Advertise here: Contact FM.


Palin, pancakes, and the straight talk express
September 14, 2008 5:32 AM   RSS feed for this thread Subscribe

Have the wheels come off the straight talk express? At least one sleeping giant woke up today: the NYT finally gives Sarah Palin a thorough vetting and the results aren't pretty. The McCain campaign's aggressive - and many say dishonest - tactics in promoting Palin may have sparked the beginnings of a media backlash. Camp McCain's reaction: We don't care and intend to stay on offense. And about that offense, they will soon have some help: Group With Swift Boat Alumni Readies Ads Attacking Obama. How low will things go? At this week's Values Voters Summit, 'Obama Waffles' with racial stereotypes were all the rage.
posted by madamjujujive (1755 comments total) 58 users marked this as a favorite

The white war hero would never tell a lie. He has too much Honortm.
posted by billysumday at 5:44 AM on September 14, 2008 [10 favorites has favorites]


The flat out lie approach to politicking seems to be a new one, even for a presidential election.

Unfortunately it seems to be working.

What a mess.
posted by Lord_Pall at 5:45 AM on September 14, 2008


Yay McCain! He lifted an overturned truck off a trapped baby many years ago–THAT BABBY WAS ME!!!11!

Also he has eerie mind powers.

On a serious note, what's the deal with emigrating to the Netherlands? Is there a height requirement?
posted by Mister_A at 5:51 AM on September 14, 2008 [4 favorites has favorites]


Someone should ask Lou Dobbs if his wife really did love the waffles.

Oddly enough, the Lou Dobbs post disappeared from the waffle makers' blog shortly after Think Progress originally reported on it. Highly specific and coincidental server failure, I guess.
posted by maudlin at 6:00 AM on September 14, 2008 [4 favorites has favorites]


Meh.
posted by JohnnyGunn at 6:01 AM on September 14, 2008


So, I went to Drudge this morning, also Google news...guess the rest of the news media hasn't noticed the Time article yet.
posted by konolia at 6:01 AM on September 14, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


Good.
These vile people need to be driven forcefully back into the darkness, and barring that into the sea.

I want her to slink back to the hole she snarked her way out of and spend tending to nothing more pressing than whether to let the liquor stores stay open a little longer during nightday.

Put them on their heels and dont let up.
posted by Senor Cardgage at 6:02 AM on September 14, 2008 [6 favorites has favorites]


spend the rest of her days that was sposed to read.
posted by Senor Cardgage at 6:02 AM on September 14, 2008


From this AP article:
"But in the last two election cycles, the very notion that the facts matter seems to be under assault," said Michael X. Delli Carpini, an authority on political ads at the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg School for Communication. "Candidates and their consultants seem to have learned that as long as you don't back down from your charges or claims, they will stick in the minds of voters regardless of their accuracy or at a minimum, what the truth is will remain murky, a matter of opinion rather than fact."
posted by davar at 6:04 AM on September 14, 2008 [4 favorites has favorites]


Meanwhile, Obama is floundering and can't raise enough money -- oh, wait.

Senator Barack Obama raised $66 million in the month of August, making it his best month ever and the best in American political history, an aide said Sunday morning. ...

An Obama aide said the campaign added 500,000 new donors to its rolls in August. The new figure -- shattering his previous record of $55 million -- also demonstrates how the increasingly heated, nasty race has energized Obama's fundraising, and raises expectations that he will raise that much or more in the next two months.

posted by maudlin at 6:05 AM on September 14, 2008 [5 favorites has favorites]


Why doesn't Barrack Obama lie more often?
This is exactly what's so puzzling about Obama's strategy — why is he paying any attention to the fact-checkers? So far, McCain has seen little blowback from lying. Polls show that he's perceived as more "honest and trustworthy" than Obama and that the public believes his claim that Obama would raise taxes on the middle class. When MediaCurves showed the Obama-called-Palin-a-pig ad to a focus group of women, many came out thinking that Barack Obama had a gender bias.
posted by madamjujujive at 6:11 AM on September 14, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


There are no lies, just many truths.
posted by mattoxic at 6:16 AM on September 14, 2008


I hope that the American electorate has finally had enough of being taken for granted as mindless and spineless, and I hope that we have learned to see through the ridiculous double-speak of our politicians, where "straight talk" means carefully crafted public statements, clandestine policy meetings, and paranoiac control over public information. The question I am fairly certain we will hear from Sen. Obama, while he may paraphase it, is this: "Are you better off today than you were eight years ago?" There is no getting around that obvious answer, and there is no way for the Republican party to disavow responsibility for the dreadful state of this country. That is the question that won the election in 1980, and may well turn this year's election. Obama is smart, and he will get on the stump and remind the voters that voting for the elephants brought the disasters of the last eight years.
posted by Mister_A at 6:16 AM on September 14, 2008 [2 favorites has favorites]


Oh joy. If the national campaign is going to head to the bottom like this, I can't wait to see what bile the local party droids are going to roll-out "unofficially".
posted by Thorzdad at 6:17 AM on September 14, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


Why doesn't Barrack Obama lie more often?

Because that's not the campaign he's running, and I respect him for it.
posted by graventy at 6:18 AM on September 14, 2008 [12 favorites has favorites]


Alaska rallies against Sarah Palin.
posted by madamjujujive at 6:22 AM on September 14, 2008 [6 favorites has favorites]


Pretty weak stuff, that Times piece. The Times supports the Obama campaign not be directly influencing voters -- no swing voters actually read it -- but by trying to create pro-Obama story-lines for the television news that swing voters do see. Television news has already decided that their viewers like Palin. They could undecide that, of course, but it would take more than this sort of inside-baseball to make that move.

I doubt that the Times doesn't recognize this, which is why they dumped the story so early. I'm sure they're devoting a lot more time to figuring out how Obama will be best served by the big Keating 5 piece, the big how-nasty-is-the-Arizona-beer-business piece, and the create-internecine-conflict piece on the nasty things McCain has said about Bush and social conservatives.

As it should be, McCain's strategy needs to be to ignore it all and keep directing polite fire on Obama while third parties direct the more impolite fire. Television news likes a winner, and as long as Obama keeps weak, they won't pile on McCain the way the Times would like.
posted by MattD at 6:23 AM on September 14, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


I hope that the American electorate isn't actually mindless and spineless. I fear it may be.

Both sides have spent a long time picking on John Kerry and Al Gore for what worthless, wimpy candidates they were. We're beginning to do the same with Obama. Here's the problem: The American people made the wrong decision. They chose the worse candidate in 2000, and for poor reasons. Then they did it again.

The collective thought process of our nation is chaotic, gut-level, poorly reasoned. I accept it at a root level that there is some core wisdom in the American electorate, that truth will out and the good guys will win someday. But what if it isn't true? What if Gore and Kerry weren't wine-sipping nancy boys and brainiacs but were actually good people who lost to worse ones?

I think of Obama as the best presidential candidate of my lifetime. Democrats are rushing to be the first in line to be ashamed of him.
posted by argybarg at 6:25 AM on September 14, 2008 [18 favorites has favorites]


oh, look
posted by pyramid termite at 6:26 AM on September 14, 2008


Speaking of TV, you'll know that Obama is well and truly toast if Oprah is forced to reverse herself and invite Palin onto the show before the election. Not saying that will happen, but Oprah didn't get as rich as she is by riding a losing horse all the way to the finish line.
posted by MattD at 6:26 AM on September 14, 2008


One picture of Sarah Palin's face undoes 10,000 words of expose on her goofy governorship. The woman looks fantastic. Her face is the perfectly proportioned expression of the "golden mean." The eyes, the cheekbones, the mouth, the neck have a powerful appeal that make objective or hostile reaction very difficult. I think she's a nut, but I can't get enough of her. That face is like food. Its proportions must fit some atavistic emotional receptors to a T. And speaking of food, if Democrats can somehow get her to gain 15-20 pounds over the next month or so, her candidacy will drop like a stone. Fatten up that face. Those are the cheekbones and jaw of a naturally heavyset gal. Fifteen pounds is all that stands between goddess and glob, lovely and loutish. And for heaven's sake MSM, keep her picture out of the papers and off TV!
posted by Faze at 6:29 AM on September 14, 2008 [6 favorites has favorites]


Alaska rallies against Sarah Palin.
Here is a blog post with pictures.
Never, have I seen anything like it in my 17 and a half years living in Anchorage. The organizers had someone walk the rally with a counter, and they clicked off well over 1400 people (not including the 90 counter-demonstrators). This was the biggest political rally ever, in the history of the state. I was absolutely stunned. The second most amazing thing is how many people honked and gave the thumbs up as they drove by. And even those that didn’t honk looked wide-eyed and awe-struck at the huge crowd that was growing by the minute. This just doesn’t happen here. [...] So, if you’ve been doing the math… Yes. The Alaska Women Reject Palin rally was significantly bigger than Palin’s rally that got all the national media coverage!
posted by davar at 6:29 AM on September 14, 2008 [18 favorites has favorites]


The problems seems to be that no matter what comes out of a candidate's mouth, a certain proportion of the population only hears one thing. For example Sarah Palin's interview would sound like this to some:

Gibson: What is your insight on Russia...

Palin: Abortion. Abortion..... Abortion.

Gibson: Do you think you're ready to step in to the Presidency if needed considering your experience?

Palin: Abortion. AborTION.
posted by Eekacat at 6:32 AM on September 14, 2008 [11 favorites has favorites]


Her face is the perfectly proportioned expression of the "golden mean."

The proportions might be golden, but the eyes and mouth are definitely mean.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 6:39 AM on September 14, 2008 [22 favorites has favorites]


Speaking of TV, you'll know that Obama is well and truly toast if Oprah is forced to reverse herself and invite Palin onto the show before the election. Not saying that will happen, but Oprah didn't get as rich as she is by riding a losing horse all the way to the finish line.

Are you kidding? Oprah actually inviting her on would be a critical hit. The entire angle the McCain camp is pushing is whining that "the media" is against Palin. They don't actually want anyone to interview her.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 6:41 AM on September 14, 2008 [2 favorites has favorites]


YouTube Compendium of McCain Lies
McCain on the View
Pork
Bears, Crabs, Seals
Alaskan news covers the Bridge to Nowhere
More Here
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 6:47 AM on September 14, 2008 [4 favorites has favorites]


Eekacat, you're right about the single-issue right-to-life voters, but they aren't the problem; that ship has long since sailed for the Dems. The problem is that other people who by and large support choice, do not run international oil conglomerates or play major league baseball, and spend a huge portion of their income on energy and healthcare may vote once again for the wrong guy because He's Not Black™ and because they actually believe in the winnability of the various Wars on Concepts™, most famously the War on Terror®.

That's what happened in 2004, but I really do think that the fact that people are paying through the nose for energy and healthcare changes the equation; regular, non-political people are hurting financially and they know who to blame, even if they don't know why. If Obama wins, it will be largely on "throw the bums out" sentiment.
posted by Mister_A at 6:48 AM on September 14, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


I know I shouldn't be dumbstruck by a fact of human nature, but I am. McCain can look like a lump of oatmeal-cookie dough and no one is particularly moved to comment except in passing, even though he's far from the George Eads type he was way back when; no one seems to pay attention to the fact that Obama has the physique of a runner and a slightly neotenous face, but Palin happens to have cheekbones she didn't earn and people go all gobsmacked and ignore her incompetence, croneyism, ignorance, and extremism. Just put a Harriet Miers mask on her (or, if you prefer, Madeline Albright) and see if it makes a difference to your tihnking.
posted by Peach at 6:49 AM on September 14, 2008 [3 favorites has favorites]


This is exactly what's so puzzling about Obama's strategy — why is he paying any attention to the fact-checkers? So far, McCain has seen little blowback from lying.

McCain is not heavily supported by fact-checking blog readers. Many of those Obama supporters would stay home if he started behaving as McCain is. Losing your base is just as damaging as losing the middle ground. McCain's base sees lying as a necessary and courageous tactic to gain power.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 6:51 AM on September 14, 2008 [3 favorites has favorites]


Are you kidding? Oprah actually inviting her on would be a critical hit. The entire angle the McCain camp is pushing is whining that "the media" is against Palin. They don't actually want anyone to interview her.

Nope. Oprah shouldn't have Palin on unless she has all the candidates on. If she has Palin only, she'll look, well, deferential, no matter what questions she asks. And Palin doesn't get her dessert until she's talked to a few more real journalists, like the hosts of The View. Then they can loan their pairs to the rest of the media.
posted by maudlin at 6:52 AM on September 14, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


The Washington Post also has a front page expose on Palin today: "As Mayor of Wasilla, Palin Cut Own Duties, Left Trail of Bad Blood"
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 6:52 AM on September 14, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


The American Idol candidate... Thumbs down from Ebert, I guess.
posted by jaronson at 7:00 AM on September 14, 2008


Obama reports he has raised $66 million in August. This is more than any campaign in American history.

Interesting of note is that, while we were all talking about the way Palin inspired us to donate to Obama, Palin was selected on August 29. Which means that save the first two days, these numbers do not even factor in the response to Palin on McCain's ticket.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 7:01 AM on September 14, 2008 [3 favorites has favorites]


The central issues of this campaign have become: A) Sarah Palin is totally hot; and B) Sarah Palin stands up for kick-ass smalltown values.

My aunt says: "Isn't she great? She's just out there with her guns. She's a breath of fresh air." That's about it. Like watching reality TV.

There may be some way of compelling people who think that way to move towards making reasoned decisions. It would certainly take more time than we have in one election cycle, that's for sure. In the meantime, the Stupid Party wins again, it seems.
posted by argybarg at 7:02 AM on September 14, 2008


Forgot to add: No one, including my aunt, would think she was a "breath of fresh air" if she looked like Janet Reno or Claire McKaskill. Our collective faith in the power of beautiful people to make the world beautiful is boundless.
posted by argybarg at 7:07 AM on September 14, 2008 [31 favorites has favorites]


I would like to see real campaign reform–deliberately spreading lies about your opponent on national TV is not something you should be allowed to get away with. This is one more reason that McCain, who made his national reputation fighting for campaign reform, disgusts me more than Bush II. It's the hypocrisy, stupid.
posted by Mister_A at 7:08 AM on September 14, 2008


The bad news: FiveThirtyEight's meticulously-crafted electoral predictor says Obama is significantly behind, following a post-convention bounce for McCain.
The good news: FiveThirtyEight says that this McCain bounce almost exactly follows historical trends for post-convention bounces, and when things return to equilibrium Obama is likely to have drawn even.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 7:10 AM on September 14, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


"Isn't she great? She's just out there with her guns. She's a breath of fresh air."

your aunt forgot to add:

"Brought to you by Carl's, Jr.™"

As to the Times article, in GOP v. 2008 fashion, while it may be true that Palin did throw out the old bums when she assumed her post as Governor, which establishes her "maverick" bona fides. However, they neglected to mention that she filled many of this well paid and powerful positions with her high school buddies from Wasilla. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

I'd say she's less like George W. Bush than she is the second coming of Dick Cheney, who despite his (ahem) massive failings, at least he had a set of cronies that were nominally qualified to manage large government bureaucracies.
posted by psmealey at 7:10 AM on September 14, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


Forgot to add: No one, including my aunt, would think she was a "breath of fresh air" if she looked like Janet Reno or Claire McKaskill. Our collective faith in the power of beautiful people to make the world beautiful is boundless.

Yes, I haven't seen talked about much how the choice of Palin addresses Obama's attractiveness advantage over McCain.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 7:10 AM on September 14, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


Bush did not win the election fair and square either time. The majority of the voters, not to mention eligible voters who did not vote, never wanted Bush. That said, Palin's pat answers to everything and her self-described small town thinking doubtless strikes a chord with many people.

"What you and I know is that anyone who actually wants to be President of the Galaxy must by all means be prevented from doing so." - The Hitchhiker's Guide to The Galaxy (paraphrased).
posted by AppleSeed at 7:13 AM on September 14, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


In the meantime, the Stupid Party wins again, it seems.

In what respect, Charlie?

Time to trade in my old thread for a younger, faster-loading one.
posted by cortex at 7:14 AM on September 14, 2008 [6 favorites has favorites]


Palin is an absolutely ridiculous person, and the stories of her actual governing style are chilling. Still, I have to say, I'm worried by the effect she is having on the race in the final stretch.

We're still going to win this, right? Right?
posted by Admiral Haddock at 7:15 AM on September 14, 2008


FiveThirtyEight says that this McCain bounce almost exactly follows historical trends for post-convention bounces, and when things return to equilibrium Obama is likely to have drawn even.

The bad news: Given the opposing candidate, the drawn out war, and the collapsing economy, Obama should be ahead by 15%.

McCain is the weakest candidate the GOP has fielded in a very long time, and the political and economic situation is a disaster for the GOP.

And yet, discounting bounces, McCain is running neck and neck.

Sports analogy: Number #1 Michigan is going into the 2nd half tied with Division 2 Appalachian State University. You don't celebrate the tie at the half, you seriously look at how many wheels have fallen off the bus.
posted by eriko at 7:22 AM on September 14, 2008 [2 favorites has favorites]


While we are panicking it is worth remembering that the debates have not occurred yet. At some point Obama and McCain are going to stand on a stage together, and I'm guessing that will be a very widely viewed event. I envision massive milkshake drinkage will be the result.

And around the same time, Palin will have to appear opposite Joe Biden, another person with bona fide small town down-home cred and three times her IQ.

I believe the end of McCain's chances will be dated from that point.
posted by localroger at 7:23 AM on September 14, 2008 [6 favorites has favorites]


Great job assembling this post. It ought to be put into the wiki as an example of how to properly post politics to mefi.

As for the substance, I think it is clear that we are getting more Karl Rove and less John McCain. Even a lot of Republicans I know are disgusted with McCain. It's not like they are going vote Obama or anything, but they are quite shocked and dismayed at his recent tactics. He promised a clean campaign and given how he has run previous campaigns many people believed him. This incredible willingness to outright lie is not good.
posted by caddis at 7:25 AM on September 14, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


"We're still going to win this, right? Right?"

Well, here's my answer to THAT question...

Not a damn thing is going to change as a result of the time and energy I put into talking about this on the internet....

We're "still going to win this.." if we put our time, energy, and money where our mouths are...
posted by HuronBob at 7:25 AM on September 14, 2008 [3 favorites has favorites]


Eriko, I think I agree with you on your implicit point -- that a combination of factors has made the election a referendum on Obama, and that McCain himself won't be terrifically important in the outcome of that referundum.

However, it's a bit difficult to argue that "McCain is the weakest candidate the GOP has fielded in a long time" -- George H.W. Bush went from 90% approval ratings to 38% of the popular vote in 19 months, Bob Dole was wrong-footed from the beginning, and George W. Bush had massively worse favorable / unfavorable ratings in 2004 and went on barely to beat Kerry.
posted by MattD at 7:31 AM on September 14, 2008


We're still going to win this. Elections are won on fundamentals and organization, and they're both on our side.
posted by EarBucket at 7:32 AM on September 14, 2008


That’s the kinda sound I like. (Just don’t wanna miss anything.)
posted by ijoshua at 7:34 AM on September 14, 2008


Given the opposing candidate, the drawn out war, and the collapsing economy, Obama should be ahead by 15%.

Should, yes. But this is America, and our "fundamentals" are not those of the general electorate:

McCain is a war hero; Obama is a black man with an Arabic first name, an Osama-like surname and a Muslim father. Despite media saturation, a significant percantage of people still think he swore his oath on the Koran. Personally I think he's doing a heckofa job in a hostile anti-intellectual environment. (I just donated.)
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 7:35 AM on September 14, 2008


McCain is the weakest candidate the GOP has fielded in a very long time.

Not true. Yes, he's old and he's a poor public speaker. But he comes with three massive advantages (two of which he's eagerly sawing off and burning for a little extra heat): 1) He has a tremendous back story, one of the best in political history. For low-information voters who tuned into the convention, the emotive details of McCain's POW days were probably a revelation. 2) He has a long-standing tradition as a flinty, tough-talking, no-BS kind of guy with a great sense of humor -- a politician for people who generally don't like politicians. 3) He looks the part: Nice simple name, done his time in Washington, older white guy with a military background.

In many ways, this is a made-to-order candidate. If he were ten years younger with better speech delivery, he'd be elected King of the Galaxy if he wanted.
posted by argybarg at 7:36 AM on September 14, 2008


The mindlessness of McCain's campaign deserves some special attention. What is this confluence of guns, hot wars against "our enemies" and Christianity, for starters? We all know the Commandments and "love thine enemies", so how do fundamentalists square these stark contradictions?
And how about "drill, baby, drill"? As I understand it, all of the readily useful oil reserves, when they finally come on line optimistically ten years from now, will satisfy around 15% of the demand. So we get a drop in the proverbial bucket at a very steep cost to the environment and we're still nowhere.
The Pentagon and intelligence agencies have been saying for years that the one thing we could do to reduce terrorism is to reduce our presence in Iraq, yet McCain and Palin, clinging to an undefined "victory", mention only military conflict as the solution. Meanwhile, large corporations stand to profit from war and the last gasps of light sweet crude.

This lack of rigor is not so much a logical "disconnect" (I don't care for that term), as it is an inability to think in any depth, to see beyond one step. Isn't that a form of insanity?
posted by AppleSeed at 7:37 AM on September 14, 2008


keep directing polite fire on Obama

What planet do you call home? Polite?

Amazing the lengths to which people will go to rationalize pathologically ugly political behavior.
posted by fourcheesemac at 7:37 AM on September 14, 2008 [10 favorites has favorites]


I think I like this self repeating media meme better than the last self repeating media meme.
posted by Artw at 7:37 AM on September 14, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


I wish everyone would dismiss this hick as a joke already, but I must admit that she's catalyzed a sentiment of hate in what appeared to be a sleepy election.
posted by jsavimbi at 7:38 AM on September 14, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


Heretics! Long live The Thread!
posted by Flunkie at 7:42 AM on September 14, 2008


how is drill babby drilled
how girl get president

posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 7:43 AM on September 14, 2008 [24 favorites has favorites]


Not true. Yes, he's old and he's a poor public speaker. But he comes with three massive advantages (two of which he's eagerly sawing off and burning for a little extra heat): 1) He has a tremendous back story, one of the best in political history. For low-information voters who tuned into the convention, the emotive details of McCain's POW days were probably a revelation. 2) He has a long-standing tradition as a flinty, tough-talking, no-BS kind of guy with a great sense of humor -- a politician for people who generally don't like politicians. 3) He looks the part: Nice simple name, done his time in Washington, older white guy with a military background.

You could almost be describing Bob Dole here. I think McCain is incredibly weak. Whatever his "experience", and "straight talk", those are empty claims. In his 30 some odd years in Congress, legislatively, he's known only for three things: Keating 5 corruption; McCain-Feingold, which has ultimately been an abject failure; and The Torture Bill, which despite his conviction, he rolled over on it.
posted by psmealey at 7:43 AM on September 14, 2008 [3 favorites has favorites]


psmealey, he's known for those three things to you because you know a bit about politics. To 80%+ of voters he's either "which old guy was he again?" or "that maverick guy, straight talker." Very few people can name anyone's legislative accomplishments.

And yes, Bob Dole lost, but Bill Clinton was the incumbent in decent economic times. Dole might have won in 1988 or 1992.
posted by argybarg at 7:49 AM on September 14, 2008


Here is the funny part, and probably no one will agree. The first thing you have to do is win the White House. McCain has shown incredible prowess at peaking at the right time. This time last year he was a week away from quitting for lack of financial support. At the end of this I think everyone knows that Obama would have won had he chosen Hillary as a running mate. Had he done so McCain probably would not have chosen Palin and Obama would have coasted to a win. Obama perhaps arrogantly and perhaps naively assumed he had the win when he chose Biden, a friend.

I can hear Bill Clinton sipping his bitter coffee right now muttering under his breath, “That punk assed kid should have listened to me.” No one has yet said that Obama’s choice for VP is his greatest blunder. If he loses I think it may come up in conversation. Face it, if Biden caught cold and bowed out and Hillary stepped in to save the day the left would sleep better at night between now and November.

This conversation should not be about the choice McCain made but the one Obama fumbled. This election has never been McCain’s to win it has always been Obama’s to lose. You can deny it, but you would be lying to yourself.
posted by MapGuy at 7:49 AM on September 14, 2008 [2 favorites has favorites]


Lipstick on a pig. And here's the video...

(this is nonpartisan cuteness.)
posted by konolia at 7:50 AM on September 14, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


Metafilter: massive milkshake drinkage.
posted by Slap*Happy at 7:51 AM on September 14, 2008


If he were ten years younger with better speech delivery, he'd be elected King of the Galaxy if he wanted.

He was, if you recall, but he also fathered adopted a black bangladeshi baby out of wedlock pity. And you know how those Values VotersTM get all fired up about black folks, so much so that he subsequently lost to the well-connected, combat avoiding, idiot son of an asshole. Maverick my ass.

Why do people keep framing these elections on concepts of fairness, dignity and common sense? Wasps simply don't want to give away the power they've held in this country since the first plantation, and they'll do anything to keep it, regardless of which moron they choose to be the figurehead. If McCain starts slipping in the polls, Obama better get himself a blast-resistant PopemobileTM.

Hope it ain't so, but these animals people are vicious.
posted by jsavimbi at 7:58 AM on September 14, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


MapGuy:

A black Democrat named Barack Obama cannot be the default choice for president in the present-day USA. Slightly more than half of Democrats were willing to welcome him, but mainstream USA is a tougher sell. I think he'll probably close the deal, probably during the debates. But I'm sure lots of people get the willies just saying his name.
posted by argybarg at 7:59 AM on September 14, 2008


From the NYT article:
But in 1995, Ms. Palin, then a city councilwoman, told colleagues that she had noticed the book “Daddy’s Roommate” on the shelves and that it did not belong there, according to Ms. Chase and Mr. Stein. Ms. Chase read the book, which helps children understand homosexuality, and said it was inoffensive; she suggested that Ms. Palin read it.

“Sarah said she didn’t need to read that stuff,” Ms. Chase said. “It was disturbing that someone would be willing to remove a book from the library and she didn’t even read it.”
I know the evil librul blogs have been saying this all September, but now that we have a confirmed citation: WTF AMRIKA?! WTF WTF WTF?!
posted by the cydonian at 8:00 AM on September 14, 2008 [6 favorites has favorites]


I love MapGuy and Konolia, just jumping and waving and trying to distract - look over here! Don't look at Palin's lies! Look over here! No no, don't look at McCain's lies and distortions, look over here! Get distracted!
posted by cashman at 8:01 AM on September 14, 2008 [5 favorites has favorites]


Here's what I get from Palin. She's a cypher, much in the same way Bush was a cypher. An attractive figurehead for the hard-right. She obviously hasn't any real policies or opinions of her own. Rather, she's an attractive proxy for whomever the power-brokers behind her are.

It just makes me wonder what sort of deal was brokered with McCain to get her on the ticket. Those guys are far too Machiavellian for it to be simply a "This'll confuse the hell out of the Obama camp" move. I have to wonder if it wasn't something like "We'll let you be President for a year, John, then you'll have to step-down for 'health reasons', and we'll take it from there."
posted by Thorzdad at 8:04 AM on September 14, 2008 [6 favorites has favorites]


"Are you better off today than you were eight years ago?"

This is exactly right. After 8 years of Republican rule, are you better off? Is The U.S.A.? Is The World?

Do you want to continue the policies of Bush and Cheney? If so, vote McCain.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 8:05 AM on September 14, 2008


The problem with the "Obama should have picked Clinton" line is that it ignores the fundamental order of events - if Obama had chosen Clinton, there's no way McCain would have still gone with Palin. It was a game of rock-paper-scissors, and Obama had to announce his choice first.
posted by 0xFCAF at 8:05 AM on September 14, 2008 [4 favorites has favorites]


MapGuy: I agree. VP picks matter.

I don't think Hillary was the best choice, because of the bitter divisiveness she drummed up all through the primaries. If I were in Obama's shoes, I sure as hell wouldn't trust her.

So, he needed a VP pick that would have sparked a national or regional interest. The Smiler discounted himself with an ill-timed scandal, and he didn't help Kerry all that much the last time 'round. I don't think there are any hidden candidates that could have whipped up the kind of interest Palin did - except for maybe Gov. Sebelius. I think the possibility for a backlash for having both a woman and a minority on the ticket would be a bit too much to overcome reservations by more traditionalist voters... one monumental change at a time.

This leaves regional winners. Bob Graham was the obvious choice: senatorial and gubernatorial experience, popular with centrist voters and even more popular with union voters, and, most importantly, never lost an election in Florida. Tim Kaine was the obvious choice: Virginia, signed sealed and delivered. Strickland. You get the gist. The election would not be won or lost in Delaware.

Now we're stuck until the debates, and I have a hunch McCain might back out of them altogether. Why shouldn't he? The lies and mudslinging are working very well, and both Obama and Biden are savagely good orators. There's no advantage to an honest debate.

If he does go through with them, remember, Ronnie Ray-Gun was well behind the peanut farmer until the debates. Obama will mop the floor with McCain, and get as big a bounce as the convention.
posted by Slap*Happy at 8:09 AM on September 14, 2008


She's a cypher, much in the same way Bush was a cypher.

She's Bush without the money: ambitious enough to hold office, but unqualified and unaccomplished enough to be maleable by the powers that be, and nasty enough to punish those who point out that very fact.
posted by jsavimbi at 8:11 AM on September 14, 2008 [9 favorites has favorites]


All I see is an 8 year old child, pretty enough to lead a clique, smart enough to try to hide her cruelty from the teachers but not quite smart enough to do it effectively. The sort whose mother threw expensive birthday parties at which she threw tantrums because they weren't perfect. A spoiled, petty and ultimately cold-hearted child who thinks that love is less about trust than about power, and is forever trying to control others to make sure she cannot be hurt.
posted by seanmpuckett at 8:15 AM on September 14, 2008 [45 favorites has favorites]


“It was disturbing that someone would be willing to remove a book from the library and she didn’t even read it.”
I know the evil librul blogs have been saying this all September, but now that we have a confirmed citation: WTF AMRIKA?! WTF WTF WTF?!


IIRC, the member of parliament (A former teacher, mind you) in the riding I grew up in supported the removal of Lolita from a local school's library when he was mayor. 'AMRIKA' does not have a monopoly on ignorance.

And its usage makes you look as goofy as people who write 'Fukk Micro$oft!11!1"
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:20 AM on September 14, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


However, it's a bit difficult to argue that "McCain is the weakest candidate the GOP has fielded in a long time"

You are citing evidence that there were weaker candidates from the viewpoint of moderates and liberals. Quite possibly true. But that's not nearly as important as what a weak candidate he has been to the GOP base, who, frankly, hated McCain.

One of the core factors -- possibly *the* core factor -- in the selection of Palin was to appease the base, and so far, it seems to have worked splendidly, esp. with the lovely bit of jujitsu that was taking "lipstick on a pig" out of context, miming it as an attack on Palin, and then counterattacking on it. End result? The GOP is united by McCain/Palin, and far too many democrats are trying to say that Obama didn't say that, didn't mean that, etc.

Hint: The *only* political defense that works is the riposte -- dismiss the charge with a filp remark and counterattack. The Democrats spend far to many times trying to prove attacks are wrong, by the time they get the evidence lined up, the attack is now a meme.

