Election Central Saturday Roundup
Obama and McCain To Visit World Trade Center Site Together
The two presidential nominees have announced that they will make a joint visit to Ground Zero in New York this Thursday, the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. "All of us came together on 9/11 - not as Democrats or Republicans - but as Americans," they said in a joint statement. The statement later adds: "On Thursday, we will put aside politics and come together to renew that unity, to honor the memory of each and every American who died, and to grieve with the families and friends who lost loved ones."
Obama In Indiana Today
Barack Obama addressed the AARP's convention this morning via satellite, and is also campaigning today in Indiana, a usually deep-red state that has been put into contention this year. Obama has a campaign event in Terre Haute, Indiana, scheduled for 12:30 p.m. ET.
Republican Ticket In The Southwest Today
John McCain and Sarah Palin are campaigning today in the Southwest, in two state where McCain and Barack Obama are locked in a tight race. They two held a rally at 11 a.m. ET in the religious-right bastion of Colorado Springs, Colorado, and have a rally scheduled for 8 p.m. ET in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Obama Blasts McCain On Social Security At AARP
Barack Obama used the opportunity of his speech before the AARP to go after John McCain on the issue of Social Security. "Now, John McCain said that the way Social Security works is, and I quote, 'an absolute disgrace,'" Obama said, according to the prepared remarks. "Wrong. For millions of Americans, it's the very difference between a comfortable retirement and falling into poverty."
Media Outlets Call Out Palin On eBay Story
Both the Washington Post and CNN have caught on to Sarah Palin's claim that she put a state plane on eBay, and John McCain's claim that she made a profit off of it. In fact, the plane failed to sell on eBay at the state's desired price, and it was sold at a loss through a broker.
GOP Trying To Get Lieberman To Officially Switch Over
CQ reports that Senate Republicans, especially Pennsylvania moderate Arlen Specter, are trying to get Joe Lieberman to officially switch parties soon. "He's practically there," said Specter. "That would have the consequence of giving us a Republican Senate."
For the love of god - do they really think they have to spend money and campaign in Colorado Springs? Why isn't that just sewed up for the GOP? Why are they bothering?
September 6, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, McCain isn't all that popular among the conservatives I know from Colorado Springs...several of whom said that they only way they'd vote for McCain was if Clinton was the Democratic nominee.
This was B.P., though.
Why is she so afraid of speaking to the press?
September 6, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Probably to get money from the crazies.
September 6, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
like these
Palin’s Church: Converting Gays and Speaking Tongues
September 6, 2008 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
The first solid indication McCain is and has been in trouble.
September 6, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
And please take Droopy. Please.
We don't want him.
September 6, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suspect both Lieberman and congressional Democrats will keep their powder dry until after November.
The Democrats will pick up between three and six Senate seats, so if Lieberman switched parties tomorrow, the Republicans would control the Senate (and he would keep his chairmanship) for the last four months of a lame-duck Congress during which very little could be accomplished. Defecting now would secure Lieberman's place in the minority for at least the next two years.
If McCain manages to win, Lieberman can count on a high-profile cabinet appointment (probably SecDef) and escape the wrath of the party he betrayed. But if Obama wins, Lieberman will be stuck in a Democratically controlled Senate in which he'll have influence only if he engages in some serious fence-mending.
Bottom line: Lieberman has nothing to gain from defecting.
September 6, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Rule under which the Senate is presently organized stipulates that committee representation, leadership, etc. is to remain unchanged until the new Congress comes in in January of '09, even if the D-R-I number changes.
It doesn't matter if Lieberman jumps. This all came up when Tim Johnson was stricken.
Lieberman has his seat in the Dem caucus and his committee chair because the Democrats in the Senate want it that way.
Nothing to do with waking up to a Republican Senate in a lame-duck session.
September 6, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lieberman's defection, or ejection, would not change the composition of the Senate, the representation on committees, or their chairmen.
The Rule under which the Senate is organized runs till '09, regardless of any changes in the D-R-I numbers between now and then.
We went over all of this when Sen. Johnson was stricken.
Lieberman's seat in the Democratic caucus, and his committee chair, are his because the other Democratic senators want it so.
September 6, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good to know.
Anyone know how the people Conn. are responding to Lierberman's defection?
September 7, 2008 2:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
WHERE IS SARAH PALIN
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/09/sarah-palin-w-1.html
Listen to McCain's Rick Davis:
"I'd never commit to anything in the future. ... Our strategy is in our hands, not the media's. We're going to do what's in our best interests to try to win the election. If we think going on TV news shows are [sic] in our best interests, we'll do it. If we don't, we won't."
Well, FUCK the nation, Boo-Boo! McCain has no use for the Nation's interests.
WHERE IS SARAH PALIN? WHY IS SHE HIDING?
September 6, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, I posted this below, but I'm going to say it again, cause I'm really pissed about this.
Repugs are screaming "sexism" when anyone dares to say that Sarah Palin needs to take care of the kids. Well, since when do women get to have their cake and eat it too? Let's get real - men don't get to do that. They have to make choices in order to further their careers.
Well, the fact is that so do women. Nobody with 5 kids, one of which is 4 months old, is getting promoted past that glass ceiling.
It's ridiculous to suggest otherwise. Who is taking care of America's children? Who? If their mothers can pop them out and then go run off and play politics while their dad is working on the pipeline - who is raising the kids and why is this a good thing for society?
September 6, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
100% agreed.
All I see is John McCain trying to escape the judgement of history. A honorable man would have stepped aside.
The electroral remedy for failure is not reelection.
Sarah Palin's "appearance" before the press has morphed from "middle of next week" to "two weeks" to "when we fucking feel like it."
++UNACCEPTABLE.
September 6, 2008 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are fucking kidding me - if she can campaign in WI, then she can talk to the press, goddamn it!
WHERE IS SARAH PALIN AND WHY CAN'T WE TALK TO HER?
September 6, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is why it might not hurt to go after her lies about the bridge and some of the other half truths she's put out there. The only person who could clear that up is Palin. She would be forced to do interviews.
I'm really starting to wonder if the hands-off approach is the right call. She's a gaffe waiting to happen. They need to force her out of hiding. And going on the attack could do that.
http://pufferfish.typepad.com/
September 6, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
The GOP is damned either way.
Hide Palin, and the media and the Obama Campaign define her.
Release Palin, and Palin defines herself, and suddenly they would wish the media and the Obama campaign would have done it.
Telling political reporters they cannot interview the VEEP candidate with 2 months left is REALLY not going to work much past Monday of next week.
September 6, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
For anyone who has not yet seen this article:
http://www.laprogressive.com/2008/09/05/alaskans-speak-in-a-frightened-whisper-palin-is-%E2%80%9Cracist-sexist-vindictive-and-mean%E2%80%9D/#more-954
According to Palin, "Sambo beat the Bitch"
Nice mouth.
PEACE
September 6, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi HTX - Owing to Josh's funny snark on the Main page - Isn't Palin supposed to move to Cheney's undisclosed location after she gets elected, not before?
The McCain Campaign is essentially saying 'trust us' on the qualifications issues around Palin - and I think it's time to move the issue past Palin herself and onto the Why Should We Trust You People Anymore?
The American People have a legitimate right to evaluate the candidate (whom they say has more executive experience than our candidate so why are the voters being denied their right to make a straightforward determination?
September 6, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
IMO, this is a good strategy for moving the conversation past Palin to "no trust in the American voter to evaluate Palin fairly". That would work, I think.
September 6, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Taking this a step further - before the Palin hide and seek game they'd also restricted access to #1 himself (as they had not before); so the way to really put them in a bind is to start regular and widespread media access for O/B and without putting Palin herself in question per se - just getting it out there "look we've got nothing to hide" and let the rest of the story write itself...
If the McCain camp complains about unequal access thereafter it's on them!
September 6, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tena, I'm as much a Palin critic as you are. But I think that's utterly unfair to her.
