It's good to know that McCain supports President Bush in his beliefs about fiscal discipline. President Bush has been the very model of fiscal discipline, right?

FROM CNN’s Jack Cafferty:
The world is watching our upcoming election here with bated breath, lots of interest and, more importantly, lots of optimism.
A new survey shows people around the globe believe the next American president will change our foreign policy for the better, especially if it’s Barack Obama.
The Pew poll spoke to 25,000 people in 24 countries. It found that in all but two nations, those surveyed put more faith in Obama than in John McCain to “do the right thing” when it comes to world affairs. A slim majority in the U.S. and Jordan favored McCain. Obama’s edge was largest in Western Europe, Australia, Japan, Tanzania and Indonesia.
The world doesn’t appear to have given up on us: about two-thirds of those polled in France, Spain, Germany, Nigeria, South Africa and Tanzania think U.S. foreign policy will get better after the inauguration of our next president. 20 of the 24 nations polled think our foreign policy will get better – rather than worse. Has to make President Bush all warm and fuzzy just thinking about it.
The director of the Pew project suggests Obama’s appeal has “crossed the waters”, maybe because of his opposition to the Iraq war or because of his “charismatic qualities” or because he’s different from typical presidential candidates.
Because the global community has so much riding on our next president, interest in this election is overwhelming in some places. In Japan, 83% are following the election closely… that’s more than in the U.S. Also, at least half of those polled in Germany, Australia Jordan and Britain are paying attention.

If JM is Prez, I guarantee his veto pen will be used on ridiculous spending bills.

If you Swami, I've said many times that Bush failed conservatives on one of conservative principals...spending. The only thing that stopped the spending was Bush brining out his veto pen once Dems took majority.

Dems restored pay-go before Bush figured out the "veto pen".

Dems restored pay-go before Bush figured out the "veto pen".

What? The farm bill comes to mind. What a travesty for American taxpayers to have our elected officials, on both sides, to pull that crap.

McCain isn't Bush, but he pandered so much to the Bush crowd in the wake of 2000 that he can't maintain straight talk with a straight face. Trying to bounce between the middle and right is turning him into a perpetual gaffe machine.

Panering? I'm not sure about that. To me, he is a man of conviction. I know thats hard for Dems to swallow, that a Republican could be a man of conviction, but I feel he is.

So I don't call it pandering as much as switching positions on issues when he things finally get through his stubborn head.

I don't mind a candidate changing positions as long as they simply go from being wrong, to being right. :)

By the way, isn't JM the only Senator to NOT ask for an 'earmark' for his state? I think thats correct.

You can say what you want, but JM WILL get spending under control.

Tahoe, perhaps you could give me an unbiased look:

What is McCain's stance on dealing with the oil crisis? Like it or not, that is putting a huge hole in America's pockets, taking away their normal spending money. I hear a lot of things, but I'm trying to get a good balanced look at it.

I think basically, BO agrees with JM and vice versa.

The only way I can aproach this is from my biased views. JM is such a douche on some of these things. But neither want to drill, I don't think either wants nuclear power. So NOTHING will change.

There is no short-term answer to reduce gas prices. IMO, we simply have to drill. JM is to much of an environmentalist. He won't drill off Florida, where the Chinese are already drilling, BUT WE CANT, he won't drill in the rockies, he won't drill in ANWR.

The difference between them might be, that BO just wants to tax oil companies. Theres a gem for ya. That'll make gas prices go down, yea right.

Thats all for now.

Panering? I'm not sure about that. To me, he is a man of conviction. I know thats hard for Dems to swallow, that a Republican could be a man of conviction, but I feel he is.

So I don't call it pandering as much as switching positions on issues when he things finally get through his stubborn head.
Turning to the right with Falwell, who he once labelled the "agent of intolerance" was pandering. The "issue" there was sucking up to evangelicals in preparation for a presidential run. The dude is getting whiplash trying to reconcile all the conservative and moderate statements he makes. At this point, I'm not even sure if he can remember all his contradictions, if he wanted to:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0608/McCain_DID_deliver_line_tweaking_press.html


I don't mind a candidate changing positions as long as they simply go from being wrong, to being right. :)
I liked McCain in 2000 a lot better than McCain in 2008. Heck, I even voted for him in the 2000 primary, and might've voted for him if Gore were the Dem.

I'll accept some of that. But BO is simply inexperienced. He was a state Senator just a couple, 3 years ago?

He's not ready for all that comes with the running the most powerfull gov'ts in the world.

Would General Motors or any other major company hire him with his experience as a CEO? I think not.

I think basically, BO agrees with JM and vice versa.

The only way I can aproach this is from my biased views. JM is such a douche on some of these things. But neither want to drill, I don't think either wants nuclear power. So NOTHING will change.
Obama's more open to nuclear power than Hillary was -- whatever works. McCain's pro-nuclear, definitely. He's been trying to tie nuclear subsidies to eco legislation for awhile.


There is no short-term answer to reduce gas prices. IMO, we simply have to drill. JM is to much of an environmentalist. He won't drill off Florida, where the Chinese are already drilling, BUT WE CANT, he won't drill in the rockies, he won't drill in ANWR.
The Chinese aren't drilling in Florida.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-06-12-cheney-oil_N.htm


The difference between them might be, that BO just wants to tax oil companies. Theres a gem for ya. That'll make gas prices go down, yea right.

Thats all for now.
Keep in mind that our presence in Iraq constitutes a huge subsidy to them.

Ok, its our understanding that the Chinese aren't drilling yet. But they can drill 60 miles off the coast of Florida and WE CANT?

Thats crazy.



"It is our understanding that, although Cuba has leased out exploration blocks 60 miles off the coast of southern Florida, which is closer than American firms are allowed to operate in that area, no Chinese firm is drilling there," according to the statement.

Cuba clearly is interested in developing its deep-water oil resources, estimated at more than 5 billion barrel, including areas within 60 miles of Key West, Fla., energy experts said.

^what was it like in years were the primary race was this close/late in the season?

IMO, there was really only one that was close this late and (correct me if I'm wrong) that would be Carter Kennedy. And oddly enough, it was one of the more ugly nominations on the Dems side.

Did I hear this correctly?

Did McCain actually say that if he's elected that he'll ask Dick Cheney to be in his cabinet?

I hope that's true.

He might want to lock him in his cabinet.

After JM came out and lambasted Rummy on his handling of the military in Iraq, I think that pretty much signaled the end to any relationship between these 2.

I think JM included Dick in that lambasting too.

Probably not the best way to seperate yourself from Bush.

18 years ago, the guy told a bad joke, got an earful, and apologized for it. But he's stlll persona non grata?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/06/mccain-cancels.html

This is guilt by association taken a little too far. There's plenty of other contemporary reasons why it might not make sense for McCain to hang with the dude (e.g. he's part of the oil establishment), but crap dates back to dumbass stuff from 18 years ago?

Of course, I'm a man, so I'm inherently insensitive.

A Hillary pledged delegate says she'll vote for McCain over Obama:

http://www.jsonline.com/watch/?watch=1&date=6/13/2008&id=41516

Bwahaha...

As for the "most liberal" or "most conservative" senator stuff, these guys are ascertaining that based off objective voting pattern analysis (as distinct from a pundit characterizing particular votes). It's true "science" within political science, a rarity:

http://voteview.com/sen110.htm

It also has the advantage of passing the "common sense" test all along the political spectrum. Obama isn't as liberal as Feingold or Sanders the socialist. RINOs and conservative Democrats are easily identified and side-by-side. The metholodology checks out over time, in many parliamentary contexts, etc.

Dar6K6UjC_4

Gore endorses Obama and promises to help him

By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer
2 minutes ago

FLINT, Mich. - Al Gore is endorsing Barack Obama and promising to help the Democrat achieve what eluded him — the presidency. In a letter to be e-mailed to Obama supporters, the former vice president and Nobel Prize winner wrote, "From now through Election Day, I intend to do whatever I can to make sure he is elected president of the United States."

In 2000, Gore won the popular vote but lost the disputed 2000 election to George W. Bush, who captured Florida and its electoral votes after a divided Supreme Court ended the recount. Since then, Gore has made combatting global warming his signature issue, and has been recognized worldwide for his effort — from an Academy Award for a documentary for his effort to the Nobel prize.

"Over the past 18 months, Barack Obama has united a movement. He knows change does not come from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue or Capitol Hill. It begins when people stand up and take action," Gore wrote. "With the help of millions of supporters like you, Barack Obama will bring the change we so desperately need in order to solve our country's most pressing problems."

The former vice president also asked for donations to help fund Obama's effort — the first time he's asked members of his Web site AlGore.com to contribute to a political campaign.

Gore is one of the most popular figures in the Democratic Party, but he kept a low profile in the primary campaign. He's planning to appear with Obama at a rally in Detroit Monday night.

The new mayor of Detroit was also on hand to introduce Obama:

http://www.wxyz.com/content/news/2008vote/story.aspx?content_id=6c1e0ad6-e892-4f43-ad65-454ca4a36e0e

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3125/2587078073_2dd452fa82.jpg?v=0
Euu_DMhsXQo

I don't know, when I wear my partisan hat, I kind of hope BO parades Gore all around the auto industry.

I don't know, when I wear my partisan hat, I kind of hope BO parades Gore all around the auto industry.

There might be a lot that they could learn from him.

He could make them a lot of money, lol.

quinnipiac poll out yesterday has Obama with huge bumps in PA and OH, and LEADING FLORIDA.....in fact leading outside the MOE.

Mxy and I were both sure he had little to no shot in Florida, but allow me to restate my opinion. BO can win Florida, but if he does, it doesn't matter beause he'll have 300 other electoral votes already.

The true mayor of Detroit was also on hand to introduce Obama:

http://www.wxyz.com/content/news/2008vote/story.aspx?content_id=6c1e0ad6-e892-4f43-ad65-454ca4a36e0e

Fixed.

Also, Olberman has lost touch.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5t42m_billups-two_school

I'm John McCain and I approve this message for all the ladies out there...
3lhomInJ7Pc

LOL

quinnipiac poll out yesterday has Obama with huge bumps in PA and OH, and LEADING FLORIDA.....in fact leading outside the MOE.

Mxy and I were both sure he had little to no shot in Florida, but allow me to restate my opinion. BO can win Florida, but if he does, it doesn't matter beause he'll have 300 other electoral votes already.
I'm not buying it in Florida, despite McCain wanting to do offshore drilling (which isn't a winning issue with most oil-rich coastal states, even with the gas prices being high). Florida has a gay marriage amendment on the ballot. In a presidential year in particular, that's gonna mobilize the Republican base to show up in droves. McCain will be secondary to why a lot of the social conservatives will be at the polls, but they'll vote for him just the same. If McCain feels the least bit threatened, he takes Charlie Crist as VP.

I agree that if Obama wins Florida, it'll be a landslide and he won't need Florida to win.

Did he say he wanted to drill off Florida? This might be splitting hairs, but I heard him say that it should be up to the states.

It started out as him being in favor of the ban (along with every Republican who wants to win Florida), then an unconditional lifting of the offshore drilling ban (which Crist publicly came out against), then quickly to a "states decide on lifting the ban" stance (which Crist was ok with).

The hard part is that potential ecological damage from offshore drilling doesn't always line up with political boundaries conveniently.

I feel the JM move was prolly one of his better moves so far. States rights are a conservative issue. So it kind of works, imo. He's just slightly to the right of BO on the issue.

He isn't necesarily saying we 'should' drill, but if states want to, it should be their right, not a federal thing.

Also, Olberman has lost touch.


Or he knows about the Melo deal already.

~cue X-Files theme~

The recent Rasmussen polls showing McCain with the edge in swing states also show Bush approval ratings at about 50%.

Obama opted out of public campaign financing. McCain opted in.

McCain decided to demonstrate his CiC judgement by making a campaign stop in Iowa even when the governor told him to stay away for awhile owing to the statewide emergency.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hCgJQSbPH0PrgwYGBShq2bJSAtUwD91DGN4O2

Obama hasn't yet weighed in on the most recent FISA shenanigans. He's been too busy apologizing to two Detroit Muslim women who are making an issue because Obama volunteers did the RIGHT thing by not having them and their Muslim headwear be part of the backdrop on national TV.

Supposedly, there's a catfight between Cindy McCain and Michelle Obama about who's most proud of their country and for how long, and even Laura Bush came to Michelle Obama's defense.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080619.OBAMA19/TPStory/TPInternational/America/

Of course, John McCain "really didn't love America until [he] was deprived of her company", but apparently Michelle Obama's more attack-worthy.

Obama and Kerry forced Bush to close KBR tax loopholes. But of course, Democrats collectively still appear to be megawimps on FISA, providing enough "same shit different day" ammo to undermine themselves once again.

