 AM | Report abuse

Chris:

HRH Elizabeth can use the first person plural when referring to her decisions and idea. You are a commoner, a mere piss-ant and any one piss ant liberal or jackass, who uses the first person plural when writing about his opinion is an effete liberal Grow a pair and use the word I.

free advise that you a piss-ant will reject.

Posted by: Not a Yank | September 13, 2008 2:05 AM | Report abuse

Chris:

HRH Elizabeth can use the first person plural when referring to her decisions and idea. You are a commoner, a mere piss-ant and any one piss ant liberal or jackass, who uses the first person plural when writing about his opinion is an effete liberal Grow a pair and use the work I

free advise that you a piss-ant will reject.

Posted by: Not a Yank | September 13, 2008 2:04 AM | Report abuse

Can the McCain supporters please respond to the last 2 entries below?

Posted by: Laitan | September 13, 2008 2:01 AM | Report abuse

McCain can't even represent Arizona well. How in the world could he lead our country?

Posted by: David in Tucson | September 13, 2008 1:49 AM | Report abuse

my problem with the neocon republican party is quite simple. while was a great idea, and businesses createthe jobs. problem is the current capitalists are overly greedy, they lie, they cook the books, the inflate stock value, and unfortunately you can only hide that so long before the bottom falls out!!!
yet i hear john mccain talk about more deregulation?? i just heard a report that pilots are begging the FAA for more regulation because the airline have laid off much of the workforce and the remaining pilots are being ask to fly more and more routes without proper rest. we've seen bear sterns, fanny mae, freddie mac, and now lehman brothers all lined up for bailouts. why? because we deregulated the banking/mortgage industry. the made loans to unqualified applicants to get higher returns. the people defaulted banks lost their money, house values dropped. i see washington federated is nearing collapse, next will be the big 3 auto makers.
i see a lot of people saying a lot of things about obama, and there is reason for concern. but some i think are not. income taxes. the hero of republicans, ron reagan. came in and lowered everyone's taxes. the deficit started growing out of control. but he was smart. over the next 6 years he raised the taxes on the top 5% of earners 6 times, then bush 1 raised them again. it didn't get under control till the second year of clinton. then we had 5 years of budget surpluses. what did bush 2 do? he cut them again!! and now we are 8 trillion in debt. mccain want to cut them across the board even deeper!! and he still has major spending in his "platform" how will they be paid for?
do i think everything obama wants to do is great?? no way. he has too much spending, but at least he is bringing in revenue and of the two he is the only one talking about public works and infrastructure. i feel he is offering more in the direction i'd like the country to go. all i hear from mccain in earmarks, which makes up about 2% of the budget. and a call of reform but what is he reforming?? i here him say washington, but what? he has major washington lobbyist in nearly every paid position. he picked one of the top oil industry lobbyist to head his transition team. obama has lobbyists too. but if you go head to head, mccain's guys are bigger, the lobby us congress, and they do it for foreign countries.plus he is making reform and getting rid of lobbyists his #1 issue!! i'm going for obama but if he scews up as bad as bush i will spend every minute i can to destroy the 2 party system. that is the biggest problem in this country. activists from the far end vote in the primaries, we end up with the most extreme candidates. mccain and the party thought he wasn't far enough to the right so the had him go ultra right wing with palin. he wants her to be energy czar because she "fought" big oil. she fought them to get more taxes from them. and once they agreed, she fought every alternative form of energy. check her veto's.
this election has once again become a popularity contest. who is most like us. who can we have a beer with. who talks plain. why is it that someone being intelligent, well read, and a great speaker a bad thing?? i want my president to be smarter than me!! i want him to know stuff. i want him to inspire people. i want him to be a guy who wows me with new ideas, not drink a beer with me. maybe i'm being an idealism. i hope that i am!!

Posted by: Jaison Biagini | September 13, 2008 1:40 AM | Report abuse


If McCain is going to lie about Obama, it's time to tell the TRUTH about McCain:

He dumped his first wife who waited for him while he was a POW.

He dumped her for a younger, wealthier woman after she had lost her looks in a car accident.

He married the woman with whom he was having an adulterous affair.

That woman has since then supported him.

He only got into the Naval Academy with his dreadful high school grades because his daddy was and admiral.

He graduated 894th out of 899 in his college class.

He lost FIVE planes as a navy pilot -- only one of those when shot down to become a POW. How many other Navy pilots would have gotten a 5th chance if their daddy wasn't an admiral? ZERO.

He has never earned a dime other than from the US government.

He has been supported by others almost all his life -- first his father and now his trophy heiress, drug addict wife.

He protected his drug addict wife from being prosecuted for stealing drugs from her charity to support her habit.

He was a charter member of the Keating Five bribe takers.

His campaign is run by lobbyists -- who advise him to rail against lobbyists, and of course he does.

His association with one female lobbyist got so close that his staff intervened -- it didn't have to be sexual; he was doing all she wanted w/o that.

He said the war in Iraq was a great idea and would be easy, cheap, and over in a matter of weeks -- oops, he went 0 for 3.

He now says anyone who thought it would be easy was a fool -- and he's right -- he's a fool whose judgment is so rash and dreadful he shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the White House.

He approves ads based on lies and distortions. This isn't just "tough." These are LIES and intentional distortions that demonstrate a complete lack of ethics.

He has zero ads on actual issues. It's a new lie every day to try to go another news cycle w/o talking about his already-failed-once policies.

He said the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans were unfair -- until he needed to switch that position to get nominated.

He said waterboarding was torture -- until he needed to switch that position to get nominated.

He proposed a bipartisan immigration bill with Sen.Kennedy -- until he had to oppose it to get nominated.

He authored a campaign finance bill -- then violated it in the primaries this election.

He admitted he knows next to nothing about economics.

He thinks we could have "won" the war in Viet Nam -- which means we'd still be there were it up to him.

He thinks we can "win" the occupation in Iraq and is prepared to stay 100 years if necessary to do so and since that looks like $10b per month plus untold deaths for decades to come if he has his way.

He wants Georgia to be a member of NATO -- which would mean the next time Georgia attacks and gets crushed we WOULD be obligated to go to war (not "perhaps" as his moron VP pick suggested).

He has serious anger management issues that make him scary as hell near a nuclear "button" and make his foreign policy based on 100% bluster and threats even scarier than Bush's.

His fits of rage can also lead to a heart attack which could stick us with the least competent VP of all time -- well, maybe Dan Quail has retired that crown.

He is 72 years old and like everyone else that age has a failing memory -- he has trouble remembering which Islamic sect is which w/o Joe Lieberman prompts.

I could go on, but to sum it up for now:

He is 100% pond scum with no redeeming characteristics and has been for a LONG time and is absolutely destroying the integrity of our very democracy and we haven't even reached the policy issues that make him so out of touch with the American voters that he spends every day talking about ANYthing else.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 13, 2008 1:39 AM | Report abuse

All of a sudden McCain and his cohort are hurting with the response to his attacks coming back to hunt him. I think the excuse that the injuries from his detention being the cause of his computer illiteracy is vacuous. McCain has never been a cerebral person and all he ever talks about is war in an age when the world needs meaningful construction. Besides he graduated at the bottom of his class. Please be honest for once Mccain is an antiquated doughnut with nothing between his ears. If his injuries as a POW hinders his computer skills, I think he may be grossly incompetent for high office. I shudder to imagine that McCain who should not be trusted with a pair of scissors is seeking to control America's war arsenal. God save us all.

Posted by: Laitan | September 13, 2008 1:38 AM | Report abuse

Where the hell are Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton? They are supposed to be such tough fighters -- so step up and do some attacking. Obama should not be on his own here. The GOP is filling the air waves with daily lies and distortions. Where is the support? I know the Clintons probably want Obama to lose, but what about Biden? JOE, you weren't picked to smile at the PTA in Pennsylvania. Speak UP!

Posted by: Anonymous | September 13, 2008 1:35 AM | Report abuse

I must say, watching the US presidential election `soap opera'is great from outside America. It will truly be a sad day should McCain/Palin win this race. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out that, this will definately lead to the demise of such a great nation. Anyway, a country deserves its own leaders ..........

DJ

Posted by: D George | September 13, 2008 1:31 AM | Report abuse

Obama mocks McCain's inability to send email --- the man was crippled as a result of torture. What kind of sick bstrd is Obama?

Posted by: flamingo | September 13, 2008 1:29 AM | Report abuse

That is right Hillary Supporter. BOTH OBAMA/BIDEN AND MCCAIN/PALIN ARE STANDING ON A PILE OF SH!# WHILE CALLING EACH OTHER STINK.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 13, 2008 1:23 AM | Report abuse

"Most educated people are voting for Obama."

Most wise people will vote McCAIN/Palin

Posted by: Mary McCurry | September 13, 2008 1:16 AM | Report abuse

I am a Hillary supporter. I will be voting McCain/Palin not because they are perfect, but because they are the lesser of 2 evils. This is the quickest way for us moderates to get out of this morass.

Posted by: Hillary Supporter | September 13, 2008 1:14 AM | Report abuse

We try to teach our children the importance of honesty and integrity. You would expect grown ups, who are running for the highest office of the country would cringe from out right lies. In all politics, we do expect some stretching of the truth. However, courtesy of Rove et al, McCain and Palin are wearing lies as a badge of honor.

I know I should not be appalled but I am. How can we trust McCain and Palin as potential candidates for the presidency and VP of this country, if they dare to look at us in the eye and lie over and over again? They lie in the speeches. They lie in the rallies. They lie in the ads. They lie in the interviews. We are not talking about stretching the truth but out right lies. They continue to lie about Palin’s achievements. They lie about their positions. They lie about what Fact Check wrote. They lie about almost everything. This is offensive.

For me, McCain and Palin have demonstrated their character deficient. It is a win at all cost. They intend to garner votes through lies first and repeat it until it almost becomes truth. Rovian McCain made calculated decision to reap the benefits of these lies in both introducing Palin and wrapping himself around with the mantel of change. They decided that truth will never catch up with a lie, so they are running off with these lies. This Rovian campaign has the gall to grossly distort their opponent’s record as in "supporting sex education for kindergarteners," and stick with it. McCain just did that in his interview with "The View." He is betting that half of the voters are too busy trying to make ends meet as working parents, with children that they have no time to verify his blatant lies.

At the same time, McCain crowns himself as “The POW” and extols his character and virtues. We heard so much about his POW experience that you would think McCain is the only POW in this country. For every misdeed of his, he pulls out the POW card. It was an unfortunate experience that McCain should be respected for, but this is “a lie, a smear and a POW”

McCain did show his true character. He has no honor or integrity. No shame will hold him back. He is blinded by ambition and he thinks we owe him the presidency. Sadly enough, McCain wants to reign over America, while he is utterly disdainful of the American people. I hope enough voters take the time to check McCain's “supersized” lies and call him out on it.

Welcome to the ME ME ME first McCain alla Rove.

I am cringing for you McCain. Grow up and shame on you.

Posted by: ZAZ-MD | September 13, 2008 12:32 AM


******


and what are these massive lies. You mean like when Saint O says he will raise capital gains to 29 % then 25% then 20% and each time claim that is what he was saying all along.

Posted by: kabookey | September 13, 2008 1:11 AM | Report abuse

Most educated people are voting for Obama. The usual flock of thugs are out touting the same tired old stuff about race, religion, guns, patriotism etc. to drum up support for McCain and the nitwits are falling for it. Again. Hopefully the educated ones will prevail this time.

Posted by: MM | September 13, 2008 12:37 AM
---------
You folks just don't get it.

If Obama wishes to be President, it is HIS problem and not that of the people you look down your nose at.

Obama's remarks to a group of wealthy San Francisco backers who share his world view are not surprising. Surely no one in that audience was even remotely disconcerted much less offended. Just as does Obama, they despise religion, the gun culture, xenophobia and the pitiful creatures that embrace them. Perhaps the only surprise is that someone in that crowd would let the cat out of the bag.

Leftist elitists have always had a hard time comprehending why working people don't believe (and vote) as the intellectual elite thinks they should. Karl Marx even had to invent a new social group, the "lumpen proletariat" to cover workers who lacked the social consciousness he thought they should have. He explained these "class traitors" who wouldn't join his revolution as people who had either only recently fallen into (and resisted accepting) proletarian status or those workers who (foolishly) aspired to be something more. And further Marx explained religion (which Obama tells us these folks are "clinging to") as "the opiate of the people."

Well surprise, surprise...human beings are more than economic automatons and in a classless society individuals are constantly rising from nothing (sometimes even from trailer parks) to fame and fortune. Marx failed to properly envision the future. What is Obama's excuse for failing to understand what is here and now? He'd better grasp it quickly (and convincingly) if he hopes to be President. There is nothing "wrong with Kansas"...the problem is in Oz where he and his friends (like MM and so many other commentators here) live.


Posted by: Cincinnati Rick | September 13, 2008 12:59 AM | Report abuse

Hey Chris, ever consider doing some factchecking on that "computer illiteracy" charge? Your bias and failure to question the Messiah, at any time, is clear. This is a puff piece begging to start the "Obama as tough campaigner yet still for post partisan politics" narrative.
Ridiculous.
http://graphics.boston.com/news/politics/campaign2000/news/McCain_character_loyal_to_a_fault+.shtml
The Obama Campaign May Have Finished Itself Off Permanently — Through Utter Cruelty
By SusanUnPCcloseAuthor: SusanUnPC Name:
Email: susanunpc@gmail.com
Site: http://noquarterusa.net/
About: See Authors Posts (1341) on September 12, 2008 at 9:58 PM in Barack Obama, John McCain, McCain/Palin 2008, Media Handling of Story, Obama Attack Ads, Obama's Thugs, Obamedia, arrogance

Today, the Obama campaign launched a smart-alecky ad mocking John McCain’s age and inability to keep up with modern devices, such as using a computer. Why, John McCain doesn’t even know how to send an e-mail. Writes Mark Halperin for Time’s blog The Page, “In one of his two latest TV spots, the Land of Lincolner gets personal, saying McCain has admitted he doesn’t know how to use a computer or send an e-mail, doesn’t understand the economy.”

Here’s the problem: John McCain cannot send an e-mail, not because he hasn’t bothered to learn, but because he is physically unable to do so.

John McCain, because of the torture he endured as a prisoner of war, cannot use a computer keyboard. John McCain can’t even comb his own hair.

This ad, released by the Obama campaign today, and played numerous times on television, is utterly cruel, and should not only be pulled from the Obama Web site and Obama YouTube channel — where it is still displayed — but also require Obama to issue a profound apology:


Thanks to Ed Morrissey, we have the full back-story on this:

Earlier today, Barack Obama’s campaign released an ad attacking John McCain for not knowing how to send an e-mail. Their crack research team apparently never heard of Google or Lexis-Nexis, but Jonah Goldberg does. He discovers why McCain doesn’t use a keyboard — his torturers made sure he couldn’t. The Boston Globe reported it eight years ago:

McCain gets emotional at the mention of military families needing food stamps or veterans lacking health care. The outrage comes from inside: McCain’s severe war injuries prevent him from combing his hair, typing on a keyboard, or tying his shoes. Friends marvel at McCain’s encyclopedic knowledge of sports. He’s an avid fan - Ted Williams is his hero - but he can’t raise his arm above his shoulder to throw a baseball.

After Vietnam, McCain had Ann Lawrence, a physical therapist, help him regain flexibility in his leg, which had been frozen in an extended position by a shattered knee. It was the only way he could hope to resume his career as a Navy flier, but Lawrence said the treatment, taken twice a week for six months, was excruciatingly painful.

”He endured it, he wouldn’t settle for less,” said Lawrence, who rejoiced with McCain when he passed the Navy physical. ”I have never seen such toughness and resolve.”

Making fun of a war hero’s severe injuries — smooth move, Team O. Talk about computer illiteracy! Doesn’t anyone on the Obama campaign know what they’re doing? Didn’t it ever occur to them that a man who can’t raise his arms above his head might have a physical barrier to using a computer?

Thank you, Ed.

What a terrible error, Team Obama.

The sooner you issue a truly sincere apology, the better.

If you have the character to do so.

Frankly, I doubt you do.

In your world, Being O means never having to say you’re sorry. Or eat humble pie.

Your arrogance will be the ruin of you, Barack.

Not to mention the Democratic party.

Posted by: J.G. Anderson | September 13, 2008 12:57 AM | Report abuse

Most educated people are voting for Obama. The usual flock of thugs are out touting the same tired old stuff about race, religion, guns, patriotism etc. to drum up support for McCain and the nitwits are falling for it. Again. Hopefully the educated ones will prevail this time.

Posted by: MM | September 13, 2008 12:37 AM


**********

Yea, that is why Saint O is running radio spots here in PA saying that the day after McCain wins he will strike down ROE v Wade. Talk about playing the wedge issues. Saint O is talking out of both sides of his mouth, the man is a fake.

Posted by: kabookey | September 13, 2008 12:57 AM | Report abuse

Most educated people are voting for Obama. The usual flock of thugs are out touting the same tired old stuff about race, religion, guns, patriotism etc. to drum up support for McCain and the nitwits are falling for it. Again. Hopefully the educated ones will prevail this time.

Posted by: MM | September 13, 2008 12:37 AM | Report abuse

We try to teach our children the importance of honesty and integrity. You would expect grown ups, who are running for the highest office of the country would cringe from out right lies. In all politics, we do expect some stretching of the truth. However, courtesy of Rove et al, McCain and Palin are wearing lies as a badge of honor.

I know I should not be appalled but I am. How can we trust McCain and Palin as potential candidates for the presidency and VP of this country, if they dare to look at us in the eye and lie over and over again? They lie in the speeches. They lie in the rallies. They lie in the ads. They lie in the interviews. We are not talking about stretching the truth but out right lies. They continue to lie about Palin’s achievements. They lie about their positions. They lie about what Fact Check wrote. They lie about almost everything. This is offensive.

For me, McCain and Palin have demonstrated their character deficient. It is a win at all cost. They intend to garner votes through lies first and repeat it until it almost becomes truth. Rovian McCain made calculated decision to reap the benefits of these lies in both introducing Palin and wrapping himself around with the mantel of change. They decided that truth will never catch up with a lie, so they are running off with these lies. This Rovian campaign has the gall to grossly distort their opponent’s record as in "supporting sex education for kindergarteners," and stick with it. McCain just did that in his interview with "The View." He is betting that half of the voters are too busy trying to make ends meet as working parents, with children that they have no time to verify his blatant lies.

At the same time, McCain crowns himself as “The POW” and extols his character and virtues. We heard so much about his POW experience that you would think McCain is the only POW in this country. For every misdeed of his, he pulls out the POW card. It was an unfortunate experience that McCain should be respected for, but this is “a lie, a smear and a POW”

McCain did show his true character. He has no honor or integrity. No shame will hold him back. He is blinded by ambition and he thinks we owe him the presidency. Sadly enough, McCain wants to reign over America, while he is utterly disdainful of the American people. I hope enough voters take the time to check McCain's “supersized” lies and call him out on it.

Welcome to the ME ME ME first McCain alla Rove.

I am cringing for you McCain. Grow up and shame on you.

Posted by: ZAZ-MD | September 13, 2008 12:32 AM | Report abuse

Obama on offense is like watching the Rich Kotite Jets.

Compare - "he admits he still doesn't know how to use a computer, can't send an e-mail."

with -

"In certain ways, McCain was a natural Web candidate. Chairman of the Senate Telecommunications Subcommittee and regarded as the U.S. Senate's savviest technologist, McCain is an inveterate devotee of email. His nightly ritual is to read his email together with his wife, Cindy. The injuries he incurred as a Vietnam POW make it painful for McCain to type. Instead, he dictates responses that his wife types on a laptop. 'She's a whiz on the keyboard, and I'm so laborious,' McCain admits."


http://www.forbes.com/asap/2000/0529/053_print.html

Posted by: Anonymous | September 13, 2008 12:16 AM | Report abuse

One Basic economic fact you need to know:
The government takes. It takes money. It takes property. It does not produce anything. It does not earn anything.
It re-directs wealth according to the whims
of a few powerful people in Washington(elected and unelected).
Before Jimmie Carter, there was no Depts' of Education and Energy. We are spending $500-600 billion combined each and every for these two behemoths. Are we getting our money's worth? Who cares?

Posted by: GJM | September 13, 2008 12:14 AM | Report abuse

Gjm
I will tell you who is advising Obama-
He's here with us tonight; he is

CONNECTICUT MAN who understands NOTHING
about ECONOMICS

Posted by: DogWalker | September 13, 2008 12:07 AM | Report abuse


Senator Obama said we had 57 states,did not know that Russia had a veto in the UN Security Council, was against the surge and thinks the president has to call in the Joint Chiefs in order to pull out of Iraq(as commander-in-chief
he does not need their advice on this).

The press would be all over Sara Palin on
these things.


Just who the H*** is advising the "Trancendant one"? Al Franken?

Posted by: GJM | September 13, 2008 12:05 AM | Report abuse

Forget it folks; all is lost on Connecticut Man. He doesn't have the brains to understand basic economics.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 13, 2008 12:02 AM | Report abuse

I am guessing the end of republican rule really scares you all because your arguments have gotten ridiculous to the point where we don't even have to rebut them.

First, Joe Liberman has to endlessly correct McCain on war... Then he has to tutor the incompetent choice of Palin in the same. And to top it all off they are learning it all from the idiot neocon Joe Lieberman to begin with.

I don't blame the GOP for being scared... But I do blame them for their failed choices and inability to take responsibility for them.

Posted by: connecticut man1 | September 12, 2008 11:59 PM | Report abuse

"connecticut man - businesses are not in the charitable giving business, they are in business to make money. I risk my capital to make as much money as i can."

Quit your crying about your economic problems when millions are on the edge of losing their jobs and homes. John McCain wants to keep his endless wars going at the 10 billion per month hole this economy is getting buried under... And you will leqave the country if someone comes into to stop the financial insanity of the childish republicans?

And when your problem is that the people that work for you want to be paid a fair wage? Get out of business or get out of the country (which you say you plan on doing) if you don't have what it takes to make it in this country. But quit your belly aching over your problem.

If you really want to belly ache? Take it up with the free market theory run amok republicans that built the failures everyone else is suffering under.

Posted by: connecticut man1 | September 12, 2008 11:49 PM | Report abuse

Marist 09/05 - 09/08 805 RV 48 45 Obama +3
Fairleigh Dickinson 09/04 - 09/07 872 LV 47 41 Obama +6
Quinnipiac 08/04 - 08/10 1468 LV 51 41 Obama +10
Rasmussen 08/04 - 08/04 500 LV 52 42 Obama +10
Monmouth/Gannett 07/17 - 07/21 698 LV 50 36 Obama +14

************************

Look out below....there goes New Jersey!
14pt lead down to margin of error in 6wks.
Looks like Sarah's wowing them in Secaucus.

Posted by: Scott | September 12, 2008 11:39 PM | Report abuse

Mentally, Obama is a teenager.
He looks like a kid and his emotions are those of a teenager. It's kind of like he's stuck in time.....he's like someone who never grew up.

I notice he smokes too. The people I have met who are smokers are often really nice people, but they can't say "no" and they are weak in that regard. That's how I see Obama, except that he's also a teenager.

Posted by: HangerOuter | September 12, 2008 11:28 PM | Report abuse

connecticut man - businesses are not in the charitable giving business, they are in business to make money. I risk my capital to make as much money as i can. many times it is up and down, a lot one year not so much the next. It's called risk, reward, capitalism. I help people along the way because if I am profitable I can hire people and they can support their families. Now I buy components from China because if I don't i will not be competitve, thus I will go out of business and everyone will lose their jobs.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 11:28 PM | Report abuse

"McCain gets emotional at the mention of military families needing food stamps or veterans lacking health care."

And after he gets all emotional about it he votes against paltry raises in the minimum wage and money to improve healthcare for veterans. And then he gets even happier (what an emotion, eh?) as he counts the thousands he saved in taxes from bush tax cuts. What? All you got was a few hundred bucks outa that deal?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 11:25 PM | Report abuse

I saw yesterday Saint O was crying about the lipstick remark and saying how we should be talking about issues and then today he comes out with an ad making fun of McCain for not using the internet or sending email. Which is Saint O? issues or personal attacks. This is why he is failing as well, you can cry one day and then the next day do exactly what you were crying about. McCain should come out and say enough Saint O, stop your crying and start campaigning and let the best man win, you little jerk!!!

Posted by: kabookey | September 12, 2008 11:23 PM | Report abuse

how in the bleep does he (continue to) get away with this??? "do you want someone who will make an authentic change"

oh, that's right, the media could care less about pinning obama down on the outrageousness of his candidacy's entire premise that in some apparently hidden part of his brief career he has been something other than the go-along-to-get-along pol that has NEVER so much as wobbled the boat.

yet *now* somehow this pol which votes his party line 97% of the time is "post-partisan" and a "change agent" - incredible that anyone other than hardcore lefties and dreamy eyed college students would fall for the gaping disconnect between his rhetoric and actual record (what little there is of it).

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 11:23 PM | Report abuse

Connecticut Man-

I only gross $1200 a week NOW.
I don't HAVE ANOTHER $1000 coming in!!!

Got that? It isn't there.
I'm trying to be nice to you but you aren't getting it.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 11:22 PM | Report abuse

Just translatign for those of you that miss this:
"It's like this-I need markeing help. If I hire them here in California I am looking at $25 an hour for 40 hours a week or $1000 a week. I can't afford that. However, I could move to Costa Rica and sell my product in the US and hire a Costa Rican for $7 an hour."

Translation: I refuse to pay a living wage for any market in the USA and never mind what the free market demands.

Like I said... You've got yours and you don't care a bit about this country or its people. Just YOU and YOUR MONEY. YOU and YOUR MONEY and off to another country to live happily ever after.

Funny how corporations, small businesses and workers still managed to make good money before bush messed up the entire economy with his voodoo economics. Too bad McCain supporters can't admit the truth about that.

Posted by: connecticut man1 | September 12, 2008 11:18 PM | Report abuse

"Our economy wouldn't survive without the Internet, and cyber-security continues to represent one our most serious national security threats," [Obama spokesman Dan] Pfeiffer said. "It's extraordinary that someone who wants to be our president and our commander in chief doesn't know how to send an e-mail."

Well, I guess it depends on what you mean by "extraordinary." The reason he doesn't send email is that he can't use a keyboard because of the relentless beatings he received from the Viet Cong in service to our country. From the Boston Globe (March 4, 2000):

McCain gets emotional at the mention of military families needing food stamps or veterans lacking health care. The outrage comes from inside: McCain's severe war injuries prevent him from combing his hair, typing on a keyboard, or tying his shoes. Friends marvel at McCain's encyclopedic knowledge of sports. He's an avid fan - Ted Williams is his hero - but he can't raise his arm above his shoulder to throw a baseball.

Posted by: Dumb,,, really... | September 12, 2008 11:15 PM | Report abuse

I will bet John McCain is sitting at home right now trying to brush up on his computer skills.

It is pretty clear that the O campaign really doesn't know what to do and the heat has just begun. I am sure they would really like the american people to focus on McCain's computer literacy (always a strong skill for a CEO) than on the issues that keep swirling around Oand which I am sure some will turn into full force hurricanes before this over :

His choice of friends, Rezko, Ayers, Wright

His complete lack of accomplishment (oops excuse me...he did write two books about himself I guess that counts if you actually have something to talk about)

His complete inability to pick a path and walk it....offshore drilling, public financing, Georgia, clean campaigns

His inability to make a decision...present? well I guess the people of Illinois should be glad he was at least there....if this man actually had to make a decision they couldn't get the snow of the streets of Chicago.

His complete lack of understanding of the position of the United States in the world today....lets have meetings with everyone who presents a threat to the US...and if we are too busy we will just have the UN have a go at them

His inability to admit that he may be wrong about something....his continued insistence that the surge failed...huh?

His decision making capability...he could have won this election if he could have brought himself to make Hillary VP...instead he choses Joe Who?...oh yeah...that guy who has lived in the Senate more than half of O's lifetime...and this is change....

Yeap...this is the definitely the guy I want running the country. I think I will stick with the guy that needs to figure out where the on switch is on the computer!

Posted by: Larry | September 12, 2008 11:13 PM | Report abuse

So...

Now we have:
1. Obama's VP pick state that Obama has no foreign policy experience and should not be president(watch the commercial!!)

2. Obama's VP pick state that Hillary was a better VP pick than he was

3. Obama bash McCain on inability to use a keyboard because of injuries sustained in a POW camp

You liberals are a joke and make me sick.

McCain/Palin '08

Posted by: Mindscape | September 12, 2008 11:10 PM | Report abuse

AE Bergin-
Patience, friend.....the only way people are going to learn this economic stuff is if you and I educate others whenever possible.

I know it seems unfathomable that they don't know basic econ,but if you and I don't volunteer whenever possible to teach others, it will only get worse.


Posted by: Karenabcde | September 12, 2008 11:06 PM | Report abuse

Connecticut Man-
It's like this-I need markeing help. If I hire them here in California I am looking at $25 an hour for 40 hours a week or $1000 a week. I can't afford that. However, I could move to Costa Rica and sell my product in the US and hire a Costa Rican for $7 an hour.

This means if I stay in the US I can't afford help of ANY KIND. My business will always stay small. Instead, if I move to Costa Rica, I can hire a helper, and they can help me make more money than I can make myself here or in Costa Rica.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 11:01 PM | Report abuse

When are people going to realize that Corporations and businesses don't pay taxes they only collect taxes and send them on to the government. If a company lets the tax burden eat into its profits over a long period of time is ceases to exist. either the owners will quit qnd close it down or the shareholders will change the management or desert it. I will admit that corporate executives are paid too much but that is a function of the job market place and soft boards of directors and best covered in another discussion.

Posted by: A.E. Burgin | September 12, 2008 11:00 PM | Report abuse

I am sick of the hypocritical attacks. We talk about change then throw Hilliary under the bus as she is not qualified while selecting an old geezzer that has been in the Senate longer than McCain. I also want to know a little more about the plagarism charges and all the other questionable things he has been involved in. Sounds like a BIG change to me as he has spent most of his life in Washington.

Wake up you liberal nuts.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 11:00 PM | Report abuse

Connecticut Man-
Actually, no I dont' "have mine".
I have been trying to "get mine" for the last 25 years. I am finally in a position to expand my business. I can't expand it here. Worse, I live in California. The taxes are very high.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 10:57 PM | Report abuse

"angry black man on the attack... no that won't scare white america... smooth move nobama"

Woohho! Comments straight off of KKK supporters pages. HINT TO MCCAIN CHUMPS: Just because Palin runs with bigots like her BFF Mark Chryson hasn't made bigoted attacks acceptable in America.

IT'S THE TRUTH, LET'S FACE REALITY

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 10:55 PM | Report abuse

Heard you loud and clear:

"Am I am bad person for trying to survive and not giving the job to someone here in the US?
It's called survival for me as a small business. I can keep more of what I earn, whereas the US government wants almost 50% of my earnings."

You've got yours and screw the workers and America. <<< Just summin' it up for everyone.

Posted by: connecticut man1 | September 12, 2008 10:54 PM | Report abuse

I saw`yesterday that under obama's tax plan I will pay an additional $155,000. There goes my charitable contributions.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 10:52 PM | Report abuse

"multiple liberal press sources, in 2000 before the media turned on McCain, reported that exact fact."

When you make yourself look foolish by lying over and over again in front of millions of people don't blame the press for reporting on it.

Posted by: connecticut man1 | September 12, 2008 10:52 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: scrivener | September 12, 2008 10:51 PM | Report abuse

Connecticut Man-
Please read the rest of my post.
The whole reason jobs are being sent overseas is that the countries overseas
make it easier for businesses to do business.

I am a small business owner. I will be moving my business to Costa Rica because the taxes are SOOOOO much lower. Am I am bad person for trying to survive and not giving the job to someone here in the US?
It's called survival for me as a small business. I can keep more of what I earn, whereas the US government wants almost 50% of my earnings. Can you blame me?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 10:50 PM | Report abuse

"angry black man on the attack... no that won't scare white america... smooth move nobama"

Woohho! Comments straight off of KKK supporters pages. HINT TO MCCAIN CHUMPS: Just because Palin runs with bigots like her BFF Mark Chryson hasn't made bigoted attacks acceptable in America.

Posted by: connecticut man1 | September 12, 2008 10:49 PM | Report abuse

I ♥ SARAH!

EVEN DEMOCRATS ♥ SARAH!

Posted by: GJM | September 12, 2008 10:47 PM | Report abuse

Great Ad by Obama. Wonder if they considered that McCain has trouble typing due his injuries he sustained as a POW. In fact, multiple liberal press sources, in 2000 before the media turned on McCain, reported that exact fact.

Posted by: Bob-Ohio | September 12, 2008 10:47 PM | Report abuse

"l. Taxing employers will not increase wages. What it will do is take away money that the business could use for a) hiring more employees and b) buying equipment for employees to operate."

That would be great if they weren't shipping jobs overseas and unemployment weren't skyrocketing under this bush plan of voodoo trickle down crap. The same economic crap McCain hugs to like a life preserver on the Titanic.

Posted by: connecticut man1 | September 12, 2008 10:44 PM | Report abuse

angry black man on the attack... no that won't scare white america... smooth move nobama

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 10:42 PM | Report abuse

It won't be four more years of Bush and
hopefully it won't be this Obama who said we had 57 states,did not know that Russia had a veto in the UN Security Council, was against the surge and thinks the president has to call in the Joint Chiefs in order to pull out of Iraq(as commander-in-chief
he does not need their advice on this).

The press would be all over Sara Palin on
these things.

Posted by: GJM | September 12, 2008 10:40 PM | Report abuse

Hi Razorback-

You are asking the questions that should be asked.
l. Taxing employers will not increase wages. What it will do is take away money that the business could use for a) hiring more employees and b) buying equipment for employees to operate. There will also be less money for marketing. If there is less money for marketing, then fewer products will be sold. If fewer products are sold, then wages must be lowered or the employee must be FIRED because there is less income from fewer products being sold.

NEXT: Will taxing businesses that sell to consumers raise prices? Well, think about it....going back the the question just above......now there is less revenue, right? So what that means is there is less income to spend for the business. The government will grow because they now are receiving the extra money. The business can't grow because now the government took away the money.

NEXT; Why Obama will not rescind the Bush tax cuts in a recession. The reasons are many, but the principal one is the Democrat philosophy. Democrats believe that you are too stupid to know what to do with your own money. They think government is smarter so government should take your money and spend it for you. There are many problems with this-first, you are not as stupid as they want you to believe. Second, this country was founded on the idea of smaller government. Right now 1 in 3 people in this country works for the government, whether it is the federal government, the state government, or local or city or county government. Have you ever had to stand in line at the DMV to get your license? Takes a while, right? Have you ever had to figure out your taxes? Takes a while, right? Have you ever tried to explain Medicare to anyone? Takes a while, if not impossible.

Here's an easier way to understand all this: in this world, money flows to where it is treated best. Right now it is flowing out of the United STates because other countries are providing less regulation for businesses. Less red tape, fewer environmental regulations, and on and on. Why should a businesss locate in the United STates when they don't have to be taxed up the butt if they move for example, to Costa Rica? Well, INTEL has done that. And many other companies are moving offshore. This is where the jobs are going. That's another reason our economy is so sucky because the government in the US is making it so hard on business to do businesss.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 10:40 PM | Report abuse

Tickets to Palin's visit to Colorado this Monday are sold out.

By the way, in consideration of the shrill reaction from the intolerant left, the Democratic Party should consider changing their name to:

The Abortion Party

Posted by: American | September 12, 2008 8:17 PM

We'll charge ours if you'll change yours to

The back ally coathanger abortion liars party

Posted by: SARAH PALIN THE REPUBLICAN LIE | September 12, 2008 10:39 PM | Report abuse

Shame on you girlyboy Obama:

A Barack Obama ad that mocks John McCain for not being able to use a computer and send an e-mail apparently didn't take into account the fact that the Republican presidential nominee can't use a keyboard because of the severe injuries he suffered as a Navy pilot and POW during the Vietnam war.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 10:39 PM | Report abuse

Yes, let's have Barack get really mad. Then he will remind everyone of an angry black man and McCain wins. You know all those innocent, functional blacks sitting in jails around the country who should be at Harvard instead.Still those brothers scare the hell out of whites, even liberal whites. Except for the masochists.

Posted by: paladin | September 12, 2008 10:34 PM | Report abuse

"That is no longer true.
For sure he is not an expert but his children are quite versed in computers and
so he has excellent teachers."

Are his kids going to teach him about foreign policy? Because John McCain doesn't a clue about that either. It is no wonder he wants to saty in Iraq forever... Then he wouldn't ever have to admit his mistakes pushing to go to Iraq in the days after 911.

Endless republican failure. Yep! America needs 4 more years of bush.

Posted by: connecticut man1 | September 12, 2008 10:31 PM | Report abuse

I'm not surprised that the Republicans think Sarah Palin did a good job. They think Bush is doing a good job. We as Americans should know not to expect dissention on things that are blantantly wrong from the Republican party. They are a party of mouth foaming liars who think if they yell garbage louder than the other person with their pressed suits it makes it so. But in November they will understand that the American people don't need anyone to tell them that John McCain is a Republican first and will do and say anything to win this election. In fairness all Palin did was energize the base of the party, which is still not enough to win the election.
Anyone that is considering the position of VP or President of the United States needs to know what the Bush Doctrine is and all the nuances that go with it. I bet OBAMA knows and has a few revisions and nuances of his own. This is the least of the many issues on Foreign policy alone she should be well versed on and this shows she is wholly not prepared or qualified for the position she was nominated for. But, even if she doesn't want to or can't acknowledge this basic fact the American people will let her know in November. It's not up to OBAMA to run his campaign any differently than what got him here and inspired so many Americans and take back OUR government. It's up to the American people to stand up and say ENOUGH!.

OBAMA-BIDEN '08

Posted by: OBAMA-BIDEN '08 | September 12, 2008 10:22 PM | Report abuse

About McCains ability(or inability) to use
the Internet. That is no longer true.
For sure he is not an expert but his children are quite versed in computers and
so he has excellent teachers. I also saw a
recent photo showing McCain using a cell phone. What people need to take note of is that to become a military pilot, you have to take courses in mathematics
and engineering which would provide a
challenge to many of McCains critics.

Posted by: GJM | September 12, 2008 10:21 PM | Report abuse

"Why is it that the Dems have to bad mouth McCain because he can't use a computer or do e-mail. They are such A holes."

Why is it that the GOP has to bad mouth everyone that points out the complete failure of the last 8 years and doesn't want to see it continue? McCain was the best of the worst the republican party had to offer this year... And that is pretty sad.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 10:21 PM | Report abuse

Aggressive tone won't work. He's still the same guy who hangs around with Chicago street thugs. You'll know a person by the friends he keeps. Geez he's married to that angry scowling puss, Michelle and is buds with that creep Wm Wright, and plans his campaign with Wm Ayers and is buds with Tony Rezco convicted felon, takes money from Hezbollah, has his yard next to his house "paid for" by Rony Rezco, raised money for those creeps in ACORN, has only BEEN A SENATOR FOR FOUR MONTHS----vomit

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 10:18 PM | Report abuse

Why is it that the Dems have to bad mouth McCain because he can't use a computer or do e-mail. They are such A holes. Don't they realize that this man so was badly tortured that he can not even comb his hair, tie his own shoes, among other things that we can't even comprehend. I didn't realize to be president you had to know how to use a computer. I guess it is more important for someone to vote PRESENT instead of YES OR NO on legislature (Illinois) on certain bills. I guess he didn't understand that a YES OR NO NEEDS TO BE THE ANSWER.... NOT PRESENT. I guess PRESENT would suffice on a very, very, very, very important traumatic happening if it would happen to our country, huh???
Boy is this man an elitist or WHAT and has no FRICKEN idea what he would do in a catastrophe. GOD HELP US..... But I guess when he opens his e-mail "lights will flash and fireworks will go off" and he will know what to do. But then he may have to think about PRESENT. WOW WHAT A FAKE.

Posted by: Joy | September 12, 2008 10:17 PM | Report abuse

Failed republican government produces nothing of use to the average American. But when you want to drown government in a bathtub it is understandable why the GOP would fail. Put competent leaders in, like Bill Clinton was, and the wow! All of the sudden it works and republicans have no bad government to whine about. Barack is the next guy that will make your ideology look even more of a failure.

Posted by: connecticut man1 | September 12, 2008 10:17 PM | Report abuse

We have already seen "executive failure" of epic proportions from Bush... We need someone that not only understands the issues but can act on them competently... McCain is not that someone.

Bush is following Barracks lead on foreign policy now... Witness the timelines for Iraq withdrawal. And McCain isn't even man enough to admit how wrong he has been.

Posted by: connecticut man1 | September 12, 2008 10:13 PM | Report abuse

When it comes to basic economics, goverment turns everything on its ear.

It produces nothing. It does provide some necessary services for sure. Unlike
private industry services,however, there is no competition. So there is no
economic referendum which would demonstrate(and kill off) whatever
services are the least needed or no longer justified or necessary.

There is also the problem of waste and inefficiency. All these things
can only be addressed by putting constraints on governmnet income(taxes)
and through legislation, eliminating or reducing unneeded programs and thereby feeding
capital to the private sector.

We are spending $500-600 billion
each and every year on the Depts. of Energy
and Education combined. Are we getting out money's worth? I don't think so.

One example is post-high school education. There is a legitimate need.
However, in large part because of government largesse we are
allowing students to access to higher education who couldn't even
get into college in most other industrialized(and even third world) countries.
And there is evidence that because of government policies, some of
our best and brightest students are not getting the kind of challenging education
in high school that they need.

Government has grown to be such a large sector of the economy that it is
a balancing act to get it under control. The beast has to be tamed,though.

And this says nothing about corruption.

I don't see Obama as the answer here.

Posted by: GJM | September 12, 2008 10:12 PM | Report abuse

It is a shame how we have got to this point. We will lose the whitehouse again because we keep trying to shove the too liberal candidates down the nation's throat. Hillary was without a doubt the best of the bunch. The left wing pushed this in-experienced and too young man, who ,for whatever reason could have sown up the election with Hillary as VP. I am thinking of going independent! Shame!

Posted by: fkj74 | September 12, 2008 10:11 PM | Report abuse

Since BHO has never been in the military, fired a weapon or dropped a bomb, he can't be CiC?

(If McCain is disqualified because he doesn't email? I bet McCain can 'tap' quite well.)

Many executives I have known have someone sort out important emails and print them for review. Much more efficient than wasting time on line.

Posted by: marjon | September 12, 2008 10:07 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin channels a lot of Dick Cheney, so I understand the reaction of some Democrats. However, putting her in the White House seems an odd way to display their antipathy.

Sarah draws her political strength from these attacks. All she can do is counter-punch. Ignore her. Even if she does get run through the wringer and comes out the other side looking awful, you still have to make the case she looks so bad you can't vote for McCain. Look at the unfavorable ratings for Quayle in 1988 and Cheney in 2004 -- neither one kept their boss out of the White House.

McCain is Bush. That was always the road to the White House, and it remains the road to the White House.

Posted by: Deficits dont matter | September 12, 2008 10:06 PM | Report abuse

Good lord, this country needs beeter leaders than what the republicans offer. Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchanan summed up the McCain campaign platform a while back:

BUCHANAN:Here’s a guy, basically, what does he say? The jobs are never coming back, the illegals are never going home, but we’re gonna have a lot more wars.

SCARBOROUGH: We’re gonna start a lot of wars! He has promised, for the record Keith, John McCain’s platform — and it certainly looks inviting for the fall — he has promised less jobs and more wars. Now that’s something we can all rally behind.

The only thing that could make this worse is if Palin had to take over from McCain... Then it would be "less jobs, more war and a free coat hangar for your back alley abortion."

Posted by: connecticut man1 | September 12, 2008 10:05 PM | Report abuse

I trust a black man like Obama to look after American workers more than McCain. Blacks are usually the last to be hired so they understand the need for job growth in America, unlike McCain.

McCain has no interest in economics or trade. His economic policy is controlled by business elites who have no loyalty to this country. He probably does not even realize what he is doing. He is like Ulysses Grant, the President who let business take over the government. He and his Beverly Hills Barbie Doll wife do not care about average Americans.

Posted by: Tom | September 12, 2008 10:00 PM | Report abuse

Sounds like another broken promise by Obama. Whatever happened to running a different kind of campaign? I have been a democrat for my whole life. Not anymore. It has been a rude awakening to see how many women haters exist in the party. I was totally shocked and disappointed, until I hung up my democratic registration and changed to an independent. I will be voting for Nader. Senator Obama said he did not want my vote when he chose Biden over the more qualified and desired Clinton. Well if women are not good enough for the White House, then he certainly is far too good to have our vote. To date, I have convinced 28 loyal democrats to show their dissatisfaction with the party by not voting democratic is this election. I must say after serving this party as a vounteer, preceint captain, permanent chair and delegate, I am just as proud of the work I am doing to help Obama lose, as I was of the work I did to help Clinton win. Let the media, Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean know that it is not okay wih us, if they pick our nominee. The voters would still like that choice. Vote McCain, Nader, Barr or anyone except Obama.

Posted by: Susan | September 12, 2008 9:57 PM | Report abuse

The ad ridiculing McCain's lack of computer skills seems prone to backfire badly. As other people have pointed out, McCain's disabilities apparently making typing difficult. It's not wise to pick on a disabled veteran. That generates instant empathy for the target. Additionally, there are quite a few of the voters that don't use computers that might take offense at the ad. Of these, the senior citizens vote enmasse. My guess is that he alienated quite a few of them.

Posted by: KG1 | September 12, 2008 9:57 PM | Report abuse

I assume the blog proprietor means Obama's "aggressive" tone in comparison with McCain's "gentle and measured" tone. Right?

My guess to that is that it doesn't much matter what Obama does. He's done everything asked of him. He's made his case. Yet, everything that makes him admirable or possessed of leadership qualities is presented in the mainstream media as some kind of failure to "reach" "values" "voters". In a campaign in which a lovely, dignified, spouse like Michelle Obama is a LIABILITY because she went to Princeton and Harvard Law, no common sense applies. If you were to design kind of an ideal American wholesome family of high achievers and standards you could not do much better than the Obamas. I didn't judge Bill Clinton for his excesses and I don't judge the McCains or Palins for theirs either, but how mainstream reporters from mainstream sources continue to parrot the line that somehow the McCains and Palins represent moral rectitude while the Obamas represent "elitism" at best, "treason" at worst is really beyond me.

I know that Chris knows better. I know that all of the mainstream journalists know better. My question is "WHY?" What's the hustle here? What personal advantage do they gain by reporting this way? It can't be the money. I'm sure a dude like Wolf Blitzer or a woman like Campbell Brown make good money, but gee whiz there are 25 year old kids who can multi-table at internet poker and make 10x what Blitzer makes. Any trader on a prop desk at any bank in the world makes a lot more than Blitzer or John King. It's not the "fame." I've seen the commercials between CNN and Sunday Chat Show segments. They're all for end-of-life medications and laxatives. It's not like Blitzer and King are George Clooney and Will Smith or Campbell Brown is Jennifer Lopez or something. It's not for "dignity" because even CNN and the chat shows are less serious than fluffy entertainment shows in every other Western nations. It's certainly not for the sake of the betterment of journalism. It's not for partisanship because they could do better financially doing the same drill for McCain and Palin at Burson-Marsteller or Hill & Knowlton or with that woman who reps Tom Cruise, Pat something or other. It's certainly not for the sex. Everybody's knocking themselves out with internet dating in the US and other countries are much more relaxed about it anyway.

So, why have they wasted their education and half their lives for the privilege to tell lies and create themes in support of Republican excesses in economic policy, foreign policy and Theocratic Authoritarianism?

The Pat Robertson soul-saving dodge I understand. Lots of loot and no taxes and you're selling a drug that's better than cigarettes or heroin: ETERNAL LIFE.

But what are these "responsible" journalists wasting their time with this for? Christ, I'm not a rich guy and I'm LATINO and I'm sure my child support payments are twice what Chris Cillizza makes in a year.

I'd only do that job if I could write something different or just something that made a kind of global sense. I'd want a work product I could be proud of if I were toiling for chickenfeed.

My conclusion: THE MSM ARE TRUE BELIEVERS, MCCAIN/PALIN PRO WAR, ANTI FREEDOM, JINGOISTIC ZEALOTS. And this is a mission of some kind.

Posted by: DexterManley | September 12, 2008 9:56 PM | Report abuse

To: Barack H. Obama
From: AsperGirl
Date: 09/12/08
CC: Michelle Obama
Subj: re: EMAIL TO BARACK OBAMA ET AL

GO BACK TO SOUTHSIDE CHICAGO YOU SEXIST PIG!!!

/>>"You can put, uh, lipstick on a pig.
/>>It's still a pig. (cheers) You know, you
/>>can, uh, you know, you can, uh, you
/>>-- you -- you can wrap an old fish in
/>>a -- in a piece of paper and call it
/>>change, it's still going to stink after
/>>eight years"

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 12, 2008 9:44 PM | Report abuse

Obama's and the DNC's aggression continues to misfire. Now Obama and the Dems are showing real class with their lastest ad attacking McCain. Did any of them think to ask why McCain doesn’t use a computer? According several sources (here’s one):

From the Boston Globe (March 4, 2000):

McCain’s severe war injuries prevent him from combing his hair, typing on a keyboard, or tying his shoes.

Nice going Obama guys. A real class act. When are we going to have enough of these guys?

Posted by: CDR | September 12, 2008 9:43 PM | Report abuse

anomynous you are an idiot!!!!!

Posted by: nomad | September 12, 2008 9:42 PM | Report abuse

>>Royal James wrote: "Aggressive????? What's aggressive about attacking McCain because he doesn't use a computer? Or doesn't send email? Hello... the President of the United States has staff who can do those things. If that's the best O can come up with, it's pretty pathetic."

It's not "aggressive" or "issues focus". It's just shallow, bigoted, mean, condescending junk. It's not funny, just a sneer.

Obama talks like a professor, but (Bill Clinton was right) he has the instincts of a Chicago street thug.

He has a trashy, bigoted mind with the affectations of elitism.

What pig in lipstick stinks like an old fish, Obama? Isn't that mixing two weirdly disjoint metaphors, pigs & fish?

Why didn't you pick Clinton as VP when anyone with half a brain knew you had to, to win?

What a trashy-gaffe machine.

Obama went to ivy leagues for a few years decades ago. For the past 20 years he's been sitting in the pews of the ghetto rant, bigoted Rev. Jeremiah Wright's Trinity Church. That's where he gets his ideas about America's intangible qualities from & his social programming.

What a trashy bigot.

What kind of presidential candidate gives an opponent a "face scratch finger"? How presidential is that?

The democrats walked into it eyes wide open.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 12, 2008 9:42 PM | Report abuse


"If McCain could use his hands to cheat on his first wife, he can definitely find time to use a computer.

For the slow of thinking:

"McCain's severe war injuries prevent him from combing his hair, typing on a keyboard, or tying his shoes."

- Boston Globe, 3/4/2000

"The injuries he incurred as a Vietnam POW make it painful for McCain to type. Instead, he dictates responses that his wife types on a laptop."

- Forbes Magazine, 05/29/2000

Posted by: WylieD | September 12, 2008 9:39 PM | Report abuse

"Considering the Obama camp used McCain's lack of computer use without knowing (or despite knowing) that he doesn't use a computer because he can't type due to injuries sustained while a POW in Hanoi, I think they are off to a smashing start.

What tools."


This is BS. If McCain could use his hands to cheat on his first wife, he can definitely find time to use a computer. His injuries do not prevent him from typing on a computer. He's not an invalid!

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 9:27 PM | Report abuse


So Obama tries to attack McCain over his failure to use email, and instead looks vicious for taunting a veteran over his war wounds and at the same time reminds voters that McCain is a war hero.

Go Obama!

Posted by: WylieD | September 12, 2008 9:21 PM | Report abuse

Scratch that... cheers to the first comment on this page.

Posted by: Jarcher | September 12, 2008 9:21 PM | Report abuse

Desperate times bring out desperate republicans.

Posted by: A non-e-moose | September 12, 2008 9:20 PM | Report abuse

Cheers to that last comment. If McCain/Palin win in November, those "Americans" who voted for them will deserve the America in ruins that will be left behind. But why do you have to take the rest of us into the abyss with you? Wake up! How many people were kicking themselves in the ass after voting for Bush the second time? Why would you want make the same mistake again?

Posted by: Jarcher | September 12, 2008 9:20 PM | Report abuse

Boston Globe (March 4, 2000):
"McCain gets emotional at the mention of military families needing food stamps or veterans lacking health care. The outrage comes from inside: McCain's severe war injuries prevent him from combing his hair, typing on a keyboard, or tying his shoes."

Obama's latest ad "Still" mocks McCain for not using a computer or email.

What character! What judgment!

Posted by: Just Bill | September 12, 2008 9:19 PM | Report abuse

Go back to your South Side ghetto rant church sexist pig!
Go back to your South Side ghetto rant church sexist pig!
Go back to your South Side ghetto rant church sexist pig!
Go back to your South Side ghetto rant church sexist pig!

The only pig on a national ticket is the sexist pig Barack Obama!
The only pig on a national ticket is the sexist pig Barack Obama!
The only pig on a national ticket is the sexist pig Barack Obama!
The only pig on a national ticket is the sexist pig Barack Obama!