The correct response was:
"Really? Well, given as much lying as McCain has done in the past two weeks, I hardly consider that a reliable source, but come to think of it, Lipstick on a Pig is a pretty good description for McCain/Palin. We'd like to thank the McCain campaign for it, and we'll have shirts printed by Tuesday. We'll be sending the McCain campaign a check for the royalties -- besides, they could use the money."

posted by eriko at 8:21 AM on September 14, 2008 [5 favorites has favorites]


The democrats need to get over their smugness - and quick - if they want to win this election. What everything boils down to is this: Democrats come across as "knowing what's best for you" and Republicans come across as "holier than thou".

For better or worse the last 30 years has proven America will take the "holier than thou" candidate over the "we know what's best for you" candidate. Do you hear me, Al Gore and John Kerry? This is why you lost, and if Obama isn't careful, he will too.

Obama may look better, may have a better world view and may sound better than McCain, but he's also a fairly liberal, black Democrat whom the media has appointed the chosen one to save us all. For the God fearing members of the US's flyover states, this is simply unacceptable and reason enough to vote against the man.

This is the schtick I hear time and again from talking with family, friends and business counterparts who live in that vast expanse between San Francisco and New York. And guess what - they managed to get GWB elected twice. Just sayin'...
posted by tgrundke at 8:22 AM on September 14, 2008 [2 favorites has favorites]


An interesting and even-handed opinion from Ezra Klein:

The McCain campaign's decision to lie about, well, everything, really needs to be understood as more than the outcome of John McCain's consuming ambition. It is a rational and obvious response to the rules laid down by the media. Indeed, McCain's spokesperson Brian Rogers says this directly to The Politico's Jonathan Martin. "We ran a different kind of campaign and nobody cared about us. They didn’t cover John McCain. So now you’ve got to be forward-leaning in everything."

And it's true. Earlier this year McCain made poverty tours and offered policy speeches. No one cared, Obama retained his lead. It was only when he began offering vicious attacks and daily controversies that he began setting the pace of the coverage. The McCain campaign learned something important about the media: It's an institution that covers conflict. If you want to direct its coverage, give it more conflict than your opponent. And so they have.

None of this, of course, absolves McCain of what he has done. He has sacrificed his honor and dignity with astonishing enthusiasm. He has become much worse than "just another politician." He is a politician who was once more than that, and used that reputation to go lower than the rest. But the fact remains that he wouldn't be doing this, that no one would do this, if the media ignored or sanctioned the behavior. If lies were covered as lies and an allergy to substance was treated as evidence of an unfitness to govern, the tenor of campaigns would lift. These are, at the end of the day, rational beasts, and they hunger for good coverage. THe McCain campaign has found its best coverage comes from its worst campaigning. And so they are following the incentive structure laid out by the media.

posted by neroli at 8:23 AM on September 14, 2008 [25 favorites has favorites]


McCain wanted to base his campaign on the success of the surge and our ability to stay in Iraq for "100 years", but reality conspired against him, Maliki and then even George Bush signed on to a time line for withdrawal, which had been Obama's position, making McCain look ridiculous. McCain criticized Obama for wanting to go into Pakistan, and now Bush is doing it. Again, McCain looked ridiculous.

So, since reality has conspired against McCain, the McCain campaign has decided to campaign against reality itself. And rather disturbingly, it seems to be working for the moment.

That said, I don't see this as a sustainable strategy. That "Obama wants to fuck your kids" is ordinarily the kind of thing you would run on Nov 2nd, but by running the completely false advertisements this far out, McCain can be branded as a total liar, and if comes up with something totally off the wall in November, people won't be as apt to believe it. On the other hand, Obama, who isn't being as dishonest could just make up something at the end of the election if he wanted too, and probably get away with it. (but that's a risky strategy with so much early voting going on these days, which is actually a good thing now)
Why doesn't Barrack Obama lie more often?
Why would he need too? Seems like there's enough factual badness emanating from the McCain campaign, I mean Charlie Black was once a lobbyist for Jonas Savimbi(!?!?!)

Obama just set up this website to go over McCain's deep connections to the most corrupt lobbyists in the country.
Speaking of TV, you'll know that Obama is well and truly toast if Oprah is forced to reverse herself and invite Palin onto the show before the election
That doesn't make sense. Who could "force" her to do anything? She'd been friends with Hillary Clinton for years and didn't invite her on the show.
Not saying that will happen, but Oprah didn't get as rich as she is by riding a losing horse all the way to the finish line.
And she's as rich as she needs to be. I mean, the woman is a billionaire, no one can push her around. Besides, given Palin's apparent fear of being interviewed, what makes you think Palin would even want to go on the show? And given Oprah's support for Obama, what makes you think Oprah wouldn't lay into her on issues like Rape Kits, Abortion, Equal pay for women (which McCain supports the Ledbetter scotus decision), troupergate, and all the other crap emanating from the McCain campaign. it's not like she's required to give "nice" interviews.
posted by delmoi at 8:23 AM on September 14, 2008 [2 favorites has favorites]


No one has yet said that Obama’s choice for VP is his greatest blunder. If he loses I think it may come up in conversation. Face it, if Biden caught cold and bowed out and Hillary stepped in to save the day the left would sleep better at night between now and November.

I'm really sick of hearing this. It's unproven and unprovable. Yes, if Obama picked Clinton as his running mate, obviously McCain would have not picked Palin. That's pretty much the limit of what we can actually confidently say. But it's really grating how the sudden appearance of Palin has seemingly made every rational reason why Clinton would have been a terrible pick for Obama magically disappear.

I like Joe Biden and I've already covered a few times why I think he's a great pick for Obama. My only dismay with the campaign is that they're not using Biden enough (or honestly at all, which I truly do not understand) but that is monumentally different than saying he was a "bad choice." He is a far more suitable compliment to Obama and would be a much more effective vice president than Clinton.

Palin being abhorrent does not alter the reality of Clinton and Obama being fundamentally incompatible as co-candidates in any way whatsoever. Picking Clinton would have been as blatant and cynical a maneuver as McCain's pick of Palin, and it's depressing that so many Democrats become hypocrites in the blink of an eye when they start whining that Obama wasn't as calculating as McCain. McCain's selection of Palin is the greatest indicator of his lack of judgment and single-minded focus on winning for winning's sake; why you want Obama to be the same type of person is tragic.

Obama's greatest blunder was NOT the selection of Biden; It was making his selection of a running mate a goddamn American Idol special that wasted two weeks of media time on "is it Hillary? OMG IS IT HILLARY OH SHIT MY PANTS HAVE ASPLODED" instead of just giving even a few days' lead time prior to the convention to go over Biden's record and personal story.

You know what I'm really sick of? Other Democrats telling me how I would have been happier with Clinton. The most angering and obnoxious people I experienced this cycle were the Hillary holdouts who dared to call forcing Hillary onto the ticket the "Unity Ticket." As if they had a better idea of what made a good ticket than I did because they voted for... oh you know, the loser. If I wanted Clinton in the White House I would have fucking voted for her. There's a reason I didn't; see if you can work 2+2 on this one.

And none of that- none of that- even gets into the truly perverse and filthy tactics used by Clinton surrogates against Obama in the primaries. And if you're a wavering Democrat who now wants to pretend that this type of racial and social demagoguery didn't occur then I am truly ashamed of you. The calculating, desperate political cynicism of the waning days of the Clinton campaign don't deserve any more positive recognition than the calculating, desperate political cynicism of the McCain campaign.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 8:27 AM on September 14, 2008 [24 favorites has favorites]


Slap*Happy and the debate issue:

You should rephrase that: Obama *should* win the debates handily as the contrast between the two candidates is so stark, particularly their style and presentation.

Remember: John Kerry and Al Gore *should have* mopped the floor with George W. Bush, but as history is our guide, Gore came away looking like an ass ("we know what's best for you, you simpleton Americans") and Kerry came away looking like the wishy-washy-flip-flopper-liberal that the Bush campaign made him out to be ("we need to involve the UN more!").

McCain's staff knows he is the underdog, they also learned from the debates of GWB. You can be damned sure that the McCain team will make things uncomfortable for Obama. Witness the disaster that was Obama's presence at that Congregation a few weeks ago (cannot recall the name). He waffled on the abortion issue, looked generally uncomfortable and was clearly sweatin' bullets.

The man ain't impervious to looking bad in a debate and assuming he'll win and trounce McCain just reinforces the Conservatives who view Obama as "annointed" and "holy".
posted by tgrundke at 8:29 AM on September 14, 2008


Some good news for honesty: in this morning's Chicago Tribune there were two articles going after McCain for his recent behavior. Steve Chapman (who's nationally syndicated) broke out the L-word to describe the pig 'controversy' and an article in Metro described the sex-ed ad as 'vile' and 'sleaze'. A few seconds of Meet the Press this morning had Gulliani getting called on his convention BS as well as some of these ads.

Soon it will be enough for the ad series "Liar". "Blah: lie. Blah: lie. Blah: lie. John McCain thinks that he can buy your vote with 30 second lies on TV. I'm BHO, and I approve this revelation unto the people."
posted by a robot made out of meat at 8:31 AM on September 14, 2008


While working the other day I heard a group of older women talking about how cold it was. One of them said something like "Well, imagine if you were Sarah Palin. Think of how cold it gets up by her." That was it. No politics. Just talking about her as though she was an old friend.

Fuck.
posted by brevator at 8:31 AM on September 14, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


if Obama had chosen Clinton, there's no way McCain would have still gone with Palin.

So your saying it is Obama's fault Palin is on the ticket. That may well be true but I don't think you will find a liberal that will admit it or want's to hear it. Talk about distraction.

I now think it is to Biden to win or lose the election. The VP debate should be a lovely piece of American Political Cinema. I am making popcorn.
posted by MapGuy at 8:32 AM on September 14, 2008


And speaking of Hillary, she wasn't willing to be vetted along with other candidates, supposedly. She only wanted to be vetted if she was going to be picked, which would have put Obama in a difficult position.

If he had put Hillary on the ticket, things would be different, but we don't know if they'd be better. Rather then picking Palin, McCain would be digging up every deal that Bill enganged in post-presidency and claiming it was a scandal. There would be all kinds of nonsense, there would be stories every day about how well Obama and Clinton were getting a long, it would be a soap opera.

And who knows, he might have picked Palin anyway.
posted by delmoi at 8:34 AM on September 14, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


These lies, are they similar to untruths?
posted by chunking express at 8:35 AM on September 14, 2008


brevator nails it. Those women who were talking could relate to Sarah Palin, they cannot relate to someone named "Obama" who spent time in Indonesia, who has family in Africa and who was a 'community organizer' in Chicago ("Isn't that code for Communist?").

We may find his story refreshing, offering a new perspective on the world. America sees his story as foreign, of coming with divided loyalties (Christian? Muslim? American? Black? White?) and representing a world that is *not* America. As Camille Paglia said in a recent Slate article, (paraphrased), Palin represents the pioneering woman who settled the old west, the woman who gets up every morning at 5:00am, fixes breakfast for her family, gets the kids on the bus, goes to work, comes home, cooks dinner and somehow finds time to hunt, fish, take care of her man and get to the hockey game on time.

Middle America moms can relate - and those disparaging her look like Hillary Clinton in 1992 when she said she didn't want to be one of those stay at home moms. That interview/quote pretty much defined her for a large section of America to this day, and they will never forgive her for it.
posted by tgrundke at 8:37 AM on September 14, 2008 [3 favorites has favorites]


So your saying it is Obama's fault Palin is on the ticket.

No, I think I'm being very clear that it's McCain's fault Palin is on the ticket.

That may well be true but I don't think you will find a liberal that will admit it or want's to hear it. Talk about distraction.


What? Can you find me a single mainstream liberal pundit who isn't saying that McCain picked Palin just because Obama didn't pick Clinton?
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 8:38 AM on September 14, 2008


tgrundke - Spot on.
posted by MapGuy at 8:40 AM on September 14, 2008


keep directing polite fire on Obama

ah, yes, polite: "country first" (code for "he's a foreigner"), "he'd rather lose a war than lose an election", ie he's a traitor, the "celebrity" ads (code for "he's uppity"), the sex ed ad ("he's a paedophile"). if that's polite for you, well, I guess McCain has not actually worn a noose lapel pin yet, so that must count for being polite in some quarters.

anyway, more examples of politeness in history, collected by Mr. Spike Lee.

If he were ten years younger with better speech delivery, he'd be elected King of the Galaxy if he wanted

George W. Bush wiped his ass with this alleged King of the Galaxy back in 2000. George W. Bush, not Thomas Jefferson or FDR or 1980's Reagan: George W. Bush. so much for the "McCain is underrated" argument. he's not. he's a mediocrity. but he's white in an electoral year that makes this fact a very, very big asset.
posted by matteo at 8:40 AM on September 14, 2008 [10 favorites has favorites]


And around the same time, Palin will have to appear opposite Joe Biden, another person with bona fide small town down-home cred and three times her IQ

I was about to say that all Palin's cliche mongering* is going to leave her wide open for a filet-of-Quayle moment a al Lloyd Bentsen. Whether that'll have any effect on the outcome of the election is open to question.


*The most fun part of watching her interview on 20/20 was hearing her repeatedly blabber on about 'taking on the good old boys,' and shouting unprintable responses at the TV.
posted by jonmc at 8:42 AM on September 14, 2008


Yep, the MSM so desperately wants Obama-Clinton conflict drama that they spent many hours and bytes of news trying to invent it. The facts are that after conceding in June, Clinton gave Obama historically unprecedented repeated support.

At any rate, I spending my political action funds on the ballot measures in Florida, Arizona and California. If the Dems want more than a vote while holding my nose this year, they can kiss my ass.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 8:42 AM on September 14, 2008


I mean Charlie Black was once a lobbyist for Jonas Savimbi(!?!?!)

I call bullshit on this categorically unfair and daring indictment of ONE relationship betwix an American lobbyist and a foreign agent. To use just one instance would certainly downplay the importance of the Roosevelt Corollary and American foreign policy since its implementation. I demand a complete list of tinpot dictators, strongmen and trouble makers that we, the people, have supported since our imperialistic objectives moved into high gear in 1898.

And please don't ask Palin about the Monroe Doctrine, cuz that's just uppity Ivy League stuff.
posted by jsavimbi at 8:43 AM on September 14, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


I'm not sure I buy that McCain peaks at all the right times. This feels like an early peak to me. The Palin contribution to his ticket ain't getting any stronger over time.
posted by NortonDC at 8:43 AM on September 14, 2008 [2 favorites has favorites]


just reinforces the Conservatives who view Obama as "annointed" and "holy".

Oh, no you don't. No controlling the talking points for YOU. No can haz. Such conservatives are idiots and in the minority. A much louder camp are the Hillary boosters who can't or won't let it go. I will start referring to any self-identified democrats as the "Screaming Yellow Zonkers" if they keep bringing up the words "smug", "annointed", or "overconfident" into the conversation without a lot, and I mean a lot, of corroborating evidence.

Steadfast support of your candidates and their campaign is not overconfident, smug, cult-like or a Bad Thing by any stretch of the imagination. Worrying and pacing in circles and sounding a hue and cry because you actually believe the fibs foisted off on you by the slime-oozing pustules employed by the other side is a very, very bad thing.
posted by Slap*Happy at 8:46 AM on September 14, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


I was about to say that all Palin's cliche mongering* is going to leave her wide open for a filet-of-Quayle moment a al Lloyd Bentsen. Whether that'll have any effect on the outcome of the election is open to question.

I want this to be true but I really don't know anymore. I mean, the fact that Obama says "uh" in his responses- you know, a sign that you're actually contemplating your answer- is an indicator of weakness against Palin's manner of speaking, in which she says five words over and over again. Against Biden, there's going to be nothing but blather about Biden's body language. Is he trying to be intimidating? Is his smile fake? And so on.

I love Biden but he's the one who is stereotyped as being the "gaffe guy." And the media LOVES it when they can validate their preconceived notions about someone. Palin is less likely to say something stupid because she doesn't say anything at all.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 8:47 AM on September 14, 2008


My Palin baby name is Gamebird Kelp Palin. What's yours?
posted by fixedgear at 8:48 AM on September 14, 2008 [3 favorites has favorites]


I love Biden but he's the one who is stereotyped as being the "gaffe guy."

Actually, the 'gaffe guy,' thing kind of helped make Biden a good choice in terms of wooing uncommitted Middle American voters. It's Obama saying "I won't hold the occasional verbal gaffe against somebody if their heart's in the right place."
posted by jonmc at 8:52 AM on September 14, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


Slap*Happy: I'm not disagreeing with you, in fact, you just reinforced my ultimate point: a very large swath of America doesn't care about the overwhelming evidence you request, they work based upon how they 'feel' - that's why so many marketing campaigns work: they reinforce subtle feelings/beliefs you already had about something ("why yes, I *do* feel safe driving this Volvo, let's buy it!").

You can have all the evidence you would like, it's not going to sway anyones' opinion. The reality is that this is the way Obama has been framed by and for a large section of the electorate. Al Gore was similarly framed as being smug and a know-it-all. Instead of Gore trying to move past that, he ended up reinforcing the issue by not going after the other guy hard enough.

It's like that kid in grade school who gets a crappy nickname for farting in class, being overweight or the for being the A/V kid. Everyone remembers and refers to you as that, even at the 10 year high school reunion. The question becomes - did that kid get past the framing and evolve into Bill Gates or the Unibomber?
posted by tgrundke at 8:53 AM on September 14, 2008


Alternet article on a church Palin attends when in Juneau.

Apparently, it puts forth a doctrine that the Assemblies of God considers "Deviant Teachings".

A quote: That we disapprove of Latter Rain doctrines and practices such as "impartation," "birthing," "Joel's Army," and the "five-fold ministries" taught as "offices" with "predictive prophecy," and other extraneous teachings "which, being unfounded scripturally, serve only to break fellowship . . . and tend to confusion and division."

Assemblies of God could be considered conservative fundamentalist. If this article is accurate about the doctrine Palin is practising, then this is a genuine move toward theocracy in America.

"Palin's Churches and the Holy Laughter anointing" (YouTube)
posted by dragonsi55 at 8:56 AM on September 14, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


!00 comments over here already? Wow. Still got the fire, eh?
posted by NortonDC at 8:56 AM on September 14, 2008


I want this to be true but I really don't know anymore.

Call me a cockeyed optimist, but I think it'll help. The repetition thing annoys just about everybody and Biden, whatever else you want to say about him is a pretty sharp guy, plus she comes across as overbearing and smug, whereas Biden comes across as likeable.
posted by jonmc at 8:56 AM on September 14, 2008


(and yeah, I realize that in a perfect world, how someone 'comes across' shouldn't matter in an election, but we don't live in a perfect world.)
posted by jonmc at 8:57 AM on September 14, 2008


Actually, the 'gaffe guy,' thing kind of helped make Biden a good choice in terms of wooing uncommitted Middle American voters. It's Obama saying "I won't hold the occasional verbal gaffe against somebody if their heart's in the right place."

I agree with you 100% (in fact that's one of the reasons I thought Biden was a great pick) but this is a very different context.

My point is that in the debate, Palin will lie, but do so in five words and a smile. Biden will tell the truth, but perhaps give a "lipstick-on-pig" line that will immediately be jumped on as a gaffe, because hey, that's what we've decided Joe Biden is all about.

Result: Caribou Barbie is now smarter than a guy with 35 years experience. So says the men on the teevee.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 8:59 AM on September 14, 2008 [8 favorites has favorites]


they work based upon how they 'feel'

God, if this is true then it really is a problem of race, or frame of references too divergent to reconcile with each other. Because when I see Barack Obama speak or interact with people my visceral gut reaction is of integrity, intelligence and trust, and when I see McCain do the same thing my gut reaction is one of unwell, unpredictable weirdness.

This morning Obama was interviewed by Telemundo or Univision, and it was on in the restaurant as we had breakfast. I kept catching glances and Obama just looks TOGETHER. I mean, I couldn't understand a word because it was overdubbed in Spanish, but he still SEEMED presidential. They'd show brief bits of McCain and he seemed doddering and unhinged.

Surely there is some confirmation bias, because those two senses basically match my more thought out opinions. But still.
posted by dirtdirt at 9:03 AM on September 14, 2008


Hillary supporters for McCain - (NSFW language)
Because we don't think!
posted by madamjujujive at 9:05 AM on September 14, 2008 [7 favorites has favorites]


Youtube collection of the signs as Alaska rallies against Palin. About half way through, Mefi gets a shoutout (or at least that comment, which I thought originated here).
posted by cashman at 9:16 AM on September 14, 2008


This morning Obama was interviewed by Telemundo or Univision, and it was on in the restaurant as we had breakfast. I kept catching glances and Obama just looks TOGETHER.

I contrast that to the enduring mental image I have of McCain on Jon Stewarts, show, hunched over, his hands balled up in fists and quietly mumbling his Iraq talking points over and over again while not answering a single one of Stewart's questions. He just seemed such a pathetic character at that moment, I was sure he was done.

Given the power of the office of the President behind him, this is truly a dangerous man.
posted by psmealey at 9:18 AM on September 14, 2008


Hillary supporters for McCain - (NSFW language)
Because we don't think!


<waltersobchak>See what happens?! See what happens Larry?! This is what happens when you FUCK A STRANGER WITH A RAT!</waltersobchak>
posted by KirkJobSluder at 9:23 AM on September 14, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


The basic problem: it's not a rational democratic process, no more than high school elections are "democratic" in the pure sense. It's about likes, looks, and money, not competence. It's been that way in the US for the last 50 years.

It's not important that you like your leader. It's not important that he (or she) be handsome. It is vitally important that he is a good motivator, communicator, and organiser; that he is intelligent, and can respond creatively to crises. Most importantly, perhaps, he is someone who will hold the reins of power lightly and responsibly.

The sheer mass of visual adulation and myth-making around Presidential contenders doesn't make it impossible that someone with these qualities can rise to the top; it simply makes it unlikely. Unfortunately, at the same time, voters are becoming less likely to be able to clearly articulate policies, positions, and platforms, or to understand the potential consequences of each. It's too much cognitive overhead : they default to "like / don't like".

Even worse, they do not learn. On the Republican side, these are the same people who voted for W in 2000 and 2004 because they thought he "shared their values" and was "someone like them". With the exception of the most willfully blind, that is now recognised as a gross error in judgement - yet they appear to be doing the exact same thing again in regards to Sarah Palin.
posted by Bora Horza Gobuchul at 9:25 AM on September 14, 2008 [3 favorites has favorites]


Wonky-stuff-that-unfortunately-won't-mean-a-damn-thingFilter--

Sponsored legislation enacted: McCain vs. Obama

posted by neroli at 9:28 AM on September 14, 2008 [10 favorites has favorites]


Bottom line: it does not matter who is getting better coverage in the New York Times.

“This is a new experience for Obama — facing a Republican who will do and say things far different from the Democrats he has faced. Republicans don’t care what Frank Rich, Maureen Dowd or establishment media has to say about them.”


From what I can tell, Republicans have been telling the faithful for over a decade now that the "media", "MSM", mainstream media outlets are not to be trusted. Tune in to Rush, if you can hold your lunch, and invariably he will come down hard against the lies, bias, of the mainstream media, meaning essentially anyone who fact checks.

So once you establish your sucker with a distrust of the only reasonable place to get real information (excluding the internet, which is still sort of like the wild west for those not familiar with it) then your con is set up.

The next step is to make them like your candidate. Don't talk about issues, get a war hero and a pretty mom that touches all the dendrites in a pleasurable way.

So these two things can be assessed as
1. Paint the media as illegitimate sources of factual information
2. Make the voter personally like your candidate

The third thing to do then, is lie. Lie every single day until the election. If you don't bother with the facts, and you trust the candidate because you believe the ruse, then the lies work. They are the facts. She really did say, "Thank, but no thanks" and the media is just biased and sexists for saying otherwise.

Lying every single day until the election appears to be working.
posted by plexi at 9:28 AM on September 14, 2008 [4 favorites has favorites]


From the Washington Monthly piece linked above:

Bills Placed On Calendar, 110th Congress: (I included these for the 110th Congress, since it's not over yet, and these are the bills most likely to be acted on.)

Obama:

S. 453: A bill to prohibit deceptive practices in Federal elections.

S.2433: A bill to require the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.

McCain:

S. 84: A bill to establish a United States Boxing Commission to administer the Act, and for other purposes.

posted by neroli at 9:32 AM on September 14, 2008 [4 favorites has favorites]


Lying every single day until the election appears to be working.

Especially when they have their own TV stations to keep replaying them.
posted by mothershock at 9:37 AM on September 14, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


Err, posted too early. Not to say the rest of the article sounds scary as well. I know it's election season and things become more sensationalist than before, but heck, that was a chilling read.

I just have to say this. At this point, US politics is all but a dystopian, The Dark Knight-like Prisoner's Dilemma. "Regular" folk versus a group of hardened, the devil-may-care thugs: who'll blink first? Who'll survive? Will the superhero, on whom everyone's pined their hopes beat a chilling, seemingly-undefeatable baddie? Can the general populace ever stop being cynical and believe in truth, justice and all that? Can they _please_ shut that thumping Zimmerman score?
posted by the cydonian at 9:37 AM on September 14, 2008 [2 favorites has favorites]


From Wikipedia, but still true, because I watched it with my own two non-lying eyes and heard him say this with my own two pointy ears:

Another notable moment occurred on April 4, 2006, when Stewart confronted his longtime friend, US Senator John McCain, about his decision to appear at Liberty University, an institution founded by Jerry Falwell, a man who McCain had previously denounced as one of the "agents of intolerance".[36][37] In the interchange, Stewart asked McCain "You're not freaking out on us? Are you freaking out on us, because if you're freaking out and you're going into the crazy base [politics] world— are you going into crazy base world?" McCain replied "I'm afraid so." The clip was played on CNN and created a surge of articles across the blogosphere.[38][39]

He as much as admitted that he would say anything to win on national TV. Mr. Straight Talk died for me in that moment. I had actually been one of those liberal white educated male independent voters who found McCain's mix of plain language and proven ballsiness (specifically around campaign finance and immigration, he lost me completely on the war) to be interesting, if not compelling evidence of some sort of human life on planet GOP. But when I heard him say this, the scales fell away.

Personally, I think this is perfect campaign ad material. McCain was for being a lying scumbag before he pretended to be against it.

I can't seem to find the clip online. Perhaps a better google-meister can dig it up. McCain had a priceless look of humiliation on his face as he gave the money quote above. I saw it again when Whoopi Goldberg asked him if she should worry about having to be a slave again since he favored appointing judges who would "not change" the constitution of the founding fathers' era. (That was the most sizzling moment of the "View" session, which I found stunningly powerful all around, but I haven't seen Whoopi's zinger blogged yet. McCain's eyes dropped, his body drooped, and he conceded that she had a point, in a weird off-message moment of visible shame.)

I will continue to have faith that Americans will rise to the occasion and vote their own best interests this time. One can see clearly what a catastrophic mess McCain/Palin will make for the US on the foundations Bush has laid for them. We're going to be underwater in a Category 5 shitstorm by 2012.
posted by fourcheesemac at 9:40 AM on September 14, 2008 [9 favorites has favorites]


We're "still going to win this.." if we put our time, energy, and money where our mouths are...

I feel this whole heartedly. I've donated already (pre-Palin) to the Obama campaign, and I will soon be calling my 84 yo Southern Baptist grandfather in Mississippi, and telling him why I am supporting Obama. He's been sick of Bush, and is likely going to sit this election out. But maybe I can make a difference for him. If I wasn't completely derailed by health issues, I would be out campaigning for Obama like I did for Dean. But as it is, I'm still going to have a few heartfelt conversations with my fence sitting relatives in TN and MS.

As for Palin, the Dems have got to shift the spotlight back on McCain. He's hiding in her shadow. The best line to take on Palin is to ignore her as the political non-entity she is. Let the NYTimes and media keep digging, but the Dem's need to refocus, and quickly. They are letting the GOP messaging machine (Rove, Luntz, et al) get the upper hand yet again.
posted by kimdog at 9:43 AM on September 14, 2008


Palin happens to have cheekbones she didn't earn

Am I reading you right? I hope I'm not reading you right.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 9:46 AM on September 14, 2008


tgrundke--you keep referring to "flyover states" and "large swaths of America", but I think you need to learn how to generalize a little better...

Today's Iowa Poll: Obama opens double-digit lead
posted by jaronson at 9:47 AM on September 14, 2008 [2 favorites has favorites]


Even worse, they do not learn. On the Republican side, these are the same people who voted for W in 2000 and 2004 because they thought he "shared their values" and was "someone like them".

Which is why I don't understand why the left didn't bash the "guy you'd like to have a beer with" meme into the ground so as to kill future application. See the bear? Taste the food. Guy you'd like to have a beer with? W. Remember how well that turned out?

Until you kill the deep-seated anti-intellectualism in America, how exactly are you going to keep the cream from sinking to the bottom, every single time?
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 9:51 AM on September 14, 2008 [4 favorites has favorites]


jaranson: True, and forgetting that those "flyover" states gave the Democrats a congressional and senate majority in 2006, along with record-breaking fundraising and primary voting. What doesn't get counted in the polls is the fact that this election year, the Democrats have had a much better record getting new voters to the polls.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 9:52 AM on September 14, 2008


Palin has accomplished one thing: she made the election far more about personality than it had been before. Which is not to say that it hadn't been about that before - elections are always about personality, and Obama and McCain both have written best sellers about their personal histories which were meant to convince you to vote for them - but until Palin, there was at least a pretense of debate about competency. The anti-Obama ads accused him of being inexperienced, a criticism which is, after all, relevant to the position he's seeking, and the anti-McCain ads were about how he says he doesn't know much about the economy, changes his opinion about relations with Russia regularly, flip-flops on whether or not we'll increase the payroll tax depending on whether you ask him about taxes or about balancing the budget, or about how he plans to carry on with many of Bush's less successful programs... and all of those criticisms are relevant to the position he's seeking. Now, however, the debate has become: is pointing out that being the mayor of a city of 9,000 isn't the same as being President of a nation of 250 million automatically against small town America and its values? Which is a patently absurd question that some people are taking very seriously.

If Obama wants to win - and I am very serious about this - instead of attacking Palin, he needs to just ignore the shit out of her, and keep up what he has been doing - attacking Bush. At this point, Bush has been the least popular President for the longest period of time in polling history. Anymore, being against Bush isn't even a position; its just common sense. But pointing out Palins flaws just reinforces her personality, which is her strength; you'll force people to choose sides, and that won't necessarily go well for you. Saying "she doesn't know what she's doing" - which is backed up from recent quotes from her to the effect that she doesn't actually know what the Vice President's job entails, or recent quotes that made it clear that she has no idea what the Freddie Mae / Fannie Mac buyout is about, or quotes that makes it clear that she thinks going to war in Russia is a good idea - well, that attack is going to make some people think "when they say she doesn't know what she's doing, they mean a woman isn't fit to be president" or "they think that just because she's from a small town she has to be dumb", or whatever. It will make her appear incompetent to some, but sympathetic to others.