Wouldn't people have been more concerned about Obama's judgement if he had turned down the nearly 3-to-1 advantage that he has in campaign cash?

Seems like a no-brainer to turn down the public funds. He's still getting public funds, he's just getting it $20 at a time and getting it from, well, the public.

I do wish that instead of trying to pass this off as a semantics lesson that his campaign would just come out and say, "he changed his mind". Only in politics is it a bad thing to change your mind when more detailed information presents itself.

The recent Rasmussen polls showing McCain with the edge in swing states also show Bush approval ratings at about 50%.



The ones I saw yesterday on CNN had Obama ahead by 6-10 points in Michigan, Ohio, Penn and Florida.

I do wish that instead of trying to pass this off as a semantics lesson that his campaign would just come out and say, "he changed his mind". Only in politics is it a bad thing to change your mind when more detailed information presents itself.
He didn't flip-flop here, unless you take him out of context. The supposed "pledge" he took was semantic-laden. He left himself wiggle room to get out of it, and he did. The worst you can say is "typical politician".

There's some flip-flops to Obama (e.g. gun control, gas tax, flag pin, death penalty), but this isn't one of 'em.

The ones I saw yesterday on CNN had Obama ahead by 6-10 points in Michigan, Ohio, Penn and Florida.
They weren't Rasmussen polls. My comment was specific to Rasmusssen polls.

I saw peeps up-in-arms cuz some reporter asked MO about her 'proud' statement. Then the media gets behind her and says shes not a candidate leave her alone.

The same media grills Cindy McCain on the statement, trying to get her to mess up or give them some news.

BTW... do you guys like the 'NEW' BO? Do you like the new Michelle O?

They've been doing quite a makeover or new marketing of the 2.

Yes, media biass. Nothing is fair. Wives of Presidencial candidates always hate America. Getting zingers in on your oppenent's mispoken words matters. What people wear matters. 24/7 coverage is important.
I can't stand politics

Mxy, do you know how many Republican voters there are and Democratic voters there are?

I heard that BO's 71% of Dems is much greater than JM 81% of Reps. So obviously, there are a helluva lot more Dems.

Mxy, do you know how many Republican voters there are and Democratic voters there are?

I heard that BO's 71% of Dems is much greater than JM 81% of Reps. So obviously, there are a helluva lot more Dems.
In a broad context, I don't really have a good handle on those figures.

Depending on the particular state you're talking about, there's strong and weak notions of "registered Republican" and "registered Democrat", which are subsets of people who reliably vote one way or another, which are subsets of the people who reliably say they're one or the other to a pollster but rarely/never vote.

There's a popular consensus that there's more Democrats than Republicans "out there", that voter apathy is the only reason Democrats don't rule the country consistently. There's constant talk about how Republicans win by "suppressing" the turnout. I don't actually buy that popular consensus in a nationwide context.

Funny you would ask Tahoe--Todays Newsweek:


55 percent of all voters call themselves Democrats or say they lean toward the party while just 36 percent call themselves Republicans or lean that way.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/142465?from=rss

says Obama got that bounce you were looking for. Now up 15 pts, 51-36.

BO said If I thought that drilling would help Americans at the gas pumps, I'd consider it"

IMO, that just gave JM a hole big enough to drive a truck through. It gives JM the supply/demand argument.

Rasmussen Reports Poll

62% of Americans agree iwth JM position in favor of drilling.

27% of Americans agree with BO's position against drilling.

Rassmussen Daily Tracking Poll on General Election

BO 45%
JM 41%

BO said If I thought that drilling would help Americans at the gas pumps, I'd consider it"

IMO, that just gave JM a hole big enough to drive a truck through. It gives JM the supply/demand argument.
Tahoe, do you think it'd made any short-term dent in the pumps?

If so, why? What reason do you think this lowering in prices will happen?

He thinks the almighty US claiming they will drill will scare down the prices. Something of the such, if I'm not mistaken.

Tahoe, do you think it'd made any short-term dent in the pumps?

If so, why? What reason do you think this lowering in prices will happen?

One reason, besides just plain ol supply/demand is that it will fuck the speculators, imo.

Interesting... (http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/moveon_to_close_its_527.php)



MoveOn, the advocacy group supporting Barack Obama, has decided to permanently shutter its 527 operation, partly in response to the Illinois Senator's insistence that such groups should not spend on his behalf during the general election, I've learned from the group's spokesperson.

MoveOn's decision, which will dramatically impact the way it raises money on Obama's behalf, is yet another sign of how rapidly Obama is taking control of the apparatus that's gearing up on his behalf.

By shuttering its 527, MoveOn is effectively killing its ability to raise money in huge chunks from labor unions, foundations, and big donors who would give over $5,000. The decision doesn't mean MoveOn will stop spending on Obama's behalf. Instead it will raise money exclusively with its political action committee, whose average donation is below $50 and will even be raising money with things like bake sales starting this weekend.


To put this in perspective, MoveOn's 527 raised $20 million for the general election in 2004 -- and at least half of that came from donations over $5,000.


"This is an affirmation that we, like Senator Obama, believe that this election can be won by ordinary Americans giving small donations," MoveOn spokesperson Ilyse Hogue told me.


MoveOn's 527 has been dormant since 2005, but the group had held open the option of starting it up it for the 2008 election -- until Obama's success with small donors showed that huge sums could be raised without it.


The move could also make it tougher politically for John McCain and the GOP to benefit from 527s, which can raise money in unlimited sums, on his side. While he has generally disapproved of such activity, he recently said that he couldn't control negative ads by such groups.

One reason, besides just plain ol supply/demand is that it will fuck the speculators, imo.
Will this fuck the speculators?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/06/22/politics/p124646D74.DTL&hw=obama+energy+speculators&sn=003&sc=599

Sen. Barack Obama on Sunday said as president he would strengthen government oversight of energy traders he blames in large part for the skyrocketing price of oil.

The Democratic candidate's campaign singled out the so-called "Enron loophole" for allowing speculators to run up the cost of fuel by operating outside federal regulation. Oil closed near $135 a barrel on Friday — almost double the price a year ago.

"My plan fully closes the Enron loophole and restores commonsense regulation as part of my broader plan to ease the burden for struggling families today while investing in a better future," Obama said in a campaign statement.
...

It seems like Obama's taking a more direct path, here, though I question how this works with worldwide speculators...

It seems like Obama's taking a more direct path, here, though I question how this works with worldwide speculators...

I don't think it'll make any difference at all on the bottom line. Regulation is just as much a fantasy as drilling when it comes to solving the root problem.

Anything that doesn't directly address domestic demand amounts to little more than pandering whether it's Obama's regulation or McCain's drilling.

Consumption isn't the only reason the prices are what they are. I wouldn't call it pandering to fix the purchasing power of the dollar, or attempting to curb the other source of demand besides consumption (e.g. speculators run amok). Remember, your dollar purchases 40-50% less in the worldwide economy than it did 5-6 years ago. That isn't just about demand for gas.

I'm begining to think BO is prejudice against Muslims.

Consumption isn't the only reason the prices are what they are. I wouldn't call it pandering to fix the purchasing power of the dollar, or attempting to curb the other source of demand besides consumption (e.g. speculators run amok). Remember, your dollar purchases 40-50% less in the worldwide economy than it did 5-6 years ago. That isn't just about demand for gas.
Fair point about the dollar--not that either candidate is promoting a coherent strategy for boosting the dollar. For that matter, how much could a president actually do to directly boost it and would the cures be worse than the problem?

I remain unconvinced that speculators are anything more than a sideshow next to basic supply and demand in explaining the price of a barrel of oil. (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=arM2n9sboZnQ)



By this April, speculators controlled 71 percent of the contracts, according to data provided to the House Energy and Commerce Committee by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (http://www.cftc.gov/index.htm).

``Energy speculation has become a growth industry and it is time for the government to intervene,'' Representative John Dingell (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=John%0ADingell&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1), the committee chairman, said at a subcommittee hearing (http://energycommerce.house.gov/membios/schedule.shtml) today.

The hearing by the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations focused on speculation in energy markets, including testimony from Walter Lukken (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Walter+Lukken&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1), acting chairman of the CFTC; and Doug Steenland (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Doug+Steenland&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1), chief executive officer of Northwest Airlines.

``The CFTC data illustrates a radical shift in the oil futures market from one used mainly by buyers and sellers to hedge price risk to one where most of the participants are speculators,'' according to a memorandum prepared by committee staff.

Lukken told reporters after the hearing that the 71 percent figure cited by the committee includes speculators and swap dealers, usually large banks that help facilitate trades.

Those swap dealers are not always working on behalf of speculators, Lukken said, adding that Morgan Stanley handles risk management on futures markets for United Air Lines Inc.

The commission has asked for more information from swap dealers to determine what effect investors in commodity indexes are having on futures markets. A report will be sent to Congress by Sept. 15, Lukken said.
Speculative Positions

``Speculative positions have not been increasing during the past year,'' the commission said in a fact sheet distributed at the hearing. The net-long positions are 100,000 contracts, the lowest level in about a year and swaps dealers are almost equally long on oil as they are short, CFTC said.

Tahoe wanted to be appraised of my Obama spam.

It appears Obama has endorsed a solution to a problem I didn't have:


From husdyret_2005@CASHMAGAZINE.COM Mon Jun 23 08:46:31 2008
Return-Path: husdyret_2005@CASHMAGAZINE.COM
Received: by CENSORED
id 5E14D648A9B; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 08:46:31 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [201.59.73.2] (unknown [201.59.73.2])
by CENSORED with ESMTP id 7B122648A9A
for <CENSORED>; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 08:46:29 +0000 (GMT)
To: CENSORED
Subject: Obama endorses herbal supplements
From: sullenger <husdyret_2005@CASHMAGAZINE.COM>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes; charset=koi8-r
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 14:54:17 -0200
Message-ID: <yg.deqddwaowtcffp@geovani-bc05a2d>
User-Agent: Opera Mail/9.50 (Win32)
Content-Length: 162
Lines: 5

Super organic pills that truly cause your size increase easily
http://www.ceranelu.com/

--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

Seriously, I wouldn't visit that website if I were you.

I just don't understand why he wouldn't let those 2 Muslim women stand behind him. Its like he is running away as fast and as hard as he can.


I seriously think this Muslim thing is all drummed up by the left to keep you guys all riled up. I haven't rec'd 1 deragatory email about BO.

Ever since I started actually looking for the Obama spam that got past my filters, it's just sex spam. I was getting oodles of "Obama is a Muslim" spam before, at least the stuff that got through. (>95% of my email is spam.)

I'm begining to think BO is prejudice against Muslims.

I see what you did there.

I'm supporting the liberal JM, but I honestly laugh out loud at the way the media gives BO a pass.

BTW GD, the Israeli Post pulled the story they did on BO's brother. BO's brother said "BO will be a freind to Israel even though he was a Muslim in his youth"

I guess some money showed up and the Israeli Post pulled the story cuz the brother said he was misinterpreted.

Just wanted to let you know of another story where they got it right. BO is NOT a Muslim.

I'm supporting the liberal JM, but I honestly laugh out loud at the way the media gives BO a pass.

Where do you come up with these sweeping generalizations?

I won't quote the NY Times because I know what you think about it. So how about the Washington Post; that's a big paper too I think.

Here's the Editorial about Obama's turning down public financing. I think you can call it slightly critical:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/19/AR2008061903026.html

Here's a column one of their liberal columnists wrote about character, read what he thinks about Obama's reasoning for rejecting public financing:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/23/AR2008062301829.html

Here's David Broder, maybe the top liberal columnist in the nation, criticizing Obama for not agreeing to the town hall format:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/20/AR2008062002275.html

Ok, I will quote the Times. One of their most read and e-mailed columnist is David Brooks, a staunch conservative. Here's his take on Obama. Not that flattering:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/opinion/20brooks.html

Where do you come up with these sweeping generalizations?


From the fountain of truthiness. (www.foxnews.com)

BTW GD, the Israeli Post pulled the story they did on BO's brother. BO's brother said "BO will be a freind to Israel even though he was a Muslim in his youth"

I guess some money showed up and the Israeli Post pulled the story cuz the brother said he was misinterpreted.

Just wanted to let you know of another story where they got it right. BO is NOT a Muslim.
That whole story was debunked the other day as just another smear job.

http://www.chasingevil.org/2008/06/latest-obama-hater-hoax.html

Tahoe the "McCain is a victim of unjust attacks and obama has it easy" thing is really stretching it.

That whole story was debunked the other day as just another smear job.

http://www.chasingevil.org/2008/06/latest-obama-hater-hoax.html

I thought thats what I said in my post. Money showed up and the brother said...I was misinterpreted.

Tahoe the "McCain is a victim of unjust attacks and obama has it easy" thing is really stretching it.