Mitt Romney has a couple dozen kids, but no one bashes him for seeking elected office. When he went off to start Bain Capital, which takes just as much time and effort as being President, he had a 3 year old son; when that son was born, he was VP of some other investment bank, itself a pretty sizable task.
There's no reason except oppressive gender norms that Romney gets a pass (and probably ended up doing better in his career because he's a patriarch at home) while Palin gets criticism.
September 6, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because his wife is home with the kids.
Please - if you don't understand this then you don't understand anything. Someone has to take care of the children that women who don't believe in family planning keep having.
I'm a professional woman, dammit. I know what it's like out there and this is stupid. It's not right. It's not fair to those women who did make the choice. Nor is it fair to men.
September 6, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Alaska is going to find out how well-adjusted her kids are as the kleig lights get brighter and brighter. Todd's got his work cut out for him.
If Sarah Palin did not possess so many clear areas of poor judgement, no one would question her kids' well-being.
September 6, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is also the time she took her youngest, Trig, to a prison tour with her, sans car seat. She blew it off as no big deal. Great parenting skills.
Also, in CA, Levi would be listed as a sex offender for his knocking up of Bristol. Nice family values.
September 7, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why can't the husband stay home and take care of this kids?
It's these kind of gendered labor norms that force under-appreciated and uncompensated domestic labor on women, while labor that generates economic and political power is always ok for the male to pursue. And if both parents go into the paid workforce and hire childcare, guess who gets all the moral condemnation?
Hint: it's not the person with a penis.
September 6, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
He can - all he'll have to do is QUIT HIS JOB.
Do you get this now or not? Someone has to be a parent. IF he wants to do that, fine - but he'll have to SACRIFICE HIS OWN CAREER BECAUSE ONE OF THEM HAS TO.
One of them cannot have a highpowered career or the kids will raise themselves.
September 6, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think I read somewhere that Todd Palin works part time, and he's recently been on leave.
I do not think he has a high-powered career, so he probably is the primary care-giver.
I think, if we're going to support a woman's right to privacy over giving birth, that support should extend to the decisions she and the father make to raise their children, absent abuse.
September 6, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
correct. todd palin does not have a high powered career. unless you count his snowmobile racing.
September 6, 2008 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not up on all of the facts, Tena?
September 6, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Todd Palin spent much of his time advising constituents with Sarah, in other words, he was running the state with her. So, again, as he often sat in her office, where were the kids? The answer, passed off to family members. As a mother, there is no way in hell I could raise 5 children of this age, and ever be there as a mother should be. Even with the father raising them, they need a mother's guidance. Obviously, Bristol wasn't getting any. My daughter, with two working parents, one being part time (me) was given all the information she needed to avoid a tragically early pregnancy and shot gun (for the media) marriage. Bristol suddenly pops up with the ring on her hand the other day, what a crock. Cindy McCain probably took her shopping.
September 7, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Someone has to take care of the children that women who don't believe in family planning keep having."
What about women who do family planning and have their two kids, Tena, and continue to have a professional career? You condemn these women, too, with your overly broad statement. In fact, it seems to me that you're condemning the majority of women who work in this country.
Are you saying that ALL women who are mothers and who work are limiting themselves in their careers? What about fathers who limit their careers to take care of the children so mom can climb her career ladder? Still doomed in your opinion?
September 6, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Count me in the camp who thinks Romney should have stayed home, too.
September 6, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mitt Romney wasn't claiming that he should be elected president because he's a good dad. That's the difference.
If motherhood and apple pie are so central to Palin's life, then the way she actually conducts herself as a mother becomes relevant in a way it isn't with other politicians, male or female.
September 6, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
And it flies in the face of her actual goverining style, which is all enemeies lists, petulant firings, and no rudder of her own in the water.
September 6, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a complete sexist rant. John McCain with 7 kids is not asked this question; Barack Obama with 2 kids is not asked this question. Roll down the list of males not being asked this question. Asking it only of the female is sexist. This is not difficult to understand.
Palin has a lot of excellent, non sexist questions that she needs to answer when she deigns to be interviewed. This is simply not one of them.
September 6, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sexist schmexist.
She has a 6 month old special needs infant.
If Obama had a 6 month old with special needs at home and either 1) went on the road for months or 2) dragged the baby around to events like a prop to be handed off, the rightwing thugosphere would be outraged.
A 6 month old with special needs needs both their parents, period.
The use of this baby as a prop and the disregard for the baby's welfare is sickening.
September 6, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
This sort of trash talk has nothing to do with poltiical analysis. Sadly, my previously good opinion of some bloggers on this site has nose-dived with this sort of trash talking.
September 6, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uuuuuh, dude, I'm pretty sure we're all private citizens and not policitcal analysts by trade. In that sea, you do not get to set the terms of the debate thus.
September 6, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nope, I don't set the terms of the debate here. I will, however, point out that it's trash talking and belongs on the supermarket tabloid rack.
September 6, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Squeamish, eh? That's OK. Practically all the women in my life have no hesitation talking about this because it's so easy a decision for them to get. The distinction is stark, give the very young children and more on the way. Not sexist. Practical.
Sorry you feel family care belongs on a supermarket magazine rack. Objectification = Denial, duder.
September 6, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's sooo cute, sweetie, since I'm female. And, yes, this is just gossipy snark oozing all over Josh's site. I suspect Palin struck some highly personal issues for a few of our bloggers.
September 6, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Including you.
That must be why you're doing so much fingerpointing today.
September 6, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, hi there. Nope, nothing personal. You folks have had the mike to yourselves for several days and I just decided to wrest it away for a bit and present a different female and liberal viewpoint.
September 6, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
See, this is the problem for us with the Sarah Palin pick. She's such a target rich environment, we're shooting each other in the face trying to get a piece of her.
Cube's right. There's no need to get into her child raising creds, if for no other reason than that's an attack that'll only really have traction with the same people who are rock-solid behind her. There's a big difference between pointing out how they seemed to use a special needs infant as a political prop at the convention (which I was truly disgusted with), and saying Palin is a bad mom for campaigning with her kids in tow. We don't need to go there even though I've seen similar things said online about Obama.
There's so much else about her that we can shoot for.
September 6, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Said that better than I did!
September 6, 2008 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely. It's not at all sexist to discuss the fact that this woman has 5 children, one of which is 4 months old and has a severe disability. How available is she going to be as a parent to that child, not to mention to her other children, one of which is an adolescent and is about to give birth herself? I've said this several times this week on this blog, most women in this country who balance the demands of work and family can absolutely relate to these questions. You can paint them as sexist on some abstract, theoretical level, if you wish. But, when you bring it down to the realities that middle-class American women live - it's our lives, it's the decisions and choices that we make every damn day. And it's perfectly legitimate to ask how exactly does Sarah Palin expect to manage this as Vice President of this country? And ducking behind a screen of "don't ask me sexist questions" won't suffice - we want answers and some serious discussion about the issues that are relevant to our lives. And if that's too much to ask, she should step out of this race and go back to Juneau to deal w/her family and legal problems.
September 6, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
HOw can I be a sexist?
I can't be a sexist anymore than Barrack Obama can be a racist.
I'M A WOMAN, DAMMIT, AND I'M A LAWYER. Y'all are confusing sexism with reality.
September 6, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why you male chauvinist pig, you! How come all New Mexicans are such pigs?!!!
September 6, 2008 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that if one question gets asked of one candidate, it should be asked of all candidates, and thus, this makes this issue seem sexist.
However, Governor Palin has raised the issue herself, by calling herself just a regular "hockey mom", and furthered it by telling us how "hockey moms" are just like pit bulls, only with lipstick.
If a male candidate presented himself as a "Nascar Dad", then very reasonable questions could be raised about his Dad cred.
All of this is moot, though, because any candidate who raises questions about Palin's judgment as a mom is just going to get slaughtered.
September 6, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kids, schmids.
The record of poor judgement in other areas is long, and being added to as we speak by her untenble refusal to participate in American democracy and meet the press.
September 6, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
And that last paragraph is something supposed Obama supporters should take to heart. This type of talk is just more ammo for the GOP.