Nice "issues" ad mocking McCain's age, bigot!
Nice "issues" ad mocking McCain's age, bigot!
Nice "issues" ad mocking McCain's age, bigot!
Nice "issues" ad mocking McCain's age, bigot!

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 12, 2008 9:18 PM | Report abuse


Axelrod is starting to look like AxelRove.

Posted by: WylieD | September 12, 2008 9:17 PM | Report abuse

If a person doesn't believe in evolution, then s/he is not qualified to be president because either s/he's too uneducated or too close-minded. I'm sure some people who can't respond rationally will call this "elitist", but there's nothing wrong with requiring the president to be able to see the truth when the evidence is overwhelming.

Posted by: Steve Bie | September 12, 2008 9:16 PM | Report abuse

Does Obama really appreciate all the support Chris has given him over the past two months? I hope so. Chris had had a future as a journalist before becoming an embedded Obama staffer at the Post, but that's clearly not going to happen.

As far as the Democratic base hating Sarah Palin - well if Hillary ride-her-husband's-sticky-coattails-into-success Clinton is the Democrat's model for a successful woman, they are a sad lot. Sarah is a strong woman with views that didn't come from a poll. She built herself into her career - it wasn't handed to her by her husband. And she doesn't give a rip what you think about that.

Posted by: hope so | September 12, 2008 9:10 PM | Report abuse


McCain and email

This one is going to blow up in Obama's face.

"McCain's severe war injuries prevent him from combing his hair, typing on a keyboard, or tying his shoes."

- Boston Globe, 3/4/2000

"The injuries he incurred as a Vietnam POW make it painful for McCain to type. Instead, he dictates responses that his wife types on a laptop."

- Forbes Magazine, 05/29/2000

Posted by: WyleD | September 12, 2008 9:08 PM | Report abuse

Has Obama picked a VP yet? I've been looking everywhere but I can't find any reference to Obama's VP pick. When will he choose his running mate? I'm interested to know who it will be.

Posted by: Dave | September 12, 2008 9:07 PM | Report abuse

Aggressive????? What's aggressive about attacking McCain because he doesn't use a computer? Or doesn't send email? Hello... the President of the United States has staff who can do those things. If that's the best O can come up with, it's pretty pathetic.

Posted by: Royal James | September 12, 2008 9:07 PM | Report abuse

Does MSNBC have any corporate guidance?

How long will they continue to support a group of commentators that have no ratings.

In real life, non supported george soros life, people get fired for lack of ability and incompetence.

It's just a matter of time.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 9:06 PM | Report abuse

Joe Biden realesed his tax returns today.

10 yr income average $300,000

10 yr average charity gifts $360/yr

equates to 1/10 of one percent of his income.

This dufus wants to talk about helping the less fortunate. It starts at home Joe.

Do as I say. Not as I do.

What a hippocrit.

You Libs, go check out McCains( not his wifes, McCains gifts.

what an idiot.

at least he is better than Al Gore who averages $200.

Impressive.

Posted by: dano | September 12, 2008 8:58 PM

This is the guy we the Dems want to turn spenging appropriations over to?

His net worth is 300k, and he's made over 300k a year?

Looks like he does not know how to manage his own checkbook and he wants the Country's checkbook?

God save us.

Posted by: obama2102 | September 12, 2008 9:02 PM | Report abuse

BLAH BLAH BLAH HOPE CHANGE HOPE CHANGE HOPE CHANGE BLAH BLAH

Oh no! Eclipsed by a more inspiring star!

BLAH BLAG BLAH PONTIUS PILATE COMMUNITY ORGANIZER BLAH BLAH BLAH

Let's talk about issues! Starting Now!

BLAH BLAH BLAH COMPUTER LITERATE EMAIL AGEISM BLAH BLAH BLAH

So goes the campaign of the man who has no substance to offer.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 9:01 PM | Report abuse

I don't want to pay my mortgage or student loans. Just because I borrowed money doesn't mean I should have to pay it back. Its not fair. I want Obama to give me everything so I don't have to do anything. Why should I pay for my own health care when Obama will make YOU pay for it?? Ha ha, suckers.

Posted by: Dave | September 12, 2008 9:00 PM | Report abuse

Men will vote for Sarah Palin in droves.

Posted by: Dave | September 12, 2008 8:58 PM | Report abuse

Joe Biden realesed his tax returns today.

10 yr income average $300,000

10 yr average charity gifts $360/yr

equates to 1/10 of one percent of his income.

This dufus wants to talk about helping the less fortunate. It starts at home Joe.

Do as I say. Not as I do.

What a hippocrit.

You Libs, go check out McCains( not his wifes, McCains gifts.

what an idiot.

at least he is better than Al Gore who averages $200.

Impressive.

Posted by: dano | September 12, 2008 8:58 PM | Report abuse

THE MEDIA THINKS IT'S SO COOL TO PICK ON PALIN'S RELIGION
WHY IGNORE ALL THOSE OBAMA RELIGIOUS GAFFE'S??

OBAMA BLOOPERS IN WHCH HE TALKS LIKE A MUSLIM

Obama is known for always speaking very carefully & precisely (it's his gift). Except when he's talking about his religion or when he's making "Muslim bloopers".

:: BARACK OBAMA: "MY MUSLIM FAITH" ::

In an interview of Obama on September 7, George Stephanopolous asked Obama about his accusations that the McCain campaign are going to accuse him of being Muslim. Obama goes into a 2 minute answer that includes the blooper "my Muslim faith".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUYHFlGb2Ng&feature=iv

At minute 1:34 Stephanopolous asks Obama about why he makes accusations that the McCain campaign is going to accuse him of being Muslim, when the McCain has condemned people making those accusations.

At minute 2:49 Obama says: "You're absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith."

George Stephanopolous steps in and corrects him to say "Christian faith" and then Obama agrees and says "Christian faith". But then what Obama was going to say doesn't make sense anymore because that would be, "You're absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Christian faith."

Obama then has to spend the next 15 seconds regrouping to make a point ("John McCain has not suggested I was a Muslim.")

:: OBAMA THINKS THE U.S. HAS "57 STATES" ::

You can watch Obama's statement that he's visited "57 states".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws

This is no joke, he really said this. This was no "slip", he pauses & thinks about it!

What American would forget that? And why would he pick the number "57" out of the air?

Everyone knows that we have 50 states. But there is a union that has 57 states in it: the nation of Islam. The Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) is an international organization with a permanent delegation to the United Nations. It has 57 Islamic member states, from the Middle East, Africa, Central Asia, Caucasus, Balkan, Southeast Asia, South Asia and South America.

This is kind of an important slip coming from a candidate who is African-Arab by racial heritage, Muslim by birth who claims to now be Christian, who was raised abroad in an Islamic state (Indonesia) with a Muslim stepfather, who traveled to Pakistan using his Indonesian-citizenship passport at age 20 when he was supposed to be a U.S. citizen and Americans weren't supposed to go to Pakistan, who belonged for 20 years to a Church that publishes pro-Hamas material and whose leadership has close ties to the Nation of Islam, and who has been endorsed by Hamas.

:: TOO-LONG, BABBLE-ANSWER ON THE QUESTION WHAT IS THE MEANING OF JESUS IN HIS LIFE ::

You can also watch Barack Obama's too-long, wandering, lame response to the question: what is the meaning of Jesus in his life. He starts kind of okay with a trite answer, but then gets lost and stops making sense until he ends up claiming that Jesus makes him try new things like running for President after Rev. Warren starts making noises that signal to Obama he needs to cut it off.

http://www.youtube.com/v/gHtAWPjzvyk&rel=0&color1=11645361&color2=13619151&fs=1

Afterward, Obama declares that was a tough question, whereon Rev. Warren says, "Oh no, that was a freebie, a gimme."

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 12, 2008 8:57 PM | Report abuse

Dave,
Sorry, our top community organizer, Senator Barack Obama, is busy getting ready to be sworn in as the next President of the United States, but could I recommend a former mayor with less experience and even less scruples? (Of course I mean Palin, though I understand completely if you thought of Gulianni too when I said the scruples part).

Posted by: Peakmom | September 12, 2008 8:54 PM | Report abuse

Obama: Vote for me because I know how to use a computer!! I can send emails!!! See, aren't I smart?!?!? I didn't realize Obama was an expert computer programmer. What a freakin joke this guy is. This just reinforces the notion that he is an elitist snob who looks down on people.

Posted by: Dave | September 12, 2008 8:51 PM | Report abuse

Actually, the RCP average has Barrack Obama ahead by only one vote in the electoral college numbers.

That's only one vote ahead and that's despite having the biased media in the tank for Obama since 2004.

He's only ahead by 2.3% in Pennsylvania which again is "nothing to crow about."

McCain is pulling ahead in Ohio. He's also *sustained* a post convention lead nationwide for a far longer time period than Barrack Obama.

Posted by: Reality | September 12, 2008 8:49 PM | Report abuse

Yeah Mae!

Posted by: Peakmom | September 12, 2008 8:44 PM | Report abuse

Somebody help me please!! The "community organizer" for my neighborhood is out of town and we have no one to organize us. How can we go on without our "community organizer?" My neighborhood is completely disorganized now that we don't have our "community organizer" to guide us. Are there any communities out there who have a spare "community organizer" that we could borrow?

Posted by: Dave | September 12, 2008 8:43 PM | Report abuse

So Obama wants to fight back, as if he hasn't been trying. The man who claims words are really important and had promised not to run a negative is once again chaning his own words. Either he is a liar or too naive to be in politics. Either way, not ready to be president. Obama had once claimed he will not let Washington change him, but by going negative Washington has changed Obama even before he has gotten there.

Posted by: Jimmy Ortega | September 12, 2008 8:41 PM | Report abuse

Everyone should just calm down! Trust the Obama team to know what they are doing! Barack is ahead in the Electoral College right now, and these so-called "polls" do not take into account Barack's magnificent ground game that way out ways McCain's. These polls do not take into account all of the new voters that will be voting for Barack (more African-Americans voting, more young people under-30 voting, and more people of all different types voting who have either never voted before, or did not vote in the last two elections)!

Most predictions are that despite the Republican Noise Machine, Barack will more than likely win the Electoral College by 322 points (he only needs 270 to win)! And, because of all of the new voters, he will win the popular vote as well!

Posted by: Mae | September 12, 2008 8:39 PM | Report abuse

who are u to judge that Chris ?

Posted by: Adam Habib, Plano TX | September 12, 2008 8:39 PM | Report abuse


"...Sarah Palin is an elected governor, a native of her state (unlike Obama), and she has the highest approval ratings of any governor in America.
Posted by: Dave | September 12, 2008 8:22 PM"

I'm sorry 'Dave', I didn't know that in 21st century America citizens from OTHER STATES or considered somehow foreign.

And is it a coincidence that she's popular in the FOURTH SMALLEST state in the country with a population the size of the city of Austin TX. I don't think so.

I can imagine that after this campaign her start will be much diminished in Alaska.

.
.

Posted by: el_barto | September 12, 2008 8:39 PM | Report abuse

Considering the Obama camp used McCain's lack of computer use without knowing (or despite knowing) that he doesn't use a computer because he can't type due to injuries sustained while a POW in Hanoi, I think they are off to a smashing start.

What tools.

Posted by: Athena | September 12, 2008 8:38 PM | Report abuse


Palin is fading, and Repub bloggers are on the run:
http://soonerthought.blogspot.com/2008/09/repub-bloggers-are-on-run.html

Posted by: SoonerThought.blogspot.com | September 12, 2008 8:37 PM | Report abuse

McCain's recent attacks have been untruthful and unfair.

But Obama isn't exactly innocent himself.

Remember the "100 years" ad? Remember the phony outrage over various "racist" statements made by the Clintons?

The Sarah Palin pick caught Barack Obama completely off guard. After a very successful DNC, it got him off message.

With perfect 20/20 hindsight, the Palin pick would have been the perfect opportunity for a "Sistah Souljah" moment. Obama should have congratulated Gov. Palin and denounced the left wing rumormongers and those who distorted record. Then he should have made the case about why the Republican ticket is wrong for America.

Which is actually a lot like what Hillary Clinton did.

The problem is that Obama can't do that. Despite all the talk and all the rhetoric, Obama is just another politician, and a very left wing one at that.

Posted by: JimBeam | September 12, 2008 8:36 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: WyleD | September 12, 2008 8:33 PM | Report abuse

they are off to good start the reason mcCain does not use a computer is because
the cong beat him so bad he cant use a keyboard

Posted by: steve j | September 12, 2008 8:32 PM | Report abuse

Iran’s leadership has expressed “great pleasure” at the prospect of a Barack Obama victory in November, according to Menashe Amir, the Iranian-born head of Radio Israel’s Persian language service. “One of the Iranian religious leaders said if Obama will enter the White House, then Islam will conquer the heart of the American nation,” Amir told Isracast.com. The Iranian leadership likes Obama “mainly because he is a Muslim,” according to Amir. His first name, Barack, comes from “al-baraq,” which is the name of the horse that Muslims believe Muhammad rode on his way to paradise.

Posted by: Dave | September 12, 2008 8:32 PM | Report abuse

Republicans everywhere should be scared...real scared.
The media is all over Obama's promise to fight fire with fire. You guys wanted to take this election away from the issues? This is a bad day for you my friends. A bad day indeed.
Your little darling won't be getting all the attention anymore.
Oh! Can I have my Obama doll complete with Harvard Law Degree overnighted please? I have my Democratic White House all set up and ready.

Posted by: A non-e-moose | September 12, 2008 8:28 PM | Report abuse

Look, all these questions about Palin are ridiculous. McCain clearly stated over and over again that he'd pick the person who was most qualified and ready to step in and be commander in chief on day 1 if need be. He picked Palin. Therrefore she is the most qualified and ready to step in.

That's simple logic and anyone who claims she's not qualified is therefore being illogical.

Posted by: Palin Fan | September 12, 2008 8:25 PM | Report abuse

The Boston Herald thinks the Dems are catching something called PDS

Palin Derangement Syndrome. I'm going to post that one on my blog for the world to see.

Posted by: piic | September 12, 2008 8:23 PM | Report abuse

Pontius Pilate was not a governor - his title was Preconsul. This is perhaps the dumbest analogy that the Democrats have ever come up with. So are all state governors evil? He was appointed by a dictator to rule over a foreign territory. Sarah Palin is an elected governor, a native of her state (unlike Obama), and she has the highest approval ratings of any governor in America.

Posted by: Dave | September 12, 2008 8:22 PM | Report abuse

btw - i saw a comment on abortion and i have to say i am VERY pro abortion for lefties. seriously. PRO abortion. use your pro choice position and take that stand lefties seem to admire so and appreciate. go for it!

but i'm pro-life for those on the right.

this gay man is a bridge builder, for sure!

and a BIG Sarah Palin fan!

Posted by: c. moore | September 12, 2008 8:22 PM | Report abuse

Re: Posted by: Midwest Moms for Obama | September 12, 2008 7:19 PM

95% - and you believe it.. how much is he really cutting....Did you ask him the amount... because if he reduces it bay .001% -- it's still a tax cut to you...

You libs will fall for a wolf in sheeps clothing...

Obama will sell all of you out... He sold out his minister of 20 years for his own career - and all you Obaminites are just part of his cult.

While he's rubbing elbows with Hollywood - you'll still be complaining about GAS...

Posted by: Tina_Florida | September 12, 2008 8:20 PM | Report abuse

aggressive tone?

oh yeah, he'll now be aggressive with sarah palin -- who will eventually kick his pathetic derriere! -- but diplomatic with iran, etc.

this guy is so silly, it's amazing he can garner 10% of the vote, much less 40%!

you can only explain it with government, dumbed-down education! yay, have some kool-aid and a piece of government cheese and vote obama. so inspiring. this guy is a joke!

Posted by: c. moore | September 12, 2008 8:19 PM | Report abuse

Tickets to Palin's visit to Colorado this Monday are sold out.

By the way, in consideration of the shrill reaction from the intolerant left, the Democratic Party should consider changing their name to:

The Abortion Party

Posted by: American | September 12, 2008 8:17 PM | Report abuse

Poor Obama. His coronation has been derailed by Sarah Palin. I bet this really makes him mad. He might get depressed and start snorting cocaine again. McCain/Palin have a nice little lead in the polls now. Here's hoping it grows.

Posted by: Dave | September 12, 2008 8:16 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Dave | September 12, 2008 8:13 PM | Report abuse

"I thought Obama was going to implement a "new kind of politics."

Well, Dave, do you got any proof that he isn't living up to this?

Posted by: Phxflyer | September 12, 2008 8:12 PM | Report abuse

"White woman are abandoning Obama in droves. Obama wants to know..."Where's all the white women at?"

Again, not true. The lastest SAP/Ipsos poll has Obama with a 17 point lead among women.

Can't you guys get anything right?

Posted by: Phxflyer | September 12, 2008 8:11 PM | Report abuse

I thought Obama was going to implement a "new kind of politics." I thought he represented the "post-partisan" age. I he represents neither of these, then what is the basis of his campaign?

Posted by: Dave | September 12, 2008 8:10 PM | Report abuse

I must agree with Dick Turban: "we won't live with it!"

No, being locked up in the sanitarium when he and the rest of these demon-possesed, maniacal, religious bigots lose once again will be final, and a life not worth living anymore.

Like the bible says, "Judas went out and hung himself" (and to use the party's exegetical skills and style, it also says)
"go and do likewise"...(:~))

Posted by: qwiqcylver | September 12, 2008 8:09 PM | Report abuse

Aspergirl (read: GOP Hack troll):

If I were Obaman, I would play up the age thing too. It's fair game. Fact is, everytime John McCain shuffles across the stage I think I'm looking at a ghost.

Face it, he's not going to make it four years.

In fact, if I were advising Obama, I'd make sure that he sits right next to McCain during the debates so that people could see how frail McCains is. In the day and age of HDTV, it would be the equivalent of the Kennedy-Nixon debates, with the Dem coming out on top again.

Posted by: Obama Republican | September 12, 2008 8:09 PM | Report abuse

White woman are abandoning Obama in droves. Obama wants to know..."Where's all the white women at?"

Posted by: Dave | September 12, 2008 8:07 PM | Report abuse

THE FALSE FRAMING:

Attacks are referred to as "counterattacks" "striking back" at "GOP attacks"

THE TRUTH:

Obama's in attack mode to hurt McCain's lead after McCain made a more successful VP pick & better convention bump

THE FALSE FRAMING:

"Enough is enough" with the personality & character campaigns we're going to drive hard on issues the right fears discussing

THE TRUTH

Belittling John McCain on his age, in an ad depicting him as computer illiterate & as a relic of the disco age, is how Democrat Barack Obama pushed his campaign Friday "on the issues that matter".

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/09/12/ad-hawk-obama-plays-the-age-card-again.aspx

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 12, 2008 8:05 PM | Report abuse

THE FALSE FRAMING:

Attacks are referred to as "counterattacks" "striking back" at "GOP attacks"

THE TRUTH:

Obama's in attack mode to hurt McCain's lead after McCain made a more successful VP pick & better convention bump

THE FALSE FRAMING:

"Enough is enough" with the personality & character campaigns we're going to drive hard on issues the right fears discussing

THE TRUTH

Belittling John McCain on his age, in an ad depicting him as computer illiterate & as a relic of the disco age, is how Democrat Barack Obama pushed his campaign Friday to a new level of counter-punching "on the issues that matter".

callehttp://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/09/12/ad-hawk-obama-plays-the-age-card-again.aspx

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 12, 2008 8:03 PM | Report abuse

Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno.”

– Sen. John McCain, speaking to a Republican dinner, June 1998.

Posted by: karen | September 12, 2008 8:03 PM | Report abuse

@ Mike W. That's actually not true. McCain himself has said that he plans to learn how to use a computer. It's just not something he has gotten around to doing. Has nothing to do with war injuries - his hands work just fine.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 7:56 PM | Report abuse

"The Obama ad knocking John McCain for not using a computer are hideous. Do you know why he can't use a computer? Because the injuries he sustained at the hands of the Viet Cong, - you know the nice folks that lib icon Jane Fonda cozied up to - left him unable to type! Once again HE CAN'T TYPE AS A RESULT OF INJURIES SUFFERED AS A PRISONER OF WAR. Where is the outrage at these mean spirited Obama ads?

That is complete and utter BS. While McCain has limited movement with his arms, his hands are fine, just ask anyone who has shaken hands with him. I live in Arizona and have met and shaken his hand many times (including in the last month).

Good hustle, though. Your lie was almost as good as McCain's have been. And it's people like you, and the sewer rat campaign that's being run that, convinced me to switch my support from McCain to Obaman.

Posted by: Phxflyer | September 12, 2008 7:54 PM | Report abuse

Obama is going to "get bad" and "tough" with the Republicans? Good luck, as the Republicans know how to get down and dirty. One of Obama's strengths is that he is cool, calm and collective. For him to go this route is really not playing "his game". Do I sense a bit of despiration from the Democrats? Hint to the Obama campaign, stay with what been working, and don't try to play your opponent's game, as they are a hell of lot better at it.

Posted by: sibwalker | September 12, 2008 7:54 PM | Report abuse


Palin's inexperience in foreign relations?

How many heads of state had Obama met with when, after all of two years in the Seante, he announced his candidacy for president? President. Not VP.

How long would Palin have to serve as VP--sitting in on cabinet meetings, attending national security briefing, etc.--before her experience exceeded that of Obama's?

Two months? One?

Posted by: WylieD | September 12, 2008 7:53 PM | Report abuse

I guess time will tell I think sometimes you have to get out of your comfort zone and get in their and fight for what you believe in. Senator Obama doesn't have to get in the gutter with McCain but he's got to fight fire with fire. But do in a more intelligent way.

Senator Obama has this under controll it the democrats who seem to be panicing...

Obama/Biden

Posted by: jacie - Calif | September 12, 2008 7:51 PM | Report abuse

"As recent polls show a Sarah Palin-driven surge in Senator McCain’s prospects, the Democratic Party and the country in general need to carefully consider the magnitude of what might be at stake in this election. "

Don't let the polls scare you. National polls are not a reflection of where this election actually stands. The statewide polls tell the real story, and through them Obama still holds a commanding lead. In fact, in a poll released yesterday, Obama gained four points in Ohio alone, and the most recent poll in Pennsylvania shows that McCain lost whatever bounce he gained from the convention.

The MSM use the national polls, because it's the only way they can make this seem like a race. The statewide polls tell the electoral college story, and the story of Obama's victory.

Posted by: Phxflyer | September 12, 2008 7:50 PM | Report abuse

4 million foreclosures, rising unemployment (now at 6.1%), lack of affordable health care, declining housing prices, the average American family is worse off today than any other time in the last 8 years, all Mr. Obama has to say to the folks is : "would you like 4 more years after the last 8 years of Republican rule ?, are you better off today than you were 4 years ago or 8 years ago ?, if you like George Bush, you are going to love John McCain, repeat this over and over and over everyday, it is very simple, remind people of their daily struggle and how hard it is to keep up with them bills, how everything seems to cost more every month and the paycheck (for those lucky enough to get one) does not seem to buy as much as it used to, inundate the television with the same theme, day in and day out, make the economic malaise of today, the Willie Horton of 2008 and see how people react. How difficult or hard is that to do ??

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 7:49 PM | Report abuse

If you think you'll be better off because Big Oil is drilling off-shore, you're wearing blinders.

Bush Sr. drove the economy into the pits. Junior has driven the country to the verge of bankruptcy. And you think electing another Republican will put more money in your wallet?

Posted by: DJM | September 12, 2008 7:46 PM | Report abuse

The Obama ad knocking John McCain for not using a computer are hideous. Do you know why he can't use a computer? Because the injuries he sustained at the hands of the Viet Cong, - you know the nice folks that lib icon Jane Fonda cozied up to - left him unable to type! Once again HE CAN'T TYPE AS A RESULT OF INJURIES SUFFERED AS A PRISONER OF WAR. Where is the outrage at these mean spirited Obama ads?

Posted by: Mike W | September 12, 2008 7:46 PM | Report abuse

Lets examine the GOP change...

It never ceases to amaze me how philosophers, scholars, and writers in droves write about the current fleecing of our constitution our nation, and of the American middle class.

All the while conservatives continue to flock to right-wing evangelists, tabloid pundits and GOP theology!
After 7 and a half years of GOP subversion what does the nation have to show? An economy in shambles, unfinished wars more on the horizon and debt so enormous China and other foreign countries now own much of our nations remaining equity!

Conservatism is a dismal failure, the proof is in your house equity, your bank accounts, your paycheck, it’s on Wallstreet, its on the shelves of your supermarket, its on the corner gas station, its in job loss,
on the streets and deserts of Iraq and Afghanistan.

It’s in the defiance of the lack of GOP leadership by Pakistan, Russia, Venezuela and now China!

And so the same old personal song and dance about character, vision and dignity plays out across the nation. Remeber this, “Bush has character, he has vision, he is honest, experienced!” We all know the truth of this aberration.

Yet conservatives want to plug in John McCain-the same theology the same ideology from yet another GOP legislator that represents the betrayal, the greed and the duplicity that has buried our nation to this point!

Great nations are upheld and wars are won or lost by the rightness and decency of the participants!
This is virtue that McCain, Palin and the neocons will never understand!

As our nations history goes we have never lost a war when we were right but now we have lost wars because we were ideologically wrong!

It’s not just about strength its about wisdom and justice.
Such American qualities that have been inactive during the past seven plus years due to conservative politics!
The answers are right in front of you, open your eyes and read!

Posted by: rube | September 12, 2008 7:45 PM | Report abuse

"When it comes to this election there is one issue that affects everyone's wallet or purse AND their vote.
Obama and Biden are against drilling offshore for our own oil.
McCain and Sarah Palin are FOR drilling for offshore oil AND for drilling in Alaska."

I'll be for drilling in those places as soon as the oil companies begin to use their premits to drill on the 68 million acres in the contintental U.S.

I'll be for drilling in those places as soon as 100 percent of the oil coming out of Alaska goes to the U.S. instead of the 80 percent that's ship overseas.

I'll be for drilling in those places as soon as the Governor of Alaska eliminates the taxes on Alaskan oil that we in the lower 48 are forced to pay.

And I'll be willing to drill in all those places as soon as you can prove that it will actually lower the cost of gas by more than two cents, and until you can conclusive prove that said oil can be delivered in less than 10 years.

Until you can do all of that, you're just another pathetic lemming falling into the sea of GOP lies.

Posted by: Phxflyer | September 12, 2008 7:45 PM | Report abuse

It's beautiful. C'mon liberal Democrats, go hard after the GOP VP candidate. That'll show 'em!

This is going to be way too easy.

Posted by: John D | September 12, 2008 7:45 PM | Report abuse

It is time, Joshua Generation.
Keep courage, intensify your velocity and place your foot on the land and lead the nation to the Promised Land. Change the wrong road to the right direction and keep in mind that the final victory belongs to the new Generation.

Posted by: David KF | September 12, 2008 7:41 PM | Report abuse

Hey,

I may be insane, but I am also registered.

I have all the respect in the world for those who try to apply analysis to the current candidates. However, there is no way there can be any kind of reasonable prognostication that can be trusted.

The president does not do anything about the economy. It is the congress. We have a congress with the lowest approval rating ever.

And yet incumbents are not really threatened.

Electing one person does the trick ?

Hardly.

Posted by: InsaneMan | September 12, 2008 7:40 PM | Report abuse

What if McCain Wins?

As recent polls show a Sarah Palin-driven surge in Senator McCain’s prospects, the Democratic Party and the country in general need to carefully consider the magnitude of what might be at stake in this election. Let’s take a look at an entirely reasonable scenario after a McCain/Palin Win in November.

The Disappearance of Sarah Palin and the Mortality of John McCain

You only have to watch news footage of John McCain waving on the crowd as they cheer for Sarah Palin to see that he’s obviously enthusiastic about the energy that she brings to the campaign — as long as he can keep her on script and away from unsupervised access to the media. But what happens after the election?

The idea put forward by the McCain campaign, that Sarah Palin is going to get on the job training “at the knee of John McCain,” seems remarkably unlikely. President McCain is going to have more important things to do. In addition, Palin’s “rock star” status is going to quickly veer from a big positive to a clear negative once the election is won. What president truly wants a VP that outshines him in the public eye? Wasn’t that likely a reason we don’t now have an Obama/Clinton (with Bill too) ticket?

It’s a good bet that a Vice President Palin will disappear from the public eye very quickly, perhaps to be paraded out occasionally under highly scripted circumstances. In fact, it’s reasonable to assume that McCain himself is aware of Palin’s limitations and plans to revert to an almost a nineteen century model for the office of the Vice President.

All of this is possibly not a complete disaster for the country as long as John McCain is alive and well. While the Democrats have rightly argued that McCain will offer mostly an extension of Bush’s policies, in fact he has shown some independence on issues such as stem cell research and global warming. Most democrats would probably be prepared to make the painful acknowledgment that if we have to have another Republican administration, John McCain is probably the least appalling choice.

What is the risk that McCain will not survive his first term? A look at the actuarial tables shows that the risk is probably at least 30%, especially given his two bouts with skin cancer. McCain often points to his healthy 95 year old mother as evidence of his “good genes.” What he does not talk about is that fact that he has already outlived his father (who died at 70) by two years. In short, the probability that we could have a Palin presidency, perhaps within a relatively short time, is uncomfortably high.

President Palin and the Capability Vacuum

Upon John McCain untimely demise, we would be left with a president who, prior to the election:

* Can count on one hand the number of other countries to which she has traveled.
* Has never met the leader, or even a high official, of a foreign government.
* Is unfamiliar with the language of diplomacy.
* Has probably not met and certainly not had substantive discussions with the leaders of the US congress.
* Shows no evidence of having studied, or indeed even thought deeply about, the major issues facing the country, both foreign and domestic.

The implication of this is clear. While the enormous power that resides in the office of president will remain intact, the capability and judgment to wield that power will in all likelihood be largely absent. Like all vacuums, this absence of capability will be filled rapidly–as it will have to be in order to avoid a national emergency. The question then is who would fill this vacuum?

The easy answer would be to assume that McCain’s advisers will step into this role. While this would surely be true in the short term, history has shown that administrations simply do not survive intact when a president dies in office. Even Ted Sorensen, one of the very closest advisers to John Kennedy, was gone from the Johnson administration within a few months after the assassination.

In the longer term, as President Palin struggles to come to terms with the duties of her office, who would she likely turn to? Who would she trust? The answer seems clear: The previous president and vice president. Keep in mind that Palin, Bush and Cheney are all completely in tune with the beat of the far right Republican party core. John McCain is the outsider, remember? So what would happen if he were suddenly gone? How long would any “maverick” initiatives and policies survive him?

The scenario seems as clear as it is chilling. It is questionable that Sarah Palin would ever really develop the capability to govern as a truly independent president. Instead, she might continue to fulfill the role that she performs so effectively now: scripted engagements with the public while her handlers wield power behind the scenes. There can be little doubt as to who those handlers would be.

The greatest danger now facing the country is that if McCain prevails, the Democratic argument that we will see “four more years of Bush” may not be just political hyperbole–it could easily turn out to be literal fact.

A vote for McCain/Palin could well turn out to LITERALLY be a vote for another Bush/Cheney term.

Posted by: Robert S | September 12, 2008 7:40 PM | Report abuse

Will Obama's Aggressive New Tone Work?

John McCain can't use a computer. Aggressive new tone, what a joke. You've got to love it. Obama is completely lost and it will only get worse when he sends Biden out to do his bidding.

Plagarism Joe will be the Rep's best weapon. He's already said that he was not the best qualified for VP, called McCain President McCain, and shouted for a paraplegic to "stand up". He was against the Gulf War but for the Iraq war. Against the Surge but for a withdrawl. Poor guy doesn't get it right very often and he won't start now.

Posted by: Rick | September 12, 2008 7:39 PM | Report abuse

I disagree. I'm part of Obama's base and I really don't care about Palin. She has and will continue to energize the Republican evangelical base, but that isn't what McCain needs in order to win. No facts or debunking are going to sour them on her. Obama needs to be very aggressive on McCain's record. Change? Give me a break. Just exactly what is McCain proposing to do differently our extremely unpopular and incompetent president? Just exactly what is his tax plan and health care plan going to do to make things better for the average person? Hitting these points forcefully, even brutally, will be very effective over time. The smoke and mirrors campaign of McCain can't survive close scrutiny. Forcing them to defend their policies will work, but it simply won't work if done casually and with a smile on your face.

Posted by: James | September 12, 2008 7:37 PM | Report abuse

Regardless of what the Obama campaign does, when will the media start asking serious questions of Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin. They apparently have made a choice that facts just don't matter in this race--that they can say whatever they want, whether it is misleading or outright untrue. Haven't we had enough of leaders who lie??

Posted by: HarrisCo | September 12, 2008 7:36 PM | Report abuse

Obama's strength is his ability to inspire in front of huge crowds. He's not doing that. Big mistake.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 7:33 PM | Report abuse

The latest Rasmussen poll shows McCain and the Alaskan superwom Sarah up by three whereas yesterday, Obama was ahead by one.
Obama talks about McCain smelling like a rotten fish.
The American people have a nose for smelly things and they seem to be rejecting the smell of bias in the media and those nasty, sexist attacks on Sarh Palin.

Posted by: BruceMcDougall | September 12, 2008 7:33 PM | Report abuse

Wow! I should have read the thread first before I posted previously. I just read the article.

Some nutjob actually compared Obama to TEDDY ROOSEVELDT! I laughed so hard I almost fell out of the chair.

Barak "Can I please finish my waffle - I've answered 8 questions already" Obama ....compared to the Guy who charged up San Juan hill and who said "Speak softly but carry a big stick"

Barack Obama is the least of the four (Obama, Mcain, Biden or Palin)to be anything like that fine American president. And skin color doesn't have a damn thing to do with it. He has no balls. He is gonad challenged. Teddy had balls like grapefruits

To compare Barack Obama to Teddy Rooseveldt in ANY way is to profoundly insult Teddy Rooseveldt.

Another loon keeps coming up with the "Jesus was a community organizer" line.

Jesus didn't belong to ACORN.

Nor did Jesus make any money from what he did. The guy was always in hoc.

Obama was much better at being a community organizer than Jesus. He made a six figure salary as a comunity organizer.

Jesus was a piker. Obama turned community organizing into a paying gig.

Posted by: Manchu | September 12, 2008 7:33 PM | Report abuse

Where are the stories about Obama training ACORN, the community organizers connected with voter fraud in multiple states, more specifically in swing states like New Mexico and Virginia? Where is the examination of Obama's misusing $160 million on the Annenberg Challenge with William Ayers for political purposes?

Instead the Post focuses on Palin's rightful pause after a question related to an unpublished/informal Bush Doctrine defined differently by multiple commentators.

Way to go Post.

Posted by: Tony400 | September 12, 2008 7:32 PM | Report abuse

Where have the Revs Wright, Jackson, and Sharpton been lately. Did the DNC send them out of the country for a vacation until after the election?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 7:29 PM | Report abuse

This saying going around the Dem circles that “Jesus was a community organizer and Pontius Pilate was a governor” tells us something about Obamaites. This saying clearly comes from a Black Liberation Theology viewpoint where Jesus is not divine,nor is he a savior, but rather he is a revolutionary, a community organizer, if you will. Couple this with a reference to the Governor Pontius Pilate (representing the white oppressor) and there you have BLT in a nutshell. It’s class warfare where blacks are the victims and whitey is the oppressor. This is the worldview you get when you vote for Obama.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 7:28 PM | Report abuse

When it comes to this election there is one issue that affects everyone's wallet or purse AND their vote.
Obama and Biden are against drilling offshore for our own oil.
McCain and Sarah Palin are FOR drilling for offshore oil AND for drilling in Alaska.
If the cost of gas is too high for YOU at the pump then McCain/Palin are there to help while Obama and Biden want us to keep depending on oil from places like Saudia Arabia.
Easy choice. Vote for your wallet/purse.

Posted by: BruceMcDougall | September 12, 2008 7:27 PM | Report abuse

Obama has often quoted the scripture - "Am I my brother's keeper?" Just what has he done for his brother in Kenya who lives on $24/year in a hut? I hope someone asks him this in the debates.

Posted by: Rick | September 12, 2008 7:24 PM | Report abuse

this may sound trivial, but . . . the rolled-up shirt sleeves and tightly clinched tie that you're doing in your community forums REALLY don't work. You don't look cool, you look like a nerd. For quasi-casual settings, you should wear a dress jacket and no tie, and unbutton the top button. You can kill the tie like Kennedy killed the hat, but you need that jacket to fill you out (newsflash: you're skinny.) THAT would look cool. (Oh, and I like your economic program)

Posted by: Advice for Obama | September 12, 2008 7:23 PM | Report abuse

ADVISE TO SEN. OBAMA:

PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN GLASS HOUSE SHOULD NOT THROW ROCKS AT THIER NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE.

Posted by: REALITY CHECK | September 12, 2008 7:23 PM | Report abuse

Dan Cohen wrote a great article on Real Clear Politics (available 9/9/08) essentially about the inadequacy of Obama’s temperament for winning the election he’s too cool, he lacks fight, we don’t know what drives him.

This article raises two questions. The first is what can be called the No Drama Obama inconsistency. As a man obviously extremely gifted in raising the emotions of millions of people literally across the globe, it is completely baffling that his campaign’s cornerstone is the absence of emotion. It gives off a whiff of insincerity.

The second question is: how can we find out what matters to him if his emotions don’t give us an answer? Just why does he want to be the President? As Cohen asks, what above all does he care about? Does he care if his vision of a better America is threatened by the other side’s true threat to his candidacy?

As a supporter (phone banking, rallies, contribution, outdoor events, blogging) I am actually embarrassed to report that it took me a couple of minutes to come up with the answer: bringing American’s together – red states and blue states - to fix big problems including Iraq, climate change and healthcare. Kind of Pied Piper stuff but it works for me (Although McCain’s got a better record on some key issues). I prefer to put my life and my country in the hands of smart people who are not subject to flights of anger - like a good Southwest Airlines pilot.

Fine, nice goals, but why bother going through this nightmare of an election if you show no emotions about the outcome or threats to the achievement of your vision? Hillary showed how much she cared about healthcare reform and she jumped down Barack’s throat after a successful attack on her plan. Where’s the evidence that Barack really cares a whit about the disintegration of America or American politics and the threats to peace and prosperity that arise under it? Was Iraq just bad judgment or a Bushean wargasm, that has set back our foreign policy agenda for half a millennia?

So, Barack, why should I care if American’s vote for Grampa and Louise and bomb the wrong country a couple of times because neither of them have ever touched an atlas? Tell me, Obama, why should I care if you don’t? It’s time for some drama.

Posted by: Reginald Avery Wilkins, Ph.D. | September 12, 2008 7:22 PM | Report abuse

The nerve of Pontius Palin! Has she learned nothing from Uncle Clarence?

The pedigreed pundits and politicians do not look favorably on "We" the people electing one of "us" to office. Oh, a harmless hayseed every now and then is good for joke or two.

However, clearly there are certain things that will NOT be tolerated. It's the 11th commandment, STUPID.

"Though shalt not be conservative unless rich, white and male."

The only thing hated as much as a black conservative is a Christian woman who refuses to accept that NOW and NARAL set the "women's agenda" and develop the approved list women's issues from which us girls are not to stray.

Let the tar and feathering begin. Let the chosen one join the sport and lead the villagers against this vile enemy who would dare challenge the ruling class and dim his spotlight. Afterall, Andrea Mitchell, Campbell Brown and Daily Kos bloggers shouldn't have all the fun to themselves.

Posted by: KBlake | September 12, 2008 7:21 PM | Report abuse

if obama has to come up with a strategy, he has already lost...

Posted by: Dwight | September 12, 2008 7:21 PM | Report abuse

waaaa waaa waaa Obama is so mean when he insulted Palin. Not, cry me some more tears you stupid GOP lovers...

Posted by: Cry Babies | September 12, 2008 7:21 PM | Report abuse

If you read the foreign press, the American press is a biased joke in this election. How can this country criticize Putin's sovietization of the Russian press when our own press is so biased?
Obama's connections to his convicted for corruption "manipulator" friend Rezco, who financed Obama's house, are never mentioned let alone investigated.
The fact that the terrorist Bill Ayers is a supporter of Obama's and has had fund raisers at his house for Obama which were attended by the presidential candidate are never investigated let alone investigated.
The foreign press and media are right, the American media ARE a joke. It's fortunate that the American people are seeing through the biased nonsense that permeates the networks and the polls show that they are swinging to McCain and the superwoman from the north.

Posted by: BruceMcDougall | September 12, 2008 7:20 PM | Report abuse

If you want:

- Your house to sit on the market for another year listed at half of what you paid for it, while you hold your unemployment check in one hand and a stack of overdue bills in the other - you can vote for John McCain!

- To be afraid that any day your boss will come in to your or your husband's office and tell you it's your last day - you can vote for John McCain

- 4...4...4...more years with a leader who did not cross party lines when he voted over 90% of the time with our current, failed administration - you can vote for John McCain!

- To know what it is really like to live through a national depression - vote for John McCain!

But if you want:
- A tax cut for yourself and 95%...95%...95% of ALL Americans -
you want to vote for Barack Obama

- Affordable health care and prescription drugs that will be cheap enough to prevent disease before it strikes -
you want to vote for Barack Obama

- To be able to send your children to college without being too poor to retire -
you want to vote for Barack Obama

- Our sons and daughters to come home from harms way in Iraq and our focus to return to the threat of terror in Pakistan, with a pro-active, watchful eye on Iran -
you want to vote for Barack Obama

- A nation who can maintain their status as leaders of the free world by rebuilding the trust of their allies -
you want to vote for Barack Obama

- Revitalization of a nation to serve our country by helping our children develop a compassion to serve in all sectors at a young age -
you want to vote for Barack Obama

- American companies to hire American workers and manufacture products that can be proudly stamped, "Made in the USA" -
you want to vote for Barack Obama

- Energy that will not reduce, but ELIMINATE our need for foreign oil -
you want to vote for Barack Obama

- An Energy plan that will not compete with Canada for a pipeline job or destroy our national parks, but will utilize all the clean, natural resources of crops, sun and wind and everything else we find in our great Mid-Western States -
you want to vote for Barack Obama
you want to vote for Barack Obama
you want to vote for Barack Obama!

Posted by: Midwest Moms for Obama | September 12, 2008 7:19 PM | Report abuse

supports drilling her daughter....

as long as she gets paid...for it.


.

Posted by: Pal'in | September 12, 2008 7:19 PM | Report abuse

want to make some big headlines????


sue the rethuglicans for fraud, disinformation and purposefully posting and advertising so as to


DEFRAUD the AMERICAN VOTING PUBLIC...


they _ARE_ SELLING A PRODUCT, they can be found guilty of criminal, and civil as well as FEDERAL MISREPRESENTATION OF FACTS in order to control resources...monetary gain....


it's a verifiable fact, and it's a crime.

.SUE THEM.


.


Blizzard of Lies, By PAUL KRUGMAN, September 11, 2008

Did you hear about how Barack Obama wants to have sex education in kindergarten, and called Sarah Palin a pig? Did you hear about how Ms. Palin told Congress, “Thanks, but no thanks” when it wanted to buy Alaska a Bridge to Nowhere?


These stories have two things in common: they’re all claims recently made by the McCain campaign — and they’re all out-and-out lies.

"...our system continues to reward false statements and outright lies with a winning campaign..."


Dishonesty is nothing new in politics. I spent much of 2000 — my first year at The Times — trying to alert readers to the blatant dishonesty of the Bush campaign’s claims about taxes, spending and Social Security.

But I can’t think of any precedent, at least in America, for the blizzard of lies since the Republican convention. The Bush campaign’s lies in 2000 were artful — you needed some grasp of arithmetic to realize that you were being conned. This year, however, the McCain campaign keeps making assertions that anyone with an Internet connection can disprove in a minute, and repeating these assertions over and over again.

Take the case of the Bridge to Nowhere, which supposedly gives Ms. Palin credentials as a reformer. Well, when campaigning for governor, Ms. Palin didn’t say “no thanks” — she was all for the bridge, even though it had already become a national scandal, insisting that she would “not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that’s so negative.”

Oh, and when she finally did decide to cancel the project, she didn’t righteously reject a handout from Washington: she accepted the handout, but spent it on something else. You see, long before she decided to cancel the bridge, Congress had told Alaska that it could keep the federal money originally earmarked for that project and use it elsewhere.

So the whole story of Ms. Palin’s alleged heroic stand against wasteful spending is fiction.

Or take the story of Mr. Obama’s alleged advocacy of kindergarten sex-ed. In reality, he supported legislation calling for “age and developmentally appropriate education”; in the case of young children, that would have meant guidance to help them avoid sexual predators.

And then there’s the claim that Mr. Obama’s use of the ordinary metaphor “putting lipstick on a pig” was a sexist smear, and on and on.

Why do the McCain people think they can get away with this stuff? Well, they’re probably counting on the common practice in the news media of being “balanced” at all costs. You know how it goes: If a politician says that black is white, the news report doesn’t say that he’s wrong, it reports that “some Democrats say” that he’s wrong. Or a grotesque lie from one side is paired with a trivial misstatement from the other, conveying the impression that both sides are equally dirty.

They’re probably also counting on the prevalence of horse-race reporting, so that instead of the story being “McCain campaign lies,” it becomes “Obama on defensive in face of attacks.”

Still, how upset should we be about the McCain campaign’s lies? I mean, politics ain’t beanbag, and all that.

One answer is that the muck being hurled by the McCain campaign is preventing a debate on real issues — on whether the country really wants, for example, to continue the economic policies of the last eight years.

But there’s another answer, which may be even more important: how a politician campaigns tells you a lot about how he or she would govern.

I’m not talking about the theory, often advanced as a defense of horse-race political reporting, that the skills needed to run a winning campaign are the same as those needed to run the country. The contrast between the Bush political team’s ruthless effectiveness and the heckuva job done by the Bush administration is living, breathing, bumbling, and, in the case of the emerging Interior Department scandal, coke-snorting and bed-hopping proof to the contrary.

I’m talking, instead, about the relationship between the character of a campaign and that of the administration that follows. Thus, the deceptive and dishonest 2000 Bush-Cheney campaign provided an all-too-revealing preview of things to come. In fact, my early suspicion that we were being misled about the threat from Iraq came from the way the political tactics being used to sell the war resembled the tactics that had earlier been used to sell the Bush tax cuts.

And now the team that hopes to form the next administration is running a campaign that makes Bush-Cheney 2000 look like something out of a civics class. What does that say about how that team would run the country?

What it says, I’d argue, is that the Obama campaign is wrong to suggest that a McCain-Palin administration would just be a continuation of Bush-Cheney. If the way John McCain and Sarah Palin are campaigning is any indication, it would be much, much worse.

Posted by: your betters....

Posted by: closet jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeezeus..... | September 12, 2008 7:17 PM | Report abuse

bias, very bias, bias, very bias, bias

nbc, cnn, cbs, msnbc, bias

print media - even more so

Posted by: cfc | September 12, 2008 7:16 PM | Report abuse

want to make some big headlines????


sue the rethuglicans for fraud, disinformation and purposefully posting and advertising so as to


DEFRAUD the AMERICAN VOTING PUBLIC...


they _ARE_ SELLING A PRODUCT, they can be found guilty of criminal, and civil as well as FEDERAL MISREPRESENTATION OF FACTS in order to control resources...monetary gain....


it's a verifiable fact, and it's a crime.

.SUE THEM.


.


Blizzard of Lies, By PAUL KRUGMAN, September 11, 2008

Did you hear about how Barack Obama wants to have sex education in kindergarten, and called Sarah Palin a pig? Did you hear about how Ms. Palin told Congress, “Thanks, but no thanks” when it wanted to buy Alaska a Bridge to Nowhere?


These stories have two things in common: they’re all claims recently made by the McCain campaign — and they’re all out-and-out lies.

"...our system continues to reward false statements and outright lies with a winning campaign..."


Dishonesty is nothing new in politics. I spent much of 2000 — my first year at The Times — trying to alert readers to the blatant dishonesty of the Bush campaign’s claims about taxes, spending and Social Security.

But I can’t think of any precedent, at least in America, for the blizzard of lies since the Republican convention. The Bush campaign’s lies in 2000 were artful — you needed some grasp of arithmetic to realize that you were being conned. This year, however, the McCain campaign keeps making assertions that anyone with an Internet connection can disprove in a minute, and repeating these assertions over and over again.

Take the case of the Bridge to Nowhere, which supposedly gives Ms. Palin credentials as a reformer. Well, when campaigning for governor, Ms. Palin didn’t say “no thanks” — she was all for the bridge, even though it had already become a national scandal, insisting that she would “not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that’s so negative.”

Oh, and when she finally did decide to cancel the project, she didn’t righteously reject a handout from Washington: she accepted the handout, but spent it on something else. You see, long before she decided to cancel the bridge, Congress had told Alaska that it could keep the federal money originally earmarked for that project and use it elsewhere.

So the whole story of Ms. Palin’s alleged heroic stand against wasteful spending is fiction.

Or take the story of Mr. Obama’s alleged advocacy of kindergarten sex-ed. In reality, he supported legislation calling for “age and developmentally appropriate education”; in the case of young children, that would have meant guidance to help them avoid sexual predators.

And then there’s the claim that Mr. Obama’s use of the ordinary metaphor “putting lipstick on a pig” was a sexist smear, and on and on.

Why do the McCain people think they can get away with this stuff? Well, they’re probably counting on the common practice in the news media of being “balanced” at all costs. You know how it goes: If a politician says that black is white, the news report doesn’t say that he’s wrong, it reports that “some Democrats say” that he’s wrong. Or a grotesque lie from one side is paired with a trivial misstatement from the other, conveying the impression that both sides are equally dirty.

They’re probably also counting on the prevalence of horse-race reporting, so that instead of the story being “McCain campaign lies,” it becomes “Obama on defensive in face of attacks.”

Still, how upset should we be about the McCain campaign’s lies? I mean, politics ain’t beanbag, and all that.

One answer is that the muck being hurled by the McCain campaign is preventing a debate on real issues — on whether the country really wants, for example, to continue the economic policies of the last eight years.

But there’s another answer, which may be even more important: how a politician campaigns tells you a lot about how he or she would govern.

I’m not talking about the theory, often advanced as a defense of horse-race political reporting, that the skills needed to run a winning campaign are the same as those needed to run the country. The contrast between the Bush political team’s ruthless effectiveness and the heckuva job done by the Bush administration is living, breathing, bumbling, and, in the case of the emerging Interior Department scandal, coke-snorting and bed-hopping proof to the contrary.

I’m talking, instead, about the relationship between the character of a campaign and that of the administration that follows. Thus, the deceptive and dishonest 2000 Bush-Cheney campaign provided an all-too-revealing preview of things to come. In fact, my early suspicion that we were being misled about the threat from Iraq came from the way the political tactics being used to sell the war resembled the tactics that had earlier been used to sell the Bush tax cuts.

And now the team that hopes to form the next administration is running a campaign that makes Bush-Cheney 2000 look like something out of a civics class. What does that say about how that team would run the country?

What it says, I’d argue, is that the Obama campaign is wrong to suggest that a McCain-Palin administration would just be a continuation of Bush-Cheney. If the way John McCain and Sarah Palin are campaigning is any indication, it would be much, much worse.

Posted by: your betters....

Posted by: take them down to the river.... and hold them under until they speak the truth... | September 12, 2008 7:15 PM | Report abuse

haha the conservatives get so mad at the media. probably bc they know they are wrong and just don't want the media to pick up on it.

for the record, obama didn't call palin a pig and the only reason conservatives are stuck on that is bc they have no policy to address instead of bull.

Posted by: klm | September 12, 2008 7:15 PM | Report abuse

obama is the least investigated most adored candidate ever by the press.

obama should be made to explain his relationship with ayers, left wing activists, radical preachers, criminals, release records and be subject to just a mere fraction of the investigation on palin.

Posted by: cfc | September 12, 2008 7:13 PM | Report abuse

Let's see now--who would I rather have for a President? One who is computer literate-or one who is not afraid to debate issues in townhall meetings?

I'll take the guy who wants to debate issues. I think he's more in touch.

Posted by: piic | September 12, 2008 7:10 PM | Report abuse

Obama's aggressive new tone work?

Nope, fraid not.

It's simple really, he's a diffident metrosexual who comes across as testosterone challenged.

Him trying to act tough is like a toy poodle trying to act tough. It can growl to its hearts content but it still won't look tough.

Which is why he'd be a lousy president (well, one of the reasons anyway - there are a lot more)

Bottom line - No MAN would be scared of him.

Putin and Ahmanininutjob are praying that Obama gets in.

McCain is someone they'd have to take seriously. Obama? Oh please.

Sarah Palin has a lot more guts than he ever will.

Posted by: Manchu | September 12, 2008 7:10 PM | Report abuse

Bruce, Obama not only called Sarah Palin a pig, he inferred that all hockey moms were pigs. He is so pathetic.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 7:08 PM | Report abuse

why does the press not ask hard questions and investigate the relationship with ayers, wright, rezko.

reason-bias

Posted by: cfc | September 12, 2008 7:08 PM | Report abuse

Obama has a "new aggressive tone"?
What kind of a tone was it when the Obama/Media ticket attacked Sarah Plain as a bad mother because she worked for a living, when they said she should stay home and take care of the children, when they accused her of having an affair, when they blamed her for her seventeen-year-old daughter becoming pregnant?
The leading stories in today's WP, and on the Obama media circuit and circus, are that the poor little lamb Obama has been under attack and is now striking back.
The reality is that Superwoman Sarah and the McCain/Palin campaign struck back at the sexist, nasty attacks that the Obama/Media ticket saw fit to launch on this working mother of five.
Obama STILL hasn't apologized for calling Sara Palin a pig. And he STILL hasn't apologized for calling John McCain and old and stinking fish!

