Now that the first Obama-Biden rally has come to a close, what are your thoughts on Joe Biden and his speech?
I thought the speech was a bit too long, but I think he is a good choice based on his foreign policy experience alone.
I thought overall it wasn't done very well. Obama messed up clearly calling Biden the next president. Personally, I believe Obama picked the worst choice out of his short list. He has just undermined his change campaign message by picking a Washington Insider that was there for 36 years. Biden has done many controversial things, and he needs to watch his mouth. As an Obama supporter, I am not happy at all. McCain has so much ammunition now. I think it is very likely that John McCain could win. Democrats have underestimated him. His ads are wonderful, as much as I dislike him I have to admit it. Barack Obama has done a horrible job counter acting. It's time we actually here what change there will be. Biden's own past words could help bring Obama down. I'll get over it, but I'm not pleased. There were better picks out there. Obama shouldn't have contemplated Change vs. Experienced. He should have picked someone who could fit in both categories.
Barack Obama does not have enough experience to lead this country. I don't like McCain either, but at least he has some experience under his belt. Supporting Obama is the "cool" thing to do, and the media is constantly sucking his dick.
I'm starting to see that a lot of people my age are voting for him for the reason Tyler said. If Obama keeps this slump going, and continues to make these poor decision I may have to vote McCain despite being a democrat.
If John McCain wins 2012 probably will be the end of the world.
[quoted107da3b54="bruman"]If John McCain wins 2012 probably will be the end of the world.[/quoted107da3b54]
I've been following the Obama and McCain campaigns extremely closely and I genuinely thought Obama had a chance of winning.
However, I think he more or less lost the election with this choice. [i0766921953]Extremely[/i0766921953] frustrating.
McCain was quick to release this ad
... and here is a video I came across where they discuss his pick and what Biden could do for Obama
[quote9d651f719f="dmorris68"][quote9d651f719f="bruman"]If John McCain wins 2012 probably will be the end of the world.[/quote9d651f719f]
why that face? i know it is obviously an exaggeration but you don't think that war will be most likely prolonged for the worse if mccain were in charge?
[quotec5f7a49f26="akalic"][quotec5f7a49f26="dmorris68"][quotec5f7a49f26="bruman"]If John McCain wins 2012 probably will be the end of the world.[/quotec5f7a49f26]
why that face? i know it is obviously an exaggeration but you don't think that war will be most likely prolonged for the worse if mccain were in charge?[/quotec5f7a49f26]
No, I don't. Longer than with Obama? Possibly. But Obama knows nothing of military strategy and the consequences of a premature withdrawal -- it would be a total disaster if he (or anyone) were to just pull the plug as soon as he took office (not saying he would, I think Obama is too smart for that). If you've seen the news recently, Iraq and the US have just agreed to a timetable that would have all US troops out by 2011-2012. That's just ~3 more years, which under the circumstances is extremely reasonable. I don't think McCain would do anything to prolong that, no, and besides, this is Iraq's decision too -- it wouldn't just be up to him. People sometimes forget that we are there as Iraq's guests, we're not an occupying force no matter what the anti-war opponents and Muslim extremists would like you to believe.
Ignorant people tend to misinterpret and take out of context things such as McCain's "hundred years" comments, just like ignorant people on the other side overblow and take out of context Michelle Obama's comments that got her labeled as "un-American."
I'm really tired of the ignorance on both sides, and IMO the right to vote should come with a minimum IQ requirement.
I've expressed my political views at length in prior threads, so don't really care to type them all again, so I'm going to refrain from getting involved too much in this discussion. I just couldn't resist posting after such a comment.
[quote31674a6f9b="dmorris68"]That's just ~3 more years[/quote31674a6f9b] wait a second, that's almost another ~40% as long as we've already been in the war...
I'm not one to cut and run, but, there are [i31674a6f9b]so[/i31674a6f9b] many things our money and resources could be spent on than this war. IMO, the timetable was entirely a political ploy by Bush for McCain to blunt McCain's 100 years comment, and to allow McCain some leeway on worrying and campaigning about the war.
The fact of the matter is we are there, and things have to be done right or everything was in vain. Do you really believe McCain wants US troops in Iraq for 100 years? That was hyperbole. His point was, we'll be there as long as we need to be to leave the region in a somewhat self-sufficient state, without placing artificial time constraints, which is as it should be. He knows full well his most extreme opponents would have the troops back on the evening of January 20th if they could, and I believe he was responding in an equally exaggerated manner. Assuming Iraq is not prepared for that timeline, it would be a disaster.