September 6, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
See, this is the problem for us with the Sarah Palin pick. She's such a target rich environment, we're shooting each other in the face trying to get a piece of her.
Cube's right. There's no need to get into her child raising creds, if for no other reason than that's an attack that'll only really have traction with the same people who are rock-solid behind her. There's a big difference between pointing out how they seemed to use a special needs infant as a political prop at the convention (which I was truly disgusted with), and saying Palin is a bad mom for campaigning with her kids in tow. We don't need to go there even though I've seen similar things said online about Obama.
There's so much else about her that we can shoot for.
September 6, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Weird. Somehow I put this in two spots.
Oh well. It needs to be said.
September 6, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tena, you don't have kids so you wouldn't understand. But this is good because I love a cat fight. Are you secretly hoping that Sambo beats the new bitch?
September 6, 2008 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now this, I had it wrong. It wasn't Todd's affair, it was Sarah, and McCain has been in Alaska via handlers to hush this up. The man involved has since gotten a divorce. See below:
The Enquirer, which exposed John Edwards's extramarital affair, cited unnamed sources in alleging that the Alaska governor had an affair with a business associate of her "fisherman husband," Todd Palin -- the story doesn't say when -- and that he found out and severed relations with the man. National Enquirer was right on John Edwards. National Enquirer was right on Bristol Palin being preggers.
September 7, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
cause She can’t lie, she can’t tell the truth.
September 6, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why is Sarah Palin so afraid of the media? Why won't she speak to them?
As for the Lieberman switching sides story? Who gives a rat's ass. Even if he switches sides now, Dems still retain control of committee chairmanships. So let him.
Like they'll be able to do anything between now and November?
Let him switch sides. Let everyone see what a traitor he is.
September 6, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think she's afraid. They are simply doing full-on message control and want Palin to be heard and seen only as an attack dog, not defending herself in front of reporters.
September 6, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bullshit, she's afraid - why hasn't she been interviewed yet?
September 6, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL
"They are simply doing full-on message control and want Palin to be heard and seen only as an attack dog, not defending herself in front of reporters."
September 6, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Chisel it in stone if you'd like, it still makes your assessment complete and utter horseshit. She's scared.
September 6, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're just pissed and looking for blood, hence your dirty mouth.
September 6, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're just delusional and sloppily looking for a way to side against Obama, hence the hamfistedly clumsy arguments.
September 6, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're just delusional and sloppily looking for a way to side against Obama, hence the hamfistedly clumsy arguments.
September 6, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're delusional and will utter any incoherence just to bash Obama, hence the hamfistedly clumsy arguments.
September 6, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because until a week ago, she hadn't given more than a moment's thought to Iraq ("we need to have a plan here") or the national economy, or health care, or pretty much anything of consequence in a national campaign.
Plus, she'd have to explain why she's stonewalling on Troopergate, why she keeps making her bogus claims about the Bridge to Nowhere, and how she can be a reformer when she loves earmarks for her town and state.
She'll be cramming on policy from now until the VP debate. If they can get away with it, she won't make an unscripted appearance before then.
September 6, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
She's afraid, Lalo.
McCain's afraid, too.
Why are they so afraid?
I thought she could rip a moose in to while simultaneously changing a tire.
Why is she afraid of the Washington elite press?
Poor little Sarah. She needs all that protection.
September 6, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
It isn't fear. It's blatant misuse of the media for all of the free press--especially useful since McCain is apparently using my tax dollars in this section of their campaign.
And when the frenzy starts to die off and the free publicity subsides, then Palin will graciously grant an interview to the media nut who has the longest list of agreed-upon "can't talk about this topic".
So fall into line, folks, with the GOP plan here.
September 6, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stop with the "falling in line with the GOP ploy talk", ok?
Because, quite frankly, YOU sound like you've fallen in with the GOP ploy. We can't talk about Sarah Palin's judgment as a mother, according to you, even though Sarah Palin made her motherhood a central point of her candidacy.
We can't characterize Sarah Palin as "scared of the media" because you think it's all some sort of GOP plot. You seem less concerned over the fact that a Vice Presidential candidate is being hidden from the media than you are over comments by anonymous commenters on Election Central.
September 6, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Every candidate trots out their family for inspection. Shrug. My opposition to Palin is for reasons completely outside of her decisions (along with the input of her spouse, I assume) regarding her family. I agree with Obama that her family is off-limits--and I include any judgment about how many kids she has decided to have and how she decides to introduce her family to us.
We disagree. Enough said.
September 6, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
They sure do. However, Governor Palin is the only candidate that I'm aware of who specifically identifies herself as a particular type of PARENT. Can you provide examples of other candidates who have made a similar claim?
That being said, I don't think it should be a line of attack for the Obama campaign. But I find it offensive that you seem to think we can't even discuss it, because if we do, somehow we're falling under the spell of the wicked GOP.
And thanks for the quote from McCain's campaign manager about how easily manipulated readers of blogs are.
You're excepting yourself form that description, no doubt.
September 6, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, read more carefully. I said quite clearly above that questioning Palin's choices as a mother would just buy trouble for a Democratic candidate.
However, I don't think it's an unfair question, since she herself as repeatedly emphasized her motherhood. Repeatedly. Sure, all candidates trot out their families, but I've never seen a candidate who made their parenting status a primary feature of their campaign.
My opposition to her has nothing to do with any of these issues, but I find it appalling that some people on lefty blogs won't even entertain the notion of a discussion about it.
It reminds me very much of the reaction to Laurence Summers comments. He couldn't even speculate about the possibility of there being innate gender differences in certain cognitive abilities without losing his job.
The fierce response to Tena's comments about motherhood, choice, and careers seem seems very similar to that. We can't even talk about this?
September 6, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I simply view it as a logic trap. I don't want to have fundie judgmental noses stuck in my personal business. So I return the favor and don't stick my nose in their personal business.
It's really as simple as that. There's plenty of other reasons to oppose Palin.
September 6, 2008 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the latest from McCain's campaign honcho: "This new environment, Mr. Schmidt has told friends, is easily manipulated because of round-the-clock thirst for news, increased competition, lowered standards created by the proliferation of outlets and hunger for the outrageous."
Easily manipulated....hunger for the outrageous. The environment? The blogs and 24/7 MSM outlets.
Palin has plenty of other areas for attack by us. Let's start with the thin resume, her investigations, her attempt to ban books, etc.
September 6, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why is Oprah afraid of Palin? Apparently she refuse to have her on. So it a bit unfair to say she won't do interviews.
September 6, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Poor little Sarah.
So afraid of being asked tough questions.
September 6, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oprah is not running for President.
September 6, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since when has Oprah been part of the news media. Is this who you turn to understand the state of the economy, world affiars, health care? Might explain a lot if that is truly the case.
September 6, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
While I usually ignore troll droppings, this particular dropping illustrates such a rich example of how truly inconsistent and hypocritical nutcases are.
Can you believe there are actual wingnuts out there who think they can punk Oprah into doing their bidding? Um...it's Oprah's show, and she can host whomever she damned well pleases--or not. Since when is she compelled by a party to do their bidding? OMG--you must be a Communist!
But never to fear...I hear Meet the Press wants an interview, in case Gov. Yup-Yup is interested.
(((crickets)))
September 6, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know why you come back here time and time again to make a fool of yourself.
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/05/oprah-afraid-of-palin/
Regardless, why would Oprah have any sort of responsibility to have Palin on her show anyway? That's why it's HER show.
September 6, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope that traitor joe flips. That would really piss off the people and help dems get more votes. Also, dems could point to republicans as running the senate. It's a win, win. AMF traitor joe.
September 6, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm at the point where I just say, let them have his sorry ass. They're in session for what...another three weeks? To me, it's the principle of the thing.
Besides, if we do what we need to do, it'll be him begging to come back in.
September 6, 2008 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Every politician has a personal interest in the election, so I think Liebrman's true journey will not be complete unless McCain wins. I'm really curious to see what job he's angling for.