Posted by: BruceMcDougall | September 12, 2008 7:07 PM | Report abuse

Let's not forget that Republicans' policies ALWAYS mimic each others' because they have no such thing as individualism (which McCain did have prior to his presidential run). If McCain wins, it will be Reagan/Bush Sr/Bush Jr all over again. Every one of these periods was marked by economic downturns. Trickle down DOES NOT WORK. If anyone is familiar with Arthur Okun's analysis of trickle down prior to this method even being used, you will know that it doesn't even make sense in theory for America. It only makes sense in impoverished societies where having the upper class reinvest in society means better infrastructure, more jobs, etc. One of the richest families in the world, the Tatas in India (of steel fortune), have set a great example in establishing and maintaining great, affordable hospitals. This creates a trickle down effect.

Unfortunately, in our society, highly compensated CEOs do not reinvest in our society in the same way. They take their money home and use it on their families and their homes (remember Ken Lay's ridiculously expensive shower curtains??). Thus, trickle down is rather ineffective and results in the recessions that we saw in every one of the trickle down presidents. Even many conservative economists agree with this analysis.

There IS a recession and McCain won't acknowledge it or he will be in trouble politically. In fact, he doesn't even believe in the tax cuts. And Palin is too stupid and poorly educated to acknowledge it, so no hope there.

Posted by: Economist | September 12, 2008 7:07 PM | Report abuse

REALITY BEGINS TO SEEP IN...

HARRY REID: "PRESIDENT MCCAIN"

Sept 12, 2008

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, in the middle of a lengthy defense Friday of Barack Obama’s leadership credentials, inadvertently referred to “President McCain.”

...

“President McCain even called the Obama approach naive,” Reid said.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 12, 2008 7:06 PM | Report abuse

Anonymous,

As usual you are way off point. So what his mom was 3 months pregnant when she married the father? That was 45 years ago, my mom was 16 when she had me. To think of the hardships he had to endure being a mixed race and to do the things he has done is truly the all american story. Nobody is slamming Palin for her daughter, the only point they have been saying is if it was Obamas daughter with the same issue we would be hearing one squaking GOP mouthpiece after another talking about the Dems having no family values. Just like they are playing hurt about the lipstick comment even though it has been used many times before and especially by McCain. Just because the audience reacted that way meant nothing...

Posted by: American First | September 12, 2008 7:05 PM | Report abuse

Will someone please explain to me how Michelle Obama's salary increased from $125,000 to $317,000 the month after her husband was elected to be a US senator? She is just a hospital vice president who handles "out placement" of patients. Sounds like someone was looking for political favors. Michelle Obama IS NOT worth $300K+ to sit behind a desk pushing papers.

Posted by: Frankie | September 12, 2008 7:04 PM | Report abuse

OMG! Can you imagine the White House maids having to clean "watch springs" from the Lincoln bed?

Posted by: Dianne72 | September 12, 2008 7:03 PM | Report abuse

Diane72,

Ah another only GOPers know best. Im glad you brought up meeting the Queen, lets harken back to 1991 when she came to the White House for a visit. The Presidents son who now resides there sat down next to her and propped his cowboy boots up on the table, introduced himself as the blacksheep of the family and then proceeded to ask her who the black sheep in her family was. Now fast forward 10 years when she had to meet him as President. You dont think she remembered that?

Posted by: Yeah right | September 12, 2008 7:01 PM | Report abuse

OMG, Diane - all that crappy African art and black velvet stuff hanging in the Lincoln bedroom. Can't you just see it? Yep, that's the Obama style....tacky, tacky, tacky. Fakey, fakey, fakey. Dishonest, dishonest, dishonest. They have so many fooled.

Posted by: JJ | September 12, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Asper Girl,

Nice comeback, NOT. I think you have shown you have no room in your mind for the truth if it relates to the Democrats. If you have read who filed the lawsuit and his reasons why you would know it has no merit. I read the whole thing and trust me you dont want to know my legal background. Any more lies you want me to dispute????

Posted by: Huh? | September 12, 2008 6:58 PM | Report abuse

All I can say is, "Hillary told you so." She warned that the battle for the White House would be fought in the same states they always are: Ohio, Florida, etc. But no, the Obama campaian said we will expand the map. Hmmm...how's that working out for you? She also said she was stronger in those states. So, once again, how's that working out for the Dems? I was a Hillary supporter, and now I am firmly behind McCain/ Palin. Barack Obama deserves to lose. He did not choose Hillary as his running mate. They say the first important decision you make as a presidential nominee is your choice of running mate. Obama chose wrong. He is now losing. He deserves it.
McCain/Palin Supporter
---

I was a staunch Clinton supporter; I am not a huge fan of hypocritical Obama, and I don't think that rhetoric makes him as good a candidate for the presidency as Clinton. However, it is ridiculous that you are behind McCain/Palin now. Their policies differ completely from both Clinton's or Obama's (in fact, the Republicans don't have policies ideas at all and Charlie Gibson just made a joke of Palin on ABC News). Palin is also a joke compared to Clinton.

While I too firmly believe that Clinton should have been chosen as VP (and I bet that Obama is now wishing that he had chosen her), I am behind Obama now because I am not willing to compromise my beliefs just to be behind Hillary. You should take a good look at your beliefs too: will voting for McCain or Obama give you a nation that would most resemble one of which Clinton is president? Defecting to the Republican ticket is exactly what Clinton did not want, and you are a disgrace to her base of supporters. Whether or not you think Obama made the right choice, it is time to choose the lesser of two evils and think of who has the policies who will steer this country in the right direction.

Posted by: slp | September 12, 2008 6:57 PM | Report abuse

Anonymous,

Were you outraged at McCains quip about Chelsea Clinton when her dad was President? Or in your mind only Dems make sexist comments? So why is it when Palin talks about lipstick a 100 year old southern saying is now sexist???

Posted by: What? | September 12, 2008 6:56 PM | Report abuse

>>Huh? wrote: "So we go from he wasnt born in the US to he was born in the US but because his mom married an Indonesian and she relocated to Indonesia he is no longer a US citizen. So if you have a child and relocated to Canada then your child is no longer a US citizen. Boy you GOPers are stupid."

I'm sorry that you're just too unfamiliar with lawsuits to realize that the questions you ask are not really meaningful. Enough. Bug off.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 12, 2008 6:56 PM | Report abuse

I don't care where Obama was born, but the fact that his mother was 3 months pregnant before she married his father shows that the Dems and MSM have no right to taunt the Palins about their family business, unless they do the same to the Obamas. The MSM has not vetted Obama in all these months and months, but are slamming Palin, McCain, etc. relentlessly. They have helped move McCain/Palin into a good position come Election Day. Many thanks.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 6:54 PM | Report abuse

So Anonymous are you as outraged over what McCain said about Chelsea Clinton when her dad was president? Or is it only Dems that make sexist remarks???

Posted by: What? | September 12, 2008 6:53 PM | Report abuse

Why is it necessary for the Washington Post to misrepresent polling data that is now accessible to almost anyone with an internet connection?

"The tactical shift comes as national polls that show a dead heat in the presidential race."

Nonsense. Only two out of many polls over the last week show Obama with a lead. Everything else shows McCain leading by a little to a lot.

. . . and please don't give me that nonsense about margin of error. If the results were the exact opposite, we'd be hearing how Obama was winning handily.

Posted by: John Doe | September 12, 2008 6:51 PM | Report abuse

quote: "The liberal base of the Democratic party detests Palin in a visceral way and wants to destroy her, regardless of whether it is a sound political strategy or not."

They Must destroy her. What options are Left? Obama's goodie bag is limited in appeal. HE is now limited in appeal. His old pop-cultured persona is fading fast.
The National Election was always a different animal than the Democrat primaries, where he rode a coalition of utopians, academia, Blacks, nutrooters, and making-a-difference-students. Turns out they're a minority of minorities. Other "minorities", like the working class, business owners, independent women, those 'other' union members, clingers, Republicans, conservatives, and moderates are somehow drawing together, Uniting if you will, to go with a Change they can believe in. How does Barack stop That?

Posted by: bluecollarbytes | September 12, 2008 6:50 PM | Report abuse

Someone should remind Michelle Shaniqua Obama that it is considered impolite to chew food with your mouth open. In my view this woman lacks the poise, grace, and good breeding to be First Lady. I saw this image of her eating a pork sandwich and I was aghast at the prospect of her entertaining in the White House. Can you imagine her sitting down to tea with Queen Elizabeth II? Do you think she will hang the god awful african art on the pristine White House walls?

Posted by: Dianne72 | September 12, 2008 6:50 PM | Report abuse

Obama Supporter:

Yes,McCain used the pig lipstick analogy BEFORE Sarah said her joke. Obama said it AFTERWARD, and waited for audience response which he got, and continued on. There's a BIG DIFFERENCE, SWEETIE. Obama is a racist AND a sexist. Poor baby probably falls asleep crying every night because he isn't snuggled up with Hillary. Boo-Hoo.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 6:49 PM | Report abuse

Apparently people forgot another VP with even less background as a governor than Palin. Teddy Roosevelt. Why do we focus so hard on the VP versus Obama. It should be a focus on the presidential office only..

Posted by: JOhn | September 12, 2008 6:12 PM
----------------------------------

This comment is a reflection of how ignorant Americans are of their own history and of how low our standards have become (the two facts are not unrelated)

The notion that TR had less experience than Palin is utterly ridiculous. Here is a sketch of TR's life prior to becoming VP in 1900:

1880. Graduated Harvard, magna cum laude and phi beta kappa.
1882. Published “Naval War of 1812, considered definitive history on subject for generations.
1882- New York State Assembleyman
1886. Ran for Mayor of New York City
1889. Appointed ot US Civil Service Commission. Served through 1895.
1889-96. Wrote and published four volume history, “Winning of the West,” considered the definitive history of the American frontier.
1895. Became President of Board of Commissioners of New York City Police Commisioners
1897. Appointed Assistant Secretary of the Navy
1898. Recruited, organized and commanded the First US Volunteer Cavalary Regiment (“tghe Rough Riders”) and led them to victory in the Battle of San Juan Hill Hill, for which he was lataer awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor.
1898. Elected governor of New York, then the largest state in the US (7.2 million people out of a total of 76 million) 1. In 1900, when he was elected VP, Roosevelt had been governor of New York State for two years. New York had a population of approximately 7.3 million, approximately 10% of the total US population of 76 million. Governing New York in 1900 was a much harder task than governing Alaska today. Getting elected governor of NY in 1898 took much more political skill and ability than getting elected governor of Alaska in 2006.

The foregoing scratches the surface of this extraordinarily gifted and accomplished intellectual, author, warrior and politician -- arguably the most capable individual ever to serve as President.

How, other than having the “title” governor for two years, is Sarah Palin comparable? Not at all. Not in any way.

The only candidate in this year’s race who is even remotely comparable is Obama. Like Roosevelt, Obama graduated from Harvard with honors, served with distinction in the legislature of a large state, and is an accomplished author.

The rest of them (McCain, Biden and especially Palin) are simply jokes compared to Teddy Roosevelt. Or even compared to most of the people who have run for President or Vice President over the past 50 years.

Posted by: mnjam | September 12, 2008 6:48 PM | Report abuse

"his true nature as the 'angry black male'."

Hey Tas, got any proof to back up this racist comment? Or are you just like your pals McCain Spongesarah Squarepants, and you'll tell any lie in the hope of getting elected.

Posted by: Phxflyer | September 12, 2008 6:46 PM | Report abuse

So Asper Girl i think you have proven to be the uneducated idiot on this blog. Didnt even read the lawsuit did ya? If you did you would have seen this part:

"unfortunately, Obama is not a "natural born" citizen. Just to name one of the problems, Obama lost his U.S. Citizenship when his mother married and Indonesian citizen and relocated herself and Obama to Indonesia wherein Obama's mother naturalized in Indonesia and Obama followed her naturalization, as he was a minor and in the custody of his mother"

So we go from he wasnt born in the US to he was born in the US but because his mom married an Indonesian and she relocated to Indonesia he is no longer a US citizen. So if you have a child and relocated to Canada then your child is no longer a US citizen. Boy you GOPers are stupid.

here is the link: http://www.obamacrimes.com/attachments/001_ObamaComplaint.pdf

Posted by: Huh? | September 12, 2008 6:46 PM | Report abuse

Hey you leftwing wingnuts Palin field dress you like big old moose

Posted by: Mike 1962 | September 12, 2008 6:44 PM | Report abuse

So long as Obama drills the issues he wins; if he stoops to baseless slander he deserves to lose.

Posted by: nclwtk | September 12, 2008 6:43 PM | Report abuse

Here is a big part of Asper Girls lawsuit blog that she didnt post:

This week 9/11 Truther, Hillary supporter, and all around nut-job Philip J. Berg filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Barack Obama on grounds that he is constitutionally ineligible to be President of the United States due to citizenship issues. Citizen Wells has the press release Here

Berg, in pure moonbat fashion, has taken a mosaic of unsubstantiated email rumors and created one steaming pile of a lawsuit that should be stomped on and laughed out of court! See the filed action Here


Quote:
Berg cited a number of unanswered questions regarding the Illinois senator's background, and in today's lawsuit maintained that Sen. Obama is not a natural born U.S. citizen or that, if he ever was, he lost his citizenship when he was adopted in Indonesia. Berg also cites what he calls "dual loyalties" due to his citizenship and ties with Kenya and Indonesia.

Even if Sen. Obama can prove his U.S. citizenship, Berg stated, citing the senator's use of a birth certificate from the state of Hawaii verified as a forgery by three independent document forensic experts, the issue of "multi-citizenship with responsibilities owed to and allegiance to other countries" remains on the table.

In the lawsuit, Berg states that Sen. Obama was born in Kenya, and not in Hawaii as the senator maintains. Before giving birth, according to the lawsuit, Obama's mother traveled to Kenya with his father but was prevented from flying back to Hawaii because of the late stage of her pregnancy, "apparently a normal restriction to avoid births during a flight." As Sen. Obama's own paternal grandmother, half-brother and half-sister have also claimed, Berg maintains that Stanley Ann Dunham--Obama's mother--gave birth to little Barack in Kenya and subsequently flew to Hawaii to register the birth.

Berg cites inconsistent accounts of Sen. Obama's birth, including reports that he was born at two separate hospitals--Kapiolani Hospital and Queens Hospital--in Honolulu, as well a profound lack of birthing records for Stanley Ann Dunham, though simple "registry of birth" records for Barack Obama are available in a Hawaiian public records office.

Should Sen. Obama truly have been born in Kenya, Berg writes, the laws on the books at the time of his birth hold that U.S. citizenship may only pass to a child born overseas to a U.S. citizen parent and non-citizen parent if the former was at least 19 years of age. Sen. Obama's mother was only 18 at the time. Therefore, because U.S. citizenship could not legally be passed on to him, Obama could not be registered as a "natural born" citizen and would therefore be ineligible to seek the presidency pursuant to Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution.

Posted by: Huh? | September 12, 2008 6:40 PM | Report abuse


Obama and Scarlett Johansson exchanging email?

So McCain doesn't know how to send email, and Obama doesn't know when not to.

Posted by: WylieD | September 12, 2008 6:39 PM | Report abuse

Annoynmous,

In the real world that may be true, but as the GOP has shown you can duck lawsuits claiming executive privileged. Im sure those filing the suit went to Hawaii and checked his birth records.. NOT

Posted by: Huh? | September 12, 2008 6:37 PM | Report abuse

want to make some big headlines????


sue the rethuglicans for fraud, disinformation and purposefully posting and advertising so as to


DEFRAUD the AMERICAN VOTING PUBLIC...


they _ARE_ SELLING A PRODUCT, they can be found guilty of criminal, and civil as well as FEDERAL MISREPRESENTATION OF FACTS in order to control resources...monetary gain....


it's a verifiable fact, and it's a crime.

.SUE THEM.


.


Blizzard of Lies, By PAUL KRUGMAN, September 11, 2008

Did you hear about how Barack Obama wants to have sex education in kindergarten, and called Sarah Palin a pig? Did you hear about how Ms. Palin told Congress, “Thanks, but no thanks” when it wanted to buy Alaska a Bridge to Nowhere?


These stories have two things in common: they’re all claims recently made by the McCain campaign — and they’re all out-and-out lies.

"...our system continues to reward false statements and outright lies with a winning campaign..."


Dishonesty is nothing new in politics. I spent much of 2000 — my first year at The Times — trying to alert readers to the blatant dishonesty of the Bush campaign’s claims about taxes, spending and Social Security.

But I can’t think of any precedent, at least in America, for the blizzard of lies since the Republican convention. The Bush campaign’s lies in 2000 were artful — you needed some grasp of arithmetic to realize that you were being conned. This year, however, the McCain campaign keeps making assertions that anyone with an Internet connection can disprove in a minute, and repeating these assertions over and over again.

Take the case of the Bridge to Nowhere, which supposedly gives Ms. Palin credentials as a reformer. Well, when campaigning for governor, Ms. Palin didn’t say “no thanks” — she was all for the bridge, even though it had already become a national scandal, insisting that she would “not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that’s so negative.”

Oh, and when she finally did decide to cancel the project, she didn’t righteously reject a handout from Washington: she accepted the handout, but spent it on something else. You see, long before she decided to cancel the bridge, Congress had told Alaska that it could keep the federal money originally earmarked for that project and use it elsewhere.

So the whole story of Ms. Palin’s alleged heroic stand against wasteful spending is fiction.

Or take the story of Mr. Obama’s alleged advocacy of kindergarten sex-ed. In reality, he supported legislation calling for “age and developmentally appropriate education”; in the case of young children, that would have meant guidance to help them avoid sexual predators.

And then there’s the claim that Mr. Obama’s use of the ordinary metaphor “putting lipstick on a pig” was a sexist smear, and on and on.

Why do the McCain people think they can get away with this stuff? Well, they’re probably counting on the common practice in the news media of being “balanced” at all costs. You know how it goes: If a politician says that black is white, the news report doesn’t say that he’s wrong, it reports that “some Democrats say” that he’s wrong. Or a grotesque lie from one side is paired with a trivial misstatement from the other, conveying the impression that both sides are equally dirty.

They’re probably also counting on the prevalence of horse-race reporting, so that instead of the story being “McCain campaign lies,” it becomes “Obama on defensive in face of attacks.”

Still, how upset should we be about the McCain campaign’s lies? I mean, politics ain’t beanbag, and all that.

One answer is that the muck being hurled by the McCain campaign is preventing a debate on real issues — on whether the country really wants, for example, to continue the economic policies of the last eight years.

But there’s another answer, which may be even more important: how a politician campaigns tells you a lot about how he or she would govern.

I’m not talking about the theory, often advanced as a defense of horse-race political reporting, that the skills needed to run a winning campaign are the same as those needed to run the country. The contrast between the Bush political team’s ruthless effectiveness and the heckuva job done by the Bush administration is living, breathing, bumbling, and, in the case of the emerging Interior Department scandal, coke-snorting and bed-hopping proof to the contrary.

I’m talking, instead, about the relationship between the character of a campaign and that of the administration that follows. Thus, the deceptive and dishonest 2000 Bush-Cheney campaign provided an all-too-revealing preview of things to come. In fact, my early suspicion that we were being misled about the threat from Iraq came from the way the political tactics being used to sell the war resembled the tactics that had earlier been used to sell the Bush tax cuts.

And now the team that hopes to form the next administration is running a campaign that makes Bush-Cheney 2000 look like something out of a civics class. What does that say about how that team would run the country?

What it says, I’d argue, is that the Obama campaign is wrong to suggest that a McCain-Palin administration would just be a continuation of Bush-Cheney. If the way John McCain and Sarah Palin are campaigning is any indication, it would be much, much worse.

Posted by: take them down to the river.... and hold them under until they speak the truth... | September 12, 2008 6:37 PM | Report abuse

Why is it, let me ask you, that these "centrist Democrats" [who are, by the way, communist liberals to bible thum'ers] are always on "We'll fight back" mode?

Why don't they, as that "former GOP strategist" [what's his name?] said, GO ON THE OFFENSE, opening tactical points for which the McCain Palin ticket must respond?

Why are these weak spinned centrist Democrats always cry "No more swift boating", screaming foul, time and again, like this?

I tell you, I wasted a few hundred dollars supporting these weak spinned Democrats.

Edwards used my donation to rent a mansion for his mistress; Clinton never knew how to use my money wisely, with total faulty primary-caucas strategies....

Obama, he's just another loser Kerry-Gore-Dukakis, Yale and Harvard educated heads who are made to look like total losers by uneducated hockey moms who believes not science but creationism and God as her guiding light...

It's sad; but it's also freakin' funny, looking at these losers the last a couple presidential elections,,,, They are always on "response" mode: We aren't gonna let them get away this time! Haha!

Posted by: Her Lao | September 12, 2008 6:37 PM | Report abuse

emptyness of whitehouse "code pinkers"


looking to play hide the salaami with the theif in chief


as the nation crashes...


arrest and prosecute them.


.


Posted by: Karl Rove in fishnet stocking, the original.. | September 12, 2008 6:36 PM | Report abuse

>>Huh? wrote: "Asper Girl, you yourself say they are allegations, so even you cant prove he wasnt born in Hawaii. I may be a troll but im an informed troll"

That's what a lawsuit is for. To make allegations & prove things.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 6:35 PM | Report abuse

As someone who is further to the left than Obama, but who believes the formeost goal in politics is not to prove you are on the right side of the merits of an argument, or even of history, but to win elections so you actually control the government and have the ability to shape history, I view the focus on the economy as winning turf.

While it's fine for surrogates, especially other Democratic Senators, Members of Congress, and Governors to disparage Palin, Obama should not engage in wallowing in that mud, wasting his time attacking a Vice Presidential candidate. Her lack of real knowledge of the issues is already becoming apparent from the first segment of the Gibson interview and her own statements off the campaign trail in Alaska this week. The more she opens her mouth on real issues, the more she will disqualify herself in the minds of reasonable voters.

Palin is not the opposition, not the Presidential Candidate----McCain is. McCain must be tied to the Bush economy for Obama to win. Do that and it's a 52-48 or 53-47 split of the two-party vote nationally that will be magnified in the Electoral College to the tune of about 311 Electoral Votes. Fail to do that and it's another Democratic loss in an election that should have been won.

Posted by: OHIO CITIZEN | September 12, 2008 6:34 PM | Report abuse

Ideal Obama campaign tag team:

Michelle Obama
Rev. Jeremiah Wright

They are already "angry", with their heads filled with all the conspiracy theories & grievances they need to fill in the gaps between reality & their hatred.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 12, 2008 6:33 PM | Report abuse

Asper Girl,

you yourself say they are allegations, so even you cant prove he wasnt born in Hawaii. I may be a troll but im an informed troll

Posted by: Huh? | September 12, 2008 6:33 PM | Report abuse

Aspergirl,

Where is your proof he was born in Indonesia? You dont have any you troll

Posted by: Huh? | September 12, 2008 6:31 PM | Report abuse

>>What? wrote: "Asper Girl, Answer the question about being born in Hawaii, or you cant get an answer from Rush? Truth hurts doesnt it...."

Read the post again. The allegations for (1) are that he was not born in Hawaii. The allegations for (2) are that he expatriated to Indonesia via his mother's expatriation. The allegations for (3) are that he has dual citizenship.

Please don't ask stupid questions about people's posts that show you don't even read or understand them.

You're just a troll being a harasser. Go away.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 12, 2008 6:27 PM | Report abuse

So Obama is going to get tough, and spew rhetoric.
Well he learned from the best, his former pastor.

The new Hate monger,,Rev, Barack O'Wright.

Posted by: Bishop TuTu | September 12, 2008 6:27 PM | Report abuse

>>"AsperGirl, Do just a BIT of research before you regurgitate whatever you heard on Rush's show earlier today, willya?"

Read your own link. The facts alleged in the snopes "fact check" article are not the same story.

That snopes.com "fact check" pulls the same kind of fraud that the Obama's absurdly dishonest "fight the smears" website does: it cites a story that is different than the one alleged and then "debunks" the changed story.

If you look carefully at the snopes "fact checked" story, it claims that his mother didn't meet the requirements for citizenship to convey "natural born citizens" status on a baby with a foreign national father. That's a story no one is telling except snopes.com.

The story about Obama's birth is that he was actually born abroad, in Kenya while on a visit because his mother was too pregnant to fly back as planned due to an airline policy to not allow people with imminent delivery. She gave birth to Obama in Kenya & flew back 4 days later & quickly (& falsely) registered his birth as being in Hawaii. The U.S. naturalization law in 1961 for children born abroad to a U.S. citizen means that "natural born citizen" status can't be conveyed unless the U.S. parent is at least 19.

Those online fact check sites & Obama's "fight the smears" website have been pulling that trick of misstating the story & then "debunking" the misstated story. They do that expecting that people like you won't notice. & you don't.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 12, 2008 6:24 PM | Report abuse

Barky is running away from his tax plan, says he may delay it. If it is really good for the economy he would be able to get it enacted before fed 15 with a complete compliant congress. Libs should be outraged, this is just more of the Bush policies. Barky and Bill meeting ................."It will start with "Well Barak was spotted an automatic 15 point lead going into the election and he squandered all 15 points and was down by 2 to 3 when he came to me. I told him it was kinda like watching a USA basketball team take 3rd place in the Olympics (I always like to use metaphors he can understand). I also told him he had the ultimate support network imaginable with 9 in 10 reporters/pundints/media orgs valiantly carrying his water everyday and the best opposition research team money could buy. So I pointed out he was trying very ineffectively to guard the wrong person on the other team, and just wasn't very good without a teleprompter. But the major piece of advice I gave him was just hang around me and introduce we at every stop, and make sure to bow and say you aren't worthy and for heavens sake don't mention the unbelievable peace dividend that Reagan and Bush 1 got for me, a complete 8 years of peace, the even better luck of having a Republican congress to keep me in check, Hillary's health care going down the tubes, or all the Republican Governors that proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that welfare recipients would rather work if given the right chance. Also, we will need a Bimbo eruption team, and I will give your staff the attributes of the "Perks" I will need on the road. Listen Barry, this will cost you much much more in the future because I am giving up Hillary's chance for 2012 which you have single-handly made almost inevitable. She may not forgive me but I won't have to go through all that disclosure crap. Welcome to 'Bigs' kid, let's go kick so Republican butt."

Posted by: johs | September 12, 2008 6:23 PM | Report abuse

Does this mean he is going to try even harder to bamboozle and hoodwink the voters?

Posted by: tiredofit | September 12, 2008 6:22 PM | Report abuse

Reading the blogs here and on other newspapers around the country i have with a heavy heart have decided to abandon the party i have loved since i was a teenager. We have real problems in this country, i guess most on this blog do not realize this. But the acid tongue remarks and outright lies on this blog and on McCains ads have turned me off this party once and for all. I thought George Bush would change our country for the better but has done a complete 180 from what he said he would do. The thing that pains me the most is i dont hear McCain or Pailin state how they will fix the problems we have now. All i here is hes an elitist and celebrity blah blah blah. Well that doesn't help my situation nor our country. Me im going Dem for the first time in my life and feel like the weight of the world has been taken off my shoulders. So long GOP when you get back to helping this great country i may come back, but so far i dont see that happening.

Posted by: Long time Republican | September 12, 2008 6:22 PM | Report abuse

You say:

"For some in the Democratic Party -- which is always waiting for the other shoe to drop on the presidential level -- the events of the past six weeks (or so) have begun to eerily resemble the late summer and fall of the 2004 presidential campaign when Sen. John Kerry watched as Republicans (and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth) reshaped the debate and reelected a somewhat unpopular president."

Simply put, this is 2008 not 2004, and the McCain campaign has grossly overplayed its hand.

Posted by: scpato | September 12, 2008 6:22 PM | Report abuse

Yes I DETEST the idea of a secessionist in the role of VP. Palin family were members of the anti-US Alaska First Secessionist Party (AKIP) Why should we have a VP that wants Alaska to seceed from the nation? Aside from that Palin is a lightweight - she ACTUALLY talks about going to war with Russia.... STUPID. THAT IS WHAT DIPLOMATS ARE FOR... SO WE DON'T HAVE A NUCLEAR WAR WITH RUSSIA! Somebody shut her up before she gets us all killed!

YES I think John McCain is compoletely out of touch with the average American. We don't wear $300,000 outfits like Cindy McCain did, and we don't wear $6,000 shoes like John McCain.

YES I want a president who understands economics, the value of international allies, and education. I want a President who sits on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee - Beats the hell out of experience that is summed up by looking over the ice at Siberia for God's sake!

Mostly I want an honest and ethical President who will sweep out all of Bush's NEO-CON appointees.... like the ones at FEMA, and that cocain/sex party oil agency... All Bush people, all need to GO!

Vote Obama 08'

Posted by: JBE | September 12, 2008 6:21 PM | Report abuse

Get a clue it does not matter, one side playing of the fears and apprehensions of the other. The truth is nothing is really going to change. They are all corporate lapdogs that do as they are told by the 'real congress'...the lobbyists. The real winners in this election cycle are the newspapers, news channels, radio stations and pundits that get people to tune in.

Posted by: RC | September 12, 2008 6:19 PM | Report abuse

Yikes,

I don't think you read below that post. Someone said the world hated America. You only read a response. But great point to the affirmative

Posted by: Jerry O. | September 12, 2008 6:18 PM | Report abuse

want to make some big headlines????


sue the rethuglicans for fraud, disinformation and purposefully posting and advertising so as to


DEFRAUD the AMERICAN VOTING PUBLIC...


they _ARE_ SELLING A PRODUCT, they can be found guilty of criminal, and civil as well as FEDERAL MISREPRESENTATION OF FACTS in order to control resources...monetary gain....


it's a verifiable fact, and it's a crime.

.SUE THEM.


.


Blizzard of Lies, By PAUL KRUGMAN, September 11, 2008

Did you hear about how Barack Obama wants to have sex education in kindergarten, and called Sarah Palin a pig? Did you hear about how Ms. Palin told Congress, “Thanks, but no thanks” when it wanted to buy Alaska a Bridge to Nowhere?


These stories have two things in common: they’re all claims recently made by the McCain campaign — and they’re all out-and-out lies.

"...our system continues to reward false statements and outright lies with a winning campaign..."


Dishonesty is nothing new in politics. I spent much of 2000 — my first year at The Times — trying to alert readers to the blatant dishonesty of the Bush campaign’s claims about taxes, spending and Social Security.

But I can’t think of any precedent, at least in America, for the blizzard of lies since the Republican convention. The Bush campaign’s lies in 2000 were artful — you needed some grasp of arithmetic to realize that you were being conned. This year, however, the McCain campaign keeps making assertions that anyone with an Internet connection can disprove in a minute, and repeating these assertions over and over again.

Take the case of the Bridge to Nowhere, which supposedly gives Ms. Palin credentials as a reformer. Well, when campaigning for governor, Ms. Palin didn’t say “no thanks” — she was all for the bridge, even though it had already become a national scandal, insisting that she would “not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that’s so negative.”

Oh, and when she finally did decide to cancel the project, she didn’t righteously reject a handout from Washington: she accepted the handout, but spent it on something else. You see, long before she decided to cancel the bridge, Congress had told Alaska that it could keep the federal money originally earmarked for that project and use it elsewhere.

So the whole story of Ms. Palin’s alleged heroic stand against wasteful spending is fiction.

Or take the story of Mr. Obama’s alleged advocacy of kindergarten sex-ed. In reality, he supported legislation calling for “age and developmentally appropriate education”; in the case of young children, that would have meant guidance to help them avoid sexual predators.

And then there’s the claim that Mr. Obama’s use of the ordinary metaphor “putting lipstick on a pig” was a sexist smear, and on and on.

Why do the McCain people think they can get away with this stuff? Well, they’re probably counting on the common practice in the news media of being “balanced” at all costs. You know how it goes: If a politician says that black is white, the news report doesn’t say that he’s wrong, it reports that “some Democrats say” that he’s wrong. Or a grotesque lie from one side is paired with a trivial misstatement from the other, conveying the impression that both sides are equally dirty.

They’re probably also counting on the prevalence of horse-race reporting, so that instead of the story being “McCain campaign lies,” it becomes “Obama on defensive in face of attacks.”

Still, how upset should we be about the McCain campaign’s lies? I mean, politics ain’t beanbag, and all that.

One answer is that the muck being hurled by the McCain campaign is preventing a debate on real issues — on whether the country really wants, for example, to continue the economic policies of the last eight years.

But there’s another answer, which may be even more important: how a politician campaigns tells you a lot about how he or she would govern.

I’m not talking about the theory, often advanced as a defense of horse-race political reporting, that the skills needed to run a winning campaign are the same as those needed to run the country. The contrast between the Bush political team’s ruthless effectiveness and the heckuva job done by the Bush administration is living, breathing, bumbling, and, in the case of the emerging Interior Department scandal, coke-snorting and bed-hopping proof to the contrary.

I’m talking, instead, about the relationship between the character of a campaign and that of the administration that follows. Thus, the deceptive and dishonest 2000 Bush-Cheney campaign provided an all-too-revealing preview of things to come. In fact, my early suspicion that we were being misled about the threat from Iraq came from the way the political tactics being used to sell the war resembled the tactics that had earlier been used to sell the Bush tax cuts.

And now the team that hopes to form the next administration is running a campaign that makes Bush-Cheney 2000 look like something out of a civics class. What does that say about how that team would run the country?

What it says, I’d argue, is that the Obama campaign is wrong to suggest that a McCain-Palin administration would just be a continuation of Bush-Cheney. If the way John McCain and Sarah Palin are campaigning is any indication, it would be much, much worse.

Posted by: take them down to the river.... | September 12, 2008 6:18 PM | Report abuse

Asper Girl,

Answer the question about being born in Hawaii, or you cant get an answer from Rush? Truth hurts doesnt it....

Posted by: What? | September 12, 2008 6:18 PM | Report abuse

Obama is now doing "politics as usual" after he promised to run a different campaign.

The only change that Obama can offer is the number of times he changes his mind and his position on everything from his pastor to his political approach.

The negative ads only make me more determined to not go with Obama or the Democrats in this election. I have determined that Obama is a sexist pig and the liberals believe women are only good for votes and abortion.

Aemrican women (and men) deserve more than a self-serving and ever changing leaders. I am going for eal CHANGE and voting for a woman ticket - go McCain/Palin '08!

Posted by: Mccain Democrat | September 12, 2008 6:16 PM | Report abuse

Michael4,
Sorry that wasnt you that said that about McCain, but i like your comeback to that flower throwing incident that only the GOP can pick up on. They dont seem to realize our economy is in the tank, we have poor healthcare or we are paying way to much for gas while the oil companies get rich. Yep that flower laying swayed me...NOT...

Posted by: Huh? | September 12, 2008 6:15 PM | Report abuse

"Some idiots try to make an issue of the most inane things to distract from significant issues ..."

Why not? It wins every election, every time.

Any progressive, liberal, Democrat, whatever who insists on arguing ISSUES from a LOGICAL standpoint is already doomed.

It's about PERSONALITIES and not CONDESCENDING to those less "informed".

The Dems may govern better, but the Repubs CAMPAIGN better, and that after all is how elections are won.

George Wallace was right -- "pointy-headed intellectuals" just don't get it.

They really don't.

Posted by: phoenixresearch | September 12, 2008 6:15 PM | Report abuse

"So I would assume that you think cutiing the taxes on those high wage earners was a good thing when Bush did exactly that in 2001. How did that work out for the country?"

Posted by: NM Moderate |
==============================

1. Bush cut taxes in 2003, not 2001
2. The tax cuts spurred growth and gave us 4+ years of strong of economic growth.
3. Revenues to the Federal treasury grew by over 20%
4. Those high wage earners you talk about? The top 10% of wage earners pay 70% of all income taxes. The bottom 50% pay on 3%. That's AFTER Bush's tax rate reductions. Ooh, how unfair!

Posted by: Danno | September 12, 2008 6:15 PM | Report abuse

wallace2

7% bonus

They were referring to the bonus the ceo and senior leadership at Exxon would get not the bonus to the stock owners. I believe that is the point. No matter the performance of Exxon at the quarter or year end they get their management bonus or such. The stock owners can't rely on anything but the stock value growth if it occurs (of course some stocks pay a dividend).

Posted by: MIKE | September 12, 2008 6:14 PM | Report abuse

want to make some big headlines????


sue the rethuglicans for fraud, disinformation and purposefully posting and advertising so as to


DEFRAUD the AMERICAN VOTING PUBLIC...


they _ARE_ SELLING A PRODUCT, they can be found guilty of criminal, and civil as well as FEDERAL MISREPRESENTATION OF FACTS in order to control resources...monetary gain....


it's a verifiable fact, and it's a crime.

.SUE THEM.


.


Blizzard of Lies, By PAUL KRUGMAN, September 11, 2008

Did you hear about how Barack Obama wants to have sex education in kindergarten, and called Sarah Palin a pig? Did you hear about how Ms. Palin told Congress, “Thanks, but no thanks” when it wanted to buy Alaska a Bridge to Nowhere?


"...our system continues to reward false statements and outright lies with a winning campaign..."

These stories have two things in common: they’re all claims recently made by the McCain campaign — and they’re all out-and-out lies.

Dishonesty is nothing new in politics. I spent much of 2000 — my first year at The Times — trying to alert readers to the blatant dishonesty of the Bush campaign’s claims about taxes, spending and Social Security.

But I can’t think of any precedent, at least in America, for the blizzard of lies since the Republican convention. The Bush campaign’s lies in 2000 were artful — you needed some grasp of arithmetic to realize that you were being conned. This year, however, the McCain campaign keeps making assertions that anyone with an Internet connection can disprove in a minute, and repeating these assertions over and over again.

Take the case of the Bridge to Nowhere, which supposedly gives Ms. Palin credentials as a reformer. Well, when campaigning for governor, Ms. Palin didn’t say “no thanks” — she was all for the bridge, even though it had already become a national scandal, insisting that she would “not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that’s so negative.”

Oh, and when she finally did decide to cancel the project, she didn’t righteously reject a handout from Washington: she accepted the handout, but spent it on something else. You see, long before she decided to cancel the bridge, Congress had told Alaska that it could keep the federal money originally earmarked for that project and use it elsewhere.

So the whole story of Ms. Palin’s alleged heroic stand against wasteful spending is fiction.

Or take the story of Mr. Obama’s alleged advocacy of kindergarten sex-ed. In reality, he supported legislation calling for “age and developmentally appropriate education”; in the case of young children, that would have meant guidance to help them avoid sexual predators.

And then there’s the claim that Mr. Obama’s use of the ordinary metaphor “putting lipstick on a pig” was a sexist smear, and on and on.

Why do the McCain people think they can get away with this stuff? Well, they’re probably counting on the common practice in the news media of being “balanced” at all costs. You know how it goes: If a politician says that black is white, the news report doesn’t say that he’s wrong, it reports that “some Democrats say” that he’s wrong. Or a grotesque lie from one side is paired with a trivial misstatement from the other, conveying the impression that both sides are equally dirty.

They’re probably also counting on the prevalence of horse-race reporting, so that instead of the story being “McCain campaign lies,” it becomes “Obama on defensive in face of attacks.”

Still, how upset should we be about the McCain campaign’s lies? I mean, politics ain’t beanbag, and all that.

One answer is that the muck being hurled by the McCain campaign is preventing a debate on real issues — on whether the country really wants, for example, to continue the economic policies of the last eight years.

But there’s another answer, which may be even more important: how a politician campaigns tells you a lot about how he or she would govern.

I’m not talking about the theory, often advanced as a defense of horse-race political reporting, that the skills needed to run a winning campaign are the same as those needed to run the country. The contrast between the Bush political team’s ruthless effectiveness and the heckuva job done by the Bush administration is living, breathing, bumbling, and, in the case of the emerging Interior Department scandal, coke-snorting and bed-hopping proof to the contrary.

I’m talking, instead, about the relationship between the character of a campaign and that of the administration that follows. Thus, the deceptive and dishonest 2000 Bush-Cheney campaign provided an all-too-revealing preview of things to come. In fact, my early suspicion that we were being misled about the threat from Iraq came from the way the political tactics being used to sell the war resembled the tactics that had earlier been used to sell the Bush tax cuts.

And now the team that hopes to form the next administration is running a campaign that makes Bush-Cheney 2000 look like something out of a civics class. What does that say about how that team would run the country?

What it says, I’d argue, is that the Obama campaign is wrong to suggest that a McCain-Palin administration would just be a continuation of Bush-Cheney. If the way John McCain and Sarah Palin are campaigning is any indication, it would be much, much worse.

Posted by: the re_thug_licans LIE just as easily as they take a dump...it's how they rule the sheeple... | September 12, 2008 6:12 PM | Report abuse

Apparently people forgot another VP with even less background as a governor than Palin. Teddy Roosevelt. Why do we focus so hard on the VP versus Obama. It should be a focus on the presidential office only..

Posted by: JOhn | September 12, 2008 6:12 PM | Report abuse

LOL. Even in NJ, Obama's up by only 3 pts now. Was 12 pts.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nj/new_jersey_mccain_vs_obama-250.html

Nov. 4 is going to be one ugly trainwreck for the left-wing sexists.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 12, 2008 6:12 PM | Report abuse

AsperGirl,

Do just a BIT of research before you regurgitate whatever you heard on Rush's show earlier today, willya?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 6:12 PM | Report abuse

Jennifer,

We are hated around the world. Do you remember September 12th when newspapers around the world declared they to are Americans and even our enemies were so appalled by the attack they were willing to help. But our stupid leader W thought he knew more than the whole world. That is why outside of Georgia he has to be moved away from the hundreds of thousands of protesters that greet him in every country....

Posted by: Yikes | September 12, 2008 6:12 PM | Report abuse

a person who truly believes in God would not support abortion, OR....

- Killing Gods creatures. Dominion means responsibility not recreation. No matter how much you try to glorify hunting...it is what it is. A sport for bloodthirsty people with no concept of respect for LIFE)

- Shooting immigrants, racism, turning your back on the POOR (Is Jesus Christ ringing any bells? He was an immigrant and a community activist).

- War (plenty of children have been killed in Iraq. Some were not in a womb though so I guess it doesn't matter)

PLEEEEEASE end the farce.

Posted by: PA_DC | September 12, 2008 6:10 PM | Report abuse

michael4,

Dont you realize McCain cannot raise his arms up much less throw something? If that is what is going to make up your mind, i hope you will be comforted by that feeling everytime you fill your tank up with gas over 4 dollars a gallon...

Posted by: Huh? | September 12, 2008 6:08 PM | Report abuse

"The liberal base of the Democratic party detests Palin in a visceral way and wants to destroy her, regardless of whether it is a sound political strategy or not."

Can you please give evidence--any at all--for this preposterous charge? Here is where the press--and you specifically, Chris--must be held accountable. The attacks against Palin have not come from Democrats: they've come from McCain campaign characterizations that you and the press have picked up as buzzy news.

Please, please write one article about the tax policy differences between McCain and Obama. Make it clear that the billionaires who brought on the housing crisis and the boost in oil and commodity prices are taxed at

15% on their revenue

while all of the rest of us productive workers and business creators pay up to 35%.

Do the math, America. That's 20% more in taxes paid by non-billionaires. Look at what McCain says about taxes, health care and the rest. Obama doesn't need to say much to speak the truth. But there must be honest brokers to pass it on in the media. Please pass on a sliver of the godawful truth.

Posted by: George | September 12, 2008 6:08 PM | Report abuse

I agree with tax cuts for all..you know that fair thing. But raising taxes on those who make the money, drive the economy and create the jobs is a sure ticket to recession

Posted by: steve jackson | September 12, 2008 5:30 PM

**************************
This sounds suspiciously like the "the sky will fall!" doom-and-gloom that was coming out of the GOP congressmen and senators' mouths in lockstep in 1993 in reference to Clinton's economic plan. Instead, we got the longest run of economic prosperity in our history.

This line of b.s. depends squarely on one's ability to assume that a millionaire will do everything in his power to make a profit that is taxed at 31%, but will forego trying to make money if it's taxed at 35% (or whatever the number proposed is). Anyone who knows ANYTHING about economics knows that such a proposition is about as rational as bringing a bass boat to a drag race. Sure, the rich WANT to have their earnings taxed at the lowest rate possible, but they aren't going to take their football and go home if they have to pay a few more cents on the dollar.

The one thing that IS certain is that if we continue our borrow-and-spend ways, as the current controlling faction of the GOP would have us do, that is a ticket not to recession, but to an economic disaster that will make the Great Depression look like Disneyland.

Posted by: the REAL Razorback | September 12, 2008 6:06 PM | Report abuse

Steve Jackson,

Almost 70 percent of economic growth is driven by consumer spending.

One thing is for certain -- the peanuts that McCain throws to the middle and working class won't goose consumer spending significantly.

Obama's plan may not go far enough, but it's much more likely to succeed in creating some real economic growth. Obama's investment in building bridges at home; rather than blowing them up overseas is also smart long-term fiscal policy.

Posted by: JP2 | September 12, 2008 6:06 PM | Report abuse


Obama has panicked. That's what you get from the inexperienced and untested. Imagine him as president faced with a crisis. Maybe Axelrod could tell him what to do if Russian troops moved into Ukraine.

Posted by: WylieD | September 12, 2008 6:06 PM | Report abuse

Gee whiz, Barack! Why don't you just call them scum sucking liars? You know those mavericks, always messing with the truth. You should never trust a maverick. They say one thing and then do the opposite. Just replay their statements and smack on a label that says LIAR! over their mouth. I don't know why this is so tough. If Jon Stewart, Bill Maher, Stephen Colbert and the View ladies can do it, why can't the Dems? Let Biden do ads about Palin. She's full of it too. Maybe she didn't lie about being a mother, but everything else is unclear. Everything else she brags about is half or completely false. Start taking her down. People will cry foul at first but after a while they will realize she's a fraud.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 6:06 PM | Report abuse

Obama on taxes and the economy
He plans to increase the top individual income tax rate from 35% to 39.6% and 65.9% of Americans disagree .
He wants to increase capital gains taxes from 15% to 28%.
He plans to increase taxes on stock dividend income from 15% to 39.6% when 65.9% of Americans disagree.
He wants to increase the estate tax rate to 55% of estate value over $1 million when 52.6% of Americans disagree.
Increase payroll taxes for employees and employers by an additional 4%.
Increase top total income tax on self-employed individuals from 37.9% to 54.9% against the will of 84.5% of Americans who disagree.
Increase top tax rate for S-Corporation owners from 35% to 50.3% when 85.4% of Americans disagree.
His tax plans equal $900 billion in his first term and 50.8% of Americans say it is too costly and unnecessary; only 35.8% approve.
He wants to punish businesses and “rich” people with additional taxes.
Added taxes on businesses are ultimately paid by the consumer (you and I), and “rich” people are the ones who create new jobs with monies left after taxes. This plan reduces job creation and increases your taxes.

Obama on energy
We have 5.6 to 16 billion barrels of US oil in ANWR (Alaska National Wildlife Reserve) & he opposes drilling there. 36.3% of Americans agree.
We have 85.9 billion barrels of US oil & 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas (equivalent to 70 billion barrels of oil) offshore, and he opposes drilling there also. Only 23.4% of people agree.
Opposes using any of 250 billion tons of US coal (equivalent to 800 billion barrels of oil, and three times the oil reserves of Saudi Arabia).
Opposes using any of 800 billion barrels of US oil from oil shale (triple Saudi Arabia oil reserves).
USA has oil and equivalent reserves of 1.83 trillion barrels. He wants to leave it all underground and pay $700 billion per year to foreigners.
US has 104 nuclear power plants providing 20% of the nation's energy needs and France produces 77% of its energy through nuclear power plants, all with no history of accidents. But opposes 58.6% of Americans who say increase nuclear energy production as much as possible.
With his supporter Tom Daschle (who is on the board of directors of three ethanol-producing companies) favors major subsidies for ethanol which increase food shortages & result in price increases.
In June 2007 he voted for a $32 billion tax on oil producers which would have increased gasoline prices by $3.26 per gallon resulting in $7-$8 per gallon prices at the pump and 60.9% of Americans disapprove.

Obama on abortion
Unlike 67.8% of Americans, he believes that doctors should not provide care to a fetus that has survived an abortion attempt and should let it die.
Unlike 82.2% of Americans, he believes women should have the right to an abortion based on the sex of the fetus.
He believes that doctors should not inform the parents of an under aged girl choosing an abortion, and 77% of Americans disagree.
He disagrees that abortion destroys a human life and is manslaughter, and 51.5% of Americans disagree.
He doesn't know when life begins—55% of Americans say at conception.
He believes late term abortion should be legal while 66% of Americans disagree.

Obama on gun control
He is in favor of suing gun manufacturers for the crimes committed using their product, contrary to 76.2% of Americans who disagree.
He's against gun ownership laws favored by 77.6% of Americans.
Contrary to 60% of Americans, he is in favor of new tougher gun control laws instead of enforcing the laws we have.
He favors a ban on sale of handguns, but 59% of Americans disagree.
He disagrees with 70.1% of Americans who believe we should vigorously enforce laws against felons and non-US citizens voting in our elections.

Obama on healthcare
Only 35.1% of Americans are in favor of Obama's $65 billion per year health care plan, and 59.9% of people don't want this plan.

Obama on free trade
49.8% of Americans believe his trade barriers and tariff increase plans will hurt US economy. Only 34.1% believe it will help the economy.

Obama on foreign policy
Obama believes USA should unconditionally negotiate with Iran when 62.5% of Americans disagree, and only 21% agree. Maybe he could have stopped Hitler by negotiating with him.
The Arab terrorist organization Hamas has endorsed him.

Obama and a Democratic Congress
With Obama in the White House, the predominantly Democratic Congress would rubberstamp his socialist programs which have been tried by Carter and Johnson administrations and socialist countries with miserable resu

Posted by: NetNet | September 12, 2008 6:06 PM | Report abuse

Asper Girl,

Since when does being born in Hawaii not make you an American Citizen?

Posted by: What? | September 12, 2008 6:04 PM | Report abuse

I'm actually surprised, Sen. Mccain would not separate himself from the hate mongers and bigots like those who like to spread their ignorance here.

Posted by: frank | September 12, 2008 6:04 PM | Report abuse


YES WE CAN ?


Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 6:04 PM | Report abuse

AFTER 20 DAYS OBAMA FINALLY SERVED SUMMONS IN LAWSUIT CHALLENGING HIS CITIZENSHIP ELIGIBILITY TO HOLD OFFICE OF PRESIDENT

After 20 days of evading being served by a summons & playing games about who could accept service on behalf of Barack Obama as he flies around the U.S., a federal lawsuit filed against him alleging he cannot serve as President of the U.S. because he is not a U.S. citizen as finally been served on Barack Obama.

http://news.justia.com/cases/featured/pennsylvania/paedce/2:2008cv04083/281573/

The U.S. Attorney & the Federal Election Commission accepted service of the summons on August 22, 2008, but none have taken action. Normally, the defendant(s) are expected to answer the lawsuit, admitting the truth or falsity of the facts alleged, before third parties react.

IN THIS CASE BECAUSE OF THE TIMELINES OF THE GENERAL ELECTION & THE EVASIVENESS OF BARACK OBAMA RE: BEING SERVED, THE US ATTORNEY & FEC SHOULD INTERVENE TO HELP EXPEDITE THE LEGAL PROCESS SO THAT CRITICAL FACTS CAN BE ESTABLISHED BEFORE THE NATION VOTES ON NOVEMBER 4!

IF BARACK OBAMA IS INNOCENT OF THESE CLAIMS, WHY DID HIS CAMPAIGN GIVE THE SERVICE THE RUN AROUND & DODGE SERVICE, HOLDING IT UP FOR 20 DAYS WHILE THE ELECTION DRAWS NEAR?

The suit alleges that Obama cannot qualify for Office of President for 3 separate reasons:

(1) His mother, as Kenyan records & witnesses attest, gave birth to Obama in Kenya while on a visit because the airline refused to allow her to board a flight when her delivery was imminent (this is standard for airlines, to avoid in-flight births). 4 days after his birth, Barack & mother flew back to Hawaii & she registered his birth there. No records of live birth for Obama exist in Hawaii & no hospital records in Hawaii attest to his birth. For a variety of legal reasons, including the young age of his mother & the U.S. naturalization laws at the time, Obama would not be a natural born citizen if this is true. He would be a Kenyan citizen.

(2) The suit alleges that, even if he were a "natural born citizen", Obama lost his citizenship when his mother naturalized as an Indonesian citizen while they lived in Indonesia. Obama was registered as an Indonesian citizen, and as late as the age of 20, he used his Indonesian passport to travel to Pakistan for undisclosed reasons while American citizens couldn't easily travel there due to restrictions.