If I said, the media is constantly harping on JM, I'd like to see it. I'm just saying a relatively unknown BO with some shady shit going on, and NBC, CNN, CBS, MSNBC(msnbc is just an entertainment show) won't ask BO any tough questions. They don't want to vett him.

It cracks me up.

Tahoe-

Can you give us those questions he has never been asked?

^ Watch Fox

Boo.

Tahoe,

What questions do you have?

For the most part, I don't see Fox asking questions so much as telling you what they think the answers are. For an example off today's front page of their election website:

They don't ask: Does Obama have a testosterone problem?

Instead, they assert: Obama has a testosterone problem:

http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/06/26/obamas-testosterone-problem-plus-word-association/

Tahoe,

What questions do you have?

For the most part, I don't see Fox asking questions so much as telling you what they think the answers are. For an example off today's front page of their election website:

They don't ask: Does Obama have a testosterone problem?

Instead, BO asserts: Obama has a testosterone problem:

http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/06/26/obamas-testosterone-problem-plus-word-association/

What does that even mean, Tahoe? ijustdontgetitwhenpeoplequotepostsanddontsayanythi ng

ijustdon'tgetitwhenpeepswritewithnospacesandatthee ndtheyreallydidn'tsayanything

Why are you being such an incoherent little bitch?

You say you wanna suck my dick?

You say you wanna suck my conservative dick?
Fixed. Well, neutered.

My member is not political :)

Okay, I need help here.


Obama also sought to tamp down controversy surrounding comments over the weekend from a supporter. Retired Gen. Wesley Clark said in a television appearance that the Vietnam War-era military service of John McCain, Obama's Republican opponent, does not necessarily qualify him to be commander in chief.

McCain was a fighter pilot who was captured and held as a prisoner of war for more than five years.

Obama said that patriotism "must, if it is to mean anything, involve the willingness to sacrifice" and sought to distance himself from Clark's remarks without mentioning them.

"For those like John McCain who have endured physical torment in service to our country — no further proof of such sacrifice is necessary," Obama said. "And let me also add that no one should ever devalue that service, especially for the sake of a political campaign, and that goes for supporters on both sides."

The comment drew loud applause.

Separately, in a statement, Obama spokesman Bill Burton said, "As he's said many times before, Senator Obama honors and respects Senator McCain's service, and of course he rejects yesterday's statement by General Clark."

I'm not seeing a problem with saying what Clark said (in bold, above). What am I missing?

A heart.

Not really though.

The inverse of what Clark said is basically "military service qualifies you to be commander in chief".

Does ANYONE agree with that?

Swift-boaters certainly don't.

SWEET! That's the first time I've ever used "swift-boat" in a sentence.

This is "bad cop, good cop" theatrics.

Swift boaters were peeps who, iirc, were decorated vets and served with Kerry. I'd say they deserved to say their piece.

Especially when douch Kerry comes back and calls the peeps he served with murderers. Fuck a Kerry.

Especially when douch Kerry comes back and calls the peeps he served with murderers.

Tahoe, do you think they were murderers? If so, why? If not, why not?

Keep in mind My Lai, the fact that many of them attested to being murderers, etc. If we overgeneralize, like the Swift Boaters did in saying they served "with" Kerry (most of their Kerry connections were tenuous at best), sure we can call 'em murderers. We can call the current troops torturers based off Abu Ghraib and Gitmo, too.

Ahh, but it's only fair and balanced to overgeneralize when making a right wing attack point.

The Swift Boaters will go down as one of the biggest black eyes in American politics, IMO.

At the time, back in 2004, McCain agreed that the tactic was a disgrace.

Now he's using one of them for his own campaign (the guy's name escapes me).

Now he's using one of them for his own campaign (the guy's name escapes me).

Bud Day.

Yeah, how could I forget the name of a great American like that?

That's his Budday.

Tahoe, do you think they were murderers? If so, why? If not, why not?

Keep in mind My Lai, the fact that many of them attested to being murderers, etc. If we overgeneralize, like the Swift Boaters did in saying they served "with" Kerry (most of their Kerry connections were tenuous at best), sure we can call 'em murderers. We can call the current troops torturers based off Abu Ghraib and Gitmo, too.

Ahh, but it's only fair and balanced to overgeneralize when making a right wing attack point.

The Swift boaters told what they saw. Whats wrong with that? Kerry said he did this and did that. The Swift baoters said, heres how we recall it. I'm glad they were able to get what they saw out there so ppl could make their own choice.

I don't see what the big deal is.

The Swift boaters told what they saw. Whats wrong with that? Kerry said he did this and did that. The Swift baoters said, heres how we recall it. I'm glad they were able to get what they saw out there so ppl could make their own choice.

I don't see what the big deal is.


Again, sorry for another hypothetical, but what if they lied as the Navy reports and vast majority of accounts say they did? Is it good to give the platform to a group of liars for totally separate political ideologies than those being discussed?

You mean if Kerry lied? I'm not sure he lied. He may very well believe himself.

You mean if Kerry lied? I'm not sure he lied. He may very well believe himself.


no and you disappoint me with your ruse of ignorance.

^ Was it funny? I mean my ruse of ignorance.

Okay, I need help here.



I'm not seeing a problem with saying what Clark said (in bold, above). What am I missing?

Getting back to the Clark comments, I don't have a problem with them. I don't think being a POW makes you an expert on foreign policy as McCain claims he is. Clark was asked what experience Obama has and he said just as little. The difference is that Obama doesn't run around claiming he's a national security expert like McCain does.

I personally think military service does matter. I don't think not having it is a detractor, but having it is positive. It just doesn't mean you know anything about national security. McCain wasn't commanding troops in a war or anything.

Breaks down like this for me...

Kerry said he pulled the guy to safety, saving his life. The sbers said when he first saw the guy in the water and the boat hurting, he left the scene. He took off. The SBers showed up (3 boats. Kerry was by himself, 1 boat, iirc) and started firing on shore for cover. Then Kerry came back by, again iirc, he did pull the guy out of the water. But it was after the SBers gave him cover.

Kerry tried to make it out like it was all him. They felt differently.

We report, you decide.

I've never heard JM say he is a National Security Expert. I've heard him say that he's been dealing with national security issues a helluva lot longer than the State Senator from Illinois.

What credentials does he have on that front?

Just being in the Senate since 1776 gives him some.

BO's brilliance...if you volunteer I'll (meaning taxpayers) will give you something like 4 grand or something.

Theres some tax and spend thinking.

Just being in the Senate since 1776 gives him some.

Like what? His experience is in Arms, Indian Affairs and Commerce.

And Savings and Loan issues

I like how McCain keeps saying he "hates war" on TV. Give me a fucking break... Iran could develop into another story where it would become a necessity because of security, but why then do you want to stay in Iraq so long? What a poser.

^ Man, thats funny.

I like how McCain keeps saying he "hates war" on TV. Give me a fucking break... Iran could develop into another story where it would become a necessity because of security, but why then do you want to stay in Iraq so long? What a poser.

McCain is a big believer in duty and honor. As long as there are no-bid oil concessions in Iraq that need protecting, he will make sure we have boots on the ground to keep them safe.

Rereading that, I was def a little harsh. I was tired and that was a dumb post, I'll admit it Tahoe. What I was trying to say, I think, is that on the surface he appears to come across as a bit of a hypocrite saying that. I know he probably isn't pro-war for shits or anything, but I would just think as someone who truly hates way, he would stay away from it to the best of his ability, which includes withdrawing troops from Iraq.

Sorry about that pissy post, I'm going to wish I could make it go away.

Barack Obama is leading John McCain by five percentage points in Montana. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in the state shows Obama attracting 48% of the vote while McCain earns 43%.

MIAMI BEACH, Florida (CNN) -- A recent swearing-in ceremony for new citizens in Miami Beach, Florida, was more than a cause for celebration.
It was an opportunity to get out the vote.
On a street corner near the mass swearing-in were booths promoting the Democratic and Republican candidates for president staffed by a small army of their supporters.
Their target was the more than 5,000 new voters who would be sworn in that day. Most of the new citizens are Hispanic (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/Hispanic_and_Latino_Issues), a hotly contested group in an important battleground state.
As people poured into the citizenship ceremony, volunteers from both parties congratulated them and then gave them voter registration forms. The volunteers stressed that the prospective first-time voters should not sign the forms -- they would have to wait another hour or so until they had taken the oath of citizenship to do that.
One of the people filling out forms was Leonor Gonzalez. Nine years after arriving from Cuba, Gonzalez became a U.S. citizen because, she said, she wanted to be able to vote in the presidential election.
"I'm feeling so good because finally I'm going to become a citizen. An American citizen," Gonzalez said.
Like many other Americans, her first concern and requirement for any candidate for president is improving the economy.
Gonzalez said she feels Sen. Barack Obama (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/candidates/barack.obama.html) is the better candidate because "he has more experience with the economy."
She also supports Obama's policy on Cuba. Obama has said he would allow Cuban-Americans to return with greater frequency to visit their families.
Gonzalez represents a changing view in the Cuban-American community, which has historically voted Republican.
"The younger Cubans, they're saying, 'Look, you know, enough with the rhetoric of Cuba. [The Republicans] haven't liberated Cuba,' " said Florida Democratic congressional candidate Raul Martinez as he shook hands and posed for pictures with people arriving for the ceremony.
Nearly three times as many Latinos in Florida registered as Democrats than as Republicans between January and May, according to the state Democratic Party.
The Florida (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/Florida) Republican Party says it doesn't have registration numbers.
According the the Florida Department of State, the number of registered Democrats increased by about 130,000 while registered Republicans went up by 53,000, from last December to April.
The gains for the first time have given Democrats a slight lead over Republicans with Latino voters, Democrats say.

Gambling habits

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1819898-1,00.html

Speaking of gambling...


Who will be the next president of the United States?

John McCain
+130

Barack Obama
-200

Had an interesting talk with some random people - all friends of my father-in-law - over the holiday. They're all either professional white people or retired white people. The overwhelming consensus was this: "yeah, I don't really like the fact that Obama is inexperienced, but there's no way I'm voting for a Republican this time."

Poor John McCain. The thing that's going to cost him the election is the "-R" after his name. I feel bad about that, because in all fairness he's got tons of very serious and very genuine personal flaws that should also be considered.

For instance, he's really old; also, it's time for him to cash in his "military hero" meal ticket; he's not a particularly nice person on a one-on-one level; he's a shameless panderer to people he disagrees with; he's a very dull public speaker; he's got more of a commitment to the war in Iraq than he did to his first wife; his so-called "maverick" ideology is a myth, et cetera.

I hear he also has some good points.

The overwhelming consensus was this: "yeah, I don't really like the fact that Obama is inexperienced, but there's no way I'm voting for a Republican this time."


After eight years of bringing us nothing but culture wars and shooting wars, the republicans have earned a couple terms in the time-out box to get their heads right again.

LOL

^ Saw that coming.

Starting at :55, I alternate LingMAO and being totally creeped out.

bF3ix2tcBNM

Look at him, he's old. You can't just take his stuff, he's too old.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2008/07/09/fioreinsta.DTL

latest jibjab....very funny, and painfully true

http://sendables.jibjab.com/

latest jibjab....very funny, and painfully true

http://sendables.jibjab.com/

[smilie=clappy.gif][smilie=rofl2.gif]

[quote] (CNN) -- Barack Obama's overseas trip has generated a lot more buzz than John McCain's foreign travels, but when it comes to popularity abroad, both candidates have their strengths.

McCain is more of a familiar face among Europe's politicians. The senator from Arizona is better known because he's met with a lot of foreign leaders and has been active in conferences overseas, said Robin Niblett, a London, England-based international affairs analyst.

But European lawmakers said McCain's experience could work against him because of the association with President Bush and the war in Iraq.

Obama (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/candidates/barack.obama.html), on the other hand, is more of a fresh face abroad -- the trip is his first since sewing up the Democratic nomination in June. It's his first visit to Afghanistan and first to Iraq in two years.

In addition to Afghanistan and Iraq, Obama also has passed through Kuwait since leaving the United States on Thursday. He's expected to visit Jordan and Israel before making a European swing through Germany, France and the United Kingdom.

The novelty of Obama's trip increases the media attention because the storyline is more interesting, according to Michael Crowley, senior editor of The New Republic.

"When McCain (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/candidates/john.mccain.html) goes overseas, it's sort of 'dog bites man.' There's not really that much of an interesting angle to it," Crowley said Sunday on CNN's "Reliable Sources."

"This is an incredible story, the first African-American nominee going abroad after a long period of anti-Americanism, promising a new start and a new direction for the country. There's so many fascinating angles, whereas McCain is sort of offering somewhat more of a continuation of what we already know."

Although Obama is making his trip abroad as a senator from Illinois and not a presidential candidate, the tour is aimed at boosting his foreign policy credentials.