September 6, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well he's not angling for Senate anymore, that's for damn sure.
September 6, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, i think he wants to be part of the administration.
September 6, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, either sec defense or sec state. He is mcbush's big bud and mcbush allegedly wanted him for vp.
September 6, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't care what they do with Joe - just take him, please.
September 6, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's utterly ridiculous that they're hiding Palin away from tough questions - I mean there is less than two months until the election and she'll be a heartbeat away from the Presidency and we're not allowed to know anything about her other than what they want to tell us?
It's insanity - where is the outcry and outrage? Obama has been campaigning for 19 months and has been on the national stage since 2004 and one of the main criticisms you still here is "We don't know enough about him". There is a great diary over at daily kos that makes the case that Obama is being held to ridiculously high standards in comparison to McCain and Palin (read it here - http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9/6/11323/29759), and it's true.
The same folks who were calling Obama inexperienced and "unknown" even after living the past 20 months under a GE microscope are giddy over Sarah Palin, and questioning her experience (or lack there of) is deemed sexist, and the fact that she has been a national entity for a week and a day and hasn't spoke anything other than canned speeches isn't an issue with her. Why is that?? I think everybody knows why.
And you have CNN talking about a friggin' Ebay plane sale/non-sale. TALK ABOUT REAL ISSUES DAMMIT. Nobody is going to vote based on if Palin sold her plane on Ebay or not. What might effect their vote is her radical right views on abortion, her beliefs that creationism should be taught in schools, her lust for earmarks as Mayor and craving for pork as Governor that goes completely against the reformer identity she is pretending to be now. Instead of interviewing Walter Monegan regarding Troopergate, they interview Mark Wooten. Rev. Wright was all over the news for weeks, and Palin's priest has equally offensive statements and she is seen in the front pew. Obama's judgment was questioned for allowing his daughters to sit in Rev. Wrights church - where is the questions about Palin's judgment?
What would have happened if Michelle or Jill was a member of a separatist political party? What would have been said if Obama had a pregnant 17 yr old and the father bragged about being thug life?
What if Obama had picked a complete unknown VP who then was hidden away from any media because "they might say the wrong thing, and isn't ready for interviews yet" blatantly admitting they're coaching the hell out of her, so we're going to see a robot spitting out pre-written lines to questions rather than allowing the country to see who she really is and deciding for ourselves. She's not a candidate, she is an image, a make believe "perfect running mate" that doesn't exist and the right is gaga over it and the left and the MSM is to damn scared to call the McCain camp on it.
It's all about lowering expectations, so when she doesn't totally suck everybody will see it as "see she isn't so bad".
There is so much ammo that could be used against McCain that isn't being used. Hell, search around youtube for a while and you can find vids that would make great attack ads.
September 6, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Questioning Palin's resume is not sexist. What is sexist is what Tena is doing upthread--questioning how a mother can raise 5 kids and be a VP. This question is not addressed to the fathers in the campaign.
Settle down about Palin not granting interviews. This is merely a ploy so the media big-names can commence the bidding for an interview--which will be granted after who knows how many "topics that can't be discussed" are agreed to.
When that happens, she'll be granting interviews. This is all a ploy and you're falling for it.
Sadly, you're an easy mark for the GOP.
September 6, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excuse me - that's not exactly what I said.
I am talking about priorities. You think having a 4 month old special needs infant doesn't mean anything?
You think it's sexist to suggest that women who choose to not plan their families also get to be vice president?
I don't think y'all really know what sexism is. The only thing they can offer women equally is the opportunity - not the job.
The job requires choices.
September 6, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dead-on, Ms. TenaX. Exactly so.
Please, everyone, chisel this one in stone. And stop throwing the "sexism" label around so loosely. It's not like being a woman gives Palin a free pass from tough questions.
September 6, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sexist schmexist.
She has a 6 month old special needs infant.
If Obama had a 6 month old with special needs at home and either 1) went on the road for months or 2) dragged the baby around to events like a prop to be handed off, the rightwing thugosphere would be outraged.
A 6 month old with special needs needs both their parents, period.
The use of this baby as a prop and the disregard for the baby's welfare is sickening.
The GOP crybabies are soooo pathetic. They toy with racism and sexism when its fun to do. But now the tables are turned and they are practically in tears. I guess we hurt their feelings by saying that Palin is a cynical nutcase who exploits her children.
Somebody call the waaaaaaaaaaahmbulance.
September 6, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you.
Some abstract notion of equality has got to include reality sometime and somewhere.
You cannot just serve some notion without considering the facts.
And I'll say it again - it's Equal Opportunity, not - Women are Guaranteed this Shot Regardless.
Just like it isn't: Men are Guaranteed this Shot Regardless.
September 6, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
i don't think you know what 'ploy' means.
September 6, 2008 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
And you don't know when to capitalize "I"....:)
September 6, 2008 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well-said.
There are no good options. Either the media and the Obama campaign will define her, or she will define herself, and neither is going to win John McCain this election.
The remedy for ADMITTED electoral failure is not reelection.
September 6, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
i'm with ya'...how long can it last? you would think all her baggage would sell *more* papers and airtime...
September 6, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here comes the next spasm of faux-patriotic outrage.
Before McCain speaks today, veterans will haul these garbage bags filled with flags out onto the stage — with dramatic effect, no doubt — and tell the story.
“What you see in the picture I sent you is less than half of total flags,” a Republican official emailed. “We estimate the total number to be around 12,000 small flags and one full size 3×5 flag.”
I’m not sure what the DNC was supposed to do with unused hand-flags, frankly. But the Republicans are obviously questioning someone’s patriotism here.
http://blogs.denverpost.com/opinion/2008/09/06/republican-recycling/
September 6, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
O Jesus.
What a stupid fucking stunt.
September 6, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Garbage bags are a fitting photo-op for McCain.
September 6, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
It looks like all of the sources are republican so lets see if there isn't alot more to this story. Not that anything won't stop the impending mediagasm.
September 6, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
The response should be, "the republicans have been trying to paint Barack Obama as unpatriotic throughout this campaign. Now they are trying to paint 80,000 American citizens as unpatriotic."
September 6, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
That response had better be handy, because Drudge linked to that report, and it's spreading around rightwing blogs.
I don't have a good feeling about this.
September 6, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
As usual Republicans can't win the argument over issues so their going to try and make this campaign about whatever faux outrage they can whip up. Was the cleanup crew Democratic operatives? Do we know that everyone of the flags that was put into the bags was done so by a Democrat? Sweet Jesus, I hate those people sometimes.
September 6, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder what the Republicans plan to do with the flags after they're done with them?
(No disrespect, but aesthetically the photo in the link reminds me of body bags.)
September 6, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder what the Republicans plan to do with all those flags after they're done with them? Ritual cremation?
(No disrespect, but aesthetically the photo in the link reminds me of body bags.)
September 6, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9/6/154021/9910/621/589257
September 6, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
As Josh pointed out, this was another inside Fox job of bringing up this issue. Total bullocks.
September 7, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Opportunity for women is just that - opportunity.
There are no guarantees. And just like men, if we want to play in that world, then we have to be totally dedicated to it, just like men.
That involves choices about what your priorities are and if you can't see that - wow. No one is going to make partner in a big law firm unless they dedicate themselves solely to their jobs.
Now why should the Vice President of the United States get to have that position without making any choices or having priorities that fit?
September 6, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
The women in my life, when discussing Palin's choices, see a clear distinction between Barak's two daughters, who are well out of the hourly care age and clearly able to cogitate on some level, including gavelling in the convention.
And then they look at Palin's family, twice the size, with very young children, a special needs infant, a daughter who really needs her support and not media headlights, and another infant on the way.
And then all the women in my life who have been willing to talk about Palin conclude, "she needs to be home with those kids." The unspoken word behind these words I hear is "selfishness."
September 6, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep.
Selfish, cynical.
I didn't see Barack tossing his daughters around the stadium for various people to photoop with.
The poor infant was getting manhandled and passed around like a football, all for cynical exploitation.