And don't think I'm not well aware of the toll being placed on our troops and their families. I was a cavalry troop myself, and served in the first Gulf War. Yes, it was hell on me and my family. But we didn't flinch from it and we would do it again if we were in the same position. Our oldest daughter is a Marine Corps Reservist, and we feel the same about her. She missed one Afghanistan deployment and one Iraq deployment, due to pregnancy both times, so it looks like she might luck out and not have to go. But if she does go then we'll be proud of her service and hope for the best. I find the majority -- and I do mean the VAST majority -- of military people and their immediate family support our mission over there, and the same holds true for most veterans like myself. You may hear a lot from a very vocal minority, but trust me when I say those are very much a minority from my experience.
[quote3e60b2cf16="Powerbook"]Personally, I believe Obama picked the worst choice out of his short list.[/quote3e60b2cf16]
I'm curious... Who did you want Obama to pick from the list? Kain? Bayh? Sebelius? .....Clinton?
Personally, I believe Obama picked the best choice out of the lot. I didn't care for Kaine, and I just couldn't see how Bayh or Sebelius would help Obama (aside from helping him carry their respective states to his side on election day).
I feel any of those choices would have been better. Biden seems to seriously discredit the whole change message. One can argue that Hillary would discredit it, however, I feel that there are things about her that would reinforce it better. My favorite pick would have probably been the Bayh from Indiana, or to be bold he could have picked someone not even on his public short list. This is crazy, but Caroline Kennedy wouldn't have been a bad pick. Well, she has no experience, but a Kennedy and Obama ticket would seem pretty cool ) . This is me just wishing things lol.
not going to make a whole new thread, but did everyone get a chance to watch barry's speech last night?
i know he could have gone up there and said the abc's or i'm a little teapot and they still would have gone nuts, but it was cool to see a packed invesco. we will probably never see anything like that again.
edit mccain just picked a women to be his vp...this race is over.
Not just any woman, but h3x's favorite woman! P ;)
With the momentum McCain's been gathering leading up to the Democratic convention, and the GOP convention coming up next week, I think his choosing Palin could quite possibly put McCain over the top to win this election.
Either way, things are about to get interesting...
I'm surprised about the pick. It will help McCain bring over a chunk of the Clinton supporters to his side, and yet at the same time he can no longer attack Obama on his experience because this gal has been governor for only a couple of years and the only experience she had before that was being on the city council and the mayor of Wasilla, Alaska.
It's going to be a very tough choice for me now... As of now, I am still leaning towards Obama.
Good point h3x, but one could argue that her experience is secondary to his, with him being President. Her ability to lead the country only comes into play if McCain dies or can't continue in the job. The exact opposite is true of Obama's ticket.
Even given similar lengths of time in higher-level politics, I still see her having the experience advantage. Obama is freshman senator, a single voice among several. He's held no chaimanships or other positions of government authority where the buck stopped with him and decisions were solely his to make. She, OTOH, has served in that executive role as governor of a very large state. And from what I'm just now learning about her, she has made some pretty bold decisions and reforms. She's big on ethics reform. She brings a ton of experience to the energy issue, having presided over Alaska's gas & oil conservation & regulation commission, an area that neither Obama or Biden have direct experience with. I'm sure she'll play a significant role in the effort to open up Alaska's oilfields and get our dependence on foreign oil reduced. These are subjects that speak to a large segment of the American people now, even more so than the Iraq issue. So the GOP has a ticket with someone considered more experienced in dealing with the sort of international conflicts we're facing (McCain), combined with someone else experienced in the area of one of the major domestic issues of our time (fuel prices). I see McCain using Palin to fill in his weak spots just as Obama is attempting to do with Biden. I think this can only help McCain with the momentum he was already building.
John McCain has made a wise choice. Obama should have saw this coming. I'm a moderate and an independent. I will have to do some thinking about this one. In my eyes Obama could have picked someone better to fill his gaps. McCain has a very good chance of winning. It would be nice if the democrats could schedule their conventions once in a while later than the republicans. In my eyes this gives the republicans a big advantage to have their convention always after the democrats, not necessarily right after but it does tend to be after the democrats.
Just a quick link about Obama....not really on topic, but here it is...