So far, his trip has produced several high-profile photo ops -- including pictures of Obama with American troops and with leaders such as Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.
All three of the major U.S. broadcast networks' anchors -- Katie Couric, Charlie Gibson and Brian Williams -- are set to cover Obama from overseas.
"What that means, of course, is that the 'CBS Evening News,' 'NBC Nightly News' and ABC's 'World News' will be broadcast from Europe and the Middle East this week, throwing an even brighter spotlight on Barack's [Obama's] excellent adventure," said Howard Kurtz, host of CNN's "Reliable Sources."
McCain, however, was met by zero anchors on his foreign trips since he became the presumptive Republican nominee, Kurtz pointed out.

A recent poll from Britain's Guardian newspaper and ICM Research suggests Obama is five times as popular as McCain there.
Conducted this month, the poll indicates that 53 percent think Obama would make the better president, compared with 11 percent for McCain. The remaining 36 percent declined to express a preference.
The survey, conducted July 9-10, questioned 1,009 adults and has a sampling error of plus or minus 3.2 percentage points.

Back in the United States, Obama leads McCain by a much smaller margin -- 47 percent to 41 percent, according to CNN's latest "poll of polls."
The poll of polls includes five surveys: Gallup (July 12-14), CBS/The New York Times (July 7-14), ABC/The Washington Post (July 10-13), Quinnipiac (July 8-13) and Newsweek (July 9-10).

McCain had his essay about the War in Iraq rejected by the NY Times because all it did was critisize Obama instead of outlining his own strategy:


Dear Mr. Goldfarb,

Thank you for sending me Senator McCain's essay.

I'd be very eager to publish the Senator on the Op-Ed page.

However, I'm not going to be able to accept this piece as currently
written.

I'd be pleased, though, to look at another draft.

Let me suggest an approach.

The Obama piece worked for me because it offered new information (it appeared before his speech); while Senator Obama discussed Senator McCain, he also went into detail about his own plans.

It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece. To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq. It would also have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory — with troops levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate. And it would need to describe the Senator's Afghanistan strategy, spelling out how it meshes with his Iraq plan.

I am going to be out of the office next week. If you decide to re-work the draft, please be in touch with (Redacted)

Again, thank you for taking the time to send me the Senator's draft. I
really hope we can find a way to bring this to a happy resolution.

Sincerely,
David Shipley

The missing Tahoe's response to the McCain article rejection:

LOL

The NYTimes is giving McCain constructive criticism on how he can win. What they want out of McCain's op-ed is what swing voters would want to swing to McCain. Frankly, after their coverage of McCain's lobbyist affair, the notion that McCain would suck up to the NYTimes should turn off most of his supporters.

McCain took a serious hit yesterday when the president of Iraq basically endorsed Obama. He said that Obama's plan was the correct one in Iraq.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25786952/

On a smaller note, McCain had a blunder where he talked about the Iraq/Pakistan border (they do not border, he likely meant Afghanistan). Not a huge deal IMO, but if Obama said that the McCain camp would have trashed Obama for having no clue about the middle east.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/07/22/1213832.aspx

http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/6038/obamamccainjscottcampbero6.jpg

Looks like Obama really made an impression... (http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUKL2304285220080723)


BERLIN (Reuters) - German Chancellor Angela Merkel is an admirer of U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama -- even though she has not yet met him in person.

Asked at a news conference on Wednesday what she thought of Obama, Merkel responded: "I would say that he is well-equipped -- physically, mentally and politically."

Spam of the day:

From: mike <shiokemu1959@08-00-09-43-85-e1.bconnected.net>
Subject: [video] Mccain Vows To Replace Secret Service With His Own Bare Fists

Free Obama button:

Hey,
Want a free Obama button? MoveOn's giving them away totally free--no strings attached. I just got mine, and wanted to share the opportunity with you.

Click this link to get a free Obama button:
http://pol.moveon.org/obamabuttons/?id=-3137850-287N9Nx

Thanks!

Looks like Obama really made an impression... (http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUKL2304285220080723)
Angela Merkel confirms what we've all suspected: Obama has a magic dong

McCain is killing himself with the negativity lately.. seriously.

That being said, Obama needs to make sure he shows some humility as well.

McCain is killing himself with the negativity lately.. seriously.
Yes we can vs. No we can't.

So mccain can say that

1. obama is single-handedly responsible for high gas prices
2. obama wants to lose wars to win elections
3. obama didn't visit the troops because cameras weren't allowed, when he was never planning to bring cameras in the first place
4. obama is equivalent to britney spears and paris hilton

However, obama makes a comment that mccain wants to scare the american people into not voting obama, and mccain is just enraged about obama "playing the race card". Jesus christ, republicans are such whiney fucking babies. They make up whatever shit is convenient and then start crying about unfair treatment when they called on it. These republicans are just bunch of worthless crybabies. Visiting 3 American towns named Berlin is about the most fucking petulant bullshit I've ever heard a presidential candidate do. If I had money, I would start running ads showing mccain dumping his first wife, the doctor who lost his license because cindy wanted scripts for her pills, mccain hanging out with the keating 5, abramoff, duke cunningham, vitter, larry craig, ted stevens, that guy from fl who hit on his interns. THen, I would make an ad showing mccain with cheney and other haliburton execs, and remind the public of haliburton's role in killing our troops. THen, I would finish with the scene of bush and mccain eating birthday cake during hurrican katrina and ask why mccain did not demand more accountability from our president before his presidential run. I want to see some fire from anti-republicans before this country is completely raped and pillaged by these assholes.

So mccain can say that

1. obama is single-handedly responsible for high gas prices
2. obama wants to lose wars to win elections
3. obama didn't visit the troops because cameras weren't allowed, when he was never planning to bring cameras in the first place
4. obama is equivalent to britney spears and paris hilton

However, obama makes a comment that mccain wants to scare the american people into not voting obama, and mccain is just enraged about obama "playing the race card". Jesus christ, republicans are such whiney fucking babies. They make up whatever shit is convenient and then start crying about unfair treatment when they called on it. These republicans are just bunch of worthless crybabies. Visiting 3 American towns named Berlin is about the most fucking petulant bullshit I've ever heard a presidential candidate do. If I had money, I would start running ads showing mccain dumping his first wife, the doctor who lost his license because cindy wanted scripts for her pills, mccain hanging out with the keating 5, abramoff, duke cunningham, vitter, larry craig, ted stevens, that guy from fl who hit on his interns. THen, I would make an ad showing mccain with cheney and other haliburton execs, and remind the public of haliburton's role in killing our troops. THen, I would finish with the scene of bush and mccain eating birthday cake during hurrican katrina and ask why mccain did not demand more accountability from our president before his presidential run. I want to see some fire from anti-republicans before this country is completely raped and pillaged by these assholes.

LOL

McCain's got a valid point in his argument that Obama is trying to cash his celebrity in for votes. But I think McCain is the one who's coming out of this looking bad. Everything was really civil up to this point, and the new ad just seemed to come out of left field. People are going to remember this ad as the moment when the campaign turned ugly.

Nice to see McCain making his case on the issues. Well, it'll be nice... if he ever starts.

I want to see some fire from anti-republicans before this country is completely raped and pillaged by these assholes.

I like what we're seeing. Obama's campaign runs ads talking about why Obama should be president. McCain's campaign runs ads talking about why you should be afraid of Obama. McCain is nowhere in the conversation and that's a loss for him.

fox news can convince its dipshit viewers that using the phrase "happy holidays" instead of "merry christmas" represents a war on christmas and that christians are somehow persecuted by amorphous "liberals". If you can convince morons of that, you can convince them of anything (Obama does hate America. Obama is the reason for high gas prices.) I say fight back and show these people for the exploiters they are.

I wonder if tahoe experienced the fake california power crisis in 2001. I lived in CA at the time. we heard all these republican assholes talk about liberals' refusal to completely deregulate the power market as the primary cause, when in fact their buddies at Enron used federal deregulation to manipulate the market and make billions while bush and cheney sat around with their thumbs in their asses. By the way, the wife of the guy who called Americans a bunch of whiners was on the board at enron. i can imagine the wife calling californians a bunch of whiners because enron was just smarter than the public power utilities that didn't exploit their customers. But, these guys are the real patriots because they pretend to care about american values and start wars that bring in billions in profits for their friends. Perhaps I am ranting, but I am sick and tired of their unrestricted propanga campaigns. I say demonize these assholes the same way they demonize people who get in their way.

McCain's got a valid point in his argument that Obama is trying to cash his celebrity in for votes. But I think McCain is the one who's coming out of this looking bad. Everything was really civil up to this point, and the new ad just seemed to come out of left field. People are going to remember this ad as the moment when the campaign turned ugly.

What does it mean to cash in one's celebrity? If Obama is famous, it is because he has convinced people in his message, which is a politician's job. He is not famous for reasons analogous to paris hilton or britney spears. That is guilt by association, which is even more remarkable as obama has never had contact with those two AFAIK. It is funny that obama is portrayed as messianic, when bush has made messianic comments and cashes in on his feaux religiosity all the time. When is the last time obama commented about looking into someone's eyes and seeing the good in their soul, let alone someone like putin?

Every single thing I see from McCain these days is about Obama.

Every single thing I see from Obama is about Obama.

Interesting.

I put an Obama sign in my front yard this weekend, btw.

I'm just waiting for the rednecks to steal or deface it, I have two more waiting in the garage.

Paul Harvey told me today (actually his fill-in) that the negative ads have helped McCain close the gap and we can expect a negative ad towards McCain shortly.....I guess if you can't beat them soundly, join them?

Sooner or later he has to fight back.

That Paris Hilton clip in the current McCain commercial is below the belt.

And since McCain's promise to not fight dirty has long since gone completely out the window, time to fight back.

I think that is some of what xanadu was referring to the other day.

I put an Obama sign in my front yard this weekend, btw.

I'm just waiting for the rednecks to steal or deface it, I have two more waiting in the garage.

While you're at it, why don't you go give your wife a fist bump?

Or, perhaps, a terrorist fist jab?

Long, but good read:



Right strategy, wrong candidate?

Even a good strategy has to match the candidate


By Chuck Todd
Political Director
NBC News
updated 4:52 p.m. MT, Sat., Aug. 2, 2008

WASHINGTON - The hardest thing to do in politics is campaign as someone you aren't.

People can spot an imposter from a mile away.
The most successful politicians are the ones who embrace their best traits while turning their liabilities into loveable attributes.

And yet, many a candidate tries to run as something they aren't simply because the strategy dictates it. And when even a good strategy doesn't match the candidate, the result can be a disjointed campaign that produces a lot of uncomfortable moments.

Unless, somehow, the candidate figures out how to embrace the strategy.

Are we seeing this happen right now to John McCain?

If you were to diagnose the best way to go at Obama in the midst of this disastrous Republican environment, you might come up with the tactics the McCain brain trust unveiled this week: Paint Obama as a bit full of himself, over-confident, elitest and out of touch.

There are a number of ways to paint that picture, including attacking Obama for his celebrity. America has a love-hate relationship with celebrity. We love to follow celebrities but we also love to mock them. And secretly we believe we're better than they are.

Making light of Obama's pop icon status and trying to use it as a way to undermine his serious presidential credentials is a good one. The latest McCain ad did just that. We may love U2 and we may love Bono's humanitarian efforts, but do voters in Youngstown want him as president?

But the flaw in this attack from McCain is that it doesn't fit who he is. This is a guy who hangs out with Warren Beatty. This is a guy who is married to a wealthy beer heiress. This is a guy whose senior adviser was Arnold Schwarzenegger's campaign manager. This is a guy who owes much of his success in national politics to marketing himself as a political celebrity.

And attacking Obama’s celebrity is just one part of the playbook. There are two more plays: attacking his experience and attacking his common touch.

Our own NBC-WSJ poll indicates Obama's biggest trouble spots are experience and whether he represents our values, however that is defined.

McCain may not have the contrasts necessary to take advantage of these Obama's weaknesses. And perhaps the best strategy to take Obama on isn’t one that fits McCain comfortably.

For instance, one of the best ways to illuminate the experience issue is to take it to the next level when debating policy proposals. Hillary Clinton got some traction against Obama when she was able to do exactly this during the second half of the primary campaign.

Clinton’s most impressive trait has always been her ability to get into the weeds on just about any issue. When she demonstrated her detailed knowledge of an issue, it helped drive the notion that she was all about substance and experience and Obama was all about fluff and inexperience.

McCain is not exactly a details guy. He is a candidate who admits the economy isn’t his best subject. And he regularly speaks in generalities… just like Obama. It is why our latest NBC-WSJ poll indicated the country doesn’t have a lot of confidence in either candidate to solve the country’s economic problems. Plus it doesn’t help McCain that a recent Politico report indicated his policy proposals had far fewer details than those provided by Obama’s campaign.