Somehow, the part with the infant really bothered me. All the noise, lights, people with potential viruses and colds -- no place for an infant, especially with special needs.
September 6, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep.
Selfish, cynical.
I didn't see Barack tossing his daughters around the stadium for various people to photoop with.
The poor infant was getting manhandled and passed around like a football, all for cynical exploitation.
Somehow, the part with the infant really bothered me. All the noise, lights, people with potential viruses and colds -- no place for an infant, especially with special needs.
September 6, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, Tena, you're flat-out saying that a woman wanting to be VP should have chosen to be childless or have already-grown children?
So the millions of women in this country who work AND who have children are apparently doomed to low-level jobs because they didn't "make the right choices".
September 6, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not just any kids. It's a brood of young children needing hourly care, an infant with D.S. and another infant on the way from a teenage mother.
There is a clear distinction here.
September 6, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only one needing frequent care is the infant; it seems to me the other kids are out of infancy. And the pregnant daughter will be caring for her infant unless you're suggesting that grandma needs to take on this task?
September 6, 2008 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
NO that isn't what I'm saying at all.
I'm saying that a woman of child bearing age needs to decide: family or career, if she's going to have 5 kids and one is an infant with special needs, she's chosen family.
Women do not get to have their cake and eat it too. It's that simple. We don't - nobody else does.
September 6, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm, so the issue is apparently the number of children; a "challenged" child immediately ends any high professional goals the woman may have; and perhaps the ages of the children?
Really spell this out for us, Tena.
September 6, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I spelled it out for you but the comment posted below - instead of here and I don't know why.
September 6, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's as simple as this, Cube. As women, we have the right to choose to reproduce. But, that right also carries responsibilities to rear the children that we produce. I don't see how Palin expects to do that, I'd like to see her discuss it, and give the millions of women in this country who are struggling every day to balance their own roles as mothers and professionals the opportunity to evaluate how well they think she'll be able to pull it off.
September 6, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
And, really, how does one define "pulling it off?" Children are made into people over the course of decades, longer than presidential cycles. Success cannot be known until it occurs, or it does not.
Since Sarah Palin thrust her children into the spotlight, we have every reason to question why, especially that poor Trig, passed up and down the line like a duffel bag. It was appalling the way they used those children.
Like it matters. Sarah Palin does not intend to answer any pesky questions about a goddamned thing.
September 6, 2008 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is a well known fact in Alaska that the Palin's have used their children as campaign props for years. Do your research folks. And you can jump all over Tena, but the bottom line is you do NOT accept a VP spot when you have a 5 month pregnant daughter who is suddenly national news and is forever now deprived of any privacy. Her life is over as she knew it, her story desperately sad and ridiculed at times, and now a marriage just because of a child, which is most likely doomed to failure, all for Sarah's ambition. Levi is on record as stating he did not want children. Opportunist he may be, but good father it does not make. In Sarah's shoes, as much as I might want to have the glory, it would not have been done forsaking my daughter. The answer sould have been "I am honored, and must regretfully decline. My child comes before my ego."
September 7, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is not about you.
September 6, 2008 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Their bounce is flattening out. Looks like they're not going to crack 46%, which has been their ceiling.
And what do they have left? The negative campaign isn't doing it for them. One half of their ticket can't even give interviews. Hillary goes on the campaign trail Monday, so we'll have three newsmakers out there. They're toast.
September 6, 2008 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ditto.
September 6, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has fallen 6 points in 4 days in the Gallup 3-day rolling average tracker, down to a 2-point lead today. Look for McCain to be ahead by Monday morning's Gallup tracker.
Obama and Biden are in a no win position vis-a-vis Sarah the moosehunter. If they ignore her as she slashes them, they lose. And if they attack her, they look like bullies.
Biden will lose his debate with Sarah. If she's smart, she'll goad his snarky side into saying something demeaning that will dominate the headlines. Maybe bringing up his plagiarizing in law school and in 1987 would do the trick.
September 6, 2008 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
You keep saying that. Don't you think it's a problem that mcbush can't break 45 or 46 depending on the poll. Even after his selection of rambo of the north? Hello, he will not be higher than 45 or 46 on Monday. That is the issue.
They will ignore rambo and the media should as well until she sits down for interviews. No interviews, no free press from the media. Simple.
Biden will do fine in the debate. Rambo will look like a fool, like she did doing her attack dog speeches. Pathetic.
September 6, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. Amazing. It does sound like we're in a no-win position.
So how come we're winning?
September 6, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
O that's just silly.
It's silly.
She's never been up against someone who actually knows what they are talking about.
September 6, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
So why does Sarah hide?
And why do you choode an Avatar who's only claim to fame was how easily he was discredited by a single person wileding the Truth?
September 6, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, that's an interesting way to portray the Stats, if you want to suggest that Obama/Biden are in a losing position. But, that's not the case.
If you look at the Gallup trend since August 26, just before the Democratic Convention started, Obama was 2 points behind McCain. He's been ahead of McCain and has held that lead in the two weeks since that time. Not a losing position.
Think about that. McCain presented his surprise VP pick and held his convention - he let loose with everything he had, even went in w/ a 2 point lead over Obama, and still can't pull ahead of him.
At this point, McCain is one point behind where he was when the Democratic Convention started and Obama is 2 points ahead of where he started.
Not a losing position for Obama.
The Obama/Biden ticket got their bounce and the McCain/Palin got theirs. However, the McCain/Palin bounce wasn't sufficient to overcome Obama/Biden's, so he is going into these last 2 months trailing Obama. McCain is in the weaker position here.
September 6, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
The polls shouldn't worry Obama at all at this point. I confess I am a bit worried about Intrade, however, which has him going down lately. I have more faith in them than in the polls.
September 6, 2008 10:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
The longer they hide Sarah the better. On Monday, Clinton goes on the attack in Florida. They state that she will not attack Sarah, but rather John Bush. But my guess is that it will in regards to women's issues and health care. Because this is Hillary the press is going to try to make it a smack down between the two women (she didn't make all those cracks so that this creationist, anti-abortionist, abstinance-only wingnut could get into the WH). If Sarah doesn't come out to defend John Bush, it will be one more victory for our side.
September 6, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed.
September 6, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
The strategy of hiding Palin, who's obviously afraid of the press, seems kinda dumb in light of the fact that there will be three prominent Democrats campaigning for the Democrats and one Republican.
September 6, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, totally! There is no route to reelection through hiding from the press. None. Zero. Zip.
September 6, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which only goes to say just how badly they fear her talking spontaneously to the press. Just would love to have a video of those tutorial sessions with Eskew and company.
September 6, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Paging Kristen Wiig? Kristen Wiig, please come to the prop department to pick up your rimless glasses.
September 6, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe the last CNN poll mentioned in New Mexico mentioned 53 for Obama and 40 McWar, so I don't understand, that headline where the 2 are locked in a tight race...
I guess Erik is using the Republicans propaganda?
Or maybe Erik needs some help with reading the polls.
September 6, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was one poll...but, I just wonder how the Barracuda will resonante with the Hispanics. My guess not so much. In fact it will probably put in the dynamic for every vote she brings in for John, there is another 1.5 to 2 votes running as fast in the other direction.
September 6, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't either and the disconnect between reality and what is reported about the polls is really bugging me -
September 6, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nate Silver has Obama leading in NM outside of the margin of error, according to their algorithm that takes all of the leading polls into account:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/
It's still close, but I wouldn't call it a tight race. Nevertheless, all of the Southwest should be considered in play and CO and NV are still definitely swinging.
September 6, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
At the risk of looking too far ahead, when McCain losses, Sarah Palin will be the Repub nominee in 2012. Huckabee and Romney see the signals. Those two are hoping Troopergate becomes a real issue because their political future is depending on it. They will vote for Obama in Nov.
September 6, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nah, I don't think that she will. If mcbush gets slaughtered, she will share some of the blame. Also, what in the f*ck has rambo done? Zippo. I don't see it. I think that she is a flash in the pan that will flame out and head back to cicely alaska. She is way to extreme for middle america.
