Sarah Palin: Pros and Cons [Thread Retitled]

[Corlyss_D]

As a--uh, "woman at large" I'll be happy she ran, if she loses. If she and McCain win, the precedent (or even by chance the president, should the likes of melanoma rear its ugly head) will not be a good one for women any time in the near future. (We can perhaps look beyond to Futurama, or whatever.)

Is there a factual basis for these predictions, or are they just an expression of sheer prejudice?

Come on, it isn't her, it's her ideology. What good will it do women to have their right to privacy (even to the point of the right to refuse to bear the child of a rapist) reversed, their sons and daughters going off to whatever war "God" directs them to, their reading material filtered through a Christian Right censor, their daughters kept in ignorance about sex and the prevention of pregnancy and STD's (Oh, wait a minute, you're 15, "just don't do it."), a Supreme Court that will be so ultraconservative they will swing the nation away from equal rights for all, an attitude of Christian Crusading that will continue to inflame the Muslim world and in turn, rather than encourage the improvement of women's lot in Third World countries, encourage more of the same--burqua'd women with few rights as human beings.

I have to give it to McCain for his brilliant strategy. So far it's worked. Dim and Fems have completely taken their eye off the ball in attacking Palin. Since when did the VP decide major policy issues? Teresa, you attribute to the VP, never mind the P, powers not in their possession. You treat them like they were tyrants who can order this policy or that policy without the involvement of that gasseous drag on efficiency, the Congress. You talk like the minute McCain and Palin take office, the Dim Congress will roll over and play dead. Either you're masking your prejudice with Dim/Fem talking point horror stories, or you forget Civics 101.

And what if we don't even care specifically about women's plight in other countries?

I haven't heard that NOW is operating in Saudi Arabia, or Sudan, or Zimbabwe, or China, or Thailand. Just who is it that really cares about women's plight in other countries? The World Bank.

[Corlyss_D]

The Hunt for Sarah October

Democrats understand Sarah Palin is a formidable political force who has upset the Obama victory plan. The latest Washington Post/ABC Poll shows John McCain taking a 12-point lead over Barack Obama among white women, a reversal of Mr. Obama's eight-point lead last month.

It's no surprise, then, that Democrats have airdropped a mini-army of 30 lawyers, investigators and opposition researchers into Anchorage, the state capital Juneau and Mrs. Palin's hometown of Wasilla to dig into her record and background. My sources report the first wave arrived in Anchorage less than 24 hours after John McCain selected her on August 29.

The main area of interest to the Democratic SWAT team is Mrs. Palin's dismissal in July of her public safety commissioner. Mrs. Palin says he was fired for cause. Her critics claim he was fired because he wouldn't bend to pressure to get rid of a state trooper, Mike Wooten, who had been involved in a bitter divorce battle with Mrs. Palin's sister. Mr. Wooten is certainly a colorful character. He served a five-day suspension after the Palin family filed a complaint against him alleging he had threatened Mrs. Palin's father. They also accused him of using a Taser on his 10-year-old stepson, drinking in his patrol car and illegally shooting a moose.

Mrs. Palin will return to Alaska for the first time in nearly two weeks on Wednesday night, when she is scheduled to arrive in Fairbanks. Local Republicans will hold a "Welcome Home" rally for her. You can bet some of the Democratic opposition research contingent will be in the audience taking notes. They'll be the ones arriving in rental cars and wearing fancy dress shoes from back east.

-- John Fund

Hillary and Sarah Strike a Truce

Hillary Clinton threaded her way carefully through the debate over Sarah Palin's presence on the GOP ticket in a campaign appearance for Barack Obama yesterday in Florida.

Mrs. Palin had singled out Hillary Clinton for praise at the announcement of her candidacy for "making 18 million cracks in the glass ceiling" of American politics, a reference to the number of Clinton votes in the Democratic primaries. In turn, Mrs. Clinton was careful not to disparage Mrs. Palin, even as she told voters that a McCain-Palin ticket "are not the change that we need" from Bush administration policies.

"It is a great accomplishment," she said of Mrs. Palin's selection. "Women as well as men make their decisions after they weigh the evidence."

Former Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson says Democrats who expect Mrs. Clinton to sink her rhetorical teeth into Mrs. Palin are going to be disappointed. "Don't hold your breath," he wrote in the New Republic. "Clinton-Palin might drive ratings and sell magazines, but it wouldn't be good for the Democratic Party, or the cause of women's rights. Some might enjoy the spectacle, but don't expect Hillary Clinton to play along."

Some members of her audience certainly tried to stir things up. One supporter interrupted her speech in Tampa yesterday by shouting "Tell us about Palin!" She politely declined by commenting: "You know what? I don't think that's what this election is about. This election is about the differences between us and the Republican Party."

If Team Obama is looking for an attack dog against Mrs. Palin, they may have to make another trip to the political pound.

-- John Fund

[Corlyss_D]

I think it's a bad situation to have women vote for someone because it's a woman, or blacks to vote black, and so on.