American troops are being deployed to Iraq because it's a task from God and we should all pray for the "Alaska gas pipeline", and former Bush aides are giving Palin some pointers... Zoinks, Scoob!
[quote8d5f26dbdc]The video, first reported by the liberal blog HuffingtonPost.com, is from a June Palin speech to the graduating class of commission students at Palin's former church in Wasilla, Alaska. While describing her family, Palin told students about her oldest son, 19-year-old Track, who is set to be deployed to Iraq this month with the U.S. Army. She urged students to pray [b8d5f26dbdc]“that our leaders -- that our national leaders -- are sending [soldiers] out on a task that is from God.”[/b8d5f26dbdc][/quote8d5f26dbdc]
[quote8d5f26dbdc]In addition to talking about Iraq, Palin also referred to God's role in her work as governor.
[b8d5f26dbdc]“I can do my part in working really, really hard to get a natural gas pipeline, about a $30 billion project that's going to create a lot of jobs for Alaska. … [but] I think God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that,” she said. “I can do my job there in developing our natural resources, in doing things like getting the roads paved and making sure our troopers have their cop cars and their uniforms and their guns, and making sure our public schools are funded. But really that stuff doesn't do any good if the people of Alaska's hearts aren't right with God.”[/b8d5f26dbdc][/quote8d5f26dbdc]
There is nothing wrong with being religious. I am a God-fearing man, but the things she said at that church come off as a little too "kooky".
[quote8d5f26dbdc]The McCain team has hastily assembled a team of former Bush White House aides to tutor the vice-presidential candidate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, on foreign-policy issues, to write her speeches and to begin preparing her for her all-important Oct. 2 debate against Sen. Joe Biden.
Steve Biegun, who once served as the No. 3 National Security Council official under Condoleezza Rice at the White House, has been hired as chief foreign-policy adviser to the Alaska governor, campaign officials told NEWSWEEK. After taking leave from his job as vice president for international affairs at Ford Motor Co. last Friday, Biegun flew to St. Paul and, together with McCain’s foreign-policy guru Randy Schuenemann, began briefings for Palin on national-security issues—an area where her resume is conspicuously thin.
Biegun is hardly the only Bushie to be tapped for Palin duty. Among others
Matt Scully, a former Bush White House speechwriter who helped draft some of the major foreign-policy addresses during the president’s first term, is working on Palin’s acceptance speech to the convention Wednesday night.
Mark Wallace, a former lawyer for the Bush 2000 campaign who served in a variety of administration jobs including chief counsel at the Federal Emergency Management Agency and deputy ambassador to the United Nations, has been put in charge of “prep” for the debate against Biden.
Wallace’s wife, Nicolle Wallace, the former White House communications director, has taken over the same job for Palin.
Tucker Eskew, another senior Bush White House communications aide, is serving as senior counselor to Palin’s operation.
Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the former chief economist at the Council of Economic Advisers who has been serving as top economics guru for the McCain campaign, has moved over to serve as Palin’s chief domestic-policy adviser.[/quote8d5f26dbdc]
Now, I will say that I think she has been a good governor for Alaska for the 18+ months she has served so far. But I really don't think she is ready for VP and it seems more and more obvious that McCain didn't do his homework with Palin when picking out a candidate. Plus, her views against abortion are a little extreme.
^ Ugh. ?
Care to go into a little more detail?
Also, I found this interesting
[quotedd6a9526a6="h3x"]Care to go into a little more detail?[/quotedd6a9526a6]
Who me? Nah. I've already spent a great deal of my time typing out stuff in a debate somewhere else. I have read through this thread though and I just wanted to share my emotions concerning your post. Sorry if it's not sufficient enough for you but I'm really not in the mood. oops
At first choosing Palin seemed to be a clever way to draw in women voters, but it seems more and more like a risky move especially with more and more news about her coming out (troopergate, daughter's pregnancy, etc.). I also see it as a way to push away moderates and independents although I understand the McCain campaign's need to please conservative voters. I like McCain but would be scared to see this woman in any meaningful role. I say bad move.