For awhile, I was waffling about whether or not adding Palin to the ticket was a wise move, but I think that its a given that the issues don't really speak well for McCain at the moment (since as I said, many of his issues are Bush's issues, and people want a change), but I've finally decided that picking a likeable personality who could make the election about personality instead of the issues was a brilliant move for him. For the first time in months he's in an actual position where he could win. For Obama to counter-act that, then, he can't play the personality games McCain started. That's a losing proposition. He can either try to reinforce whatever small-town American values that he and Biden can represent, or he can try to negate her personality by shackling it to very unpopular personalities like Bush / Cheney. But he can't retreat to the issues now that its about the cult of personality, and he can't let her personality seem more American / friendlier / whatever than his personality is. Its that simple.
posted by Kiablokirk at 9:55 AM on September 14, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


Yeah, lets not get distracted by facts.
posted by MapGuy at 9:55 AM on September 14, 2008


Palin is still repeating that bridge to nowhere line. She's a marathon liar.
posted by Bookhouse at 9:59 AM on September 14, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


FYI, the Jesus Christ was a community organizer and Pontius Pilate was a governor thing got airtime on Meet The Press this morning. (Brokaw showed a pin with that slogan on it and asked Guiliani to comment on it.
posted by anastasiav at 9:59 AM on September 14, 2008 [2 favorites has favorites]


neroli- I totally see your point. I can't believe McCain waited 20 years before ever taking any action in the Senate. How did he ever get re-elected? Now how about actually comparing the experience that the candidates have. I mean only if, you know, it is not too inconvenient a truth.
posted by MapGuy at 10:02 AM on September 14, 2008


Obama can regain the serve by running a one word commercial, with the word "dishonorable" over McCain's face and a running scroll of what so many thoughtful people are saying this weekend below, for 30 seconds.

Make McCain respond to that. Pull a Rove and make his "strength" his weakness. Without honor, McCain is a western-state version of a ward pol, and Palin just another trick.

Because now Obama has a singular advantage: the worst thing he can say about McCain is the truth.
posted by fourcheesemac at 10:06 AM on September 14, 2008 [3 favorites has favorites]


"I am not among those who have said 'earmarks are nothing more than pork projects being shoveled home by an overeager congressional delegation.' [...] My role at the federal level is simply to submit the most well-conceived earmark requests we can. [...] For better or worse, earmarks, which represent only about 1 percent of the federal budget, have become a symbol for budgetary discussions in general."

--Sarah Palin, Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, March 5, 2008
posted by neroli at 10:07 AM on September 14, 2008 [6 favorites has favorites]


Since you brought it up Here is the group Obama tied his kite string to. Imagine if Palin had been running with this crowd, you would be screaming it from the mountain tops. Just sayin'. But let's not get distracted.
posted by MapGuy at 10:07 AM on September 14, 2008


Mapguy - Holy crap. That's a real goddamned article? Like he's serious? Honest to god dead pan serious?

From the article -

In his 12 years as a law school professor, Obama failed to publish a single item, an oddity in the world of academia, especially when you consider that, since 2006, when he decided to run for president, he has published seven times.

Politically, Obama spent eight years in the Illinois Senate and joined the U.S. Senate in 2005.

Palin, on the other hand, served four years on the Wasilla, Alaska, City Council and six years as the mayor/manager. She became the first woman governor of Alaska in 2006. He private-sector management experience includes helping her husband run his commercial fishing business.


Fishing business. In a serious article. About someone who could potentially be the NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!?!?!

We're fucked. Every last one of us. We've descended into some fucked up dystopian precursor to Idiocracy 2 : The Handmaid's Tale.

I can't even begin to get my head around any of this. 8 years of the worst government this country has ever endured. 8 years of a political party that has done everything in it's power to dismantle 200 years of what made the country great.
And we've got 52% of people thinking "Hey, I like the cut of this Guys jib. Reminds me of someone else though. anyhoo.."

AARGH!

I'll still fight the good fight, but we've really maxed out the fuckedupitedness meter.

Also, I'm slightly worried about the fact that there is a very nasty economic endgame set up based off of whether the world community decides if we're fit to run the world anymore.

Russians in Venezuala, Control over Georgian Pipeline + Willingness to face down over Iran = Energy balls in a vice
Chinese ready to drop the hammer on dollar divesture = Currency balls in a vice.

They're just waiting to see if we can elect someone who isn't incompetent or batshit insane to office.
posted by Lord_Pall at 10:09 AM on September 14, 2008 [13 favorites has favorites]


Get Out The Vote.

The batshitinsane portion of the USA is not the majority, they're just highly motivated to get off their asses and vote.

If you do not want the batshitinsane to become the deciding factor in this election, then get out the vote. Make damn sure you and all your not-batshitinsane friends and acquaintances get to the polls on election day.

This truly is a historic election, in which I think it's going to be very fair to say the USA will get the President it deserves.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:09 AM on September 14, 2008 [11 favorites has favorites]


Andrew Sullivan has a nice catch from the Times piece:
And four months ago, a Wasilla blogger, Sherry Whitstine, who chronicles the governor’s career with an astringent eye, answered her phone to hear an assistant to the governor on the line, she said. “You should be ashamed!” Ivy Frye, the assistant, told her. “Stop blogging. Stop blogging right now!”

[to which Sullivan adds]

Now I begin to understand the intimidation I have been subjected to for simply asking questions. All I can reassure my readers is: I'm now more determined than ever to reveal the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about this dangerous, vindictive Christianist cipher being foisted on the United States.

posted by fourcheesemac at 10:09 AM on September 14, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


But let's not get distracted.

By all means, let's not. But with all due respect, linking to blogs written by a couple of right wing hacks isn't helping us stay focused.
posted by psmealey at 10:16 AM on September 14, 2008 [3 favorites has favorites]


This week's financial news is going to be all Lehman Bros. going bankrupt. If I recall correctly, these were the guys who were given a massive federal gift of monies in return for taking over Bear Stearns. I can't help but feel this was a purposeful move to shift citizens' wealth (in the form of tax income) to the ultra-elite who own and operate these businesses, but I suppose that's neither here nor there.

Anyhoo, looks like the US banking industry, and possibly the entire financial industry, is going straight express to hell.

What do McCain and Obama plan to do about this? Of all the issues facing the USA today, surely the financial crisis is the most significant.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:20 AM on September 14, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


I think McCain's falling into a trap. Here's the rope-a-dope.

Narrative thread one, which has been running since June or so: "McCain=Bush", we all know the tune by heart: John McCain votes with Bush 90% of the time. McCain supports every Bush policy: tax cuts for the rich, Iraq, oil industry perks, not a dime's worth of difference. His campaign and his White House are run by the same crazy warmongers and lobbyists who have been a disaster for the past eight years. He is out of touch with the concerns of ordinary Americans and is just as clueless as Bush on the economy, housing, jobs, etc. Obama is the future, McCain is the past.

Thread two, which is just ramping up now: "McCain/Palin= dishonorable liars": John McCain (and his clueless, dangerous second Sarah Palin) are unrepentant liars. Note examples one thru seventy...Bridge to Nowhere lies, never been to Iraq lies, foreign policy cred lies, proximity to Russia nonsense. McCain has exposed himself as a dishonorable liar with highly questionable judgment who sacrificed his sacred honor for a shot at the Presidency.

(note well the use of that term "dishonorable", it's no accident, it's McCain's "fuck you" button. If he loses his temper in public, it's all over. But I digress.)

How to close the argument? How do these teeth come together in the end, like a zipper? How is John McCain most like George Bush? How do you remind people of why change is so very necessary, and tie McCain to the last eight years of failed policies and unaccountable government? Here's how. After making an impassioned plea that ideas matter, that the truth matters, that change is crucial:

America cannot afford four more years of corrupt Washington insiders like George Bush and John McCain covering up the repeated failures of the status quo with their coordinated campaigns of lies.

Bonus points if you can say it to McCain's face during the debates.
posted by edverb at 10:20 AM on September 14, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


Palin represents the pioneering woman who settled the old west, the woman who gets up every morning at 5:00am, fixes breakfast for her family, gets the kids on the bus, goes to work, comes home, cooks dinner ... &c.

But the fact remains that these are not qualifications for V.P. Republican women in office (Snowe; Hutchison; &c.) did not get there on SuperMom credentials. Palin's appeal among that base you describe holds true yet is an insult to the well-qualified female politicians who earned their rank and built their careers, perhaps in tandem with a family & children, but not *because* of them.
So if these neo-pioneer sector indeed reflects Paglia's laundry list of relatability-appeal, it says more about the impact of "American Idol" type image-driven messages than about their (in)ability to distinguish who belongs at the helm of the PTA vs. at the helm of the country's highest office. Their unblinking acceptance of the *lack* of Palin's credentials undermines the muck Snowe, Hutchison & other have endured to legitimize women's credibility within a male-dominated establishment. It borders on hypocrisy to manage their children's environment with an eye for careful judgment but not the position of their country's leadership and who belongs there. And it doubly undermines the integrity of female politicians' willingness to endure scrutiny and bias, for said pioneer-hearkening moms to cry 'Foul' and whine as their Idol is called out on questionable records, same as any male counterpart ought to be.
It's further baffling me how disproportionately men, more so than (even these) women, poll approvingly of the choice. Have Americans really become that impoverished in distinguishing style from substance? Then it's *my* turn to plead ignorant -- that phrase so frequently deployed on The Thread -- only in this case I've been totally ignorant of the extent to which many of our citizens' ability to map the terrain of political discourse has eroded.
posted by skyper at 10:21 AM on September 14, 2008 [2 favorites has favorites]


Mister_A, in my comment above, I was perhaps being too subtle, or obvious. Simply put Palin is a distraction from actual issues. There are many examples of this other than the obvious 1 issue voters. Some mentioned earlier in this thread. Some people relate to her as the Hockey Mom they try to portray her as. Others for her Religious beliefs. "A breath of fresh air." I work with a few men that probably masturbate to her.

What's common in all those cases is no matter what comes out of her mouth, or comes out about her, it's the one thing they think of when they see her, and they forget everything else.

Certainly McCain has shown some excellent slight of hand here.
posted by Eekacat at 10:23 AM on September 14, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


We're still going to win this, right?

Jesus Christ, no, we're not. Honestly, the situation reminds me of nothing more than bullying on an elementary school playground. Bully calls you a 'dork' or a 'fag' or something like that, maybe pushes you down. Now you have three options:

a) call him a 'dork' or a 'fag,' try to push him. But this doesn't work because your heart isn't in it: you know better than to be so offensive and brutish. Plus he's bigger and badder than you. He just laughs at your futile efforts, and so do all his friends. Bully wins.

b) take the high road, fight back with something like, "well, you're just a mean and immoral scoundrel. And besides, there's nothing wrong with being bookish (or gay), in fact my superior intellect will one day propel me into a top university, while you will flounder in a backwards job for your life, simply because you don't share my value in education." You sound defensive and even more 'dorky,' in fact you just confirm the bully's initial taunts. Bully wins.

c) you ignore him, walk away, while his friends continue to point and laugh. You concede defeat. Bully wins.

Eventually, elementary school ended. I moved away from such people, did go to a good school, got a good job and a good life where the moral code involves mutual respect and consideration. I was elated to find that 'real life' was not mean and petty and maddeningly impossible for 'nice guys' to succeed in. I thought I'd never face such a maddening, frustrating, hopeless, totally humiliating situation again.

But now I see what this election is like, and, with a sickening feeling, the analogy that keeps coming back to my mind is that Obama is the 'dork' on the playground, and McCain and his gang are the big bullies. And Obama has no way to stop them: he can't fight back because it's not in his constitution to be a bully, he can't take the moral high ground (focus on the issues, promulgate the facts) because he just comes off looking pathetic and defensive, and he can't ignore it, because then McCain gets to define the whole narrative. Mark my words, Obama has no escape. Hopefully someday he can find a more civil circle in which to revolve, a more civil profession. I hear the U of C needs a good Consitutional Law Professor...
posted by notswedish at 10:24 AM on September 14, 2008 [9 favorites has favorites]


fourcheesemac: here is that video.
posted by Meatbomb at 10:24 AM on September 14, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


Lord_Pall well technically speaking what he says is true as absurd as it may sound. Go ahead look up the word executive. I guess you could count Obama's time at Harvard as executive experience, what was president of the student union or somethng? Was that when he was smoking weed, or was that before?

And as I understand it Obama was affiliated with a group that is engaged in and has been or is being prosecuted for widespread voter fraud. I would not have mentioned it but some one brought up the Jesus Christ community organizer thing. Again if were McCain or Palin, what would you say. So we will give Obama credit on the executive experience at Harvard if you will allow that his work with ACORN was spent supporting the work of a criminal organization bent on stealing elections.

Hey, I would love to stay here all day and do this but NASCAR is on and then football. And Tina Fey was totally hot as Sarah last night, she nailed it. My God did you see the way she cocked that gun. The crowd just went wild. Have fun guys. Truth is the whole thing is absurd. I bet Ron Paul ain’t looking so bad about right now.
posted by MapGuy at 10:29 AM on September 14, 2008


America cannot afford four more years of corrupt Washington insiders like George Bush and John McCain covering up the repeated failures of the status quo with their coordinated campaigns of lies.

Repeated for emphasis. You know what else we can't afford? Another election season dominated by non-issues based on personality and culture wars.

For all the pro-life noise coming from the republicans these last 30+ years, what have they actually done to further that cause?

These small-town values voters really need to take a hard look at themselves and what they are voting for (or against) and ask themselves if they are behaving in a morally correct way by being taken in by these charlatans, while the nation's financial and physical infrastructure crumbles, and impoverishes us all.
posted by psmealey at 10:29 AM on September 14, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


But let's not get distracted.

By another article from a self-loathing racist twerp like Malkin? Yeahno, her attempts to insinuate herself into mainstream American conservatism through her hysterical, childress rants fail right from the start: she's Filipino, not a real American.
posted by jsavimbi at 10:30 AM on September 14, 2008


So Palin runs an administration that puts a premium on loyalty and secrecy, circumventing both the laws and the facts whenever those prove inconvenient. Sound like anybody else we know?

It infuriates me that it's taken two weeks now for some degree of reality-checking of the new face of the McCain campaign to just start gaining traction in the mainstream media and the mind of the general public. I guess we needed "The View" to break the ice and make it acceptable to call a lie a lie?
posted by Robin Kestrel at 10:31 AM on September 14, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


And as I understand it Obama was affiliated with a group that is engaged in and has been or is being prosecuted for widespread voter fraud.

As you understand it from Michelle Malkin's hit piece. ACORN is a community organization one of whose objective is getting out the vote in low to medium income areas. The mud that you help sling alludes to "allegations" and "implications", but nothing with respect to convictions. Of course such an organization, based on its mission, will end up on the receiving end of numerous and scurrilous lawsuits, given the charged times we live in.

Thanks for playing, you really helped clear things up.
posted by psmealey at 10:34 AM on September 14, 2008 [10 favorites has favorites]


Oooh, scary, a "media backlash" against the McCain/Palin campaign. The media can say anything they want about Palin, and it will not change the outcome of the election - the "morans" who vote for the Republican ticket most likely don't even read all that much.

And besides, voting booth shenanigans and blatant disenfranchisement (remember Florida? remember Ohio?) will have more effect on this election than anything else.

Americans, your country is in trouble.
posted by KokuRyu at 10:34 AM on September 14, 2008


notswedish: Both Obama and Biden have gone on the counter-offensive multiple times.

But, and here is something everyone is missing here, all we are talking about is perceptions of the relative status of candidates as presented in the mass media.

The same mass media who dragged on a story that was dead in early June into the Democratic convention.

The same mass media that spoke to Bill Clinton during a commercial break in 1992, "Ted Turner changed the world. He would serve you, you know what I mean?"

A basic problem is that the game is rigged by a third party, and neither Obama or McCain have more than a token control over the how the debate is framed.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 10:37 AM on September 14, 2008


Almost 150 comments already? Man, I haven't even finished reading the first Palin thread yet.
posted by box at 10:41 AM on September 14, 2008


I guess we needed "The View" to break the ice and make it acceptable to call a lie a lie

I am proud of The View.
posted by dirtdirt at 10:42 AM on September 14, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


MapGuy, if Sarah Palin had real experience, they wouldn't have to resort to the claim that Alaska's proximity to Russia makes her an expert.

How it must feel for Republicans to go into a battle for the nation's soul armed with such pathetic, absurd, desperate bullshit. "Alaska and Russia are close to each other! You can see it from one of our islands!" Yep, she's a regular Dwight D. Eisenhower.
posted by edverb at 10:47 AM on September 14, 2008


I am proud of The View.

I wish they'd frozen Kronkite's head and thawed it out every four years. It's sad that the only people on public television with any balls left are a panel of women on the downside of their careers. Come to think of it, that's all we need: a bunch of no-hope, dead enders to frame the discussion. "Born to Lose" tattoo? Here's your microphone.
posted by jsavimbi at 10:47 AM on September 14, 2008


Here's what I get from Palin. She's a cypher, much in the same way Bush was a cypher. An attractive figurehead for the hard-right. She obviously hasn't any real policies or opinions of her own. Rather, she's an attractive proxy for whoever the power-brokers behind her are.
You kidding? Palin is Nixon with a pretty face. She's "manipulated" to the extent that she doesn't really care about policy in the first place, but she's clearly lusting for power and surrounds herself with loyal incompetents.
For better or worse the last 30 years has proven America will take the "holier than thou" candidate over the "we know what's best for you" candidate. Do you hear me, Al Gore and John Kerry? This is why you lost, and if Obama isn't careful, he will too.
Do you really think a black guy could have gotten elected 30 years ago? Things change, and we have a dramatically different situation then even 2000. I mean, I think the American people would be happy to vote for someone who has some idea of 'what's best' rather then incompetents with no clue. Neither Kerry nor Gore fought effectively. Kerry sucked, and Gore didn't really bring the heat either (of course we had no idea how bad things would get, so it was a different situation)

Finally 2000 was a coin flip that Bush won that coin-flip (with help from his brother and Katharine Harris) proves nothing about the electorate. Kerry was a horrible campaigner, but came very close to winning anyway. If it hadn't been for the swift-boaters and his tepid response, he'd probably be president. Saying those essentially arbitrary events "proves" anything about American politics is sort of absurd.
Since you brought it up Here is the group Obama tied his kite string to. Imagine if Palin had been running with this crowd, you would be screaming it from the mountain tops. Just sayin'. But let's not get distracted.
Ah yes, noted racist Michelle Malkin, obviously her characterization of ACORN is spot on, after all someone with the penetrating insight to say, in the 21st century, that Japanese-American internment during WWII a great idea is obviously someone we should take seriously.
posted by delmoi at 10:49 AM on September 14, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


We're still going to win this, right?

Jesus Christ, no, we're not.


This kind of panic is unbecoming and unhelpful.
posted by effwerd at 10:50 AM on September 14, 2008 [2 favorites has favorites]


How low will things go?
good question but what was babs thinkingthat she and could rattle Strabo
i.e. 'The View' interview.
and why won't Barrack have town halls with or this that just guff. Apollo desended into Flint the other day and challenged Strabo (McCain) to a talk in Flint but that is a difficult one.

maybe barrack wants to hold a "war council", in Flint, like his friend Bill Ayers did, wanting TO SELL THIS COUNTRY AWAY FOR SLAUGHTER.
but that was then....
this election has been tame Madame with respect to your post.
:)
posted by clavdivs at 10:54 AM on September 14, 2008


To be specific with ACORN, what happened is that they paid people to register voters. One of their employees faked some registration forms in order to get paid more, in other words, to defraud ACORN (actions which would have no effect on the election). ACORN cooperated with the FBI during the help prosecute the fraudsters.

In other words, ACORN was the victim of the crime, not the perpetrator, but because ACORN's mission is to register lower-income people to vote, the republican slimeballs are willing to say anything to discredit it.
posted by delmoi at 10:55 AM on September 14, 2008 [32 favorites has favorites]


...as a law school professor, Obama failed to publish a single item, an oddity in the world of academia....

He wrote Dreams of My Father (1996) with support of the University of Chicago. They provided him with a fellowship to do so.
“Mr. Obama was given an office to write in at the University of Chicago through a surprising connection. Douglas G. Baird, a professor who was head of the law school’s appointments committee, had learned of Mr. Obama from Michael W. McConnell, a conservative constitutional scholar then at Chicago whom President Bush would later make a federal judge.

Professor McConnell encountered Mr. Obama during the editing of an article he wrote for The Harvard Law Review, Professor Baird said recently. ‘He sent a note saying this person is really brilliant, we should have him on our radar screen,’ Professor Baird said. Professor Baird called Mr. Obama at Harvard and asked if he was interested in teaching.

‘I don’t remember his exact words, but it was something to the effect that, ‘Well, in fact, I want to write this book.’ What he really wanted was the Virginia Woolf equivalent of a clean, well lighted room.’ So Professor Baird got him one, a small office near the law library, along with a law school fellowship that Professor Baird hoped might later lead to his full-time teaching.”
He did not become a full-time professor, but a lecturer while being employed as an attorney at Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland, a 12-attorney law firm specializing in civil rights litigation and neighborhood economic development from 1996 - 2004.
posted by ericb at 10:57 AM on September 14, 2008 [2 favorites has favorites]


Oh sorry. Oh wait maybe I was wrong. Oh crap, it was Seattle. Anywho you cant trust those crazy blogs. Can you? Freakin blogers.
posted by MapGuy at 10:57 AM on September 14, 2008


MapGuy, If Sarah Palin were the kind of person to support ACORN, a lot less people would have a problem with her. ACORN isn't a criminal organization, it's a community oriented advocacy group.
As for voter fraud, 15 individuals. Not the organization, 15 people in separate cases across the US who worked for or volunteered for ACORN, a group with over 350,000 members, have committed voter fraud. In multiple of those cases ACORN officials caught the individuals and turned them in.
So no I wouldn't hold support of ACORN against any candidate.
posted by MrBobaFett at 10:58 AM on September 14, 2008 [3 favorites has favorites]


"Alaska and Russia are close to each other! You can see it from one of our islands!" Yep, she's a regular Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Never forget that when we Canadians are wading knee-deep into some American issue thread. We're experts, every one of us. Not because of the media saturation. We're all cuddled up against your border. (mmm, North Dakota. Warm.)

Except I think we have a baker's dozen split between North Bay, ON, Churchill, MB, and the Queen Charlottes.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 10:59 AM on September 14, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


New Evidence: Palin Had Direct Role In Charging Rape Victims For Exams

Did Palin consider "rape kits" a form of abortion?
posted by homunculus at 10:59 AM on September 14, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


Go ahead look up the word executive. I guess you could count Obama's time at Harvard as executive experience, what was president of the student union or somethng?

President of the Harvard Law Review, actually. If you're going to mock his work at least get it right.

As to that hack piece of "journalism" you linked to, "community organizer" means bringing disenfranchised people into the democratic process. Something, IMHO, that is pretty fucking noble.

It says a lot about the people who mock him, and how afraid they are of poor people voting.
posted by kableh at 11:00 AM on September 14, 2008 [4 favorites has favorites]


I am sorta loosing the count of... wait did you just say it was just one guy?
posted by MapGuy at 11:00 AM on September 14, 2008


Argumentum ad echo chamber.
posted by edverb at 11:05 AM on September 14, 2008


MapGuy, Google Republican Voter Fraud... you may be surprised to find out that there are Republicans who have committed voter fraud over the years.
posted by MrBobaFett at 11:08 AM on September 14, 2008


I wish they'd frozen Kronkite's [sic] head and thawed it out every four years.

Walter Cronkite is alive and well and enjoying his summer on Martha's Vineyard.
posted by ericb at 11:10 AM on September 14, 2008


One picture of Sarah Palin's face undoes 10,000 words of expose on her goofy governorship. The woman looks fantastic.

Holy crap, what a country. Does it count for nothing at all what happens when her whiny voice begins to work? I mean, "hockey mom" can fuck right off when she's hectoring you to clean up your room, and that's exactly the note Palin hits.
posted by bonaldi at 11:12 AM on September 14, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


I am not mocking him; I just can't be bothered to look it up because it is such a minor point and I know you will self righteously correct me, while missing the point of the argument entirely. Just because something is true does not make it necessarily relevant. But while we are on the subject does Obama have any executive experience? Does, McCain? Does Biden?


Are you suggesting that I am afraid of poor people voting? That is bullshit.
Here is a hint. I believe in the rule of law. I believe in the Constitution.
Here are a few rules I try to follow.

Never assume you have the high ground moral, intellectual or tactical.

Never assume you are being told the truth, by anyone.

Listen not to what you want to hear but to both what is being said and what is not being said.

Listen to all sides very carefully.

Assume everyone has an agenda.

Assume it is mostly self-serving.

Assume you may very well be completely wrong.

If you become emotive you have already lost the argument.

Look it up.
Good luck.

I don't always get it right. But then neither do you.
posted by MapGuy at 11:15 AM on September 14, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


MapGuy, Google Republican Voter Fraud... you may be surprised to find out that there are Republicans who have committed voter fraud over the years.

There are basic differences, though.

Democrats commit voter fraud at the retail level, with gargantuan efforts involving production and transmission of fraudulent ballots and convincing inelligible voters on a one-by-one basis to attempt to register. These efforts are very labor intensive, and usually result in arrests and are largely ineffective.

Republicans commit voter fraud at the executive level (owning companies that develop voting machines that do not provide paper trails, purging voter registration rolls, and engaging in widespread intimidation in democratic areas). These are very effective, and hardly ever result in arrests of any kind.
posted by psmealey at 11:15 AM on September 14, 2008 [4 favorites has favorites]


Since Walter Cronkite is still alive, we don't even need to thaw his head!
posted by lukemeister at 11:16 AM on September 14, 2008


You're cute when you froth, MapGuy.
posted by Eekacat at 11:16 AM on September 14, 2008 [2 favorites has favorites]


We're still going to win this, right?

Jesus Christ, no, we're not.

This kind of panic is unbecoming and unhelpful.


Exactly.

AP: Number-crunching pollster sees decisive Obama win
"A pollster whose mathematical model has correctly predicted every winner of the White House popular vote since 1988 is banking on a decisive victory for Democrat Barack Obama in November.

Emory University political scientist Alan Abramowitz said Wednesday that according to his 'time for change' model, Obama would secure 54.3 percent of the popular vote against 45.7 percent for Republican John McCain.

That margin would virtually guarantee a crushing victory for the Democrat in the state-by-state electoral college that actually selects the next president, Abramowitz said."

posted by ericb at 11:18 AM on September 14, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


MrBobaFett - Nothing supprises me with respect to the ability of human beings to betray one another.
posted by MapGuy at 11:19 AM on September 14, 2008


Walter Cronkite is alive and well and enjoying his summer on Martha's Vineyard.

Sonnavabitch, Thou shalt not use teh Googles. I'd like to ammend my comment to read "I wish they'd frozen Kronkite's [sic] head back when he was relevant and thawed it out every four years."

MapGuy, don't listen to these people hassling you with "facts" and stuff, you know the right way to feel. Keep linking to those blogs, they're making for an interesting read.

Is it bad to be curious?
posted by jsavimbi at 11:19 AM on September 14, 2008


does Obama have any executive experience? Does, McCain? Does Biden?

Yes. For the past 18 months, Obama has run an incredibly smart, effective and successful Presidential campaign with a high degree of street level organization, and a fund-raising capability that's second to none. At the same time, he has been subjected to a level of media scrutiny and vetting that few among us could withstand, let alone come out the other end of it unscathed.

I might have agreed with the lack of experience thing in 2006, but he has proven that he is an effective leader, organizer and driver of an extensive, national organization, and has still got a lot of gas left in the tank. The guy can flat out manage and execute, not to mention communicate.

I put this executive experience up against anything you've got. Being mayor of a 9,000 person town and 650,000 person state (that's propped up by the largesse of the federal govt) doesn't even come close to Obama's recent experience.
posted by psmealey at 11:20 AM on September 14, 2008 [6 favorites has favorites]


Eekacat Dude I am siting here laughing. I enjoy the debate. I can not be bothered to get upset about this.
posted by MapGuy at 11:21 AM on September 14, 2008


Honestly, the situation reminds me of nothing more than bullying on an elementary school playground...

I think you are right. Strategists like Karl Rove (and Lee Atwater et al before him) understand that appealing to base emotions and instincts help energize their base. I call it "Playgound Politics." It evolves over time to "High School Student Center Politics" and sticks with many people.

Wht the Democrats could use is a pissed-off Ralphie going all apeshit on Scott Farkus...with the bully bloodied and sniffling as he retreats from the crowd.
posted by ericb at 11:25 AM on September 14, 2008


psmealey and How about McCain? Jesus, you must know by now I don't start something I can't finish.
posted by MapGuy at 11:26 AM on September 14, 2008


Man, why are they always "laughing"? Can't they just be sitting podding away at the keyboard, bored like the rest of us? No, it has to be laughter that leads to their screeds.
posted by bonaldi at 11:26 AM on September 14, 2008 [6 favorites has favorites]


McCain bankrupted his own organization and had to go through three reorgs before the Bushites bailed him out. Not to say he hasn't been an effective candidate, but he almost blew his chances with his inept management before finally having the wherewithal to hand the keys over to the pros.
posted by psmealey at 11:28 AM on September 14, 2008


And his military experience would be....?
posted by MapGuy at 11:30 AM on September 14, 2008


bonaldi I wish I could do that Dr. Evil laugh, that would be cool.
posted by MapGuy at 11:31 AM on September 14, 2008


And his military experience would be....?

Crashing five jets with the last earning him a place at the Hanoi Hilton.
posted by ericb at 11:32 AM on September 14, 2008 [11 favorites has favorites]


The democrats need to get over their smugness - and quick - if they want to win this election. What everything boils down to is this: Democrats come across as "knowing what's best for you" and Republicans come across as "holier than thou".

For better or worse the last 30 years has proven America will take the "holier than thou" candidate over the "we know what's best for you" candidate. Do you hear me, Al Gore and John Kerry? This is why you lost, and if Obama isn't careful, he will too.


Quoted for truth.

Ah yes, noted racist Michelle Malkin, obviously her characterization of ACORN is spot on, after all someone with the penetrating insight to say, in the 21st century, that Japanese-American internment during WWII a great idea is obviously someone we should take seriously.
Michelle Malkin happens to be Asian American. What was that about her being a racist?
posted by konolia at 11:32 AM on September 14, 2008


And his military experience would be....?

Undistinguished. Other than his famously being imprisoned by the Vietcong for almost six years, the rest of his military career was relatively undistinguished... about the same as Don Rumsfeld. Never managed any critical assets or squadrons and topped out at as Captain (not bad for some, but hardly the thing of legend).
posted by psmealey at 11:34 AM on September 14, 2008


And his military experience would be....?

And yours is? I'm proud of mine, but in no way does it qualify me for anything other than a cop, fireman or hobo eradication specialist. That's grasping at straws, as Saint Ronnie, Little Geroge and Uncle Dick already proved.

So if you want to debate the military qualifications of a man who managed to use his family's influence to further his career up to the point where he didn't get a star and was advised to retire, by all means, please do.
posted by jsavimbi at 11:36 AM on September 14, 2008 [2 favorites has favorites]


Go look up VA 174. Here is a hint; it was at the time the largest squadron in the Navy.
posted by MapGuy at 11:38 AM on September 14, 2008


Thank god the media is finally waking up and exposing the lies we've been reading about for weeks.
posted by agregoli at 11:38 AM on September 14, 2008


Guys, there's a lot of good stuff in this thread. Don't let it turn to shit.
posted by neroli at 11:39 AM on September 14, 2008


...hobo eradication specialist..

I think this thread could use one of those.

I keed. I keed.
posted by ericb at 11:39 AM on September 14, 2008


An organization Obama was involved with at one time was involved in some sort of voter fraud.

An organization that John McCain is still actively involved in is directly responsible for war crimes, geneva convention violations, false cassus belli, invasion of a sovereign nation under false pretenses, destruction of New Orleans, cronyism, corrruption, and general skullduggery.

Sorta puts the whole thing into perspective, huh..

Lipstick on a pig my ass.
posted by Lord_Pall at 11:40 AM on September 14, 2008 [4 favorites has favorites]


konolia: Being non-white does not give anyone a pass on racism any more than being female gives anyone a pass on sexism. I am ashamed to have Malkin as a member of my demographic.
posted by casarkos at 11:44 AM on September 14, 2008 [16 favorites has favorites]


Lord_Pall Are you referring to the US Senate? If that is the case I think you may have a problem.
posted by MapGuy at 11:45 AM on September 14, 2008


Are you suggesting that I am afraid of poor people voting?