(3) The lawsuit alleges that for a variety of reasons having to do with requirements for Obama to reclaim his citizenship if (2) were true, were not followed by him. I.e. he hasn't taken an Oath before an appropriate agent of the United States after his mother expatriated and his expatriation followed hers. He also never declared that he was giving up his Indonesian citizenship. At best, Berg alleges, Obama is a dual citizen of the U.S. and Indonesia, & a President with dual citizenship cannot have an undivided loyalties.

The very best that can be said of Barack Obama, even if all of the most lost-in-the-fog-of-the-past facts are all unable to be proved, is that he is, unquestionably, a dual citizen of the U.S. & Indonesia.

Indonesia is the country with the largest Muslim population in the World.

Final strange twist: Since Kenya was a British colony in 1961, Barack Obama might be a BRITISH citizen if (1) is true. & he might have a dual British & Indonesian citizenship and no claim to U.S. citizenship if BOTH (1) & (2) are true.

one article is at: http://www.phoenixvillenews.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20110394&BRD=1673&PAG=461&dept_id=17915&rfi=6a
2008_

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 12, 2008 6:03 PM | Report abuse

AFTER 20 DAYS OBAMA FINALLY SERVED SUMMONS IN LAWSUIT CHALLENGING HIS CITIZENSHIP ELIGIBILITY TO HOLD OFFICE OF PRESIDENT

After 20 days of evading being served by a summons & playing games about who could accept service on behalf of Barack Obama as he flies around the U.S., a federal lawsuit filed against him alleging he cannot serve as President of the U.S. because he is not a U.S. citizen as finally been served on Barack Obama.

http://news.justia.com/cases/featured/pennsylvania/paedce/2:2008cv04083/281573/

The U.S. Attorney & the Federal Election Commission accepted service of the summons on August 22, 2008, but none have taken action. Normally, the defendant(s) are expected to answer the lawsuit, admitting the truth or falsity of the facts alleged, before third parties react.

IN THIS CASE BECAUSE OF THE TIMELINES OF THE GENERAL ELECTION & THE EVASIVENESS OF BARACK OBAMA RE: BEING SERVED, THE US ATTORNEY & FEC SHOULD INTERVENE TO HELP EXPEDITE THE LEGAL PROCESS SO THAT CRITICAL FACTS CAN BE ESTABLISHED BEFORE THE NATION VOTES ON NOVEMBER 4!

IF BARACK OBAMA IS INNOCENT OF THESE CLAIMS, WHY DID HIS CAMPAIGN GIVE THE SERVICE THE RUN AROUND & DODGE SERVICE, HOLDING IT UP FOR 20 DAYS WHILE THE ELECTION DRAWS NEAR?

The suit alleges that Obama cannot qualify for Office of President for 3 separate reasons:

(1) His mother, as Kenyan records & witnesses attest, gave birth to Obama in Kenya while on a visit because the airline refused to allow her to board a flight when her delivery was imminent (this is standard for airlines, to avoid in-flight births). 4 days after his birth, Barack & mother flew back to Hawaii & she registered his birth there. No records of live birth for Obama exist in Hawaii & no hospital records in Hawaii attest to his birth. For a variety of legal reasons, including the young age of his mother & the U.S. naturalization laws at the time, Obama would not be a natural born citizen if this is true. He would be a Kenyan citizen.

(2) The suit alleges that, even if he were a "natural born citizen", Obama lost his citizenship when his mother naturalized as an Indonesian citizen while they lived in Indonesia. Obama was registered as an Indonesian citizen, and as late as the age of 20, he used his Indonesian passport to travel to Pakistan for undisclosed reasons while American citizens couldn't easily travel there due to restrictions.

(3) The lawsuit alleges that for a variety of reasons having to do with requirements for Obama to reclaim his citizenship if (2) were true, were not followed by him. I.e. he hasn't taken an Oath before an appropriate agent of the United States after his mother expatriated and his expatriation followed hers. He also never declared that he was giving up his Indonesian citizenship. At best, Berg alleges, Obama is a dual citizen of the U.S. and Indonesia, & a President with dual citizenship cannot have an undivided loyalties.

The very best that can be said of Barack Obama, even if all of the most lost-in-the-fog-of-the-past facts are all unable to be proved, is that he is, unquestionably, a dual citizen of the U.S. & Indonesia.

Indonesia is the country with the largest Muslim population in the World.

Final strange twist: Since Kenya was a British colony in 1961, Barack Obama might be a BRITISH citizen if (1) is true. & he might have a dual British & Indonesian citizenship and no claim to U.S. citizenship if BOTH (1) & (2) are true.

one article is at: http://www.phoenixvillenews.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20110394&BRD=1673&PAG=461&dept_id=17915&rfi=6a
2008_

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 12, 2008 6:03 PM | Report abuse

No way – No How – No McCain.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 6:03 PM | Report abuse

michael4

I missed that one..... It appeared to me that tossed his flowers onto the top of a pile of flowers.

I agree; it was stupid but very very funny. I have to say that made my day; thanks for calling that out!

Bye for now, have fun with it but remember, Vote for the guy who will grow America, not grow the Government!

Posted by: Jennifer | September 12, 2008 6:03 PM | Report abuse

michael4

I missed that one..... It appeared to me that tossed his flowers onto the top of a pile of flowers.

I agree; it was stupid but very very funny. I have to say that made my day; thanks for calling that out!

Bye for now, have fun with it but remember, Vote for the guy who will grow America, not grow the Government!

Posted by: Jennifer | September 12, 2008 6:03 PM | Report abuse

Steve Jackson,

Almost 70 percent of economic growth is driven by consumer spending. The largest chunk of that spending comes from the largest chunk of taxpayers.

One thing is for certain -- the peanuts that McCain throws to the middle and working class won't goose consumer spending significantly. Obama's plan may not go far enough, but it's much more likely to succeed in creating some real economic growth. Obama's investment in building bridges at home; rather than blowing them up overseas is also smart long-term fiscal policy.

Posted by: JP2 | September 12, 2008 6:03 PM | Report abuse

SHOCKING!

Michelle Shaniqua Obama's latest speech.

Posted by: Dianne72 | September 12, 2008 5:41 PM
----------------------------------
Well, now we know you too are a liar Dianne! The video posted is NOT Michelle Obama.

Can't you morons come up with legitimate, well thought out policy isses to articulate, or is attempted smearing your only talent?

Posted by: michael4 | September 12, 2008 6:03 PM | Report abuse

No way – No How – No McCain.

Posted by: No way – No How – No McCain. | September 12, 2008 6:03 PM | Report abuse

I keep hearing the "McSame" crap and other than a clever play on his name it is fundamentally untrue and ANYONE that paid any attention to politcs in the last 15 years would know that, but instead most of you ignorant hippy liberals just started watching this spring and don't have a clue. Democrats and Republicans alike have respected McCain for years and the ones that didn't were the ones that made the mess that we are in today. But you would rather sling mud. Make fun of people. Believe in the hopelessly bogus promises from someone that couldn't deliver on a local level all because you finally decided to get involved in the political process. I would rather 100 well informed people voted as opposed to millions of ignorant uneducated fools. Someone told me recently that we as a country will get the President that we deserve and I can only hope that we deserve McCain otherwise when you figure out that Obama is full of empty unobtainable promises and only told you what you wanted to hear and now begins taking the mess that Bush made and turning it into a real disaster you will all be wondering what the hell happened. You didnt educate yourselves enough to deserve to privilidge of voting is what happened and you are the ones to blame. And in regards to the intitial statements about Obamas ad about McCain. What the hell does the President need to be emailing and and the internet for anyway?!?! Unlike Obama he wouldn't need to Google search his information and be checking online polls to make decisions.

Posted by: Jeff from Chicago | September 12, 2008 6:03 PM | Report abuse

No way – No How – No McCain.

Posted by: No way – No How – No McCain. | September 12, 2008 6:03 PM | Report abuse

"Those 7% who own Exxon will still get their big bonus check--"

Really? I've owned Exxon since 1985 and I haven't seen that bonus check.

Stick to the facts, ok?

Posted by: wallace2 | September 12, 2008 6:00 PM | Report abuse

didn't John Mccain of the 7 houses and a wife who showed up in a $300,000 outfit at the rep. convention) graduate 6th from the bottom of his class at the Naval Academy? now there's a qualification.

Posted by: frank | September 12, 2008 5:59 PM | Report abuse

stilowa its obvious from your resonsive rant that you have no idea what you are talkig about other then to make personal attacks. I am a lifelong D who has traveled and worked in numerous D campaigns over the last 25 years. I was also a HC suporter that started a local Ds for McCain group and websight. And that makes me a partisan how? I have recently disbanded my Ds for McCain group, taken my McCain signs down, and spoken with many like minded HC supporter who share my sentiment that they now dislike both candidates and are likely to skip the top of the ticket and vote straight D down ballot. Don't believe me? Talk with a local HC supporter and ask them what they think of Palin and McCain after his selection which in most cases has absolutely nothing to do with abortion, nothing. Dissapointment with him, cynical decision,unworthy of his historical independence, captive of the right wing of his party that is what I am hearing from Ds other than Aspergirl, who like me were otherwise ready to cast their first R vote in their lives for McCain sveral week ago, but no more. McCain is no longer the maverick you infer that he s, who once opposed the Bush tax cuts and championed campaign fiance reform with a true reformer Senator Feingold, and a concesus immigration reform policy which p.o Senators from both sides. That is the candidate many had hoped he would be when he announced his run and which you now argue. What a disappointment that only a partisan like you would not appreciate how much he has changed since then b/c he is so driven to win that he would abandon everything he 'once' stood for. You obviously missed my point or were simply too busy just typing venom.

Posted by: Leichtman | September 12, 2008 5:59 PM | Report abuse

Coleen

What are you talking about "Americans are hated around the world" That could be said for most any country-just take the shoulders of the nice French people. The British hate them so much they mispronounce Cafe just because they don't like them.

If we opened our borders people would just come piling in. America is the melting pot of all nations--we accept the tired the weary. We donate more to other countries, we help out and Yes we do interfere, we do look after our interests.

Look how silly we are but that is what is expected when you have the most broad shoulders--you carry the love and the hate of the world.

Posted by: Jennifer | September 12, 2008 5:56 PM | Report abuse

I agree with tax cuts for all..you know that fair thing. But raising taxes on those who make the money, drive the economy and create the jobs is a sure ticket to recession

Posted by: steve jackson | September 12, 2008 5:30 PM

So I would assume that you think cutiing the taxes on those high wage earners was a good thing when Bush did exactly that in 2001. How did that work out for the country?

Posted by: NM Moderate | September 12, 2008 5:56 PM | Report abuse

It has now been one week since the Republican Convention ended. What do we really know about John McCain’s pick to be Vice President… Gov. Sarah Palin? What do we know about Sarah Palin’s reform credentials? Scrape away all the glitter of the stump speech and check out the facts.

• Sarah Palin hired a lobbyist to gain earmarks ($27million) while Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska'

• Sarah Palin actively campaigned for the “Bridge to Nowhere” until it was politically unpopular

• Alaskans under Sarah Palin’s tutelage as governor receive more in earmarks per capita than the national average

• All this “reform” while Alaska is awash in Oil Revenue with a 5 Billion Dollar Surplus.

It would appear that the only reforming Republicans are considering is the re-forming of American opinion that John McCain and Sarah Palin are ready to reform American government!


You cannot reform wasteful spending until you address the 10 billion dollars that we spend each month reforming Iraq!

http://michelle2005.wprdpress.com

Posted by: Michelle | September 12, 2008 5:55 PM | Report abuse

A difficulty I have with the Dems is... They have selected an inexperienced, idealogical, non-performing candidate to replace someone they HATE. It is a phrase I hear over and over...I hate the current administration...

Hate ia a strong motivator but HATE BLINDS YOU to making wise, rational choices.

It is no wonder that Obama, with his promises of a 'better world' is accepted. All of us want that.

But look at his performance to see if he has ever delivered what he is selling.

Posted by: Theo | September 12, 2008 5:55 PM | Report abuse

Jennifer,

The Obama tax plan resembles Bill Clinton's tax policy. At the time people said it would create BIG problems -- it lead to the longest sustained economic expansion in U.S. history. It raised the median wage by $7,000 (compared to the $1,500 decrease under Bush).

Taxation at a 39.7% rate isn't punishment. It's asking a lot less than the demands placed under presidents from Reagan in 1986 back to FDR. It's also smart long-term economic policy.

Posted by: JP2 | September 12, 2008 5:54 PM | Report abuse

BARACK OBAMA CLUELESS VISION ON HOW TO HELP AMERICA:

CREATE A VAST NEW CORPS OF COMMUNITY ORGANIZERS!

Barack Obama apparently thinks he knows more than the entire of American society. He wants to create a whole new industry group: a service sector of publicly funded community organizers.

His vision of "service" doesn't include existing organizations & industry groups that have evolved naturally & organically in our free society & free market society.

I.e. his vision of "service" doesn't include church community service & volunteer groups, existing organized groups like Habitat for Humanity, the military, national guards, police, firefighters (volunteer & professional), EMT's & paramedics (volunteer & professional), and on and on...

Apparently the peace-officer work is too challenging & dangerous (police, firefighter, EMT...), the military & national guard is too violent-aggressive-imperialistic, the church groups require that you believe in a religion, & volunteering on your own in a variety of groups doesn't pay.

He wants to artificially create, and pay, funded by federal money, a vast corps of "community organizers" to satisfy his vision of a secular, non-muscular, peace-community service corps.

There are some fundamental questions that such a vision raises:

e.g. if there was a natural fit in society for a domestic "peace corps", separate & apart from the pre-existing community & public service fields, wouldn't one have evolved organically in our society?

Isn't this a kind of expensive way to keep a lot of youth busy?

You like Germany so much. They have a simple youth-draft. Every able person has to spend a couple of years either in college, the police or the army. They don't have a separate "community service" corps that is essentially useless.

What does a "community organizer" really do?

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 12, 2008 5:54 PM | Report abuse

The definition that Charlie Gibson gave was factually incomplete.

Gibson countered: “The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us.”

Charlie does not understand the Bush doctrine.

Out of the National Security Strategy, four main points are highlighted as the core to the Bush Doctrine: Preemption, Military Primacy, New Multilateralism, and the Spread of Democracy.[13] The document emphasized pre-emption by stating: "America is now threatened less by conquering states than we are by failing ones. We are menaced less by fleets and armies than by catastrophic technologies in the hands of the embittered few." and required "defending the United States, the American people, and our interests at home and abroad by identifying and destroying the threat before it reaches our borders." [14]


Sarah Palin was right to ask for a clarification as the question was meant to be an ambush and showed that Charlie didn't do his homework, or at least he doesn't use google.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_doctrine

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss/2002/index.html

Posted by: Chris | September 12, 2008 5:53 PM | Report abuse

I'm glad to see all the Wingnuts on here crowing about their small post convention bounce. It won't last, Palin is a crazy right wing religious fundamentalist with a whole lot of corruption thrown in for extra spice and McCain is a senile old warmonger.


McSame and the Crazy Intern - 08:

http://s144.photobucket.com/albums/r163/InsultComicDog/?action=view¤t=McCainPalin.jpg
.

NOPE!

Posted by: AsperChick | September 12, 2008 5:52 PM | Report abuse

Obama and Mccain went to lay flowers at the 911 memorial. Obama THREW his flower at the memorial, Mccain LAID DOWN his flower at the memorial. Does that tell you anything about the two men.
I am an Obama supporter who just became independent because of not just his arrogance to the living but disrespect to the dead, the people that fell on that day.
SHAME ON YOU BARRACK OBAMA!!!
------------------------------------
That's about the stupidest comment I've read today! It appeared to me that tossed his flowers onto the top of a pile of flowers. So what?

Some idiots try to make an issue of the most inane things to distract from significant issues like Palin's education in Journalism (of all things), forced childbirth (or opt for a coat-hanger), compulsory "creationism" education in public schools, lies and naivety (or clearly coached responses, poorly assimilated and non-refined), McCain's economic ignorance and military belicosity, and the Medicare elephant in the living room, et al.

Posted by: michael4 | September 12, 2008 5:52 PM | Report abuse

Click here to report offensive comments?

Good grief, they're far too many to count. Well maybe not but the sheer amount of racist trolls posting here is staggering.

You should just erase it all and start over, with some sort of system to control it like peer rating or review or something anyway, this place is a far right wing cesspool.

Posted by: Bill E Pilgrim | September 12, 2008 5:49 PM | Report abuse

The failings of the Bush-McCain policies provide a target rich environment for the Obama camp.

They need to hit McCain for running from his record stress their economic plan.

With regards to Palin, just taunt her with the question; " If you are ready to be president, why arent you ready to deal with the media and reporters?"

I dont know why the demoncrats dont bring up the devalued dollar, collapsing financial institutions and the massive deficits.

Tim

Posted by: Tim | September 12, 2008 5:49 PM | Report abuse

HAHAHAHAHA... you liberals are really something... Your candidate of change is like an emperor parading without his clothes on... Only, no one is willing to tell him.

Posted by: JH | September 12, 2008 5:49 PM | Report abuse

bsimon

Well said, I don't disagree with anything you wrote there. I do hear from many people a lot of angry talk about this "rich" class. I see their point but it is not a global definition. Rich doesn't mean evil. I also, see a lot of confusion about for instance about "Exxon profits."

Not only Exxon but other corporations. If I own some natural gas stock should I have to suffer because it costs a lot to heat a home in the winter with natural gasoline. I was banking on the infrastructure not being there for natural gas so I may have invested for that reason. I wanted to save for my future should the companies make a nifty profit it is not the big guy but people like me that needs that profit the most. Those 7% who own Exxon will still get their big bonus check--but the little guy will suffer in his retirement account if people don't wake up to the effect of hating big business and the resultant tax revenge syndrom.

The tax Revenge syndrom will not punish anyone but the working middle class and the working, working class.

Posted by: Jennifer | September 12, 2008 5:49 PM | Report abuse

Well the seas haven't risen and small town folk are still angry and bitter, I guess. As for this HRC supporter and donor, I say NoBama. He was a lot of puff and now is melting like a snowman.I see buyer's remorse all over. Write-in Hillary please, or vote GOP just this once, or just vote for Dems on the other races in your state. Do not reward the arrogant NoBama team and their evil leader Axelrod with your precious vote. They are trying to snooker you with fireworks and bully sexism they hope you feel free to join.
I derive no schadenfreud from NoBama's panicked look. He was used to the rosy glow of the favorable spotlite and has lost that to a woman. NoBama, step off. You're likeable enough - head back to the Senate and get some work done. Pay some dues. Do some work. Show us some change that you originated. Stop talking and put away that silly homemade seal.

Posted by: Puma Path! | September 12, 2008 5:48 PM | Report abuse

For AN AGGRESSIVE NEW TONE, Obama will call back the Rev. Jeremiah Wright!

Come back, Jeremiah! All is forgiven!

Posted by: DaTourist | September 12, 2008 5:47 PM | Report abuse

Our economy is literally teetering on the brink of RUIN, and we cannot afford to be distracted by this Republican drama and crappp any longer!

We have a country to RESCUE!!

Sarah- you are an embarrasment to your gender! No one should be running for this office that has to take a DAMNN crash course on foreign policy. Jesusss Man.

Posted by: Ben | September 12, 2008 5:47 PM | Report abuse

Hi wanted to say hello to forum members and mention we have a free file
upload services with no registration required http://www.fotohosts.com which may
benefit members.

Posted by: boioohiv | September 12, 2008 5:45 PM | Report abuse

If you want to live like a republican vote for a democrat.

Posted by: PA_DC | September 12, 2008 5:44 PM | Report abuse

Obama will throw a whole deck of race cards!

It's all Obama's got left, and there's nothing left to lose.

Obama will go for broke! Hail Mary!

Posted by: DaTourist | September 12, 2008 5:44 PM | Report abuse

Picture it, Trinity Church 2006. Michelle Shiniqua Obama is speaking from the pulpit. Her prominent nostrils are flared, brow furrowed, and a scowl across her face. Channeling her inner-ghetto, Michelle Shaniqua is ranting against "whitey" and how they keep "raising the bar". All the while punching the air with a fist-bump. This my friends is what we will see in October when they release her "whitey-gate" tapes on YouTube.

Posted by: Dianne72 | September 12, 2008 5:44 PM | Report abuse

NO WONDER the Republicans have been hiding you Sarah!!

GO BAAAACK into Carl Rove's closet!! You need to work on memorizing more talking points before the big debate!

Posted by: cc | September 12, 2008 5:43 PM | Report abuse

SHEEP:

Who are the sheep again?

80,000 people chanting "YES WE CAN"?

Posted by: BAAAAAAA | September 12, 2008 5:43 PM | Report abuse

bsimon,

I second your comment.

I'd also add that this is about smart policy.

Is it really smart policy to create a situation where people work harder for less?

Effectively those have been GOP policies since Reagan.

Under Eisenhower we had real economic growth that also reflected a substantial growth in real wages.

Under Bush economics the game is fixed against the middle class and working families.

Some people may call that "envy". I call it rewarding cheaters.

An environment were a CEO can destroy investor wealth, employee savings and walk away with a huge compensation package is not the kind of economic environment that is good for a democracy long-term.

Posted by: JP2 | September 12, 2008 5:42 PM | Report abuse

SHOCKING!

Michelle Shaniqua Obama's latest speech.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLj60GCBap0

Posted by: Dianne72 | September 12, 2008 5:41 PM | Report abuse

The republicans in the past years have mastered the art of ensheepelation.
Most people are sheep, whether on the left or right, they are sheep. They absorb the noises and gasses of the flock they are in.

It's fascinating to observe how successful Rove has been in manipulating this republicanism into a mass movement, providing cover for all the losers who can't find any self-esteem of their own separate from the corporate group. These people do not exist without the party, Rove is a master at this. A true Goebbels.

Facts and details and things to be known - these are just words they can be told to spew out of their mouths like they actually know what they mean.

How different really are the republicans from the democrats, I mean at the sheeple level? Look at the noises they're making here. This is all "my side over yours!" .. that's all it is. Give them words to say that fit into this simplistic mindest, and they're happy.

Their sheep state is interchangeable however. Instead of de-sheeping the electorate, the democrats are going to have to re-sheeple.

If they are successful at this, a few years from now the same screamers we see possessed of such virulent hatred for the left, will instead be screaming their hatred of the right.

Sheeple, you pathetic losers.

Posted by: shp | September 12, 2008 5:41 PM | Report abuse

This Palin/McCain disaster really makes a strong case for establishing educational standards and experience benchmarks for anyone running for the office of president or VP.

If the bar is this low, then we need to look at our own standards. These people should be the BEST, most intelligent tested people we have to offer, and McCain has instead turned it into the Jerry Springer show.

DEMAND BETTER America, or don't wonder why Americans are so hated world-wide.

Posted by: Coleen | September 12, 2008 5:41 PM | Report abuse

Black Presidential candidate NObama was created by a white-woman

Does this mean a Black Woman can create a White Presidential Candidate?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 5:40 PM | Report abuse

From the mouths of babes....

CBSNews.com: So you think the media is being uniquely tough on Palin now?

Mark Penn: Well, I think that the media is doing the kinds of stories on Palin that they're not doing on the other candidates. And that's going to subject them to people concluding that they're giving her a tougher time.

Posted by: Razorback | September 12, 2008 5:28 PM
********************************
what utter b.s. the media is doing the stories on Palin that they're doing because she's hiding behind John McCain's skirts and is prohibited from talking to the media at all unless it's pre-screened and approved.

I suppose we'll have to hope that if she ever makes it to the White House, Vlad Putin and our other enemies will agree to give her their questions in advance....

Posted by: the REAL Razorback | September 12, 2008 5:40 PM | Report abuse

The problems that the Democrats face have two related roots. One is the unrealistic idea that Bush's problems give them some kind of entitlement to victory. The other is the Obama campaign tactic to claim victory long before anyone had a chance to vote. The current close contest is a more realistic reflection of the divisions within the electorate. But the Democrats seem unprepared to deal with that reality.

Fighting with the Republican base and rallying the Democratic base are both tactics with questionable prospects to make a difference in the election outcome. Democrats need to bring voters back into the party who lost confidence in the Great Society and left the party for Ronald Reagen. For all the Democratic platitudes about change, its obvious that all many Democrats have in mind is a return to the Great Society policies of the past. Its far from clear that this Democratic vision is really in tune with the voters they need to win.

Posted by: dnjake | September 12, 2008 5:39 PM | Report abuse

I don't agree the Obama campaign got off message or even off balance. They let their opponent overplay his hand and make serious mistakes (e.g., selecting Palin, lying repeatedly) in return for a mild bump in the polls. Then they waited for the mainstream media blowback. And then they went back and started to savage McCain lie by lie. Rope-a-dope. Palin is next, assuming she doesn't have to leave to give depositions with his husband.

Posted by: maxfli | September 12, 2008 5:39 PM | Report abuse

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080912/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_ap_poll

Howzat tuff new tone helping Obumma to rise in the polls, my dear Democrat pundits?

Posted by: DaTourist | September 12, 2008 5:39 PM | Report abuse

Iraq veteran Talks to Obama

Video will bring tears to your eyes providing you're NORMAL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Na509XTw3CY

Chevy - Edcated Redneck

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 5:39 PM | Report abuse

Barack Hussein Obama background check:

Black so we dont feel guilty for being against civil rights and ending slavery: CHECK

Young and inexperiencd: CHECK

Arrogant: CHECK

Able to read teleprompter: CHECK

RACIST WIFE: CHECK

Associations with Terrorists: CHECK

Can never admit he is wrong: CHECK

and

Second coming of Jesus Christ: CHECK

Posted by: Howard Dean | September 12, 2008 5:38 PM | Report abuse

Iraq veteran Talks to Obama

Video will bring tears to your eyes providing you're NORMAL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Na509XTw3CY

Chevy - Edcated Redneck

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 5:38 PM | Report abuse

enough of the crap. Stop mischaracterizing Obama's stand on issues. An intellectual argument you will not win. Lies are your talking points. America deservers better. Just for kicks, how old does ms. Palin think the earth is? Does she think the answer to the new Russia is found in Revelations? Is John Mccain older than her perceived age of the solar system? I dont want my son going off to war based on ignorance and religious belief.

Posted by: frank | September 12, 2008 5:37 PM | Report abuse

Obama is in real trouble. If he hits Palin hard with a "frontal assault" there will certainly be a backlash from independents and conservative democaratic voters, especially women. If Obama loses the votes of white women he simply cannot win. He cannot appeal to his base at this point and win he must move to the center. The democratic party is in crisis and it looks like they will lose another election. Obama is an attractive candidate but he has serious weaknesses that make it difficult for him to attack Govenor Palin as well. If he attacks her experience he draws attention to his own tissue paper thin resume. In addition he is not running against Palin he is running against McCain. The real problem is that Sarah Palin is a political phenomenon and she will not peak until right around November 4th and Obama has peaked and is now in steep decline. The best way for Obama to handle this is to return to his message of hope and change, delivering as many prepared speeches as possible. This is what he is good at. But he has been spending alot of time speaking off the cuff and attacking McCAin which is not his game. he needs to return to what worked before; if he doesnt he will lose and lose BIG!A new poll today revealed that he could lose the state of Washington if that happens it is over before it even started.

Posted by: Chris Z | September 12, 2008 5:37 PM | Report abuse

Mayor Bloomberg tossed his flower too. It is a pool and the flowers float in water how do you think the flowers got in the center? This is your brain this is your brain on HATE. When you put money in a pond at a mall do you toss it or lay it in the pond. You must be a republican because you guys can make black white if necessary to distort a persons character.
If you had common sense you would know our country is in trouble and the FACT is Obama has the BEST plan and McCain does nothing for the middle class. Also DEMOCRATS are more fiscally conservative this is an economic FACT. Go do some research then post because you need educating.

Posted by: Brandon | September 12, 2008 5:37 PM | Report abuse

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jun2008/db20080611_220050.htm

Senators Barack Obama and John McCain have begun to hammer away at each other's tax and spending programs . . .

"I've said John McCain is running to serve out a third term, but when it comes to taxes, that's not being fair to George Bush. Senator McCain wants to add $300 billion more in tax breaks and loopholes for big corporations and the wealthiest Americans," Obama said . . .

"Under Senator Obama's tax plan, Americans of every background would see their taxes rise—seniors, parents, small business owners, and just about everyone who has even a modest investment in the market," McCain said in a speech to the National Small Business Summit in Washington, also on June 10 . . .

So where does the reality lie? According to a new analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, a joint venture between the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, two Washington think tanks, this round goes to Obama. The TPC took a look at the various tax proposals put forth by the two candidates and estimated that Obama's plan would lead to a boost in aftertax income for all but the highest earners, while taking a smaller bite out of government tax revenues than would McCain's plans . . .

Under McCain's proposals, by contrast—including an extension of the Bush tax cuts for all taxpayers, a corporate tax cut, and a larger reduction in estate taxes than Obama would support—far more of the benefits would go to the top.

Posted by: Enough08 | September 12, 2008 5:36 PM | Report abuse

Iraq veteran Talks to Obama

Video will bring tears to your eyes providing you're NORMAL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Na509XTw3CY

Chevy - Edcated Redneck

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 5:36 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin was so completely out of her league in her recent TV interview...

Your average college student could have answered Charlie's very basic questions on the Bush Doctrine, and foreign policy. She didnt even know what he was talking about!!

I am scared shytt-less if McCain is elected- it isnt even funny anymore!

Posted by: Jim | September 12, 2008 5:36 PM | Report abuse

Jennifer writes
"Sounds fair, I so totally believe in Class envy. After all, why should we not be envious of the rich because it is so easy to characterize them as evil beings with Republican voting cards."

Yo, Jennifer, its not about envy. Its abour removing barriers to entry for people not born with a silver spoon in their mouth. Sure, there's a romantic republican image that glamorizes the idea of pulling oneself up by one's own bootstraps. But why do we start them in such a deep hole?

Think of each citizen as a potential business. To start a business there are invariably barriers to entry. If you believe in the free market, you want to maximize competition, which will drive efficiencies up & costs down. The way to do that is to minimize barriers to entry into the market. For individuals, having a poor education is a huge barrier to entering the 'market' of being a productive member of society. Yes, some people overcome that barrier without a college degree, or even a decent high school education. But why wouldn't we want to maximize our own citizens' entry into the market by minimizing that barrier? We all benefit from having a better educated workforce, and from having people add to the economy, rather than drawing from it by turning to lives of crime, or just sucking off the teat of welfare.

Point is: its not about class warfare, its about maximizing the opportunity for moving out of the lower class into the middle and upper classes.

Posted by: bsimon | September 12, 2008 5:35 PM | Report abuse

Palin Background Check:
--------------------------


*Stupid, check.

*Corrupt, check.

*Beligerent and war mongering, check.

*Religious fanatic and reality denier, check check.


Yeah, I guess McCain DID vet her. She's a perfect fit for the Greedy Oil Party.

Posted by: Rene Lee | September 12, 2008 5:35 PM | Report abuse

The MSM should LAY OFF John McCain. Don't they realize that the stress of answering their questions might cause him to have a remission of cancer? The MSM would be to blame for McCain's illness! This is intolerable!

John McCAIN. No QUESTION.

Posted by: Razorback | September 12, 2008 5:31 PM
------------

remission is when cancer has gone away. So if this would all give McCain a remission of skin cancer I think we would all be for that. Or are you wishing cancer upon someone.

On a side note I love how liberals make it seem like McCain has been through colon or liver or brain cancer. He had skin cancer removed and he gets great care. It will most likely never put his life in danger. Where as Obama's parents both died young, he should be checked regularly. He is too young to get sick. I hope he takes care of himself.

Posted by: Hillary Rodham Clinton | September 12, 2008 5:35 PM | Report abuse

GALLUP: Battle for Congress Suddenly Looks Competitive...

AP: MCCAIN/PALIN UP 4...
GALLUP DAILY: UP 3...
RASMUSSEN: UP 3...

Poor NObama - He knows it's over

Chevy - Educated Redneck

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Rahiq

I don't know why Obama has the mentality of a white person??? Are you kidding? Look at his resume at Obama resume.org. It is all evidence he has full intensions on supporting a specific minority in everything he does. He knows he is Black as he says "typical white person" as if it was PC to say something like that.

Listen, there is nothing wrong with a Black in America; I just hate the term African American. We are all Americans alike. I don't agree with isolating a nationality for their betterment or for their demise. We should, ideally be looking at character and goals. Obama just doesn't seem to have the same goals as most Americans--he is about a small minority as evidenced by his Resume.

Posted by: Jenni | September 12, 2008 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Good thing that I lost my parents on 9-11, else I wouldn't have been able to support my crack habit. That 9-11 settlement check cam in handy!

Posted by: bhteaa | September 12, 2008 5:33 PM | Report abuse

(CNN) -- John McCain needs what Kinky Friedman calls "a checkup from the neck up."

In choosing Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to be his running mate, he is not thinking "outside the box," as some have said. More like out of his mind.

Palin a first-term governor of a state with more reindeer than people, will have to put on a few pounds just to be a lightweight. Her personal story is impressive: former fisherman, mother of five. But that hardly qualifies her to be a heartbeat away from the presidency.

For a man who is 72 years old and has had four bouts with cancer to have chosen someone so completely unqualified to become president is shockingly irresponsible. Suddenly, McCain's age and health become central issues in the campaign, as does his judgment.

In choosing this featherweight, McCain passed over Tom Ridge, a decorated combat hero, a Cabinet secretary and the former two-term governor of the large, complex state of Pennsylvania. iReport.com: 'McCain pick might be a gimmick'

He passed over Mitt Romney, who ran a big state, Massachusetts; a big company, Bain Capital; and a big event, the Olympics.

He passed over Kay Bailey Hutchison, the Texas senator who is knowledgeable about the military, good on television and -- obviously -- a woman.

He passed over Joe Lieberman, his best friend in the Senate and fellow Iraq Kool-Aid drinker.

He passed over former congressman, trade negotiator and budget director Rob Portman.

And he also passed over Mike Huckabee, the governor of Arkansas.

For months, the McCainiacs have said they will run on his judgment and experience. In his first presidential decision, John McCain has shown that he is willing to endanger his country, potentially leaving it in the hands of someone who simply has no business being a heartbeat away from the most powerful, complicated, difficult job in human history.

Posted by: Jack | September 12, 2008 5:32 PM | Report abuse

The "first dude" aka Todd Palin finally got his well deserved subpoena today in Alaska.

Makes me wonder if the good people of Alaska weren't a whole lot happier with their previous anonymity. Now that the lid is off the GOP septic tank up there (first Stevens, now Palin), they're going to need a first class turd herder to clean this mess up.

Posted by: Laura R | September 12, 2008 5:32 PM | Report abuse

All I can say is, "Hillary told you so." She warned that the battle for the White House would be fought in the same states they always are: Ohio, Florida, etc. But no, the Obama campaian said we will expand the map. Hmmm...how's that working out for you? She also said she was stronger in those states. So, once again, how's that working out for the Dems? I was a Hillary supporter, and now I am firmly behind McCain/ Palin. Barack Obama deserves to lose. He did not choose Hillary as his running mate. They say the first important decision you make as a presidential nominee is your choice of running mate. Obama chose wrong. He is now losing. He deserves it.

Posted by: McCain/Palin Supporter | September 12, 2008 5:32 PM | Report abuse

The MSM should LAY OFF John McCain. Don't they realize that the stress of answering their questions might cause him to have a remission of cancer? The MSM would be to blame for McCain's illness! This is intolerable!

John McCAIN. No QUESTION.

Posted by: Razorback | September 12, 2008 5:31 PM | Report abuse

DID YOU SEE WHAT HE DID ON THE VIDEO AT THE 911 MEMORIAL.
IF HE WAS GOING TO BE SO ARROGANT WITH THE LAYING OF THE FLOWERS AT THE MEMORIAL, THEN WHY DID HE GO AT ALL.
I LOST MY FATHER AND MOTHER ON 911 AND I FIND THAT CLIP VERY DISTURBING

Posted by: bhteaa | September 12, 2008 5:31 PM | Report abuse

obama DISRESPECTS THE DEAD at the 911 memorial. Did you see what he did??

Posted by: ffkobaby | September 12, 2008 5:30 PM | Report abuse

Razorback wrote:

WHAT THE MEDIA WON'T PRINT ABOUT OBAMA'S ENERGY PLAN:
OBAMA'S AN ILLINOIS CORN HO, FOR CORN STATE WELFARE

(YET ANOTHER WAY THAT THE DEMOCRAT'S SPEND-CRAZY
IDEAS DAMAGE ECONOMY: HUGE FOOD INFLATION, NO ENERGY
SOLUTION IN A BIG BUCKS DEFICIT-FUNDED SUBSIDY PROGRAM)

The U.S. corn ethanol biofuels program is pure evil, pure pork, and pure corrupt politics picking taxpayers pockets for no good public benefit, and Obama is all for it because it pays big $$ in subsidies to Illinois farmers, fuels the Midwestern farm boom and creates a spike in the agribusiness-agricultural commodities boom.

Groups tracking world hunger spikes and food inflation problems this year are blaming the U.S. corn ethanol program for diverting farmers from growing food into growing fuel. Global warming advocates point out that it takes more carbon, overall, to produce, distill, refine and burn corn ethanol biofuels than regular oil or natural gas. Making ethanol from corn is so inefficient that we can never use it for energy independence; we already use 25% of our national corn crop for ethanol. Finally, it costs more to use gas blended with ethanol as cars get markedly fewer miles per gallon than they do with regular 100% gas, but you pay as much at the pump for the ethanol blended gas. Motorists who know what they are doing seek out 100%, no-ethanol blend gas stations, even.

The corn ethanol biofuels program solves no problems, creates food inflation, and it's a ripoff -- a King Corn welfare program to already-flush farmers. From one pocket, the taxpayer pays massive subsidies to corn ethanol growers in farm states, while from the other pocket we pay higher prices at the grocery store for food as a result of the biofuels-caused food inflation. Meanwhile we get poorer gas mileage from ethanol blends while paying the same prices as we pay at stations that sell 100% gas.

We could solve a big chunk of our crippling economic problems this year if we do away with the corn ethanol biofuels program because of the big role that program plays in the inflation side of this years' problems.

From 2006 to 2007, 15 million new acres of corn were brought into production in the United States, contributing to the depletion of fresh water supplies and adding to agrochemical runoff from the country’s corn belt that has already created an enormous dead zone where the Mississippi River enters the Gulf of Mexico. The Gulf of Mexico is an ecologically important zone; for example, serving as the breeding ground for many Atlantic species, like dolphins. The dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico, caused by agricultural, sewage and industrial runoff, is expected to grow just as Bush's Environmental Protection Agency denied a petition to waive the federal ethanol mandate in the 2007 energy bill. The EPA decided not to interfere with Bush's federal ethanol mandate despite how destructive the corn ethanol programs have been environmentally.

Obama is all for corn ethanol subsidies programs and has been a staunch supporter of them. Illinois is the second largest recipient of corn ethanol farming subsidies. Obama supports corn ethanol even as there are food riots in Southeast Asia and a price-caused famine in Africa where people are starving due to world price spikes in grain.

Why doesn't the mainstream media discuss Obama's striking support for corn ethanol biofuels, which has been denounced by energy experts and economists alike, in covering the candidates' energy stands? In fact, it seems that mainstream media has stopped covering how bad and damaging the corn ethanol biofuels program is, ever since Obama's strong support for it has emerged.

John McCain, by the way, has taken a principled stand against the corn ethanol biofuels program, even though it cost him votes in Iowa. On the other hand, Obama scored his widely-acclaimed Iowa caucus victory on the back of his unscrupulous corn ethanol support that wins him critical support from special interest constituencies. The corn ethanol biofuels issues is not only an argument for McCain's energy platform over Obama's, but an example for his taking principled stands against defective federal programs that are popular with powerful special interests, that damage our economy & don't solve the problems they were intended to solve.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 12, 2008 5:30 PM | Report abuse

Bounds is an obvious liar and moron. Also, it would be McCain who couldn't accomplish any change...with a Democratic Congress, even if his claims of "reform" weren't mere cynical attempts at vote-grabbing.

Posted by: michael4 | September 12, 2008 5:30 PM | Report abuse

Netnet,

Obama wants to cut taxes for 95 percent of Americans. Most will see a cut of close to $1,000.


Posted by: JP2 | September 12, 2008 5:25 PM
------------

JP2...incorect they would receive a check for $1000 not a tax cut as most of those 95% pay no taxes now so they would receive a hand out.

Kinda hard to cut taxes when 40% of Americans pay NO taxes to begin with.

I agree with tax cuts for all..you know that fair thing. But raising taxes on those who make the money, drive the economy and create the jobs is a sure ticket to recession

Posted by: steve jackson | September 12, 2008 5:30 PM | Report abuse

An attack on McCain's computer illiteracy is supposed to reasonate with whom? There are lots of (particularly older) voters out there that won't think it's funny and may be very sympathetic. Attack on real issues, not do this juvenille stuff. One would think there is plenty to talk about there.

Posted by: KG1 | September 12, 2008 5:29 PM | Report abuse

DID YOU SEE WHAT HE DID ON THE VIDEO AT THE 911 MEMORIAL.
IF HE WAS GOING TO BE SO ARROGANT WITH THE LAYING OF THE FLOWERS AT THE MEMORIAL, THEN WHY DID HE GO AT ALL.
I LOST MY FATHER AND MOTHER ON 911 AND I FIND THAT CLIP VERY DISTURBING

Posted by: budo | September 12, 2008 5:29 PM | Report abuse

The best thing about John McCain is that he understands my fascination with kiddie porn.

Posted by: Da Tourist | September 12, 2008 5:29 PM | Report abuse

Its about time the Dems show a back bone!

ps, why do people post as anonymous?

afraid of something?

Posted by: Corey Mondello | September 12, 2008 5:29 PM | Report abuse

Senator Obama is selfish because he wants a job that would allow him to assume a huge responsibility and he does it knowing that he is a poor ignorant, incompetent and coward. Our country needs a competent president. Obama is not. Obama is not morally adequate for the job. Obama is a Cancer that reflects weakness, falseness, inexperience, immaturity and innocence. Obama represents Cancer of the decadency of the democracy and Democrat party. Obama is polarizing American society, taking advantage of differences between middle and high class. Besides, his economical proposals are not viable and unfeasible.

Posted by: Alexander | September 12, 2008 5:29 PM | Report abuse

GALLUP: Battle for Congress Suddenly Looks Competitive...

AP: MCCAIN/PALIN UP 4...
GALLUP DAILY: UP 3...
RASMUSSEN: UP 3...

Poor NObama - He knows it's over

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 5:28 PM | Report abuse

From the mouths of babes....

CBSNews.com: So you think the media is being uniquely tough on Palin now?

Mark Penn: Well, I think that the media is doing the kinds of stories on Palin that they're not doing on the other candidates. And that's going to subject them to people concluding that they're giving her a tougher time.

Posted by: Razorback | September 12, 2008 5:28 PM | Report abuse

Nothing like another shrill liberal Democrat politician from Chicago, hurling insults at a war hero and the first vice-presidential woman candidate to inspire trust. He is the same guy who tells Americans he will sit down with the world's tyrants and speak politely to them. This man is a complete and utter fraud. Like most liberals he over- estimates the good will of tyrants -like Howard Dean what he hates are Republicans.

Posted by: mhr | September 12, 2008 5:28 PM | Report abuse

anonymous coward writes
"Only a fool would pretend that the cost of doing business has no impact on where jobs are created"

If you're implying I did such a thing, I did not. But I would point out that its not just costs that drive business decisions, its the relationship between costs and benefits. This is called the cost-benefit ratio. What it means is that higher costs are sometimes worth it - if they produce higher benefits. In my earlier Minnesota example, I pointed out that we are a high tax state - i.e. high costs. BUT we are also a high benefits state - we have a well educated workforce. Businesses that need educated workforces choose to locate here rather than in low tax states like the Dakotas or Mississippi because they benefit from what we have to offer enough to offset the higher costs.

You dig?

I think you do.

Shall we modify your statement to be: "Only a fool would pretend that the cost-benefit ratio has no impact on where jobs are created." On that, I wholeheartedly agree. That's why there are jobs both in Minnesota and Mississippi. Different employers have different needs. Absolutely minimizing costs is not the only factor by which business decisions are made.

Bring on the next economics 'lesson', bytch.

Posted by: bsimon | September 12, 2008 5:27 PM | Report abuse

We need a Rethuglican in office so we can continue DESTROYING the country. Fiscal conservatives huh? LOL WHERE! What the hell does it take to realize your administration ammased the largest debt and deficit in WORLD HISTORY? God this is a nation of fools. So sad. But hey... people get what they vote for. Why blue states have culture and great economies, and the South remains poor.

Posted by: Patrick | September 12, 2008 5:26 PM | Report abuse

Iraq veteran Talks to Obama

Video will bring tears to your eyes providing you're NORMAL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Na509XTw3CY

Chevy - Edcated Redneck

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 5:26 PM | Report abuse

Thugs you should be scared. Ya see. Have you heard of the "electoral college?" You should because UNLESS MCCAIN can turn it around in NM and Colorado it's over and Obama will be the next president POPULAR VOTE OR NOT.

Posted by: Patrick | September 12, 2008 5:21 PM
-----

Pat...don't you know that if you lose the popular but win the electoral that you are illegitimate and no one will respect you.

also on a side note...generally the electoral college doesn't meet until after the election...might want to wait a bit before calling the airlines for elector tickets

Posted by: Steve Jackson | September 12, 2008 5:26 PM | Report abuse

I saw it too and I wondered what that was all about. I even noticed CNN was no longer playing that part of the video.
OBAMA DIRESPECTED THE PEOPLE THAT FELL ON 911.....
This is not a lie, check it out yourself....

Posted by: Bjmisent | September 12, 2008 5:26 PM | Report abuse

JP2

Sounds fair, I so totally believe in Class envy. After all, why should we not be envious of the rich because it is so easy to characterize them as evil beings with Republican voting cards. Truth is, there are an awful lot of rich people with a Demo card--and they all feel guilty for having the money so they want to at least give here and there to charity. They don't understand that large gift of money should be used not just given away. THey could do what Paul Neuman does but they are to lazy minded--they just take a cut off the top and pat themselves on the back.

Posted by: Jennifer | September 12, 2008 5:25 PM | Report abuse

I have been in this country for 7 years and when I arrived I was struck at how poor and uneducated most blacks are. I could never figure out why most had children out of wedlock, sold drugs, and were in jail. I suppose it is the slave metality from generations ago but at some point they will have to take responsibility. I think that is the reason Senator Obama appeals to so many whites because he isn't 100% black. He has a black face but the mentality of a white person. That makes the vote palatable and they can feel good about themselves. I doubt many of these white voters would go for an Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson - just too black and they are for more representative of the black American - not Barack Obama.

Posted by: Rahiq | September 12, 2008 5:25 PM | Report abuse

Netnet,

Obama wants to cut taxes for 95 percent of Americans. Most will see a cut of close to $1,000.

McCain offers a tax cut that averages about $320.

But he gives $200,000 of NEW tax cuts to people like his wife.

McCain wants to continue Bush economics.

Obama returns to the Clinton model.

This is still substantially lower than the rates paid during the Eisenhower administration.

What do Republicans have against Eisenhower?

Posted by: JP2 | September 12, 2008 5:25 PM | Report abuse

Ruzgar,

And which army are we going to use to fight russia with? The one currently in Iraq or the one currently in Afghanistan? You speak like a true neocon, just go to war and never think of the consequences just like Dubya...

Posted by: American First | September 12, 2008 5:24 PM | Report abuse

Iraq veteran Talks to Obama

Video will bring tears to your eyes providing you're NORMAL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Na509XTw3CY

Chevy - Edcated Redneck

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 5:24 PM | Report abuse

Obama and Mccain went to lay flowers at the 911 memorial. Obama THREW his flower at the memorial, Mccain LAID DOWN his flower at the memorial. Does that tell you anything about the two men.
I am an Obama supporter who just became independent because of not just his arrogance to the living but disrespect to the dead, the people that fell on that day.
SHAME ON YOU BARRACK OBAMA!!!

Posted by: CHUKS | September 12, 2008 5:24 PM | Report abuse

And if all those fake facts didn't impress you, I've got a $h1tload more of them that I call out my @$$.

Posted by: NetNet | September 12, 2008 5:24 PM | Report abuse

Umm..I'm not from California but considering 70% of US agriculture comes out of CA and it's the largest GDP in the nation, yah, it might be an "important" state. If the red states were a country, they'd make up only 25% of the US GDP. Hey, intelligence has to live SOMEWHERE...along the coasts.

Posted by: Patrick | September 12, 2008 5:24 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin if elected would be a heartbeat away from the Presidency. Her experience is questioned....

Barack Obama if elected WOULD BE the HEARTBEAT....his experience is questioned....

you make the call as to which is more worrisom

Posted by: I support change for hope and hope for change to hope | September 12, 2008 5:23 PM | Report abuse

What is a Jonestown Moment?

Okay, that's when the Obamaniacs assemble at Invesco Stadium, put on their togas, and fill their Dixie Cups with HEMLOCK-LACED KOOL-AID!

Goodbye, cruel world!

Posted by: DaTourist | September 12, 2008 5:22 PM | Report abuse

i DONT LIKE MCCAIN SO EVERYONE SHUT UP OBAMAz GOING TO WINN THE ELECTION!!

Posted by: RAWR!! | September 12, 2008 5:21 PM | Report abuse

Obama on taxes and the economy
 He plans to increase the top individual income tax rate from 35% to 39.6% and 65.9% of Americans disagree .
 He wants to increase capital gains taxes from 15% to 28%.
 He plans to increase taxes on stock dividend income from 15% to 39.6% when 65.9% of Americans disagree.
 He wants to increase the estate tax rate to 55% of estate value over $1 million when 52.6% of Americans disagree.
 Increase payroll taxes for employees and employers by an additional 4%.
 Increase top total income tax on self-employed individuals from 37.9% to 54.9% against the will of 84.5% of Americans who disagree.
 Increase top tax rate for S-Corporation owners from 35% to 50.3% when 85.4% of Americans disagree.
 His tax plans equal $900 billion in his first term and 50.8% of Americans say it is too costly and unnecessary; only 35.8% approve.
 He wants to punish businesses and “rich” people with additional taxes.
 Added taxes on businesses are ultimately paid by the consumer (you and I), and “rich” people are the ones who create new jobs with monies left after taxes. This plan reduces job creation and increases your taxes.

Obama on energy
 We have 5.6 to 16 billion barrels of US oil in ANWR (Alaska National Wildlife Reserve) & he opposes drilling there. 36.3% of Americans agree.
 We have 85.9 billion barrels of US oil & 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas (equivalent to 70 billion barrels of oil) offshore, and he opposes drilling there also. Only 23.4% of people agree.
 Opposes using any of 250 billion tons of US coal (equivalent to 800 billion barrels of oil, and three times the oil reserves of Saudi Arabia).
 Opposes using any of 800 billion barrels of US oil from oil shale (triple Saudi Arabia oil reserves).
 USA has oil and equivalent reserves of 1.83 trillion barrels. He wants to leave it all underground and pay $700 billion per year to foreigners.
 US has 104 nuclear power plants providing 20% of the nation's energy needs and France produces 77% of its energy through nuclear power plants, all with no history of accidents. But opposes 58.6% of Americans who say increase nuclear energy production as much as possible.
 With his supporter Tom Daschle (who is on the board of directors of three ethanol-producing companies) favors major subsidies for ethanol which increase food shortages & result in price increases.
 In June 2007 he voted for a $32 billion tax on oil producers which would have increased gasoline prices by $3.26 per gallon resulting in $7-$8 per gallon prices at the pump and 60.9% of Americans disapprove.

Obama on abortion
 Unlike 67.8% of Americans, he believes that doctors should not provide care to a fetus that has survived an abortion attempt and should let it die.
 Unlike 82.2% of Americans, he believes women should have the right to an abortion based on the sex of the fetus.
 He believes that doctors should not inform the parents of an under aged girl choosing an abortion, and 77% of Americans disagree.
 He disagrees that abortion destroys a human life and is manslaughter, and 51.5% of Americans disagree.
 He doesn't know when life begins—55% of Americans say at conception.
 He believes late term abortion should be legal while 66% of Americans disagree.

Obama on gun control
 He is in favor of suing gun manufacturers for the crimes committed using their product, contrary to 76.2% of Americans who disagree.
 He's against gun ownership laws favored by 77.6% of Americans.
 Contrary to 60% of Americans, he is in favor of new tougher gun control laws instead of enforcing the laws we have.
 He favors a ban on sale of handguns, but 59% of Americans disagree.
 He disagrees with 70.1% of Americans who believe we should vigorously enforce laws against felons and non-US citizens voting in our elections.

Obama on healthcare
 Only 35.1% of Americans are in favor of Obama's $65 billion per year health care plan, and 59.9% of people don't want this plan.

Obama on free trade
 49.8% of Americans believe his trade barriers and tariff increase plans will hurt US economy. Only 34.1% believe it will help the economy.

Obama on foreign policy
 Obama believes USA should unconditionally negotiate with Iran when 62.5% of Americans disagree, and only 21% agree. Maybe he could have stopped Hitler by negotiating with him.
 The Arab terrorist organization Hamas has endorsed him.

Obama and a Democratic Congress
With Obama in the White House, the predominantly Democratic Congress would rubberstamp his socialist programs which have been tried by Carter and Johnson administrations and socialist countries with miserable resu

Posted by: NetNet | September 12, 2008 5:21 PM | Report abuse

Thugs you should be scared. Ya see. Have you heard of the "electoral college?" You should because UNLESS MCCAIN can turn it around in NM and Colorado it's over and Obama will be the next president POPULAR VOTE OR NOT.