September 6, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
If I had to lay money, I would bet we see something like a Romney-Jindal ticket in 2012.
The fundies are a powerful minority in the GOP, but I think they're still a minority. No way Palin can win. Huckabee might come closer, but I think the powers that be are still capable of locking him out. But the precedent that has been established this year -- that they get a veto on the VP pick -- has powerful implications down the line.
September 6, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dr Zalius, i guessyou forgot who wrote the women act...
Where was the pitbull when Biden wrote the act?
It will just need to mention this, and a few other things...
anyhow the pitbull has no class, and she will appear mean...
September 6, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dr Zalius, i guessyou forgot who wrote the women act...
Where was the pitbull when Biden wrote the act?
It will just need to mention this, and a few other things...
anyhow the pitbull has no class, and she will appear mean...
September 6, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, as Josh points out, they are trying to obstruct justice in Alaska by trying to influence this investigation.
Isn't that interesting - the whole thing is about abuse of power and trying to obstruct justice in her sister's divorce case.
September 6, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
If they have to obstruct justice in family court, it really tells you not only how far they've fallen, but how terriby fearful they are of what might come out.
September 6, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well yeah - they're scared to death.
In fact, I suspect McLame is fit to be tied. I think he really does hate Bush, but he's totally tied to him, for some reason he is in thrall to whatever Bush wants from him and he lashed out with this veep choice and it's bitten him hard in the butt.
I bet he is epically pissed at all the crap he has to deal with now.
September 6, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
See above, Sarah Palin affair, news to break ( I hope, McCain is big time damage control and now running Alaska) and also, he surely does not want the word "affair" anywhere near him, Mr. dip it where he could/can.
September 7, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
And here is Obama today in Indiana (where it is a statistical dead heat) on Sarah:
"I know the governor of Alaska has been, you know, saying she is change. And that is great. She is a skillful politician. But when you been taking all these earmarks when it is convenient and then suddenly you are the champion anti-earmark person. That is not change, come on. I mean, words mean something. You can't just make stuff up. You can’t just make stuff up. We have a choice to make and the choice is clear."
No we won't back down. We'll give them the truth and they'll feel like it's hell.
September 6, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I got a label for her, the "earmark queen." That works. Alaska is no. 1 in receipt of earmarks. If the shoe fits, wear it.
September 6, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now if we can just get all the surrogates to slip this into everything they say...
September 6, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the shoe fits...
The national average for earmarks: $50 per person annually.
Alaska's average: $500 per person.
Wasilla under Palin, 2002: nearly $1,000 per person.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94266091
September 6, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's really disturbing when you think about it is that alaska doesn't even need any earmarks. Alaska is so flush with cash that the state gives $'s back to the people every year. If any place shouldn't be getting any earmarks in this country, it would be alaska. Pathetic.
September 6, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
YES! But he needs to say that it was *McMaverick's* own watchdog group that singled out Palin's earmarks. Jeebus, thats gold.
September 6, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
They're probably working on the ad right now.
September 6, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Didn't Obama request $750 million in earmarks for his wife's hospital?
If he did, then he's right. Nobody in this election represents change.
September 6, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, you're wrong. Obama's total earmark requests was $740 million. Out of that, $1 million was requested for a new pavillion at the University of Chicago Hospital where Michelle Obama worked. That was entirely in line with requests for other hospitals of that size including $5 million for Northwester Memeorial Hospital. Regardless, from everything I've read, the request for U of Chicago was not approved.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/14/obama-wanted-earmarks-for_n_91546.html
September 6, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
The difference is that Senator McCain has repeatedly pointed out that he has never accepted an earmark, and has castigated anyone who does accept them (including his own fellow nominee). Senator Obama considers earmarks to be part of his job as Senator and sees no shame in trying to help his constituents.
Earmarks are not a bad thing. They became a talking point when they are slipped into bills at the last minute in an attempt to hide them from the public. Senator Obama's earmark for an Illinois hospital which happened to employ his wife was completely transparent.
September 6, 2008 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well put.
People rail against earmarks but don't seem to mind when the money comes to their community. How many people in these hardcore red states who scream about wasteful government spending are refusing the money? It reminds me of polls about congress....people feel highly negative about congress as a whole, yet consistently give THEIR own congressman high marks and re-elect them over and over again. It's the equivalent of the NIMBY syndrome.
September 6, 2008 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Am I alone in thinking let them have Lieberman now? Let them have the senate now? They'll loose it at the end of the year and they will get the blame for whatever comes out of there between now and election day.
September 6, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
No I think we all agree - take Droopy, please, GOP - we don't want him.
September 6, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Lie-berman switches we get Hagel to switch to our side for the remainder of his term. Period. We too can play that game. Weasel Joe.
September 6, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Breaking: Sarah Palin to be in charge of energy policy in the McCain administration.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/johnmccain/2693998/Sarah-Palin-to-be-energy-independence-chief-in-John-McCains-government.html
September 6, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
That ought to be a fucking bonanza for Big Oil. What a shocker. This woman is a rank amatuer whose Energy credentials consist of her signature on a license for a pipeline that may never be built, but will cost Alaska $400 million anyhow.
Great choice. We'll drill our way to a nickel's savings at the gas pump 15 years from now. That's the way to "catch up to the future".
September 6, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's McCain's specifics on the energy policy. I think this election is slowly going to the Republicans.
September 6, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Lalo. After the two best days of polling the Republicans should have all year, and they still can't take the lead in any of the polls. What makes you think this? Is the metal plate in your head beginning to ring?
September 6, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah yes. The missing piece of their policy puzzle. Appoint Caribou Barbie to be the public face of drilling in ANWR!! Why didn't I think of that? Now those trend lines on Pollster will surely reverse themselves!!!
September 6, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
hmmmm...... you may be right. It's better to have Biden's son working on further banking reform.
September 6, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Watching Palin introduce McCain in CO on CNN....did you know he was a POW?
Now McCain is on, trying on his new "Stand Up! Stand Up!Change is Coming!" high-energy persona. What a freaking joke of a ticket this is. McCain just intro'd Cindy saying, "people always ask me, why isn't she the candidate?"
Well, becuase we don't need a vapid, medicated heiress as our President. A doddering old moron and his wing nut VP is bad enough.
September 6, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's very energized, isn't he?
Was there anything about the discarded flags?
September 6, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stand up! Stand up! Fight!! Fight!! Kill the gooks!! Man the guns!! Once more into the breach!!
Republican speechwriters seem to be nostalgic for their glory days, circa AD 1315.
September 6, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
More Joe Klein, giving them hell!!
http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/09/no_actually_its_that_the_econo.html
September 6, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Go Klein!!!!
September 6, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, I will.
If Equal Opportunity is an absolute, regardless of circumstances, then why is it that anyone in this country who really wants a career of power and money has to make sacrifices? Don't tell me that men don't make sacrifices for their careers.
IF Sarah Palin's husband is going to take care of the kids, he will have to QUIT HIS JOB.
Case closed.
End of story. That's how it works -one of the parents has to be a parent and whoever it is is going to have to concentrate on the children, not a high powered career.
September 6, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, Tena, this is your stereotype on how a career woman should be. And it's called sexism when you have these stereotypes for a sex.
Palin's family life has more support in it that you acknowledge or consider important. Her parents step in; her two siblings step in; and her spouse steps in. It also seems to me that within her family, the siblings step in to help out. This allowed her to step into the governor's job and still have support for her immediate family. It seems most Alaskans aren't "punishing" Palin for these choices--although I'm sure we could find some dissenters.
It's CHOICE I'm supporting here. Now, I don't support Palin's far-right political positions.
But I support the parent who stays home to raise pre-school children; the person who decides not to have children; the parent who works and has a range of poor to excellent support systems within families and friends.
There are certainly plenty of families in America doing a balancing act across all economic strata--think of the parent deploying to Iraq where balance is not even seeing your kids for an extended period of time.