Yes. Why else would you slander a group like ACORN, who registers poor people to vote, based on bullshit posted on the craziest of crazy wingnut blogs?

Michelle Malkin happens to be Asian American. What was that about her being a racist?

Michelle Malkin is a racist, that's correct. She isn't Japanese, so I fail to see how being Asian grants her a pass on supporting Japanese internment, and she's also totally racist against Arabs and Muslims in general (which is not technically a race, but you get the idea)
posted by delmoi at 11:48 AM on September 14, 2008 [7 favorites has favorites]


Did it ever occur to you that I am trying to help you clarify your argument. No, didn't think so.

All you're doing is spouting nonsequiters and insults. I recommend you be ignored for the rest of the thread.

I don't think he's "trolling" specifically, rather he simply lacks the intellectual heft for a real discussion.
posted by delmoi at 11:51 AM on September 14, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


MapGuy somehow reminds me of another far-right-winger I occasionally debate with. Trollish in general, but claims to be "fair and balanced" and not trusting of anyone, including the GOP. Delights in getting EV1L LIBRULS all frothy, and uses weak rejoinders to cover his tracks. Becomes sullen and snarky when cornered on a point or is clearly losing a debate. Ignores counterpoints to his arguments when those counterpoints are unassailable. All-in-all, someone with "values."

But I'm just a barely-right-of-centre Canuckistani who thinks Stephen Harper's government needs a steel-toed kick in the arse, so what do I know?
posted by illiad at 11:52 AM on September 14, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


It is best to ignore MapGuy, who still thinks that two cellphones can boil an egg.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:52 AM on September 14, 2008 [22 favorites has favorites]


Well, you might not like her opinion on internment, granted, but is it on racist grounds or something else?

(Although I have no trouble at all believing that in the 40s there WAS racism involved in the idea of internment camps-after all, I don't remember reading about German internment camps. )
posted by konolia at 11:54 AM on September 14, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


Whoops~!
posted by furtive at 11:55 AM on September 14, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


Do you mean to say that the WSJ is slandering ACORN. that newspapers in Michigan, Misouri and Seattle are the craziest of crazy wingnut blogs? Because that is what I linked to. If I show you something that is widely reported in the Media as being true why is that slander? I believe I was asking a legitimate question, that I take you do not wish to answer. That's cool, I will go watch NASCAR and football. And no I don't hate poor people.
posted by MapGuy at 11:55 AM on September 14, 2008


Michelle Malkin happens to be is Asian American. What was that about her being a racist?

It's not by accident, her parents are Filipino and her daddy inseminated her mommy's vagina and produced an offspring. Her race wasn't assigned to her via lotto prior to being taken away by the stork to deliver to a [married by the church] couple at random. Oh, and if you think that people of Asian extraction can't be racist, then please explain to me why, as a gringo, I always get a fork and a glass of water at dim sum and my Asian tablemates do not? Huh?

Dim sum is a way of eating Chinese food with tea. It's not to be confused with tapas. Those are Spanish. Just a helpful FYI

And while you're at Google "Malkin racist" and "navy attack squadron VA". One will produce numerous instances of her proxy gutter talk, the other will return information regarding where second-rate naval aviators reside, along with their fourth-rate brethren who finagled a job in a fixed-wing, non-support squadron with a little help from Daddy's friends.

"But he was a POW." So was Vonnegut. Dammit Konolia, educate yourself. Please.
posted by jsavimbi at 11:55 AM on September 14, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


Michelle Malkin happens to be Asian American. What was that about her being a racist?

Ummm.... she's an Asian American racist?

Can you seriously explain what the fuck this meant?
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 11:59 AM on September 14, 2008 [7 favorites has favorites]


I don't keep up with Naval aviation (although I did live in Pensacola quite awhile. Got to watch the Blue Angels practice whilst sunning myself on the beach. It was nice.)

(I'm not following what you guys are discussing re McCain as I already know flying and leadership are two different things. I have a son in the Air Force.)
posted by konolia at 12:00 PM on September 14, 2008


Well, you might not like her opinion on internment, granted, but is it on racist grounds or something else?

I don't think you can say "lets round up every single Jap/Arab/Jew and put them in prison for an indefinite length of time, without a trial" and have it not be racist. If you know of a way to have internment camps filled with people who are there for no reason but for their race, please let me know. I look forward to your illuminating response.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 12:00 PM on September 14, 2008 [3 favorites has favorites]


My friends --in all seriousness, for five years I starved in a box in the Hanoi Hilton, a prisoner of the Vietnamese Communists.
posted by OldReliable at 12:02 PM on September 14, 2008


Garrison Keillor writes on "straight-talk" hypocrisy, distraction from bigger issues, and the implied insult to those of us who "didn't just fall off the coal truck."

here's hoping his message will reach those who need it most.
posted by skyper at 12:04 PM on September 14, 2008


OldReliable If this is true. Then please speak. Your voice deserves to be heard.
posted by MapGuy at 12:05 PM on September 14, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


Michelle Malkin happens to be Asian American. What was that about her being a racist?

Doesn't mean she's not racist. Including against Asian Americans.
posted by spaceman_spiff at 12:05 PM on September 14, 2008


What basis do you claim to call me either a sociopath or a dick?

Explained here.

Did it ever occur to you that I am trying to help you clarify your argument. No, didn't think so.

Only insofar as your punching me in the stomach is helping me forget my headache.

I'm off to watch NASCAR and Football as well, but I'll be killing babies and eating tempeh burgers and drinking a mochaccino as I do it.
posted by psmealey at 12:06 PM on September 14, 2008


That is so cool how do you get it to blink?

Gosh, you're the ITT Tech graduate, why don't you tell me? As a matter of fact, why not go back down into your basement, figure out how to make two cellphones boil an egg - an assertion you are still unable to defend, remember - and then come join the discussion here when you're done?

Why would anyone genuinely listen to what you have to say when you happen to be wrong about everything else you've posted?
posted by Optimus Chyme at 12:06 PM on September 14, 2008


And by the way, I'm not saying Malkin is Racist against Japanese people in general, Rather she's racist against Arabs and other "brown" people from Muslim countries. The reason she praised internment in WWII was because she thought it was a good model for dealing with Arabs/muslims in the US during the "war on terror."

One of the U.S. attorneys prosecuting ACORN was none other then Bradley Schlozman, a notorious rightwing hack and expert vote suppressor. here he is testifying in congress about those 'prosecutions'
posted by delmoi at 12:09 PM on September 14, 2008


What Would Todd Do?
"In voting to issue a subpoena to Todd Palin in an investigation of the firing of the Alaska public safety commissioner, state lawmakers on Friday signaled that Mr. Palin, the husband of Gov. Sarah Palin, might have played a central role in one of the most contentious episodes of her governorship.

While that suggestion goes beyond the image presented of Mr. Palin during the Republican convention as a blue-collar family man and sportsman, it echoes a widely held understanding among lawmakers, state employees and lobbyists about Mr. Palin’s heavy engagement in state government.

In the small circle of advisers close to the governor, these people say, Mr. Palin is among the closest, and he plays an unpaid but central role in many aspects of the administration of Ms. Palin, the Republican nominee for vice president.

Mr. Palin’s involvement in the governor’s office has prompted an irreverent quip by some capital staff members when decisions are to be made that might affect the governor: 'What would Todd do?'

Mr. Palin has encouraged lawmakers to support his wife’s agenda, helped her review budget items and polish speeches, surprised some lawmakers by sitting in on meetings and received copies of top administration staff e-mail messages."

posted by ericb at 12:10 PM on September 14, 2008


Speaking of Racism-- how about John "I hate the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live" McCain's racism?

John McCain repeatedly voted against creating a national holiday commemorating Martin Luther King, Jr. Now, of course, Mr. "Straight Talk" has flip-flopped and is in favor of this holiday.

Looks like the people of Memphis remember his original position, though.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 12:13 PM on September 14, 2008


Confirmation bias is a hard thing to point out, because everybody wants to believe that they're making solid well thought out unbiased decisions. But There's a healthy amout of confirmation bias that is at the heart of this election, and it's results are quite interesting.

I'm not talking about regular "I support candidate A, so i will view everything through that lens" bias. That's normal and to be expected. But what this election has that is unprecedented is an overriding bias that both sides share. The preconception the Barack Obama can't win.

The common wisdom among all Americans before this election was that while having a Black President was something that we as a country would see as a good thing given our history, it wasn't something that would happen in our lifetime.

The biggest problem with this bias is that it is NOT racist. You'll notice that whenever Obama's rae is brought up in this election, it;'s through the prism of "racist voters who won't vote for him because of his skin color" this is not where the color of his skin actually hurts him. We already have an established "overcoming racism" narrative that we can all tap into.

What we don't have is a Black Man as president narrative we can tap into. As a result even people who are for Obama 100% are still biased against him in this subtle, but overwhelming way. Even Obama's successes look like failures when deep down you think he can't win. Even if you really really WANT him to win. Remember how Hillary Clinton kept insisting that Obama couldn't beat McCain, and everyone ignored the fact that she couldn't beat Obama?

There's that old saying, "When the map doesn't match the ground, it's the map that's wrong"

So much has been completely counterintuitive about this election, but everyone insists on filtering it through previous models, completely ignoring every piece of evidence that says things are different this time. Remember how everyone kept asking every primary why he couldn't "put Hillary away", and in hindsight we can clearly see he wrapped things up on Super Tuesday?

There's this saying among a certain segment of Black America that is pretty much accepted as gospel truth, and this election seems to be proving it.

"You have to be twice as good to be considered equal."

This idea could be interpreted as grievance, but it really isn't. The base idea is that you actually can actually achieve equality. It doesnt matter if the world ignores how far over the bar you have to jump, a long as you clear the bar.

This election is still a tossup, but so far Obama has cleared every bar in unprecedented fashion. He's working harder than anyone ever has, and everyone is mad because he's making it look easy.Every time he clears a bar, everyone assumes that bar wasn't important, because hey, he can't really win, can he?

Two things to consider.

1) Following the announcement of Palin as VP, Obama collected $10 million in one day. The first 24 hours. This was before any of the rumors, allegations, vetting concern, polls or anything. Everyone looked at that banner day through the lens of Palin reaction, when in reality he was going to get that money anyway. As long as everyone continues to underestimate the machine, nobody's going to figure out a way to beat the machine.

2) Go back to Electoral-vote.com. Their numbers are causing all sorts of hand-winging when viewed as proof that Obama is losing. But look again at McCain's numbers as compared to Bush's numbers in 2004. He may be ahead of Obama in some key states, but he's behind Bush by more than a few points in most of those states. And these are pre-debate convention bounce numbers. Meanwhile Obama is close to or excceding Kerry's numbers.

Maybe it shouldn't be as close as it is at this point. But as this race goes into it's last laps, it may be a tie, but one guy is driving a rickety old bus as fast as it can possibly go, and the other guy is in a Ferrari and is just kind of cruising along.

It's still anybody's race, but is anyone really looking at the Straight Talk Express right now and saying "wow, look at that thing go!"
posted by billyfleetwood at 12:16 PM on September 14, 2008 [15 favorites has favorites]


McCain: Racist, Bigot & Homophobe
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 12:20 PM on September 14, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


Doctors call on McCain to release complete medical records (video).
The report says that 4 bouts of melanoma were among the various types of skin cancer McCain has experienced. His most recent Stage 2 melanoma occurred in 2002. By the charts, there is a 66% chance of recurrence within 10 years, and 6 years have already lapsed. MDs say that treatment for a recurrence would be so toxic and so difficult, he would be incapacitated from fulfilling his responsibilities.

And his backup is Palin & her sidekick, First Dude? Horribile dictu! Mere contemplation is the stuff of nightmares.
posted by madamjujujive at 12:25 PM on September 14, 2008 [4 favorites has favorites]


What would Todd do?

I cannot speak intelligently on the decision making habits of one Todd Pallin, part-time oil worker cum snowmobile racer and all around shunner of contraceptives, but I will say what nimrod like himself wouldn't do: let his little lady run around making decisions without consulting him first.

Maybe my services as a hobo eradication specialist may not be needed in this thread, but we could sure make good use of a trailer park mediator: Jerry! Jerry! Jerry!

kolonia, I'm amazed that all these years of military living haven't rubbed off on you enough to tell the difference between one and the other. Did you have no other interests in the world around you other than sitting on the beach? That's sad, it really is. I'm not knocking your beliefs, just your apparent ignorance as a human being. It's a pet peeve of mine to see people on this Earth, for the short time they're here, act completely unaware of their surroundings. Please tell me that at least you're better travelled than Todd's missus.
posted by jsavimbi at 12:25 PM on September 14, 2008


I would love for a reporter to ask Sarah Palin how she feels about John McCain's Rape Joke.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 12:25 PM on September 14, 2008


Got to watch the Blue Angels practice whilst sunning myself on the beach. It was nice.

Given your incuriosity about the Iraq war, I wonder on which beach you've been sunning yourself the past few years.
posted by troybob at 12:29 PM on September 14, 2008


The bad news: Given the opposing candidate, the drawn out war, and the collapsing economy, Obama should be ahead by 15%.

Actually, that's not true. According to this article by the economist Douglas Hibbs, who is known for his "bread and peace" model of presidential election forecasting, the level of income growth in the U.S. and the amount of Iraq War casualties leads to a prediction of Obama winning narrowly by a 51.8% share of the two-party vote, while the Republicans gets 48.2%. I think most of the other forecasting models also have Obama winning but by a small margin.
posted by jonp72 at 12:32 PM on September 14, 2008


It's a pet peeve of mine to see people on this Earth, for the short time they're here, act completely unaware of their surroundings.

My SO, who is from the U.S., is dismayed by the lack of worldliness found in much of her homeland. I don't have the data in front of me, but an astonishingly low number of Americans have ever had a passport and far fewer keep their passports current. While working a bit north of Seattle, her co-workers were amazed at how often she crossed north to Vancouver. The cultural similarities between Seattle-ites and Vancouver-ites are legion, but crossing the 49th into Canada was viewed with as much awe as travelling to, say, Mongolia. They're both foreign countries, after all...

The usual line she'd hear as to why being aware of one's surroundings and the "World Outside" wasn't necessary was: "We can travel across the U.S. -- what more do we need?"
posted by illiad at 12:38 PM on September 14, 2008


[few comments removed - take dick name calling IMMEDIATELY to metatalk or email, thakn you]
posted by jessamyn at 12:39 PM on September 14, 2008


Michelle Malkin is a racist, that's correct. She isn't Japanese, so I fail to see how being Asian grants her a pass on supporting Japanese internment, and she's also totally racist against Arabs and Muslims in general (which is not technically a race, but you get the idea).

The Japanese occupation of the Philippines during World War II makes it perfectly plausible that a Filipina-American woman like Michelle Malkin might have an ax to grind about the internment of Japanese-Americans. Asians are just as capable of hating on other Asians as the non-Asians are.
posted by jonp72 at 12:40 PM on September 14, 2008


Since when do facts matter in US politics?
posted by Vindaloo at 12:43 PM on September 14, 2008


Keep living in the bubble people. I mean if you don't like McCain's campaign tactics that's fine -- but the idea that the media hasn't been hard enough on her or that embarassing NYT story which is a bunch of overheated language attached to mighty thin gruel amounts to a "thorough vetting" is kind of pathetic. It's an embarrassment for the the Times which isn't a sleeping giant so much as a giant on life support, because of obviously biased crap like this. NEWSFLASH: She made some enemies in local politics -- B.F.D. Of course she's a Governor now with an 80+ percent approval rating but OMG STOP THE PRESSES we found some people in Alaska that don't like her!

Instead, it will likely stoke the narrative that the media is cheerleading for Obama -- something surveys show that most people now believe. You may despise McCain-Palin but you have to admit that a major reason why Obama is now slipping is because the media fell down on the job and prematurely and unfairly rushed to bury her. And now, because the NYT initially rushed to print page one stories about her that they had to retract (her alleged membership in the Alaska Independence Party) and they began demanding paternity tests on the basis of a vicious and anonymous Kos diary -- Palin is largely bulletproof to media attacks.

In the meantime everyone should read this and chill the hell out.
posted by Heminator at 12:47 PM on September 14, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


I should clarify -- it wasn't the NYT but another media outlet that irresponsibly demanded a paternity test...
posted by Heminator at 12:50 PM on September 14, 2008


Heminator, I'm really unsure what bubble you seem to be outside of, but perhaps you should come in because it has oxygen.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 12:52 PM on September 14, 2008


You may despise McCain-Palin but you have to admit that a major reason why Obama is now slipping is because the media fell down on the job and prematurely and unfairly rushed to bury her

Dude, they haven't even talked to her yet.
posted by The Straightener at 12:52 PM on September 14, 2008 [3 favorites has favorites]


As for voter fraud, 15 individuals. Not the organization, 15 people in separate cases across the US who worked for or volunteered for ACORN, a group with over 350,000 members, have committed voter fraud. In multiple of those cases ACORN officials caught the individuals and turned them in.

Yeah, this is pretty much B.S. Organizations like ACORN cannot be held responsible if one of their canvassers tries to get extra money by trying to register "Mickey Mouse" and other nonexistent voters. ACORN's the only victim here. They get swindled out of money by canvassers registering phony voters. It doesn't have an effect on the election, because "Mickey Mouse" is not going to suddenly materialize and show up at the polls. It's just Republicans suppressing the vote with phony "voter fraud" charges to cast doubt on Democratic electoral victories.

Seriously, we need to change the whole framing of the voter fraud issue, so that Republican efforts at suppressing voter turnout are understood as the real voter fraud.
posted by jonp72 at 12:53 PM on September 14, 2008 [3 favorites has favorites]


Got to watch the Blue Angels practice whilst sunning myself on the beach. It was nice.

Holy cats! You've SEEN the jets? By Palin logic, you're qualified to run either the air force or the NTSB. Take your pick!
posted by John of Michigan at 12:53 PM on September 14, 2008 [21 favorites has favorites]


I should clarify -- it wasn't the NYT but another media outlet that irresponsibly demanded a paternity test...

Actually, it was an unspecified "members of the A-list media" that asked if the campaign had plans for her to undergo tests...according to Steve Schmidt.
posted by neroli at 12:58 PM on September 14, 2008


My SO, who is from the U.S., is dismayed by the lack of worldliness found in much of her homeland.

From a social standpoint, yes, I'm dismayed that a lot of my fellow Americans are donkeys when it comes to the world outside of their living rooms, let alone outside our borders. But not from a financial standpoint. I clean up pretty well in comparisson to my peers, so I'm not trying to educate them that much. After all, being the lone gringo in an office where all of the talent is imported has its benefit$.

It's hard to knock what we have in the US. Foreigners come here and are culture shocked into submission with our style of living, everthing from the availability of consumer goods to the level of customer service and the facilities that we build for ourselves. Not to mention that our McMansions, empty or not, far outclass any available new construction anywhere in the world. Hands down. It's not a bad place to live and the opportunities are endless for anyone with a little hussle, just ask Todd's missus.

That being said, there are plenty of people in other countries who never leave their homeland, let alone go far beyond their local area unless pressed into it. Even though it's easy to encounter nouveau riche tourists on a junket in most major American cities, travelling to remote areas for recreation is still an activity of the elites, or the soon to be, and I don't hold it against anyone for not venturing far beyond the beach at Punta Cana.

But to list a refueling stop in Shannon?, Ireland as foreign affairs experience betrays a complete and utter lack of curved Earth understanding. As in being laughed at and annointed a numbskull.
posted by jsavimbi at 1:01 PM on September 14, 2008


The woman looks fantastic. Her face is the perfectly proportioned expression of the "golden mean." The eyes, the cheekbones, the mouth, the neck have a powerful appeal that make objective or hostile reaction very difficult....

??

She has "crazy eyes". I see a complete wackjob/twit when I look at that face.
posted by Zambrano at 1:01 PM on September 14, 2008


The collective thought process of our nation is chaotic, gut-level, poorly reasoned. I accept it at a root level that there is some core wisdom in the American electorate, that truth will out and the good guys will win someday. But what if it isn't true? What if Gore and Kerry weren't wine-sipping nancy boys and brainiacs but were actually good people who lost to worse ones?

Here's the conclusion that I've drawn: Americans back the strong. Less simply, Americans support people, organizations and causes that project strength and support a perception of strength.

Intellectualism is seen as weak; where is the strength in looking at multiple points of view, asks the average American. Strength is in taking one position, whether true or not, whether valid or valuable or destructive, and holding onto it with both hands. Not merely holding onto that point of view, but attacking all contrary points of view.

Negotiating with enemies is weak. Accepting or adopting a religious view that does not mandate a hierachy is weak. Being different from your neighbour means that you're undermining the fortress of his ego; that cannot stand. He is in a position of strength; surely those who are different must be attacking him.

The rich are strong, and Americans dream about becoming stronger. Taxing the wealthy is punishing the strong. Telling an American that he will never be rich is a coward's tactic. Of course I don't support taxing the wealthy, America says -- that's a weasel's way of fighting the strong and supporting the weak. But you're lower middle class, argues the intellectual, and I want to lower your taxes. The American then bristles at being labelled weak or told that he is not likely to ever be strong in that way.

If the weak succeed in war, it is only because they have acted dishonourably. Guerilla warfare. Terrorism. Improvised explosive devices. If the strong fail in war it's because the peace-loving weaklings held us back. We have the greatest military might in history; if we failed it's because we were stopped by weaklings who used trickery to stem our budgets or dishonourably hurt morale.

We punish people as a show of strength. Rehabilitation is a sign of weakness. We want to punish women who left the house and got themselves raped by not letting them abort. We punish weaklings who dare to step outside of the free speech zones. Showing mercy to mentally disabled criminals is weak: no exceptions. You kill your enemies. You don't coddle them.

"But your candidate is lying." Fuck you, you little weakling. Can't take it? Quit. If you write that we're liars in the paper, it's because you're cowards and can't stand up to a fair fight and have to use the media to fight your battles for you.

Given the choice between a bully and a nerd, America will pick the bully every time. Sadly, I don't think this election is going to be any different.
posted by ten pounds of inedita at 1:11 PM on September 14, 2008 [21 favorites has favorites]


The Palin-Whatshisname Ticket
posted by homunculus at 1:13 PM on September 14, 2008 [2 favorites has favorites]


I should clarify -- it wasn't the NYT but another media outlet that irresponsibly demanded a paternity test...

No media outlets asked for a paternity test, in fact, it doesn't even make any sense, Palin is the mother and paternity tests determine the father. It was just a dumbass rumor floated by the McCain campaign, which lies about everything.
posted by delmoi at 1:26 PM on September 14, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


Got to watch the Blue Angels practice whilst sunning myself on the beach. It was nice.
>Holy cats! You've SEEN the jets? By Palin logic, you're qualified to run either the air force or the NTSB. Take your pick!


Nerts to that, I got a goddamn airshow flying over my house, and the other 364 days of the year, I'm directly below the approach path for landings.

I'M KING OF THE SKYYYYY!!!
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 1:30 PM on September 14, 2008


I would love for a reporter to ask Sarah Palin how she feels about John McCain's Rape Joke.

The victim in this joke? Did she have to pay for her own rape test kit?
posted by PeterMcDermott at 1:31 PM on September 14, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


Obama ad - His Administration.
posted by madamjujujive at 1:32 PM on September 14, 2008


Of all the discussion-worthy, interesting things that could be said about the election as it stands the single most important one by far, IMO, is what five fresh fish said:

Get Out The Vote.

It's not just a slogan, people. If you as a people, as a nation can manage to get as many people as possible to simply tick a box, press a button, all these students in Virginia who are being misled into believing they cannot register to vote at their college address, all these "bitter" voters in, say, Hocking County, Ohio -- and let's ditch the quotation marks now, okay, because many of them are bitter and who's to blame them, I'd be if I was goaded time and again to vote against my economic interests just because the Republican candidates have usually done a better job of speaking to these people's visceral sense of identity instead of summing up the issues and running campaigns like policy briefings as Democrats have been wont to do -- and yes, hell why not, even the masses and masses of black people from Alexandria to Atlanta who have never once voted in their lives because well, what's the point?, do you think a Republican would ever in the foreseeable future win another presidential election?

I imagine Plouffe will agree that running a successful US Democratic presidential campaign is all about the three Ts: Turnout, Turnout, and Turnout.

So start today. Register. Learn how to vote early in your state. Learn how to vote from abroad. Know your registration deadline.

Take notice of these things even if they do not apply to you directly, and pass them on to those to whom they do.

Get. Involved. Knock on a few doors. Make some calls. Drive people to the polls.

And most of all: vote. Even if you're not registered in a swing state: imagine the (appropriate) constitutional crisis if another candidate were to win the electoral college while losing the popular vote, by a few million instead of half a million like that one time, if you remember. Imagine the clout it would lend to those pursuing electoral reform.

I wish I could help beyond merely discussing this on the Internet and trying to shout motivation into my American friends, but I can't, because I'm not American. Many of you, however, can.

So act, and then we'll have all the time to discuss and lament or celebrate how it went from November 5th onward.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 1:33 PM on September 14, 2008 [23 favorites has favorites]


Democrats come across as "knowing what's best for you"

Translation: Knowing what's best for you = "won't let me say n*gger in polite company"
posted by jonp72 at 1:38 PM on September 14, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


Sarah Palin Bags a Big One -- portrait by Zina Saunders
posted by bonobo at 1:41 PM on September 14, 2008 [2 favorites has favorites]


Unfortunately it seems to be working.

What a mess.


Only, it's not working. Not only did Obama just have a history-making fund raising month, but as MSNBC recently reported, those signs of a turn-around for McCain we've been hearing so much idiotic chatter about? Yeah, well, maybe not so much. Among many other blatant falsehoods (like how Palin never requested any earmarks as governor--a clumsy, outright lie that the record easily shows up), it's been revealed the McCain campaign has actually been lying to the press even about the size of the crowds at its rallies!

Given the choice between a bully and a nerd, America will pick the bully every time. Sadly, I don't think this election is going to be any different.

No offense, but you're huffing a little too much overpriced gas if you think a guy that can make a three point shot like this is a nerd. Obama's the best of both worlds: An accomplished intellectual extrovert. And that's why he is going to be the next president.

Well, that and the McCain people have actually crossed over into crazy Katherine Harris land now, and don't seem to be coming back. A few photo-shopped images of Palin's face on a hooker's body passed around by email aren't going to change that, I'm afraid.
posted by saulgoodman at 1:44 PM on September 14, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


See also: Sarah Palin, by the Book from Zina Saunders.
posted by bonobo at 1:46 PM on September 14, 2008


No offense, but you're huffing a little too much overpriced gas if you think a guy that can make a three point shot like this is a nerd.

No offense, but you're huffing gas if you think Obama's the bully.

And that's why he is going to be the next president.

If artificial conflict didn't sell newspapers, I might agree.
posted by ten pounds of inedita at 1:47 PM on September 14, 2008


McCain is the weakest candidate the GOP has fielded in a very long time,

Bob Dole, 1996. If the Clinton campaign that year was a car, all they needed to do was put a brick on the gas pedal and tie some kite string around the steering wheel.

and the political and economic situation is a disaster for the GOP.

Yes, yes it is. Which is why Obama needs to ignore Palin and other petty distractions while continuing to hammer the McCain = Bush drum from now until November.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 1:49 PM on September 14, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


Not to mention that our McMansions, empty or not, far outclass any available new construction anywhere in the world.

I reckon 'class' is the wrong expression here.
posted by dydecker at 1:50 PM on September 14, 2008 [4 favorites has favorites]


No offense, but you're huffing gas if you think Obama's the bully.

He never said he was, he's pointing out that Obama doesn't fit so snugly in the nerd's locker of public opinion as some folks may like.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 1:51 PM on September 14, 2008


Notice interesting parallels between the Democratic primary and this election? Hillary drove news cycle after news cycle. What did she get? A reputation as a dirty campaigner who flirted with racial imaging and had trouble telling the truth about her experiences in places like Bosnia.

And what do we have here? McCain driving news cycle after news cycle--but building up a reputation for lying about Obama and his statements, lying about Palin and her so-called opposition to the "bridge to nowhere."

Coincidence? I think not.

The news media believes that whoever is providing its content and driving the news cycle is winning. For them to believe otherwise would mean they are less important then they think.

Reporters are often the last to detect large-scale change. They are wrapped up in the-day-to-day, a perspective that is not the best for observing larger changes. Predictions of such change are very risky for reporters to make.

There's no doubt that the current paradigm of cheap shot attacks and untruths will give way to another way of campaigning. What form that new paradigm will take is unknown. I'd say the last major change was the "battleground states" methodology. We will see if Obama is on to something new or not.
posted by Ironmouth at 1:52 PM on September 14, 2008 [4 favorites has favorites]


Also, from the waffle piece:
On the back of the box, Obama is depicted in stereotypical Mexican dress, including a sombrero, above a recipe for "Open Border Fiesta Waffles" that says it can serve "4 or more illegal aliens." The recipe includes a tip: "While waiting for these zesty treats to invade your home, why not learn a foreign language?"
The grunting, drooling, pig ignorance of these people astounds me.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 1:53 PM on September 14, 2008 [6 favorites has favorites]


Palin represents the pioneering woman who settled the old west, the woman who gets up every morning at 5:00am, fixes breakfast for her family, gets the kids on the bus, goes to work, comes home, cooks dinner ... &c.

Palin represents the woman with a $150,000 seaplane who has her kids raised by a nanny, laughs at female cancer survivors, bills the state government for meals she had at at home, and lies about firing the state chef. What Palin "represents" is a media-constructed lie.
posted by jonp72 at 1:54 PM on September 14, 2008 [9 favorites has favorites]


Given the choice between a bully and a nerd, America will pick the bully every time.

This is just flat out false. Not that I'm knocking your insight. I think you make interesting points, however there's one small problem.

2000 was a tie, and Al Gore won the popular vote. In that election Bush ran as a moderate, "compassionate" conservative. Despite tipping their evil hand in the primaries, they waited until after they won to really start pbeing total dicks.

2004 came down to Ohio, and that states votes were highly suspect. Swift Boating and all, Kerry came as close as he could without winning. He got 9 million MORE votes than Gore got 4 years earlier. Considering Bush was the incumbent, we were at war, and they had already started stacking the govt. with shills fully empowered to unfairly use their positions politically...it shouldn't havebeen that close

America only loves it's winners in hindsight. Or more accurately in the case of the past 8 years, America is like a rube getting hustled by a three card monte hustler on some streetcorner. Rather than admit they got hustled, they keep throwing good money after bad, despite the fact that the crowd has turned, and everybody's whispering that the fix is on. If McCain loses, his biggest mistake will have been running away from Bush rather than toward him. I think the people would have been willing to throw one last dollar in that pot to save face.
posted by billyfleetwood at 1:54 PM on September 14, 2008 [2 favorites has favorites]


Did y'all see Obama's interview will Bill O'Reilly? Dude is not a wimp. He went head to head with Bill and earned his respect. If the storyline is "Obama is a wimp" just because he's not taking cheap shots, wait until the debates. He will crush McCain.
posted by Bookhouse at 1:56 PM on September 14, 2008


This is pretty much why I never post to Metafilter anymore regarding anything political. I offered up an eminently sensible anaysis -- I even liked to Kos for crying out loud to make a point. You don't have to agree with me, but Republican=lying fascist gets really, really fucking old. You'd have to blind as a partisan bat not to agree that the MSM has really screwed up the Palin coverage -- such that we've reached a point where even legit criticism can't get through because the media isn't trusted. Which is bad for Obama.