Posted by: Patrick | September 12, 2008 5:21 PM | Report abuse

Hey Noah ... Yeah, there may be a 5% chance that McCain would die in office and that Palin would have to take over.

But if we elect Barack Obama, there's a 100% chance that he'll have to make difficult foreign policy decisions and Sarah Palin knows more about the subject than he does!!!

Somehow, I think that Gov. Palin would know that taking the Russia/Georgia dispute to the UN Security Council would be a waste of time because Russia has veto power there. Apparently, this fact was lost on "The Annointed One".

Barack Obama's qualifications for the presidency are a joke. It would be an absolute disaster for this nation if he won. Fortunately, he won't.

Posted by: Ruzgar the Hammer | September 12, 2008 5:21 PM | Report abuse

Dear Sarah,

I hope I've shown my love and dedication for you. I hope this means you will forget about the kiddie porn you saw on my computer.

--XOXOXO

Posted by: DaTourist | September 12, 2008 5:20 PM | Report abuse

Shane,

What's the source for your numbers?

Posted by: JP2 | September 12, 2008 5:13 PM
------------------
Sorry I was trying to go from memory I got some of the exact numbers wrong....but here is the notation:

The latest data from the Congressional Budget Office and the Internal Revenue Service show that the lowest 40 percent of income earners as a group actually receive net payments from the federal income tax system. (They get 3.8 percent of total federal income tax revenues instead of paying any income taxes.) The middle 20 percent of income earners pay 4.4 percent of federal income taxes. Thus the bottom 60 percent of income earners together, on net, pay less than 1 percent of all federal income taxes. (These workers earn 26 percent of national income.)

The data show that the top 1 percent of income earners now pay 40 percent of all federal income taxes, which is almost double their share of the national income. The top 10 percent pay 71 percent of federal income taxes, though they earn just 39 percent of the nation's pretax income.

Posted by: JP2 | September 12, 2008 5:20 PM | Report abuse

Now this is just my opinion but I think the Obamaniacs are have A JONESTOWN MOMENT!

Somehow the Fresh One just doesn't smell so fresh any more!

Posted by: DaTourist | September 12, 2008 5:20 PM | Report abuse

I KNOW WHO CAN BE THE ANGRY CAN OF WHUPASS;

Michelle Obama

Now THAT is scary.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 12, 2008 5:19 PM | Report abuse

I live in the greates state in the US. Oh, Wait, it is a wasteland dump with spray painted trees. It is the home to all the liberal Democrats that try to pry the little kids with sex candy images and hip talk. It is home to Hollywood and depravity. The air smells, the place is overpriced and still bankrupt!

Yes, lets listen to a liberal from the greatest state in the union California!! What a joke.

Posted by: Guy From LA | September 12, 2008 5:19 PM | Report abuse

We must unleash Michelle. And Whoopi. And Pamella. And Sean. And Susan, and Clooney, and Damon, and all of the heavy hiters. It is time that the Liberal braintrust step up to the plate.

Posted by: genghis | September 12, 2008 5:18 PM | Report abuse

Why has the great Delaware attack dog, Joe Biden, been skulking under the porch with his tail tucked up between his hindlegs?

Could the Great Plagiarist be a-scairt of that schoolmarmish lady from Alaska?

Here the short answer! You bet you sweet ash, he is!

Posted by: DaTourist | September 12, 2008 5:17 PM | Report abuse

Nothing as funny as seeing the Democrat "Messiah" sink into well-deserved oblivion ...

Poor Obama - he's actually gone mad --- as his candidacy goes off toward the cliff .............................

Posted by: Neal | September 12, 2008 5:17 PM | Report abuse

This "aggressive new tone" is laughable. The more Barack Obama tries to come across as having real balls, the more it becomes obvious he doesn't have any. Seriously, what kind of guy votes "present" over 130 times as a state senator? The kind of guy who's afraid to make anybody mad, that's who. Unfortunately, a president doen't have the option of voting "present." This is the first time that Obama and his people have had to run from behind, and they aren't handling it well at all. They're clearly flustered, lashing out in all directions, desperately trying to find something that will stick. This is yet more proof that John McCain is, by far, the better choice.

Posted by: Dan R. | September 12, 2008 5:16 PM | Report abuse

Frankly, can't Obama or a surrogate put up an ad that points to acturial evidence of McCain's liklihood of dying in office and Palin's taking over, and then hammer her on her bald ignorance of world affairs (i.e. not knowing the Bush doctrine, blindly echoing mantras about Russia or Isreal)? The thought of her as President or as close to President is just scary as hell. Even hockey moms and working class folks would have to agree (esp as they see their financial accounts dwindle) . . .

Posted by: Noah | September 12, 2008 5:16 PM | Report abuse

When it comes to prayer, nothing can get me in the mood for prayer like AsperGirl sticking that big strap-on up my poop chute!

Posted by: Razorback | September 12, 2008 5:15 PM | Report abuse

That said, this Palin pick is a slap on the face of feminism. Not that there are a lot of women who are commercial fisher-women or it's not that she defeated an incumbent republican Givernor. But show me one instance where she supported anything related to women's issues? Show me once where she stood up against establishment to defend women's rights? Anyone???!!??

Posted by: Guy From LA | September 12, 2008 5:06 PM
--------------------------

Guy you are committing the fatal flaw of lumping all women into one basket. That in order to be a feminist she has to believe only one way. That to stand up for women's rights she has to only act one way.

The very notion she is on the ticket is a step for women. The notion she won the Governorship in frontiersville Alaska is a step for women. The fact she chose not to abort a special needs baby is a step for SOME women who believe pro-life. The fact she is a hunter and fisher who believes in the right to own and use guns is a Step forward for women who believe in those rights. Etc etc

To say that because she doesnt support abortion or didn't attend Berkley and get her Doctorate in Asian Lesbian Studies and teach pointless classes at an all girls liberal college she is not a woman or that she is not a feminist is the same fight that feminists fight for and civil rights activists fight for.

But according to Guy from LA because she doesn't fall into line with Gloria Steinhem she should turn in her vagina is sad, but funny to watch liberal second guess and stumble all over themselves.

Posted by: ROCKSLIDE | September 12, 2008 5:15 PM | Report abuse

it's just getting easier to find the right line of attack. McCain just flatly denied on the View that Palin asked for earmarks as governor. He was pressed - yes she did, lots, and he said, no, not as governor. Only he's dead wrong, she asked for hundreds of millions from the indicted Stevens and hired lobbyists from the good old boy network to fight for them

either McCain doesn't know her record, or just doesn't care what he denies, or both. Obama and Biden will run this one til November.

and that's before we talk about sending troops to Asia to fight Russia on its borders. ask the Germans how that went. or Napoleon

Posted by: JoeT | September 12, 2008 5:14 PM | Report abuse

It's been 3 weeks & there is no clear team on their side, no clear personality, no clear message.

Obama-Biden ticket: Indignant, condescending, elitist black man dragging around an old blowhard doofus who alternates between being confused, bullying and plaintive...?

Angry, righteous lectures conveying message of "hope" and "change"?

Was describing McCain adding Palin to his ticket & wrapping that in a change theme as putting "lipstick on a pig" that "smells like a fish" part of the old negativity or the new negativity?

MELTDOWN
MELTDOWN
MELTDOWN
MELTDOWN
MELTDOWN
MELTDOWN

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 12, 2008 5:14 PM | Report abuse

Repeat for the very dense
the Republicans LIE just as easily as they take a dump...it's how they rule the sheeple...<<<name

Hey, I know lets invite Planned Parenthood into our schools to tell the kids how to be responsible. That is Obama's plan!!!

Oh, , by the way, I watched as Planned
Parenthood was invited in to a school and brought their condom tree in as a visual and then as a prize for the kid who answered the most questions on the quiz. This is what happens with "responsible and appropriate" it all goes out the door because Planned Parenthood knows the parents are indisposed at work trying to pay for expensive gasoline.

Posted by: Jennifer | September 12, 2008 5:14 PM | Report abuse

For the record, Obama took the gloves off much, much earlier when he stood on the Senate floor earlier this year and lectured John McCain about being too stingy with benefits for our military veterans.

Probably nothing worse you could say to a wounded prisoner of war like John McCain than that he doesn't care about veterans.

You stay classy Senator Obama. Real classy.

Posted by: Hooshmazoo | September 12, 2008 5:13 PM | Report abuse

Toughness is necessary. Republicans can invoke lie after lie and then through a creative process of repeating the same lie,(abeted by the fox propaganda network) we have what amounts to evangelical truth. If Obama is going to win he must demonstrate how tough he can be. It may me the single most important characteristic a President can have in his arsenal. The American people don't want another republican but they will not accept someone who leaves doubt to their ability to defend the country, the citizens and their families. NO Toughness, no dem as prez. Its that simple. Obama knows this. He has 53 days to convince America he will protect our wives, husbands and children. It is not just a security issue. It is economic, it is issue oriented, but it is much more visceral than intellectual. I know Sen. Obama can do it, but he must begin now. PS. he cannot get his ass kicked by a vp candidate from alaska on the toughness question. The kid gloves must come off. The better candidate is Obama, I think a decent majority knows this but a lesser candidate who doesn't take any bullspit will always be percieved as a stronger and more capable candidate. What good is having knowledge without the power to implement change.

Posted by: frank | September 12, 2008 5:13 PM | Report abuse

Shane,

What's the source for your numbers?

Posted by: JP2 | September 12, 2008 5:13 PM | Report abuse

The Repubs are oblivious of the true issues in today's American Life - Gas prices at record high, bigeest budget deficit in history, tanking of giants like Freddie, Fannie, Bear Stearns, Lehman, lowest high education numbers in history, higest foreclosure rate since great depression and the list goes on and on. AND ALL YOU COULD TALK ABOUT IS LIPSCTIK ISSUE?!?? McCain is a sexist, he has proved that time and time again. If you are an American like me, should you not talk about the REAL ISSUES?!? Or you also got bought by the republican mantra that this election is NOT ABOUT ISSUES, BUT ABOUT A COMPOSITE VIEW OF THE CANDIDATES!!! If so, please say so LOUD AND CLEAR. Else please open up the dialogue. You will do all Americans a favor.

Posted by: Guy From LA | September 12, 2008 5:12 PM | Report abuse

Maybe the Fresh One is too fresh, too fresh, too fresh, too fresh, for a contest not according to the politically correct pattycake rules of the Democratic primary?

Yes, it looks like Sarah Palin aint no Hillary Clinton. Or is it just me?

Posted by: DaTourist | September 12, 2008 5:12 PM | Report abuse

Guy From LA;

All Palin did was pray for the safety of the troops and for wisdom for the leaders.

I wish someone would ask Joe Biden: Do you pray for the safety of your son and for wisdom for him and his leaders?

Posted by: Razorback | September 12, 2008 5:12 PM | Report abuse

Iraq veteran Talks to Obama

Video will bring tears to your eyes providing you're NORMAL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Na509XTw3CY

Chevy - Edcated Redneck

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 5:11 PM | Report abuse

Leichtman,

I see that you have literacy problems for I said McCain has stood up to his party and risked being elected. Hence why he was not warmly received by his party until all the other candidates imploded. I also noted that he had capitulated to his party base which was not a positive thing. However, I am not surprised that someone as partisan as you would mischaracterize what I said since people of your ilk (both R and D partisan) typically shoots from the hip without much forethought. Thanks for the less than intelligent discourse.

Posted by: sltiowa | September 12, 2008 5:11 PM | Report abuse

Blizzard of Lies, By PAUL KRUGMAN, September 11, 2008

Did you hear about how Barack Obama wants to have sex education in kindergarten, and called Sarah Palin a pig? Did you hear about how Ms. Palin told Congress, “Thanks, but no thanks” when it wanted to buy Alaska a Bridge to Nowhere?


"...our system continues to reward false statements and outright lies with a winning campaign..."

These stories have two things in common: they’re all claims recently made by the McCain campaign — and they’re all out-and-out lies.

Dishonesty is nothing new in politics. I spent much of 2000 — my first year at The Times — trying to alert readers to the blatant dishonesty of the Bush campaign’s claims about taxes, spending and Social Security.

But I can’t think of any precedent, at least in America, for the blizzard of lies since the Republican convention. The Bush campaign’s lies in 2000 were artful — you needed some grasp of arithmetic to realize that you were being conned. This year, however, the McCain campaign keeps making assertions that anyone with an Internet connection can disprove in a minute, and repeating these assertions over and over again.

Take the case of the Bridge to Nowhere, which supposedly gives Ms. Palin credentials as a reformer. Well, when campaigning for governor, Ms. Palin didn’t say “no thanks” — she was all for the bridge, even though it had already become a national scandal, insisting that she would “not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that’s so negative.”

Oh, and when she finally did decide to cancel the project, she didn’t righteously reject a handout from Washington: she accepted the handout, but spent it on something else. You see, long before she decided to cancel the bridge, Congress had told Alaska that it could keep the federal money originally earmarked for that project and use it elsewhere.

So the whole story of Ms. Palin’s alleged heroic stand against wasteful spending is fiction.

Or take the story of Mr. Obama’s alleged advocacy of kindergarten sex-ed. In reality, he supported legislation calling for “age and developmentally appropriate education”; in the case of young children, that would have meant guidance to help them avoid sexual predators.

And then there’s the claim that Mr. Obama’s use of the ordinary metaphor “putting lipstick on a pig” was a sexist smear, and on and on.

Why do the McCain people think they can get away with this stuff? Well, they’re probably counting on the common practice in the news media of being “balanced” at all costs. You know how it goes: If a politician says that black is white, the news report doesn’t say that he’s wrong, it reports that “some Democrats say” that he’s wrong. Or a grotesque lie from one side is paired with a trivial misstatement from the other, conveying the impression that both sides are equally dirty.

They’re probably also counting on the prevalence of horse-race reporting, so that instead of the story being “McCain campaign lies,” it becomes “Obama on defensive in face of attacks.”

Still, how upset should we be about the McCain campaign’s lies? I mean, politics ain’t beanbag, and all that.

One answer is that the muck being hurled by the McCain campaign is preventing a debate on real issues — on whether the country really wants, for example, to continue the economic policies of the last eight years.

But there’s another answer, which may be even more important: how a politician campaigns tells you a lot about how he or she would govern.

I’m not talking about the theory, often advanced as a defense of horse-race political reporting, that the skills needed to run a winning campaign are the same as those needed to run the country. The contrast between the Bush political team’s ruthless effectiveness and the heckuva job done by the Bush administration is living, breathing, bumbling, and, in the case of the emerging Interior Department scandal, coke-snorting and bed-hopping proof to the contrary.

I’m talking, instead, about the relationship between the character of a campaign and that of the administration that follows. Thus, the deceptive and dishonest 2000 Bush-Cheney campaign provided an all-too-revealing preview of things to come. In fact, my early suspicion that we were being misled about the threat from Iraq came from the way the political tactics being used to sell the war resembled the tactics that had earlier been used to sell the Bush tax cuts.

And now the team that hopes to form the next administration is running a campaign that makes Bush-Cheney 2000 look like something out of a civics class. What does that say about how that team would run the country?

What it says, I’d argue, is that the Obama campaign is wrong to suggest that a McCain-Palin administration would just be a continuation of Bush-Cheney. If the way John McCain and Sarah Palin are campaigning is any indication, it would be much, much worse.

Posted by: the republicans LIE just as easily as they take a dump...it's how they rule the sheeple... | September 12, 2008 5:10 PM | Report abuse

Stories like these and the comments below are all just political porn. Gah. I've had all I can stomach.

Posted by: Mr. Moderate | September 12, 2008 5:10 PM | Report abuse

Three months before she was thrust into the national political spotlight, Gov. Sarah Palin was asked to handle a much smaller task: addressing the graduating class of commission students at her one-time church, Wasilla Assembly of God. Her speech in June provides as much insight into her policy leanings as anything uncovered since she was asked to be John McCain’s running mate. Speaking before the Pentecostal church, Palin painted the current war in Iraq as a messianic affair in which the United States could act out the will of the Lord.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/02 /palins-church-may-have-sh_n_123205.htm l

Posted by: Guy From LA | September 12, 2008 5:09 PM | Report abuse

Iraq veteran Talks to Obama

Vidoe will bring tears to your eye providing you're NORMAL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Na509XTw3CY

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 5:09 PM | Report abuse

Isn't McCain and Palin the first real Republicans Obama has ever faced in an election?

In Chicago and Illinois, the Fresh One was always anointed with the oil of the Democratic Machine, and all his Republican opponents were straw men.

Suddenly, the reality of McCain (and Palin!) intrudes!

Posted by: DaTourist | September 12, 2008 5:09 PM | Report abuse

The best thing about Sarah Plain is that she breaths new life into McCain's limp pecker.

I know what you're thinking: Blow is only a figure of speech.

Posted by: Jennifer | September 12, 2008 5:09 PM | Report abuse

.>> WP11231 wrote: "Give me a break,
.>>what kind of wuss holds a microphone
.>>with their fingertips and a raised pinkie?"

He thinks it's a Macanudo.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 12, 2008 5:08 PM | Report abuse

I'm for Independence from Foreign Oil AND Against Global Warming- So, I CAN'T vote Democratic this year, because your candidate panders to his Illinois Farmers!

Obama's Gift to Illinois farmers-

(I thought he was for a REDUCTION in dependency on foreign oil- corn ethanol requires 1 unit of petroleum for every unit it replaces- the more we make, the more we need, the bigger the profits in Illinois and the warmer the planet gets)

Study: Ethanol may add to global warming
Updated 2/8/2008 5:52 PM
By H. Josef Hebert, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON — The widespread use of ethanol from corn could result in nearly twice the greenhouse gas emissions as the gasoline it would replace because of expected land-use changes, researchers concluded Thursday. The study challenges the rush to biofuels as a response to global warming.
The researchers said that past studies showing the benefits of ethanol in combating climate change have not taken into account almost certain changes in land use worldwide if ethanol from corn — and in the future from other feedstocks such as switchgrass — become a prized commodity.
"Using good cropland to expand biofuels will probably exacerbate global warming," concludes the study published in Science magazine.
=0 A
The researchers said that farmers under economic pressure to produce biofuels will increasingly "plow up more forest or grasslands," releasing much of the carbon formerly stored in plants and soils through decomposition or fires. Globally, more grasslands and forests will be converted to growing the crops to replace the loss of grains when U.S. farmers convert land to biofuels, the study said.
The Renewable Fuels Association, which represents ethanol producers, called the researchers' view of land-use changes "simplistic" and said the study "fails to put the issue in context."
FIND MORE STORIES IN: Congress | Princeton University | Thursday
"Assigning the blame for rainforest deforestation and grassland conversion to agriculture solely on the renewable fuels industry ignores key factors that play a greater role," said Bob Dinneen, the association's president.
There has been a rush to developing biofuels, especially ethanol from corn and cellulosic feedstock such as switchgrass and wood chips, as a substitute for gasoline. President Bush signed energy legislation in December that mandates a six-fold increase in ethanol use as a fuel to 36 billion gallons a year by 2022, calling the requirement key to weaning the nation from imported oil.
The new "green" fuel, whether made from corn or other feedstocks, has been widely promoted — both in Congress and by the White House — as a key to combating global warming. Burning it produces less carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas, than the fossil fuels it will replace.
During the recent congressional debate over energy legislation, lawmakers frequently cited estimates that corn-based ethanol produces 20% less greenhouse gases in production, transportation and use than gasoline, and that cellulosic ethanol has an even greater benefit of 70% less emissions.
The study released Thursday by researchers affiliated with Princeton University and a number of other institutions maintains that these analyses "were one-sided" and counted the carbon benefits of using land for biofuels but not the carbon costs of diverting land from its existing uses.
"The other studies missed a key factor that everyone agrees should have been included, the land use changes that actually are going to increase greenhouse gas emissions," said Tim Searchinger, a research scholar at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs and lead author of the study.
The study said that after taking into account expected worldwide land-use changes, corn-based ethanol, instead of reducing greenhouse gases by 20%, will increases it by 93% compared to using gasoline over a 30-year period. Biofuels from switchgrass, if they replace croplands and other carbon-absorbing lands, would result in 50% more greenhouse gas emissions, the researchers concluded.

Posted by: Scott | September 12, 2008 5:08 PM | Report abuse

razorback your football got lucky this sat but your comment about Minn's low and falling state taxes is way off base, at least that is the sentiment from every Minnesotan I have spoken with who think they have the most honorous state tax burden of any state under the leadership of a R Governor who could not even find the funds to keep his bridges from killing folks.

Posted by: Leichtman | September 12, 2008 5:08 PM | Report abuse

More rookie mistakes by the 3-year Senator. I wonder when Obama realized he was over his head? Do you think it was when he dropped 11% points in most polls? He's so far out of his league that no amount of great talk will save him. It's just a shame it took until two months from the election for everyone to realize it.

NO-BAMA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: WaPoSuxBalls | September 12, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse

This is how an aggressive ad is done --

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iogEFNlRpg

Voters who vote based on national security concerns will take note.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Marty, Boston | September 12, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse

Republicans have no moral compass"
-greytok
*************************

Greytok, I'm prochoice, BUT your candidate takes it to the level of Dante's Inferno-
even NARAL, Ted Kennedy, and Barbara Boxer approved The Infant Protection Act, saying it was NOT a threat to Roe v Wade.
BUT NOT BARACK OBAMA!

"On the hot-button issue of abortion, last month saw a growing concern over Mr. Obama's opposition to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which states if an abortion is botched and a live birth results, the baby is entitled to medical care. The federal version of this law unanimously passed the U.S. Senate.

However, when a version of this bill came to the Illinois Senate, Mr. Obama opposed it. When confronted last month with the fact that the federal version of this bill had been supported by the likes of Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer, Mr. Obama said the he would have supported the federal version. Those suggesting otherwise were lying, he said. Then it was revealed that a second bill was introduced in the Illinois Senate, and this one was identical to the federal version. Mr. Obama opposed that bill as well. He has yet to come up with an explanation on that one."


Posted by: Scott | September 12, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse

Obama DIDNT close the deal against Hillary in the way to convince us he wont BIG against her, and we all know that.

Having the Clintons saying Obama is "ready" just a couple of weeks after they were stating he "was not" it's simply pathetic. What did the Clintos meant? That Obama became ready in 3 weeks, then?

Do you remember Rev. Wright? Do you remember his relation with Se. Obama for 20 years?

Do you understand the 2 Americas of Michelle Obama?

Do you understand that in spite the Busf factor polls favor McCain, as today?

Is McCain-Palin ticket perfect? No it's not.
Is Obama better choice? Not neither.

Posted by: Huh? | September 12, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse

1. Palin is a thief, she charged Alaska for nights at home
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/09/sarah-palins-ta.html
2. She is a traitor. Watch her address to Alaska Independence Party which wants independence from USA. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwvPNXYrIyI
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/02 /palins-church-may-have-sh_n_123205.html
3. Palin said she is for limited Government, but she increased the size of the City of Wasilla payroll by hiring a CIty Manager as SHE WAS INCOMPETENT TO RUN IT ON HER OWN. Her predecessors did not need anyone to run the city.
4. She said she will change Washignton. Well, she hired Jack Abramoff's firm to lobby for the city. For a city of 6000, she could get ear-marks for $27 million!!
5. She said she will cut cost, well she ran her city of ZERO DEBT to $22 mil debt when she left

Posted by: Guy From LA | September 12, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse

This says it all doesn't it. Nothing like a fresh smattering of hate to offer the peole. And Howard Kurtz says the media is angry at the Republicans for their mean tricks. ha ha.

"The liberal base of the Democratic party detests Palin in a visceral way and wants to destroy her, regardless of whether it is a sound political strategy or not. Several of the questions asked on today's conference call were centered not on the idea that McCain is out of touch on the economy but rather on why the Obama campaign wasn't hitting Palin more aggressively on some of her perceived weaknesses."

Posted by: Hooshmazoo | September 12, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse

The richest of Americans the top 1% pay rouhgly 25% of the taxes.

50% of Americans do not pay any federal taxes. In fact, a good portion of that 50% actually get more money back than they pay in.

So Obamas plan to raise the taxes on the rich while cutting taxes on 95%...means he is going to take more money from the rich and GIVE it to the poor. This has never worked in bringing an economy back to stability.

The top 10% of wage earners pay over 60% of the taxes. Exactly how many of those are those who own small businesses and claim business profit personally? How many of them wil be taxes out of business.

Democrats don't get it...ever.

This summer, the worst summer for college and hourly wage employees ever, less jobs more job cuts. Think it is justa coincidence the democrats increased the minimum wage in the spring?

Raise taxes the economy will go down. Cut taxes and revenue goes up...it's a fact. if democrats needs help with that word look it up

Posted by: shane | September 12, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse

court document citing wikipedia for source. what a joke.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse

I love watching Obama fail. He is so pretentious just like the news media.

Posted by: Obama is a Dufus | September 12, 2008 5:06 PM | Report abuse

DEPORT OBAMA AND MICHELLE BACK TO KENYA. NO MATTER WHAT AD OBAMA RUNS HE IS NO MCCAIN. MCCAIN BEING A STATESMEN AND OBAMA BEING A KID. OBAMA'S SPEECH PATTERNS WERE KID LIKE AT THE RECENT "FORUM". HE COPIED MCCAIN WHENEVER POSSIBLE. OBAMA HATES THE MILITARY, HE WANTS TO DOWNSIZE, BUT NOW HE WANTS TO EXPAND....HE HAS FLIPPED SO OFTEN I CAN'T KEEP TRACK. AS FAR AS THE VIEW GOES THOSE WOMAN ARE BAGS. I DON'T WATCH THEM, NEVER HAVE BUT HEARD ABOUT THEIR RUDE BEHAVIOR ELSEWHERE. CHARLIE GIBSON IS RUDE AND UNPROFESSIONAL. WHAT A SCREWBALL.

Posted by: dAR | September 12, 2008 5:06 PM | Report abuse

Obamas aggressive new tone... "Goddamm America....Goddamm America"

I think Obama has lost his mojo

Posted by: jmd | September 12, 2008 5:06 PM | Report abuse

My mother once told me that women are each others enemies. They fight with their mother-in-laws when they are married and then fight with their daughter-in-law when their sons are married. That begs the question - Am I an MCP(Male Chauvenist Pig)? Hell no!! I am a feminist and believe that without female cooperation, nothing can be done - at home or nationally. That said, this Palin pick is a slap on the face of feminism. Not that there are a lot of women who are commercial fisher-women or it's not that she defeated an incumbent republican Givernor. But show me one instance where she supported anything related to women's issues? Show me once where she stood up against establishment to defend women's rights? Anyone???!!??

Posted by: Guy From LA | September 12, 2008 5:06 PM | Report abuse

bsimon, when in a hole the first thing you have to do is stop digging.

bsimon says:

What I Got is that it ain't taxes that push auto manufacturers offshore. If that were the case, we wouldn't have companies like BMW, Toyota, Mercedes Benz, Nissan & Volkswagen building factories in the US in the last decade."

They have built NON UNION factories in the US to get around limits on imports and because of state tax breaks, and they do not build them in Michigan because of the high taxes and unionism there.

Its only in the high tax union states that the US gets killed because consumer want the best value for the price AFTER taxes.

Only a fool would pretend that the cost of doing business has no impact on where jobs are created.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 5:05 PM | Report abuse

But, my dear LibMedia Pundit, hasn't Obama promised "an aggressive, new tone" about four or five times before?

Why is no one in the GOP shaking in their socks over this new promise and/or threat?

Posted by: DaTourist | September 12, 2008 5:05 PM | Report abuse

I think Senator Obama needs to ask once we are out of Iraq which person,he, or McCain has the vision to get America back on track when it comes to science, energy and the technology of this and future decades?

We seem so stuck on the whole Iraq issue we are failing to see into the future. As well as a need to regain the positive view of America pre 2002. We need other countries to buy our goods and yes, support us in any challenge we face.

But we seem so stuck on old ideas and we need a leader whom like JFK, will challenge us to have a goal that will make this country great. I think Obama is that man but he has to stress that more.

Posted by: MotherLodeBeth | September 12, 2008 5:05 PM | Report abuse

Why does no one see that having McCain in is another 4 years of George W. Bush. I voted for Bush in 2004 (biggest mistake ever), and McCain will bring more of the same. We need someone young in office who can inspire people, not a 74 year old man that will die within his first four years. We know McCain's ideas, they are the same ideas that leave us in the mess we are in right now. Palin said Iraq is tied to Al-Qaeda...something even Bush finally admitted not to be true. Come on people, think about the future of this country, put parties aside! I am a long term Republican, but this fall I am voting for Obama.

Posted by: nonpartisan | September 12, 2008 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Blizzard of Lies, By PAUL KRUGMAN, September 11, 2008

Did you hear about how Barack Obama wants to have sex education in kindergarten, and called Sarah Palin a pig? Did you hear about how Ms. Palin told Congress, “Thanks, but no thanks” when it wanted to buy Alaska a Bridge to Nowhere?

These stories have two things in common: they’re all claims recently made by the McCain campaign — and they’re all out-and-out lies.

Dishonesty is nothing new in politics. I spent much of 2000 — my first year at The Times — trying to alert readers to the blatant dishonesty of the Bush campaign’s claims about taxes, spending and Social Security.


"...our system continues to reward false statements and outright lies with a winning campaign..."


But I can’t think of any precedent, at least in America, for the blizzard of lies since the Republican convention. The Bush campaign’s lies in 2000 were artful — you needed some grasp of arithmetic to realize that you were being conned. This year, however, the McCain campaign keeps making assertions that anyone with an Internet connection can disprove in a minute, and repeating these assertions over and over again.

Take the case of the Bridge to Nowhere, which supposedly gives Ms. Palin credentials as a reformer. Well, when campaigning for governor, Ms. Palin didn’t say “no thanks” — she was all for the bridge, even though it had already become a national scandal, insisting that she would “not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that’s so negative.”

Oh, and when she finally did decide to cancel the project, she didn’t righteously reject a handout from Washington: she accepted the handout, but spent it on something else. You see, long before she decided to cancel the bridge, Congress had told Alaska that it could keep the federal money originally earmarked for that project and use it elsewhere.

So the whole story of Ms. Palin’s alleged heroic stand against wasteful spending is fiction.

Or take the story of Mr. Obama’s alleged advocacy of kindergarten sex-ed. In reality, he supported legislation calling for “age and developmentally appropriate education”; in the case of young children, that would have meant guidance to help them avoid sexual predators.

And then there’s the claim that Mr. Obama’s use of the ordinary metaphor “putting lipstick on a pig” was a sexist smear, and on and on.

Why do the McCain people think they can get away with this stuff? Well, they’re probably counting on the common practice in the news media of being “balanced” at all costs. You know how it goes: If a politician says that black is white, the news report doesn’t say that he’s wrong, it reports that “some Democrats say” that he’s wrong. Or a grotesque lie from one side is paired with a trivial misstatement from the other, conveying the impression that both sides are equally dirty.

They’re probably also counting on the prevalence of horse-race reporting, so that instead of the story being “McCain campaign lies,” it becomes “Obama on defensive in face of attacks.”

Still, how upset should we be about the McCain campaign’s lies? I mean, politics ain’t beanbag, and all that.

One answer is that the muck being hurled by the McCain campaign is preventing a debate on real issues — on whether the country really wants, for example, to continue the economic policies of the last eight years.

But there’s another answer, which may be even more important: how a politician campaigns tells you a lot about how he or she would govern.

I’m not talking about the theory, often advanced as a defense of horse-race political reporting, that the skills needed to run a winning campaign are the same as those needed to run the country. The contrast between the Bush political team’s ruthless effectiveness and the heckuva job done by the Bush administration is living, breathing, bumbling, and, in the case of the emerging Interior Department scandal, coke-snorting and bed-hopping proof to the contrary.

I’m talking, instead, about the relationship between the character of a campaign and that of the administration that follows. Thus, the deceptive and dishonest 2000 Bush-Cheney campaign provided an all-too-revealing preview of things to come. In fact, my early suspicion that we were being misled about the threat from Iraq came from the way the political tactics being used to sell the war resembled the tactics that had earlier been used to sell the Bush tax cuts.

And now the team that hopes to form the next administration is running a campaign that makes Bush-Cheney 2000 look like something out of a civics class. What does that say about how that team would run the country?

What it says, I’d argue, is that the Obama campaign is wrong to suggest that a McCain-Palin administration would just be a continuation of Bush-Cheney. If the way John McCain and Sarah Palin are campaigning is any indication, it would be much, much worse.

the republicans LIE just as easily as they take a dump...it's how they rule the sheeple...


Posted by: the republicans LIE just as easily as they take a dump...it's how they rule the sheeple... | September 12, 2008 5:04 PM | Report abuse

RE: "Give me a break, what kind of wuss holds a microphone with their fingertips and a raised pinkie?

Posted by: WP11231 "

could this be truth buried by the media

http://www.reversespeech.com/obamadrugs.htm

Posted by: Marty, Boston | September 12, 2008 5:04 PM | Report abuse

To: bobama@dnc.org
From: aspergirl@usa.com
Date: 09/12/08
CC: daxelrod@dnc.org
Subj: re: HOW TO GRIP A MIC

Unconvincing.

BO just not masculine enough.

Send Michelle.

.>> WP11231 wrote: "Give me a break,
.>>what kind of wuss holds a microphone
.>>with their fingertips and a raised pinkie?"

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 12, 2008 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Blizzard of Lies, By PAUL KRUGMAN, September 11, 2008

Did you hear about how Barack Obama wants to have sex education in kindergarten, and called Sarah Palin a pig? Did you hear about how Ms. Palin told Congress, “Thanks, but no thanks” when it wanted to buy Alaska a Bridge to Nowhere?

These stories have two things in common: they’re all claims recently made by the McCain campaign — and they’re all out-and-out lies.

Dishonesty is nothing new in politics. I spent much of 2000 — my first year at The Times — trying to alert readers to the blatant dishonesty of the Bush campaign’s claims about taxes, spending and Social Security.


"...our system continues to reward false statements and outright lies with a winning campaign..."


But I can’t think of any precedent, at least in America, for the blizzard of lies since the Republican convention. The Bush campaign’s lies in 2000 were artful — you needed some grasp of arithmetic to realize that you were being conned. This year, however, the McCain campaign keeps making assertions that anyone with an Internet connection can disprove in a minute, and repeating these assertions over and over again.

Take the case of the Bridge to Nowhere, which supposedly gives Ms. Palin credentials as a reformer. Well, when campaigning for governor, Ms. Palin didn’t say “no thanks” — she was all for the bridge, even though it had already become a national scandal, insisting that she would “not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that’s so negative.”

Oh, and when she finally did decide to cancel the project, she didn’t righteously reject a handout from Washington: she accepted the handout, but spent it on something else. You see, long before she decided to cancel the bridge, Congress had told Alaska that it could keep the federal money originally earmarked for that project and use it elsewhere.

So the whole story of Ms. Palin’s alleged heroic stand against wasteful spending is fiction.

Or take the story of Mr. Obama’s alleged advocacy of kindergarten sex-ed. In reality, he supported legislation calling for “age and developmentally appropriate education”; in the case of young children, that would have meant guidance to help them avoid sexual predators.

And then there’s the claim that Mr. Obama’s use of the ordinary metaphor “putting lipstick on a pig” was a sexist smear, and on and on.

Why do the McCain people think they can get away with this stuff? Well, they’re probably counting on the common practice in the news media of being “balanced” at all costs. You know how it goes: If a politician says that black is white, the news report doesn’t say that he’s wrong, it reports that “some Democrats say” that he’s wrong. Or a grotesque lie from one side is paired with a trivial misstatement from the other, conveying the impression that both sides are equally dirty.

They’re probably also counting on the prevalence of horse-race reporting, so that instead of the story being “McCain campaign lies,” it becomes “Obama on defensive in face of attacks.”

Still, how upset should we be about the McCain campaign’s lies? I mean, politics ain’t beanbag, and all that.

One answer is that the muck being hurled by the McCain campaign is preventing a debate on real issues — on whether the country really wants, for example, to continue the economic policies of the last eight years.

But there’s another answer, which may be even more important: how a politician campaigns tells you a lot about how he or she would govern.

I’m not talking about the theory, often advanced as a defense of horse-race political reporting, that the skills needed to run a winning campaign are the same as those needed to run the country. The contrast between the Bush political team’s ruthless effectiveness and the heckuva job done by the Bush administration is living, breathing, bumbling, and, in the case of the emerging Interior Department scandal, coke-snorting and bed-hopping proof to the contrary.

I’m talking, instead, about the relationship between the character of a campaign and that of the administration that follows. Thus, the deceptive and dishonest 2000 Bush-Cheney campaign provided an all-too-revealing preview of things to come. In fact, my early suspicion that we were being misled about the threat from Iraq came from the way the political tactics being used to sell the war resembled the tactics that had earlier been used to sell the Bush tax cuts.

And now the team that hopes to form the next administration is running a campaign that makes Bush-Cheney 2000 look like something out of a civics class. What does that say about how that team would run the country?

What it says, I’d argue, is that the Obama campaign is wrong to suggest that a McCain-Palin administration would just be a continuation of Bush-Cheney. If the way John McCain and Sarah Palin are campaigning is any indication, it would be much, much worse.

the republicans LIE just as easily as they take a dump...it's how they rule the sheeple...

Posted by: the republicans LIE just as easily as they take a dump...it's how they rule the sheeple... | September 12, 2008 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Mike,

Another reason that some Canadian manufacturing is looking at moving to the U.S. is because the USD has been tanking.

The only upshot to a weak dollar is that it might encourage some businesses to move to the U.S.

Long-term though that approach is going to be a loser.

Posted by: JP2 | September 12, 2008 5:03 PM | Report abuse

It seems that the theme "Change" in political terms means "More of the same"

Posted by: Cp | September 12, 2008 5:02 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin offers a reward for bringing in the bloodied, severed paw of a wolf? There is nothing Christian in her barbarism.

Matthew 10:29: "Not even a sparrow, worth only half a penny, can fall to the ground without your Father knowing it."

Posted by: trace1 | September 12, 2008 5:02 PM | Report abuse

Obama´s computer illiterate ad is further evidence that my party has been hijacked by a bunch of smug, nasty left-wing activists. In addition to hunters/"moose shooters", religion clingers, and now,
people who don´t use computers, I´ve made a list of other members of the electorate for them to insult so as to ensure their exit
from influence in the Democratic Party.
1. small-town residents that wear caps
with normal visors and sporting farm
machinery logos
2. those not privileged enough to attend
Ivy League schools
3. "folks" not hip enough to have rap
music on their ipods
4. square types who didn´t experiment with
cocain in their youth
5. those not enlightened enough to listen
to a racist preacher for 20 years
Well, you get my point.

Posted by: Mike 46 | September 12, 2008 5:01 PM | Report abuse

Jennifer,

Your economic model sounds a lot like on that you might find in Saudi Arabia.

That country is making a ton of money right now, but it also has very high unemployment, and most people live on handouts from the government.

Good infrastructure, and good schools matter too for businesses that bring in high quality jobs.

Only the GOP base thinks good infrastructure and good schools magically appear without taxation.

Those things don't get magically appear.

Posted by: JP2 | September 12, 2008 5:01 PM | Report abuse

Im going to enjoy watching McCain tank in PA now. The men in Pa dislike Hillary as much as the women like her. And PA women are smart. They came on board. You're "McCain winning PA" is really hurting my sides.
Bottom Line -

Obama will win New Mexico and Colorado, where Palin's impact has been marginal.

Electoral Votes 273
Game over.

Posted by: Mark in PA | September 12, 2008 5:00 PM | Report abuse

I am so bitter and angry that Hillary is not the candidate -- Hillary is much smarter than Obama Hussein Barack and Hillary is entitled to the presidency. After all, it is Hillary who understands that it is the far-left members of the Democratic Party -- angry, bitter leftists like me who read firedoglake and are secure in our gender identity -- who will have the final say in who gets elected this fall. That is why the angry, bitter leftists support Hillary.

Posted by: twin_peaks_nikki | September 12, 2008 5:00 PM | Report abuse

I continue to believe that running a Prez race against a VP nominee would be utterly foolish.

If the MSM continues to focus, figuratively as well as literally, upon lipstick, then BHO can run against the media, as well as McC can - using the media's penchant for not reporting much of substance as a contrast to the issues he chooses to present.

It is clear from "Fix" posters that all self proclaimed liberals and self proclaimed conservatives distrust the media, so both candidates get a free shot.

Posted by: MarkInAustin | September 12, 2008 5:00 PM | Report abuse

And all those people who own Exxon-Mobil stock should be glad they get any dividends at all. It takes real money to pay $200 million to a retiring CEO. Greed is good! Capitalism is greed! Democracy means that those who have the most money can speak the loudest.

All you liberal whimps who want to level the playing field don't understand that it's greed that drives America. Republicans understand this.

If you're not greedy, you're un-American!

Posted by: Jennifer | September 12, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

Bismon,

Obama still has the windfall tax policy on his jump starting the economy. I agree concerning McCain gimmick of tax holiday both ideas for both candidates were bad ideas and populous in nature. I have worked with ConocoPhillips on development of alternative fuels (not just biofuels) and they have a heavy investment in that area. I am a chemist and I was doing some characterization only (not developing anything). I do not share distrust for oil as many in the D party do. They make profit (lots of it at that) but they are looking for future sources. They see alternative sources as growth areas with higher profit margins than traditional crude oil. I do have a bias toward industry since I use to work for DuPont (I don't see them as the bad guys).

Posted by: sltiowa | September 12, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

Sarah: Thanks, but no thanks for those lies to nowhere.

Posted by: trace1 | September 12, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

A new "more aggressive" Obama won't make a difference. He has been outed as an eloquent but empty suit. It was a major mistake to put Obama against McCain instead of Hillary. Hillary may hold the same policy views os Obama, but she also has real experience and real accomplishments. Her negatives are high but she is respected by her peers in the Senate on both sides of the isle. Obama can't attack McCain on reform, because Obama has not accomplished one iota of reform. Obama can't attack Palin on experience because it only makes his lack of concrete experience more glaring.

Posted by: Pensacola38 | September 12, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

One reason Canada may be losing automotive jobs to the U.S. has to do with incentives. To land the Sprinter van project, Georgia opened the bank. The state's total incentives package came to $295 million, or about $67,000 per job

Posted by: Mike | September 12, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

stilowa says its obvious that McCain is standing up to his party. Yea where?

McCain has flipped on the Bush tax policies, selected a VP candidate that wants to drill in Awr, does not believe in Global warming, is more extreme then McCain on abortion, wants Rape victims to pay for their own rape kits,tried to censor books as mayor,is ready to go to war with Russia,believes that 911 was directed by Iraq, opposes stem cell research, believes Iraq war was sanctioned by God and pretty much opposes everything I once respected McCain for. And that is is profile in courage against the Republican Party and standing up to its radical extremes? Huh, How is that? Sounds more like he McCain has caved to his failed R Party for which only Aspergirl defends McCain. As for McCain in Washington state go ahead and waste your resources there. Its as likely as O winingin N. Carolina or soouri which we hear from D' every 4 year. Will likly turn on the same 3 states Fla, Ohio and Michga just like it did in 2000 and 2004 although O told primary voters this would be different this time. HC supporter for months pedicted that the states O would concentrate on would be the precisly same conventional states asevery D unless it turned out to be a blowout 55-45% election, which no one ever believed.

And this to all of The Fix bloggers here who showed total contempt for Bill Clinton and insulted every HC supporter here that dared to stand with them; any regrets/apologies for those comments here now?

"During the primaries, plenty of venom spewed from the two camps, but those on both sides say all is forgiven, if not entirely forgotten," Peter Nicholas writes in the Los Angeles Times. "Clinton is set to campaign for Obama in Florida on Sept. 29. He will also raise money for the Democratic nominee and make other campaign stops through election day."

Posted by: Leichtman | September 12, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

Where is all the Change he has been talking about, a change of thethe politics of the past, all that BS, he has been talking about. What the country is finding out, is he is a big fraud, and John McCain is schooling his fanny.

Posted by: F. Worden | September 12, 2008 4:57 PM | Report abuse

"The liberal base of the Democratic party detests Palin in a visceral way and wants to destroy her, regardless of whether it is a sound political strategy or not." Exactly right, and like a good squadron commander, McCain willingly lets the frigate soak up all of the missile fire while the carrier sails into strike range unopposed. Hummm. Maybe the liberals really can't be trusted to handle national security until they understand that elementary tactical principle. Dick Morris figured that out for Clinton years ago.

Posted by: FireTag | September 12, 2008 4:57 PM | Report abuse

bsimon says:

"High tech companies come to Minnesota (like 3M, Medtronic, Alliant Tech, Seagate, etc) because we have a well-educated workforce that was paid for by high taxes."

What does the STATE OF MINNESOTA SAY?????????

"Enviable Business Climate
Minnesota has four distinct seasons, but the business climate is always warm and sunny, with plenty of blue sky.

Our strongly pro-business policies, steadily falling tax rates, lower operating expenses, tax credits for research and development, favorable workers’ compensation costs and streamlined state regulatory requirements are tremendous competitive advantages that have helped thousands of companies turn mere potential into outstanding achievement.

http://www.deed.state.mn.us/whymn/EnviableBusinessClimate.htm

Sounds like the people in charge of economic development in MN agree with ME.

Class dismissed.

Posted by: Razorback | September 12, 2008 4:57 PM | Report abuse

Palin started with nothing and all alone. No family fortune. No political pedigree. No blessing of political bosses.
Palin ran against a corrupt mayor and defeated him and when he ran against her for reelection, she defeated him with 75%.
When Palin did well running for Lt. Governor, they tried to buy her by giving her a spot on the energy commission paying $125,000.00 and when she found corruption she resigned in protest.
Running on a platform of reform, Palin defeated the incumbent Republican Governor in the primary and a former Democratic Governor in the general.
Is there any politician alive who has done half this much?
The Man of La Mancha tilted at windmills with his sidekick Pancho.
Palin tilted at the powers that be in a major natural resource rich state with 4 and now 5 kids in tow.
Man of La Mancha only tried, but Palin succeeded.
Man of La Mancha has been talked about for 500 years.
Is it any wonder that Palin will be talked about all the way to the White House.
Only people with blinders, just like Man of La Mancha’s horse, can’t see it.

Posted by: True Observer | September 12, 2008 4:55 PM | Report abuse

Didn't anybody else here McCain today imply on The View that Obama intentionally smeared Palin with lipstick.

When asked about it, McCain said, "He speaks very precisely" or is "very controlled" when he speaks. In other words, as I've believed from the beginning, Obama had a script, as did Biden and another politicians who uttered "lipstick" on the same day.

The reason is simple. Obama was being over shadowed by Palin/McCain, and "reform" was trumping "change."

He needed attention, and the networks obliged by running his change rant, which preceded his lipstick slur.

The sexist pig is now trying to wipe the lipstick off his face.

Posted by: Another skeptic | September 12, 2008 4:55 PM | Report abuse

bsimon

You made the point for him,

The business here is here because of incentives like TAX incentives given by the state and the US gov. SOOOOOOOO got anything else.

Posted by: Jennifer | September 12, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse

I would think people would be happy to let Exxon keep some profits. Check out how much they pay in taxes. Also, who the heck do you think owns Exxon...Lets see could it be 93% normal middle income and lower income folks who are saving to retire?????

I guess you would like to tell the 93% owners of Exxon they have no right to make any money on their ownership of Exxon??? Yes that’s true, Exxon is owned 93% by 401k, IRA, and other retirement investment tools like pensions of normal Americans. Kind of takes the wind out of the "BIG" oil argument doesn't it. indisposed at work trying to pay for expensive gasoline.

Posted by: Jennifer | September 12, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

Razorback says
"If taxes here are higher than taxes in Korea, car manufacturing moves to Korea, and jobs are lost. Got it?"

What I Got is that it ain't taxes that push auto manufacturers offshore. If that were the case, we wouldn't have companies like BMW, Toyota, Mercedes Benz, Nissan & Volkswagen building factories in the US in the last decade.

What else ya got?

Posted by: bsimon | September 12, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

> “Also, if you want to hit Palin, just split screen Paris' response ad to McCain's star power ad next to Palin's response to C. Gibson's question about readiness -- "I am ready because I was asked." PAALLEEASE.”

Sure, the Republicans will compare their VP pick to the Democrat Presidential nominee!
The essence of Obama’s ‘experience’answer?
“I am ready because I ran.”

Posted by: Jon Do | September 12, 2008 4:50 PM | Report abuse

Most people would rather have the devil they know than the devil they don't. At least with the republicans life will go on. With Obama it depends which way the wind blows. If he were president we could be involved in one of those hopeless African civil wars in no time. And with an angry black woman in charge of the White House, every day could be a new adventure. Too many unknowns for most of us average americans...

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin Son Track Palin Going To Iraq To Avoid Jail Time? - Sarah Palin’s son Track Palin has joined the army to avoid going to prison.Track Palin is not going to Iraq because he is patriotic but because he was arrested,for vandalizing the brakes of a school bus,in order to avoid jail he enlisted himself in the army.Track Palin will be performing security duties for his brigade’s top officers in Iraq starting on September 11, 2008.That’s all we have for now on Sarah Palin Son Track Palin Going To Iraq To Avoid Jail Time?

Posted by: Guy From LA | September 12, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Antonio,

He couldnt close the deal against Hillary? Who is the democratic nominee moron? Thats right Obama, so that means he closed the deal.

Posted by: Huh? | September 12, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Sure make fun of his holding a mike; it is not enough that you make fun of his ears you know "[he ] is putting you on notice!"

Posted by: Jennifer | September 12, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Obama's economy ad should go like this:
Bush/McCain/Republicans economy policy:
cut taxes, cut tsxes,cut taxes; where did the money go?
getting richer , getting riccher, getting richer, that where the money went, to the richest and the priveleged.
Drill, Drill, Drill, where will the profit go?
Exon, mobile, oxy, texico,and all the oil companies.

Posted by: john y. cheng | September 12, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

I smell Dem Fear. I like it!

Posted by: yes | September 12, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Razorback writes
"If one state has high taxes, and a bordering state has low taxes, people gradually migrate towards the lower taxes."

You'll have to have the census bureau recount Minnesota's population for the last, oh, century or so. They keep telling us we're growing faster than lower tax states like north & south dakota.

That's the problem with economists. They think a theoretical formula can accurately predict how people act in every day life. The problem is the formulas measure dollars really well, but don't measure things like quality of life, or quality of workforce. High tech companies come to Minnesota (like 3M, Medtronic, Alliant Tech, Seagate, etc) because we have a well-educated workforce that was paid for by high taxes. If they wanted dumb workers in low-tax states, they'd move to Mississippi. But, here they are, in old high-tax Minnesota.

Tell me more about economics, Razorback.

Posted by: bsimon | September 12, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Who cares if the "blue collar" working class types are turned off? The reason they're turned off is that they're backwards and self-absorbed. They're nothing but tools for the wealthy and the big business interests that control the Republican Party.

Posted by: me | September 12, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse

Now he's just another angry black man. Now Jesse and Al feel better.

Posted by: RA | September 12, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse

"McCain, who regularly slams lobbyists, has taken on longtime DC lobbyist William Timmons to lead his transition prep."

Paging Dana Milbanks, WILL THE REAL DANA PLEASE STAND UP!!!! Is it presumptious or what????

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse

Reading the comments on several WP articles over the past week on the presidential race, I find it quite comical that the liberals are attacking a Governor of an entire State on experience when their candidate has so less experience in government and no experience in executive political positions. Very strange???
Former Obama supporter prior to Biden pick.

Posted by: 1rap | September 12, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse

First of all, they're continuing using this "out of touch" attack on McCain, even with the constant references to all of his homes. It hasn't been working the past two months, McCain is instead surging in the polls, and so I don't see why it would suddenly start working now.

Second, Obama doesn't really need to go after Palin right now, thus risking a huge flub like the "lipstick" gaffe. Besides, the media is doing a fine job of going after Palin.

Finally, that ad attacking McCain on his computer skills is just plain, juvenile. Does anyone really think that this will resonate with voters in middle America, who, unlike political junkies here in DC, are If anything, that attack ad shows, ironically, how out of touch the Obama camp is at this point in the campaign.

Posted by: Kate | September 12, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse

If we drill everywhere it is a lot of gasoline. I would rather see $1 trillions staying here in this country that going to some other country to pay our enemies that hate us for oil. Now, only a portion of our oil comes from far away most all of it comes from Canada but keeping it here sure sounds sound to me.

Posted by: Jennifer | September 12, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse

Give me a break, what kind of wuss holds a microphone with their fingertips and a raised pinkie?

Posted by: WP11231 | September 12, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Razorback, most businesses look at more than just tax-levels.

The kind of employers that pay decent middle class wages also look at the commitment that localities have to infrastructure, and local schools.

The only businesses that ignore these considerations tend to be casinos.

I think it's fair to say that the GOP's vision for America can be found in Las Vegas, or on some Indian reservations.

That's not a sustainable economic model.

It's a recipe for disaster.

Posted by: JP2 | September 12, 2008 4:45 PM | Report abuse

I think the tit-for-tat negative attacks are counter-productive for both sides. The Dems have the advantage because it is an issues election year instead of a personality year. They should underscore more heavily that the maverick candidate could not unite his party with his progressive talk and they bolted for a conservative running mate. They forever unites the ticket to Bush/Cheney. Why should an uncommitted voter care if McCain knows how to Google? Barack is better when he sticks to the issues and stays out of the mud.