So, no, you don't get how I can support different choices that folks make instead of trying to shove every parent into pre-selected boxes.
So be it.
September 7, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
New to this scene.
I confess I was about an inch away from voting Nader because faith-based initiatives make my skin creep. Not what I expected from the Democratic candidate. And I figured that if my life-long party was too stupid to remember they lost in 2000 bleeding out on the liberal side, well, let them lose again. With the timetable for withdrawal in Iraq set, there's no blood on my hands if we lose.
But of course, that was back when it was easy to believe George W. Bush was the absolute worst thing they could throw at us.
Now the Melanoma Maverick has lobbed a book-banning, creationist, handgrenade straight at the heart of the Constitution. Honestly, who cares if you uphold the 2nd Amendment if you're going to dismantle the first? The Constitution is not an a la carte menu.
So anyway, I'm back in the fold. And I say, let the good governor from Alaska know, she's not safe up in the airplane shooting down at the wolves anymore. They're howling right outside her door. And, in her own (alleged) words, Sambo's gonna beat the bitch, again.
September 6, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for coming back.
But I have to add that if you think there's no blood on anyone's hands if McCain wins, think about the wars we might get stuck in through his clumsy saber-rattling.
September 6, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Welcome back, Igra. I admit, I've had my share of issues w/ the Dems, as well. But, ya know, they're not the Repubs. And, despite the flaws, there is much to love about the Obama/Biden ticket. Nothing's perfect, but I think this one is worth fighting for.
September 6, 2008 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama fired back at Palin today:
“I know the governor of Alaska has been, you know, saying she is change,” Obama said at a town hall meeting here. “And that is great. She is a skillful politician. But when you [have] been taking all these earmarks when it is convenient and then suddenly you are the champion anti-earmark person.
“That is not change, come on,” Obama continued. “I mean, words mean something. You can’t just make stuff up. You can’t just make stuff up. We have a choice to make and the choice is clear.”
Honeymoon is over. More, please.
http://pufferfish.typepad.com/
September 6, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama fired back at Palin today:
“I know the governor of Alaska has been, you know, saying she is change,” Obama said at a town hall meeting here. “And that is great. She is a skillful politician. But when you [have] been taking all these earmarks when it is convenient and then suddenly you are the champion anti-earmark person.
“That is not change, come on,” Obama continued. “I mean, words mean something. You can’t just make stuff up. You can’t just make stuff up. We have a choice to make and the choice is clear.”
Honeymoon is over. More, please.
http://pufferfish.typepad.com/
September 6, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another thing that's worth noting: Obama opening up a new line of attack on McCain's hostility to Social Security. That's extremely promising. McCain relies heavily on the over-50 vote, and yet he's got a pretty skeezy record on this issue -- having supported the Bush privatization initiative.
We haven't said much about Social Security, and I've suspected that it was being saved for the final stretch.
September 6, 2008 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
On a number of issues like SS, I think they waited to hit McCain until after the convention. Especially due to the latest of both of them, people are going to see any changes on policies post-convention as pandering and just telling people what they want to hear. So now when Johnny tell the AARP he's all for SS, he sounds like a liar. I only saw a snipet of when John was up there answering questions, but the crowd didn't seem to be too enthusiastic and he looked like he wanted to get out of there as fast as possible.
September 6, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
He can - all he'll have to do is QUIT HIS JOB.
Do you get this now or not? Someone has to be a parent. IF he wants to do that, fine - but he'll have to SACRIFICE HIS OWN CAREER BECAUSE ONE OF THEM HAS TO.
One of them cannot have a highpowered career or the kids will raise themselves.
September 6, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another thing that's worth noting: Obama opening up a new line of attack on McCain's hostility to Social Security. That's extremely promising. McCain relies heavily on the over-50 vote, and yet he's got a pretty skeezy record on this issue -- having supported the Bush privatization initiative.
We haven't said much about Social Security, and I've suspected that it was being saved for the final stretch.
September 6, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Social Security just may be one of McShame's achilles tendons. Obama needs to attack him relentlessly on the issue, especially with the elderly who depend on it. He should run commercials that depict McShame's voting record everytime a social security issue was before the Senate all the way back to his freshman years. He needs force McShame to account for his voting record to the very people he's trying to take it away from.
September 6, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
He can - all he'll have to do is QUIT HIS JOB.
Do you get this now or not? Someone has to be a parent. IF he wants to do that, fine - but he'll have to SACRIFICE HIS OWN CAREER BECAUSE ONE OF THEM HAS TO.
One of them cannot have a highpowered career or the kids will raise themselves.
September 6, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
After all the hoopla this week, does anyone else wish the Democratic Convention had been held after the GOP's?
Sigh.
I miss the high that I felt during the Dem convention.
September 6, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nope. Hurricanes!
September 6, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I forgot about the hurricanes. That's how bad this Palin chaos has been.
September 6, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do hate McCain, though, for stepping on the glow of Barack's speech. That was a beautiful night.
September 6, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, hey if McCain hadn't done it, the MSM would have.
September 6, 2008 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
For what its worth, I keep hearing that the expectations for Palin to survive the VP debates are set low. As long as she can walk off the stage with her head held high, that's considered sufficient. Strange. I would think if a person is nominated to the the VP, the expectations would be set high, not low. Does mediocrity trump knowledge? Are Republicans measured by a different scale than Democrats? It's not my intent to be sarcastic. I'm just asking if being a woman changes the rules, because it sure looks that way.
September 6, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
How the hell did expectations get set this low in this country?
This is patently absurd.
It's one reason I am so damn mad - noone lowered expectations for me or for any other woman I know. In law school we didn't even put our names on our exams - they don't know who is who = nobody lowered one damn thing for me because I am a woman.
No one gave me any breaks - for any reason.
This is absolutely the hugest insult to women ever!!!!!!!!!
September 6, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
No one's lowering any expectations for women. See "Democratic Primary, 2008."
The media do sometimes set a lower bar for Republicans, because otherwise they would have a hard time making the argument look "balanced," and they would lose all their dumber viewers.
But just you wait. Why d'you think the McCain people aren't letting Palin speak to the press?
Because all the half-decent reporters in this country -- especially female reporters who have worked for everything they got -- are itching to throw Caribou Barbie a few tough questions. I don't envy her.
September 6, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know no one lowered them for Hillary just like it took Americans how long to "get to know" Barrack Obama and this woman turns up and a week later everybody "knows" her - and she's in hiding?
I'm insulted deeply by this ultra-cynical ploy of the GOP to foist this totally unprepared woman on us. I keep saying this - it's an insult to women who are competent, who did sacrifice to get where they are, who did make hard choices, and who did have to fight for their position.
It's such an insult.
September 6, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. It's insulting.
I really hope this move blows up in their face, because the lesson would be a healthy one.
September 6, 2008 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay so since Obama appeared on the Factor and faced down O'Reilly, when in Palin going to grant an hour long interview to Olberman?
September 6, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
LMAO!!!!
O I would so pay a lot of money to see that.
September 6, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Breaking news, people. Governor Palin has done her first interview. And it's with a serious news outlet!!
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122002155637283431.html
As you'll see, however, they focus pretty tightly on one of her core areas of expertise.
September 6, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
"serious news outlet"? You are kidding right? A murdoch rag is not a serious news outlet. Another puff piece for rambo. What a joke.
September 6, 2008 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
O Holy shit - why didn't they devote half of that one to her makeup and recipes, too?
I mean come on -
September 6, 2008 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Personally, I was impressed by Governor Palin's expertise on this topic. If you want to be sarcastic, go right ahead, but I think it's important to know everything we can about our future vice-president's views on this important subject. Great pictures, too!
September 6, 2008 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah - you just get off on looking at our future vice-president's legs.
Uh uh - I know you do.
LOL
September 6, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Incidentally, since she has opened her mouth, I find her repulsive and ugly. It's funny how it works that way. Cest la vie.
September 6, 2008 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Beauty is on the inside. As a straight man I have no problem saying that Obama's a beautiful dude.