I sure as hell didn't make up the fact that the NYT rushed to print with a page one story about Palin that was bogus and numerous other examples of discreditable conduct abound -- including the ones breathlessly cited above, but somehow suggesting that respectable media asked for a paternity test is ridiculous? Hardly. (If you read the original Kos diary accusing Palin of covering for her daughter's alleged pregnancy you'd know why they requested it.) As for the paternity test request, I have damn good reasons to believe in fact real, but I have no interest in convincing anybody here otherwise.

My basic point was simple: piling on Palin entrenches anti-media prejudice and drowns out Obama's message. That's a pretty sound point to make, no matter what political perspective you're coming from. But thank God we have Metafilter's ideological praetorian guard will shut out all dissent and make sure I don't get my conservative cooties on anyone.
posted by Heminator at 2:03 PM on September 14, 2008 [2 favorites has favorites]


The McCain campaign must know that Obama and Biden will demolish the GOP ticket in a debate. McCain's advisers must be sweating bullets right now.

McCain isn't known for a lack of cojones though. I can see him arguing that he'll just present the "honest, unvarnished" John McCain behind the podium and hope that courage and "values" will win the day. Of course, this would be like trying to win at chess using Stratego tactics.
posted by illiad at 2:04 PM on September 14, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


I don't remember reading about German internment camps.

Both Italians and Germans - first-generation immigrants, mostly, but a few citizens - were held in camps in the U.S. during WW2. About 60% of Japanese people held in U.S. internment camps were U.S. citizens. The percentage of such was lower among Italians and Germans.

According to some first-hand history I've heard while birding in the Klamath region in California - where the Japanese-American internment camp at Tule Lake was, the Germans held in the region had far more freedom. They were able to leave their compounds, drive cars around, go visiting, etc. Pretty much the first thing our birding group was told by our local guide was "Don't ask about the Japanese camp. It's still a sore subject."

posted by rtha at 2:09 PM on September 14, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


major reason why Obama is now slipping

Or else it's a convention bounce, an acknowledged fact of politics that always happens and always dissipates in a few weeks. Every single time.

Good look with that self-fulfilling prophecy though.
posted by drjimmy11 at 2:10 PM on September 14, 2008


Also for anyone freaking out about McCain/Palin, please note that people like MapGuy and konolia are merely agents of Rove's "keep the opponents in turmoil" strategy. MeFi doesn't ban concern trolls, so I suggest you ignore them (please, even if I fail to do so) and go donate money or time to the Obama campaign.

Remember that if McCain is elected, and he is incapacited, then Palin will be President, and within a few years a rapist will be able to choose which woman is going to bear his child. I want you to think about that for a moment. You or your mother or sister or daughter or wife would be forced to bear her rapist's child under a Palin presidency.

Please donate and volunteer today.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 2:10 PM on September 14, 2008 [10 favorites has favorites]


I offered up an eminently sensible anaysis -- I even liked to Kos for crying out loud to make a point. You don't have to agree with me, but Republican=lying fascist gets really, really fucking old. You'd have to blind as a partisan bat not to agree that the MSM has really screwed up the Palin coverage -- such that we've reached a point where even legit criticism can't get through because the media isn't trusted.

Your "eminently sensible anaysis" aside, people will, from time to time, disagree with things you say. Try not to take it too personally. Let's look at what actually happened: There were some premature shots fired at Palin early on, but these came mostly from the blog world which Team McCain then brought the whole world's attention to by crying about it in the MSM. They then used this as an opportunity to say the media itself was attacking poor defenseless Palin, that tireless public servant, and that therefore the media would have VIP Only access to her. Anyone who pushed to hard about her background and her record was "attacking" her or being sexist, and it continues to this day with that ridiculous lipstick kerfuffle.

I do however agree Palin is best ignored and that we need to stay on point with a very simple message to win this thing.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 2:14 PM on September 14, 2008 [2 favorites has favorites]


2000 was a tie, and Al Gore won the popular vote

In fact, the democrat has gotten more votes in 3 of the last 4 elections. If not for the historical fluke of 9/11 it would almost certainly be every election since 1992. And yet some on the left still can't stop waiting, hoping, cheerleading for the sky to fall, so they can feel like elite minority lost among the philistines.
posted by drjimmy11 at 2:15 PM on September 14, 2008


My basic point was simple: piling on Palin entrenches anti-media prejudice and drowns out Obama's message.

I think that's absolutely true. What's going on is that Obama supporters of all stripes are frustrated/outraged/anxious about Palin being touted as this "breath of fresh air" that has "energized the Republican Party", after delivering an incredibly negative and sarcastic speech at the RNCC, and then making all sorts of claims on the stump that have turned out to be demonstrably false.

When you see the level of excitement created by something that after only a bit of digger looks to be completely phony, it triggers a visceral response that's hard to suppress.

That said, you're right. The longer the discussion stays on Palin, the longer Obama is off his message.
posted by psmealey at 2:18 PM on September 14, 2008


why Obama is now slipping

Well, a compilation of data from numerous polls actually shows the gap closing at the time of this posting. Looks like the bloom is off the rose.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 2:21 PM on September 14, 2008


No offense, but you're huffing gas if you think Obama's the bully.

Oh, I don't think for a minute he's the bully--he's more like that rare, well-loved high school jock, who just happens to also be captain of the debate team and the regional chess champ. He's a likable over-achiever, not a nerd.

The world isn't just divided into groups of bullies and nerds, you know. In fact, one thing bullies and nerds have in common is that both exist on the fringes of normal social life, never fully achieving the popular acceptance they so desperately seek. Obama--unlike McCain with his infamously quick temper--can make headway in popular circles because he's not a nerd or a bully.

(And I'm not huffing gas right now, because it really is too expensive here in Florida.)
posted by saulgoodman at 2:22 PM on September 14, 2008 [2 favorites has favorites]


Michelle Malkin happens to be Asian American. What was that about her being a racist?
posted by konolia at 11:32 AM on September 14 [+] [!]


What the hell?

I'm Asian American, and I know plenty of Asian Americans who think other Asian Americans are filthy and would much rather spend time with the much superior white race.

Do you not know, say, a singular woman who says sexist things? I'm a tutor, and a mother told me that she wanted me to tutor her daughter because her daughter's high school math teacher is female, and that women should not be allowed to teach math. Oh, and by the way, this mother is a professional accountant, but she considers herself a very special exception.

Are you not aware of the complexities of, you know, being human?

.
posted by every_one_needs_a_hug_sometimes at 2:26 PM on September 14, 2008 [10 favorites has favorites]


My basic point was simple: piling on Palin entrenches anti-media prejudice and drowns out Obama's message. That's a pretty sound point to make, no matter what political perspective you're coming from.

I'm not scared of your conservative cooties. I wholeheartedly agree with you. However,I also believe that Obama being out of the spotlight for a few weeks, helps him. Don't forget that while Obama has dominated the news attention this election, most of the news has been negative, misleading, and completely off-point. Up until the Palin pick this election was purely an Obama referendum. Now it's quickly becoming a Palin referendum. That helps Obama. It's not like his campaign is on hold just because he's not the lead news story. He's still out there shaking hands and kissing babies. And now he gets to do so without anyone looking over your shoulder asking "are you sure you want this guy kissing your baby?"

Ask yourself this. What was the main Obama story last week? It was the lipstick/pig remark. What WASN'T the main story? The scary black man wants to talk dirty to your kids ad. If the news was all Obama all the time, there would have been room for both stories.
posted by billyfleetwood at 2:27 PM on September 14, 2008 [3 favorites has favorites]


Favorited for "conservative cooties".
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 2:38 PM on September 14, 2008



What's bizarre to me is how the media can continue to portray the Republicans as the "family values" party with a straight face. Their candidate is an adulterer who married his mistress. The mistress-now-wife is an ex-junkie who stole painkillers from a charity and destroyed a doctor to get her fix. The VP candidate is a career woman so driven that she made a speech while leaking amniotic fluid, rather than ensure the safety of her baby.

If these folks were dems, don't you think we'd be hearing about the "character issue"?

I'm not saying we should be judging people on those things, but if the Republicans are going to judge Democrats on them, it's only fair that the media point out their double standard.
posted by Maias at 2:39 PM on September 14, 2008 [4 favorites has favorites]


I wish they'd hurry up and work through those subpoenas on Palin's husband and aides and get on with the indicting for corruption and abuse of power.

Of course, if she's indicted *after* the election, and found guilty, but McCain wins, he could just pardon her. 'Here he comes to save the day...'
posted by jamstigator at 2:43 PM on September 14, 2008


Neoconservatives whose influence had been waning in Washington have hitched their colours to rising star Sarah Palin in a bid to shape US foreign policy for another decade.
posted by homunculus at 2:47 PM on September 14, 2008


Ironically, given the"celebrity" ads, the McCain camp have stumbled on the fact there's no such thing as bad (as long as it is not overtly about moral or sexual transgression). Obama needs to get himself in the news. Something controversial - something that will shift the focus
posted by Neiltupper at 2:49 PM on September 14, 2008


He could shoot a bear?
posted by Artw at 3:22 PM on September 14, 2008


It's surprising how many people are expecting Obama to crush McCain in the debates. Unless McCain has an exceptionally bad day, this won't happen. Did you see the Saddleback "faith forum"? McCain did a nice job earnestly delivering simple applause lines, while Obama seemed to get bogged down by providing real answers.

Expect in the debate to hear McCain hammer Obama continuously on whether the surge worked and how well it worked, and how foolish it was not to listen an old ballsy warrior like gizzly McCain. McCain will do well by exceeding expectations.

But my money is still on Obama, for a few reasons. For one thing, there's a reason why deception and negativity are usually avoided by campaigns until immediately before elections. As a result of McCains's lies, we're likely to see his numbers begin to drop as polls catch up with the steady erosion of his brand that we've seen in the last few days.

Moreover: Palin will not be a miracle-worker. Despite her demographical attractiveness, she's a poor speaker when off the teleprompter, whose lack of knowledge can't easily be hidden. The story, which has already shifted from her prettyness to her lies, will focus more and more on her mistakes.

Finally, Obama's organization can help him win. It's well put-together, and effective at raising money. Speaking of which, I'll be donating (again) on Tuesday, once my paycheck arrives. Hopefully others supporters of Obama here will also consider upping the level of time and money that they've been willing to provide thus far.

(One final note: did you see in the Times that now, a couple months before the election, that Bush has suddenly authorized US troops to go into Pakistan looking for Bin Laden and his associates? The odds of a real "October Surprise" are looking a little higher.)
posted by washburn at 3:25 PM on September 14, 2008


psmealy: Yes. For the past 18 months, Obama has run an incredibly smart, effective and successful Presidential campaign with a high degree of street level organization, and a fund-raising capability that's second to none.

Well, this argument is a non-starter. About 70-80% of what the president is responsible for goes through the Senate in some form or another, from budget bills, federal laws, to top-level appointments. Senators have a much better understanding of how the federal government is structured than any governor or small business owner.

And I'm a broken record on this point. But Obama can strike back on the "experience" by pointing out that the worst policy disasters of the last decade have come from promoting putting political hacks and yes-men into key advisory positions.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 3:25 PM on September 14, 2008


Obama needs to get himself in the news. Something controversial - something that will shift the focus.
Great let’s talk about actual executive experience. Let’s talk the actual number of bills worked on in twenty-two years in the Senate vs. four. Let’s talk about when the hell Biden is going to step up and shore up his party’s position in this election. As I said before it has never been McCain’s to win, it is Obama’s to lose. As I said before the VP debate will decide this election.
posted by MapGuy at 3:30 PM on September 14, 2008


Great let’s talk about actual executive experience. Let’s talk the actual number of bills worked on in twenty-two years in the Senate vs. four.

Please stop with these non-sequitirs. We've moved so far past that, it's not even relevant any more.

Let's look at the actual choice. You have a young, vigorous man with reasonable plan to tackle the next four years and the myriad problems staring us in the face, against an old, tired, embittered man who has been repeating the Bush call for tax cuts (which now Greenspan says we can't afford) and has been banging the drum for war with Iran for two years (which we cannot fight).

If it's not about experience, issues, or personality, it's got to be about judgment and vision. McCain's judgment is poor at best, he's sold out his core values for one last shot at the brass ring, and for vision, he can't seem to think past next week, and all he has is parroting the same old GOP slogans that have been around since Reagan ran against Mondale.

I don't see how any reasonable, clear thinking person picks McCain over Obama, despite whatever edge you can give to McCain on leadership and experience.
posted by psmealey at 3:47 PM on September 14, 2008 [5 favorites has favorites]


Did y'all see Obama's interview will Bill O'Reilly? Dude is not a wimp. He went head to head with Bill and earned his respect. If the storyline is "Obama is a wimp" just because he's not taking cheap shots, wait until the debates. He will crush McCain.

If there are debates. If McCain's team frames it right, I can see them taking a pass on it as 'politics as usual' and coming out smelling like a rose. This is one of my great worries. Even more than the presidential debates, the Republicans don't want to see Palin debate Biden; that would be disastrous. They're working on a way to prevent that debate from happening at all.
posted by ten pounds of inedita at 3:47 PM on September 14, 2008


Obama needs to get himself in the news.

His supporters in Alaska deserve to be a starting point. 1400+ were estimated in attendance at this anti-Palin rally on the same day as Palin's kick-off, both in Anchorage. Among the banners mentioned: "Hey Hockey Mom -- stay the puck out of D.C."

More to the point: the Alaskan blogger ("mudflats.wordpress.com" some might recall from The Thread) who attended both events was startled to find the anti-Palin rally attendees significantly outnumbered the Welcome Home bash on the other side of town.

From her report:
"anyone who needs to know that Sarah Palin most definitely does not speak for all Alaskans. The citizens of Alaska, who know her best, have things to say."
posted by skyper at 4:08 PM on September 14, 2008


By the charts, there is a 66% chance of recurrence within 10 years, and 6 years have already lapsed.

So if McCain makes it to 9 years and 364 days cancer-free, would you then run out screaming, "Oh my God, there's a 2/3 chance that McCain will develop melanoma TODAY!"?
posted by notswedish at 4:17 PM on September 14, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


MapGuy, cool it or take it to Metatalk.
posted by cortex at 4:36 PM on September 14, 2008


He could shoot a bear?

No, no. A wolf - from an airplane!
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 4:41 PM on September 14, 2008


Let’s talk the actual number of bills worked on in twenty-two years in the Senate vs. four.

Or we could talk about the last three sessions.
posted by dogrose at 4:53 PM on September 14, 2008


So, so many thoughts running through my head, and so much hate lathering up about Palin and McCain and the lies and...

Still, here's the deal - all of the hate, all of the endless discussion about Palin that we just can't get enough of, is what's hurting Obama right now. Two weeks ago we were discussing whether she was a brilliant pick because she's a woman and Obama didn't pick Hillary and all that, or whether she was a stupid pick because of all the obvious pandering to women and the fact that she's just an on-the-face-of-it ridiculous choice. Now that the dust has cleared somewhat, it seems to me that she was a brilliant pick because she strikes at two of Obama's greatest strengths.

1. I don't think there are nearly as many voters out there who are against Obama strictly because of his race, and I think that 95% of any of them were going to vote for McCain anyway. Palin, however, has given them cover to be proud about it. Anybody who felt guilty about voting against Obama when the election was essentially a referendum on Obama's appointment (and that's how the news was covering it for months) could now come out in the open and say that they really like Palin. So that's strike one.

2. This is the more important strike, and the one that we're helping along: McCain has taken over every news cycle for the past two weeks, which is deadly to Obama. When Obama is on the news, it always helps, because he's so demonstrably the better candidate in these times. With Palin, McCain has managed to make the last two weeks (an eternity in politics at this point in an election cycle) be all about "well, what do I think about this McCain fellow and that Attractive, personable woman at his side?" Before Palin, McCain was seeming like an also-ran, a footnote before the election officially happened. It's not that Obama's heart isn't in it to fight back, it's that he can't get a news cycle where anyone is paying attention to him right now.

What Obama needs more than anything right now is a stunt. Palin was one of the most precipitous stunts in the stunt-riddled history of U.S. politics, and too much time has already been wasted on it. Every minute McCain dominates the news is another minute that Obama is unconsciously seen as "the other guy." Additionally, McCain and Palin are lying through their teeth at every given opportunity, and Obama can't afford to let it slide. I'm taking my idea here directly from a West Wing episode, but damned if I don't think it's a good one.

Obabma puts out a new ad, using the record-shattering amount of money he's got now, where he just faces the camera for two minutes and says something along the lines of the following:

"My fellow Americans, in this seemingly endless election year, I have done my best to remain positive and tell you all about my policies, and to convince you all about why this is the kind of change that America so badly needs right now. I intend to keep doing that, but my opponent, Sen. John McCain, has simply made too many false claims about himself, and too many baseless attacks upon my campaign, for me to let them stand..."

And then he will, succinctly, lay out McCain's lies and the truth behind them. At the end:

"As President of the United States I will throw out the policies which have devastated this nation for the past eight years. This country needs change, and Sen. McCain has promised not to deliver it. I'm Barack Obama, and yes, I approve this message."

With this bold moment, the news outlets will play segments of it ad nauseum, while bringing in pundits and strategists from both sides of the aisle as they are wont to do, but the story will be, "Is John McCain a liar?" With any luck, they'll also incidentally talk about things such as the Obama tax plan, because to discuss whether McCain has been lying about it (and he has) they'll need to discuss its merits as well. Presto: the MSM has a new sexy topic and it's one inherently damning to McCain.

If there are any Obama staffers on MeFi, all I can say is that I'm waiting.
posted by Navelgazer at 4:55 PM on September 14, 2008 [3 favorites has favorites]


I don't see how any reasonable, clear thinking person picks McCain over Obama, despite whatever edge you can give to McCain on leadership and experience.

Reasonable, clear thinking people are not a plurality in most states.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 5:04 PM on September 14, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


"The state elections agency is investigating complaints about a massive campaign mailing Republican Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign has directed toward Wisconsin Democrats and other voters."

"A McCain campaign spokeswoman said in a statement the mailing mistakes are "certainly not intentional" but she wouldn't answer questions. The statement also said the mailing went to "potential supporters across the spectrum."
posted by cashman at 5:07 PM on September 14, 2008


and found guilty, but McCain wins, he could just pardon her

You, jamstigator, apparently ignore the savvy of The McCain. He's been burdened with this garbage. Burdened. She represents the class of people that the real McCain's would instruct their help to deal with. The toilet's broken? Tell Manolo to find someone to take care of it. She's an albatross around his neck. Socially and politically. At the first [politcally expedient] chance, he'll lose her. Can you imagine the Palins parking their hooped-up pickup truck in front of Cindy's condo[s]? Pahleese.

Biden brings very little to the table, aside from whitey looking over Baracks' shoulder, but just how much trash can the real GOP endure before it becomes too embarassing?

Oh, and as far as fencing is concerned, don't count on it. American businesses cannot survive without the cheap labor. That. Is. A. Fact. Is your so-called natiopnal tongue that important to you, hausfrau? Try asking Germany, France, Italy, The UK and Spain about cheap, foreign labor and how to make them feel comfortable enough at home to achieve relative production output at work. No habla now, honky? Yeah. No.
posted by jsavimbi at 5:10 PM on September 14, 2008


but somehow suggesting that respectable media asked for a paternity test is ridiculous?

Again, the reason it's ridiculous is because "paternity" means "fatherhood". Look, the person who made the claim is a notorious liar, who's been spouting pure bullshit to for weeks. Because he's such a liar, what he says can be discounted, and thus there is zero total evidence that anyone in the MSM was asking for any kind of parenthood testing on Trigg, paternity or maternity.
Well, a compilation of data from numerous polls actually shows the gap closing at the time of this posting. Looks like the bloom is off the rose.
I think you mean the lipstick is coming off the pig.
posted by delmoi at 5:16 PM on September 14, 2008


The Spalding Group, the official Republican store, is pushing 'Girl Power' in their Sarah line.
posted by geekyguy at 5:18 PM on September 14, 2008


What is Metatalk like time out?
posted by MapGuy at 5:20 PM on September 14, 2008


It's a big sign that reads "LURK MOAR."
posted by stet at 5:27 PM on September 14, 2008 [9 favorites has favorites]


2. This is the more important strike, and the one that we're helping along: McCain has taken over every news cycle for the past two weeks, which is deadly to Obama. When Obama is on the news, it always helps, because he's so demonstrably the better candidate in these times.

That doesn't really make too much sense. There had been some polls out showing people were "sick" of hearing about Obama. Overexposure isn't that great if people get tired of you.

And also, the elections are not won or lost on the basis of news cycles. If they were, Hillary Clinton would be the nominee today. She essentially lost the Nomination after the Texas and Ohio primaries (if not Wisconson), yet she continued to drive the news cycles week after week month after month until her final defeat.

Winning news cycles is not the same as winning elections. The media treats the election like a game of entertaining them, but that's not actually how it works. Get out the vote, voter outreach, etc are what's going to do it.
posted by delmoi at 5:28 PM on September 14, 2008


More attempts by Republicans to block voters. Orlando Sentinel:
Here we go again, with Republican election officials making decisions that disproportionately will affect Democratic voters in a crucial election now rated as a tossup in the polls.

Why is there a need to suddenly throw this in the works at the last minute?

The verification law, commonly called "no match, no vote," first was approved by the Legislature in 2005.

...

this week, the Florida Department of State suddenly announced it will begin enforcing the law. This comes as we face an Oct. 6 registration deadline for the November election.

I don't believe this is some evil plot. But I do believe it looks bad with newly registered Democrats -- many of them minorities -- far outnumbering Republicans in this voter-registration cycle.

And if past elections are any indication, an even larger crush of registrations is expected in the weeks leading up to the deadline.

So why pick now to begin enforcing this law?

...

Maybe I've lived in Florida too long to believe this will work.

Those voters who aren't contacted in time or don't see the letter will show up to vote only to be given a "provisional" ballot. To make it count, they will have two days to get to their county elections office and show identification.

Of course, low-income people with no transportation might be at a disadvantage here.

People need time to adjust to a law like this. And right this minute is not the right time.
Miami Herald
Voters whose information doesn't match the databases may still show up to vote on Election Day, but they will be given a provisional ballot. Their vote will then be counted only if they verify their identity by showing a valid idenification card, a social security care or a Florida driver's license to election officials within two days of casting the vote.

Charles Lichtman, a Fort Lauderdale attorney who's heading the Democrats' Election Day statewide legal team, said attorneys will be available at polling stations to fight for voters whose names don't appear on the registration rolls.

''Florida voters don't want to show up at the polls and be told you can't vote a regular ballot or you can't vote because of a crazy technicality,'' he said.

posted by cashman at 5:32 PM on September 14, 2008


Metatalk is this place. You need to either chill out in here (no more hyper-responsive taking-on-all-comers comment sprees in this thread, period) or if you have a problem with that you need to take it up over there.
posted by cortex at 5:37 PM on September 14, 2008


McCain Handbook v 1.0 (c. July 2000):

1. A noun. A verb. POW.

McCain Handbook v 2.0 (c. September 2008):

1. A noun. A verb. Sexism.

2. If #1 fails, try a noun, a verb, and POW.
posted by scblackman at 5:51 PM on September 14, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


A round-up of articles/editorials (19 in all) from the past few days calling out McCain on his outright lying in this campaign: Lies.
posted by ericb at 5:57 PM on September 14, 2008


cortexv - What exactly is it that you have a problem with? That I disagree with one sided half arguments?

That I pose legitimate and perhaps uncomfortable questions and point out when someone refuses to answer and starts name calling and attacking my character without basis? I didn’t realize this was an Obama only bash a conservative rally.

Are you inviting me to leave the discussion because you don’t like what I have said, you don't appreciate having flaws in an argument pointed out or because you just don’t want to hear a different opinion?

I did not realize when I signed up that it was required that one leg be shorter than the other.
posted by MapGuy at 6:00 PM on September 14, 2008


oh yes. popcornpalooza.
posted by bonaldi at 6:07 PM on September 14, 2008


MapGuy, I'm inviting you to take what is increasingly an argument about your behavior, not your views, to the part of the site where that sort of thing is allowed.

I don't care about your politics and I'm gladder than you might believe to have a mix of voices on the site, but your behavior in here earlier was manic to the point of producing more noise and distraction than substance.

If you have a problem with this, take it up over there. We've already had to delete some comments from this thread, from you and from people responding to you, and I'm pretty much done dealing with that. If you keep with the shit-stirring behavior over in here, yes, you will get a timeout, and it hasn't got a thing to do with Obama or McCain. So chill out or take it to metatalk, but enough with the antagonistic stuff in here.
posted by cortex at 6:10 PM on September 14, 2008 [2 favorites has favorites]


kolonia

I spell it konolia.

And fwiw I guess I am a bit more travelled than Palin; I spent a couple of weeks in Thailand a decade ago. Not that it would make me more or less qualified for public office.

But I digress....this afternoon I had to go to a fish fry for a local Republican running for reelection as a county commissioner. While there much of the talk turned to Palin. Everyone was excited about her; no one, and I repeat, NO ONE even brought up the NY Times article. They did mention the ABC interviews, and they all thought she did well, and that Charlie Gibson "was mean to her."

And these are educated people, who surf the net, who watch the news, some of whom hold-or have held- public office, many of whom work in education.

If THEY weren't talking about it, I doubt very seriously the man or the woman on the street have even heard about it.

One man gleefully showed my husband a clipping from today's Sunday classified ads. The clipping was a want ad for paid Obama campaign workers. He chortled, "They have to PAY people to campaign for him!" The ad stated no experience needed. Apparently they will be paying people to hold up signs...during the primary, there were folks standing on streetcorners holding signs for Hillary and I remember assuming they were paid to do so (if it matters, they were African American.)

But Obama wasn't really mentioned much at all. For that matter, neither was McCain. It was all Palin, Palin, Palin.
posted by konolia at 6:11 PM on September 14, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


Breaking news: people at a Republican fish fry are Republicans
posted by neroli at 6:16 PM on September 14, 2008 [19 favorites has favorites]


If THEY weren't talking about it, I doubt very seriously the man or the woman on the street have even heard about it.
Everyone I've talked to thinks Palin is a nutbar, but I don't know any swing voters.
One man gleefully showed my husband a clipping from today's Sunday classified ads. The clipping was a want ad for paid Obama campaign workers. He chortled, "They have to PAY people to campaign for him!" The ad stated no experience needed. Apparently they will be paying people to hold up signs
They're paying people to go out and register voters in democratic heavy areas. I wouldn't be so flip if I were you.
posted by delmoi at 6:31 PM on September 14, 2008


I spent a couple of weeks in Thailand a decade ago.

Me too!! We're so alike. Was it Pattaya Beach? I hope so, because then we could share stories about soapys at Sabailand II (I went twice in a row!, different girls), Marilyn's A Go Go, eating street food and sitting on the can for a week straight afterwards. Ah, the good ol days.

Charlie Gibson, mean? Shame on him. He should stop doing interviews. He should stop doing interviews right now! I hate when that happens. It detracts the conversation from what really matters: nigg*rs getting paid to hold signs. How was the fish fry? Was the fish procured from an environmetally safe fishing ground, or just pulled out of the Sound? Heavens, those mercury levels. Trans fats? For shame.

So, back to Thailand. Any insight on their social/political/economic systems? How does the baht measure up to the other Tiger currencies? How many Thai nationals secretly consider themselves Chinese and collect Hummels? Do you know that Bhumibol and I were born at the same hospital? Coincidence? Perhaps, but I still love me some chicken Pad Kee Mao. Even though now it's all spicy eggplant with chicken, spicy eggplant with chicken, spicy eggplant with chicken. Fucking specials.

konolia, this is part of your education: do you know what kind of people carry newspaper clippings around with them to social gatherings? Yeah, those same people who forward chain letters. Avoid them.
posted by jsavimbi at 6:35 PM on September 14, 2008 [6 favorites has favorites]


konolia: no one, and I repeat, NO ONE even brought up the NY Times article. They did mention the ABC interviews, and they all thought she did well, and that Charlie Gibson "was mean to her."

Okay... You've established that where you live, people you consider "educated people, who surf the net, who watch the news, some of whom hold-or have held- public office, many of whom work in education" don't pay any attention to the fearsome EM-ESS-EM.

Quelle surprise, as Jodie Foster might say.

Since you HAVE been exposed to the dreaded NYTimes article, would you care to comment on its contents? Or are you maintaining solidarity in ignorance?

konolia: It was all Palin, Palin, Palin.

Lovely. Are the buzzards already circling around McCain, McCain, McCain?
posted by dogrose at 6:43 PM on September 14, 2008


Well, delmoi, my husband has been going out for free and registering voters at the local gun shows for years.

Lots of churches hold voter registration drives-again, by volunteers-before every election.

Oh, I see-I have the ad in front of me-it's Move On.Org.

BTW, if you are registering voters, it's a felony if you refuse to allow them to register for the party of their choice. MoveOn.org can certainly pay folks to register voters, but they cannot refuse to allow those voters to register Republican if they so choose.

(Which of course is why my husband always does voter registration at gun shows. )
posted by konolia at 6:45 PM on September 14, 2008


It's hard to knock what we have in the US. Foreigners come here and are culture shocked into submission with our style of living, everthing from the availability of consumer goods to the level of customer service and the facilities that we build for ourselves. Not to mention that our McMansions, empty or not, far outclass any available new construction anywhere in the world. Hands down.

Um, you do know that Canada and Australia have just about the same material culture right? We have our McMansions, and grocery stores with aisles of selection, and the customer service. Not that these things actually contribute to a higher quality of life - of all the places I've lived, I thought living just outside a small city in England, three people in a tiny two bedroom house, was one of the nicest places to be.
posted by jb at 6:46 PM on September 14, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


I do have to say--I really wish we had fish frys up here in Liberal Elitesville.
posted by neroli at 6:47 PM on September 14, 2008 [4 favorites has favorites]


Well, if we're going to trade "I went to a fish fry" stories, my husband went to a barbecue today -- it wasn't full of people clucking over mean old Charlie Gibson or tsking about the nerve of black people holding up signs, but there were a few people there who were still "undecided" about who they should vote for. My husband and some colleagues talked with them and asked them questions and listened to what they had to say about the candidates, and then those people asked my husband and friends questions and listened to what they had to say about the candidates, and -- wouldn't you know it -- by the end of the conversation, those undecided folks had decided that actually they would be voting for Obama in November. One reason for this may be that those undecided people at the party weren't racist, rabid anti-choicers, or fucking insane.
posted by mothershock at 6:48 PM on September 14, 2008 [8 favorites has favorites]


So, back to Thailand. Any insight on their social/political/economic systems? How does the baht measure up to the other Tiger currencies? How many Thai nationals secretly consider themselves Chinese and collect Hummels? Do you know that Bhumibol and I were born at the same hospital? Coincidence? Perhaps, but I still love me some chicken Pad Kee Mao. Even though now it's all spicy eggplant with chicken, spicy eggplant with chicken, spicy eggplant with chicken. Fucking specials.

I spent my time in Chiang Mai. I like Tom Kha Gai, myself. And of course, Pad Thai. Sticky rice is the greatest thing since sliced bread, tho. And that's a Northern Thai thing.

The Northern Thai are a different group, with a slightly different dialect, from the folks who live in Bangkok. There are also many different hill tribes in the area, and if you go far up enough, you can find yourself over the border in Burma if you aren't careful. Not a good idea.