Then there’s the common touch issue – something Obama has struggled with. While he’s terrific in a big crowd and seems to feed off the emotion of a large rally, he’s not as nimble or as approachable when he’s in a smaller format. I’ve always been surprised by his awkwardness in this campaign – when I see his inability to touch a shoulder or put an arm around someone when they’ve asked a personal or emotionally-charged question. Bill Clinton and George W. Bush were masters of the common touch.

Not only is this not Obama, it’s not McCain either. He’s not a “feel your pain” guy or a “compassionate conservative” politician. This is not to say that either he or Obama don’t feel voter pain or don’t have compassion. It is simply that neither one of them comes across as touchy-feely politicians.

Both men appear to be trying to relate to people via hero-worship. This works only if voters believe the candidate is someone to look up to.

Presidents seem to fall into two positive categories: they’re one of us, or they’re heroes. Both McCain and Obama probably see themselves as potential heroes –

presidents who will be looked up to, not presidents everyday people will remark are “just like me.”

This brings us back to the strategic struggle facing the McCain campaign.
The best way to go after Obama is to make his celebrity seem like fluff, to underscore his inexperience, and to make him seem out of touch.

These negatives don’t match McCain’s strengths. They match his weaknesses.

McCain, no doubt, is bothered by the fact that his strengths are being overshadowed by Obama’s similar strengths. That is probably motivating him to stick with his negative strategy.

Conventional wisdom assumes John McCain is the only Republican who could hold up this well in this environment.

But when the history of this campaign is written, we might speculate on two scenarios: How would Clinton have stood against McCain, and how would Mitt Romney (or someone like Jeb Bush, only with a different last name) have stood against Obama? Will the pundits say McCain was the best candidate to prevent a landslide but not the best candidate to provide the necessary contrast to topple Obama?

The McCain campaign has found a good way to begin undermining Obama's credentials to be president and to try to turn his strengths into weaknesses.

The problem is that McCain isn't comfortable running this campaign. You can tell by the tenor of his own defense of his tactics.

Perhaps McCain can put blinders on to keep this line of attack up on Obama and then also start getting himself prepped like crazy to go deeper into issues in a way that exposes Obama’s inexperience come debate time.

But it’s not the candidate McCain is most comfortable being. It’s going to be fascinating to see how McCain holds up running as a candidate rebuilt by a necessary strategy rather than as a candidate whose strengths dictate the strategy.

Obama leads McCain nationally in AP-Ipsos poll

By ALAN FRAM, Associated Press Writer
7 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Solid margins among women, minorities and young voters have powered Barack Obama to a 6 percentage point lead over John McCain in the presidential race, according to a poll released Tuesday.

Obama is ahead of his Republican rival 47 percent to 41 percent, The Associated Press-Ipsos poll showed. The survey was taken after the Democratic senator from Illinois had returned from a trip to Middle Eastern and European capitals, and during a week that saw the two camps clash over which had brought race into a campaign in which Obama is striving to become the first African-American president.

McCain, the senator from Arizona, is leading by 10 points among whites and is even with Obama among men, groups with whom Republicans traditionally do well in national elections.

Obama leads by 13 points among women, by 30 points among voters up to age 34, and by 55 points among blacks, Hispanics and other minorities, the poll shows.

Independent Ralph Nader and Libertarian Bob Barr both won support from less than 5 percent of the registered voters surveyed. When people were asked who they would support if Nader and Barr were not on the ballot, Obama's lead over McCain was virtually unchanged.

The poll showed a huge Democratic advantage when voters ponder which party they would like to see control Congress next year. Democrats were favored over Republicans 53 percent to 35 percent, underscoring the mountainous disadvantage McCain and other GOP candidates are facing in the Nov. 4 voting.

The poll illustrated other ways damage has been inflicted on the Republican brand name as well.

Just 18 percent think the country is moving in the right direction, and only 31 percent approve of the job President Bush is doing. Both readings are a bit better than the record lows in the AP-Ipsos poll that both measures scored in mid-July.

Congressional approval was at 19 percent, just above last month's all-time AP-Ipsos low. Because Congress is almost always widely disliked as an institution and its members come from both parties, that reading is usually a murky measure of whether the majority party — Democrats this year — is in trouble.

The poll was conducted from July 31-Aug. 4 and involved telephone interviews with 1,002 adults, for whom the margin of sampling error was plus or minus 3.1 percentage points. Included were interviews with 833 registered voters, for whom the error margin was plus or minus 3.4 points.

Thanks to defrocked for the link to Gilbert's blog. Without that, we wouldn't get this:


The Election
I’m not into politics, but I see what’s going on in the presidential race and I’m seeing rappers make songs for Obama and Mr. McCain doing all his stuff and I’m thinking, this is getting out of control, people. Whatever happened to Democrats and Republicans? You vote for who’s who.

It’s hard for me to vote, because since I’ve been in the NBA I’ve been in the upper class so I’ve been a Republican. If you have any type of money, you’re a Republican, period. So, it’s hard because you see a better looking president in Obama – I don’t even want to say because he’s black, but he just looks the part – and then you have McCain who is Republican and I’m like, man. I know Obama is going to raise taxes on the upper class from 20-60 percent, that’s what I’m looking at. To be honest, I stopped paying attention a long time ago when it was Bush and Gore when Gore won the popular vote, but Bush was the president.

Basically, what that told me was that everybody in America voted for Gore, but somehow, Bush became president. I am confused. Obviously, our vote doesn’t really mean anything. Then you have this thing called the delegate, then you got the super delegate and then you got the hidden delegate that nobody knows about. If you’ve never heard of the hidden delegate, that’s like when you’re buying a car and they say the taxes on the car are 20 percent, and then when you look at your statement, they charge you an extra three, that’s the same thing. It’s the hidden fee delegate that nobody knows about who has all this power. They actually get to pick who they want for president. So when I start looking at it like that, that’s when I stop paying attention because at the end of the day, our votes really don’t matter. I don’t mean to be rude about it, but it seems like it doesn’t matter. If Gore wins by thousands of votes and Bush is president eight years later … come on.

There’s another reason I don’t vote – I don’t want jury duty. If you’re not registered to vote, you can’t get jury duty. I know that campaign Diddy had a couple years ago, “Vote or Die,” yeah if the alternative is jury duty, I’m going to die. I’m not going to get in one of these cases where they blow the jury members’ houses up to get out of the trial, I’m cool. I’ve seen too many movies.

For whatever president that wins, what can I tell you? Do a good job. Change the world. I remember when we were voting for class president in high school, the guy who won was the guy who said he’s going to put the vending machines in the school cafeteria. That’s who I voted for. So until I hear vending machines or lower gas prices, I’m not voting. As soon as I hear, “Yeah, I’m going to lower gas prices,” then you got me, I’ll sit in jury duty.

it's like these guys take pride in being ignorant.

akjXqfvLu28

Step 1. Release shitty ads comparing Obama to vacuous female pop-stars and claiming Obama considers himself the Messiah (bonus points for the religious right nutters that think of Obama as anti-christ).

Step 2. Claim that Obama was playing the race card, when he says that 'they will try to scare you by saying he is not like other presidents on the currency'. Obama made no mention of race in the most recent comments, but did say something about a month before.

Step 3. Have right wing hacks write about Americans' distrust of Obama because he is not like other presidents. However, it is necessary to act offended that race makes Obama different. Make sure to mention rev. wright in editorial.

Step 4. Continue to tell people that they should be scared of Obama for "being different", but act outraged when Obama points out their stupid accusations.




His age probably has something to do with it. So does his race. But the polls and focus groups suggest that people aren’t dismissive of Obama or hostile to him. Instead, they’re wary and uncertain.

There is a sense that because of his unique background and temperament, Obama lives apart. He put one foot in the institutions he rose through on his journey but never fully engaged. As a result, voters have trouble placing him in his context, understanding the roots and values in which he is ineluctably embedded.

He was in Trinity United Church of Christ, but not of it, not sharing the liberation theology that energized Jeremiah Wright Jr.


When we’re judging candidates (or friends), we don’t just judge the individuals but the milieus that produced them. We judge them by the connections that exist beyond choice and the ground where they will go home to be laid to rest. Andrew Jackson was a backwoodsman. John Kennedy had his clan. Ronald Reagan was forever associated with the small-town virtues of Dixon and Jimmy Carter with Plains.

If Obama is fully a member of any club — and perhaps he isn’t — it is the club of smart post-boomer meritocrats. We now have a cohort of rising leaders, Obama’s age and younger, who climbed quickly through elite schools and now ascend from job to job. They are conscientious and idealistic while also being coldly clever and self-aware. It’s not clear what the rest of America makes of them.So, cautiously, the country watches. This should be a Democratic wipeout. But voters seem to be slow to trust a sojourner they cannot place.






Is Sen. Barack Obama just too weird to be elected president?

Obama, sadly, blames race. It’s all about evil Republicans, he claims, trying to scare voters by telling them “I don’t look like those guys on the dollar bills” and “Did I mention he’s black?”

Thanks to the strange trajectory of my life, from the tobacco fields of South Carolina to a radio studio in Boston, I’ve met people from all kinds of strange and colorful backgrounds. And I can honestly say I don’t know anybody like Barack Obama.

His political career began at the home of an anti-American terrorist. His pastor for 20 years was the delusional, hate-spewing Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

Every day, it seems, Barack Obama does or says something that reminds “typical American people” (pardon the paraphrase) that he is different from us in ways that have nothing to do with what he looks like.


[URL=]http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view.bg?articleid=1111130&format=&page=2&listingType=opi#articleFull (]http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/05/opinion/05brooks.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=login[/URL)

Long, but good read:
I generally like Chuck Todd, but there were some things in Chuck Todd's article that are notably stupid:


McCain is not exactly a details guy. He is a candidate who admits the economy isn’t his best subject. And he regularly speaks in generalities… just like Obama. It is why our latest NBC-WSJ poll indicated the country doesn’t have a lot of confidence in either candidate to solve the country’s economic problems.
That's not true. The poll simply didn't question or reach that far, and Todd overreaches by presenting this stuff as "what the poll indiciated". The proof is that people wouldn't feel much more confident about the economy if Hillary or Romney or any wonkier person were at the top, as past polls indicated (and that lack of confidence for the policy and economic wonks is one big reason McCain and Obama are the candidates).


While he’s terrific in a big crowd and seems to feed off the emotion of a large rally, he’s not as nimble or as approachable when he’s in a smaller format. I’ve always been surprised by his awkwardness in this campaign – when I see his inability to touch a shoulder or put an arm around someone when they’ve asked a personal or emotionally-charged question.
A smaller format in which a stable of national news reporters is present isn't a smaller format. Todd's issue here is about theatrics, but the theatrics he's complaining about are about special-magic-happy moments made for TV, which isn't small by any definition. By every account, Obama rocks in truly smaller situations, which is why he'd get all those newspaper endorsements. For that matter, McCain's much better in those situations than he is on the speaker's stump.

it's like these guys take pride in being ignorant.

akjXqfvLu28

Someone with a sig about tire inflation just got owned.

V1R2jJmFpZg

McCain's answer: at least she has a better plan than Obama

it's like these guys take pride in being ignorant.

akjXqfvLu28
AAAaaaaahahaha

inflatiOWNED

lol

http://www.johnmccain.com/videolanding/theone.htm

lol

http://www.johnmccain.com/videolanding/theone.htm

In case you are wondering who this ad is targeted to:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=71144

If this campaign gets any more "honorable", mccain may actually be forced to explain why he wants to give even more tax breaks to millionaires. If taking jokes out of context is proof of a candidate's true feelings, I am sure we could have a field day with all the stupid shit mccain has said. Of course, you don't even have to take mccain jokes out of context to create offense:

"Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?
Because her father is Janet Reno."

I would put that shit in ads to guarantee that clinton supporters would never vote for mccain and so that it is crystal clear that 'bomb-iran mccain' is an asshole.

Honestly, I think it would be great just to give Alabama, Mississippi, and Arkansas to evangelicals so that they could run their own dipshit country. They could make GWB their king and huckabee can be spiritual guide. fox could be their only network. they would finally be free to let their kids bring hand guns to school for self-defense during school prayers. They can think obama is the antichrist if they want. meanwhile, real americans, who understand separation of church and state, can go back to prosperity and give up the fantasy of reconquering the middle east.

The McCain campaign gets more desperate with every new round of ads. Now they've come out with this gem: (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/24/mccain-campaign-running-o_n_114657.html)

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/31430/original.jpg

Where to start. Castro is dead-ish? It's substantively wrong because Castro was actually critical of him? Castro's opinion would have no bearing either way? McCain himself has come out against the idea of guilt by endorsement association?

It's like these guys take pride in being ignorant.

Desperate? LOL. McCain is behind by 2-4 pts. Thats what they do to frontrunners....attack attack attack.