I'm still comfortable with her. As to the concerns over the vetting process, I'm surprised that anybody who knows anything about high-level politics and what goes into vetting candidates would think that these things could be hidden. Of course McCain knew about them. Obviously he didn't consider them damaging to their chances. Having been on the receiving end of a government background investigation for security clearance purposes, and worked with a lot of MI folks who performed those investigations, I can assure you that it's trivial to dig this stuff up. McCain is no political idiot -- he knows full well than any choice he makes is placed under a microscope -- as does any high-level political candidate. It's silly to think this stuff got by them, which just makes his choice all the more interesting IMO. It smacks of his typical maverick personality, which is probably what I most admire in him.
I mean, who the hell cares if her husband had a DUI 22 years ago??? She fully disclosed it up front, and it has no bearing on her own integrity. I don't care if he had a DUI last [ia332efa074]week[/ia332efa074] to be honest. Just like I didn't care that Clinton got blowjobs in the oval office, and I wasn't a huge Clinton fan (although I liked him a helluva more than Hillary). I did have concerns with Clinton lying under oath, however, but couldn't care less of his personal foibles that didn't affect his ability to make Presidential decisions.
"My vetting process was completely thorough, and I'm thankful for the results," the presumptive Republican presidential nominee said during a stop at a fire station in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
The McCain campaign said it was aware in advance of two items it revealed on Monday Palin's 17-year-old daughter, Bristol, is about five months pregnant and Palin's husband, Todd, had a DUI conviction 22 years ago.
A source intimately involved in the vetting process of McCain's choice for vice president called CNN to give an account of Palin's background check.
This official said a 25-person team, led by Washington attorney A.B. Culvahouse, started by compiling reports on 20 top vice presidential contenders, using only public documents like disclosure forms, public records, newspaper articles and interview transcripts.
That information was eventually presented to McCain, and to top campaign advisers Mark Salter, Steve Schmidt, Charlie Black and Rick Davis -- the only four aides involved in the highly secretive process.
Once McCain and those aides narrowed the choices to a short list, Palin and other contenders were contacted and asked for documents, including a credit check, tax returns and additional financial disclosure forms.
The official told CNN that all of those on the short list -- including Palin -- were asked to answer 70 "intrusive" questions, including "Have you ever paid for sex?" and "Have you ever been fairly or unfairly accused of sexual harassment?"
The questions were also described as some basic queries now asked of presidential nominees, like whether they ever hired illegal workers or neglected to pay taxes for nannies.
In one of her answers, Palin told McCain aides about her husband's DUI arrest 22 years ago.
Then Culvahouse, along with a few associates, interviewed Palin for three hours. During that interview, she revealed her teenage daughter's pregnancy -- and was warned it would become public if she were picked. Video Watch analysts debate the effect of Bristol's pregnancy »
"She said she'd have those conversations with her daughter," the source said.
From the start of the vetting process, one red flag was a state investigation into whether Palin improperly dismissed Alaska's Public Safety Commissioner for not firing her ex-brother-in-law.
CNN was told that McCain investigators spent considerable time looking into the so-called "Troopergate" affair -- interviewing Palin's lawyer and quietly talking to others involved -- and decided the facts were on her side. Video Watch how 'Troopergate' unfolded in Alaska »
The source said that aside from interviewing some of the figures involved in Troopergate, the vetters did not talk to character witnesses in Alaska.
The campaign also did not look at news articles about Palin from the newspaper in her hometown of Basilar, Alaska, because it is kept on microfilm and was hard to view without compromising their secrecy.
Sources told CNN that Culvahouse, one of Washington's widely respected lawyers, was called by McCain one last time before McCain officially asked Palin to join him on the Republican ticket.
McCain asked Culvahouse if, based on what he unearthed, he was confident the little-known Alaska governor's background would withstand scrutiny. Culvahouse gave McCain a confident go-ahead, the sources said.[/quotea332efa074]
Dmorris well said... I couldn't agree more. To me personal lives in the situations you have described should have no bearing on how well people think they governed.
Yeah I've read about how the vetting process was thorough and McCain already knew about the various stories coming out. That's why they came out with some of the 'bad' news on Labor day when no one watches the news. Although I brought up some of the 'bad' news concerning Palin, I'm not saying I judge politicians by things that happen in their personal lives either (I love Bill) unless they're obviously kinda creepy like Larry Craig. But this is America, and many people do care about these things so it affects a person's electability.
Also, how is he going to look when he criticizes Obama's inexperience (obviously his biggest flaw) when the same could be said for his VP?
Like I said before, I think he would've been better off choosing someone more attractive to moderates and independents. She's way too much to the right for my taste. Anyhoo, I'm interested to see if there's a bump in the polls after the convention...