All I really need to know about Thailand is this-do NOT insult the King. Aside from making people very very angry, you will go to jail. They love and revere their leader.

Yeah, much different from here.
posted by konolia at 6:51 PM on September 14, 2008


weren't racist, rabid anti-choicers, or fucking insane.

We didn't have racists at our fish fry. There were actual real live black people there, for one thing. The only reason I mentioned the African American sign holders is -I am pretty sure those guys were voting for Obama when they were done. Even a few local Republican black people are choosing to publically support him. Which is certainly their right. Were there any local black people supporting Hillary? Possibly- but I didn't know any.
posted by konolia at 6:55 PM on September 14, 2008


BTW, if you are registering voters, it's a felony if you refuse to allow them to register for the party of their choice.

but no one suggested they were or that they should - nice passive/aggressive accusation based on nothing, konolia
posted by pyramid termite at 6:57 PM on September 14, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


I think the USA needs a new border. There's a part of the country that really would be better off if they seceded. The rest of us would see it as hell, but it sure seems the people who actually live there are enjoying the fish fries. Maybe they ought to be allowed to get all up in your uterine, on that side of the border, they claim it's what they want. The sane people will flee to the authentic USA, the one that the forefathers dreamed about.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:58 PM on September 14, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


Um, you do know that Canada and Australia have just about the same material culture right? We have our McMansions, and grocery stores with aisles of selection, and the customer service.

Um, yeah, I realize that you have the same culture. After all, we're practically brethren, scots/irish/criminals + injuns/abos/moaris. Not a bad innings, eh? But I'd like to take this moment to point something out: while your government frets about replacing your old F-111's, we've already researched, developed, deployed and sold a whole new generation of aircraft. In large numbers. Unsurmountable numbers. Ourselves. Out of the blue. We project power as a matter of fact. You send us some of your gap year kids.

Here, in the US, the availability of ten different brands of toilet paper is taken as a mere formality, not a right, a wish or a pipe dream. And that is something that most non-Americans don't get: in our minds, we can live without you. And theoretically, we have for a very long time. In simpler words: the average American couldn't find Australia on a map, never mind give a crap about what happens there. That is the mentality you're up against.
posted by jsavimbi at 7:04 PM on September 14, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


jsavimbi: please, please, please (and you're simply the most recent of MeFites to make me want to say this) do not treat Konolia like another frothing-at-the-mouth conservative. Disagree with her, sure, I know I do, but I haven't seen her perpetuating any slurs or bile in this thread, or any other for that matter. She was relating on-the-ground experience with people most of us aren't close with. Why do we feel the need to:

(a) Assume any racism on her part or the part of her friends (e.g. "nigg*rs being paid to hold signs")

(b) Assume that she necessarily agrees with all of the views she was reporting

(c) Assume that, because she holds a minority view here, that anything she says is thread-shitting?

She shares a different view. She is polite about it. Let's try to be as civil in our disagreement with her as she is with us, please?

(Konolia, I know that you're cool enough to not need me to have your back, but I've got it anyway. Also, please forgive us here. Most of us are simply desperate to make sure that the Bush policies stop as soon as possible, because the nation is aching from them, and we just tend to get a little sensitive about it.)
posted by Navelgazer at 7:10 PM on September 14, 2008 [5 favorites has favorites]


damn, this thread loads quickly.
posted by ryanrs at 7:11 PM on September 14, 2008 [3 favorites has favorites]


We didn't have racists at our fish fry. There were actual real live black people there, for one thing.

Quite frankly, it's not a fish fry unless there are some black people there. White people too. Fried fish brings people together.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:24 PM on September 14, 2008 [2 favorites has favorites]


fff I think the USA needs a new border. . .

Jesusland.
posted by MLIS at 7:29 PM on September 14, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


Navelgazer, I'm not treating konolia as anyone other that a mefite commenting in a thread. Personally, I think she's making everything up, and subsequently, I'm having fun with it. If she's not making it up, then gob bless her, at least she's entertaining. And I mean that.

konolia, if I'm being too, um straightforward in describing the true nature of todays republicans, please let me know. I have plenty of euphamisms that I can use to describe those other people who don't act/look/worship like us.

But Navelgazer, if this election isn't going to be about race, please tell me why The McCain has given up on any pretense at this point?
posted by jsavimbi at 7:31 PM on September 14, 2008


I have never met anyone who showed me a newspaper clipping from their wallet. I would fear for my safety if I did.
posted by maxwelton at 7:38 PM on September 14, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


ne man gleefully showed my husband a clipping from today's Sunday classified ads. The clipping was a want ad for paid Obama campaign workers. He chortled, "They have to PAY people to campaign for him!" The ad stated no experience needed. Apparently they will be paying people to hold up signs...during the primary, there were folks standing on streetcorners holding signs for Hillary and I remember assuming they were paid to do so (if it matters, they were African American.)

Are you suggesting that Democrats don't volunteer? I spent four hours today canvassing in a neighboring town, and tomorrow night will be making phone calls from the local HQ. When I show up to do these things, I meet two or three paid campaign staffers, and twenty or thirty volunteers, each time. It's not likely that people you see holding signs and canvassing are being paid. It is likely that the campaign office is paying staffers to keep the lights on and doors open twelve hours a day, run to the copy center, pay the bills, and greet the volunteers who continue to stream in - a boom of them in the last few weeks, beginning with the convention, and sharply increasing again at Palin's nomination.

We know that when you register for voters, they can register any way they choose; and when they can vote, they can vote any way they choose. When we canvass, we can see their party affiliation, and we can refer to their voting record in the last few elections. So we know that often, registered Repiblicans are supporting all or part of the Democratic ticket, and vice versa, and that unaffiliateds support one or both parties too. We believe that this is a good thing. As Democrats, we want people to make a fully informed vote and to exercise their right to vote. We believe in mobilizing, not suppressing, the vote; we want a high turnout. Republican strategy tends to depend upon limiting turnout, and about limiting registration activities to venues in which there is some form of social control - fraternal organizations, churches, etc. That way, the party faithful will turnout, but there's a low risk of bringing out independents or Democratic voters. On the opposite side, we'd rather talk to a wide variety of voters, make sure they are well-informed (in canvassing it's absolutely shocking how many people are ill-informed, completely ignorant of current events, as the people at your event were, konolia), make sure we have heard their views and they have heard ours, and urge people inclined to vote Democratic to get out to the polls.

I think it simply unconscionable to support a Republican ticket this year, and I'll say so directly, without a lot of games. The recent administration has taken us from a $300+-billion budget surplus to an average 400+-billion dollar annual spending deficit. The national debt is crushing. The Republican party has been taxing the hell out of us; they just haven't collected yet. That debt will fall on our children. Meanwhile, the dollar continues to devalue, we continue borrowing monthly from China and India and other trade partners, and at some point, our creditors are going to refuse our failing currency. The tax will be collected then, and it won't be a nice place to be any more. This isn't patriotism. No amount of right-wing ideology or talk about babies or guns has any bearing at all on this economic reality. What Obama is planning for a financial strategy will improve economic conditions for 60-80% of Americans - households making less than $250,000 are going to see tax relief. Don't think this message isn't opening eyes and minds when we talk to regular people. This isn't about moose and sexy glasses. It's about your children's and grandchildren's future, and about a country we'd like to restore to strength and a proud position among nations. Let's get off this shadow-dance of conservative blogs and authors. Of course the financial elite of the hard-right Republican party wants to continue the status quo - it's working very well for the country-club sector of fat cats and muckety-mucks. They're betting that Americans are too stupid to look hard at a dishonest, self-serving, inexperienced pol like Palin. Well, we're talking to them. And they're not quite that stupid.
posted by Miko at 7:39 PM on September 14, 2008 [46 favorites has favorites]


We might stop sniping at one another long enough to note that the game changer of the coming weeks is unfolding tonight, and will hit the financial markets hard tomorrow morning. It's being discussed upstairs, in fact.

At which point Palin-mania will begin to recede and the GOP may well be swamped by a wave of financial system events that will sow fear in the land and pain in the provinces like we have not yet seen in our generation.

I think the invisible hand is about to put "the issues" back at the center of this election, where they belong, no matter how much theater of the absurd bullshit the GOP throws up as chaff. It will hurt them badly that Palin is even more clueless about the economy than McCain. It will hurt them worse that they have spent two weeks trying to change the subject to the usual divisive culture war bullshit and seeing how much they can get away with before being caught in their own web of lies.

I suppose the Bushies could reel in Bin Laden in Waziristan (as they are apparently trying hard to do before election day) or nuke Iran and change the subject back. But we're about to look down and realize we've been running in place over nothingness for a while now in this big Road Runner flick we call the global economy.
posted by fourcheesemac at 7:39 PM on September 14, 2008 [6 favorites has favorites]


And like McCain does not have paid campaign workers?

I'm with Maxwelton: anyone who pulls a newspaper clipping out of his wallet to make a point is in automatic Grampa Simpson/Lyndon Larouchie territory for me.
posted by fourcheesemac at 7:41 PM on September 14, 2008


And his military experience would be....?

Crashing five jets with the last earning him a place at the Hanoi Hilton.


I'm a little late to this party here, but I feel like this needs to be said: Can we please stop with the attacks on McCain's military record?

I voted for Kerry in 2004, and I can remember how sickened I was by the Swift Boat advertisements. We were all pretty disgusted with the Republicans for attacking a decorated war veteran. How is saying "McCain couldn't even keep his plane in the sky" any more honorable than that?

He served--in combat--and spent time as a POW. We can't unwrite that narrative, nor should we. Can't we just acknowledge that and focus our energy on attacking the candidate's myriad legitimate shortcomings?
posted by DeWalt_Russ at 7:42 PM on September 14, 2008 [11 favorites has favorites]


jsavimbi: if this election is to be about race, then it means that Obama is doing a piss-poor job controlling the message. White racists were going to vote republican anyway, I think, and it's inevitable that more of them will actually make it to the polls when the Democratic candidate is black. That doesn't mean that all conservatives or republicans are racist, however, and I think that such a generalization drags down those who make it.

As a very liberal person myself, I can't claim to understand why roughly half the country votes Republican, but I've known enough republicans very well to know that in most cases it isn't about race. Sometimes it is, but not nearly all the time.

I'm willing to bet that almost all vegans are liberal. I eat so much meat that I barely qualify as omnivorous. Would being liberal make me as good as vegan? I hope not. I love me some bacon.

If the Obama campaign can pull itself back into the news and let itself be heard again, this election will be about the economy, because it is at red-alert crisis levels like has never been seen at least in my lifetime. If it's about race then all of America is just that stupid, I guess, and we get what we deserve.

But it's not about race. It's about the economy, and Palin is just a side-show attraction that we all keep paying to see.
posted by Navelgazer at 7:43 PM on September 14, 2008


They did mention the ABC interviews, and they all thought she did well, and that Charlie Gibson "was mean to her."

If Charlie Gibson is too mean for Palin, how do you think she'll handle Vladimir Putin?
posted by Optimus Chyme at 7:44 PM on September 14, 2008 [5 favorites has favorites]


You know who else energized the base?
posted by muckster at 7:44 PM on September 14, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


anyone who pulls a newspaper clipping out of his wallet to make a point is in automatic Grampa Simpson/Lyndon Larouchie territory for me.

Hey, have some sympathy! When you have to make it through the A section, the Week in Review section, the Opinion page, the Business & Finance section, the Health section, and the funny pages all the way to the want ads to find the one piece of information about the election that doesn't put your party in a negative light, well, you gotta use it.
posted by Miko at 7:46 PM on September 14, 2008 [26 favorites has favorites]


You or your mother or sister or daughter or wife would be forced to bear her rapist's child under a Palin presidency.

Paging Dr. Goebbels. Paging Dr. Joseph Goebbels....

That has got to be the dumbest thing I've read in this thread (and there's been a lot of dumb shit said in this thread).
posted by MikeMc at 7:50 PM on September 14, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


Crashing five jets with the last earning him a place at the Hanoi Hilton.
I'm a little late to this party here, but I feel like this needs to be said: Can we please stop with the attacks on McCain's military record?


One of those jets is the one where he purposefully flamed-out while warming up the jets, to freak out the pilot behind him, practical-joke style. Completely disallowed when on-deck, of course. No one expects a big gout of flame shooting across the deck before everyone's in go-mode.

Anyhoo, said flame-out set off the missiles on the jet behind him. All hell broke loose, with the ship catching fire and a whole bunch of fellow crew members killed. One helluva mishap, the kind of thing that would end a person's career. Practical jokes are great, but when you fuck it up, you usually lose your career. Especially when people die.

Well, one thing leads to another and here we are today, where you seem to say that McCain's military record should be kept off-the-paper, while I'm saying that perhaps it reveals something about the man, his common sense, his risk-taking, and his backing by powerful political forces.

It speaks to me of a President who will be controlled from behind, continuing down much the same path as we've seen from the office of the current President-in-name, not-in-presence. More of the same, what a good idea that would be. Foot, meet bullet.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:53 PM on September 14, 2008


I don't trust ANYONE RUNNING-not McCain/Palin, not Obama/Biden, re the economy.

NONE of them.

Can you all persuade me that Obama would be better than Carter, for instance? Jimmy Carter had quite a lot to do with me deciding I didn't trust Democrats when it came to the White House.
posted by konolia at 7:58 PM on September 14, 2008



FFF, do you have a citation on that flame-out story? I started googling to see what I could find and found the following:

No "Wet Start"


A special note is in order here. We have seen some baseless claims that McCain was somehow responsible for the Forrestal disaster. One incorrect but widely quoted theory has him triggering the Zuni missile with the exhaust of his own plane by "wet-starting" – deliberately dumping fuel into the afterburner before starting in order to shoot a large flame from the tail of the aircraft. This is a preposterous notion. For one thing, the tail of McCain's plane was pointed over the side of the carrier and away from other planes at the time, and the F4 Phantom fighter that fired the missile was facing McCain's plane from the opposite side of the deck, as shown in a diagram in Freeman's book (p. 281)



From "Sailors to the End," p. 281 Copyright 2002 by Gregory A. Freeman, used with permission.

Furthermore, a painstaking Navy investigation into the disaster concluded that the Zuni had been touched off by a stray electrical charge, not by a jet exhaust.

Freeman (p. 250): The investigation revealed that the rocket (fired) because a freak surge of electricity jumped through the plane's system at the moment the pilot switched from the outside electrical generator to the plane's internal power system. The voltage surged through five sequential safety devices designed to prevent just such a stray charge from reaching the rockets.

Unfortunately for McCain and the men who died, some safety precautions that could have prevented the electrical surge from igniting the rocket had been ignored or suspended in the wartime pressure to get planes launched quickly.

Freeman also has posted an item on his own Web site flatly stating that McCain was in no way responsible for the accident. "McCain was never suspected of causing the fire because investigators determined immediately that the rocket misfired from the other side of the flight deck," writes Freeman.

Update, Feb. 8: A former military pilot messaged us to point out an even more convincing reason why the "wet start" story must be false. The A-4 Skyhawk did not come equipped with an afterburner in the first place. We've confirmed that elsewhere. According to the Military Analysis Network site maintained by the Federation of American Scientists, the A-4 was powered by a "Single, Pratt & Whitney, J-52-P-408A non-afterburning, turbojet engine." The manufacturer's description of the aircraft also describes the powerplant as "One 11,187-pound-thrust P&W J52-P408 engine," with no mention of an afterburner.

posted by konolia at 8:05 PM on September 14, 2008


That has got to be the dumbest thing I've read in this thread (and there's been a lot of dumb shit said in this thread).
posted by MikeMc at 7:50 PM on September 14


Read the link, hoss. Palin opposes abortion even in the case of incest or rape. She would appoint Supreme Court judges who agree. She would sign a bill that criminalized abortion even in those cases. And there you have it. McCain kicks the bucket faster than W. H. Harrison, Palin takes over, a few justices buy the farm, Palin appoints them solely on their opposition to Roe v. Wade, it gets overturned, and hey look at that coming out of the Republican Congress of 2010: a bill banning all abortions without exception. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
posted by Optimus Chyme at 8:05 PM on September 14, 2008 [10 favorites has favorites]


But it's not about race.

Hi everyone, meet the new boss: he's black, hasn't put his time in and to be quite honest, thinks he knows better because of the educational opportunities that he somehow enjoyed yet we missed out on. You know, affirmative action and all. Oh, and once his office is refinished with the new paint job, he's going to bring in all of his black friends to help run things. Maybe some women too. Black ones. Competent or not, they're the new bosses, so get used to it. Oh, and don't forget you little muslim hats next week. The new boss likes them.

Navelgazer, brethren of the bacon, that is one pill that the average white male is going to have a very, very tough time swallowing. And even if modern economics, driven by wealthy white men, competent or not, have been down on majority white lower-middle/working class people in this country, it takes very little to stir up the racial animosity that lies very close to the surface.

You think it doesn't exist, that it's limited to certain areas of Dixie that need quarantine? Ok, peace be with you, but I know otherwise, and I'm framing this election from a racial point of view. The wasps simply cannot let go. And if I were one of them, I'd honestly find it hard to do as well.
posted by jsavimbi at 8:06 PM on September 14, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


Charlie Gibson was mean to Hillary Clinton.
posted by Zambrano at 8:07 PM on September 14, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


McCain's Lying Has Gone Too Far, According To ... Karl Rove!
posted by homunculus at 8:09 PM on September 14, 2008 [4 favorites has favorites]


Can you all persuade me that Obama would be better than Carter, for instance? Jimmy Carter had quite a lot to do with me deciding I didn't trust Democrats when it came to the White House.
posted by konolia at 7:58 PM on September 14


Here you go. The huge budget surpluses and economic growth under Clinton should have changed your mind, as well. Democrats focus on long-term economic solutions and cut taxes for the poor and middle class. Republicans cut taxes for millionaires. Did you know that you and your husband would pay fewer taxes if Obama were elected? It's true. Here is a graph. The source of the data is the non-partisan Tax Policy Center.

Incidentally, konolia, you never answered when I asked a) how Sarah Palin will handle Vladimir Putin is Charlie Gibson is too "mean," or b) how you can imprison people based on their race without being racist. Looking forward to your response. Thank you.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 8:13 PM on September 14, 2008 [7 favorites has favorites]


One of those jets is the one where he purposefully flamed-out while warming up the jets, to freak out the pilot behind him, practical-joke style. Completely disallowed when on-deck, of course. No one expects a big gout of flame shooting across the deck before everyone's in go-mode.

Listen, I'm all for finding McCain to be somehow responsible for the death of 134 sailors aboard the USS Forrestal, and I know that the McCain wet-start story has some traction, but I think it's the sort of thing we need to be pretty damn certain of before we start discussing it as fact. We are not swift boaters.
posted by Astro Zombie at 8:14 PM on September 14, 2008 [9 favorites has favorites]


Can you all persuade me that Obama would be better than Carter, for instance? Jimmy Carter had quite a lot to do with me deciding I didn't trust Democrats when it came to the White House.

That was more than thirty years ago. That's like me saying Nixon is the reason I don't trust Republicans.

Obama doesn't need to be "better than Carter." Carter and his world are long, long gone. He needs to be better than his opponent, McCain, and he is, by far. One of those two choices is going to send us into a downward economic spiral, extend the war indefinitely, do nothing to improve the health care system, and pack the Supreme Court with conservative judges, ending the debate and discussion that is a key force in the nation's judicial equilibrium. The other is going to address, not ignore, the fact that 47 million adult Americans have no health insurance or regular medical care; continue to reduce American activity in Iraq and work toward self-governance on an expedited timetable; appoint judges that will restore a balanced point of view to the Court, and provide tax relief and limits on corporate welfare so that more wealth is freed up to move through the country once again. McCain's far too in the pocket of lobbyists to handle the economy fairly; his personal wealth, many homes, and lifetime of moneyed political connections have taken him far, far away from the frustrations, concerns, and difficulties of regular people struggling to buy first houses, educate kids, take care of families. He's not going to improve conditions for the middle and working classes; we're not paying his bills! His interest lies in protecting the corporate and financial elite, and he shows no signs of thinking differently. He's a far worse choice, at this moment in American history, than a more fiscally conservative, more thoughtful, and less bought-and-paid-for constitutional lawyer who's motivated centrally by a desire for public service and a sense of personal imperative - we're at a crossroads, and things have to change, or the nation and its economy are going right down the drain.
posted by Miko at 8:16 PM on September 14, 2008 [14 favorites has favorites]


One of those jets is the one where he purposefully flamed-out while warming up the jets, to freak out the pilot behind him, practical-joke style. Completely disallowed when on-deck, of course. No one expects a big gout of flame shooting across the deck before everyone's in go-mode.

I call bullshit on this. Please look at the flight deck film recorded at the time of the incident. McCain's aircraft was parked side by side to where the accident happened, not in front. I served on two carriers, not as a sailor mind you, and if there's one thing I can say is that the Navy takes care of its own. For McCain to be breathing today would mean that the Forrestal Fire was no fault of his. Had it been, he would've never made it back home, regardless of the ship. Unlucky and incompetent? Sure. Criminally negligent? I doubt that.
posted by jsavimbi at 8:19 PM on September 14, 2008


Katha Pollitt: Lipstick on a Wing Nut
posted by muckster at 8:21 PM on September 14, 2008 [2 favorites has favorites]


Palin energizes right-wing republicans. Her presence has encouraged republicans who were considering sitting this one out to vote for McCain.

But that's not going to be enough this time. Palin brings no new voters to the table. Her impact on the polls is because the enthusiasm republicans show for her has an outsize effect on likely voter screens which are ver susceptible to these effects. These polls are often working off of 2004 party affiliation data--something that has changed siginificantly in the Democrats favor.

In essence, Palin appeals to Republicans because they like to defend her against people they don't like--they are voting for emotional effects. Just go over to the NRO's the Corner--they have a whole cottage industry going on over there defending her.

The polling data I'm seeing shows Palin's impact is disproportionately positive amongst white males, a group that hasn't gone as a majority for Democrats since 1964. She's not making inroads on Obama supporters--shes getting right-wingers to support McCain. Not the same thing as winning the middle--which is what this election is all about.
posted by Ironmouth at 8:21 PM on September 14, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


What was wrong with Carter? I mean, he brokered peace in the Middle East and tried to wean us off our dependence on foreign oil. He was a good man, he was an honorable man, and he was a good Christian. Today he builds houses for the poor. Sure, the economy was bad then, but Republicans love to tell us that the president has nothing to do with the economy -- at least, that's what they tell us when the economy is bad.

And Carter made you not trust Democrats in the White House, but the succession of lies, cronyism, raiding the public coffers, mismanaging crises, and general incompetence and boobery has you convinced that Republicans are trustworthy? I mean, come on, Konolia. Next to George W Bush, Carter was St. Peter.
posted by Astro Zombie at 8:23 PM on September 14, 2008 [20 favorites has favorites]


Jimmy Carter had quite a lot to do with me deciding I didn't trust Democrats when it came to the White House.

Can you explain that more? What did Carter do or not do that turned you off to Democrats?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:23 PM on September 14, 2008


The wasps simply cannot let go. And if I were one of them, I'd honestly find it hard to do as well.

I think it's pretty easy for people to use an imagined Other racist as an excuse. Sure, white males over a certain age are a noticeable voting bloc. Sure, some racists will not vote, or will vote McCain, or will write in, rather than vote Obama. But they are not a majority and not a monolithic bloc. The only vote you have control over is your own; don't fret about how someone else somewhere might vote. Instead, move on, and find three or four new voters who are ready to step up and take on a role in the democracy. White racists are scary in the imagining, but the truth is, they won't be terribly hard to outnumber. If each of us concentrates on our own sphere of influence, and if we keep our eye on the fact that whatever discomfort you might have with a black person is really not worth selling out your country's and your grandchildren's future for, there's no reason to fear that sector. Their power is waning.
posted by Miko at 8:24 PM on September 14, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


jsavimbi, I am a white anglo-saxon protestant male, and I've lived all over this land, in areas both ultra-conservative (Houston, Tx.; Bartlesville, Ok.) ultra-liberal (NYC, DC) and extraordinarily divided (Crested Butte, Co.; New Orleans, La.) and have never met anyone, WASP or otherwise, whose vote I can imagine being swayed in the way you describe. I'm not saying that thought isn't out there, but I can only imagine it in the Ditto-heads and the like who are looking for other justifications for voting against Obama and have now found that in Palin.

I know racism exists, but I also know that almost everyone I've met in my life hates it, even as they see some subconscious aspect of it in themselves sometimes, and I think (hope?) that a lot of people see Obama's race more as a positive step forward for America, if anything. I know anecdotally that in 2004, the first time my Oil-Baron (kind of) father voted in the democratic primaries, he voted for Sharpton, because he thought Sharpton was the most honest and forceful of the candidates.

Personally, I think most people don't consider Obama's race much at all anymore, as the "story" is so played out by this point. When Tiger Woods became the greatest golfer of our time, the story of "the black golfer" was a thing for a while, and then everyone stopped caring and he just became "Tiger Woods, the best golfer." Will Smith similarly stopped being the "black top box office draw" and simply "the most bankable actor in Hollywood." Denzel Washington stopped being "The first black Best Actor winner" and became "Denzel, the great actor."

The experience issue, by the way, is a canard. Nobody really gives a shit about it except for the sake of argument and confirmation bias. The next seven weeks are about who actually seems like they can be president. The person who holds the news cycles (without making a major blunder) will win the day in this regard. Also, the economy, but Obama's got that issue locked down. We just need people to listen to it.
posted by Navelgazer at 8:26 PM on September 14, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


how Sarah Palin will handle Vladimir Putin is Charlie Gibson is too "mean,

Sarah handled Charlie just fine; I doubt she'd have trouble with Putin. I was referencing how OBSERVERS saw the interview.

What was wrong with Carter? I mean, he brokered peace in the Middle East and tried to wean us off our dependence on foreign oil. He was a good man, he was an honorable man, and he was a good Christian. Today he builds houses for the poor. Sure, the economy was bad then, but Republicans love to tell us that the president has nothing to do with the economy -- at least, that's what they tell us when the economy is bad.

He was an ineffectual man and I don't like him. I lived thru his administration. Inflation was horrible. The economy was horrible. Jobs were hard to find. And do you remember the Iranian hostage crisis?

I am truly glad he works for Habitat for Humanity; that is honorable work. Let's leave it at that.
posted by konolia at 8:31 PM on September 14, 2008


Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Gee, maybe because the scenario you just outlined is a tad more complex than your original "OMFG Palin is gunna make yur momz a baby factory for rapists!111!1" assertion. A lot of shit has to happen for that to come to pass but please, don't let reality stand in the way of your fear mongering. I've heard that claim made, in one form or another, about every GOP presidential candidate for the last 20 years. For some reason the term "crying wolf" comes to mind...
posted by MikeMc at 8:32 PM on September 14, 2008


Can you explain that more? What did Carter do or not do that turned you off to Democrats?

This is something that has always puzzled me as well. Political effectiveness aside, Jimmy Carter is one of the most fundamentally decent people in public life. It's amazing that fundamentalist right-wingers, devoted to placing moral values over actual effectiveness, vilify him so often as the devil. Meanwhile, under Reagan, poverty, drug use, abortion, and teen pregnancy rates all increased dramatically, and he's considered a god.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 8:32 PM on September 14, 2008 [6 favorites has favorites]


What's Your Obama Tax Cut?
posted by neroli at 8:33 PM on September 14, 2008 [2 favorites has favorites]


Well, it's especially easy to imagine the other as racist when they developed the Southern Strategy.
posted by Astro Zombie at 8:33 PM on September 14, 2008


He was an ineffectual man and I don't like him. I lived thru his administration. Inflation was horrible. The economy was horrible. Jobs were hard to find. And do you remember the Iranian hostage crisis?

ANd that's how politics goes as one grows older. If we replaced the word "ineffectual" with "incompetent" and "Iran Hostage Crisis" with "War on Terror" or "Hurricane Katrina Disaster" we'd get a pretty good idea of what I think of Bush and why I'll never likely vote for a Republican in my life.

I almost did with Bloomberg a couple years ago in New York. He was the better candidate and I knew it. I still couldn't bring myself to do it, though, so instead I voted for Macmillan, of "The Rent is Too Damn High" party. Because you know what? The rent is too damn high.
posted by Navelgazer at 8:37 PM on September 14, 2008


Can someone explain to a foreigner why it is that voter turnout is so low? This thread is great for seeing passionate people arguing for their sides, but I have a hard time understanding the mind set of the people who just don't vote. Do they honestly not care one way or the other? Do they not realise how much of an effect this election will have? I'm genuinely curious to know what's going on there.
posted by twirlypen at 8:37 PM on September 14, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


He was an ineffectual man and I don't like him. I lived thru his administration. Inflation was horrible. The economy was horrible. Jobs were hard to find. And do you remember the Iranian hostage crisis?

And what specifically did he do to cause the economic problems? Carter is the bugaboo of the right -- they point to him like we're all supposed to agree he was horrible, but, when pressed, all discuss the economy under him. So let me know how it's his fault.

Yes, the Iranian Hostage Crisis. I remember. I was alive then too. And considering how Reagen had no trouble playing fast and loose with the law and with other people's lives, I'm inclined to believe the October Surprise was his doing. Even if not, I'll take a bungled hostage crisis over an illegal international war built on lies any day.

The right has smeared and tarnished a good man, an honest broker, and a man who dedicated his life to the betterment of those around him, and, had we followed Carter's energy plan, instead of scrapping it under Reagen, we'd be in a better world. So I don't feel like leaving it at that.
posted by Astro Zombie at 8:38 PM on September 14, 2008 [13 favorites has favorites]


Reagan, rather.
posted by Astro Zombie at 8:39 PM on September 14, 2008


Well, it's especially easy to imagine the other as racist when they developed the Southern Strategy.

Like I said, I don't doubt that racists exist and can (and will) be exploited politically. What I doubt is that the existence of racists, in this election, is going to spell failure for the Obama campaign. His strategy has taken the Republican one into account, and he's already registered (and turned out) large numbers of new voters who support him, which I believe will negate the effect of racism on the smallish number of white male racist voters who might have otherwise considered a Democratic ticket. It's a bugaboo, but not one to fear. What I don't like to see is the concern about other racist Democratic voters being used to provide cover for people who are themselves racist but would rather not admit it. So I like to try to get people focused on whether they themselves have a prejudice that would prevent them from supporting the ticket. If they don't, and if they can find a couple of other family members or friends that don't have enough prejudice, or can overcome the prejudice, the racism factor can be neutralized. If it continues to be raised as an objection, my suspicion is that the person him or herself is harboring some racist fears.
posted by Miko at 8:46 PM on September 14, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


Well, Astro Zombie, the problem is that I think Obama won't do any good for the economy either. I think he won't be ABLE to do the things he is promising. I think in the effort to do them he will wind up damaging the economy more, not less.

I think Obama is a much NICER man than Jimmy Carter is, for what it's worth. He's definitely a nicer man than McCain. But that quality in itself does not a good President make.
posted by konolia at 8:48 PM on September 14, 2008


1400+ were estimated in attendance at this anti-Palin rally on the same day as Palin's kick-off, both in Anchorage.

Bah. They're just a bunch of socialist baby-killing maggots.
posted by homunculus at 8:49 PM on September 14, 2008


He was an ineffectual man and I don't like him.

So you're admitting that you base your politics on whether or not you feel chummy around a candidate, and not on the policies? I don't like the guy I voted for up here in Canadia, but his policies were a heck of a lot more sound than his opponent's.