Posted by: joneshn | September 12, 2008 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Yes, make this about the real issues: the economy and health insurance; the war and renewed leadership in the international community; a woman's right to choose and a better way to welcome and integrate immigrants. On those issues McCain and Palin do not represent the majority of Americans. The important questions are not whether McCain's out of touch or Palin is ready. Change the questions to the real issues.
Thanks!

Posted by: Mike Wilker | September 12, 2008 4:45 PM | Report abuse

No matter all that negative come out your mouth
Obama will be president HA HA

Posted by: Mccain | September 12, 2008 4:43 PM | Report abuse

the Republicans LIE just as easily as they take a dump...it's how they rule the sheeple...

Hey, I know lets invite Planned Parenthood into our schools to tell the kids how to be responsible. That is Obama's plan!!!

Oh, , by the way, I watched as Planned Parenthood was invited in to a school and brought their condom tree in as a visual and then as a prize for the kid who answered the most questions on the quiz. This is what happens with "responsible and appropriate" it all goes out the door because Planned Parenthood knows the parents are indisposed at work trying to pay for expensive gasoline.

Posted by: Jennifer | September 12, 2008 4:42 PM | Report abuse

sltiowa-
I do not share 100% of Obama's positions, and I am unhappy with some of his proposals. For instance, the proposal (now apparently dropped, though I'm not certain) to impose windfall taxes on oil companies - that's a bad idea. Of course, McCain's gas tax amnesty proposal around the same time, was equally bad, as we saw just a week or two ago when it was announced the Fed Hwy Trust Fund went broke. If you want to stay on energy policy, I am generally against additional offshore drilling - as it will have essentially no effect on supply. BUT, if you can trade opening new areas to offshore drilling for additional investment in alternative energy & R&D that will help us move off oil, I'm all for compromising. So in that regard, I was happy to see Obama tempering his position on offshore drilling. I don't see McCain taking advantage of the opportunity in such a fashion.

Posted by: bsimon | September 12, 2008 4:42 PM | Report abuse

Obama couldn't close the deal against Hillary.
Obama cant close the deal against McCain.
Biden, oh well, the SLEEPING Beauty.

Where is Rev. Wright?


Posted by: Antonio | September 12, 2008 4:41 PM | Report abuse

The funniest thing I have seen all day is that McCain will win PA. There is no way in hell that he and his lightweight will win PA.

Posted by: Dan | September 12, 2008 4:41 PM | Report abuse

Oh, and the small towns in PA don't run the state or decide the vote, the cities do. Pittsburgh, Philly, Harrisburg, Scranton, Wilkes-Barre, and Erie.

Period. You have a good shot at Ohio.
Penn's woods? NOT A CHANCE.

Go Obama/Biden

Posted by: Mark in PA | September 12, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

A vote for McCain-Palin is a vote against the American middle class.

Posted by: JP2 | September 12, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

bsimon is obviously educated, but its also obvious that he knows nothing of economics and doesn't know when he is in over his head.

bsimon says:

"Razorback, Taxes are applied to profits after the costs of doing business are subtracted from gross revenue. So, duh, taxes lower profits. What's your point? Taxes lower take-home pay too."

What businesses acutally use as a planning tool is a projection of return on investment over the life of the investment that is made, on an after tax basis. If taxes here are higher than taxes in Korea, car manufacturing moves to Korea, and jobs are lost. Got it?

Yes, taxes lower take home pay. If one state has high taxes, and a bordering state has low taxes, people gradually migrate towards the lower taxes. It happens with people and it happens with investement. The only point I am trying to make it that there are secondary consequences to tax policy that liberals disregard when making their little charts about where the tax burden falls.

Posted by: Razorback | September 12, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

Personality Contest 2008 if dems go negative:

hopeful old maverick
& cute pit bull mom in lipstick

vs

angry black man
& blustering blowhard doofus

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 12, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

Look Barack Obama is a nice "kid." His experience was when he was 23,24, 25. We all remember our first jobs after college. He is throwing things out there and getting away with it because the press hates the Republicans so much and need a hero. I hope the press stays out of it and just write what he says...stop interpreting or let's say slanting. You pick on Palin but Obama has less experience.

Posted by: rose | September 12, 2008 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Obama/Biden will win and everyone needs to not worry about that. McBush and his running mate are still behind in the state polls and that is the only thing that matters. I sure don't want to have books banned or the terrible record McBush has on women's issues across the board.

Posted by: Tim | September 12, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse

McCain and Palin are the right kind of conservatives. More people appreciate cutting costs over a bloated government, higher taxes and handouts. They get it. If done right, it works, with no harm done to the average income owner.

That is why McCain/Palin will prevail. They get it. They practiced exactly what they preach. They have a record of success, whereas Obama, as you all know by now, has nothing but empty rhetoric, a crappy track record and is completely partisan; unbending and immature.

Obama already looks like an immature boy, the angrier he gets (as if he wasn't enough already), the more his true character will show. This will hurt him.

Republicans have owned the White House for so many decades. Why? Because it's been working. The nation has been mostly prosperous and moving forward throughout our history, with some minor and major bumps, but that is not always under the control of the government.

Clinton had nothing to do with the tech wave of prosperity. It was just good timing. And, he supported businesses, as well as tried to go after terrorists, just as any republican would have.

Posted by: fiscal conservative | September 12, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse


Sorry, but Obama is running a pathetic campaign, and this "new" strategy is just another example. That ad against McCain is probably the worst ad I have ever seen. Complete dud. If Obama wants to have a prayer, he needs to: fire David Axelrod, stop obsessing about Sarah Palin, and concentrate on the issues.

Posted by: Frustrated Dem | September 12, 2008 4:37 PM | Report abuse

Obamas elitist comments about McCain not being about to use a computer will only serve to alienate millions of middle age and elderly boomers.
I am a former Hillary Democrat, but Obama's elitist, condescending and patronizing remarks as well as his INexperience and arrogance has totally turned me off!

Posted by: Cheryl | September 12, 2008 4:37 PM | Report abuse

As far as increasing taxes on employers -- small business will see MORE relief under Obama than McCain.

So why is it that McCain wants to reward large multi-nationals, but he says essential f-u to small American businesses?

Why is it that McCain gives more handouts to top income earners, but he throws peanuts at the middle and working classes? Obama give more tax relief to working families who are the backbone of the U.S. economy.

During an economic downturn you want to goose consumer spending.

The bulk of consumer spending isn't driven at the top of the economy.

It comes from people who need to spend money on necessities here at home, not on those who spend money on off-shore tax-havens and overseas investments.

Trickle-down has been a demonstrable failure.

Eisenhower-Clinton economics have been proven to create real economic growth and an increased standard of living across income scales.

Obama follows the Eisenhower-Clinton model.

McCain follows the George W. Bush model.

Posted by: JP2 | September 12, 2008 4:36 PM | Report abuse

I'm absolutely enjoying the implosion of Obama campaign, enjoying each and every moment of it.

Obama and his delusional supporters can only fool so many people for so long.

Obama is an empty suit, ridiculously inexperienced, arrogant elitist. Showing ads depicting McCain as a computer illiterate is going to fetch the votes of rural, and older voters. This tactic again shows how Obamaniacs are arrogantly out of touch.

McCain 08!

Posted by: Hillary Voter | September 12, 2008 4:35 PM | Report abuse

omg, I worked so hard for Obama over Clinton during the primary because he kept on saying how he would "change the tone in Washington" and "change politics as usual." I'm so dissapointed, first he rejected public finance, making his campaign completely dependent on private special interests, and now he's running ads attacking the other candidate's preference for paper and pencil over keyboard and monitor? I was voting for honor and reform, this is easy: I'm voting for McCain.

Posted by: Obamacrat for McCain | September 12, 2008 4:35 PM | Report abuse


Take it from me. McCain will win in PA. You can bank on it. Expect HUGE McCain margins in counties where Hillary beat Obama in the primaries.

Posted by: Kellie in PA | September 12, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Mordecai writes
"McCain is a deficit hawk and could not support a deficit causing tax cut in 2003. Now that it is in place though, allowing it to expire is tantamount to an increase."


Thanks for the explanation. Frankly, I disagree with the logic. A tax cut that is irresponsible when proposed, does not become an unallowable tax increase when it expires. If that is McCain's position, it feels a bit ridiculous to me.

Posted by: bsimon | September 12, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Then you and I are on the same page, anaikovich... :-)

Everyone else - it ain't happening here. These forums are just a sideshow, the kiddie table. The grownups are actually participating actively in the campaigns. That's what I'm on my way to do right now, and I urge anyone who feels strongly about their candidate to do the same. Of course, if you want to feed your ego by seeing how many people recommend or respond to your posts, just stay glued to your screens - especially if you're for McCain, he really needs you here to sew up the typing-with-one-hand vote. ;-p

Posted by: treetopflyer | September 12, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Mark in PA wrote:

"Just so you know...
John McCain will NEVER win Pennsylvania.
It will never happen. I have lived here all my life and PA will go Dem no matter how close the polls...."
-------------------

Don't be so sure about that. My family lives in PA and they are lifelong Democrats, and guess what, they're voting for McCain.

Posted by: PA Voter | September 12, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

McCain doesn't use a computer.

Wooooooooooooooooooooo...

that Obama is a real attack dog!

Posted by: Alan | September 12, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Bismon,

Obama said that the system was not broken (referring to campaign finance reform) as of Feb 2008; however, when he realized he was going to have a whopping advantage over his R challenger decided that now the system was broken (referred to some bogus boogie man in his speech). I guess his betrayal of campaign finance reform is one of his “malleable” qualities you so admire in a candidate.

He was against drilling until he started getting clobbered by the $4 gallon gas. Now he is for responsible drilling. Again such a malleable type of guy.

Its unfortunate that both candidates are so malleable. However, McCain unlike Obama has shown he will stand-up to his party and risk being elected. It is a tragedy that McCain has capitulated to the party base as of recently, and my hope is the McCain of old will come forward. Obama has never stood-up to his party not even to the political machine in Chicago. What makes you think he will change how things are accomplished in Washington? Things will change if he is elected (comparing R to D polices) but the same process will stay entrenched.

Posted by: sltiowa | September 12, 2008 4:33 PM | Report abuse

What tax cuts does Obama want to rescind? The tax cuts for the rich. So NOW he has changed his position on tax cuts for the rich. GOT IT?


Posted by: Razorback | September 12, 2008 4:23 PM

I fail to see why this would upset you, razor, Obama seems to be moving to you side on this issue.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 4:33 PM | Report abuse

Because it is not a legimate news story. Obama was born in the US or are we going to look into McBush being born in Panama. This is why we got Bush for 8 years because no one pays attention to things that are important to us real citizens. Instead you have BS like not being a citizen, what a joke.

Posted by: Joe | September 12, 2008 4:33 PM | Report abuse

Obama's campaign has been on defense ever since he took a slim lead over Hillary and limped across the finish line after taking a beating from Hillary in a debate and getting beaten by her in several critical states. He never really recovered the momentum then, and except for his DNC bump has not stopped the post-Berlin slide. Axelrod would be gone already if Obama was really in charge of the campaign.

Aggressive has pitfalls - like the lipstick error that filled the pre-Palin-interview run-up. Democrats are attacking Palin, but every time they do they hand her the spotlight, such as calling for her to be interviewed, only to have her interview dominate the narrative for another weekend while shrill Democrat surrogates make fools of themselves - like the oxymoron of trying to paint Palin as part of another Bush team while simultaneously pointing out that she is not familiar with the Bush Doctrine! If that’s her worst foreign policy ‘faux pas’, then she did quite well by representing McCain’s policies rather than those of Bush. She shined in the energy portion of the interview, which is the reason she was added to the ticket anyway - McCain has the foreign policy experience covered.

Posted by: Jon Do | September 12, 2008 4:32 PM | Report abuse

V O T E Sen. Obama/Rev. Wright '08

Posted by: Antonio | September 12, 2008 4:32 PM | Report abuse

I want everyone here who is wringing their hands concerning the election to listen up:

Just so you know...
John McCain will NEVER win Pennsylvania.
It will never happen. I have lived here all my life and PA will go Dem no matter how close the polls. Every woman in this state thinks Palin is a pathetic girl being used. So just adjust your electoral vote calculators and recompute. Go ahead.
You can bank on it.

Posted by: Mark in PA | September 12, 2008 4:32 PM | Report abuse

Blizzard of Lies, By PAUL KRUGMAN, September 11, 2008

Did you hear about how Barack Obama wants to have sex education in kindergarten, and called Sarah Palin a pig? Did you hear about how Ms. Palin told Congress, “Thanks, but no thanks” when it wanted to buy Alaska a Bridge to Nowhere?


"...our system continues to reward false statements and outright lies with a winning campaign..."

These stories have two things in common: they’re all claims recently made by the McCain campaign — and they’re all out-and-out lies.

Dishonesty is nothing new in politics. I spent much of 2000 — my first year at The Times — trying to alert readers to the blatant dishonesty of the Bush campaign’s claims about taxes, spending and Social Security.

But I can’t think of any precedent, at least in America, for the blizzard of lies since the Republican convention. The Bush campaign’s lies in 2000 were artful — you needed some grasp of arithmetic to realize that you were being conned. This year, however, the McCain campaign keeps making assertions that anyone with an Internet connection can disprove in a minute, and repeating these assertions over and over again.

Take the case of the Bridge to Nowhere, which supposedly gives Ms. Palin credentials as a reformer. Well, when campaigning for governor, Ms. Palin didn’t say “no thanks” — she was all for the bridge, even though it had already become a national scandal, insisting that she would “not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that’s so negative.”

Oh, and when she finally did decide to cancel the project, she didn’t righteously reject a handout from Washington: she accepted the handout, but spent it on something else. You see, long before she decided to cancel the bridge, Congress had told Alaska that it could keep the federal money originally earmarked for that project and use it elsewhere.

So the whole story of Ms. Palin’s alleged heroic stand against wasteful spending is fiction.

Or take the story of Mr. Obama’s alleged advocacy of kindergarten sex-ed. In reality, he supported legislation calling for “age and developmentally appropriate education”; in the case of young children, that would have meant guidance to help them avoid sexual predators.

And then there’s the claim that Mr. Obama’s use of the ordinary metaphor “putting lipstick on a pig” was a sexist smear, and on and on.

Why do the McCain people think they can get away with this stuff? Well, they’re probably counting on the common practice in the news media of being “balanced” at all costs. You know how it goes: If a politician says that black is white, the news report doesn’t say that he’s wrong, it reports that “some Democrats say” that he’s wrong. Or a grotesque lie from one side is paired with a trivial misstatement from the other, conveying the impression that both sides are equally dirty.

They’re probably also counting on the prevalence of horse-race reporting, so that instead of the story being “McCain campaign lies,” it becomes “Obama on defensive in face of attacks.”

Still, how upset should we be about the McCain campaign’s lies? I mean, politics ain’t beanbag, and all that.

One answer is that the muck being hurled by the McCain campaign is preventing a debate on real issues — on whether the country really wants, for example, to continue the economic policies of the last eight years.

But there’s another answer, which may be even more important: how a politician campaigns tells you a lot about how he or she would govern.

I’m not talking about the theory, often advanced as a defense of horse-race political reporting, that the skills needed to run a winning campaign are the same as those needed to run the country. The contrast between the Bush political team’s ruthless effectiveness and the heckuva job done by the Bush administration is living, breathing, bumbling, and, in the case of the emerging Interior Department scandal, coke-snorting and bed-hopping proof to the contrary.

I’m talking, instead, about the relationship between the character of a campaign and that of the administration that follows. Thus, the deceptive and dishonest 2000 Bush-Cheney campaign provided an all-too-revealing preview of things to come. In fact, my early suspicion that we were being misled about the threat from Iraq came from the way the political tactics being used to sell the war resembled the tactics that had earlier been used to sell the Bush tax cuts.

And now the team that hopes to form the next administration is running a campaign that makes Bush-Cheney 2000 look like something out of a civics class. What does that say about how that team would run the country?

What it says, I’d argue, is that the Obama campaign is wrong to suggest that a McCain-Palin administration would just be a continuation of Bush-Cheney. If the way John McCain and Sarah Palin are campaigning is any indication, it would be much, much worse.

Posted by: the republicans LIE just as easily as they take a dump...it's how they rule the sheeple... | September 12, 2008 4:32 PM | Report abuse

I admit to having posted a blog on MyObama suggesting only two days ago his campaign take the gloves off, so I cannot credibly take issue with their doing so. Not that they read my posting, but my premise was that I would rather see him be the best president than to see him be the latest constructive campaigner to lose a race. However, now that they are doing so, I have to say, the target for any Obama ad is not the base. Any self-respecting person of reason is already hook, line and sinker in Obama's camp. Also, as the article states, the base reacts in visceral way to McCain and his pet pit bull. There is no need to advertise to this element. What Obama has to do is appeal to the independents, and independent women and minorities (especially hispanics). I do not think what I have read about the ads is on any of those targets.

Coincidentally, I heard a piece on NPR this morning reviewing ads from past presidential races reaching back to Ike. One that struck me was an ad used by a candidate from the 60's (I forget which one), that had an every day voter stating why she was behind her chosen candidate. Perhaps, Obama could stay on the high road using a similar approach.

While I cannot fault them for trying to take the gloves off, I think the "he's so old, he does not even use a computer" is very far off the mark.

Also, if you want to hit Palin, just split screen Paris' response ad to McCain's star power ad next to Palin's response to C. Gibson's question about readiness -- "I am ready because I was asked." PAALLEEASE.

Posted by: TJG | September 12, 2008 4:31 PM | Report abuse

enuf says:

"Dear Razorback:

Letting the high income earners get a free ride a the expense of the rest of the population clearly has done nothing but destroy consumer spending with some pretty devastating results for the overall economy."

The suggestion that people who pay 35-50% of their income are getting a free ride is ignorant.

Posted by: Razorback | September 12, 2008 4:31 PM | Report abuse

Speaking objectively, it is good to get back to the issues. Whether Palin or Obama gets to write their names in the history books is of no concern to me. I'd like to know who is going to move our country in a new direction. We have lost our footing in the world and our balance at home. In my view, that change cannot come from patting Bush Republicans on the back and sending them in to the White House for 4 more years. I can't imagine how that would motivate change (especially when you are dealing with a bunch of politicians who are already up to their ears in hubris...both dems and repubs)... voting in the Republicans to the White House for another term would basically be saying... "sure we didn't like the last 8 years, but heck, we'll take another 4 please." Wouldn't this basically be saying: "guys, we love ya... do whatever you want 'cause we'll back you up in 2012 (again)!" This just goes against common sense and plays with fire.... in my humble common-sense opinion.

Posted by: Truth17 | September 12, 2008 4:31 PM | Report abuse

JP2-- did you forget to mention that Biden voted in FAVOR of the Iraq war and that he voted to SUPPORT every Iraq war bill that has come up? Funny how that little fact never gets mentioned with Dems.

Posted by: Cheryl | September 12, 2008 4:31 PM | Report abuse

"...I never thought I'd say this but as much as I detest Hillary I know she would know how to run a national campaign. And she would run it without apologies. We Democrats have clearly nominated the wrong person."

I know my comments are fragmented but…your assertion that Hillary Clinton would know how to run (or would do better than Obama) a national campaign when she failed to gain her party’s nomination is flawed. Get behind your candidate; his name is Barack Obama! In hindsight, how could you possibly support Obama when Hillary has still not done so to date? Her speech at the DNC had nothing to do with Democratic taking back the White House…they only reflected her selfish needs.

Posted by: Stew | September 12, 2008 4:31 PM | Report abuse

Razorback writes
"If you tax employers you decrease profits."

Razorback, Taxes are applied to profits after the costs of doing business are subtracted from gross revenue. So, duh, taxes lower profits. What's your point? Taxes lower take-home pay too. Got any other flashes of insight you'd like to share?


"If you want to see what happens to wages and jobs when a business goes from profitable to unprofitable, just look at the auto industy in Michigan."

If you want to see what happens when you plan for the next quarter instead of the next couple years, take a look at the auto industry in Michigan.

Leaders have their heads up & can see what's happening at the macro level - at a global level - and identify what we have to do differently in order to stay competitive in a changing world. The Auto industry failed to do that. So far, Senator McCain seems to be failing to do that to. He's planning for the next quarter, saying things like "Drill here, Drill now." We need a president that's looking further ahead, who can see that fossil fuels are not viable as a primary fuel source for the long term. Energy policy focused on Drill Here, Drill Now will do to us what focusing on SUVs did to the auto industry.

Posted by: bsimon | September 12, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Any word on "Obama's Plumbers" and the Annenberg papers regarding Obama's relationship with the American Terrorist William Ayers?

Posted by: Barrack Ayers | September 12, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Obama on the attack does not sound like the Obama folks came to love. He is already losing his luster and by condescending to insults (McCain can't use e-mails) he risks offending further folks who will indentify with the insulted party. For example my elderly parents do not use e-mails and they may conclude, "Well, I must be like McCain not Obama."

Posted by: TrueHawk | September 12, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

Obama's new aggressive tone wont work, because there are too many "real facts" that are coming out. I am a Democrat debating who to vote for, since Hillary was my candidate of choice. I just finished reading several articles about Obama's brother George Hussein Onyango Obama, living in a hut in the "tough" town of Huruma on the outskirts of Nairobi. Shame on Obama, he knew about his brother for a very long time, he even mentioned him in his book as a "beautiful boy with a rounded head". How can we trust him if he cant even help his own brother? I am leading towards McCain now, and for the looks of the polls, so are many others.

http://www.helpobamasbrother.org


Posted by: claranicole | September 12, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

When I talk to other members of my local Klan Ladies Auxiliary, they all agree that we don't need no uppity wanna-be Black Messiahs in the White House.

Posted by: Jennifer | September 12, 2008 4:28 PM | Report abuse

The more agressive posture, I think, has always been in the plan awaiting good timing. Now is the time. It is important to note there will be a major difference. McCain LIES. Obama doesn't.

When will the media jabbers address the LIE issue straight upfront.

When will the media jabbers stop disparaging what the candidates do and say, especially Obama.

When will the media jabbers stop trying to manage the campaigns when they have no responsibility for what they say and certainly are not running for office.

Posted by: Peter | September 12, 2008 4:28 PM | Report abuse

The only one running a negative campaign is McBush and I say that as a Republican. It is unbelievable that anyone would vote for another 4 years of this.

Indiana Republican for Obama

Posted by: Mark | September 12, 2008 4:28 PM | Report abuse

I do not really care about Sarah Palin--she is a distraction put forth by the McCain-Bush-Rove ticket to take away from the fact that this administration has ruined the economy--if the "tax cuts" are so helpful, why oh why do we have the highest percentage of foreclosures since the great depression, the highest deficits EVER, a doubling of the national debt and unemployment skyrocketing. McCain has vowed to keep all of the Bush policies that got us to this point in place. Even if you get Alaska and every other state in the union to return their earmarks, the fundamental problems with the economy are still there. They started with Bush and they will continue with McCain. When Bill Clinton was president we had historically low unemployment, high home ownership and there was actually talk of paying off the national debt because we had surplusses. This has all been squandered by Bush and McCain is just more of the same.

Posted by: Rich | September 12, 2008 4:28 PM | Report abuse

He said he wanted a full frontal on Palin!

SEXIST!!!

Posted by: Parker | September 12, 2008 4:28 PM | Report abuse

Notice how Barack and the MSM is totally silent on the Federal Lawsuit against Obama challenging his eligibility for POTUS. Here are the most recent court documents. Motion granted fro expidited discovery. Why are we not getting any news about a legitimate news story concerning Obama from WaPo?

http://www.obamacrimes.com/attachments/015_ObamaMotExpedDdiscovery09082008Pacer.pdf

Posted by: Cheryl | September 12, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Thank you treetopflyer.

It neverceases to amaze me how most rich people vote for their own self-interest (Republican), while so many poor people vote against their self-interest by not voting Democratic.

Without arguing specifics, the issues regarding taxes this year is: 1) tax cut for the rich and hope for trickle down; or 2) tax cut for the middle and lower classes and hope for trickle up. The rest is semantics.

After the last 8 years of the former, I'll take my chances with the latter.

Posted by: amaikovich | September 12, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

AC- Please note I had to speculate on Senator Obama's position because I haven't seen the quote & thus don't know the context. Regarding Senator McCAin's conversion on the Bush tax code, I haven't seen him explain his change of position. Perhaps he has made a well-reasoned argument. So far as I'm aware, he'd prefer to pretend that he was never against the Bush tax cuts, rather than explain why he was against them before he was for them. Enlighten me, if you have the answer.

Posted by: bsimon | September 12, 2008 4:08 PM
---------------------------------------
I have the answer and it is pretty simple. McCain has never voted for a tax increase in his 26 years in Congress. He doesn't always support a tax cut, but he NEVER supports an increase. It's a point a principle for him. McCain is a deficit hawk and could not support a deficit causing tax cut in 2003. Now that it is in place though, allowing it to expire is tantamount to an increase.

Posted by: Mordecai | September 12, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

David W.: "Alas, this columnist does not seem to know the meaning of the phrase 'beg the question.'"

Indeed. How dreadfully disappointing!

Posted by: aeschylus | September 12, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Obama's campaign needs to leave Sarah Palin ALONE! Don't reference her, don't talk about her record, don't attack her. They need to pretend like she does not exist. McCain undermined his strongest attack against Obama by picking her, and there are enough Pundits and Blogers who will do the heavy hitting/attacking on Palin. Obama's camp needs to shift it's attacks back onto John McCain, he's a far bigger bullseye and is generally easier to attack.

Posted by: stoic001 | September 12, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Will Obama supporters get their money back when he loses the election? After all, Obama (the "I'm just like everyone else" candidate) along with Michelle are millionaires that live in a mansion and enjoy the finer things in life.

Perhaps, he'll agree to give everyone back 10% of their campaign donation. Seems fair, no?

Posted by: Michael Dukakis | September 12, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

I have to agree with a previous poster. I follow this whole thing for the entertainment of it all, not really thinking that either candidate will do much. But it does strike me that a different tone has begun to infect the conservative posters' comments - one of desperation instead of confidence. This is interesting as you would think that the interview Gov. Palin gave would have made for some strong points in favor of McCain/Palin. But most of the conservative commentators have changed their tune from touting their ticket to lashing out at Obama's. Seems like it's about to be your turn in the dog house, conservatives! But don't worry, there's plenty of time for the liberals to screw it up again.

I love how this whole soap opera changes one minute to the next....

Posted by: dan_of_dc | September 12, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

What has McCain done that hasn't HURT the economy?

Here's a guy who enabled the Savings & Loan crisis -- requiring a tax-payer bailout that cost hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars.

He signed off on the subprime crisis, which is going to cost another bucketload of tax-payer billions.

He signed off on the war, which could tally $2 trillion.

He's now on board with Bush's billionaire tax-cut policy which has added $5 TRILLION to the deficit in just 8 short years.

All that McCain talks about are eliminating earmarks, which are a drop in the bucket.

You want another Great Depression? Vote for McCain-Palin.

Posted by: JP2 | September 12, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

HAHA you read the polls O is losing in VA, OH, FL and McCain is cathing him in PA, don't you understand small town folks won't vote for a black liberal democrat, don't you understand that?

Posted by: Anonymous
----------------------------------------------
You have finally convinced me these forums are nothing more than an insane asylum. I can't wait for this laundry to be done so I can go downtown and start doing some volunteer work for Obama.
_______________________________________

Even better do some Community Organization like Empty Suit :-)

Posted by: Seed of Change | September 12, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

TonyV1 THANKS, I'll send out the hounds to find witness's to the fact. CLOWN. And oh by the way, Mccains winning what exactly? Do you know anything about politics or you read something and rushed to blog in the hopes of sounding like you're educated? Stupid azz listen and learn, Obama has 243 electoral votes, mcclame has 189. All Obama needs is 27 so once Michigan goes to him and give him 17 more, all he will need then is 10 more. That's where Virginia comes in. He's leading there so whatever election you're watching, stop and turn the station dweeb. There's an election being won by Obama right here in the United States. Idiot.

Posted by: getrepugsout! | September 12, 2008 4:26 PM | Report abuse

treetopflyer = weedbudsmoker

Posted by: viejo1 | September 12, 2008 4:25 PM | Report abuse

You said we are "drowning in deficits." You are so right. Cut spending!

Posted by: Patrick
============================================
So right, Patrick! We can start with the $10 billion a month getting sucked up in the sands of Iraq.

Posted by: treetopflyer | September 12, 2008 4:24 PM | Report abuse

The Democrats need to get the truth out about Republican 'tinkle-down' economics, that pee on the average citizen.

Posted by: oldhonky | September 12, 2008 4:24 PM | Report abuse

Obama and Economy:

What has he ever done that has anything to do with Economy....other than "talking about it"?

He looks better when he dances with Eillen and Oprah... and other celebrities :-)

Posted by: Seed of Chage | September 12, 2008 4:23 PM | Report abuse

NM Moderate can you read?

bsimon this is for you to:

WASHINGTON — 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.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/07/obama-recession-could-del_n_124647.html

Read SLOWLY and pay attention. Obama would "delay rescinding" Bush's tax cuts for "the wealthy".

Have you followed thus far?

This is NOT a reference to the Bush taxs cuts that Obama has always favored keeping.

What tax cuts does Obama want to rescind? The tax cuts for the rich. So NOW he has changed his position on tax cuts for the rich. GOT IT?

Posted by: Razorback | September 12, 2008 4:23 PM | Report abuse

HAHA you read the polls O is losing in VA, OH, FL and McCain is cathing him in PA, don't you understand small town folks won't vote for a black liberal democrat, don't you understand that?

Posted by: Anonymous
----------------------------------------------
You have finally convinced me these forums are nothing more than an insane asylum. I can't wait for this laundry to be done so I can go downtown and start doing some volunteer work for Obama.

Anyone else here who has an opinion and isn't just wanking off, no matter what it is, I challenge them to do something, not just talk. Donate money, time, food for the campaign workers, whatever you can. But these forums are like Romper Room on bad acid.

Posted by: treetopflyer | September 12, 2008 4:23 PM | Report abuse

You said we are "drowning in deficits." You are so right. Cut spending!

Posted by: Patrick | September 12, 2008 4:17 PM

I agree Patrick, but unfortunately, there isn't ovre $400 Billion annually that we can reasonable afford to cut. Unless you are willing to take a major chunk out of the military, social security, and medicare,(all of which would be political suicide) the money just isn't there to be cut. That's the problem. Raising taxes is the only way to get our fiscal house in order. Sicne it would be disasterous to raise taxes on the middle class right now (we're barely making it as it is!), the only logical place to get the money is from those who can afford to pay a little more - which is precisely Obama's plan.

Posted by: NM Moderate | September 12, 2008 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Dear Razorback:

Letting the high income earners get a free ride a the expense of the rest of the population clearly has done nothing but destroy consumer spending with some pretty devastating results for the overall economy.

Posted by: enuf | September 12, 2008 4:22 PM | Report abuse

The only polls that matter if any do are the state polls and last I checked Obama is still winning those and to remind everyone that is what wins the election not the Gallup national poll. Ask Al Gore how that works.

Posted by: Joe | September 12, 2008 4:22 PM | Report abuse

The dems just need to get nasty. As unfortunate as it is, negative ads work.

And the McCain/Palin ticket has plenty of skeletons. And as McCain has shown, it doesn't always need to be true to work:

- McCain & Palin's marriage indecresions
- The Vicki Iseman babe-gate lobbyist sex for favors scandal
- The Keating 5
- The drug addicted wife (and as her husband, McCain failed to notice for years)
- The Alaska pay for your own rape kit policy
- Palin's inability to run her own family (pregnant 17 year old, son who dabbles in drugs)
- Troopergate
- Cronyism
- Palin's Book Banning & Inability to Run a Carwash
- Palin's lies about the foreign countries she visited (she counted countries where the plane stopped to refuel). And she is a hearbeat way from the oldest presidential candidate in history.
- McCain's Enron connections
- Palin's minister Ed Kalinins
who preached that critics of President Bush will be banished to hell.

If it's fair game for the republicans, then its fair game for us on the left. If they want scandal making headlines, let's play ball.

Posted by: ConcernedDem | September 12, 2008 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Razorback screams at people and calls them "simple minded idiots," while his own posts indicate how woefully inadequate his own understanding of our economic system is. According to the Razorbacks of the world, we should simply repeal all taxes on all businesses and watch the prices come tumbling down. Sadly, for the Razorbacks of the world, the world is not that simple. When you cut taxes, business puts that extra money in its pocket. It doesn't distribute the tax savings among its employees. When you raise taxes, business can cut costs elsewhere. CEO compensation is through the roof and at an all time historic high, while the real wages of ordinary Americans are falling. To suggest that business would have "no option" but to raise prices if their taxes are raised so that they're more in line with what ordinary people pay, is a classic, big business cop out and is simply untrue.

Posted by: view from the couch | September 12, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

No His strategy is not good.
The adds the Mccain group are throwing at him will have to be met accordingly and Palin will have to be shown for what it is.
Example would be
Palin for rapists

Wasilla rape victims billed when Palin was the mayor
http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/story/523708.html
And MCCain a closet pedophile?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgqHKggfcwE

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Look at the stats and you'll see that the electoral college can't save pobama, no matter what your libdemon blogcontrollers tell you to make you quit screeching and megasnivelling.

Posted by: viejo1 | September 12, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

treetopflyer

I guess you would stick us with President Biden because I don't think there are enough secret service to protect the Messiah if he does get in. Noone is going to want to sit and watch him destroy all our rights. I guess the Gays will be happy but there are a lot of southerner that are going to be VERY unhappy. So there you have it treetopflyer is happy to get Biden as his next President.

Posted by: Jennifer | September 12, 2008 4:20 PM | Report abuse

Obama has no one to blame except himself for his campaigns failures. He is the one who is not relating to average blue collar and rural voters.
He is the one who called us bitter because we go to church and because we enjoy deer hunting.
He is the one who does not understand us, and we are the ones who do on understand him.

Posted by: Southwestern Penn | September 12, 2008 4:20 PM | Report abuse

First thing anonymous, LEARN TO FREAKIN SPELL! I guess that's the small town education you got right champ? Amazing how dumb you are, Obama is the democratic nominee for president so let me say this slow for you, SOMEONE VOTED HIM OVER HILLARY so SOMEBODY VOTED FOR HIM! I hope you will understand you pea brain.

You're too stupid to know or appreciate that it's YOU who Obama is fighting for you elementary school dropout.

Posted by: smashrepugsgrillsin | September 12, 2008 4:20 PM | Report abuse

WHILE THE MEDIA DEBATES THE HORSE RACE, WHERE ARE YOUR CIVIL LIBERTIES?
TODAY'S NEWS, FROM ACLU.ORG

New FBI Guidelines Open Door to Further Abuse (9/12/2008)

ACLU, Other Advocacy Groups Express Concern After Meeting With Department of Justice

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (202) 675-2312; media@dcaclu.org
(212) 519-7829 or 549-2666; media@aclu.org

Washington, DC - Following a briefing today at the Department of Justice (DOJ), the American Civil Liberties Union reiterated its deep concern over new guidelines that would govern FBI investigations. The new guidelines would lower standards for beginning "assessments" (precursors to investigations), conducting surveillance and gathering evidence, and would replace existing guidelines for five types of existing guidelines: general criminal, national security, foreign intelligence, civil disorders and demonstrations.

The rewritten guidelines have been drafted in a way to give the FBI the ability to begin surveillance without factual evidence, stating that a generalized "threat" is enough to use certain techniques. Also under the new guidelines, a person's race or ethnic background could be used as a factor in opening an investigation, a move the ACLU believes will institute racial profiling as a matter of policy. The guidelines would also give the FBI the ability to use intrusive investigative techniques in advance of public demonstrations. These techniques would allow agents to conduct pre-textual (undercover) interviews, use informants and conduct physical surveillance in connection with First Amendment protected activities.

"Issuing guidelines that permit racial profiling the day after the 9/11 anniversary and in the midst of an historic presidential campaign is typical Bush administration stagecraft designed to exploit legitimate security concerns for partisan political purposes. Racial profiling by any other name is still unconstitutional," said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU. "The new guidelines offer no specifics on how the FBI will ensure that race and religion are not used improperly as proxies for suspicion, nor do they sufficiently limit the extent to which government agents can infiltrate groups exercising their First Amendment rights. The Bush administration's message once again is 'trust us.' After eight years of historic civil liberties abuses, the American people know better. From the U.S. attorney purges to the abuse of national security letters, the Department of Justice and the FBI have repeatedly shown that they are incapable of policing themselves."

Both the FBI and DOJ have documented records of internal abuse. Recent DOJ Office of the Inspector General (OIG) reports confirmed long-held suspicions of widespread and systemic abuses of the national security letter statute, and the FBI's involvement in interrogations at Guantánamo Bay. With no outside oversight and with FBI agents acting autonomously, these new guidelines will likely lead to more unchecked abuse.

"Handing this kind of latitude to an organization already rife with internal oversight problems is a huge mistake," said Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. "Agents will be given unparalleled leeway to investigate Americans without proper suspicion, and that will inevitably result in constitutional violations. Lowering the threshold for unwarranted surveillance and scrutiny allows the FBI to come perilously close to infringing on the First and Fourth Amendments. Our right to protest the government and its policies is not suspicious behavior; it is constitutionally protected speech. Let's not forget that the reason the FBI adopted internal guidelines was to combat abuse and political spying. They are a direct result of the surveillance of Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. and others. To forget that legacy and adopt these ill-conceived guidelines would be a travesty."

Coalition letter sent to Attorney General Mukasey requesting guidelines: http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/36730leg20080911.html

********************************************

TO: Mssrs. CHERTOFF, MUKASEY, PAULSON, GATES, McCONNELL, MUELLER

"GOV'T AGENCIES SUPPORT DOMESTIC TERRORISM"
http://www.nowpublic.com/world/government-agencies-support-domestic-torture-and-gang-stalking-says-noted-nowpublic-com-columnist

What do you know about this, and what are you doing about it?


Posted by: scrivener | September 12, 2008 4:20 PM | Report abuse

HEY MAINSTREAM MEDIA REPORTERS AKA OBAMA APOLOGISTS AND CHEERLEADERS:

I HEARD THAT SARAH PALIN STOLE A LOLLIPOP ONCE WHEN SHE WAS 8 YEARS OLD, I'LL EXPECT A FRONT PAGE STORY AND WALL TO WALL CABLE COVERAGE ON CNN TONIGHT, OK?

SORRY TO TELL YOU THAT YOUR CANDIDATE IS LOSING THOUGH... YOU GUYS ARE DOING A BANGUP JOB, KEEP IT UP!!!

Posted by: TonyV1 | September 12, 2008 4:16 PM

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ha, ha! Beautiful. I mean, it has got to a point where it's downright shameful and disgusting.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 4:18 PM | Report abuse

Razorback goes all erudite and writes
"simple bsimon ... It is relevant because people are smart enough to know that you can't love employment and hate employers."

So we see again the charming expression you've borrowed from Mr Zouk. Is that really how you want to start an intelligent discussion? Or is what I posted yesterday true: that you're not interested in actually comparing the candidates' positions, but instead prefer to bicker with people who support the other guy?

Funny though, how you cite taxes as 'hating'. How are you proposing we fund the treasury? I'm all for sharing the love, but lets not be ridiculous - it costs money to run the gov't. There are things that only the gov't can do. Who should pay for them?

Also, you really should go out of your way to read the Obamanomics article I cited yesterday. You'll find details in there about Obama's tax plan, that isn't all just "tax the rich, tax the corporations, give to the poor." He wants to promote small business, and boost R&D in new technologies - which will promote entrepreneurship in those areas, which will create jobs, which will help grow the economy. Its called having a cohesive plan. The Repubs apparently think we can cut taxes indefinitely, and we can always borrow money and the economy will always grow. Sounds like they believe in a free lunch. A free lunch is one thing those crazy free-market economists at the U of Chicago keep reminding us does not exist. They put it as: There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. TANSTAAFL. But that's what the Repub tax policies always are. Maybe one day they'll learn & the rest of us will stop suffering under their deluded policies.

Posted by: bsimon | September 12, 2008 4:18 PM | Report abuse

"Bushinherited the largest surplus in histroy from Clinton and has turned it into the biggest deficit in our history. I fail to see the logic of continuing on this course, which seems to be your argument.

Posted by: NM Moderate | September 12, 2008 4:11 PM "

That is the biggest line of BS out there. There were no ACTUAL surplusses. The national debt has been increased every fiscal year since 1960. Every year. Those imaginary budget surplusses never materialized into ACTUAL surplusses.

If you raise the national debt in a fiscal year, then you have run an ACTUAL deficit.

Posted by: freak | September 12, 2008 4:18 PM | Report abuse

Seems like the Dems on Capitol Hill are getting ready for the inevitable, and realize that for the next 4 years the best they'll get is to keep their seats in the House to continue their incessant whining.

Perhaps if Reid and Pelosi had brought about some of the change they promised, Obama would stand a better chance in this election.

Better luck next time!

Posted by: John Adams | September 12, 2008 4:18 PM | Report abuse

Finally a good Obama commercial...just 4 people talking about how bad things are, with the punchline, "and these people want four more years?"

Keep running commercials like that and you will be fine.

Because it is the truth.

Posted by: Losercuda | September 12, 2008 4:18 PM | Report abuse

I'm so very tired of Obama's negative attacks. Didn't he railed against negative campaign just a day or two ago? Didn't he say that we need to focus on issues?

Nagative campaign advertisements make me feel ill. Ageism, sexism and racism make me feel very ill.

In short, I'm so very tired of Obama. He makes me feel very ill.

He is running against George W. Bush. I can tell you that if GWB is running against Obama today, I would vote for Bush, and I say this as a life long Democrat.

Obama, please be GONE!!!

Posted by: Tired of Obama | September 12, 2008 4:18 PM | Report abuse

shylibrarian57

Duh.

Posted by: viejo1 | September 12, 2008 4:18 PM | Report abuse

To NM Moderate:

You said we are "drowning in deficits." You are so right. Cut spending!

Posted by: Patrick | September 12, 2008 4:17 PM | Report abuse

Too bad that Cilizza's column draws so many responses from the "chattering classes" of both parties. The Washington Post does no favor to this nation and it's serious citizens by publishing, ad nauseum, the comments by those who confuse their minds with other parts of their anatomy. What drivel appears in these comment sections. What a waste of time one spends reading them in the hope of finding a serious discussion of issues. I'm out of here!

Posted by: a concerned citizen | September 12, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

--"I wonder if he realized that many of the voters he needs to attract (blue collar + older voters) don't use the Internet either and he is in fact mocking the very voters he needs to win in November?

Posted by: Suzy | September 12, 2008 4:03 PM"--

Well I'm not sure what mental image you have of blue collar/older voters. Knuckle-dragging, brain dead people incapable of self-improvement I guess. Like McCain maybe?

The only way McCain has got along is because he has his staff do all that computer stuff for him for many many years.

Well my 73 year old racist father-in-law and my 70 year old mother BOTH have the Internet, and both are far more capable of googling something up. That's far more internet skills than McCain has. So yea, if you're looking to paint someone as out of touch - I'd say being Internet illiterate works. Even with auto-mechanics.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Ex-Clinton Aide: Media Tougher On Palin
"This is an election in which the voters are going to decide for themselves. The media has lost credibility with them. "

Mark Penn & CBSNews:

CBSNews.com: Your former colleague Howard Wolfson argued that you all unintentionally paved the way for Palin by exposing some of the unfair media coverage that Hillary Clinton received. And, therefore, a lot of the media may now be treating Sarah Palin with kid gloves. Do you agree with that?

Mark Penn: Well, no, I think the people themselves saw unfair media coverage of Senator Clinton. I think if you go back, the polls reflected very clearly what "Saturday Night Live" crystallized in one of their mock debates about what was happening with the press.

I think here the media is on very dangerous ground. I think that when you see them going through every single expense report that Governor Palin ever filed, if they don't do that for all four of the candidates, they're on very dangerous ground. I think the media so far has been the biggest loser in this race. And they continue to have growing credibility problems.

And I think that that's a real problem growing out of this election. The media now, all of the media — not just Fox News, that was perceived as highly partisan — but all of the media is now being viewed as partisan in one way or another. And that is an unfortunate development.

CBSNews.com: So you think the media is being uniquely tough on Palin now?

Mark Penn: Well, I think that the media is doing the kinds of stories on Palin that they're not doing on the other candidates. And that's going to subject them to people concluding that they're giving her a tougher time. Now, the media defense would be, "Yeah, we looked at these other candidates who have been in public life at an earlier time."

What happened here very clearly is that the controversy over Palin led to 37 million Americans tuning into a vice-presidential speech, something that is unprecedented, because they wanted to see for themselves. This is an election in which the voters are going to decide for themselves. The media has lost credibility with them.

more at: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/11/politics/politicalplayers/main4442492.shtml

The media really doesn't have credibility anymore & they are hitting a wall on how much they can bash Palin & McCain & have some effect.

That is why Obama & McCain have to start owning the negative campaigning that has heretofore been going on behind the scenes via their left wing bloggers & the media.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 12, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

DES-PA-RA-TION!

Posted by: daman1 | September 12, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

This headline says "Will obama's Aggressive New Tone Work?", but it implies:
"Please,please, please let this tactic work, because the press-Congress-America finally realizes there's nothing between this guys palm fronds and we don't know what else to do!!!"

Posted by: viejo1 | September 12, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Bring 'em on! Let's get this straight--Obama/we must not only aggressively take on McCain, Obama/we must aggressively take on the GOP's historic trend of campaigns based on lies and fear.

If America wants to select Senator McCain based on the issues, I can live with that. Might not like it, but I can live with it. But losing based on Swiftboat or lipstick divides America beyond repair. It may win elections, but it destroys any ability to lead after an election.

Take 'em on, Senator Obama, take 'em on.

Posted by: amaikovich | September 12, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

I can't believe this is happening again! It's like a re-enactment of 2004. With Palin at his side, McCain seems jaunty and full of energy, while Obama seems languid and defeated. This is a grim situation for us old lefties. I'm kinda thinking at this point that we would have been better off with Hillary.

Posted by: Shylibrarian57 | September 12, 2008 4:08 PM

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yeah, but you know, promoting a woman doesn't satisfy our progressive ego as much as promoting an African-American even if he has ZERO experience. To us it is not about who can be the better president. It's all about the symbolism of it. It is about our own glorification. We want to hear the world say, "Wow! USA elected an African-American!" Where's the oomph in "Wow! USA elected a woman!" Other countries have already done that and qualifications be d@mned.

Posted by: Women? Bah! | September 12, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

HEY MAINSTREAM MEDIA REPORTERS AKA OBAMA APOLOGISTS AND CHEERLEADERS:

I HEARD THAT SARAH PALIN STOLE A LOLLIPOP ONCE WHEN SHE WAS 8 YEARS OLD, I'LL EXPECT A FRONT PAGE STORY AND WALL TO WALL CABLE COVERAGE ON CNN TONIGHT, OK?

SORRY TO TELL YOU THAT YOUR CANDIDATE IS LOSING THOUGH... YOU GUYS ARE DOING A BANGUP JOB, KEEP IT UP!!!

Posted by: TonyV1 | September 12, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Ecrivain says "Yes, it's the economy, stupid, but it's also Palin's stupidity"

Ecrivain, you are preaching to the choir on that one.

Obama was up 8 points when he decided that is was about Palin's stupidity.

Now McCain is up 4 points. Keep pounding your pud on that one buddy.


Posted by: Razorback | September 12, 2008 4:15 PM | Report abuse

noboobsinthewhitehouse

You are the clown. I guess you expect me to cry like you did "you stole the election" if this happens. What did you listen to your Air America this morning?

Posted by: Jennifer | September 12, 2008 4:15 PM | Report abuse

I hate to say it but noboobsinthewhitehouse is right, Obama only needs 27 electoral votes and he's president. Mccain maybe polling better but doesn't mean a thing when it comes to the electoral map. There is is killing Mccain. Obama will be president.

Posted by: wantourcountryback | September 12, 2008 4:15 PM | Report abuse

HAHA you read the polls O is losing in VA, OH, FL and McCain is cathing him in PA, don't you understand small town folks won't vote for a black liberal democrat, don't you understand that?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 4:15 PM | Report abuse

The hysterical posts keep growing in number - this is excellent. You McCain Koolaid drinkers are seriously scared that Obama can't be talked out of this strategy. "Don't do it! Don't do it! It's a mistake! Haha, he's weak by acting tough hey he's not dancing to our tune (oh we are so screwed...)".

Don't worry, it'll all be over in a couple of months. Here, have some Koolaid to put you out of your misery.


And the screaming, all caps, hysterical responses begin in five, four, three, two, one...

Posted by: treetopflyer | September 12, 2008 4:15 PM | Report abuse

It's desparation time for the Good Ship Obama has had her hull torn asunder by an iceberg from Alaska and it's taking on water..time to rearrange the deck chairs..

Posted by: Sladenyv | September 12, 2008 4:15 PM | Report abuse

When making the new ad attacking McCain for his lobbyists activities, did Obama really think that voters would overlook Obama's oil company lobbyist activities and the fact that Obama DOES have lobbyist on his staff?

Taking money from Corporations is illegal for all candidates, taking money from individuals from that industry is not. Obama attempts to blur the lines.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-04-15-obama_n.htm

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/28/834887.aspx

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/08/09/pacs_and_lobbyists_aided_obamas_rise/

Posted by: Cheryl | September 12, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Wonder if it is true that the actual candidate that bumps off mutual opponent of both parties automatically wins in November and issues and popularity has little to nothing to do with it? And wonder if the mainstream media is in on this? Apparently the mutual opponent exposed corruption within both parties and is now targeted as a result. The question is how will he be bumped off? For example, will GOP use Guiliani-like mob ties like his protege Bernard Kerik did and got 140 years of jail or Gotti, Jr. whose trial for murder is scheduled for next Monday? Or will Dems use an OJ Simpson-like convict whose trial is coincidentally scheduled for next Monday too? Guess both are available to do a little 'bumping off' this weekend. Especially if both political parties engage in the common law enforcement practice of 'sweetheart deals' where convicts commit crime/murder in exchange for less jail time and conveniently covered up without real culprits suspected.

Wonder if we should begin to worry about our family's safety too as we volunteer this information? For example, will we have to worry doing our routine jog after work in the Hackensack/Bogota, NJ areas as our habits and plans are known in advanced with implanted bugging devices both in private and public?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 4:13 PM | Report abuse

The ONE has proved again that he can surprise everyone by sinking to new LOWs. Started off abusing Bill Clinton has used Race Card, then on to abusing Hillary that she used Gender Card; now to McCain ia a old man card; The President needs to be patriotic, strong minded decision maker who puts the country first. Not a super duper techy. If reading emails is the qualification to be president then lot of 10 year olds are more eligible then the ONE and the MIGHTY BARACK. get out of the race Barrack, you wasted already over 500 million on your campaign. pulling in money from some very poor folks. Get out of the race before you pull more money.. Surrender your nomination to Hillary.. Good luck with that.

Posted by: George Goodman | September 12, 2008 4:13 PM | Report abuse

dee

I guess you could say "disaserous" when referring to his first term. Unilateral discisions of sorts but Bush turned it around in his second term. Now, On the otherhand if the Dems did not control the senate and the house. I guess people forgot that we celibrated 9/11 yesterday and Bush has kept us safe for 7 of 7 years. I guess people forget that the surge is working. I guess people just think , wrongly , that Muslims just started hating us. That is of course rediculous. When the headlines said "Man on the Moon" the Muslims were quoted as saying " so what they landed on the moon; this is taking away from the [press] reporting on our struggles to defeat the Jews."

Posted by: Jennifer | September 12, 2008 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Some of you clowns on this page just got into politics from the blogs I'm reading. You repugs have so many talking points that you're now blinded by what is true and what is a lie. Truth, Obama will win, a lie, Mcclame/Palin. Truth, Obama will crush Mccain, lie-Palin understands the bush doctrine. Truth-Obama leads mcclame 243 to 189 electoral votes so for you dumb azz's he only needs 27 electoral votes. He's leading in Michigan that's 17, He's leading in Virginia that's 13, do math you stupid newbies to politics. That's the problem with your repugs, you read polls. We dems go after electoral votes. Obama has the whitehouse. Stupid clowns.

Posted by: noboobsinthewhitehouse | September 12, 2008 4:12 PM | Report abuse

Can we change our mind, dump obama and insert Hillary?

Posted by: dems08 | September 12, 2008 4:12 PM | Report abuse

My point, razorback, is that Obama never said he was gointg to repeal all of the Bush tax cuts and that is not what he is proposing to do. Hey, I want lower taxes for myself as does everyone posting on this board. The problem is that we are drowning in deficits. Because we have to borrow so much from the Chinese to finance our debt that our dollar is weak and our economy is tanking.
Bushinherited the largest surplus in histroy from Clinton and has turned it into the biggest deficit in our history. I fail to see the logic of continuing on this course, which seems to be your argument.