[quote75cc77253f="hehehhehe"] I think he would've been better off [b75cc77253f]choosing someone more attractive[/b75cc77253f] to moderates and independents.[/quote75cc77253f]
She is definitely the most attractive pick. Let's be honest with ourselves.
[quote2a31c2ceff="ilanbg"][quote2a31c2ceff="hehehhehe"] I think he would've been better off [b2a31c2ceff]choosing someone more attractive[/b2a31c2ceff] to moderates and independents.[/quote2a31c2ceff]
She is definitely the most attractive pick. Let's be honest with ourselves.[/quote2a31c2ceff]
As I typed that, I knew someone was going to make a comment like that lol.
[quote12e4e3f709="hehehhehe"]Also, how is he going to look when he criticizes Obama's inexperience (obviously his biggest flaw) when the same could be said for his VP?[/quote12e4e3f709]
IMO a red herring argument, for two major reasons
1. She has tons of executive, decision-making, leadership experience compared to Obama. He has ZERO. Whether it was in her jobs as mayor, commissioner, or governor, or in running her own private businesses, she has spent years in executive positions where the buck stopped with her, and the decisions were hers to make. Obama hasn't so much as written a single piece of legislation, chaired any committees, or served in any executive role inside or outside of politics AFAIK. This makes her at least AS qualified, and I think most could argue MORE qualified, as a leader.
2. Comparing a VP candidate to a Presidential candidate in terms of experience is a bit disingenuous. If she had Presidential-quality experience she would be running for THAT job. How many VP's have been President-worthy? Dan Quale, anybody? Gore? Ford? Bush Sr. and Lyndon Johnson were rare exceptions as far as recent history goes. The fact that Dems seem to overlook this distinction smacks of desperation IMO.
The irony is, as point #1 indicates, she actually IS a more experienced leader than Obama and thus possibly IS more qualified as President. When you get right down to it, the inexperience that people are referring to when talk about Palin, is [i12e4e3f709]Washington[/i12e4e3f709] experience. Obama's political experience is from inside the Beltway, while hers is outside. To me, that's not a bad thing, and one of the characteristics that people like about her. In fact, the very party that is so promoting "change" and a departure from "Washington politics as usual" as their campaign slogan should be able to appreciate this.
Her "experience" changes depending on the spin you put on it. I've heard the "she has executive experience" argument before (and I figured someone might bring that up here wink), but someone else can easily just say that even as governor she hasn't served that long (less than 2 years?) and Alaska has a smaller population than a NYC borough. Even as mayor, she served like 5, 6 thousand people right? In the end it's hard to compare her experience to Obama's, it's apples to oranges but like I said, the inexperience argument can be brought to both candidates (that's what I wanted to bring up, I'm not judging her experience).
Just like one can say you prefer her because she is a Washington outsider, arguments can be made for both sides depending on the spin they want. Another person can easily say they prefer Obama's experience because he has served in Washington.
I agree with the second point about it being disingenuous though, but just consider my posts as me playing devil's advocate twisted. However, we're talking about a 72 year old presidential candidate, so its not that far fetched to want a more established VP in case his health worsens.
I thought she spoke very well at the convention and did well to talk up McCain but she definitely didn't try to connect with the struggling middle class...
You could also argue that Obama has run a multi-state, many hundreds of millions of dollar, many tens thousands of people campaign and that is executive leadership. Obama's campaign won against the best, most successful political family in the last 40 years.
Setting aside Palin's being for the bridge, before being against it, her "choices are important," (with regard to her daughters decision), so long as it's not the government making the choice to not allow women a choice, Troopergate, that she actually claimed foreign policy experience because Alaska is near Russia, someone who just recently said she didn't actually know what a VP does.
Palin's speech last night was very good, it was well-delivered, well-written, and well-received. But I have to think Palin is in for a world of hurt when she has to debate a senator with 30 years of foreign policy experience, someone who has traveled the world and someone who has been vetted for 30 years.
[quote24c87889c7="doylnea"]But I have to think Palin is in for a world of hurt when she has to debate a senator with 30 years of foreign policy experience, someone who has traveled the world and someone who has been vetted for 30 years.[/quote24c87889c7]
Yeah I agree, I was thinking that too.
I don't know a whole lot about the American political system and if I could vote I'd probably register (which I think is pretty shit in itself) as a Democrat, so my view is based pretty much on what I see/hear/read of the two candidates.