If the U.S. goes completely into the shitter because voters vote for "the guy I like" instead of "the guy with the right angle," well, there isn't going to be a lot of sympathy floating around.
posted by illiad at 8:49 PM on September 14, 2008


What was wrong with Carter?

Jimmy was a pussy. So was Dukakis. That's why people were turned off from Democrats for a time period expanding all the way back to LBJs' only election. Make no mistake about it, America wins the wars that she undertakes vs. Fuck, the Ayatollah holds our people hostage and Kitty is drinking vanilla extract again. I remember those days, sadly enough. Say what you want, but our masculinity as a society must be fed. That's why the repubs use terms like appeasement, negotiation and concensus as references to Chamberlain, Carter and Kerry's perceived weaknesses. It's simple psycology that hits to the core masculine traits. It's not rocket surgery.

I think it's pretty easy for people to use an imagined Other racist as an excuse.

I'm being completely honest here in my assertion that swing voters will have a hesistancy at the right moment to vote on racial lines. Why? My perception of human behavior. Nope, not an expert of any sort nor claim to be. Matter of fact, I don't even have a batshitinsane blog reference to back me up. But after observing people for the better part of two decades, I can surmise the following: when push comes to shove, people will stick together first based on politics, secondly on nationalism and then on religion. And when things get really tough and a choice has to be made, they will do so on race.

Tiger, Denzel and Will Smith don't have a say in who runs things. Neither did Joe Louis, Meadowlark Lemon nor Hank Aaron. None of them were elected to anything other than the pantheon of a self-congratulating business concern. Be realistic, please.
posted by jsavimbi at 8:54 PM on September 14, 2008


In other (current) VP news, the Washington Post is running excerpts from a new book on Cheney:

Conflict Over Spying Led White House to Brink

Cheney Shielded Bush From Crisis
posted by homunculus at 8:55 PM on September 14, 2008 [3 favorites has favorites]


He was an ineffectual man and I don't like him. I lived thru his administration. Inflation was horrible. The economy was horrible. Jobs were hard to find. And do you remember the Iranian hostage crisis? -- konolia
You can't be serious, all those things are true now except rather then inflation, people's incomes are decreasing. It seems like every week a major financial institution dies. We have a 6.1% unemployment rate and... do you remember a little thing called The Iraq War!?

Rather then trying to convince us that Obama wouldn't be another Carter, you should be trying to convince us that McCain wouldn't be another Bush. I mean seriously, it's the same fucking people!

In the other thread, you were saying that "we would all be OK" no matter who got elected. Now you're saying you're worried about economic policy. Well which is it? Does it matter whose president or not?

If you want to vote as a single issue anti-abortion voter, go for it. But don't pretend like this other B.S. is true. Come on.
Gee, maybe because the scenario you just outlined is a tad more complex than your original "OMFG Palin is gunna make yur momz a baby factory for rapists!111!1" assertion. A lot of shit has to happen for that to come to pass but please, don't let reality stand in the way of your fear mongering. I've heard that claim made, in one form or another, about every GOP presidential candidate for the last 20 years. For some reason the term "crying wolf" comes to mind...
Dude, Sarah Palin opposes abortion even in the case of rape and incest. It's not fear mongering to tell people what her actual policy would entail even if she might not be able to pull it off. it's what she wants to do. For fuck sake, she charged rape victims for their own treatment while she was mayor of Wasilla, it these are her real, professed positions, not some left-wing fantasy. That is what she is saying she'll try to do.
Can someone explain to a foreigner why it is that voter turnout is so low? This thread is great for seeing passionate people arguing for their sides, but I have a hard time understanding the mind set of the people who just don't vote. Do they honestly not care one way or the other? Do they not realise how much of an effect this election will have? I'm genuinely curious to know what's going on there. --twirlypen
Well, for one thing, in states which lean heavily democratic or republican, votes actually don't make much of a difference (except in extreme cases). It would be more informative to look at votes in swing states.
posted by delmoi at 8:58 PM on September 14, 2008 [4 favorites has favorites]


Some perspective on the "Alaska is next to Russia" spiel, with numbers (self-link, propaganda, youtube)
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 8:59 PM on September 14, 2008 [4 favorites has favorites]


Well, Astro Zombie, the problem is that I think Obama won't do any good for the economy either. I think he won't be ABLE to do the things he is promising. I think in the effort to do them he will wind up damaging the economy more, not less.

It would hardly be possible for him to damage the economy more. Seriously. He'll be going from profligate spending and running up debt to conservative management. The Republican strategy has just been to push off the costs we're running up until some future date. Those costs have to be settled at some time. If we continue to mount them higher, the resulting crash will be the worst in history.

But I do want to ask: why do you think he won't be able to do the things he plans to do?
posted by Miko at 9:00 PM on September 14, 2008 [3 favorites has favorites]


If the U.S. goes completely into the shitter because voters vote for "the guy I like" instead of "the guy with the right angle," well, there isn't going to be a lot of sympathy floating around.

That's the way elections usually go. People didn't like Carter not only because the economy sucked but he also projected weakness and didn't seem like the guy who could fix it. Along comes a candidate who is optimistic and projects strength (Reagan) and suddenly it's "Jimmy who?" Policy wonkery will lose to charisma and confidence every time (see Kennedy/Nixon) that's why this a a Obama/Palin race because McCain has neither great policies nor great charisma.
posted by MikeMc at 9:00 PM on September 14, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


I'm being completely honest here in my assertion that swing voters will have a hesistancy at the right moment to vote on racial lines. Why? My perception of human behavior. Nope, not an expert of any sort nor claim to be. Matter of fact, I don't even have a batshitinsane blog reference to back me up. But after observing people for the better part of two decades, I can surmise the following: when push comes to shove, people will stick together first based on politics, secondly on nationalism and then on religion. And when things get really tough and a choice has to be made, they will do so on race.
Yeah, it's a shame that nice Obama fellow lost the democratic primary, I bet he'd be doing really well. Hillary is getting her ass kicked.
posted by delmoi at 9:01 PM on September 14, 2008


A lot of shit has to happen for [rapists being able to choose the women who will bear their child] to come to pass

That is true. A lot does have to happen. It may not happen. But I never thought we'd bomb Iraq because a bunch of Saudis killed 3,000+ people, and hey, we did. And I'll tell you this: the only administration in which it's possible - in which victims of rape would be forced to bear their rapist's children - is a McCain/Palin administration.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 9:01 PM on September 14, 2008 [4 favorites has favorites]


Can you all persuade me that Obama would be better than Carter, for instance?

He doesn't have to be better than Carter. He just has to be better than McCain.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:04 PM on September 14, 2008 [2 favorites has favorites]


Here, in the US, the availability of ten different brands of toilet paper is taken as a mere formality, not a right, a wish or a pipe dream.

Did you read my comment? Despite the fact that I find it hard to imagine that anyone actually wants 10 different brands of toilet paper as "a right, a wish or a pipe dream" (personally, my rights have to do with things like free speech and my pipe dreams are about world peace), we have the same selection. I can waste the same 20 minutes in Canada trying to decide what ^%%$£ brand to buy, just as I do where I currently live in the United States. And at the end of that twenty minutes, I always still buy the same cheapest store brand, just like I did from the store in Britain where I think I only had *gasp* six or seven brands to choose from.

But I'd like to take this moment to point something out: while your government frets about replacing your old F-111's, we've already researched, developed, deployed and sold a whole new generation of aircraft. In large numbers. Unsurmountable numbers. Ourselves. Out of the blue. We project power as a matter of fact. You send us some of your gap year kids.

Yes, you have some fine miltary hardware. We have universal health care (in Canada at least - Australia is different). You also have some serious national debt; until recently, the Canadian government was running a budget surplus.

And that is something that most non-Americans don't get: in our minds, we can live without you. And theoretically, we have for a very long time. In simpler words: the average American couldn't find Australia on a map, never mind give a crap about what happens there. That is the mentality you're up against.

Now, this is a good point, though it seems to have nothing to do with your earlier ones, and most non-Americans who read American media and/or have travelled or lived in the United States are very aware of this fact. The United States is a an economic, cultural and political metropole and, like all metropoles, it doesn't look out to its provinces.

But that kind of ignorance is nothing to boast about. Americans should understand that the American lifestyle is extremely similar to that in other settler-based ex-colonies, and different from but not better than the lifestyles in most other developed countries on the planet. You don't need to be perpetuating the misunderstanding.
posted by jb at 9:07 PM on September 14, 2008 [3 favorites has favorites]


it's what she wants to do

It's what they all want to do (GOP candidates that is)! What makes anyone think Palin is any worse on this issue than W? We heard these same things in 2000 and 2004 but still abortion is legal. How long until waving the coat hangers doesn't work anymore? Abortion is a great fund raising issue for both sides but to be honest I think the majority of the American people like things just as they are and I don't see Roe v. Wade getting overturned anytime soon (at worst the issue will go back to the states).
posted by MikeMc at 9:08 PM on September 14, 2008


Listen, I'm all for finding McCain to be somehow responsible for the death of 134 sailors aboard the USS Forrestal, and I know that the McCain wet-start story has some traction, but I think it's the sort of thing we need to be pretty damn certain of before we start discussing it as fact. We are not swift boaters.

I did not realize this was swiftboat bait. My apologies. I'm a dummy.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:09 PM on September 14, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


And I'll tell you this: the only administration in which it's possible - in which victims of rape would be forced to bear their rapist's children - is a McCain/Palin administration.

I don't see McCain taking any action on abortion if he wins. Think back a few months when the right leaning pundits were calling McCain a "RINO" (Republican In Name Only), he doesn't really fit the GOP mold but hey, he won, they have no choice but to back him. If he wins I think he'll be a "one and done" president with no real legacy (much like Bush I) because I don't think he has any issues that he's actually passionate about.
posted by MikeMc at 9:13 PM on September 14, 2008


Do they honestly not care one way or the other? Do they not realise how much of an effect this election will have?

Certainly a little of both - but even more than that, we're not a well-informed nation. Despite our many media outlets, few do a good job of educating the populace. And those that do have a hard time getting any attention, because they're perceived as boring. We're over-entertained, I'm afraid, and our secondary-level civics education is pretty bad. People are often told that their votes don't make a difference, and many have come to believe it. Another ill is the idea that there's no difference between the major parties - the policy platform difference is vast and has tremendous long-term effect, of course, yet some people see them as equivalents. The Republican Party has not traditionally encouraged a wide turnout, because it is a more tightly run ship that organizes through networks. Getting to those unregistered and less-aware voters is a task that tends to fall to Democrats.

More factors: The general lack of interest in civics makes local elections often a "gimme" for whoever does the mobilizing (Presidential election turnouts are generally a much higher percentage of the population than local elections!), and if you aren't politically involved more than once every four years, it's hard to stay abreast of anything other than the sticky sound-bites and glancing cable-news appearances you happen to catch. Then, too, we don't have anywhere near as comprehensive a system for registering all eligible voters as we do for, say, draft registration. States set their own registration processes, so it varies from state to state - in one state you might register during your senior year of high school, if you make it that far, while in another it might not be offered in school. Some states have tried "Motor Voter" laws, where you register to vote as part of your driver licensing, but again, that only reaches people who are applying for a license to drive. Since there's no consistent clearinghouse to catch every eligible voter, about 25% of people have never been registered at all (that number is higher among minority populations), and of those, 20% or so are inactive voters. Transportation to the polls is an issue for some. For working people, finding time to vote can be challenging - especially when, in some polling places, lines easily exceed a 2-hour wait.

Still, it's pretty damn shameful, when I think of our forebears who actually offered their lives to secure the right to vote. The women who starved until the government force-fed them in prison; the civil rights activists who fought Jim Crow , dealing with fines, poll taxes, and the threat (and actuality) of lynching in order to cast ballots....
posted by Miko at 9:17 PM on September 14, 2008


I have a hard time understanding the mind set of the people who just don't vote. Do they honestly not care one way or the other?

you've got two types - those who don't care, period - and those who are convinced that no matter who wins, the same bastards behind the scene will keep running things anyway and will never listen to them
---

What was wrong with Carter?

he didn't perform - part of that was circumstance, part of that was he was above his level - and part of that was the american people preferred being lied to than led

---

the problem is that I think Obama won't do any good for the economy either.

when he attempts to do something about it, he will have the common people more in mind than that guy with 7 houses will - frankly, i wonder if anyone will be able to deal effectively with what may come and that the next president of the usa is going to be remembered as the next herbert hoover ...

but i'm certain, especially after the dirty tricks of the last two weeks, that mccain will not be able to govern, if elected - i thought he was merely wrong, but decent a month ago - now i can't give him the benefit of that doubt anymore - and there are a lot of people who feel the same way

he's blown it with his tactics, even if he gets elected - he'll be YOUR president, not mine
posted by pyramid termite at 9:18 PM on September 14, 2008


It's what they all want to do (GOP candidates that is)! What makes anyone think Palin is any worse on this issue than W?

Even President Bush is okay with abortion if a 14 year-old girl is raped by her father. Sarah Palin is not. Sarah Palin's stated objective is to criminalize abortion so that a rape victim would be forced to bear her rapist's child.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 9:20 PM on September 14, 2008 [3 favorites has favorites]


lost the democratic primary

Feh. Now there's a contest I couldn't be arsed to vote in. Intraparty horseshit. Boy, did I get the vote out on that one. I don't even know if my mother was a delegate this year, because I couldn't be bothered to ask. (Hillarly won here, btw)

Non US citizens: the inception of the electoral college means that we vote on state lines. Every state is assigned certain number of electoral votes based on their respective populations, which are already forecasted by the number of each states' representatives in the whorehouse we call a congress. Certain states, like my beloved Massachusetts, which is a commonwealth, not a state nor a plantation, vote Democrat. Regardless of the candidate. We do this with the conviction that we're better than everyone else, even if it means being the only state to do so. Google Red Sox, Patriots or Celtics if you don't believe me. So if any North Shore or Western Mass republicant decides they want to take time out of their day to represent their views at the ballot box, it's all for naught, because the sane people in the Greater Boston Area (>50% of the Mass. populus) have already sorted it out for them. Same goes for tradionally Republican states. So there's a lot of disenfranchisement due to the misperception of one man, one vote.

The only interesting aspect about the US presidential elections lie in the so-called swing states, also known as places where they can't make up their goddamn mind. This is where all the rhetorical nonsense comes from as candidates try to appeal to most voyeuristic of voters by downing boilermakers and cheesesteaks. Basically, they have to beg for votes from people who think a clean pair of sneakers are an introduction to polite society. Eighteen months of masturbating people who can't balance a checkbook. That's what we call democracy. There's room for more, btw.
posted by jsavimbi at 9:21 PM on September 14, 2008 [6 favorites has favorites]


People are often told that their votes don't make a difference, and many have come to believe it.

Well, the Electoral College doesn't help there. Were I a Republican voter in New York or a Democrat in Texas I would be sorely tempted to avoid the polls on election day and save myself the bother of waiting in line.
posted by MikeMc at 9:25 PM on September 14, 2008


Basically, they have to beg for votes from people who think a clean pair of sneakers are an introduction to polite society. Eighteen months of masturbating people who can't balance a checkbook.

and yet, they can figure out how to feed the country, and you can't
posted by pyramid termite at 9:26 PM on September 14, 2008


after observing people for the better part of two decades,

I think that's in the eye of the observer. It tells me more about what observations you have taken in than about the world itself. And the lack of evidence you admit is the same thing I hear from others who propose this view - "it's not me I'm worried about, I just think America's racists are going to circle the wagons." I'm not worried about America's racists. Let them have a nice campfire. I'm worried about the person I'm talking to right now.

I have observations, as well: I'm also oldish, I've been active in politics and civic life for a long time, and I've been active in the Obama campaign since December. When I attend his events, I see that there are people - a whole, large lot of people - who make other choices than banding together upon identity points. I see men, women, seniors, youth, middle-aged people, whites, blacks, asians, etc. A quick review of campaign events will reveal his crowds as more representative of America's makeup than any other candidate's. There is a certain portion of people who are able to take a broader view, especially when a cogent argument is made. Hell, I'm a woman. I've been voting for men most of my life; had to. I didn't run to support Hilary or Palin based on gender. I'm not retreating to gender - why should we expect anyone to retreat to race? That kind of thinking about exploiting surface divides is, I think, a strategy ready to go the way of all flesh; the electorate has changed with the advance of milennials to voting age and the dying off of the greatest generation, as well as with shifts in economic status. Americans today have more in common than bloc identity, especially when the writing is so clearly on the wall about the nation's future.

I don't see McCain taking any action on abortion if he wins.

He probably won't, but he won't have to; his Supreme Court replacements will likely take care of that. If he thought of himself as "one and done," then he might appoint more liberal justices; but if he plans a second term, he can't afford to alienate that fraction of the base that he needs Palin to bring in. Of course, a desire for a second term is totally hypothetical - he'd be 76 upon assuming a second term. It would take him, if he lived, to the age of 80. Not sure he's got it in him.
posted by Miko at 9:27 PM on September 14, 2008 [2 favorites has favorites]


Were I a Republican voter in New York or a Democrat in Texas I would be sorely tempted to avoid the polls on election day and save myself the bother of waiting in line.

Thus contributing to the public misperception that Texans are either all Republicans or totally apathetic and that New Yorkers are all Democrats or totally apathetic, while discouraging qualified candidates from running in your district, telling the media not to pay any attention to political activity in your state, allowing the dominant party to control the message and continue to snowball more support, and influencing the appearance of a mandate or popular vote landslide for your opponent as well as shortchanging your local elections on the same ballot.
posted by Miko at 9:32 PM on September 14, 2008 [10 favorites has favorites]


Thanks for all of the great perspectives, people. The U.S. federal election system is a bit of a fog to us Parliamentary types, so the analyses posted here can be really enlightening.

Having said that, I'm mildly astonished that the U.S. electorate faces such difficulty with voter registration and getting out to vote. Here (.ca) the registration process is simple, and you have various ways of getting your registration in to Elections Canada. And over the last 20 years of voting in one of the bigger cities in British Columbia I have never waited more than 2 minutes to cast a ballot. Ballots here are still done with pencil and paper, by the way. No hanging whatsits.
posted by illiad at 9:35 PM on September 14, 2008 [2 favorites has favorites]


And that is something that most non-Americans don't get: in our minds, we can live without you. And theoretically, we have for a very long time. In simpler words: the average American couldn't find Australia on a map, never mind give a crap about what happens there. That is the mentality you're up against.
Now, this is a good point, though it seems to have nothing to do with your earlier ones, and most non-Americans who read American media and/or have travelled or lived in the United States are very aware of this fact. The United States is a an economic, cultural and political metropole and, like all metropoles, it doesn't look out to its provinces.

But that kind of ignorance is nothing to boast about. Americans should understand that the American lifestyle is extremely similar to that in other settler-based ex-colonies, and different from but not better than the lifestyles in most other developed countries on the planet. You don't need to be perpetuating the misunderstanding.
Frankly I have no idea what jsavimbi is going on about. I think he's just jealous that McCain is hogging all of Charley Black's time. Americans are well aware of Canada, the average American thinks about Canada the same way they would about, say, California or New York. There was a poll a while back that showed Americans think about Canada as being more like another state in the U.S. then another country. And we also get a shitload of Oil from Canada. Savimbi is spouting a lot of weird nonsense in this thread, frankly.

And by the way, the standard of living is how higher in the U.K. then in the United States. Yes, that's right People are richer in the U.K then in the U.S., people there now have even more brands of toilet paper -- so to speak.
I don't see McCain taking any action on abortion if he wins. Think back a few months when the right leaning pundits were calling McCain a "RINO" (Republican In Name Only), he doesn't really fit the GOP mold but hey, he won
Yeah, and how long until he eats a mysteriously poisoned moosburger?
posted by delmoi at 9:35 PM on September 14, 2008 [5 favorites has favorites]


Yeah, and how long until he eats a mysteriously poisoned moosburger?

Well, you've got me there. Thats +1 on the favorites.
posted by MikeMc at 9:39 PM on September 14, 2008


Were I a Republican voter in New York or a Democrat in Texas I would be sorely tempted to avoid the polls on election day and save myself the bother of waiting in line.

You... you understand people vote for other things on Election Day as well, right?
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 9:44 PM on September 14, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


But that kind of ignorance is nothing to boast about.

You don't get it. Please allow me to explain this to you using caps:

THE AVERAGE AMERICAN DOESN'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT YOU, WHERE YOU'RE FROM OR WHAT YOU THINK. ARE YOU AVAILABLE TO WORK? That's all they care about.

(personally, my rights have to do with things like free speech and my pipe dreams are about world peace)

Confirmed: you really don't get us. I sympathize with your point, but aside from certain sectors, nobody in the US cares about that nonsense. If we did, we wouldn't have had a fascist government for the past eight years. We do our bitching in forums, not out in the street.

I think that's in the eye of the observer.

Exactly. I'm not making any widespread claims, and I'm certainly not going to get upset about a sambo depiction on a box of waffles at a losers' seminar. It's par for the course, otherwise it wouldn't be allowed, right? There's nothing scientific about framing my view of the election based on the microcosm I live in, and I don't extrapolate it to anyone else's.

If he thought of himself as "one and done,"


You nailed it right there. I think he's betting on a quickie and is willing to eat shit to get it. He's come too far for too long to let his one chance get away, hence the nod to the religiosos. He'll disemvowel that Bangladeshi kid to do so.
posted by jsavimbi at 9:45 PM on September 14, 2008


There was a poll a while back that showed Americans think about Canada as being more like another state in the U.S. then another country.

That's an interesting result, delmoi. I'd be keen on finding the details of the study just for personal edification. The results runs diametrically to my own personal experiences: most U.S. citizens I know just south of the border in the Pacific Northwest seem astonishingly put-off by the idea of taking a day trip into Vancouver. Foreign country and all that.
posted by illiad at 9:47 PM on September 14, 2008


Can you all persuade me that Obama would be better than Carter, for instance?

konolia - I very much disagree with you on Carter. Most of the popular understanding of his administration has been heavily coloured by a very negative campaign against him by Reagan. His admistration did happen during a really bad economic period for the whole world (not just the United States), and this vilification of him makes just about a much sense as deposing a king who couldn't magically make the rains come. I think he was a serious thoughtful president in difficult times, and he refused to lie to people and tell them everything was okay. And they liked him for it - his approval rating went up after the so-called "Malaise" speech. But being honest - which we claim to like in a candidate, but don't really - was used against him by his political enemies who preferred rhetoric to substance.


--------------------------------------

What I would say about Obama is that as fair as I can tell he has both rhetoric and substance. He has given serious thought to his policy. He has been very active in the Senate. I was especially interested to note that one of his bills was about the Democratic Republic of Congo; it's a very bad situation over there, but not headline-grabby. It is, however, one of the most serious international relations problem in the world today, and one of the most intractable.

He's really tried to think about what policies might improve education and health care, and here his previous experience really matters working in education in Chicago, seeing what did and what didn't work). And even the quite right leaning Economist has been flattering about the kind of cutting edge economic research he's tapped into, though as pro-freetraders they have tsk-tsked the Democrats for giving into political expediancy and coming out as pro-protectionism when campaigning in manufacturing areas.

His tax cuts are certainly much more directed at working Americans than McCain's. I'm not actually pro-tax cuts (I like good services and fiscal responsibility), but McCain's tax cut plan provides much larger percentage of tax cuts to the very wealthiest Americans than it does to middle class Americans. It's fiscally irresponsible and seriously socially regressive. Obama's provides the largest cuts to those at the bottom and middle. You should seriously check out the comparison chart. If your family makes under $112,000 a year, you will get a larger tax cut from Obama than McCain is proposing. Diplomatically, I believe that he will also be more judicious than a McCain administration. That is seriously needed right now.

Governments can't change the world. They can't make global warming go away, or make international commodity prices like oil fall, well, not without nationalizing the production or price manipulation. But in difficult times, their policies can mitigate these problems. It's like piloting a ship through stormy seas - you can't make the storm go away, but you want to chart the best course or it all could get much worse.

I don't like everything on the Democratic platform - and I can't vote anyways. But I think it is a better thought out platform than the current Republican platform. But you may not believe me, because I also like Carter.

All I can suggest is that you should do your own research. You should look and listen to independent assessments of their platforms - not just pundits, but articles that provide specific details and talk about what they mean. Read serious newspapers and magasines from multiple editorial stances. I actually suggest The Economist, a British/international (because they have writers from all over) centre-right magasine about world issues and economics. I disagree with them on many things, but I respect their analysis.

And most of all -- read the candidate's websites and listen to their stump speeches. I don't know about McCain, but Obama and Biden have many speeches on their Youtube channel. (This was the first I heard about Obama supporting highspeed rail, which is a big pet issue of mine - it impressed me since it's just not usually talked about at all in North America.)
posted by jb at 9:49 PM on September 14, 2008 [14 favorites has favorites]


You... you understand people vote for other things on Election Day as well, right?

I will be so bold as to say that most voters only turn out for presidential elections, anything else on the ballot is gravy. Just take a look at look election turnouts, there are important things on the ballot but most registered voters don't give a shit. And just for the record I do take voting seriously and I rarely miss an opportunity to cast my ballot I'm just saying I would be tempted to stay home.
posted by MikeMc at 9:50 PM on September 14, 2008


most U.S. citizens I know just south of the border in the Pacific Northwest seem astonishingly put-off by the idea of taking a day trip into Vancouver.

It's those nosy ass Canadian Customs guys. Seriously, who brings fucking painted turtles into Canada anyway? Now, maybe things have changed since the last time I drove into Canada but those guys wanted to see my cash, credit cards (WTF???) and all sorts of shit. Hell, the station on the U.S. side was rarely staffed (Pembina,ND) and they usually just waved you through anyway.
posted by MikeMc at 9:56 PM on September 14, 2008


Just take a look at look election turnouts

local election turnouts
posted by MikeMc at 9:58 PM on September 14, 2008


I think things have probably changed, MikeMc. It's getting to the point of rubber gloves when crossing south of the 49th and you're not a U.S. citizen.

I've never had a problem with being questioned at the U.S border. After all, I'm not a citizen and entering the country is a privilege, and not a right. This isn't fully understood by some of your fellow countrymen however; apocryphal stories of Americans crossing into Canada on vacation being outraged that there's a different set of laws up here.

Canada/US border protection joke: When crossing south into the U.S., you're checked for links to terrorism. When crossing north into Canada, you're checked for how much they can tax your ass.
posted by illiad at 10:00 PM on September 14, 2008


I don't trust ANYONE RUNNING-not McCain/Palin, not Obama/Biden, re the economy.

These economists disagree.

I know that the Republican party has claimed to be the party of good economics, but they haven't been in a very long time. Their policies are based on out of date economic theory which is being overturned by current research.
posted by jb at 10:01 PM on September 14, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


So, are tattooed killers still voting Palin or not?
posted by maxwelton at 10:05 PM on September 14, 2008


Canada/US border protection joke

Interestingly, on my last trip north, I was grilled way harder going into Canada than coming back in.
posted by maxwelton at 10:06 PM on September 14, 2008


Frankly I have no idea what jsavimbi is going on about.

I've been drinking Guinness since 4pm EST. So neither do we. 'Night.

Charley Black, my ass. Why don't you pick on Mobutu, Doe, or Obiang?
posted by jsavimbi at 10:07 PM on September 14, 2008


It's always going to be that way. If you're not a legal resident or citizen of the country you're visiting, you can expect way more of the Spanish Inquisition at the border. Assuming anyone expects that.
posted by illiad at 10:08 PM on September 14, 2008


Can someone explain to a foreigner why it is that voter turnout is so low?

(1) Registration has historically been inconvenient, though this has changed recently.
(2) Voting isn't particularly convenient.
(3) The only time your individual vote matters is if it breaks or makes a tie. Otherwise, the outcome is whatever it was going to be anyway.
(4) Politics isn't hugely salient to most Americans.

Against that you have:

(1) Americans are socialized to feel good about voting and bad about nonvoting.

Put it all together, and you get a whole bunch of people who decide that going home and hanging out with their family will make a bigger expected improvement to their lives than going to vote will. And they're not even wrong.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:10 PM on September 14, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


It's always going to be that way. If you're not a legal resident or citizen of the country you're visiting, you can expect way more of the Spanish Inquisition at the border. Assuming anyone expects that.

Naw. Biscotti, who is a Canadian person, gets much more shit going to Toronto than she does coming back to B'lo.

We figure that the Americans see the green card and mentally go "Ah, fuck it."
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:12 PM on September 14, 2008


Just a wild guess here, but Biscotti doesn't look even marginally middle-eastern, does she?
posted by illiad at 10:13 PM on September 14, 2008


Palin for V.P. : What a cunning stunt.
posted by telstar at 10:54 PM on September 14, 2008 [11 favorites has favorites]


Barack Obama continues to play the risky role of "incognegro"

Doug Wilder, 77, still meets people who wanted to vote for him when he stood for governor of Virginia back in 1989 but found they just could not do it. They said they would. They even thought they would. But when it came down to it, they just could not vote for a black man. "I've had people who tell me 'I didn't vote for you for lieutenant governor or governor. I wish I had that chance again'," he says.

On the eve of his election he led in the polls by 9%. On the day he won by less than 0.5%. They call it the Wilder effect - the shortfall between white voters' professed support for black candidates and their propensity to actually vote that way. They also call it the Bradley effect, after the Los Angeles mayor Tom Bradley who stood for California governor in 1982. Back then the deception continued even after some had cast their ballot. Bradley's exit poll lead was so significant that early editions of the San Francisco Chronicle projected his victory. He lost by just over 1%.

The question over the next two months is: will there be an Obama effect? And if so will it end like Wilder, in victory; or like Bradley, in defeat? At its heart lies the issue of how America understands the relationship between race and racism, and the degree to which claims of his post-racial candidacy have been misconstrued.

The issue here is not whether racism will cost him the election, but whether the race we think we are watching is in fact the race that is taking place.

posted by Rumple at 10:55 PM on September 14, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


I don't trust ANYONE RUNNING-not McCain/Palin, not Obama/Biden, re the economy.

These economists disagree.


I would like to say I'm sorry, I misread the comment from konolia that I quoted. I thought you had said you didn't trust anyone who was NOT McCain/Palin, but now I see that you are saying you don't trust either party. Which I understand, and to an extent agree with. The economy is like a weather-system - anyone who claimed they could fix it would be about as believable as someone who said they could control hurricanes. But there are things you can do to nudge things, and to set up institutions which are robust and mitigate the worse of the ups and downs, and those links I put above will explain why some economists think that Obama will do a better job managing that kind of stuff than McCain (or Clinton as well, in the first link).
posted by jb at 11:16 PM on September 14, 2008


the other day i was driving behind an early-90s chevy suburban, jacked way up high on off-road suspension and big mud tires, and sporting two USMC window decals, an NRA sticker and a Bush-Cheney '04 bumper sticker. scrawled across the rear window in orange grease pen were the words "Gov. Sarah Palin has real executive experience, supports drilling for oil in ANWR, and her wrists are bigger than Obama's."

just throwin' that out there.
posted by sergeant sandwich at 11:23 PM on September 14, 2008


I don't trust ANYONE RUNNING-not McCain/Palin, not Obama/Biden.

I only trust Gladys and Snowy. Gladys/Snowy 2008!

I should go to bed.
posted by homunculus at 11:41 PM on September 14, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


OC McCain kicks the bucket faster than W. H. Harrison, Palin takes over, a few justices buy the farm, Palin appoints them solely on their opposition to Roe v. Wade, it gets overturned, and hey look at that coming out of the Republican Congress of 2010: a bill banning all abortions without exception. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

I think they would also get rid of that pesky wall between Church/State.
posted by MLIS at 11:52 PM on September 14, 2008


400!
posted by cgc373 at 12:25 AM on September 15, 2008


THE AVERAGE AMERICAN DOESN'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT YOU, WHERE YOU'RE FROM OR WHAT YOU THINK. ARE YOU AVAILABLE TO WORK? That's all they care about.