September 6, 2008 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't get me started.
I will confess that I surprised myself during Clinton's administrations by having erotic dreams about him and about Al Gore - don't ask me why!
But Barrack Obama is the first candidate I've ever had this kind of crush on. He is a beautiful man. O my god - his walk!
I haven't seen a better walk, even on Niccola, my Italian guide and the sexiest man on two legs who did walk like a panther -
September 6, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Frickin' elitist snob.
September 6, 2008 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Al Giordano (http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield) identifies the following "Apocalyptic 8" as the final States that we should really focus on in the ground game between now and October 5 for registering voters. If you live near these States and can pitch in, please do so. It can make all the difference on Nov 4:
Florida 27
Ohio (20 EVs)
Michigan (17 EVs)
Virginia (13 EVs)
Colorado (9 EVs)
Nevada (5 EVs)
New Mexico (5 EVs)
New Hampshire (4 EVs)
September 6, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, CarolBG, my impression of New Mex is that it belongs to Obama. But lately I have been questioning my impressions.
I think we need more Obama - I miss the convention.
September 6, 2008 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed about NM. Part of Al's criteria in narrowing down the battleground states to focus on is based on Nate Silver's "return on investment index." In other words, for each of these States, how likely are we to actually win in these places if we continue to pump resources in there? These are the 8 that he chooses as priorities for heavy investment in the ground game in terms of voter registration in these final 4 weeks, as they are likely to give good return on the investment.
September 6, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
That makes perfect sense and I don't think the state is all tied up by any means.
Resources spent here are going to be well-spent - whether time, money - whatever.
September 6, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Given the states and voter registration drives, I think the observations are correct. The bonus is this activity puts additional pressure in 15 to 20 states that were basically conceded in the past. In short it seems that part of the strategy is for McCain campaign to pop as a thin rubber band; this was evident in the primaries, with the exception of a few states Obama had significant field operations in most.
In large part it will be about the number of folks who are encouraged to show up......
September 6, 2008 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think that's even just a large part of it - that's it.
The conventional wisdom - and I guess it was always born out by party registration numbers - is that high turnout=Democrats win.
And in this election - especially if you saw what Josh posted this morning about the number of new Democrats we've registered and how they GOP has in those same states lost more voters than we've picked up, then it's clear.
If turnout is high - and god, I can't imagine it won't be - we ought to win.
September 6, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Until I hear them talk more about what Todd Palin is doing to be a full-time Dad than I do about his union job and his snowmobiling, I'm going to find their choices questionable.
Maybe, in fact, there's a full-time nanny somewhere in the picture -- that would be one way to handle a stressful situation. But that wouldn't fit the image they are selling, would it?
I'd guess some of the women who are reacting most negatively to this are the ones who *have* made hard choices when hard choices had to be made. Because suggesting that there isn't a choice to be made -- that you can be a typical hockey mom and vice president too -- is underestimating both the demands of motherhood, and the demands of the vice-presidency.
September 6, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, beautifully stated.
September 6, 2008 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
To say nothing of the long-term effects of exposing her children to a huge audience, most of whom do not share their views because Palin's are so outside the mainstream.
Each day she refuses to answer a few simple questions about policy, vision, what she needs to do to help John McCain win, another inch of hide comes off those kids in the end.
It's probably too late. The lights are about to be turned up to the "Solar Corona" setting.
September 6, 2008 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
O thank you. That's exactly my point, but you made it so beautifully and so succinctly.
Thank you.
September 6, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
No problem. She's got her adult son-in-law and her almost-adult daughter to look after the kids.
How could they be in better hands?
September 6, 2008 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rips them a new one re: Paulin hiding-
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/
September 6, 2008 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
What really is kinda funny, we all know why they are not allowing her to do interviews and they are keeping her in hiding. She doesn't know shit about anything, so they are trying to give her a crash course before they release her for interviews, if they ever do. It really is transparent and pathetic. Hopefully, it will come out in the debate. I don't think that she is that smart to pick everything up in such a short amount of time.
September 6, 2008 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even Obama could not pick up the World's Issues in (SQUAWK!) 60 days. She will be buried in briefing books where her zealous self-interest will help her as much as her faux glasses.
If she is not ready TODAY, that is for voters to decide TODAY. We are no longer in primary season, and there simply is no more time left to wait for rookies to never catch up.
tick tock tick tock.
SAAAAAAAARAH!! Come out, now! You sher can dish it, but you shore can't take it!
September 6, 2008 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
John Cole speculates that hiding her is less about prep work than about avoiding Troopergate questions.
September 6, 2008 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whew, what a great, nuanced comment. Thought for food! Thanks.
September 6, 2008 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
What the fuck convention were these people watching?
Also, how the fuck does Obama's lead among women in Rasmussen's latest tracking poll shrink from 14 to 7?
Finally, how the fuck do bullshit stories like "Operation Flag Rescue" see the light of day? How the fuck can the DNC make a mistake - leaving bags of flags behind, even if not destined for the trash - that allows this story to even emerge?
September 6, 2008 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Total answer to the whole comment:
Carl Cameron.
see the front page. ;)
September 6, 2008 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, that may answer the last question but not the first two.
Anyway, I don't know how accurate this is but the guy is local (Denver) and it sounds like while the flags probably weren't intended for the trash, they were left to sit there for a week. In this election, with the BS attacks against Obama's patriotism, that's a horrible mistake by the DNC...the flags should have been packed up that night or the next morning. It's the type of crap - and it's all BS but that never matters, does it - the GOP jumps all over - and the Dems should know it and be more careful. The explanations coming out from the DNC are kind of shoddy.
September 6, 2008 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's my understand that there never were any flags.
That's just a lie.
September 6, 2008 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
The DNC is not denying the existence of surplus flags or their presence at Mile High...read the updates in the HuffPo story. And I don't doubt their explanation re: what they were planning to do with the flags. But again, they shouldn't have been sitting there a week later. And, again, the statements coming from the DNC are weak. They need to include a bit more, "Fuck you...now shut up!" They look defensive and weak.
September 6, 2008 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because the Obama Campaign is allowing the GOP to frame Palin in the image they desire. The Obama camp should be shouting from the rooftops her real record on "reforming", her real beliefs on creationism, global warming, and abortion.
September 6, 2008 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
The convention ended less than 72 hrs ago; let is rest already!
September 6, 2008 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agree. The gloves need to come off. And I'll like to see more from Hillary than just her new catch phrase. (although it is a good one - it just doesn't say enough)
By the way, the AP story I linked to above is in the typical Fournier frame. This Daily News story about the same even is much more positive, although it also doesn't quote Hillary as saying anything about Palin other than the catch phrase.
September 6, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
That survey is bogus. More people think that McCain is better for the environment than Obama? What is not show is the political affliation of the respondents. Looks like they got a group stacked with Republicans way out of proportion to the population as whole.
September 6, 2008 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps a roomful of 78-year old Korean War vets and 75-year old church ladies? No shortage of them in the Tampa-St. Pete area. I sure hope so because if it was a true, balanced sample, I'm worried...I mean, is it really that easy for the GOP to pull the wool over voters' eyes? How the eff could you come away from the GOP convention thinking McCain offered better solutions on those issues than Obama when the topics were barely even discussed at said convention. Is getting up there and saying, "Community organizers are silly, I have a bunch of kids, I put a plane on eBay, I have scars, and I was a POW", all it takes?
September 6, 2008 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps a roomful of 78-year old Korean War vets and 75-year old church ladies? No shortage of them in the Tampa-St. Pete area. I sure hope so because if it was a true, balanced sample, I'm worried...I mean, is it really that easy for the GOP to pull the wool over voters' eyes? How the eff could you come away from the GOP convention thinking McCain offered better solutions on those issues than Obama when the topics were barely even discussed at said convention. Is getting up there and saying, "Community organizers are silly, I have a bunch of kids, I put a plane on eBay, I have scars, and I was a POW", all it takes?
September 6, 2008 7:30 PM | Reply | Permalink