Watching McCain speak publicly makes me cringe as he just comes off as fake and insincere. Tonight he couldn't even recall the story of him being a P.O.W. without using the teleprompter and his body actions when pointing to the crowd or making a fist are so robotic and unrealistic that to me it just takes away any authenticity in what he's saying. Watching McCain tonight I saw about 7 black people, 3 Asian people and some others that weren't white, but watching Obama that stadium was filled with people from every walk of life and that to me says a lot.
[quoteb2b9b5874e="hehehhehe"][quoteb2b9b5874e="doylnea"]But I have to think Palin is in for a world of hurt when she has to debate a senator with 30 years of foreign policy experience, someone who has traveled the world and someone who has been vetted for 30 years.[/quoteb2b9b5874e]
Yeah I agree, I was thinking that too.[/quoteb2b9b5874e]
No argument there -- she seems poised, articulate, and smart enough, but she's not accustomed to swimming with the sharks so to speak. I would give the advantage to Biden no doubt, as I would to most any career Washington politician, but we'll have to see I guess. If she holds her own, though, then she will further strengthen herself and her ticket.
Regarding Obama's executive experience with running his campain, I guess I can concede that point. Still, the scorecard is in Palin's favor. Regarding the populations that she's governed, again I see that as a red herring. Small populations face the same issues as larger ones, just perhaps on smaller scales. The same sort of decisions have to be made. Larger populations have larger governments with larger staff to help mitigate the load, but the buck still stops with ONE person, so the pressures faced are proportionally similar. As such, I believe Obama has no business claiming more executive experience, to do so is a joke.
As I mentioned before, her daughter's situation doesn't bother me in the least. It should be a non-issue. Palin can still believe in abstinence education (what's wrong with that?) and still have a child who doesn't practice it. As parents who raised three to adulthood, and tried very VERY hard to instill our values in them, my wife and I learned that they are going to be their own individual, and make many decisions we don't approve of. They still turned out okay, and we still love them -- it doesn't change our values though, we would still try to teach them the same things. This is a much bigger issue for the media and the pundits, and I'm convinced the majority of voters will not make it a deciding factor, particularly those who have raised children.
TrooperGate is, IMO, being blown out of proportion because they can't find anything better. Nobody has yet come forward to say Palin herself ordered anything. Loyal or overzealous political aides, especially those with delegated authority, will very often take initiative to act on what they believe to be their boss's best interest. Who of you wouldn't exercise influence, if you had it, to get a loose cannon and very bad dude out of a position where he could leverage his authority for abusive purposes? I would, and I consider myself a moral person. If you read the details behind the case of this trooper, you see that was indeed a lousy person who had no business keeping his job. His personnel file is full of disciplinary actions. He was arrested for DUI in his patrol car. He threatened the lives of Palin's sister and their dad, on a speaker-phone call in which Palin was listening, and I believe it was recorded. He was charged with illegal hunting. He had excessive work absences and tardiness. Those are just off the top of my head, and all while being a trooper. He was suspended or reprimanded numerous times, with a warning in his file saying the next offense would result in termination. Palin has willfully opened herself up to any and all investigation on the matter, and McCain seems convinced by the facts in the case. If he's not worried about it, then I'm not either.
As far as the bridge and the succession rumors, I haven't researched the history and facts of those yet, but I'll accept them as truth. But to me, that demonstrates a politician who is willing to change their position when it makes sense to do so. Changing your mind on issues is a prerogative that we all have. To do so is an admission that we were once wrong, and too many politicians would never admit they were ever wrong, so I find it refreshing when it happens. Why is it we praise some politicians who change their minds on issues, and yet condemn others? It's usually because when they change over to agree with our position, we like it. When they don't, we don't. So the only reason I could see people attacking Palin for no longer supporting the bridge, or succession, or whatever, is because they still support those notions. Remember, "change" is the whole theme of this campaign, no more so than by Obama. It's funny though to see how they like to cherry-pick their opponents "change" agenda, though.