Deal with it. Its called politics. A Dem would be doing the same thing if the Dem was behind.

Jesus Christ you gotta tell these kids everything.

A Dem would be doing the same thing if the Dem was behind.



And I have a feeling you'd be all over them for it. But you're still my boy. :yingyang:

BO did PLENTY of attack adds, but I don't remember whinning like a lil bitch about it. But I might have.

I can already tell that I'm going to regret posting in this forum after this shine I have right now, wears off.

Desperate? LOL. McCain is behind by 2-4 pts. Thats what they do to frontrunners....attack attack attack.

Deal with it. Its called politics. A Dem would be doing the same thing if the Dem was behind.

Jesus Christ you gotta tell these kids everything.

The difference is Obama attacks the policies of the canidate and their judgement. The "staight talk express" simply throws shit at the wall hoping something will stick.

Finally time to fight back (at least a little).


Obama tries to turn 'celebrity' label on McCain

By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 55 minutes ago

HONOLULU - Barack Obama is out to show that two can play the "celebrity game" with a new ad Monday labeling his Republican opponent John McCain as Washington's biggest celebrity.

The Democratic presidential candidate, vacationing in Hawaii, released an ad, titled "Embrace," that paints McCain as both a regular on the TV talk show circuit and a consummate political insider, chummy with President Bush and lobbyists alike.

"For decades, he's been Washington's biggest celebrity," the announcer says, cutting to a "Saturday Night Live" introduction of the McCain during an appearance on the show.

The ad shows McCain on ABC's "The View" and NBC's "The Tonight Show" with Jay Leno. And it shows Bush — hugging McCain, being hugged by McCain and kissing McCain on the forehead.

"As Washington embraced him, John McCain hugged right back," the spot says. "The lobbyists — running his low road campaign. The money — billions in tax breaks for oil and drug companies, but almost nothing for families like yours. Lurching to the right, then the left, the old Washington dance, whatever it takes. John McCain. A Washington celebrity playing the same old Washington games."

Celebrities are widely known and often loved by their fans, defined as being a "celebrated person." So what's so wrong with that when you're trying to win a nationwide election?

McCain first used the word in a series of ads that compared Obama to lightweight pop culture celebrities Paris Hilton and Britney Spears. A nice exterior without much substance underneath, the ad implied, not the kind of person you want to entrust your country to.

Hilton's mom called it "frivolous" and a waste of money, but Obama adviser Tom Daschle, the former Democratic Senate majority leader, says the celebrity ads contributed to a dip in Obama's poll numbers.

Sw-SvO10kjw

Just air your tires and all will be well!


Senator Obama a couple of days ago said that we ought to all inflate our tires, and I don’t disagree with that. The American Automobile Association strongly recommends it.

Oh, I get it, you thought my sig was about BO? Its a JM thing. :)

^^Fail.

FoxNews reports that 'sources say' Colin Powell to endorse BO and speak on Wed.

Not confirmed but this would be really good for BO, imo.

FoxNews reports that 'sources say' Colin Powell to endorse BO and speak on Wed.

Not confirmed but this would be really good for BO, imo.

Wrong again

(Fox, not Tahoe)

Its bogus?

Cuz that would have been quite a boondoggle with CP being a military guy NOT endorsing JM.

Powell says he hasn't decided who he is voting for and that he's "not wasting any time on any comments made by Bill Kristol" (or something like that).

It is noteworthy that Powell has known McCain for over 30 years and he's "still looking for a reason to vote for him", though.

Powell says he hasn't decided who he is voting for and that he's "not wasting any time on any comments made by Bill Kristol" (or something like that).

It is noteworthy that Powell has known McCain for over 30 years and he's "still looking for a reason to vote for him", though.

The bargaining continues. He's trying to speak on Thursday...or maybe the VP spot. j/k

Fuck the polls, this is the only poll that matters:


Bet On: Who will be the next president of the United States?

John McCain
+170

Barack Obama
-230

http://images.politico.com/global/v3/homelogo.gif (http://www.politico.com/)Sports owners fund McCain, shun Obama
By: Kenneth P. Vogel and Matthew Lindsey
August 16, 2008 07:44 AM EST
Sports team owners may not be John McCain’s answer to the Hollywood elite, but they’re overwhelmingly supporting his presidential campaign over Barack Obama’s.

Through the end of June, team owners in the four major sports and their families have given to or raised as much or more than $3.2 million for McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, compared with as much as $615,000 for his Democratic rival Obama, according to a Politico analysis of data from the Federal Election Commission, the campaigns and interviews.

Not only did McCain raise more than Obama from the owners in each of the four major professional sports leagues analyzed, but McCain even raised six times more from the owners of teams in Obama’s hometown of Chicago.

Sam Zell, the owner of baseball’s Chicago Cubs, gave more than $22,000 to McCain’s committees, though he also gave Obama $2,300, as did the owner of the Chicago White Sox and Chicago Bulls, Jerry Reinsdorf, who gave that much to both McCain and Obama.

The owners of the squads in McCain’s hometown of Phoenix, however, were more united in their financial support, giving nothing to Obama, while contributing or raising as much as $550,000 for McCain, whose wife’s family owns a small share of Major League Baseball’s Arizona Diamondbacks.

Though the overall tallies from sports moguls represent just a fraction of each candidate’s total fundraising, the lopsided giving by sports owners runs counter to the 2008 campaign fundraising storyline. Obama, in collecting $356 million in his personal and joint campaign accounts, has nearly doubled McCain’s overall fundraising, and has raised more money from most business and industrial sectors.
(http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12537.html)
Both candidates have professed their passion for team sports. Obama is a big fan of the Chicago Bears and pickup basketball games, and has frequently donned a Chicago White Sox ballcap during his most recent vacation. McCain is a longtime Arizona Cardinal season ticket holder. Their ability to talk sports (http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20080402_Obama_to_talk_sports_at_7_on_WIP.html) could appeal to a slice of the contested blue collar male swing-vote bloc.

Sports team owners are often either loved or loathed in their communities. But most have unquestioned financial clout and fundraising ability, because it takes extreme wealth and connections to purchase a sports team.

Though sports moguls tend to skew conservative for the same reasons as other very wealthy folks — aversion to high taxes and regulation — their interests and backgrounds are eclectic, said Andrew Zimbalist, a professor at Smith College who has written extensively about the economics of sport.

“Today, a guy who owns a sport team is somebody who has generated a big pile of money in some other industry, and it’s very likely that their primordial financial interests and instincts are rooted in that other industry,” he said.

Those industries include oil, construction, real estate, entertainment, casinos, high technology, trial law, ice cream and, of course, family inheritance.

But even owners who are major Democratic donors have yet to loosen their purse strings for Obama.

The owners of football’s Philadelphia Eagles, baseball’s Baltimore Orioles, San Diego Padres and Los Angeles Dodgers, basketball’s New York Knicks and Sacramento Kings, and hockey’s Anaheim Ducks and their families, for instance, gave a combined $1.1 million in political contributions this presidential cycle, mostly to Democratic political committees and candidates.

That sum includes more than $60,000 to New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who Obama narrowly edged out for the Democratic presidential nomination. As of the end of June though — the most recent month for which there are data available — those owners had not given a dime to Obama.

Most of the owners who gave to Clinton but not Obama did not respond to requests for comment on why.

One major Clinton backer who has thrown his full support to Obama is Bob Johnson, owner of the National Basketball Association’s Charlotte Bobcats.

Johnson gave the maximum $2,300 contribution to Clinton’s presidential campaign, raised more than $100,000 for her in “bundled” contributions and was among her most active campaigners, though he occasionally had trouble (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/Bob_Johnson_on_Obamas_past.html)staying on message.

But when Clinton dropped out of the race and urged her bundlers to get behind Obama, Johnson, who made his fortune as the founder of Black Entertainment Television, quickly obliged.

Less than one month after Clinton conceded, Johnson cut checks totaling nearly $32,000 to Obama’s campaign and a joint account established by Obama and the Democratic National Committee. Plus, he told Politico he has bundled about $200,000 for Obama’s campaign, though it has yet to include him on its list (http://answercenter.barackobama.com/cgi-bin/barackobama.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=130&p_created=1176309944&p_sid=85P27s8j&p_accessibility=0&p_redirect=&p_lva=&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPSZwX3NvcnRfYnk9JnBfZ3JpZHNvcnQ9JnBfc m93X2NudD0xMjE)of bundlers.

“Once the primary season was over, the battle-ax was buried and we became one team,” said Johnson, who rejected the idea that McCain has special appeal to sports owners.

“I don’t think there’s any correlation between being a sports owner and supporting John McCain. I think there’s a correlation between being a businessman and supporting John McCain,” said Johnson.

“Although I have business issues and I have differences with Sen. Obama on some tax issues, that’s overridden by my commitment to what I believe he will contribute to the overall good of the country,” Johnson said.

As for the owners of the Bobcats’ NBA opponents, Johnson said they seldom talk politics, except to joke about it. “Some NBA owners are Republicans. Some NBA owners are Democrats,” he said. “But one thing they have in common is they’re all businessmen.”

Still, he said he’s considering calling “a bunch of guys I know” in sports ownership circles to ask for contributions for — and possibly a “public endorsement” of — Obama.

But the Illinois senator shouldn’t expect the Bobcat’s minority co-owner, hoops icon Michael Jordan, to hit the trail anytime soon, Johnson said, though the notoriously apolitical retired Chicago Bull did make a rare contribution – $2,100 – to Obama’s primary campaign.

“He’s not as involved as I am,” Johnson said, though he added that if he does proceed with his sports-moguls-for-Obama idea, “I’ll call anybody and everybody. The worst they could say is no.”

When sports owners like Johnson do decide to get involved in the political money game, they can become forces.

Thomas Hicks, the Dallas investor who owns the Dallas Stars of the National Hockey League and bought baseball’s Texas Rangers from a group of investors including then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush, raised more than $100,000 for each of Bush’s presidential campaigns.

He was a leading fundraiser for the failed Republican presidential campaign of former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, a devout Yankees fan who attracted wide financial support from sports moguls and awarded his bundlers by labeling them “sluggers,” “all-stars,” and “MVPs.” Since Giuliani dropped out, Hicks has raised or contributed as much as $309,000 for McCain.

New York Jets owner Robert Wood Johnson IV, an heir to the Johnson & Johnson fortune, seems to be an increasingly prominent money man for the GOP. He bundled more than $100,000 for Bush in 2000, then raised twice that much in 2004. He’s already bundled more than $500,000 for McCain, contributed more than $70,000 from his own pocket to McCain’s committees, and last month agreed (http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2008/chrnconv08/mnhost071808pr.html) to help the Republican National Convention host committee raise $10 million to make up a recently discovered shortfall.

Carl Pohlad, the banker and investor who owns baseball’s Minnesota Twins, and his family have contributed or bundled as much as $217,000 for Obama, while Robert Epstein, managing partner of basketball’s Boston Celtics, and his wife contributed more than $61,000 to Obama’s committees.

Bill Bidwill and son Michael Bidwill, the owner and president, respectively, of the National Football League’s Arizona Cardinals, contributed and bundled as much as $350,000 for McCain’s campaign. Their family has given hundreds of thousands more over the years to politicians and committees of both parties, though primarily those with ties to Arizona.

Michael Bidwill hinted at a localized giving strategy when asked about his contributions to McCain by the Arizona Republic this summer.

“We have a policy that if any season-ticket holder runs for president of the United States, we are going to support him,” he told the paper (http://www.azcentral.com/sports/azetc/articles/2008/06/23/20080623mccainsports0623.html), presumably with tongue planted in cheek.

Like other wealthy businesspeople, many sports owners spread their contributions across party lines.

Yankees owner George Steinbrenner, who in the mid-1970s pled guilty to making illegal contributions to Richard Nixon's reelection campaign, contributed $2,300 to Clinton’s primary campaign against Obama, then gave $15,000 to McCain’s joint committee.

Henry Samueli, owner of hockey’s Anaheim Ducks, contributed to Giuliani and Clinton during the primaries, then to McCain after he locked up the GOP nomination.

Since 2005, he and his wife, Susan, have poured tens of thousands of dollars into congressional campaigns ranging from Reps. Howard Berman and Jim Moran to Sens. Arlen Specter and Joe Lieberman.

But these days, politicians might be wise to steer clear of Henry Samueli, since he pleaded guilty (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-fi-samueli24-2008jun24,0,7516120.story)in June to lying to federal regulators about his role in an alleged stock option backdating scheme and will pay a $12 million fine as part of deal set to be finalized next week.

Then there is Washington Capitals owner Ted Leonsis, an AOL executive whose contributions mostly skew Democratic, who nonetheless maxed out to both Obama and McCain in the primary.