Interesting that American wingnuts seem to care very, very much about this column. 770 vitriolic hate-filled comments worth in fact. I guess it's because it hits on a simple truth: never before have non-Americans been so united against one candidate & pro the other.
posted by dydecker at 12:58 AM on September 15, 2008


And that is something that most non-Americans don't get: in our minds, we can live without you. And theoretically, we have for a very long time. In simpler words: the average American couldn't find Australia on a map, never mind give a crap about what happens there. That is the mentality you're up against.

I think you overestimate what most non-Americans think of your compatriots grasp on reality and geography.
posted by jacalata at 1:16 AM on September 15, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


Not true. Yes, he's old and he's a poor public speaker. But he comes with three massive advantages (two of which he's eagerly sawing off and burning for a little extra heat): 1) He has a tremendous back story, one of the best in political history.

Huh. So now the part of the Keating 5 is "best in political history"?

For low-information voters who tuned into the convention, the emotive details of McCain's POW days were probably a revelation.

When was the Keating 5 mentioned by the GOP? Or, perhaps using the GOP as a fair and balanced news source about the guy heading the top of the GOP ticket is

2) He has a long-standing tradition as a flinty, tough-talking, no-BS kind of guy with a great sense of humor -- a politician for people who generally don't like politicians.

No BS kinda guy? BS means?
Tough talking - I'll give ya that if you concede that his talk has failed to match his actions many times. (Then one has to ask - which is more valuable - talk or action in a politician?)

Humor? This is your 'strong point' - someone can tell a joke? There are comedy clubs fulla presidential timber a-waiting the axe of the voters then.

3) He looks the part: Nice simple name, done his time in Washington, older white guy with a military background.

So this, his looks and name, is your 'top 3' argument?
posted by rough ashlar at 3:41 AM on September 15, 2008


The economy is like a weather-system - anyone who claimed they could fix it would be about as believable as someone who said they could control hurricanes.

In 2025, US aerospace forces can "own the weather" by capitalizing on emerging technologies and focusing development of those technologies to war-fighting applications.
posted by rough ashlar at 3:48 AM on September 15, 2008


Yeah, and how long until he eats a mysteriously poisoned moosburger?
posted by delmoi


If the boffins can make chemicals for dope'n athletes that are undectable, I'm sure that there will be no mystery over the burger - as no one will be able to find the poison to HAVE a mystery over who did it.
posted by rough ashlar at 4:21 AM on September 15, 2008


Mapguy: I bet Ron Paul ain’t looking so bad about right now.

That explains a lot.
posted by fourcheesemac at 4:28 AM on September 15, 2008


Looks like we'll be needing my long thread reader again.
posted by cillit bang at 5:01 AM on September 15, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


Salon article today: Palin did ban abortion in local hospitals when she was mayor. She was sued on behalf of a woman who had to travel to Seattle to get the procedure.
posted by 8dot3 at 5:11 AM on September 15, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


For one thing, there's a reason why deception and negativity are usually avoided by campaigns until immediately before elections. As a result of McCains's lies, we're likely to see his numbers begin to drop as polls catch up with the steady erosion of his brand that we've seen in the last few days.

This. Obama's played rope-a-dope in every single campaign of his political life. McCain's people are obsessed with the present, with capturing the daily news cycle, while Obama's staff is patiently putting the pieces together and hitting their marks. Anyone tempted to panic needs to go watch this.
posted by EarBucket at 5:14 AM on September 15, 2008


New Obama ad, titled, "Honor."

Plus Biden's continuing this tone with a speech this morning. Palin isn't even mentioned.

Good.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 5:19 AM on September 15, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


8dot3, are you getting those specifics from another source? Salon just says this:

Soon after the book controversy, Bess found himself again at odds with Palin and her fellow evangelicals. In 1996, evangelical churches mounted a vigorous campaign to take over the local hospital's community board and ban abortion from the valley. When they succeeded, Bess and Dr. Susan Lemagie, a Palmer OB-GYN, fought back, filing suit on behalf of a local woman who had been forced to travel to Seattle for an abortion. The case was finally decided by the Alaska Supreme Court, which ruled that the hospital must provide valley women with the abortion option.

It's not even clear that Palin was one of the evangelicals who took over the community board. There certainly was no unilateral declaration of an abortion ban by the mayor (which would not even be possible anyway, as the mayor does not have that power.) And it is not stated that she was named in the lawsuit.

If she was part of the group that pressured and stacked the hospital board, fine, that's one thing. What you've claimed is way beyond that.
posted by maudlin at 5:22 AM on September 15, 2008


New Obama ad, titled, "Honor."


Oooh. I am all powerful!

(Or David Plouffe is reading the thread?)

I guess it was an obvious idea. But it's exactly what I pictured -- a single b&w photo of McCain looking down sheepishly (that "humiliated" look I mentioned above) with quotes calling him dishonorable and a liar flashing on the screen.

Great ad, if I do say so myself.
posted by fourcheesemac at 6:05 AM on September 15, 2008


The Times supports the Obama campaign not be directly influencing voters -- no swing voters actually read it

Oh please. Lots of conservatives are more intelligent than the New York Post and read the Times for news, the same way many liberals read the Journal for business news. Anyone who lives in the NYC area who fails to read the Times probably isn't too smart.
posted by caddis at 6:39 AM on September 15, 2008 [4 favorites has favorites]


I guess it was an obvious idea. But it's exactly what I pictured -- a single b&w photo of McCain looking down sheepishly (that "humiliated" look I mentioned above) with quotes calling him dishonorable and a liar flashing on the screen.

Great ad, if I do say so myself.


One reason I think it's a great ad is that it will make McCain mad. McCain is from a Scotch-Irish military background (similar to that chronicled in Jim Webb's Born Fighting), which would make him heavily invested in a conception of himself as a defender of "honor." Anything that threatens that self-conception of honor will probably make McCain go ballistic, which will lead him to make more mistakes. I don't think this is totally coincidental, because Barack Obama's acceptance speech at the Democratic convention included some subtle, dog-whistle references to McCain's fondness for casino gambling ("a plan that would privatize Social Security and gamble your retirement?") and his hotheaded temper ("If John McCain wants to have a debate about who has the temperament, and judgment, to serve as the next Commander-in-Chief, that's a debate I'm ready to have.") that I think were calculated to get John McCain mad. Making McCain mad hurt Barack Obama in the short run, because it led McCain to unleash a barrage of mean-spirited negative ads that reduced Obama's standing in the polls, but it may help Obama in the long run, because the ads can produce a backlash that establishes a narrative about how McCain has sold out his honor, because he's a slave to his temper and his ambitions.
posted by jonp72 at 6:47 AM on September 15, 2008 [3 favorites has favorites]


Sarah Palin, Anointed: Do pentecostals, charismatics, and other evangelicals view Palin as "the anointed one"?
posted by jonp72 at 7:22 AM on September 15, 2008


McCain wouldn't define the word "honor" in his recent "prickly" interview with Time. Was he unable to because he knows he's running a dishonorable campaign and violating his pledge to "run a respectful campaign based on the issues"?

That's like me saying Nixon is the reason I don't trust Republicans.

Nixon is the reason I don't trust Republicans, or at least a big part of it. Nixon's administration, and every Republican administration since, has been actively criminal and abused government power, usually with the same actual criminals involved.
posted by kirkaracha at 7:35 AM on September 15, 2008


The economy is like a weather-system - anyone who claimed they could fix it would be about as believable as someone who said they could control hurricanes.

That's absurd of course. You don't think if we elected communists, it would effect the economy? In that case, why wouldn't electing the reverse-communists (steal from the poor and give to the rich) in the republican party effect the economy.
posted by delmoi at 7:42 AM on September 15, 2008


The polling data I'm seeing shows Palin's impact is disproportionately positive amongst white males, a group that hasn't gone as a majority for Democrats since 1964.

I'm on a listserv for Obama supporters in Northern Virginia. One of our posters recently went to a rally for Sarah Palin in Fairfax, Virginia, while keeping silent about his support for Obama. In his write-up of the rally, he said he found at least six white guys who would say that Obama was "sexist," then follow up by talking about how Palin was a total MILF with a hot "mooserack." We can't underestimate the contribution of white guy's libidos to the "Palin effect" on McCain's polling numbers.
posted by jonp72 at 7:49 AM on September 15, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


After the Palin announcement, it seemed like Obama's team was shocked an unsure how to react. Now, it looks like they're getting their footing, and have a firm and effective plan.
posted by drezdn at 7:58 AM on September 15, 2008


One reason conservatives and evangelicals don't like Jimmy Carter is because they felt betrayed by him. They thought they'd get one of their own in the White House, and he'd be essentially what GWB is now. When he turned out to be thoughtful and compassionate, and well, librul, they've demonized him. He's ok when he does that nice housing work, but don't you believe him when he talks about Israel.

So, it's not policies or anything logical like that, it's him

In contrast, Ronald Regan spent 30 years seducing the Religious Right, and it paid off in 1980. He told them what they wanted to hear, and got into office.

I read all this in a book that I can't seem to find now - a companion to the pbs series that I also can't seem to find now. I lent the book to my dad and I can't find the title and he's long since given it away. Memory says it was done by or with Bill Moyers.

But here's a gem from the man himself:

When we read on our currency, ‘In God We Trust,’ whose God do we mean?
posted by lysdexic at 8:14 AM on September 15, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


duh! Kisses to Younger Brother:

With God On Our Side
posted by lysdexic at 8:22 AM on September 15, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


Drezdn, actually, I think Obama was following the OODA loop touted by military strategists as being used by McCain's campaign with far more skill and nuance than the GOP could ever hope to muster. By not reacting suddenly in the heat of emotion but waiting to see McCain's entire hand, Obama could carefully lay his own cards down one by one for maximum impact.

As far as battlefield tactics go, waiting for one's opponent to commit himself fully to a major course of action before responding to it gives one numerous advantages: time to think, time to calculate, time to plan, and time to execute with precision and adroitness -- while the enemy is strategically paralyzed by his own inertia.
posted by seanmpuckett at 8:25 AM on September 15, 2008 [3 favorites has favorites]


I'm honestly confused about something.

I've been very out of the loop for the last 3-4 weeks, having missed both conventions in their entirety except for hearing Obama's speech on the radio and seeing McCain's (without the sound however). I'm also aware that he picked Palin as his running mate and that it seems everyone acknowledges she lacks experience and might possibly be a dummy. For my part, I'm certain that she's a dummy, but I couldn't provide any documentary support to back that up at the moment. I also haven't been watching or checking the news sites much, nor have I been checking mefi much eaither.

What I don't understand is that when I checked the poll numbers at realclearpolitics.com, they show McCain ahead of Obama and getting a surge sometime in the last couple of weeks.

My question is, did I miss some scandal or something? Is there some dirt about Obama or Biden that the republicans dug up? I really don't understand how he could lead in the polls simply because he picked Pailn, because I would have thought she'd be a liability.

I'm usually up on this stuff, so if anyone could fill me in, that'd be great.
posted by Pastabagel at 8:28 AM on September 15, 2008


Agreed, lysdexic; Andrew J. Bacevich briefly touches on Carter's prescience and contrasts him against Reagan's irresponsibly profligacy in this interview with Terri Gross (Around the 31:00 minute mark, but the whole interview is pretty good.).
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:29 AM on September 15, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


My question is, did I miss some scandal or something? Is there some dirt about Obama or Biden that the republicans dug up? I really don't understand how he could lead in the polls simply because he picked Pailn, because I would have thought she'd be a liability.

This is the post-convention, post-Palin bump. It has been a larger bump than most expected due to the combination of extremely negative and deceptive campaigning from McCain and the culture war revival of the Palin pick. But this is probably the best it's going to get for McCain.
posted by effwerd at 8:48 AM on September 15, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


A blast from the past: Prosecute Kerry
posted by lysdexic at 8:49 AM on September 15, 2008


Maudlin: Blergh, that's what I get for blindly posting. No, I have no other sources on that one, but I will be doing some digging. Point taken.
posted by 8dot3 at 8:49 AM on September 15, 2008


After the Palin announcement, it seemed like Obama's team was shocked an unsure how to react. Now, it looks like they're getting their footing, and have a firm and effective plan.

This constant focus on determining who's "winning" by watching the news has gotten a bit silly. The news cycles are determined by who the news Orgs choose to cover, which is in turn based on how "interesting" the candidates are. If McCain gets in a good insult, like with the "celeb" ad, does that really effect anything, or is that just what the media wants to talk about?

And anyway, why should they have reacted before they knew anything about Palin? And just to clarify they did send out a press release bashing her for being inexperienced before backtracking and congratulating her.
posted by delmoi at 9:10 AM on September 15, 2008


What's odd about Carter is that, though his technocratic, micro-managerial style was ill-suited to the Executive, he was the last President that spoke truth to the American people as it concerned shared sacrifice and the true meaning of patriotism... and he's been skewered for it non-stop for nearly 30 years. This became a refrain of every presidential candidate since then: do not tell the truth about the economic position of the US under any circumstances.

The United States became a debtor nation for the first time during the Ford Administration, thanks, in large part to the enormously expensive Vietnam War. If any of you remember the late 70s, it felt like the country was coming apart at the seams. Heavy industry and manufacturing were dying, crime in the inner cities skyrocketing, and the nation's infrastructure was crumbling).

Reagan's people then launched an orgy of borrowing and spending (but not investing and retrenching the economy, but enabling its transformation into a service economy, the ultimate ponzi scheme) whose effects are only now being felt severely.

When I heard hardcore Christians go on about how much they "hate" Carter, I have to laugh and ask myself how they will account for themselves on their own day of reckoning. (For my own part, I'll see them in hell... but I've always been curious how the jingoistic, me-first, divisive politics of the far right meshed with the collectivist, compassionate message of the Gospels)
posted by psmealey at 9:22 AM on September 15, 2008 [5 favorites has favorites]


Greenwald on the new book about Cheney: What illegal "things" was the government doing in 2001-2004?

It would be nice if some journalist would ask Palin about her opinion on warrantless wiretapping, assuming she ever does another real interview.
posted by homunculus at 9:48 AM on September 15, 2008


Do pentecostals, charismatics, and other evangelicals view Palin as "the anointed one"?

Apparently the neocons do.
posted by homunculus at 9:51 AM on September 15, 2008


Really, really strong speech by Biden today. I hope this is the direction the Obama campaign is going in.

Governor Palin says all senators do is vote. Well, just imagine what the country would look like if John’s votes had become the law of the land.

In John McCain’s America, we wouldn’t guarantee that more of energy would come from wind, solar, and other renewables. The minimum wage would still be $3.35 an hour. There would have been 100,000 fewer police on the beat. There would have been no national domestic violence hotline for the 1.5 million women who were in crisis and needed somewhere to turn.
Over 160,000 members of the Guard and Reserve who answered their country’s call and served more than one tour in Iraq or Afghanistan would get no credit towards an education for their additional sacrifice. Fewer parents would be able to afford to send their kids to college. And women who were discriminated against on the basis of pay would more difficulty making their case. Thank God that’s not the America we live in.

posted by neroli at 9:54 AM on September 15, 2008 [10 favorites has favorites]


This is Your Nation on White Privilege.
posted by lunit at 10:10 AM on September 15, 2008


No, this is This Is Your Nation on White Privilege.
:)
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:12 AM on September 15, 2008


Since the Palin threads, I never check the front page anymore. oops.
posted by lunit at 10:17 AM on September 15, 2008


Can anyone explain the Scenario Analyses in the lower right hand corner of http://www.fivethirtyeight.com, below the ROI index? I can understand the scenarios themselves, obviously, but I can't tell what the percentages mean or how they're gathered. Is it just polled data? I.e. 21.87% of people polled think "Obama will lose OH but win the election"?
posted by Pantengliopoli at 10:46 AM on September 15, 2008


Roveian Push-Poll Targets FL Voters to Smear Obama
posted by homunculus at 10:50 AM on September 15, 2008


Pantengliopoli: Their simulation methodology is a little complex.

From a weighted average of the polls in each state, there is a baseline for that state.

Next, if you look at the demographics of a given state (say, OH) you can that its polling tends to move with states "like it" (such as MI, PA) more than states not "like it" (such as AL, GA, OR). You can also see how its polling tends to move with the national polling. What Nate then does is simulate a bunch (10,000 per day) of movements in the electorate demographics and see how those would affect each state. For each simulated movement, you have a possible outcome of the election. Each possible outcome is examined for a) the EVs b) popular vote c) those scenarios etc.

How does he come up with the movements to simulate? He's looked at datasets from previous elections with regression analysis. That doesn't mean that they're right, just that they're plausible in a way.
posted by a robot made out of meat at 10:55 AM on September 15, 2008 [2 favorites has favorites]


Really, really strong speech by Biden today.

Not so strong speech by McCain today: "The Fundamentals Of Our Economy Are Strong"
posted by homunculus at 10:55 AM on September 15, 2008


Can anyone explain the Scenario Analyses in the lower right hand corner of http://www.fivethirtyeight.com, below the ROI index?

538 runs ten thousand simulations based on their latest numbers each day. Those percentages reflect the number of times that scenario occurred in the simulations. So in this case, the percentage is the number of times Obama lost Ohio (6992 out of 10000) divided into the number of times he lost Ohio but still won the election (1529 out of 6992). 21.87%.
posted by EarBucket at 10:56 AM on September 15, 2008 [2 favorites has favorites]


Meat-Robot and EarBucket, thanks -- that makes more sense now.
posted by Pantengliopoli at 11:14 AM on September 15, 2008


Whoa, the fivethirtyeight.com numbers are looking rough.
posted by Artw at 11:24 AM on September 15, 2008


Artw: Contrary to Nate's inclination, they aren't in any way adjusting for the convention bounce. The sims went from 70-odd% Obama to high-50s% McCain in a week. Nate himself thinks that you need to wait a bit before polls become believable again. If you look at the electorally-significant states, the polls haven't been too bad for Obama. It's the national trackers which have driven a great deal of the swing.
posted by a robot made out of meat at 11:35 AM on September 15, 2008


Waiting it out is doing my nervers no good whatsoever.
posted by Artw at 11:50 AM on September 15, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


If it helps, there are factors which polling doesn't do a good job of catching. For example, in NC democrats have gained 160,000 in voter registration over republicans. That's probably not going to win NC (their BOE has obsessive and easy to access numbers, which is why I used them), but there are similar results in closer states. Most pollsters also use a likely-voter model, which Obama's ground game hopes to change (ie, get turnout among youth, minorities).
posted by a robot made out of meat at 12:20 PM on September 15, 2008


Oh, and that 160,000 is since January.
posted by a robot made out of meat at 12:21 PM on September 15, 2008


Do pentecostals, charismatics, and other evangelicals view Palin as "the anointed one"?

Apparently the neocons do.


That's not a coincidence. The neoconservatives were always stronger as an intellectual movement than as a political movement with a base of mass support. The only way they get that mass support is through making coalitions with the Christian Right, because the two groups share the goals of a hawkishly nationalist foreign policy, a confrontational stance toward the Muslim world, and unquestioning acceptance of Israel. Some neoconservatives are positively drooling over the Sarah Palin sideshow, because it allows them to use a set of "noble lies" about motherhood and small-town values to prevail in a foreign policy debate that they can't win on the merits.
posted by jonp72 at 12:34 PM on September 15, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


In the interest of truth and fairness:

-Biden did mention Palin today, multiple times in fact.
-And I don't agree that polling has been "not too bad" for Obama since the conventions. I'm not a doomsayer and I expect the numbers to pick up in the coming weeks as well, but when you're seeing a negative spread in Ohio, double-digit GOP advantages in strategically useful wildcard states like MT and NC, and Obama up by only 5 in New freaking York, I don't see any reason to lean back comfortably, not for now at least.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 12:39 PM on September 15, 2008


Waiting it out is doing my nerves no good whatsoever.

Volunteer! Seriously, I can't stand the waiting either, nor the knowledge that if we had only done a little bit more in 2000 we could've been waving goodbye to a President Gore right about now (He lost NH and its delegates by only 6000 votes). It drives me nuts to just read polls and news stories and be consumed with hope and concern without actually doing anything. Getting involved feels a lot better. Give your local campaign office a call - now's the time - they have events that you can help with, you can call or canvass or check lists or do data entry. It feels really good to be in a room with a bunch of likeminded, hardworking, hopeful people as opposed to being alone with TV and fretting the evening away. Plus, they often have pizza. If you don't want to leave home, Obama has a cool thing on his website (look for "get involved" or "volunteer" or some such link) where you register and then get a pre-selected voterlist of 25 neighbors that you can call to explain your support and discover whether they're inclined to support or volunteer. You can do it any time of day (though of course, reasonable phone hours) and in bits and pieces, from the comfort of your own home.
posted by Miko at 12:40 PM on September 15, 2008 [5 favorites has favorites]


Sarah handled Charlie just fine; I doubt she'd have trouble with Putin.

What do you mean, Vladdie?
posted by jonp72 at 12:46 PM on September 15, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


washburn : (One final note: did you see in the Times that now, a couple months before the election, that Bush has suddenly authorized US troops to go into Pakistan looking for Bin Laden and his associates? The odds of a real "October Surprise" are looking a little higher.)

This would be a pretty big surprise, but not one that necessarily works well for the Republican machine. I could see people perceiving Bin Laden in custody as meaning that America is no longer at risk from terrorists, and that takes that particular boogieman away from the Right as a method of scaring people into voting for them.

And fear is really the currency of the Republican party.
posted by quin at 1:41 PM on September 15, 2008


WTF is up with Washington state? Even given that Eastern Washington is going to lean republican, i'm pretty sure that it always has done without putting the state in play.
posted by Artw at 1:47 PM on September 15, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


Sarah handled Charlie just fine; I doubt she'd have trouble with Putin.

Sarah Palin could "handle" Charles Gibson, because professional American men (like Charles Gibson) are simultaneously expected to be both feminist and chivalrous to women at the same time. In Putin's case, neither feminism nor chivalry would deter him from acting like a sexist rat bastard in pouncing on Palin's ignorance of basic foreign policy questions.
posted by jonp72 at 1:48 PM on September 15, 2008


This is unrelated to the thread as a whole, but it kind of just bubbled up based on what I have been thinking about Palin since she was named as the VP pick. I can finally put a name on why we hate her so much, and why a certain type of person in this country is so excited about her pick.

Sarah Palin is white trash. She is white trash with money, but she is white trash all the same. Assembly of God church, hunting, snow mobiles, small town, hockey mom, pregnant teen daughter, Oxycontin sniffing son who joined the military, too many damn kids, good-for-nothing husband, brother-in-law custody drama. This is trailer park shit. Just as someone said in THE THREAD "Jerry, Jerry, Jerry!" She is nothing more than white trash. And that is why she got picked. This is identity politics at its worst. McCain wants to capture his base's vote: poor white trash. And man are they eating it up. It is having the exact effect that he wanted it to have. White trash look at her and see themselves and they are pumped. And that is why we hate her. Because we have seen our country taken over by poor ignorant white trash since Nixon's Southern strategy and this is just the latest most blatant example of pandering to the worst type of person.

Why would we allow these people to pick our leaders? They think the earth is 6,000 years old because they were behind the school smoking Pall Malls during science class and they don't know no better. We are either current or former Methodists and Presbyterians and Lutherans and other respectable religions. They grew up in families too drunk or ugly to go to church, and learned about religion from Televangelists in shiny suits with wives with tranny make-up, so now as adults they go to non denominational tongue-talking mega-churches where they can be told anything, because the poor damn methheads never read the bible a day in their life so what do they know about what the real message of Christianity is. They don't give a damn about making America a better place. They just want their guns and their Budweiser and their wrestling on TV. They have no understanding of American democracy or civil rights or history or anything, the dumb fucking bumpkins. They want a king to come in and make the towelheads and the beaners and all the rest understand their place, and who cares if it infringes civil rights cause they don't really know what those are. America! Love it or leave it!

This is also why we hate Bush so much. Sure he is really an east coast blueblood, but he puts on the hick accent and cuts brush and pretends to be a good ol' boy. But at least we know he is one of us. Palin is the real thing! White trash in the white house! It is just too galling. She is the culmination of the last 40 years of Republican strategy. The George Wills and the William F. Buckleys must be kicking themselves. They got in bed with Bubba and all they had to do was promise not to do anything to help the blacks and they could just count on the rednecks to go and vote for them every 4 years and then crawl back to the shotgun shack that they sat around in drooling and popping out more babies than they could feed. The republican elite could then put toxic waste dumps in Bubba's backyard and ship his job overseas and feed him tainted food and give themselves tax cut after tax cut while keeping him poor, but Bubba put up with it cause the republicans kept promising him that any day now they were going to get around to stopping the evil liberals from killing those poor babies (silly Bubba, thinking that a clump of cells was a baby and crying for it in his warehouse church. Reminds one of that gorilla that would pet that little kitten). But now Bubba, in his infinite ignorance, is actually cottoning on to the fact that the republican party has been tricking him for the last 40 years and he ain't voting for no McCain if he picks a jew or a Pennsylvanian as a running mate. Bubba wants to come to dinner, and come in the front door! Oh, the horror!

That is why we good middle class Metafilterians hate her and why some love her. "Hey, I got a pregnant teenage daughter and don't know shit about the world I live in too! Yee Haw! I'm gonna vote for her! Maw, turn off Dancing with the Stars and get the PT Cruiser pulled around! We got to go put Cletus in the white house!"

Look in your heart Metafilter and embrace the hate. It will make you strong!
posted by ND¢ at 1:52 PM on September 15, 2008 [17 favorites has favorites]


ND¢ - That would certainly seem to be teh Republican parties view of things. We can always hope they're wrong, eh?
posted by Artw at 1:57 PM on September 15, 2008


I was all set to pull out the Howard Dean Confederate flag stuff, then I noticed who posted.

Hat's off man, hat's off.
posted by lysdexic at 2:20 PM on September 15, 2008


Official at Center of Trooper Gate: Sarah Palin Lied to ABC

I blame the media. She wouldn't have had to tell an untruth if Gibson hadn't been so darned mean.
posted by homunculus at 2:22 PM on September 15, 2008 [2 favorites has favorites]


I love how sky-is-falling democrats are worried when things are not as close as they like in Montana and North Carolina, states which haven't gone democratic for decades.

they don't realize that it is the sky-is-falling fear that causes us to lose. Get some balls people. What good does spreading fear do? It hurts the cause. Republicans vote for emotional effects. Democrats lose because they fear being emotionally hurt by a loss and they are, again and again.
posted by Ironmouth at 2:26 PM on September 15, 2008 [5 favorites has favorites]


"We need to go on offense. Our theme is that Barack Obama is too old for the job and that the public needs a younger, more vigorous brand of leadership. OK, here are some scripts we're looking at."

"Wait, wait, wait. Wait. Do you need time off? I can give you a few days. Take some time. You've earned it."

"No, Senator. If you'll just look at these scripts --"

"Steve, April Fool's Day is seven months off. You want me to say Obama is too old to be president and I'm not?"

"Yes."

"I'm younger than Obama?"

"Not younger, exactly. More youthful. You have more, um, youthiness. What is 72? That's just a numeral. Same two digits as 27. It's ink on a driver's license. You have the adventurous spirit of youth. You're the innovator, the reformer. You may be older in years. You're older technically. But you're younger in qualifications. That's the age that really matters. Qualificationswise, you're entering your prime, and you have the experience to prove it. You're like Reagan, although you're even younger, though not technically.

"Whereas your opponent? Tired ideas. 'Bitter.' Same old fresh face as in 2004. His best days are already behind him and he never accomplished anything. Peel back the public-relations front and the media hype, and he's over the hill."


[satire]
posted by neroli at 2:29 PM on September 15, 2008


Dean's confederate problem
posted by lysdexic at 2:32 PM on September 15, 2008


WTF is up with Washington state? Even given that Eastern Washington is going to lean republican, i'm pretty sure that it always has done without putting the state in play.

I suspect it's three things: Its proximity to Alaska, its relatively low black population, and a significant dissatisfaction with its current Democratic leadership. But I also suspect than when it's all said and done, Washington state's electoral votes will go to Obama by a comfortable margin.
posted by Balonious Assault at 2:43 PM on September 15, 2008


Polar Palin flash game
posted by caddis at 2:46 PM on September 15, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


McCain, Obama & Wall Street "Reform": The Good, Bad & Ugly
posted by homunculus at 2:47 PM on September 15, 2008


There you go again!

Palin cut funding for Alaska Special Olympics.
“Campaigning in Colorado today, Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) promised renewed attention to kids with special needs. She declared, ‘Ever since I took the chief executive’s job up North I pushed for more funding for students with special needs,’ and cited her own family’s experience with the issue. [video | 01:31]

It’s a stretch to say she ‘pushed’ for any policy improvements. Though Palin did sign a law increasing special education funding in Alaska, ‘she had no role whatsoever’ in its development, according to the bill’s author, Rep. Mike Hawker (R). Moreover, as governor, Palin vetoed $275,000 in Special Olympics Alaska funds (Page 100, SB 221 with vetoes), slashing the organization’s operating budget in half.”

posted by ericb at 3:18 PM on September 15, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]


Man, are interviews across the country going to get tougher as common resume padding techniques get exposed? Nit that I'd ever inflate my role in a project or handwave like crazy when called on it.
posted by Artw at 3:27 PM on September 15, 2008


non denominational tongue-talking mega-churches where they can be told anything, because the poor damn methheads never read the bible a day in their life so what do they know about what the real message of Christianity is.

I think someone needs to take a day or two and start googling non-denominational. And realizing that while that someone was busy doing whatever they do, that these sorts of churches have become the mainstream. And are full of people from all walks of life to include middle class and upper-middle class along with solid working class and the poor.

If the Democrats think insulting this group of individuals is a good thing, they are making a major miscalculation. Because there are Democrats who go to these churches, and independents as well, who might not appreciate the characterization.
posted by konolia at 4:02 PM on September 15, 2008


Sarah Palin could "handle" Charles Gibson, because professional American men (like Charles Gibson) are simultaneously expected to be both feminist and chivalrous to women at the same time. In Putin's case, neither feminism nor chivalry would deter him from acting like a sexist rat bastard in pouncing on Palin's ignorance of basic foreign policy questions

First, I doubt she'll be ignorant. Second, we women are very used to dealing with "sexist rat bastards" so, no problem.
posted by konolia at 4:05 PM on September 15, 2008


we can live without you

without the Aussies, yes. without the Chinese who own your monster debt, no, not really.
posted by matteo at 4:07 PM on September 15, 2008


these sorts of churches have become the mainstream.

No, they haven't. Not by a long shot.

I do however agree that it's important to show tolerance for all faiths, and it would be really unwise to mock anyone based on what house of worship they go to. Fortunately, I'm not seeing either candidate openly or even subtley mock the faiths of others, so it's not really an issue.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 4:22 PM on September 15, 2008


# “First, I doubt she'll be ignorant.”

She is ignorant now. What do you think will change that in the next 7 or 8 weeks? From the NYT article:
Not deeply versed in policy, Ms. Palin skipped some candidate forums; at others, she flipped through hand-written, color-coded index cards strategically placed behind her nameplate.
She’ll be the Cliffs Notes version of Dick Cheney. Or, as I read earler today, she’ll be like Dick Cheney, only evil. And ignorant.
posted by ijoshua at 4:39 PM on September 15, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]