If I had a single complaint about Palin so far, it would be that she went too far with her attacks on Obama, and not far enough with hers and McCain's plans for the future. I've never been a fan of negative campaigning, and compared to a lot of other candidates (Hillary especially) his campaign has been fairly mild. We have to remember that these candidates want to get elected (obviously), and so they hire professionals to help them. Virtually all such "hired guns" will stop at nothing to show their opponent as flawed and unfit, it's how the game has always been played, and unfortunately I don't see that ever changing. I don't think McCain likes it much, because it's not his character, but he probably feels that to a point he has to play the game. He and Obama both lihaveli put their foot down on forbidding their campaigns to cross certain lines as far as personal attacks, such as Obama regarding Palin's daughter, and McCain regarding Obama's "Muslim" roots and "un-Americanism." So I give both candidates props for having those limits, and begrudge them their attacks on each others' professional reputations. I just wish the negative attacks comprised a smaller portion of their message. But both sides can and will be brutal, because they perceive they have a lot to lose.
[quoteb2b9b5874e="theysayjump"]Watching McCain speak publicly makes me cringe as he just comes off as fake and insincere. Tonight he couldn't even recall the story of him being a P.O.W. without using the teleprompter and his body actions when pointing to the crowd or making a fist are so robotic and unrealistic that to me it just takes away any authenticity in what he's saying.[/quoteb2b9b5874e]
In fact, it's just the opposite IMO. If you've followed McCain for years like I have, you know that McCain is not your typical politician at all. He is very sincere, very bipartisan. He doesn't tow the GOP line, which is why the base has had such a hard time with him. He really should be an independent, but the reality is that the US is still a two-party system, and any other party has little to no chance to be elected for a long time to come. As such, he is forced to position himself in such a way as to maintain the support of his base, because that's where the power to get elected comes from. IMO, the reason he looks "fake and insincere," is because he's uncomfortable in the position he's in -- it isn't natural to have to speak a certain way that is considered necessary to run a campaign. He's not a negative, partisan person. Hell, he and Hillary both admit they are personal friends outside of politics and have had many drinks together. And I can't stand Hillary, so I have to admire him for that.
McCain has always failed miserably at prior attempts at Presidential campaigns for the very reason that he isn't considered Republican enough. That changed in this election ONLY because of the perceived damage Bush has done to the party. They know that putting up another typical Republican would have no chance, so their only hope to hang on to the White House is to put up an atypical Republican. McCain is the first person to come to mind to almost anyone who thinks "atypical Republican." He's their only hope, but they still don't like it, and that puts him an awkward situation -- he needs them to get elected, they need him to maintain their base's power, and neither one likes the other very much.
I believe if McCain is elected, the pressure will be relieve and we will see him return to his centrist nature. Some argue that he will have to keep up the charade to get re-elected, but I don't buy that. First, who said he'll want to be re-elected? Second, if he gets in there and shows the American people that he can be moderate and fair and bi-partisan, he won't need the right-wing base to get re-elected -- the moderates, independents, and a lot of Dems would vote for him. Also, this could open up the door a little wider for other moderates and independents to not require a left-wing or right-wing base to have a fair chance, so he could also be the catalyst to move us away from the two-party hegemony.
Hey, a guy can dream. P
I agree with you almost completly dmorris. Nicely said... It does frustrate me alot when so many people judge Palin off of situations with her children, husband, etc.. Personal life is seperate from a political life (to an extent). However, I do feel how you handle your personal life reflects your character, morals, and values which to play huge into your political life. I think its a very fine line on waht you can and cannot judge when it comes to a polotician. Most people i feel judge before thinking.
A side note on that, more so an attack to the media. Is that I find it so amazing how the media will condemn Palin for having a daughter who is in that situation. But when you really think about it, a HUGE factor in why so many teens have all these issues and deteriorating values I believe is because the Media (News, TV, Music, etc.. ) have such a strong grasp on Americas youth. And lets face it, alot of the morals that the media puts out are not good. I am not a parent yet, but i can only imagine how hard it is to combat your family's personal morals against the entire media, highschools, and what not. All being said, I guess the media kinda creates these situations, then condemns and feeds of people who act off them.
I think the larger issuse is that the media has raked this girl over the coals for being 17 and pregnant in an effort to ding her mom. I can't understand why questions about a 17 year old are flung around, fats and furious, when there are real questions about Obama and some of his past associates that haven never been asked by the same media.
Shouldn't we be focusing on the candidates themselves?
Now, maybe both sets of questions are unfair and unneeded, but lets be somewhat impartial here and at least ask the same types of questions to both sides. My take is that it will unintendedly backfire on the democrats with the media seeming to pick on a young girl like this.