Posted by: NM Moderate | September 12, 2008 4:11 PM | Report abuse

Also, dumba$$, I do not make over $250,000, but I buy a car from someone who does, I have money in the bank of someone who does, I buy electricity from someone who does, and I buy groceries from someone who does, AND I DO NOT WANT TO PAY MORE FOR EVERYTHING I BUY so that Obama can appeal to simple minded idiots like you who are too stupid to know that the cost of higher taxes are passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices.

Posted by: Razorback
===========================================
If you're so concerned for these poor rich people and corporations, Razorback, maybe you should just give them all your money so they don't go bust. That way you won't have to pay any more, because you won't have any more to pay.

We're not idiots and we don't have amnesia. The country did incredibly well under the Clinton taxes. You're worried about taxes being returned to what they were under Clinton? I say, hell yeah! and bring back the prosperity that came with them. Everyone - EVERYONE - did better then, you can't deny it. The only simple minded idiots are those who want to float the already comfortable without even putting up a fight. Just jump into the stew and pour salt on yourself - a true, suicidal idiot.

Posted by: treetopflyer | September 12, 2008 4:10 PM | Report abuse

Aggressive tone? Yea, like the one pobama took for the O'reilly interview?

Pobama's body language suggested he would have shined Bill's shoes for him if he'd just go easy on him.

And you dimlibs think Sarah did a bad job!?

No wonder the dimocrat party is imploding!

Posted by: viejo1 | September 12, 2008 4:10 PM | Report abuse

Whoever thought that Sarah Palin would be the death blow to the Obama campaign??? Steve Schmidt has certainly earned his keep. Wow! Stunning and instantaneous deflation of the seemingly unstoppable previous momentum that Obama enjoyed.

Posted by: David Axelrod | September 12, 2008 4:10 PM | Report abuse

Have you ever noticed how the MSM always use a word with a negative connotation or use a question mark in headlines involving Obama?

Posted by: Carl Lee | September 12, 2008 4:10 PM | Report abuse

So now Obama has sharpened his attack Ads by claiming McCain doesnt have computer skills.

I remember reading about Henry Ford- He was smart enough to have people look things up for him.

If McCain were the Prez, He would not be surfing the web like Obama.

He would find better ways to 'govern'.

This ad represents a weak Oprah- A$$ excuse for intelligence.


Posted by: dano | September 12, 2008 4:09 PM | Report abuse

www.muslimsforobam08.com

all the groups are behind obama

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 4:09 PM | Report abuse

view from the couch says:

"Razorback wants to know whether taxing employers increases wages. The answer is, of course not. What you have to remember however, is that cutting taxes doesn't increase wages either."

If you tax employers you decrease profits.

If you want to see what happens to wages and jobs when a business goes from profitable to unprofitable, just look at the auto industy in Michigan.

Class dimissed.

Posted by: Razorback | September 12, 2008 4:09 PM | Report abuse

You can't make a silk purse out of a sexist pig with big ears.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 12, 2008 4:09 PM | Report abuse

Yes, it's the economy, stupid, but it's also Palin's stupidity. Judging by the Gibson interview, the best thing Obama can do is stand back and watch her self-destruct. While some Obama passion is welcome, he needs to avoid crossing the line between "forceful" and "angry." Joe Biden needs to come up with a McCain/Palin line equal to his skewering of Guiliani.

Posted by: Ecrivain | September 12, 2008 4:09 PM | Report abuse

repost:

A poll released today by the Associated Press (AP-GfK General Election):

John McCain:
Does not have the right type of experience: 15%

Barack Obama:
Does not have the right type of experience: 47%

Joe Biden:
Y

Does not have the right type of experience: 20%

Sarah Palin:
Does not have the right type of experience: 36%

Palin beat Obama on experience.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Posted by: Razorback | September 12, 2008 3:21 PM==

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 12, 2008 4:09 PM | Report abuse

I can't believe this is happening again! It's like a re-enactment of 2004. With Palin at his side, McCain seems jaunty and full of energy, while Obama seems languid and defeated. This is a grim situation for us old lefties. I'm kinda thinking at this point that we would have been better off with Hillary.

Posted by: Shylibrarian57 | September 12, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

anonymous coward writes
"bsimon says:
"I far prefer a candidate who can recognize that the situation on the ground is malleable and might require a change in position."

Obama is "malleable". A Repub is a "flip flopper". How convenient. "


AC- Please note I had to speculate on Senator Obama's position because I haven't seen the quote & thus don't know the context. Regarding Senator McCAin's conversion on the Bush tax code, I haven't seen him explain his change of position. Perhaps he has made a well-reasoned argument. So far as I'm aware, he'd prefer to pretend that he was never against the Bush tax cuts, rather than explain why he was against them before he was for them. Enlighten me, if you have the answer.

Posted by: bsimon | September 12, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Obama = Girlyman

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 4:07 PM | Report abuse

Jennifer, Just to help out with corrections:

Mike
Kennedy was nothing at all like Obama except for the demigod personality. Just remember Kennedy never said "ughhhhhhh Ask not UUUUHG what you can UGHHHHHH do for YOUr Ughhhhhhh country"
Kennedy was more like a modern day Republican than a modern day Democrat by a long shot. Silly, just plain silly. Just look at the Bay of Pigs. Obama would have thought to stay on hold on the Red phone.

Posted by: Team work | September 12, 2008 4:07 PM | Report abuse

The generalization about the liberal base of the Democratic party is not accurate. Most of us do not viscerally hate Sarah Palin. We feel that she is grossly underqualified to serve as vice president for a 72 year old cancer patient. The interview with Gibson on ABC last night revealed clearly that she knows nothing of substance about foreign policy or international relations. Her idea that looking out at Russia from an Alaskan island gives her insight into the threat from Russia would be ludicrous if it were not so dangerous. Her insistence that Iraq was involved in 9/11 indicates the functioning of a limited intelligence or a delusional one.

Palin's repeated lies about her position on the "bridge to nowhere" and her millions in earmarks is brazen deception that puts her into the Bush/Chaney league.

But what is most important about Palin is that McCain chose her. He decided in slapdash haste to place her on his ticket thus indicating his utter contempt for our nation and its future. He put his own crass ambition first, above country.

Obama is right to ignore Palin, she is an inconsequential blip on the celebrity circuit. Obama needs to go hard after McCain for his blatent lies, his dishonorable smear campaign, his frightening confusion over geography, history, and simple facts.

Most of all Obama needs to ram home the message that voting for McCain is voting for another four years of the disasterous policies of the Bush administration.

We cannot afford four more years of Bush/McCain economic ignorance, international irresponsibility, and the crass culture of ethical failure that has pervaded Washington under the morally dirty Republicans.

Posted by: dee | September 12, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

I AM SO SICK OF PEOPLE CALLING OBAMA A SEXIST!!! YOU PEOPLE DONT KNOW THE FACTS!!!!! MCCAIN USED THE SAME PHRASE TWICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! TWICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ABOUT HILLARY CLINTON!!! AND OBAMA USED IT ONCE, ABOUT THE CAMPAIGN. NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT ABOUT PALIN. YOU MUST BE RACISTS WHO ARE LOOKING FOR REASONS NOT TO VOTE FOR OBAMA. CLEARLY OBAMA IS THE MOST READY TO LEAD!! MCCAIN DIDNT EVEN TALK ABOUT CHANGE UNTIL IT WORKED FOR OBAMA. OF COURSE HES NOT GOING TO ACTUALLY IMPLEMENT CHANGE IF HE DOESNT EVEN KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT THE ECONOMY (his words, NOT mind)

GET IT STRAIGHT. PALIN IS NOT THE VICTIM HERE. IT IS PERFECTLY FAIR THAT SHE IS TAKEN ON ABOUT THE ISSUES AND HER LIES (BRIDGE TO NOWHERE-SHE SUPPORTED IT! AND KEPT THE MONEY!) IT WOULD BE SEXIST TO GIVE HER A BREAK JUST BECAUSE SHE IS A WOMAN

Posted by: obama supporter | September 12, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

Being aggressive to the Obama campaign means an ad saying old man McCain can't use a computer? You've got to be kidding me! Its time to bring in some adults to run the Obama campaign and put the children to bed. What a joke. I'm beginning to want my contributions back.

I never thought I'd say this but as much as I detest Hillary I know she would know how to run a national campaign. And she would run it without apologies. We Democrats have clearly nominated the wrong person.

Posted by: Life Goes On | September 12, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

--"The liberal base of the Democratic party detests Palin in a visceral way . . . why the Obama campaign wasn't hitting Palin more aggressively on some of her perceived weaknesses."--

Obama should stay away from Palin. To her supporters - who apparently vote for Vice President after all - she's fire proof. Nothing to be gained.

McCain would do well to stay away from whatever demographic makes up the "liberal base" for the same reason.

--"is his promise for a new kind of politics, a less partisan brand of governing that is far more solutions-oriented"--

Well for all the higher ordeals - watch Dana Milbank's video of 'Al Jazzrea in Golden Colorado'. From the point of view of the voters blowing horns - how much of the GOP rhetoric resonates?

McCain already sold his soul to the devil - in the society we have now - it works. Obama can certainly use sharper language to get his point across. If he lies outright - like McCain is able to do without consequence - I'm history.

Sorry Barrack - I know it's not fair - he can lie and you can't. You want a friend in politics? Get a dog.

Posted by: NoOneImportant | September 12, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

barack the magic negro
stood up, looked down his nose
rolled up his sleeves
and said "Enough!"
and struck a manly pose
he'll backstab Mac and Cindy
and Sarah's babies, too
but don't say "Saul Alinski"
no, that would be taboo
don't mention bill the bomber
nor calypso farrakhan
nor don juan wright
nor big michelle
nor that rezko guy-antoine
he'll tell you what's acceptable
he'll tell you what is not
how DARE you smear the Chosen One
you silly little snots

this one's better

Posted by: viejo1 | September 12, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse

McCain-Palinism; suggesting the principles of conduct laid down by Machiavelli; specifically : marked by cunning, duplicity, or bad faith

Posted by: Wendell | September 12, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Now the latest lie, "he's weak". You're not setting the tone, sorry. Nice try.

McLame will mean four more years of Bush policies. Look at the past eight years. Did you like them? Then vote "Four More Wars" McCain. Did you think they came up short? Then vote for Obama. You want weak? Vote for the septuagenarian who'll close the lid on America's coffin and then you'll see what weak is.

Posted by: treetopflyer | September 12, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Some DUMB CLUCK called NM Moderate says:

"He's not repealing the Bush tax cuts, dumb a$$."

READ this, IF you can:

WASHINGTON — 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.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/07/obama-recession-could-del_n_124647.html

Obama said he would NOT repeal the Bush tax cuts FOR THE WEALTHY if the economy was in recession. This is a change in his position, dumb a$$. Try reading BEFORE you post so you don't look so stupid.

Also, dumba$$, I do not make over $250,000, but I buy a car from someone who does, I have money in the bank of someone who does, I buy electricity from someone who does, and I buy groceries from someone who does, AND I DO NOT WANT TO PAY MORE FOR EVERYTHING I BUY so that Obama can appeal to simple minded idiots like you who are too stupid to know that the cost of higher taxes are passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices.

Posted by: Razorback | September 12, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Those who truly believe McCain/Palin is the solution to America's problems must be out of touch with the reality that Bush/Cheney has brought to these shores. Corruption, criminality, violation of a sacred oath, stone walling, incompetence. You guys want MORE of that? I'm still waiting for an explanation from Bush/Cheney that justifies the Iraq War. The first 3 months may have had some justification. The tail end six years: NONE.

Posted by: BlueTwo1 | September 12, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

The new Obama ad mocking McCain for not knowing how to use a computer is HYSTERICAL!

I wonder if he realized that many of the voters he needs to attract (blue collar + older voters) don't use the Internet either and he is in fact mocking the very voters he needs to win in November?

Who are the mental midgets running his campaign anyway?

Posted by: Suzy | September 12, 2008 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Mike

Kennedy was nothing at all like Obama except for the demigog personality. Just remember Kennedy never said "ughhhhhhh Ask not UUUUHG what you can UGHHHHHH do for YOUr Ughhhhhhh country"

Kennidy was more like a modern day Republican than a modern day Democrat by a long shot. Silly, just plain silly. Just look at the Bay of Pigs. Obama would have thought to stay on hold on the Red phone.

Posted by: Jennifer | September 12, 2008 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Razorback wants to know whether taxing employers increases wages. The answer is, of course not. What you have to remember however, is that cutting taxes doesn't increase wages either. There is very little correlation between taxes and wages one way or the other. Here's something you never hear from business: "Hey, I just got another tax cut. I'm going to immediately raise the wages of all of my employees!" Sorry, but capitalism doesn't work that way.

Posted by: view from the couch | September 12, 2008 4:03 PM | Report abuse

And why should I care about the welfare of the middle class? I've parked a good-sized fortune offshore, where the IRS can't touch it.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 12, 2008 4:02 PM | Report abuse

Obama lost his mojo. The national press core is going bonkers!

Posted by: jmd | September 12, 2008 4:01 PM | Report abuse

The only thing that matters in this election is how sexy Sarah Palin looks in her red F-me pumps. I could soo get into doing her.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 12, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse

mibrooks27

By my mind "destruction" means Obama's plan to make gov bigger. I would rather have choice than have a plan made up for larger Government. I know how the Democratic leaders work. THey are politicians with few that have any other experience. THe republican base is made of successful businessmen and woman not lifelong politicians.

THe lifelong politicians, the dems, are intent on enlarging the government which by definition takes choice away.

Posted by: Jennifer | September 12, 2008 3:59 PM | Report abuse

barack the magic negro
stood up, looked down his nose
rolled up his sleeves
and said "Enough!"
And struck a manly pose
He'll backstab Mac and Cindy
and Sarah' babies, too,
But don't say "Saul Alinsky"
No, that would be taboo!
Don't mention Bill the Bomber
Nor Calypso Farrakhan
Nor Don Juan Wright
Nor Big Michelle
Nor that Rezko guy-Antoin
He'll tell what's acceptable
He'll tell you what is not
How do you try to smear The One
You silly little snots

Posted by: viejo1 | September 12, 2008 3:58 PM | Report abuse

BO is weak. If he was strong he would have picked Clinton, won the election and then controlled her. If she caused a problem he should have told her to fuc&off. But he is not strong and cutthroat, which you need to be to be president.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 3:57 PM | Report abuse

I see that a number of people are choosing to remain on Galveston island, despite the forecast that Hurricane Ike's storm surge will put the entire island underwater. Some of those who have chosen to stay say that God will protect them.

Looks like Sarah Palin is going to permanently lose more than few of her supporters when Hurricane Ike hits Galveston.

Posted by: North Wind | September 12, 2008 3:57 PM | Report abuse

Would you guys leave Sarah Palin alone and concentrate on the weaknesses and the unwise campaign of your own guys? Obama and Palin have the same knowledge of foreign policy, but Obama is better at "faking it." The worst part of Obama are his instincts which gravitate toward "surrender" at the drop of a hat. So, his disdain for the military, lack of knowledge and the like are only compounded by his poor instincts. And the media has been coddling him for a year and trying to destroy everyone and every thing in his way--in addition to the billion dollars he's spent on his dreadful campaign. Need we even mention Joe Biden? You're hurting and it's your own fault, not Sarah Palin's fault.

Posted by: contracowboy08 | September 12, 2008 3:57 PM | Report abuse

McCain is the same as Bush in many respects, one that he can be erratic. Some may see that behavior as 'maverick', others that he is purely unpredictable. Exactly what we do not need as the point person on foreign policy. Obama's shift back to being in charge is a smart move. If he has command of his campaign and appears as in command, it takes him out of defense mode which is not where any candidate wants to be. This is very much a Kennedy vs Nixon type of campaign, very tight but the more articulate, commanding candidate is going to win.

Posted by: Mike | September 12, 2008 3:57 PM | Report abuse

Barack Obama keeps giving these darn speeches! Where are his kids during all of this?! I am outraged that he believes he can run a country and a family at the same time! And now he wants to be more aggressive in his campaigning. We don't want a deadbeat dad in the White House.

Posted by: dcp | September 12, 2008 3:57 PM | Report abuse

I hope Obama stays on offense right through the 3 debates till Nov4.

Palin is an obvious CRAMMER that hasn't a clue what she has memorized in 2 weeks.

Posted by: Dan | September 12, 2008 3:57 PM | Report abuse

Obama should ABSOLUTELY push back hard and regain control. When it comes to the issues, republicans have nothing to go on but eight dreadful years of leadership which they now claim they will miraculously change. You gotta be kidding me! Obama needs to field dress McCain-Palin and expose their lies, deceit and hatefulness.

Posted by: Tony in L.A. | September 12, 2008 3:56 PM | Report abuse

McCains choice of inexperienced and rather shallow Sarah Palin is indicative of one or more of the following:
1) He thinks by selecting her, he can attract Hilary voters into his camp.
2) He can get the christian evangelist votes.
3) He is probably not feeling well with this age. Needed someone younger on the ticket to counter Obama.

Posted by: Hasib | September 12, 2008 3:55 PM | Report abuse

I know quite a few seniors who tend to vote Democrat but who do not know how to use a computer. Some have already expressed how upset they are that Obama would make fun of that fact. Who is advising Obama on these things? First, sexism and now ageism?

Obama has done well in the past when presenting himself as a black "Mr. Rogers" but he will go down in flames if he shows us his true nature as the "angry black male". If he does take that route, McCain should immediately counter with Rev. Wright ads which remind us all of his black militant past.

Posted by: tas13 | September 12, 2008 3:55 PM | Report abuse

I'm an Obama supporter. This so-called aggressiveness is laughable. He's better talking at length on the issues of today.

It's a good thing that he has a platform to run on. Because McCain's is pathetic. It's worse than the ad. It's a million of those old-man-on-Bush's-golf-cart ads, strung together with a dash of Palin. As puzzling as a Rubik's cube as to why they think they've got a clue as to how to run the greatest nation in the world.

I'm sure John McCain and Sarah Palin are nice people. They seem so. But where Obama-Biden have answers, McCain and Palin only give me questions.

Posted by: Worthy Evans | September 12, 2008 3:53 PM | Report abuse

I'm liking all the anti-Obama posts in this forum. They sound, well - desperate. :-p Once this last load of laundry is done I'm going down to the local campaign office to do some calling. What are you soldiers of democracy doing?

Stay on the internet and keep blabbing. I'm going to deal with people who are actually doing something with their lives.

Posted by: treetopflyer | September 12, 2008 3:53 PM | Report abuse

BO and his aggressive new tone? He should look to his VP pick ...I suspect Biden to resigning soon......his comments that Hillary would have made a better pick...only reflected on his own potential Bosses decision making abilities - which are nada - as evidence of his 130 plus present votes in state legislature...Presidents need to make decisions and stake a position - which BO can not.

And lastly - Biden's taxes just released - he sent to charaties a whopping 380.00 each year over a 3 year period...based on income between 2 & 3 million dollars. Should be nice to see how BO camp spins that one.....he and rangel should hang out - He gives nothing and Charlie Chairman house - Ways Cmte rips of tax dollars.

The agents of the 'working poor' - sending all that 380.00 to help.......yet willing to take our money without question. Do we really need these guys watching out for the working class.....Talk about not walking the talk..what nerve.

God....I'm a republican - barely make 50-60K and I contributed 3 times that.

Dont do as I do - do as I say...LET ME SPEND YOUR MONEY - AS BIG GOVERNMENT KNOWS HOW TO DO IT BETTER....No Thanks Joe....I seem to be doing better than you just fine....especially when it comes to giving...

Posted by: John | September 12, 2008 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Obama spent the first half of the campaign running against George Bush and never made the Third Term case with the public. Now he is spending the second half running against Sarah Palin. The scurrilous and manifestly hysterical attacks on her by his chorus have now made her immune to such criticism to all fair minded people and there are tens of millions of them in this Country. One of his many handlers should introduce him to John McCain.His campaign has been almost painful to watch

Posted by: Norman | September 12, 2008 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Yes, that is code for "lets talk it out and everything will be OK"


I love the idea that things are "malleable"
Lets see he says he is "very much like the[the middle easterners]..." and he says "he understands them because he comes from similar background and understands struggle" Yes, they would probably behead him in a second if it were not for the fact he were working for them instead of America.

Posted by: Jennifer | September 12, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

McCain's selection of Palin is a clear indication of one of the following:

a) McCain lacks judgement

b) He is an opportunist who thinks by selecting Palin he can get women and evangelist votes.

Posted by: Hasibul Haque | September 12, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

bsimon, I see you.

You havn't answered whether you believe that taxing employers helps increase wages.

You havn't answered whether taxing businesses that sell things to middle class consumers increases the prices that they pay for everything they buy.

You havn't answered why Barack Obama said if the country is in recession (he says it is) then he would not repeal the Bush tax cuts because it would hurt the economy.

The other morons who talk about economic interests should also feel free to address this important policy issue.

Posted by: Razorback | September 12, 2008 3:32 PM

He's not repealing the Bush tax cuts, dumb a$$. He is leaving in place the elimination of the marriage penalty and the additional child tax credit. He is addng to that, a rebate on the payroll tax. The only part of the Bush tax plan that he is repealing is the part that reduced taxes on those taxpayers making more than $250,000 per year. Is that you? If so, I understand why you are supporting McCain. If you are earning less than $250000, why aren't you supporting Obama?

Posted by: NM Moderate | September 12, 2008 3:49 PM | Report abuse

Jennifer - Repeating a whole series of outright lies doesn't make them true. John Kerry earned every one of those Purple Hearts. On his boat, every single crew member, at the time and since, including plenty of Republican's, testified that Mr. Kerry was an able and courageous commander, saved the lives of crewmen, and earned those ppurple hearts. John Kerry was and is an authentic hero.

As for AL Gore, he NEVER claimed to have invented the internet. He stated that he was majorly responsible for it. And, he was! The internet was a DOD interagency platform that Mr. Gore saw as something that would allow ordinary people to exchange information. He, as a U.S. Senator, was THE single most responsible person who got the funding that led to its development into the technology we see today. It wouldn't be too much to say that the internet wouldn't exist, as we know it, without Al Gore.
As for Mr. Obama, he happened to work for a group of churches in Chicago. Those chruches employed a couple of people who were FORMER members of SDS (your Weather Underground) and the Black Panthers. He did not know them or associate with them other than working in the same organization that employed them. Oh, and he sat on a board that also had a former Black Panther on it, too. By your reasoning, then, John McCain and every other member of COngress is a felon because one or another members of Congress was convoicted of a felony. Likewise, you would be an adulterer becasue, I am sure, you have assocated with or knew someone who was. We could go on and on, but what you are engaged in is a campaign of guilt by associattion, not becasue it proves anything, but beasue it sidetracks people from paying attention to the issues. And, those issues are a life and death matter. If McCain wins and "keeps the course" you will literally be out in the streets. If you have children, you will get to watch them starve to death or die from some easily treated disease. Millions of your fellow citizens will suffer. And your country will collapse. You and AsperGirl (aka, I am pretty sure, Dianne72) are toxic suicidal fools. Your choices will result in the destruction of this country. To my mind, that is treason.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | September 12, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

The issues Obama! We must constantly expose the issues, for every nonsense non-issue response the McCain/Palin team delivers to the public. There must be a stark contrast. This is not a game of snaps. This is real stuff here. There's a lot going on, and we don't want to lose this election to a less thoughtful and trigger happy, neglectful team here. It's simply not the time for that.

Focus on the issues! There's plenty to talk about. With all of McCain's supposed experience and judgment, one would think that it would be McCain calling for his opponent to stay on the issues; interesting it is the other way around.

STAY FOCUSED OBAMA!! Obama/Biden '08
There's work to do, concerning a broader range of Americans than McCain/Palin proposes. We could use the power of example, over the example of power this time.

After all we've recently experienced in such short amount of time, it is most definitely America's time. Shed some light on that Obama! Drill baby drill on those issues while McCain continues his same talk, and Palin figures things out along the campaign trail. Go Obama/Biden!! Go supporters behind a Dem this time! Right on!

Posted by: Obama2008 | September 12, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

This new talk about aggression actually makes Obama look...weak.

Posted by: dcp
=========================================
Well, since he's just following McCain's lead, I guess that would make McCain the weakest.

Posted by: treetopflyer | September 12, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

Chris,
In your chat today, someone asked "With most of the country agreeing that the past eight years have not been good, how is it that half of the populace believes that the Republican Party deserves to hold the presidency for another term?"

My parents and grandparents generation (I'm a boomer) often voted the Party line...and so a Democratic candidate was a Democrat was a Democrat, no matter who he is, and by definition he is better than a Republican -- or vice versa.

But that's not how it is for those of us who grew up in the days when LBJ was in no way the same as McGovern who was on no way the same as Jimmy Carter. Although the major parties refuse to acknowledge this, the Boomer generation votes for the person, as distinct from the party. (whether "the person" refers to character or to policy stance is a different question entirely). This is why Perot in '92 and Nader in'00 (and Gene McCarthy farther back, and maybe this year Bloomberg) were able to make such a splash. It is also why, despite a greater number of registered Democratic voters, the Republicans have been able to win recent elections --- whether the parties or the campaign managers or the media choose to believe otherwise, our generation votes for 'Person' not 'Party'. I would argue that this is why people are willing to try a different person in the WH, even if he's not from a different party. I think the "McSame" story line would only have been effective / useful if he had actually been GWB's VP. Dems don't seem to "get" that this is as much of a non-starter than the Repubs trying to say Obama represents a second Carter term.

Posted by: missing the point | September 12, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

She adds, “I feel like I’m supporting someone, and having a personal dialogue with them, and it’s amazing.”


Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 12:33 PM

And she has a nice rack...........

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 3:47 PM | Report abuse

Obama is weak take for instance his little trip to Iraq. He was afraid to go and had to be coaxed. When he finally submitted hewent in and left fast. I love the story about Obama and his ears because it tells you what a weak person he seems to be. Here is the quote "You talked about my ears, and I just want to put you on notice: I'm very sensitive about [them]...I was teased relentlessly when I was a kid about my big ears.'"

Posted by: Jennifer | September 12, 2008 3:47 PM | Report abuse

bsimon says:

"I far prefer a candidate who can recognize that the situation on the ground is malleable and might require a change in position."

Obama is "malleable". A Repub is a "flip flopper". How convenient.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 3:47 PM | Report abuse

He has played right into McCain's trap... and continues to do so. He billed himself as a "different" politician, he doesn't seem so different. It doesn't help that he sounds like a babbling idiot without a teleprompter.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse

What a joke. Obama is about as agressive as dukakis. that is why people are turning way from him. He lacks b@lls and the media shills can't spin it no matter how hard they try.

Posted by: Gee Obama's going to get aggressive, scary,scary | September 12, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse

simple bsimon says:

"You havn't answered whether you believe that taxing employers helps increase wages.

What's the point in answering a hypothetical question that is not relevant?"

It is relevant because people are smart enough to know that you can't love employment and hate employers.

It is relevant because when someone says "Obama wants to tax business, not tax you" it ignorantly ignores the secondary effects of tax increases.

Obama knows that. That is why Obama said that he would not repeal the Bush tax cuts if the economy was in recession. How about that "change"?

Posted by: Razorback | September 12, 2008 3:43 PM | Report abuse

Osama, Hussein, Omama!

Posted by: WmJLePetomane | September 12, 2008 3:43 PM | Report abuse

This new talk about aggression actually makes Obama look...weak.

Posted by: dcp | September 12, 2008 3:41 PM
//

Bleat, bleat. Another sheep weighs in.

Posted by: DFC102 | September 12, 2008 3:43 PM | Report abuse

"You havn't answered why Barack Obama said if the country is in recession (he says it is) then he would not repeal the Bush tax cuts because it would hurt the economy."

I haven't seen that quote. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt & address it as though its true. If he says he won't repeal the Bush tax cuts during a recession, it sounds like he wouldn't repeal them today, Sept 12, 2008. Given that most recessions don't last more than a couple quarters, perhaps me means that by the time the new president is sworn in, the Bush plan could be partially rolled back. Perhaps he means that upon its natural expiration (2010?), if we're in a recession, then he'd want to keep the tax cuts going. Like I said, I haven't seen the statement, so I can't speak for him.

In any case, I far prefer a candidate who can recognize that the situation on the ground is malleable and might require a change in position. On the Economy, Senator McCain has not expressed such a view. He, after being against the tax cuts (the right position) when they were proposed, has now switched to being for maintaining the tax cuts (the wrong position), and has not expressed any willingness to deviate from that position, should the economic outlook demand such a change. That's not the kind of leadership we need, and not the kind of fiscal responsibility that Senator McCain used to stand for.

Posted by: bsimon | September 12, 2008 3:43 PM | Report abuse

This whole election reminds of
"Blazing Saddles". When the recently appointed black Sheriff Bart comes riding into town, all the good white townspeople of Rock Ridge are ready to lynch or shoot him...but after a while, as he rapidly becomes an "underground success" ("yeah, and in another 25 years, they'll be shaking your hand in broad daylight") he gains the trust of the town folk and eventually drive out Hedley LaMarr and his army, the real problem guy plaguing Rock Ridge and by the end of the picture, they don't want him to leave...stay tuned..in may not be in 2008 but once Palin/McCain are safely elected, the economy destroyed and all our assets sold off at firesale prices to foreigners, Sheriff Bart may yet again come to our rescue.

Posted by: Joe | September 12, 2008 3:42 PM | Report abuse

This new talk about aggression actually makes Obama look...weak.

Posted by: dcp | September 12, 2008 3:41 PM | Report abuse

McRUman

I guess we can park our cigar somewhere too. You guys just loved Clinton and now you want someone in who is far far worse. What reaction do you think would take place. Did you think we would love your prejudiced messiah?

Posted by: Jennifer | September 12, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

"You havn't answered whether you believe that taxing employers helps increase wages."

What's the point in answering a hypothetical question that is not relevant?

What I do know is that the nonpartisan center for tax policy has said that Obama's plan would cut taxes MORE than McCain's for all Americans making less than a quarter of a million dollars a year. That includes me & most of the people I know. In fact it includes 90% of all Americans. That sounds pretty good to me.

Posted by: bsimon | September 12, 2008 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Barak Obama is getting some really bad advice from those managing his campaign. Didn't they all work for Hillary at some point? Bet they'll all be working for her in 2012. I think he trusted the wrong people and believed too much in is celebrity.
His campaign in on meltdown...Nice and naive...Not ready to lead.

Posted by: Lorraine | September 12, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

McRumi said:

""Palin beat Obama on experience.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it."

LOL. Well, we know that we Americans always choose the least talented singer on American Idol. No difference here."

People like McRumy are why many of us in "fly over territory" think that leftists are elitist snobs.

As Gov. Palin put it: "You talk about us one way in Scranton, and a different way in San Fransico."


Posted by: Razorback | September 12, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

"I have never in my lifetime seen a political meltdown quite like this

Unbelievable."

I have. It was John McCain in the primaries. And look where he is now.
Lots can happen in a day, a week, a month!

Posted by: McRumi | September 12, 2008 3:32 PM | Report abuse

THE MEDIA IGNORED THE SECOND PART OF OBAMA'S SMEAR:
"Lipstick on a pig" & "IT SMELLS LIKE FISH"

Obama didn't just say the McCain-Palin ticket was "lipstick on a pig" he also said it smells like a fish.

"You can put, uh, lipstick on a pig. It's still a pig. (cheers) You know, you can, uh, you know, you can, uh, you -- you -- you can wrap an old fish in a -- in a piece of paper and call it change, it's still going to stink after eight years"

Obama on the McCain-Palin ticket: lipstick on a pig & it smells like a fish
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPd4yk0x-eg

By the way, Barack Obama, supported by his fatuous media fans, has claimed that he was referring to McCain's "policies", but that is blatantly false if you review the actual transcript, in context, where the soundbite came from. He was obviously arguing that McCain adding Palin to his ticket and wrapping it in a "change" theme was like putting lipstick on a pig and that it had a stink like an old fish. The "policies" were not the antecedent reference to the metaphors but just amplifying information. The media analysts and "experts" explaining otherwise are blatantly lying in support of their candidate, Barack Obama.

Barack Obama's behavior toward female opponents has been consistently non-presidential this year. E.g. when Obama gave Hillary Clinton the old "face scratch finger" & then grinned around with self-satisfaction while the crowd gets excited.

Obama gives Hillary Clinton the "face scratch finger" & beams
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoOFp-RDpvM&NR=1

If Obama gets elected, how long before he creates some international incident with his inappropriate behavior? How can a trash-talker be our Head of State?

HOW CAN THE MEDIA GET AWAY WITH COVERING UP FOR HIM?

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 12, 2008 3:32 PM | Report abuse

bsimon, I see you.

You havn't answered whether you believe that taxing employers helps increase wages.

You havn't answered whether taxing businesses that sell things to middle class consumers increases the prices that they pay for everything they buy.

You havn't answered why Barack Obama said if the country is in recession (he says it is) then he would not repeal the Bush tax cuts because it would hurt the economy.

The other morons who talk about economic interests should also feel free to address this important policy issue.

Posted by: Razorback | September 12, 2008 3:32 PM | Report abuse

~

At this point, it doesn't much matter.

People who don't like Obama -- for lots of reasons other than the fact that his father was from Kenya -- were LOOKING for a reason to vote for McCain.

Now they have it.

No one, except Matt Damon, really believes that McCain is going to die in office.

For Pete's sake, his mother is 96 and vibrant.

McCain (and Biden) are qualified.

By any measure, Obama is not really qualified. (Oh yes he is, his supporters cry!)

Palin is -somewhat, not significantly- more qualified than Obama.

But Obama's running for President.

People just don't think he's ready.

Should've nominated Clinton.

~

Posted by: DickeyFuller | September 12, 2008 3:31 PM | Report abuse

"Palin beat Obama on experience.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it."


LOL. Well, we know that we Americans always choose the least talented singer on American Idol. No difference here.
It's more a reflection on the superficiality of the American populace than the actual qualifications of the candidates.

Hell, Bush lowered the bar so low, now anyone can park their lipstick in the White House.

Posted by: McRUmi | September 12, 2008 3:31 PM | Report abuse

It's time for Obama and Biden to end the McCain/Palin game-playing and lie-telling.

Time to show that Palin hasn't got clue about national issues, other than DRILL BABY DRILL, and that McCain is OLD and OUT-TO-TOUCH!

Personally I want to know all the medications that McCain is currently taking right now. No spin. No bull. Just the facts.

Posted by: Obama-Junkie | September 12, 2008 3:30 PM | Report abuse

Scratch and Sniff - Republican Party Ticket

McCain - Hints of Old Spice, dirt, sweat, and crude oil from being in the pockets of the major oil companies. The scheister smell is left over from the Keating Five Scandal.

Palin - White Diamonds perfume and an under current of religious extremism and a finish of foul twists of the truth.

Posted by: steeleswitters | September 12, 2008 3:29 PM | Report abuse

I was getting tired of the Republicans being labelled as liars so I thought I would post some of my favorites:

Bill Clinton’s did not release his health records, Hillary’s could not explain her investment genius, Al Gore’s never was able to explain just how he invented the internet, John Kerry’s refusal to explain exactly how he earned those Purple Hearts, and Obama’s efforts to keep his past activities under wraps – activities that might have involved interactions with leaders of the Weathermen or men involved in the Chicago mob

Posted by: Jennifer | September 12, 2008 3:28 PM | Report abuse

I have never in my lifetime seen a political meltdown quite like this

Unbelievable.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 3:26 PM | Report abuse

Freedom's Defense Fund proudly announces a return appearance of the left's favorite minister of the gospel, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright:

http://freedomsdefensefund.com/videos.html

Coming to a TeeVee near you.

Posted by: Razorback | September 12, 2008 3:25 PM | Report abuse

>>Steven G. wrote: "Have you even looked at that comment he was talking about McCain's policies. Get it straight you are lying. Then again you are probably a republican, like McCain, who is trying so hard to win this election by using lies. I will be one of the many energized youth who can't wait to use their first vote for Obama. I pray to God that for our sakes Obama wins and implements huge changes that will keep America Number One!!!!"

Obama, you liar, was talking about the McCain-Palin ticket, and it being wrapped in the "change" theme.

You know, you can parse and parse & say the grammar indicates this was the object of that modifier & etc. But the fact is that Obama's a rhetorical expert & he knows perfectly well that the memes in conjunction with a long, rambling discussion about the McCain-Palin ticket & its "change" theme, would juxtapose that imagery.

His audience had no doubt whatsoever what he meant, as the raucous cheering and clapping on hearing the words "lipstick on a pig" proved. Later, his audience was chanting "No pit bull!"

If you look at all the false accusations of racism the Obama camp has spewed out all year toward others, they make the "racial coding" argument. That is that "racially coded" memes (i.e. imagery that invokes or recalls some racial trait) is programmed into a speech criticizing Obama.

The false accusations "racial coding" that Obama's been making all year included false accusations that the 3 a.m. phone call was "racial coded" because white people might be afraid that a black man would pick up the phone. The instances over which the Obama camp has attacked his opponents with accusations of "racial coding" are absurd and not discriminatory. Clinton's 3 a.m. ad wasn't racially coded.

But if you want a prime, blatant example of a discriminatory-coded message, where bigoted imagery and memes are used in juxtaposition with attacks against a woman or minority opponent, Obama's "lipstick on a pig & smells like a fish" mockery of the McCain-Palin ticket is a classic. You even have the audience getting incited into jeering & hooting.

Look at the video again. It's a classic example of coded-speech bigotry.

Now the point of my post is that the media, in waving off the "Lipstick on a pig" was a coincidental juxtaposition of an old phrase & that Obama forgot about, or was unaware of Palin's "pitbull in lipstick" tagline, overlooked that Obama didn't just tag the McCain-Palin ticket theme of "change" as 'lipstick on a pig" but also that it "smelled like a fish". My point is that the media has argued away the "pig" part but ignored the "fish" part. NO ONE has tried to argue that "old fish stink" is some kind of familiar political talk, or that a pig with lipstick on it that smells like a fish is some kind of coherent rhetoric for Mr. Rhetoric to come out with.

Your Obama is a trashy smear-mouthed SEXIST PIG and he's continuing to sink in polls due to his TRASHY GHETTO SMEAR.

End of discussion.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 12, 2008 3:22 PM | Report abuse

A poll released today by the Associated Press (AP-GfK General Election):

John McCain:
Does not have the right type of experience: 15%

Barack Obama:
Does not have the right type of experience: 47%

Joe Biden:
Does not have the right type of experience: 20%

Sarah Palin:
Does not have the right type of experience: 36%

Palin beat Obama on experience.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Posted by: Razorback | September 12, 2008 3:21 PM | Report abuse

"One of these candidates is qualified to be president now. ... The fact that I did not put a name and you agree indicates that you are a 'decided' voter."


I disagree. Both McCain and Obama are 'qualified' for the job. I happen to prefer the latter over the former, because the former doesn't seem to know what he stands for anymore. He wants credit for being a 'maverick' after changing all his positions where he was a 'maverick'. I suspect he's done so only to fool the Republican base into suppporting him for higher office. But that's hardly the kind of confidence-inspiring machination that I want or expect in a presidential candidate.

Posted by: bsimon | September 12, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

"what has obama done for america? really? other than give speeches written by highly paid speechwriters?"

he has given speeches written by himself as well. he has fought for nuclear non-proliveration, introducing a bill with Senator Lugar (R-IN), that is not only good for America, but for everyone in the world. He has fought for Senate Ethics reform was that one with Sen Hatch (R-UT)? someone will have to remind me.

But the GOP claim of him 'doing nothing' should be challenged, as he's done plenty of things for America, with Republican cosponsors, and deserves credit for them. Unlike his opponent, he still supports those initiatives.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 3:18 PM | Report abuse

Aspergirl wrote:
What's the difference between a pit bull, a pig & Barack Obama?

I HATE BARACK OBAMA

He spent all spring running the sly sexist-smear bashing of Clinton
He spent all summer marginalizing Clinton

(did you get a big glow out of that 3 a.m. cell phone text message announcing Biden?)

He's launched a new proactive, assertive attack voice on the McCain-Palin ticket by declaring that McCain adding Palin to his ticket & calling that "change" is "lipstick on a pig" that "stinks like a fish".

What is the difference between a pig & Barack Obama?

The pig has guts you can make sausage with.

____________________________________

Aspergirl...As a woman, I need to let you know that you are giving us a bad name. Strong women don't need irrational feminists whining about how they were mistreated (How the hell is the timing of a text message sexist???) They get stronger and demonstrate how they are a better option. Hillary Clinton ran a tough, aggresive campaign and she lost. Get over it, stop the inane anger bit...maybe use your energy for good, not evil. Maybe get some help with the "ALL CAPS" issue. Anything, really, cause you're kind of making an ass out of yourself.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 3:18 PM | Report abuse

TO: Mssrs. CHERTOFF, MUKASEY, PAULSON, GATES, McCONNELL, MUELLER

"GOV'T AGENCIES SUPPORT DOMESTIC TERRORISM"
http://www.nowpublic.com/world/government-agencies-support-domestic-torture-and-gang-stalking-says-noted-nowpublic-com-columnist

What do you know about this, and what are you doing about it?

Posted by: scrivener | September 12, 2008 3:17 PM | Report abuse


"in voting for the presidency of america, ONLY one question needs to be answered:

what has obama done for america? really? other than give speeches written by highly paid speechwriters?"

THANK YOU. finally, someone with some sense. you wanna know who's for change? look at the resumes of these two people and see who has been fighting to change our lives and who's been promoting his books, and celebrity status. it's a no brainer.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 3:16 PM | Report abuse

One of these candidates is qualified to be president now.

The fact that I did not put a name and you agree indicates that you are a 'decided' voter.

Posted by: the entire midwest | September 12, 2008 3:14 PM | Report abuse

Prepare yourself for the greatest ideological match-up of the century!

No, it's not Obama versus McCain, it's McCain versus Palin.


LET'S GET READY TO RUUUMMMBBBLLLE...!


This was John McCain, late last year on why he was qualified to be the president:

"I am prepared. I need no on-the-job training. I wasn't a mayor for a short period of time. I wasn't a governor for a short period of time."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/21/us/politics/21debate-transcript.html?_r=1&pagewanted=3&fta=y&oref=slogin
.


And here is Sarah Palin last night on why she is ready to be a 72-year old heartbeat away from the presidency:

"Charlie, again, we've got to remember what the desire is in this nation at this time. It is for no more politics as usual and somebody's big, fat resume maybe that shows decades and decades in that Washington establishment, where, yes, they've had opportunities to meet heads of state."

http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=5782924
.


So there you have it. The ultimate he said, she said. John McCain explained why Sarah Palin isn't qualified to be a heartbeat away from the presidency, and Sarah Palin explained why John McCain doesn't represent change, just more of the same old politics as usual.


AMERICA, IF YOU'RE DUMB ENOUGH TO VOTE FOR THESE TWO KNOW NOTHINGS (MCCAIN/PALIN) THEN YOU DESERVE WHAT YOU GET - FOUR MORE YEARS OF BUSH/CHENEY LIKE INCOMPETENCE AND THUGGERY!

Posted by: DrainYou | September 12, 2008 3:14 PM | Report abuse

AsperGirl,

Have you even looked at that comment he was talking about McCain's policies. Get it straight you are lying. Then again you are probably a republican, like McCain, who is trying so hard to win this election by using lies. I will be one of the many energized youth who can't wait to use their first vote for Obama. I pray to God that for our sakes Obama wins and implements huge changes that will keep America Number One!!!!

Obama/Biden 08'

Posted by: Steven G. | September 12, 2008 3:12 PM | Report abuse

"90% of the population is equal to or worse off than they were before the Bush administration."

i'm sorry, if you EVER wanna be taken seriously, when posting this kind of statistics you're gonna have to list your sources. cause this is laughable.

Posted by: huh? | September 12, 2008 3:11 PM | Report abuse

So some of these mental midgets say they want to debate the economy. Get a load of this:

WASHINGTON — 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.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/07/obama-recession-could-del_n_124647.html

"SAN DIEGO — Barack Obama said Saturday there is “little doubt we’ve moved into recession,” underscoring the country’s need for a second economic stimulus package, swift steps to shore up the housing market and a long-term energy policy to reduce reliance on foreign oil imports."

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/07/13/obama-little-doubt-country-in-recession/

Now that Obama says we are in a recession, according to HIS OWN WORDS he opposes repeal of the Bush tax cuts.

Some liberals say that the Bush tax cuts HURT the economy. Now Obama himself admits that repealing the Bush tax cuts would hurt the economy if its in a recession.

How is that change from Bush economic policies?

Posted by: Razorback | September 12, 2008 3:09 PM | Report abuse

"AsperGirl,

This might be a newsflash to you but WRITING IN CAPSLOCK CONSTANTLY will not make your points any more assertive... Try proving to us that you've got something constructive to say instead of mindless spamming. Please."

Actually, I think it reflects Aspergirl's personality perfectly....and speaks for itself.
She is Obama's best argument on this board.

Posted by: McRumi | September 12, 2008 3:08 PM | Report abuse

"And just look at who McCain's advisers are: they're all Bush people".
those TWO people (not all of them) ran a successful CAMPAIGN for george Bush, in terms of the strategy. those are not people who were making decisions about going to war or how to run the country, you genius.

it's really amazing how Obamaniacs love to twist the facts. I guess that's what you have to do when you're behind someone who has no record of any kind of change in all these years in state senate, and of course later in congress he was hardly there, so it goes without saying - but yet he insists on making it the "theme" of his campaign. what a joke.

Posted by: wow | September 12, 2008 3:08 PM | Report abuse

There is something the PRESS and MEDIA need to do for their country and for the American people.

Each time McCain/Palin/Rove use the same tired, divisive, culture-war tactics they used in the last two elections to try to win THIS election, the press has a responsibility to name it.

Do we really want to be suckered in by the same tactics that brought us Bush/Rove/Cheney/Rumsfeld TWICE, and are being dragged out of the closet once again so McCain Republicans can avoid accountability for eight miserable years of failure???

The press knows exactly what's going on, but all to often, it fans the flames and becomes complicit by covering these tactics as though they represent legitimate debate. (Of course, this applies to both campaigns, but it's the republicans who have primarily used these tactics).

I don't care if the media is Republican-owned, it is the press and media's duty to the American people to report on real issues and keep the debate focused on them: the economy, the energy crisis, jobs, Iraq and Afghanistan, unemployment, the deficit, outrageous gas prices, Bush invading yet another country, ALL the failures of this administration, NOT the irrelevant trash that distracts people from the very real, serious concerns our country is facing.

Posted by: Carol L in Boston | September 12, 2008 3:07 PM | Report abuse

"people do not vote against their own economic interests. They reject the lies that some people say about what is in their own interests."

If that's true, the GOP is in deep yogurt this year.

The record shows, of course, that the statement is demonstrably false. 90% of the population is equal to or worse off than they were before the Bush administration.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 3:07 PM | Report abuse

"scrivener, people do not vote against their own economic interests."

The essential point is that many don't know what is in their economic interest...just look at the mortgage disaster whose fault lies partly with folks who blindly signed papers without considering the long-term effects or who were just greedy...and don't forget the millions of people who put religion/ideology before economic self-interest, believing that God will somehow rescue them even if they do nothing for themselves...that's the Palin audience right there. Lots of em in Galveston now. God help them.

Posted by: McRumi | September 12, 2008 3:06 PM | Report abuse

Aspergirl: IF (BIG if) you took the time to read the whole quote - not selectively pciking one sentence, you'd see that Obama was CLEARLY talking about McCain's economic policy. As a matter of fact he doesn't even mention Failin's name.

If your tortured manipulation of Obama's quote means he's a sexist, what does this say about McCain? :

"In his 1992 Senate bid, McCain was joined on the campaign trail by his wife, Cindy, as well as campaign aide Doug Cole and consultant Wes Gullett. At one point, Cindy playfully twirled McCain's hair and said, "You're getting a little thin up there." McCain's face reddened, and he responded, "At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you c*nt." McCain's excuse was that it had been a long day."

Posted by: Seirav | September 12, 2008 3:00 PM | Report abuse

AsperGirl,

This might be a newsflash to you but WRITING IN CAPSLOCK CONSTANTLY will not make your points any more assertive... Try proving to us that you've got something constructive to say instead of mindless spamming. Please.

Posted by: block | September 12, 2008 2:59 PM | Report abuse

"They arrogantly believed that they had this election in the bag and that the nation really wants left wing socialism."


As opposed to the Republicans who now arrogantly think that they have the election in the bag and that the nation really wants right wing Christian fascism?

Still a long way to Nov....much water yet to go under this election's bridge...whether it leads to the McCain/Palin no-where psuedo-rapture disaster or the Obama/Biden land of justice, freedom and opportunity once again.

Posted by: McRumi | September 12, 2008 2:59 PM | Report abuse

scrivener, people do not vote against their own economic interests. They reject the lies that some people say about what is in their own interests.

Posted by: Razorback | September 12, 2008 2:56 PM | Report abuse

IT'S THE POLITICS OFPERSONALITY, STUPID!

SO FIGHT ON THE JUDGMENT ISSUE.


The American electorate has a sad history of voting against its own economic self-interest in presidential elections.

That's why Obama's campaign MUST mount an assault on McCain's selection of Sarah Palin:

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/obama-rip-mccain-his-reckless-palin-pick-get-political-w-vic-livingston

Posted by: scrivener | September 12, 2008 2:50 PM | Report abuse

To: Barack H. Obama
From: AsperGirl
Date: 09/12/08
CC: Michelle Obama
Subj: re: EMAIL TO BARACK OBAMA ET AL

GO BACK TO SOUTHSIDE CHICAGO YOU SEXIST PIG!!!

/>>"You can put, uh, lipstick on a pig.
.>>It's still a pig. (cheers) You know, you
/>>can, uh, you know, you can, uh, you
/>>-- you -- you can wrap an old fish in
/>>a -- in a piece of paper and call it
/>>change, it's still going to stink after
/>>eight years"

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 12, 2008 2:39 PM | Report abuse

in voting for the presidency of america, ONLY one question needs to be answered:

what has obama done for america? really? other than give speeches written by highly paid speechwriters?

i would never elect paris hilton president of america.

i rest my case.

Posted by: mikel | September 12, 2008 2:39 PM | Report abuse

One thing everyone should remember is that when Obama started out his claim was to change the way politics works in Washington. He wants to be President to bring integrity back to Washington. This is a man that many are calling weak because he is sticking to his principles. He is sticking to what he believes is good for America and the American people. He wants to be a President that you can trust. I do not see Obama as being weak for not sinking to McCains level, but I admire is strength and forittude for walking the same path as he has done from the beginning. For showing us that he does want to reform how politics work. That he can be fair and honest. That he does believe in a better America and he believes in the American people. With all the hits he has taken from McCain it would be so easy to forget who you are and stoop to the same gutter level as McCain to fight McCain on the same level. But what good does that do for the American people, what good does that do for the American image aboard and within? What good are the lies, slander, and decite? How does that make you a better person? How will those lies and distortions help the American people feed their families, put gas in the car, keep their home from being foreclosed, have a job, and give their children a better education. That is what Obama cares about. Obama cares about bring the American people together to work out the problems while McCain wants to divide us. This is the same way Bush ran the country. These are the same type of lies and mis-leading statements that Bush used while talking to us from the Oval Office and led us to war in Iraq. I want a President that cares enough about America to tell us what he is going to do for us. I want a President that I can trust. That is not McCain he is a lying slimeball that should know better and how dare he run on reform, or wanting to change Washington. How he runs his campaign is a strong indication on how he will run the country. John McCain is painting an ugly picture of himeself for the world to see. Look at it long and hard because this is what you will get if he is elected President

Posted by: cokomo2 | September 12, 2008 2:37 PM | Report abuse

Democrats are in full mode meltdown. That fact that they are in almost complete denial of this is almost too painful to watch. They arrogantly believed that they had this election in the bag and that the nation really wants left wing socialism.

Note to dems: No you didn't and no we don't

Posted by: Camacho Mike | September 12, 2008 2:36 PM | Report abuse

"When asked if the US should invade Russia over Georgia, Palin answered: "possibly so, yes"

This answer needs to be spread as fast as possible. What a scary individual."

of course you very conveniently left out the part where she says that if you're a NATO member you're obliged to defend the other countries if attacked. and that's how she arrived at this statement. but way to spin it!
MCCAIN/PALIN 08

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 2:35 PM | Report abuse

THE INAPPROPRIATE OBAMAS ARE A TOTAL FAIL

THE ONLY REASON CLINTON INVITED OBAMA TO HARLEM & THEN OFFERED TO STUMP IS THAT IT CAN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE NOW. CLINTON CAN ACT LIKE A GOOD TEAM MEMBER & PITCH IN WHILE OBAMA'S SUBMARINE SPIRALS DOWN IN ITS DEEP NOSEDIVE.

THAT "LIPSTICK ON A PIG" & "SMELLS LIKE AN OLD FISH" CRACK WAS THE WATERSHED

THE OBAMAS ARE TOO INAPPROPRIATE & TRASHY TO BE HEAD OF STATE & FIRST LADY

THEY MARGINALIZED THEMSELVES.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 12, 2008 2:33 PM | Report abuse

If the American people are so stupid as to fall for the very radical Palin with her lack of knowledge in nationsal and foreign affairs then they deserve what they get.

I will work hard to educate as many people as I can contact about her thinking that the war in Iraq is God's will, creationsism should be taught along side evolution, that man has no responsibility for global warming, that that that.... the list goes on and on. Are the Ammerican people so uninformed that they would vote too put such an INEXPERIENCED, RADICAL RIGHT NUT JOB SO CLOSE TO THE wHITE HOUSE. I HOPE NOT !!!!!I EVEN PRAY NOT !!!!