He explained (http://www.tedstake.com/?p=2415)on his blog this summer that he and his wife contribute to “many friends” in both parties. As far as the Obama-McCain matchup, he wrote “who we vote for is our own personal decision. Whoever wins, we hope they will enjoy coming to Caps games next year.”

tl;dr

I'd guess that they figure they will lose more money via taxes if Obama is elected than what they donated to McCain.

I'm sure Mxy was going to post this anyways:

http://www.newsmeat.com/fec/bystate_detail.php?city=Auburn+Hills&st=MI&last=davidson&first=william

Actually, I'd have posted this:

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080703/SPORTS03/80703054/1048

But for the most part, I'm just waiting until the conventions and the real debates. Last night's "faith forum" doesn't really count because they weren't on the stage together, and I suspect only a few fundies and pundies watched that over Michael Phelps (a compelling VP candidate if he were older).

The most amusing possible electoral game changer recently is McCain suggesting that he wants to siphon Colorado's water:

http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_10218277

http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2008/06/12/GR2008061200193.gif

Source: Washington Post

Great find. So how does McCain pay for the cuts across the board? Where does the $1,195 per person come from (if not taxes)? Does he cut 300 million from the budget or do we go that much farther in debt?

I guess the BO camp is whinning, after BO's dismal performance last night, that JM had the questions in advance or watched the show. lol

I didn't see it but heard BO looked like a fish outta water.

^^huh, haven't seen it but will have to watch. Thanks for the info.

He sounded fine from the few snippets I heard. Obama was told repeatedly to avoid use words from his stump speech in his answers, so his responses were wordier and less soundbitey. McCain used words almost entirely from his stump speeches. Halperin from Time rated both of their performances as "A minus", and he's not exactly part of the Obama cheerleader camp. The very first clip I got when I just searched for "obama" "saddleback" on Google Video gives you some indication.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NulWGXPDP0

I think it's comical that the megachurch dude oopsed about McCain being in some kind of "cone of silence" when he wasn't.

And now the McCain campaign is mad at NBC because Andrea Mitchell broke the story about JM having access to Obama's session and all of the questions in advance.

Here's Cafferty's take on the event:


NEW YORK (CNN) -- Russia invades Georgia and President Bush goes on vacation. Our president has spent one-third of his entire two terms in office either at Camp David, Maryland, or at Crawford, Texas, on vacation.
His time away from the Oval Office included the month leading up to 9/11, when there were signs Osama bin Laden was planning to attack America, and the time Hurricane Katrina destroyed the city of New Orleans.
Sen. John McCain takes weekends off and limits his campaign events to one a day. He made an exception for the religious forum on Saturday at Saddleback Church in Southern California.
I think he made a big mistake. When he was invited last spring to attend a discussion of the role of faith in his life with Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, at Messiah College in Pennsylvania, McCain didn't bother to show up. Now I know why.
It occurs to me that John McCain (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/John_McCain) is as intellectually shallow as our current president. When asked what his Christian faith means to him, his answer was a one-liner. "It means I'm saved and forgiven." Great scholars have wrestled with the meaning of faith for centuries. McCain then retold a story we've all heard a hundred times about a guard in Vietnam drawing a cross in the sand.
Asked about his greatest moral failure, he cited his first marriage, which ended in divorce. While saying it was his greatest moral failing, he offered nothing in the way of explanation. Why not?
Throughout the evening, McCain chose to recite portions of his stump speech as answers to the questions he was being asked. Why? He has lived 71 years. Surely he has some thoughts on what it all means that go beyond canned answers culled from the same speech he delivers every day.
He was asked "if evil exists." His response was to repeat for the umpteenth time that Osama bin Laden is a bad man and he will pursue him to "the gates of hell." That was it.
He was asked to define rich. After trying to dodge the question -- his wife is worth a reported $100 million -- he finally said he thought an income of $5 million was rich.
One after another, McCain's answers were shallow, simplistic, and trite. He showed the same intellectual curiosity that George Bush (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/George_W_Bush) has -- virtually none.
Where are John McCain's writings exploring the vexing moral issues of our time? Where are his position papers setting forth his careful consideration of foreign policy, the welfare state, education, America's moral responsibility in the world, etc., etc., etc.?
John McCain graduated 894th in a class of 899 at the Naval Academy at Annapolis. His father and grandfather were four star admirals in the Navy. Some have suggested that might have played a role in McCain being admitted. His academic record was awful. And it shows over and over again whenever McCain is called upon to think on his feet.
He no longer allows reporters unfettered access to him aboard the "Straight Talk Express" for a reason. He simply makes too many mistakes. Unless he's reciting talking points or reading from notes or a TelePrompTer, John McCain is lost. He can drop bon mots at a bowling alley or diner -- short glib responses that get a chuckle, but beyond that McCain gets in over his head very quickly.
I am sick and tired of the president of the United States embarrassing me. The world we live in is too complex to entrust it to someone else whose idea of intellectual curiosity and grasp of foreign policy issues is to tell us he can look into Vladimir Putin's (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/Vladimir_Putin) eyes and see into his soul.
George Bush's record as a student, military man, businessman and leader of the free world is one of constant failure. And the part that troubles me most is he seems content with himself.
He will leave office with the country $10 trillion in debt, fighting two wars, our international reputation in shambles, our government cloaked in secrecy and suspicion that his entire presidency has been a litany of broken laws and promises, our citizens' faith in our own country ripped to shreds. Yet Bush goes bumbling along, grinning and spewing moronic one-liners, as though nobody understands what a colossal failure he has been.
I fear to the depth of my being that John McCain is just like him.

Nice find.

I've thought (and to be honest, hoped) all along that when the presidential debates get here that McCain will be exposed as a doofus.

And now the McCain campaign is mad at NBC because Andrea Mitchell broke the story about JM having access to Obama's session and all of the questions in advance.

Do you believe that JM did?

I believe that it's possible and it shouldn't have been.

"BO attempted to legislate defeat in Iraq" JM

Not a bad line.

Tahoe, what do you think about this?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/01/flashback-read-mccains-mi_n_99585.html

"BO attempted to legislate defeat in Iraq" JM

Not a bad line.

Yeah, if you believe in the zero sum game.

hp;dcl

brief synopsis?

I can't read your code Tahoe. I lost my decoder ring.

hp;dcl

brief synopsis?

McCain declared the Iraq war won and over back in 2003 on the Senate floor.

It's okay to click this one (just this one time) it references an interview that he did on FOX NEWS and parts of the actual Senate transcript.

You can ignore the surrounding opinion and just examine the direct quotes if you'd like.

Well, I'd say at first glance that he was wrong if he declared the Iraq war won, cuz it wasn't til Bush finally got on board with JM/Patreus Surge plan that the war turned.

I thought the war turned in the days before the Mission Accomplished banner was hung?

^snarky

It seemed to many it did, but that was pretty short lived optimism.

My opinion is that when there are $140,000 soldiers of ours (plus another half million Iraq ones) involved in 'conflict' over there...that's pretty major in my book. You can debate what mission accomplished means, but McCain said specifically that all major combat missions were over. Considering we've had much greater casualties since the mission was "accomplished" I strongly disagree with his opinion.

^ yep, me too.

I might be able to give him a pass on it at the time (Bush mislead everyone really), but he's never strayed from that opinion that I've seen.

That's what so troubling about his "if I am elected, I will lead us to victory in Iraq" campaigning.

He doesn't realize that we've gone way past the point of "victory".

And given these 2003 comments, does he even know what "victory" means?

It just seems like he's pandering to the electorate.

I don't know about victory but Iraq can be a stable democratic (of sorts) country. At this point, we need to be successful in doing that. BO wanted to legislate defeat on that point. Thats why he doesn't poll well in this area, imo.

Obama came out in favor of a timetable for troop withdrawal, and the administration and the conservative pundits went berserk.

Fast forward ~six months and I'm sure you've noticed that Bush is negotiating doing exactly that.

The difference being that BO wanted to leave period. Regardless of the situation in Iraq. JM and Bush want there to be a stable gov't before we leave.

Legislating defeat, imo.

Legislating defeat, imo.

O NOES!

The difference being that BO wanted to leave period. Regardless of the situation in Iraq. JM and Bush want there to be a stable gov't before we leave.

Legislating defeat, imo.
The surge worked. Gas prices surged. Unemployment surged. Foreclosures surged. We're spending big money abroad while big problems mount at home. Who needs terrorists to disrupt our way of life when we have idiots and their enablers at the helm? Adjusting for inflation, we spend more on the military now than we did during the Cold War, and now the Cold War is just getting a reboot now that we've started overextending ourselves the same way the good 'ol U.S.S.R. did. Wow, we're so fucking clever...

Newsflash -- there's no way for a stable democracy to exist once we stop pouring money into the place. The same has been historically true for South Korea, or is a 50-year presence of 30k U.S. troops defending what is in many senses a much smaller footprint not sufficient historical evidence? Note that I said "stable democracy". There are other forms of stable governments, but we got rid of the last stable government because we didn't like the dictator at the top (that being the only clear-cut "victory" in all this). Does a friendly government in Iraq buy us enough to make the perpetual cost worthwhile? Lots of reasonable people disagree.

If you're going to hitch your stars on McCain buzzwords: "Drill here, drill now" is the more compelling one. I could imagine Reagan saying those words. In fact, I'd go viral with Reagan saying those words... cut and paste from some past Reagan speeches, make it a YouTube audio thing, compare McCain to Reagan not Bush.

The surge worked. Gas prices surged. Unemployment surged. Foreclosures surged. We're spending big money abroad while big problems mount at home. Who needs terrorists to disrupt our way of life when we have idiots and their enablers at the helm?

Excellent.

The surge worked. Gas prices surged. Unemployment surged. Foreclosures surged. We're spending big money abroad while big problems mount at home. Who needs terrorists to disrupt our way of life when we have idiots and their enablers at the helm? Adjusting for inflation, we spend more on the military now than we did during the Cold War, and now the Cold War is just getting a reboot now that we've started overextending ourselves the same way the good 'ol U.S.S.R. did. Wow, we're so fucking clever...

Newsflash -- there's no way for a stable democracy to exist once we stop pouring money into the place. The same has been historically true for South Korea, or is a 50-year presence of 30k U.S. troops defending what is in many senses a much smaller footprint not sufficient historical evidence? Note that I said "stable democracy". There are other forms of stable governments, but we got rid of the last stable government because we didn't like the dictator at the top (that being the only clear-cut "victory" in all this). Does a friendly government in Iraq buy us enough to make the perpetual cost worthwhile? Lots of reasonable people disagree.

If you're going to hitch your stars on McCain buzzwords: "Drill here, drill now" is the more compelling one. I could imagine Reagan saying those words. In fact, I'd go viral with Reagan saying those words... cut and paste from some past Reagan speeches, make it a YouTube audio thing, compare McCain to Reagan not Bush.

^ lol

Mxy that is THE most incorrect post I've ever seen you make. And I think you know that. :)

Prove me wrong, then.

My argument is that stability in Iraq is a money pit, that we're pissing away money in Iraq that could better be used at home, or perhaps to weigh in on other conflicts.

And "drill here, drill now" sounds more "Republican macho" and anthemic than "legislate defeat". It ranks up there with "yes we can" on the Dem side. I'd be doing ads with thousands screaming "drill here drill now".

No, Tahoe doesn't disprove through reason, but through laughs.

can I just say that "The Original Maverick" might be the dumbest line I have ever heard in a campaign ad

can I just say that "The Original Maverick" might be the dumbest line I have ever heard in a campaign ad


^LOL

can I just say that "The Original Maverick" might be the dumbest line I have ever heard in a campaign ad

I agree. lol. Its remind me of the old show Gunsmoke or something. Not the way you'd want to go about addressing the age issue.

He is a maverick because when he doesn't have cue cards he could say anything. He even goes against the grain on his own policies.

He is considered a maverick cuz he is not afraid to go against his own party.

Whoever he picks as his VP shall be referred to as "Goose"

"There are too 'O's in 'Goose' fellas. Not one."

The surge worked. Gas prices surged. Unemployment surged. Foreclosures surged.

.

So the surge cause gas prices to go up?
The surge caused unemployment to go up?
The surge caused foreclosures to rise?

Jesus Christ you've lowered yourself. Was the hurricane caused by the surge too? Lets politicize EVERYTHING!

No, I'm not making the literal argument that the surge caused those things.
It was simply a play on words about how "the surge is working".

The surge reflects the escalated pouring of money into the Iraq money pit at the expense of serious matters at home. Our ability to meaningfully react to the latest financial crises is limited because of a $1.5-2+ trillion dollar war.

I'm not seeing a scenario where we stop pouring money into the country and still end up with a stable friendly democracy. At the moment, it's relatively less U.S. troop casualties, more money paying off various sides to behave.

No, I'm not making the literal argument that the surge caused those things.
It was simply a play on words about how "the surge is working".