Posted by: Bonnie | September 12, 2008 2:33 PM | Report abuse

I am glad to see I have thrown Asspergirl off her game. We are seeing a recycling of the cut-and-paste hate journalism she relies on to reinforce her racist and ignorant mindset, and are glad to see it is having absolutely no traction with Fix readers. Long after the world has stopped paying attention to lipstick quotes, she continues to throw them out there.

If Asspergirl can be viewed as the McShame base, it is no wonder McShame's poll surge is ebbing and Obama is once again firmly in control of swing states Ohio, PA, MI, IA, WI, and CO. Responsible adults view McShame's blip in the polls as post-convention bounce.

Asspergirl, anthropomorphizing this race into pigs and fish is yesterday's tactic. Perhaps you should look in terms of coyotes, as in coyote ugly. Palin is the girl you were in love with the night before at the bar, but now that the hangover is over, the GOP should be chewing its arm off to get away from her.

Posted by: bondjedi | September 12, 2008 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

I notice you aren't covering the Governor Schweitzer scandal from Montana (he bragged about fixing the election in 2006, forced AP to call for Tester, had republican poll watchers arrested, called county reps nervous as pregnant nuns after he told them to fix the vote). As all this is on tape, and it was when your wrote your glowing praise of him 2 days ago, don't you think you should comment? Or is it a democrat thing?

Posted by: Karen | September 12, 2008 2:28 PM | Report abuse

"Its the EMAIL stupid."
LMAO. this should be the next ad from McCain, just those words on the screen, that's hilarious!!!!

MCCAIN/PALIN 08

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 2:27 PM | Report abuse

It really seems like the Obama campaign is lurching from message to message and hoping that something will work.
What the "new" approach is missing is that, while people want "change," they also want competence, capability and leadership. This is where Obama's true challenge now lies.
Attacking that McCain doesn't know how to email is "cutesy." Frankly, it won't cost McCain any votes and only opens door to GOP counter-attacks regarding Scarlett Johanson having email exchanges with Obama where she gives him policy advice and Obama responds. More grist for "celebrity" attacks. Not good.
Also, in light of the messengers, Durbin and Emanuel would be better used to convey competence and experience rather than change. Both are insiders who have been around a long time. Nobody really buys them as "change agents." However, they do have credibility as to being able to get things done.

Posted by: MiddleAmericanGuy | September 12, 2008 2:27 PM | Report abuse

Polknot - Please don't get me wrong, I am not a fan of excessive government spending, but government spending and economic policy are two very different issues. The economic crisis we are just now beginning to see, is almost entirely due to unfettered globalization/free-trade policies. Our government has literally traded jobs, technology, and production capacity to foreign government to gain support for it's foreign policy. John McCain said *exactly* this when he defended free trade. Likewise, lack of corporate oversight has led to th sale of everything from our top secret night vision technology and a complete AWAC plane to China, outsourcing the manufacturing of ammunition and missile components, ther dismantling of our industrial infrastrucure and shipping it wholesale off to China and India and Russia. This country was called the "factory of democracy" in World War II. Today, we not only lack the means to even produce the military hardware we need to defend just ourselves, we lack the technical ability to even replicate it here because one of the effects of the H1-B and L-1 visa, used by corporations to get cheap foreign labor, has been to discourage our own college students from majoring in engineering, computer science, mathematics, the hard sciences, even medical fields like X-ray technology. Investors have run amuck, too. The mortgage mess, just the tip of the economic iceberg that has sank us, is due to investors and brokers assembling high risk investment packages that they fraudulently marketed to banks and other institutions. Those investors took the money went off to do the same thing with oil and other energy, food, metals and other commodities. In the meantime, the festering time bombs that those packages represent, have started to hatch and are taking down banks and other financial instiutions, not just here, but across the globe. The whole reason that the Fed bailed out Freddy and Fanny was becasue China, which holds nearly $2 trillion dollars in U.S. cash reserves, DEMANDED it. If we allowed them to fail, then China would have pulled their money from government bonds which would have led to an immediate and complete collapse of the U.S. economy. It gets worse from there. You read all of the time that no one really knows what the total amount of anticipated failures will be. This is actually a dodge. A realistic estimate of the amount of money required to save our economy is 400% of pour current GNP --- i.e. we don't have even 1/4 of the the amount fo money necessary to save ourselves. The ENTIRE WORLD, even if it wanted to, only has about half of the money that would be necessary. In the end, we are going to drop into a major Depression, someting that will make the Great Depression look downright mild. McCain's economic proposals are to continue attempting to prop up the ramshackle mess of our banking and credit institutions becasue allowing them to fail would instntly mean the end of globalization and support for his foreign policies -- it would, in short, mean the isolation of this country, with the credit rating of a skid row drunk.

In the end, you had better hope that Mr. Obama and the Democrats pass some form of national healthcare and some form of basic support, becasue you're going to need it! You will, or you spouse will, be out of work within the next 12 months I don't care if you're a government employee or some Wall Street millionaire, you will be flat broke, unemployed, and unemployable. You will join roughly 40% of your fellow citizens. When your unemployment benefits run out, there will not be any safety net to prevent you or your childen from starving, ending up on the street. About the only medical care you can hope for will be some form of national healthcare. Now, I don't think we'll have it, so a lot of people are going to die. I want you to sit back and imagine the social unrest, mobs of people, violence, robberies and muggings, assasinations, taking place as our social fabric unravels. Imagine the New Age and Fundimentalist fanatics casting about, looking for some group to blame, and offering bogus and false hopes while their leaders bilk people out of what little they do have. We're facing a complete meltdown, a disaster that has every appearance of spelling the end of this country, and you sit back and toss off some dumb comment about the government spending too much to save the Spotted Owl? The Spotted Owl doesn't matter! Neither does the negative remarks by the candidates, the war in Iraq, or what your favorite Hollywood star is doing. Your SURVIVAL is at stake. The odds are, and I mean this literally, given the present trends, you and around half of your fellow citizens will be starving and homeless or dead within 24 months. Do you get it, now?

Posted by: mibrooks27 | September 12, 2008 2:26 PM | Report abuse

No, it wont work.
Sometime this Summer (Eurotrip?) whomever makes the decisions for the Obama campaign lost the plot. Parading out Edwards (yes, during primary season, but given Edwards' straying, this now appears as a mistake. God forbid what we'll hear if Obama knew about Rielle and brought Edwards out anyway) The Euro "Victory Tour" complete with Presidential-like seal. The over-the-top coronation in Denver. Finally, the big one, sticking it to Hillary. I don't care how much Obama hates her (and Bill), the combination would have been unbeatable. He should have held his nose and done what needed doing. He could have banned them from the West Wing after he moved in. Biden has already proven to be a liability (Biden can't attack Palin as VP, as he has already stated that Obama didn't pick the most qualified candidate for himself...Thanks for the help Joe, that's exactly what we needed). Instead he left the door open and McCain, no dummy, charged right through, and seized the initiative.
It's Obama's own damn fault. The Repub's are energized and Obama just looks fake when he's trying to be tough. He's a law professor, not a prosecutor. McCain as liar just will not work for somebody who has too much baggage and too little substance. Even Obama supporters know that he needed to lead all the way.

Posted by: elvagabundo | September 12, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

"It is time to take the conceptual into the actual; not through policy proposals but by standing and saying "ENOUGH!!" to the BS of McCain and to forcefully (not forcibly) take our country in a new direction. He actually needs to do this before the election in order to win the election."

LMAO. thank you so much for the good laugh. this is exactly what Obamaniacs and Obama himself are all about. their definition of action, and turning the "conceptual into the actual" is by standing up and shouting 'ENOUGH"!!!!! lol.

Posted by: sandra | September 12, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

"I am honestly trying to understand why people vote for a candidate with whom they feel a personal connection..."


Why are half the residents of Galveston staying on that island and facing certain death? Because humans have the power to lie to themselves and act against their best interests if they are uneducated or lazy enough. God will not save them from Ike. Nor will God save us from the foolishness of McCain/Palin. Only we can save ourselves. Some choose not to.

Posted by: McRumi | September 12, 2008 2:24 PM | Report abuse

The new Magoo/Palin Axis of Evil:

1. Russia
2. Iran
3. FactCheck.org

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 2:24 PM | Report abuse

bama said her cooch smells like old fish? now that is rude!

Posted by: dick cabesa | September 12, 2008 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Can anyone explain the politics of personality to me? My uncle was a prisoner of war, but I don't think he would make a good president. My best friend is a hockey mom, but she is not VP material. I am honestly trying to understand why people vote for a candidate with whom they feel a personal connection...

Posted by: mrc | September 12, 2008 2:20 PM | Report abuse

"When asked if the US should invade Russia over Georgia, Palin answered: "possibly so, yes"

This answer needs to be spread as fast as possible. What a scary individual.

Posted by: Sarah Palin is Harriett Miers with a nice rack | September 12, 2008 2:19 PM | Report abuse

"This is a reformed black man, now voting for MCCAIN/PALIN."

LOL. Yeah. Sure.

Posted by: McRumi | September 12, 2008 2:18 PM | Report abuse

"Third, while shouting "ENOUGH" may be dramatic, how is it in any way substantive in terms of policy ideas that will improve our government?"

he he, his whole campaign is based on being dramatic. the hope, the change, the unity, the talking about talking about not doing enough, the very broad, no substance message of a bunch of fluff.

you press him on an issue, any issue, he gets lost in his own answers. you watche o'railly where first barack claims that to make the economy stronger you have to cut taxes for the middle class and hike up taxes for the rich. a little later he says he wouldn't cut those taxes if the economy is in recession because that would be bad for the economy. so... then which is it? Don't ask, he's not sure, he has to ask his 300 economy specialists.
the surge? well, he came out and said that it will only cost more american lives and is a big mistake. well, now when asked if he believes he was wrong he says "no". when asked if the surge worked he says "yes". Doesn't make sense? well, he needs to talk to his 150 foreign policy advisors to figure that one out as well.
russia invades georgia? well, you see, it took obama a little bit to release a statement because his 150 foreign policy advisors were still trying to figure out how to get out of the "surge" fiasco (darn it, why did it have towork, why why why???!!!!! ), and he was playing golf so give him a break.
so the first statement was how georgia is also responsible for being invaded by russia and the two countries need to figure it out. well, it turned out that's not really true, georgia didn't provoke. well, that's okay, some time later he had another statement - UN needs to press russia. unfortunately, his 150 foreign advisors might not know how to use the internet because they managed to forget that russia has UN veto powers. upsy. that's okay, finally Obama went with the obvious choice of stealing the statement from McCain, just rephrasing it a little bit. I think it all took about 3 days. Now, if this is how long it takes him to put together a statement about a crisis, one might wonder how long would it take to answer to one.

lets put this joke of a candidacy to an end, hopefully he won't come back again. his socialist agenda sends chills down my spine.
MCCAIN/PALIN '08

Posted by: monica | September 12, 2008 2:17 PM | Report abuse

"The liberal base of the Democratic party detests Palin in a visceral way and wants to destroy her, regardless of whether it is a sound political strategy or not."

What is this theory based on? I would certainly consider myself part of the liberal base of the Democratic party, but I don't want to "destroy" Sarah Palin. I just don't want her to be elected, and I think it's unfair that she and McCain can tell lies and claim bias when they're called on it. I think it's actually pretty funny that McCain spent all those months railing about celebrity without substance in regards to Obama, but now that he has the same on his ticket it's great and they should all be treated with deference. But it's not funny, it's sad that people are buying it.

Posted by: Deborah | September 12, 2008 2:17 PM | Report abuse

""Remember Caligula"

The Hon. James David Manning, PhD says Barack Obama is like the Roman President Caligula. Great Vid!"

Pretty funny how anti-education Repukes love to give people's academic credentials when it serves their purposes.

The freakish clown James Corsi PhD is another example. Harvard no less! LOL

Posted by: Spectator2 | September 12, 2008 2:17 PM | Report abuse

BHO's new tone might work, but the WaPo has its own role to play. The WaPo simply needs to crank up the lies and the smears:

http://24ahead.com/blog/archives/007978.html

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/09/kristol_the_washington_post_di.asp

C'mon, WaPo, Obama is counting on you!

Posted by: 24AheadDotCom | September 12, 2008 2:17 PM | Report abuse

What's the difference between a pit bull, a pig & Barack Obama?

I HATE BARACK OBAMA

He spent all spring running the sly sexist-smear bashing of Clinton
He spent all summer marginalizing Clinton

(did you get a big glow out of that 3 a.m. cell phone text message announcing Biden?)

He's launched a new proactive, assertive attack voice on the McCain-Palin ticket by declaring that McCain adding Palin to his ticket & calling that "change" is "lipstick on a pig" that "stinks like a fish".

What is the difference between a pig & Barack Obama?

The pig has guts you can make sausage with.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 12, 2008 2:16 PM | Report abuse

THE ONLY PIG ON A NATIONAL TICKET IS THE SEXIST PIG OBAMA
THE ONLY PIG ON A NATIONAL TICKET IS THE SEXIST PIG OBAMA
THE ONLY PIG ON A NATIONAL TICKET IS THE SEXIST PIG OBAMA
THE ONLY PIG ON A NATIONAL TICKET IS THE SEXIST PIG OBAMA
THE ONLY PIG ON A NATIONAL TICKET IS THE SEXIST PIG OBAMA
THE ONLY PIG ON A NATIONAL TICKET IS THE SEXIST PIG OBAMA
THE ONLY PIG ON A NATIONAL TICKET IS THE SEXIST PIG OBAMA
THE ONLY PIG ON A NATIONAL TICKET IS THE SEXIST PIG OBAMA

MELTDOWN
MELTDOWN
MELTDOWN
MELTDOWN
MELTDOWN
MELTDOWN

FAIL
FAIL
FAIL
FAIL
FAIL

IT'S ALL OVER FOR PIG LIPSTICK BOY

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 2:08 PM | Report abuse

The theme du jour is THE OBAMA GAFFE MACHINE

See my two below posts:

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 12, 2008 1:53 PM
Posted by: AsperGirl | September 12, 2008 1:52 PM

There is a reason why (1) Obama was dodging debates & townhalls, (2) why his solo "townhalls" were "invitation only", (3) why he doesn't really take Q from the press like normal candidates but is surrounded by "off limits" subject areas, (4) why he lost 23 debates over the course of a year and (5) why his shine began to fade when his ability to feed off large, scripted, teleprompter rallies was maxed out in early Spring.

Obama's a gaffe machine. He & his wife are constantly saying & doing over the top, inappropriate things that are unsuitable for a Head of State & First Lady.

If it weren't for the press ignoring reporting on all his gaffes & making excuses & covering up for him, & everyone pretending he doesn't exist in a media bubble, worse than the Bubble Boy in the White House, the public would be well aware of what inappropriate people Barack & Michelle Obama are for top exec couple of the U.S.

I predict that this attempt on his part will FAIL because he's still relying on the press too much, and the press is losing too much credibility now so that people aren't even paying much credence to its claims. If he wants to "prosecute" his case himself, he's going to have to be completely scripted and coordinated, and the McCain campaign can outwit him too easily.

Obama's too much of a gaffe-machine to prosecute the campaign in an assertive, proactive voice. He's an empty suit when scripted & an inappropriate gaffe machine when unscripted. He can't rely on Biden for same reason.

INAPPROPRIATE GAFFE MACHINE + DISCREDITED LYING MEDIA =
FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 12, 2008 2:03 PM | Report abuse

IF OBAMA HAS ANY HOPE FOR WINNING HE SHOULD ASK BIDEN TO BOW OUT AND HE SHOULD HAVE CLINTON JOIN HIS TICKET THEN MAYBE HE HAS A CHANCE.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 2:02 PM | Report abuse

McCain:

"Listen, mayors have the toughest job, I think, in America. It's easy for me to go to Washington and, frankly, be somewhat divorced from the day-to-day challenges people have."


Finally! Some frank and honest straight talk from the guy (McCain) who doesn't know how to use computers, owns eight homes, thinks "middle class" is anything under $5 million, thinks people suffering economically are whiners, and -- yes -- thinks that being the mayor of a town with 6,000 residents is somehow qualified to run the United States of America.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxT0s_I5WtA
.

Posted by: ZappoDave | September 12, 2008 2:00 PM | Report abuse

The Democrats need to get the truth out about Republican 'tinkle-down' economics, that pee on the average citizen.

Posted by: oldhonky | September 12, 2008 2:00 PM | Report abuse

all this time spend talking about different kind of politics and all they have been doing in the past few weeks is spreading lies and smears about palin, released 30 lawyers in alaska to dig some more, releasing all these negative ads, even about mccain's use of email (because that's an issue?), and the more Barack looks like an angry black man, the more he falls in the polls.

this is a reformed black man, now voting for MCCAIN/PALIN

Posted by: shawn | September 12, 2008 1:57 PM | Report abuse

WHAT IS THE DIFFERECE BETWEEN A JACKASS AND A PIG AND A MONKEY AND OBAMA-- NONE.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 1:56 PM | Report abuse

Alas, this columnist does not seem to know the meaning of the phrase "beg the question."

Posted by: David W. | September 12, 2008 1:54 PM | Report abuse

McCain's spokesperson is clueless when he scoffs at Obama bringing change. Look at the kinds of people who are attracted to Obama: younger, educated, science-savvy, enthically and culturally diverse -- real 21st century people. Look at McCain's people: older, whiter, more fearful and bellicose clinging to some 19th vision of America that never was. Obama IS the future. McCain IS the past.

Posted by: farnor | September 12, 2008 1:54 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA IS THE BIGGEST FRAUD THE WORLD HAS EVER SEEN. HE HAS NO EXPERIENCE. HE IS SO DUMB HE DIDN;T KNOW WHEN HE WENT ON LETTERMAN THAT MUSSHARAF IS NOT THE PRESIDENT OF PAKISTAN ANYMORE. HE CALLED PALIN A PIG. HE IS HIMSELF A MONKEY. HE SHOULD BE SLAPPED FOR THAT.

Posted by: tahirn | September 12, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

The fact that Obama, as he claims, CAN'T see what is wrong with his words, is worse than if he did see what is wrong with them and apologized.

WE DON'T NEED AN INAPPROPRIATE GAFFE-MACHINE-COUPLE
AS HEAD OF STATE & FIRST LADY CAUSING
INTERNATIONAL INCIDENTS

LOW-CLASS CLUELESS GAFFES OF
"THE INAPPROPRIATE OBAMAS"

On McCain adding Sarah Palin to his ticket & calling that "change":
“Lipstick on a pig” & "it smells like an old fish"

To Hillary saying I'm not as charming as he is: "You're likable enough" (smirk)

"Hold on sweetie"

Dismissing Hillary w/3 am cell phone text message announcing Biden

For the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country

America, my grandmother is a "Typical White Person"

Small town America: bitter and cling to religion and guns and antipathy toward people not like themselves

Surge was not a success (we lost the war)

Having an opinion about when a baby acquires rights: above my pay grade says "Constitutional Law Lecturer" Obama

Iran: a tiny country that cannot hurt us

I have visited 57 states in America

Behold the Obama Presidential Seal on my podium

I'll stop poverty, still rising seas, heal planet, redeem America from its ignorance

The Republicans will tell you not to vote for me because I don't look like the presidents on the dollar bills

The Republicans will tell you that I'm a Muslim

Americans: cynical, lazy, slobs, downright mean

Germans, I apologize for America

** Oh yeah, Head-of-State and First Lady material **

Michelle & Barack Obama may have spent a couple of years at Harvard decades ago, but they've spent the last 20 years sitting in the South Side Chicago Afrocentric-rant church of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Trinity Church, soaking up his political ideas about America & his social programming.

NOW THEY ARE TRASHY-GAFFE MACHINES

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 12, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

i want to know how come during all of his time in office, this "change agent" never pushed through ONE SINGLE BILL OR REFOM. not one!!! all this time in office, that we have been paying his bills, he didn't manage to CHANGE anything about our lives, not in state senate, and not on the hill.
what has he been doing? writing his memoirs, and then promoting his memoirs. and of course giving plenty of speeches about this much needed help in government - the same change that he never attempted. i guess crossing over the party lines and actually working towards a compromise never occurred to this change agent.
please help this country by getting all the extreme right and extreme left out of Congress. with his #1 liberal in the Senate label, Barack Obama should be the first one to go. And i'm not even gonna comment on presidency.
VOTE MCCAIN/PALIN '08

Posted by: steven | September 12, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

NEW FROM THE OBAMA 2008 LEXICON

PIGLIPSTICK (pig'-lip-stick)

1. (noun) a multibillion-dollar laser-guided, nuclear-tipped missile of the mid-21st century having a persistent radioactive payload that spread insidious, radioactive poisoning damage persistently after the initial impact event; named after the historic gaffe incident in which onetime American presidential candidate Barack Obama famously but slowly imploded after referring to his Republican opponent's addition of the first female Republican Vice Presidential candidate to the Republican national ticket as "lipstick on a pig" that "stinks like an old fish".

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 12, 2008 1:52 PM | Report abuse

"The Hon. James David Manning, PhD says Barack Obama is like the Roman President Caligula. Great Vid!"

LOL. Beyond ridiculous..but understandable given the lack of education among the Right.

George Bush was Caligula, if ever there was one. Spoiled brat of privileged family...and one who equally loved torture, though himself divine and possessed no moral core. Clueless as ever.

O tempora, O mores!

Obama remains to be seen. But Palin is surely Livia come alive.

Posted by: McRumi | September 12, 2008 1:51 PM | Report abuse

Milbrooks: Can you tell me how Obama's spending more and more billions on the environment, healthcare, unemployment benefits and driving the deficit to new heights will benefit the economy? I think that's the primary cause of our economic woes! At least with McCain I can expect some real budget-busting.

Posted by: Polknot | September 12, 2008 1:49 PM | Report abuse

We keep talking about pigs, why don't we talk about the scared monkey

Posted by: tahirn | September 12, 2008 1:49 PM | Report abuse

McCain has no honor, he is a two bit lying thug just like Bush and Cheney are:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioy90nF2anI
.


If the corporate media hadn't been carrying McCain's water for him for the last six months he'd already be out of this race:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c
.


McCain is a fraud just like Bush and Cheney are. If you want four more years of thuggery and incompetence then you should vote for him because that's what you'll get:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnb2IrsU1Cg
.

Posted by: Bush + McCain = "W"orthless | September 12, 2008 1:46 PM | Report abuse

Here a couple of questions I'd like some enlightened people to answer about Obama:

First, how does voting with the majority of the Democratic Party all the time qualify either as bi-partisan or a "change", let alone both?

Second, why is Obama calling McCain's ideas "lipstick on a pig" more substantive than McCain's response calling Obama "subtly sexist"?

Third, while shouting "ENOUGH" may be dramatic, how is it in any way substantive in terms of policy ideas that will improve our government?

Posted by: Redriver | September 12, 2008 1:45 PM | Report abuse

This is a letter to America the Land that I love with all my heart and soul. I must be the last true Independent voter in America. I am a 55-year-old person that still has “Common Sense” and I’m a “Straight Talking Person” to borrow a phase from Mr. McCain. A man that I once through was a “Straight Talker”, about all his love for this Country. You have let the RNC and the right wing of the party take over your mind and “Straight Talk”. All you want to do is divide this Country even more apart then it is right now, with all your “Stupid” negative Ads. All you want is to be a President of a “Divided America”. You and your “ Lipstick Pit Bull” are dividing this Country Further and Further apart with all your negative ads that don’t get to the heart of the matter. You still have that “Bush Cowboy Stupidity “ if you don’t believe in us, then you are on the wrong side that is against us.
Now for Mr. Obama you have impressed me with your talk. But you and the DNC with your left wing party are doing the same “Stupid Ads” like the McCain group. Please, please stop all the negative “Ads” and give the American people that have “Common Sense and Knowledge” that are not “ Ignorant, Stupid, and Redneck” Americans, that like the “Bush” years, as a person you would like to have a Beer and shoot the BS with. Please, please show some guts, I hope you “Both” have and show you can lead and bring this Country together in one of it’s worst times since World War II.
Like I said I’m 55 years old and that I have Contracted with Banks and Mortgage Companies for the last 12 years. The Banking and Mortgage Companies that I Contracted for didn’t listen to what I had to say, because they were more interested in making more money for them and their Investors. Now we are in deep “Caa Caa” with these Banks and Mortgage Companies. I know I’m not the only one that told those Companies that they are going to have problems with their lending practices. Now for My “Straight Talk” I’ve been Blacklisted for being too Old or too Experienced and Knowledgeable of the Industry. I have been out of work for 18 months. Please, please all I want, is that I hope that you Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama stop all those “Negative Ads” and try to show some “Leadership” and bring this Country together to make it a strong Nation again.

Posted by: gjhardtimes | September 12, 2008 1:45 PM | Report abuse

obama is so unqualified it is scary, he has no judgement, no experience and he has no family background or family history of service or love for our country. he is a phony joke. It is unbelievable that he is the democratic candidate. I gave money to Hillary but I will give my vote to mccain/Palin.

Posted by: Tahirn | September 12, 2008 1:44 PM | Report abuse

Obama has to hit back hard or the Dems lose.

Here is how I suggest he follow up the recent phony 'lipstick on a pig' fight that John McCain chose to start.

If they want to play that way, here is how Dems can respond to the 'queen of pork.'
http://scootmandubious.blogspot.com/2008/09/if-revlon-fits.html

Hey, if the Revlon fits.....

Posted by: scootmandubious | September 12, 2008 1:43 PM | Report abuse

The Democrats need to get the truth out about Republican 'tinkle-down' economics, that pee on the average citizen.

Posted by: oldhonky | September 12, 2008 1:43 PM | Report abuse

He has "changed" on every other thing he said. why not this?

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 12, 2008 1:37 PM | Report abuse

McCain has voted with the resident retard over 90% of the time. How is that Change?

Republicans for Obama/Biden

Posted by: dennis | September 12, 2008 1:33 PM | Report abuse

"Remember Caligula"

The Hon. James David Manning, PhD says Barack Obama is like the Roman President Caligula. Great Vid!

http://mccain08-hillary2012.blogspot.com/2008/09/black-minister-compares-obama-to.html

Posted by: Revenge of the PUMAs | September 12, 2008 1:28 PM | Report abuse

THIS ISN'T FUNNY, IT'S SCARY AS H#LL!

THIS WOMAN IS SO UNQUALIFIED AND CLUELESS THAT IT'S SCARY TO THINK WHAT HER AND GRAMPY WARMONGER MCCAIN WOULD DO IF THEY WERE TO HAPPEN TO GET ELECTED!


Last week, Palin said she didn't know what the Vice President does every day.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4gkPXSDtGQ
.


This week, she has no idea what the President has been doing for the last eight years.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgMWhrCzbdk
.


I thought Gibson was remarkably poised for not laughing in her face.


"In what respect?" That's not even a valid delaying question. There's no other "respect" in which the question can be cast! Do you agree with the doctrine or not?


You can't parse that question. You can shade your answer, but you can't parse the question. Gibson was nearly struck dumb by how easily and quickly she revealed her total ignorance.


Last week she didn't know what the VP did all day. This week, she doesn't know what the President has been doing for eight years.


"In what respect, Charlie?"


I haven't seen a newscaster so dumbfounded by a question since "What's the frequency, Kenneth?"


Posted by: McCain = Bush's third term | September 12, 2008 1:24 PM | Report abuse

People vote for the top of the ticket. Wasting time and resources on Palin is just playing into the McCain camp's hands.

Posted by: shza | September 12, 2008 1:17 PM | Report abuse

Bismon,

So Obama gives it to you straight. I have visited the Obama web site and read his policy statements. I do see a man who has many ideas (many are good), but I do not think he has connected his proposals together. What I see is a laundry list of programs, which are sure to cost much more than he realizes or lets on.

I see that he proposes to make the tax code simpler and fairer; however, he also turns around and offers numerous tax credits in various other programs to individuals. So he is going to offer additional tax credits without any qualifications? How is he going to offer more credits and a simpler tax code? Somehow a man who has never run a large bureaucracy is going to step into a job and know how to streamline the process. I guess he got an advanced copy of “Bureaucracy for Dummies.” How many presidents with far superior experiences than him have tried and failed to simplify the tax code. Yet he will do it and not only that he will save us 2 billion dollars in tax fillings (where has he been).

His stimulus package which is also linked to energy programs is going to sock it to big oil with higher taxes…I wonder who will be paying for that…it will not be big oil. He wants to infuse another 50 billion to stimulate the economy yet how will 50 billion dollars stimulate a 13.8 billion dollar economy? At best it will be a psychological effect, and if that’s true the economy is really not in bad shape.

When I read his proposals I have to chuckle since science and engineering advance because he says it will or his proposal says it will. I realize he is an inexperience person who has read an article (at least he does read compare to our current President) on a topic that touts more then it can deliver yet he does not have the comprehension to see the pit falls. Having worked in industry and now academia rarely have I seen a field deliver all that it promises it will. I remember the hype of interferon’s with cancer treatment, genome discovery with new pharmaceutical drugs, and plants as replacement for oil feedstock. While the book is still out on genome and plant substitution, they have not delivered as they were billed. Yet some how I am suppose to suspend judgment on a man who has jumped from job to job before getting anything really accomplished.

His claim of being bipartisan is just that a claim. He has never crossed his party and he typically votes with his party. The few times he has worked on bipartisan issues were typically issues both parties agreed on (not really sticking his neck out is he). One of the hall marks of Obama is his ethics reform yet he walked away from one of the most contentious bipartisan ethic reform packages (campaign finance reform). Did he walk away because the law was flawed (as of Feb 2007 he said the system worked) no he knew he was going to have a big advantage over his R challenger pure and simple (great ethics). Obama’s history of challenge his party is non-existent even though his base is Chicago. Let’s be honest Chicago is hardly known for its honesty in politics. What Obama offers is Hope that he will be different than what his resume currently offers. I actually find Obama’s speeches inspiring but devoid of content. His acceptance speech did have content but it was the same old D party line of programs (nothing bipartisan).

I think both candidates are rather weak and flawed. I would vote for McCain if I could trust he was the same McCain of 2000. A lot changes in 8 years.

Posted by: sltiowa | September 12, 2008 1:15 PM | Report abuse

Chris is wrong, this isn't a game of chess. And if Obama thinks it is he will lose. To keep the metaphor, Obama needs to swipe all of the chess pieces off the board and once again say "ENOUGH!!!"

This election comes down to one simple question: will Obama stand up and claim the change mantle that he has been championing or will he let it fly away back into the vapors. It is time to take the conceptual into the actual; not through policy proposals but by standing and saying "ENOUGH!!" to the BS of McCain and to forcefully (not forcibly) take our country in a new direction. He actually needs to do this before the election in order to win the election.

Posted by: Peninsula Matt | September 12, 2008 1:15 PM | Report abuse

I don't think you have been paying attention, Obama has the highest numbers he has ever had and this month raised 60 million dollars the most he has ever raised. Obama is in fact just cruising pretty much as he has been with a solid base of support. What has happened is Mccain has surged and will have to keep it up if he is to win. The problem is for Mccain he can't, no one ever does. Even Batman after the big opening soon becomes just another movie. This is no different since you are dealing with the fickle public who will tear you down as fast as they build you up. Obama has already gone through that up and down and is in his own groove now. The Palin gimmick will wear thin soon then Mccain falls back to where he was. You don't win with gimmicks. You may get some attention but it never lasts. Obama is very safe in his current position.

========
OBAMA HAS PEAKED--ITS NOW CRASH AND BURN

Obama has peaked. Americans realize The Obama has no clothes. And The Obama can't get experience or morality in 50 days.

The article notes:

""What is becoming clear to the American people is the fact that Barack Obama has no record of bipartisan legislative accomplishment, no history of bucking his party and no chance of bringing change," Bounds said."

RESPONSE: Gov. Palin should hold up a blank sheet of paperand say

"I asked my staff to send me a complete list of OBAMA's leadership qualifications."

"I was upset. I told them they must have sent the wrong side."

"I called them and they said no--OBAMA is a blank page !!" (hold up blank page)

The Obama campaigns new theme song "Burn baby burn"

Posted by: JaxMax | September 12, 2008 12:57 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 1:14 PM | Report abuse

razorback asks
"In 33 years of Sen. Biden's career, can anyone name any issue that he bucked his own party on, OTHER than the time he helped big credit card companies that his son lobbies for?"

Razorback, you only have to buck the party when your party is wrong on the issues.

I wish Obama would run an add that says: Vote for me because the Democrats have been right on every issue for the past 33 years."

McCains small lead would become a large lead.

Posted by: Razorback | September 12, 2008 1:13 PM | Report abuse

bsimon, are you so stupid to think that taxing employers helps increase wages and jobs? Are you so stupid to think that increasing taxes on people who sell things doesn't find its way into the prices of what they are selling?

Posted by: Razorback | September 12, 2008 1:11 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA'S ENEMIES LIST

President Nixon and the Clintons maintain "ENEMIES LIST"

So lets look at who may be helping Obama crash and burn...

1. American voters who have woke up and realize Obama has no clothes and we may be at war or attacked soon.

Obama?? Seriously....

2. Republicans--he is the opposing team

3. Hillary Clinton--there is no 2012 for Hillary if the Obama wins.

Machiavelli would recommend precisely her strategy-campaign for Obama while knifing him in the back.

Michelle Obama is wrong about just about everything but she has Hillary sized up right.

4. Rev. Jesse Jackson--if there is a new Messiah in town who need him? No more corporate shakedowns.

5. Obama's teleprompter--since The Obama is inerrant all his Stuck on Stupid remarks MUSTbe due to teleprompter error.

All it not lost for The Obama--he is making substantial inroads among Sexist Bigots..........

Posted by: JaxMax | September 12, 2008 1:10 PM | Report abuse

razorback asks
"In 33 years of Sen. Biden's career, can anyone name any issue that he bucked his own party on, OTHER than the time he helped big credit card companies that his son lobbies for?"

Razorback, you only have to buck the party when your party is wrong on the issues.

That's why McCain bucked his party on the irresponsible Bush tax cuts (McCain has since flip-floppped).

That's why McCain bucked his party on illegal immigrant amnesty (McCain has since flip-flopped).

That's why McCain bucked his party on campaign finance reform (McCain is now ignoring the spirit of the law).

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 1:10 PM | Report abuse

Chris has a point.

We who are liberals, and have served, do want to destroy Palin.

Gone are the days of liberals sitting back and playing by the rules.

Go for the throat is what we WILL do now.

It's a shame the media, however, have turned into such wusses that they are unwilling to do their JOBS and ask the HARD QUESTIONS that ANY VP candidate is ALWAYS asked.

Not just once. But over and over until they are answered.

In public.

MAN UP, MEDIA.

Posted by: Will in Seattle | September 12, 2008 1:08 PM | Report abuse

The real problem with Obama is that they ran the primary as if they had nothing to lose. Hillary would screech about Bush and Obama would talk about change and promise a new kind of politics. This is what beat the Clinton machine and money.

Once the nomination was secure, all of that changed. They thought the election was won and started playing not to lose, rather than to win. Their message changed from a new kind of politics to the same old politics. They had a huge lead and changed how they were doing things. The lead has been shrinking ever since.

They are running in a way that contradicts there very thing that people liked about their candidate.

Posted by: Razorback | September 12, 2008 1:08 PM | Report abuse

Let Palin implode over ethics. Too many women relate to her--it would be suicide to attack her aggressively and have the McCain camp screaming sexism for the rest of the campaign.

Posted by: scapster | September 12, 2008 1:07 PM | Report abuse

I am curious to know exactly what can they do to Palin that they haven't already?

They said, the fact that she hasn't had an abortion is her only qualification.

They said that she had faked her own pregnancy to cover for Bristol's pregnancy.

They accused her of cutting funding on teen pregnancy.

They accused her of banning books.

They accused her of wanting to teach creationism in school.

They accused her of having had an affair.

They said, her biggest hypocrisy is in claiming she is a woman.

Someone called her a cocky wacko.

They have been hitting her on the trooper issue.

They have been trying to say she was not the one who killed the Bridge to Nowhere.

They accused her of not believing in global warming.

They have been trying hard to discount her claim of making spending cuts.

They called her lipstick on a pig.

They accused her of regarding Iraq as a holy war.

They accused her of claiming Saddam was responsible for 9/11.

Not all of this came from the Obama campaign but does it matter who the source is? These are all items that have made it to the mainstream media. That's how I know.

So, what exactly can they say and do that they haven't already? What?

Moderate democrats and independents need to ask themselves: people who set out with such cruel smears - all within a week or so - what good can they do for the country?

Posted by: UM | September 12, 2008 1:05 PM | Report abuse

(to fix typo, a repost:)

To muD:

You miss the point.

Don't attack Palin -- attack McCAIN for choosing a neophyte with extreme views that do not comport even to his own.

Bad judgment. Hypocrisy. For more years of the same.

That's what the Obama camp should attack, not Palin.

Your apologia is transparent. You HOPE they don't question McCain's judgment for such a reckless decision (if it really was solely his decision in the end...)

Posted by: scrivener | September 12, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

"People are aware of Obama's tax plan. Its just that they have figured out that if you tax the hell out of their employer, it doesn't help their wages. If you tax the hell of out everyone who they purchase consumer products from, it makes consumer prices go up."

And if you lie about the opposition's tax policy, people call you a liar. And if you lie about your own record, people call you a liar. And if you're ignorant of the most basic issues faced by the country at a national level, people call you unqualified. You can complain about being 'attacked', but the truth is the voters want people in office who know what they're talking about. People want candidates that give it to them straight, rather than lying about the other guy.

Posted by: bsimon | September 12, 2008 1:02 PM | Report abuse

In 33 years of Sen. Biden's career, can anyone name any issue that he bucked his own party on, OTHER than the time he helped big credit card companies that his son lobbies for?

Posted by: Razorback | September 12, 2008 1:01 PM | Report abuse

GOV. PALIN SHOULD NOT PLAY THE MEDIA'S GAME

Gov. Palin should IGNORE the liberal media and only give speeches or direct contact with voters.

This will have NO adverse effects on her--this Helicopter strategy (in Honor of Ronald Reagan avoiding pesky reporters by having Marine 1 engines revved up) since the liberal media are recognized as biased and are even less popular than the IRS.

When you go to a Fair or Carnival there will usually be a Guessing Both.

The vendor claims he can guess your age or weight etc or you win a prize.

If he guesses right you have lost, he keeps your $3 ticket.

But what many people do not realize is that if you win-you get a toy that costs 75 cents.You would NEVER pay $3 for the trinket.
You LOSE when you play their game--the only question is HOW MUCH.

Gov. Palin has nothing to gain by talking to the liberal media, and she can IGNORE them at no cost.

No weapon against Gov. Palin shall prosper.....

Posted by: Jax Max | September 12, 2008 1:00 PM | Report abuse

To muD:

You miss the point.

Don't attack Palin -- attack McCAIN for choosing a neophyte with extreme views that do not comport even to his own.

But judgment. Hypocrisy. For more years of the same.

That's what the Obama camp should attack, not Palin.

Your apologia is transparent. You HOPE they don't question McCain's judgment for such a reckless decision (if it really was solely his decision in the end...)

Posted by: scrivener | September 12, 2008 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Obama should also bring up Social Security, and how he will fix it, in order to reach the over 55 year olds. This is a demographic that should be higher for a democrat.

What he could state truthfully is that had persons invested in stocks in privatized Social Security under the Bush plan they would have lost 15% of their money in the last year.

If you wanted to be edgier, you could say that some people could make it up by taking more money out of their several houses.

Posted by: Bill | September 12, 2008 1:00 PM | Report abuse

McCain doesn't talk about it and Palin does because McCain is a father and Palin is a mother, STUPID.

Posted by: Razorback | September 12, 2008 12:59 PM | Report abuse

Baracky Hussein Obama has an extremely liberal Senate voting record - he cannot run and hide from that fact.

Democrats for John McCain and Sarah Palin in 2008

Posted by: Miguel | September 12, 2008 12:59 PM | Report abuse

It's not "visceral hatred," Chris. I think many, even on the left, genuinely like Governor Palin, but even of you are fond of her you should not be ashamed to admit that she is in way over her head. That being said, I think she is a better presidential candidate than McCain. Whatever her views, wacky or naive, at least she sticks to them and doesn't talk out of two sides of her mouth.

I think that the truth-squadding has worked, definitely in The Fix. Even Asspergirl has been brought to heel.

Posted by: bondjedi | September 12, 2008 12:59 PM | Report abuse

Government Reform, McCain style:

Nominate a running mate who's trying to shut down the investigation in an abuse-of-power case.

"I'm all about clean government, except when it refers to me."

Posted by: bsimon | September 12, 2008 12:58 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA HAS PEAKED--ITS NOW CRASH AND BURN

Obama has peaked. Americans realize The Obama has no clothes. And The Obama can't get experience or morality in 50 days.

The article notes:

""What is becoming clear to the American people is the fact that Barack Obama has no record of bipartisan legislative accomplishment, no history of bucking his party and no chance of bringing change," Bounds said."

RESPONSE: Gov. Palin should hold up a blank sheet of paperand say

"I asked my staff to send me a complete list of OBAMA's leadership qualifications."

"I was upset. I told them they must have sent the wrong side."

"I called them and they said no--OBAMA is a blank page !!" (hold up blank page)

The Obama campaigns new theme song "Burn baby burn"

Posted by: JaxMax | September 12, 2008 12:57 PM | Report abuse

Ever wonder why Mccain never talks about his son in Iraq? Not because he is being humble, it is because you never identify a solider, who they are with or where they are deploied. For prominent people like politicians it is even more important. It puts everyone in danger who a around that person. You saw the same thing with the prince in Britain they had to actually bring him home.

So now we had this ditz Palin doing a public event around her some and his whole group. Even publishing this:

Private 1st Class Track Palin, is being deployed with 4,000 soldiers of the Stryker Brigade Combat Team of the 25th Infantry Division.

This woman doesn't even no the most basic thing about being in command of anything. So now that everyone has her sons picture and knows where he is going, what happens if we have a nice video of him having his head cut off on camera? Or his whole squad get killed as they are trying to kill or capture him? Think she will be sorry for being so stupid? I actually don't know what to say, this is just short of treason it is so stupid. What next, she is going to tell us where Mccains son is? Maybe some nice infor on our troop strengths and where they are. Good going Palin you pig, you don't have a F'n clue.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 12:56 PM | Report abuse

People are aware of Obama's tax plan. Its just that they have figured out that if you tax the hell out of their employer, it doesn't help their wages. If you tax the hell of out everyone who they purchase consumer products from, it makes consumer prices go up.

Silly liberals only measure the initial impact of taxes, not the secondary impact of the taxes as they move through the economy.

Posted by: Razorback | September 12, 2008 12:56 PM | Report abuse

In the nineties, the right was so enraged by anything Clinton did they couldn't think straight and that hurt them politically. Up until the end of August President Bush did the same thing to the left. Now Palin is fulfilling that role. I'm glad to see the Obama campaign remembers the race is between Obama and McCain, not Obama and Palin, and that the economy and energy prices are the major motivators of the electorate.

Attacking Palin is lose-lose. People, or independent voters who are still making up their minds, like her. They will not appreciate a character assassination. Attacking Bush-McCain-Palin on their public policies is how you win a race. For example: Bush ran on a humble foreign policy but gave us an arrogant one. McCain was against the tax cuts for the wealthy that have hurt our economy, but now they are his only economic plan. Palin was for the bridge to nowhere until Congress said she couldn't build it, only when it was dead was she against it, but she kept the money anyway. American cannot afford four more years of broken promises and half-truths.

That fits in thirty seconds and keeps with the more of the same theme. It concentrates on their record, leaves any whiff of the personal out of it and most importantly it attacks their perceived strengths of telling truth to power. Tie all three of them and their lies together, there is plenty of material in the public record on lobbyists, taxes and foreign policy to fill an entire series of commercials.

Posted by: muD | September 12, 2008 12:52 PM | Report abuse

Its the EMAIL, stupid. Brilliant.

Posted by: Razorback | September 12, 2008 12:52 PM | Report abuse

The Lords of Compassion strike again:

"For 2007, Mr. Biden and his wife Jill paid taxes of $66,273 on an adjusted gross income of $319,853 in 2007. Their income included $71,000 in royalties, presumably from his book. They had $62,954 in deductions, including $995 in gifts to charities and $38,712 in interest payments."

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/12/biden-releases-tax-returns/

Joe Biden, struggling to make ends meet on only $300,000, managed to give about .3 % of his income to charitable purposes.

Yesterday, Obama was lecturing us all about how we should help our neighbor and be generous with our time and money. Perhaps he should have that conversation with Joe Biden in private.

Posted by: Razorback | September 12, 2008 12:52 PM | Report abuse

IT SHOULD BE 'THE ECONOMY, STUPID.'

JUST LIKE IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN 2000 and 2004.

BUT MEDIA-DRIVEN PERSONALITY POLITICS NOW RULE.

• So Barack should return to the 'judgment' argument and bash McCain over Palin


By dint of the Palin nomination, The McCain campaign has succeeded in captivating a personality-obsessed media that's easily distracted from things they don't understand (like THE ECONOMY, stupid!).

They have turned the election into a referendum on Barack Obama, a fact that is complicated by Obama's background, his associations, and his own lack of experience in the executive arena.

(The Palin pick, as has been noted, makes it more difficult for the McCain camp to attack Barack on the experience issue.)

But McCain left himself wide open to attack on the judgment issue when he passed over seasoned hands and chose to put Sarah Palin a potential heartbelt away from the presidency.

The American electorate has a sad history of voting against its own economic self-interest in presidential elections. That's why Obama's campaign MUST mount an assault on McCain's selection of Sarah Palin:

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/obama-rip-mccain-his-reckless-palin-pick-get-political-w-vic-livingston

Posted by: scrivener | September 12, 2008 12:45 PM | Report abuse

The new Magoo/Palin Axis of Evil:

1. Russia
2. Iran
3. FactCheck.org

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 12:43 PM | Report abuse

Obama should do what Bill Clinton did to Bush I: show he is out of touch with the economy. Bush I did not acknowledge we were in a recession, even though Clinton pushed him on it; Clinton kept hammering away that we were and that Bush I was both clueless and unwilling to do anything about it.

McCain's 8/20/08 statement that the economy is good is probably enough...but I would be hounding him more and showing that you have a plan centered on tax cuts for those less than $250k (killing to birds with one stone, because people are unaware of Obamas tax plan.

Second, despite how tempting it will be, I would not go into mudslinging. This is a trap. It is contrary to your message that you can work across the aisle.

Instead, I would say that McCain has engaged in the same old Bush politics...and then follow up with commercials about how false the ads have been, from third party sources.

To clinch this point, I would run ads narrated by unemployed workers who voted for Bush based on similar ads and have them tell how they regretted their decision--like 80% of the US--and that they would not be fooled again. Four more years is not acceptable.

I would also use humor in attacking or responding. Humor is viral and memorable. Many of today's commercials rely on humor. Responding to an attack with humor can be very powerful. Now, tying humor to a substative message might be difficult but it's doable.

I would try to associate Obama to issue oriented candidates--like JFK--and associate McCain with the tactics of Bush and Nixon. (Perhaps playing a clip of McCain complaining about Bush's tactics which he is now using).

Finally, I would keep playing the clip where Palin says she doesn't know what a VP does, and I would have Biden critique her foreign policy interview with ABC.

Posted by: Bill | September 12, 2008 12:42 PM | Report abuse

You're stupid, Karen. It is obvious, to not only a middle-schooler, but a five year-old, that Obama is referring to the fact the McCain is running to serve a third Bush term.

I mean, McCain not only voted for Bush, twice, but he campaigned everywhere in America for him. And now he wants to say he's a 'maverick' (whatever that means).

And just look at who McCain's advisers are: they're all Bush people. More of the same, truly!


.
.


.

Posted by: el_barto | September 12, 2008 12:42 PM | Report abuse

re: what Karen said: "...everyone knows Bush isn't running..."
_______________________________________

You're taking that all too literally. Yes, everyone knows Bush is not running again, but McCain is - and he's running on many of Bush's platform and ideas.

To many minds, this is like continuing another third term of Bush.

Posted by: wolf | September 12, 2008 12:41 PM | Report abuse

"The liberal base of the Democratic party detests Palin in a visceral way and wants to destroy her, regardless of whether it is a sound political strategy or not."


When asked if the US should invade Russia over Georgia, Palin answered: "possibly so, yes"


I think she's doing a great job of destroying herself already!


.
.

Posted by: el_barto | September 12, 2008 12:35 PM | Report abuse

Obama's Bush/McCain is just so dumb. He is a freakin' professor, everyone knows Bush isn't running. It is stupid and silly. It makes him looks like a middle schooler. McCain is waiting to run against THE most unpopular congress --more than unpopular than Bush. Grow up, Obama.

Posted by: Karen | September 12, 2008 12:35 PM | Report abuse

The Fix writes
"The liberal base of the Democratic party detests Palin in a visceral way and wants to destroy her, regardless of whether it is a sound political strategy or not."

That sounds pretty harsh. Is it a 'visceral hatred' of her personally? Or is it shock at the gall of the McCain campaign's willingness to nominate someone who's such a clear neophyte on national issues?

Posted by: bsimon | September 12, 2008 12:34 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA'S EMAIL PROBLEM: KEEPING IN TOUCH WITH HOLLYWOOD STRUGGLING MILLIONAIRES> JOHN McCAIN WILL BE FIGHTING FOR AMERICA. JOBS, ENERGY INDEPENDENCE, AFFORDABLE COLLEGE TUITION, BETTER PUBLIC SCHOOLS. OBAMA CAN TAKE CARE OF HOLLYWOOD.

(from politico)

Sen. Barack Obama’s go-to Hollywood hottie is Scarlett Johansson, a starlet who trades frequent e-mails with the presumptive Democratic nominee, campaigns tirelessly on his behalf, hosts lucrative fundraisers and even appeared in that “Yes We Can” viral video that got 10 million views in its first week online.
She e-mailed him after some of the Democratic debates, offering her thoughts on his messages and performance. “After the silliness of the last ABC debate,” she said of the highly criticized event co-hosted by Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, she wrote to congratulate him on “holding his ground.”

His replies have been thoughtful, she said, more than a brief line or two; on the ABC debate, he responded that the questioning was “difficult” and he was being pounded on “one silly question after another.”

Johansson is somewhat shocked that he keeps up their back-and-forth correspondence. “You’d imagine that someone like the senator who is constantly traveling and constantly ‘on’ — how can he return these personal e-mails?” she asks. “But he does, and in his off-time I know he also calls people who have donated the minimum to thank them. Nobody sees it, nobody talks about it, but it’s incredible.” She adds, “I feel like I’m supporting someone, and having a personal dialogue with them, and it’s amazing.”

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 12:33 PM | Report abuse

Obama is in a tough position - he has a message of change but no record of change. As the debate centers on who can better initiate change, he has very few specifics to point to, where McCain has a large number of major pieces of legislation. So Obama must keep trying to paint a compelling picture of *future* change that is based on major policy specifics, especially health care and his plans for tax cuts for most income levels.

The left-field selection of Palin greatly reinforces the idea that McCain will bring an unexpected twist to the White House. Which is one reason Obama should stop the "McCain is the same" mantra - he's so obviously a different guy that this generalized argument is going to fall flat. Focus on specific policies (many of which ARE similar between McCain and Bush), because every time you attack Bush, it just gives many people the impression you're dodging a straight-up fight with McCain. It looks evasive (and sort of is).

Posted by: John McGlothlin | September 12, 2008 12:33 PM | Report abuse

Let’s see – today’s headlines…
BusinessWeek, Best and Worst Case Economic Scenarios: “…Away from Wall Street, the mood is glum. Douglas S. Bartlett, owner of Bartlett Manufacturing, a maker of printed-circuit boards in Cary, Ill., says competition from China has forced him to cut employment nearly two-thirds since 2000, to 87. He hasn't felt any reprieve from the dollar's recent depreciation against China's currency. Says Bartlett: "Fortunately for us, there's been enough of our competitors going out of business that we're able to pick up their work."

Peter Schiff, president of Euro Pacific Capital: “The dollar is going to go through the floor, interest rates are going to spike up, and we're going to have a complete financial meltdown…”

Retail sales unexpectedly drop in August

“NXP Semiconductors BV said Friday it will close or sell four plants, including one in New York state, and cut 4,500 jobs, or 14.5 percent of its global work force.”

“Banks borrowed more over the past week from the Federal Reserve's emergency lending program, while Wall Street firms took a pass for the sixth week in a row…”

“As Britain endures its gloomiest economic times since the early 1990s, people across the country are making often-painful adjustments in the face of relentlessly grim economic news…”

Trading in SAS shares halted in Stockholm

Beleaguered Lehman racing to find buyer

Investors Walk Out of Rescue Plan Talks

And it goes on and on and on. It’s the economy, stupid! And the economy is in the tank and is showing every sign of completely collapsing, taking the government with it. McCain’s economic policy amounts to doing the very same things that landed us in this present disaster. AsperGirl, one of those wealthy Wall Street investors, thinks she is somehow immune from all of this, but she is merely being delusional. Actually, anyone who thinks we can survive a McCain Presidency is merely fooling themselves. A vote for McCain amounts to undermining this country, it is treason.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | September 12, 2008 12:21 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company