The surge reflects the escalated pouring of money into the Iraq money pit at the expense of serious matters at home. Our ability to meaningfully react to the latest financial crises is limited because of a $1.5-2+ trillion dollar war.

I'm not seeing a scenario where we stop pouring money into the country and still end up with a stable friendly democracy. At the moment, it's relatively less U.S. troop casualties, more money paying off various sides to behave.


Libertarians + Liberals = HUG

No, I'm not making the literal argument that the surge caused those things.
It was simply a play on words about how "the surge is working".

The surge reflects the escalated pouring of money into the Iraq money pit at the expense of serious matters at home. Our ability to meaningfully react to the latest financial crises is limited because of a $1.5-2+ trillion dollar war.

I'm not seeing a scenario where we stop pouring money into the country and still end up with a stable friendly democracy. At the moment, it's relatively less U.S. troop casualties, more money paying off various sides to behave.

para 1. Understood on the 1st paragraph.

para 2. Conservatives wouldn't want to bail out the entire situation anyway.

para 3. Are you saying it wasn't the military surge but dollars that made things better over there?

BO rips Corsi's (never heard of him before this) new book and Foxnews too....of course.

BO 12pt lead went to 2 (even with after this book? Is that true?

I guess Corsi wrote a book about 911 and how the gov't brought the towers down or something. And a book about Bush, etc.

We're spending big money paying and arming Sunnis "Awakening" militias and other Iraqis, which has had as much to do with it as the surge in U.S. troops, if not moreso. This is part of an age-old pattern. The way we've historically achieved stability in the region has involved throwing a lot of money around, occasionally buying off both sides, with dog and pony shows surrounding the payola. Your favorite prez, Jimmy Carter, achieved his famous Camp David Israel-Egypt peace by having them be #1/#2 in U.S. foreign aid for decades.

It works when you have the money to spend.

He is considered a maverick cuz he is not afraid to go against his own party.
That's because he has no party. He just adjusts his policies to match whatever he thinks will get him the win.

Like I said he's not afraid to go against himself.

BTW, there is a lot of talk recently about how smart he is and the fact he graduated 394th out of 399 people in his class. Also the fact that he cannot even use a computer. You might say "he's 72, how many 72 year olds can?" But, if we are giving this guy the keys to our nation you'd think he would have been able to learn to use something that's been around for 20+ years and is a huge part of our lives.

McCain unsure how many houses he owns

Reuters – Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said in an interview Wednesday that he was uncertain how many houses he and his wife, Cindy, own.

"I think — I'll have my staff get to you," McCain told Politico in Las Cruces, N.M. "It's condominiums where — I'll have them get to you."

The correct answer is at least four, located in Arizona, California and Virginia, according to his staff. Newsweek estimated this summer that the couple owns at least seven properties.

In recent weeks, Democrats have stepped up their effort to caricature McCain as living an outlandishly rich lifestyle — a bit of payback to the GOP for portraying Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) as an elitist, and for turning the spotlight in 2004 on the five homes owned by Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) and his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry.

Pro-Obama labor groups have sent out mailers highlighting McCain’s wealth, and prominent Democrats have included references to it in comments to reporters.

Twice in the past two weeks, those Democrats have focused on McCain’s houses.

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) told Politico’s Ben Smith that it was McCain “who wears $500 shoes, has six houses and comes from one of the richest families in his state."

And David Axelrod, Obama’s chief strategist, referred in an interview with Adam Nagourney of The New York Times to an imagined meeting of McCain strategists “on the portico of the McCain estate in Sedona — or maybe in one of his six other houses.”

The Obama campaign seized on the house issue Thursday with an ad called "Seven," claiming that's the number of houses McCain has.

The ad closes with a shot of the White House and the narration: "Here's ONE house American can't afford to let John McCain move into."

McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said in response: "Does a guy who made more than $4 million last year, just got back from vacation on a private beach in Hawaii and bought his own million-dollar mansion with the help of a convicted felon really want to get into a debate about houses? Does a guy who worries about the price of arugula and thinks regular people 'cling' to guns and religion in the face of economic hardship really want to have a debate about who’s in touch with regular Americans?

“The reality is that Barack Obama’s plans to raise taxes and opposition to producing more energy here at home as gas prices skyrocket show he’s completely out of touch with the concerns of average Americans.”

At a campaign appearance in Chester, Va., on Thursday morning, Obama said: "Somebody asked John McCain, 'How many houses do you have?’ And he said, I’m not sure. I’ll have to check with my staff. True quote: I’m not sure, I’ll have to check with my staff. So they asked his staff and he said, at least four. At least four! ...

"If you’re like me and you’ve got one house – or you were like the millions of people who are struggling right now to keep up with their mortgage so that they don’t lose their home — you might have a different perspective. By the way, the answer is: John McCain has seven homes. So there’s just a fundamental gap of understanding between John McCain's world and what people are going through every single day here in America."

McCain’s comments came four days after he initially told Pastor Rick Warren during a faith forum on Sunday his threshold for considering someone rich is $5 million — a careless comment he quickly corrected.

In the interview, McCain did not offer an alternate number, but had a new answer ready.

“I define rich in other ways besides income,” he said. “Some people are wealthy and rich in their lives and their children and their ability to educate them. Others are poor if they’re billionaires.”

McCain, by anyone's measure, is well-off, if you account for his wife's fortune. Cindy McCain inherited control of her father’s beer distributorship, the largest in Arizona, and has an estimated worth of more than $100 million.

Here's the commercial mentioned in that article:
P3orvvYAUdk

^ Oh how terrible!

^snarky

Do we have a snarky emo? If not I'll have Motown add that to his list to give to you.

McCain's position on bringing back the draft is a hot topic, too.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/08/20/mccain-support-draft/

I just noticed your sig. JM is just wrong on that. He doesn't want to waterboard.

I just noticed your sig. JM is just wrong on that. He doesn't want to waterboard.

I'm pretty sure he's held both opinions on that in the last year. I'm not sure which side he's with that one (I guess he's against it now according to you).

He was for it, before he was against it.

McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said in response: "Does a guy who made more than $4 million last year, just got back from vacation on a private beach in Hawaii and bought his own million-dollar mansion with the help of a convicted felon really want to get into a debate about houses? Does a guy who worries about the price of arugula and thinks regular people 'cling' to guns and religion in the face of economic hardship really want to have a debate about who’s in touch with regular Americans?

“The reality is that Barack Obama’s plans to raise taxes and opposition to producing more energy here at home as gas prices skyrocket show he’s completely out of touch with the concerns of average Americans.”

I don't see what going to Hawaii has to do with owning 7 homes. You're talking about a vacation that might be 10-20 grand at most vs 13 million dollars in homes. That's not comparable.

And how can they say he's out of touch with average Americans (raising taxes) when he'll cut taxes for the 'average' American far more than McCain. He's only raising them on the very wealthy, which I don't consider an average American.

I think Obama needs to hit that last point harder IMO.

A Google earth tour of McCain's homes. lol

0Glia_Vrbc8

I wonder the convicted felon Tony Rezco helped JM buy any of those homes like he did for Mr. Obama.

^canned talking point alert

just playing, Tahoe

Tahoe fights dirty.

But its a fair kind of dirty.
Me too GD

Correct response:

Then how come my conscience is so clean?!?!
sorry

Here comes some more 501c smear!

Yipeeee!


Group to spend $2.8 million on anti-Obama ad

By JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press Writer
11 mins ago

WASHINGTON – A conservative nonprofit group with a past link to Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign is spending $2.8 million on an ad questioning Democrat Barack Obama's relationship to a founder of the 1960s radical group Weather Underground.

The ad, which is expected to begin airing Thursday in Michigan and Friday in Ohio, focuses on William Ayers, whose Weatherman organization took credit for a series of bombings, including nonfatal explosions at the Pentagon and U.S. Capitol 40 years ago.

American Issues Project, the sponsor of the ad, is a nonprofit 501(c)4 organization. One of its board members, Ed Failor Jr., was a paid consultant for McCain's campaign in Iowa last year. The campaign paid his firm $50,000 until July 2007. American Issues Project spokesman Christian Pinkston said Failor has no connection to the McCain campaign now.

Ayers is now a university professor. He and Obama live in the same Chicago neighborhood and served together on the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a charity group. Ayers also held a meet-the-candidate event at his home for Obama when Obama first ran for office in the mid-1990s.

"Barack Obama is friends with Ayers, defending him as, quote, 'Respectable' and 'Mainstream,'" the ad states. "Obama's political career was launched in Ayers' home. And the two served together on a left-wing board. Why would Barack Obama be friends with someone who bombed the Capitol and is proud of it? Do you know enough to elect Barack Obama?"

^ Oh how terrible!

^snarky

Do we have a snarky emo? If not I'll have Motown add that to his list to give to you.
It's a quality line of attack, but the way the commercial is done is iffy. Pundits will carry the commercial further than the commercial itself does.

^ yep its one of those adds. Like JM's add with Britney and Paris, the media played that add way more than JM's campaign had to pay for it to be aired.

Its a good tactic, imo, to let someone else do it for you.

I'd like to know BO's relationship with the WU if I was considering a vote for him...or any other candidate.

The difference for me is that I don't want to see it in a 30-60 sec commercial. I bet a show would disprove any substantiative involvement.

Correct response:

sorry

:motown owns:

Corsi's book has been #1 for 3 weeks now. Holy shit!

Corsi wrote articles that tied mccain to al qaeda and organized crime earlier in the year. Of course, that was back when the idiot squad was proclaiming an apocalypse if mccain were to get the nomination. Now that mccain has the nomination, the apocalypse must be shifted to an obama presidency. I suppose you can count on robust sales by making shit up and shoveling it to the idiot right fringe.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/08/18/jerome-corsi-wrote-that-group-tied-to-al-qaeda-supports-mccain/

I'd like to know BO's relationship with the WU if I was considering a vote for him...or any other candidate.

The difference for me is that I don't want to see it in a 30-60 sec commercial. I bet a show would disprove any substantiative involvement.

It is pretty easy to explain actually. The Weather Underground disbanded while Obama was still a kid in Hawaii. He has no association with that group. He knew an education professor that was formerly involved with that group. I personally wouldn't assume that professors that work at non-profits were formerly domestic terrorists, but smear by association works great for dimwitted morons.

While his means were inconsistent with his ideas and despicable, at least, Ayres realized Vietnam was a stupid clusterfuck. McCain has written that he would have never left Vietnam if he had been president. He also wanted to invade Serbia with ground troops (rather than just bomb them). His immediate statement about the Geogian crisis was to immediately include Georgia in NATO, which I think would have necessitated world war. Apparently, someone talked some sense into him, because he backtracked on that statement (flip-flopped) if you will. Of course, he also sang bomb-bomb-bomb iran.

None of that matters to tahoe because obama knew an education professor that was a radical in the 60s. Now mccain is talking about returning to the draft, and it is not the first time.


If you’re beginning to detect a rigid sense of citizenship and a skeptical attitude toward individual choice, you are beginning to understand what kind of president John McCain actually would make, in contrast with the straight-talking maverick that journalists love to quote but rarely examine in depth. For years McCain has warned that a draft will be necessary if we don’t boost military pay, and he has long agitated for mandatory national service. “Those who claim their liberty but not their duty to the civilization that ensures it live a half-life, indulging their self-interest at the cost of their self-respect,” he wrote in The Washington Monthly in 2001. “Sacrifice for a cause greater than self-interest, however, and you invest your life with the eminence of that cause. Americans did not fight and win World War II as discrete individuals.”

http://www.reason.com/news/printer/118937.html

I wonder the convicted felon Tony Rezco helped JM buy any of those homes like he did for Mr. Obama.

JM didn't need Rezko because he and Cindy's family had already profitted from the Keating scandal. The federal govt. was liable for $2 billion from the Keating mess, far more than Rezko.


McCain and Keating had become personal friends following their initial contacts in 1981.[8] Between 1982 and 1987, McCain had received $112,000 in lawful[14] political contributions from Keating and his associates.[15] In addition, McCain's wife Cindy McCain and her father Jim Hensley had invested $359,100 in a Keating shopping center in April 1986, a year before McCain met with the regulators. McCain, his family, and their baby-sitter had made nine trips at Keating's expense, sometimes aboard Keating's jet. Three of the trips were made during vacations to Keating's opulent Bahamas retreat at Cat Cay. McCain did not pay Keating (in the amount of $13,433) for some of the trips until years after they were taken, when he learned that Keating was in trouble over Lincoln.[6][16]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five

Mr. Judgement calls rumsfeld and cheney the "strongest national security team we (ie America) ever had" in 2001 tv interview. Of course, one might require the strongest national security team to not allow. the greatest security disaster in our history to occur in the first place.

FiQMDmvdqA0