Well, it was moot at the national level until the first woman and the first black ran for the top jobs. When it becomes the norm, we'll revert to the usual reasons for picking a candidate: we feel comfortable with them making decisions on our behalf. It has long been a fact in American elections that issues don't matter much because we understand at some basic level that 1) the president can't and does't do it all; 2) Congress has the most to say about what is done and what isn't; 3) facts change when you become responsible for making the decisions. Which is why we indulge in these periodic orgies of "the politics of personal destruction." The game is to make people uncomfortable with the moral character or the judgment of the candidate. I've been greatly amused watching this year as the Dims, so long the vocal champions of making voter decisions "based on the content of their character" to advance blacks, suddenly defending an empty suit with the subtext "Vote for him because he's black and you're a racist if you don't." Ditto Hillary's run after New Hampshire: "Vote for me because I'm a woman." You can't rile up that kind of support and then give it no place to go. The Republicans have given it a place to go: if voting for the first woman VP is important to you because she's a woman, or because you resent the blatantly sexist way the media behaved toward Hillary or the viciously demeaning and sexist way the media behaves toward Palin, you've got a place for your vote.

Whereas, nascent democracies often do not work because of multiple strong ethnic identities co-existing within one state. For example, democratic elections in Iraq would go totally Shia, since Shia's will vote Shia and Sunni's will vote Sunni (and Kurds, Kurdish) . Since the country is 2/3 Shia, the Shia's will get their way.

You are right on the whole. I would question whether those countries you describe could rightly be called "democracies" using the criteria on State's website. If there is no respect for minority rights, rule of law, etc., they fail. I believe the surge was the answer to sectarian violence in Iraq, and the decision of the Sunnis to cooperate was strictly based on their realization that they were going to have to trust somebody. You and I, living in a society where civic trust has existed for many hundreds of years, often don't appreciate how potent a force it is in making us feel American or Canadian, nor do we grasp fully the hell life can become where civic trust has been deliberately destroyed, because we've never been truly without it. I rail about the Democrats and Rob rails about the Republicans, but right now, when the chips are down, we are all Americans. How long that will last into the future is anybody's guess. Sometimes I think we are coming dangerously close to becoming irreconcilable in our differing visions for this nation.

[Teresa B]

As a--uh, "woman at large" I'll be happy she ran, if she loses. If she and McCain win, the precedent (or even by chance the president, should the likes of melanoma rear its ugly head) will not be a good one for women any time in the near future. (We can perhaps look beyond to Futurama, or whatever.)

Is there a factual basis for these predictions, or are they just an expression of sheer prejudice?

They have a basis. It's called paranoia.

Excuse me, but I have taken the MMPI, and my "paranoia" scale is close to zero. And as Henry so kindly stated, it's called "opinion", not "sheer prejudice". If it were sheer prejudice, I wouldn't be voting against someone based on ideology or platforms, but based on some irrelevant factor. I will own up to exaggerating a bit to make a point, but goodness me, my comments are pretty mild compared to the stuff I see coming from many other posters here! I don't necessarily think EVERY thing I mentioned will instantly come true. But in general, I don't like the trend set by the present administration, and I'm not keen on having it continue.

Teresa

P.S. Piston, I have twice corrected the mis-quote of mine that you are so horrified to think might be attributed to you.

[Teresa B]

I have to give it to McCain for his brilliant strategy. So far it's worked. Dim and Fems have completely taken their eye off the ball in attacking Palin. Since when did the VP decide major policy issues? Teresa, you attribute to the VP, never mind the P, powers not in their possession. You treat them like they were tyrants who can order this policy or that policy without the involvement of that gasseous drag on efficiency, the Congress. You talk like the minute McCain and Palin take office, the Dim Congress will roll over and play dead. Either you're masking your prejudice with Dim/Fem talking point horror stories, or you forget Civics 101.

Prejudice, schmejudice! I wish everyone would get off this prejudice thing. I don't see a lot of yelling "prejudice" when Saul, for instance, makes his obvious prejudices known. Since when is disliking somebody's ideology and political platform "prejudice"?

Corlyss, if you notice, in my original SHOCKING post, I actually did not attribute all that power to the VP. (Although since Cheney has changed the role of VP, who knows? Hmm?) I qualified it with if McCain should succumb to melanoma--unlikely but certainly not an unthinkable possibility. And I'm sure you agree that Congress is doing such a fabbo job right now, they'll stalwartly buck up to the McCain/Palin tide. And anyway, I was thinking more of what could transpire in the Supreme Court.

Teresa

Ed. for spelling.

[RebLem]

If Team Obama is looking for an attack dog against Mrs. Palin, they may have to make another trip to the political pound.-- John Fund

One has already stepped up to the plate, if I may mix metaphors--a true maverick by the name of Ed Koch, who is proving he is a maverick this year by also supporting the re-election of NY Republican Congressman Peter King. Read... RebLem

Former NY mayor: Palin 'scares the hell out of me'

Tuesday, September 9, 2008

NEW YORK (AP) — Saying that Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin "scares the hell out of me," former New York Mayor Ed Koch endorsed fellow Democrat Barack Obama on Tuesday.

In 2004, Koch backed President Bush for re-election saying the Republican incumbent was better equipped to combat "Islamic terrorists" than Democratic candidate John Kerry.

Koch, who was mayor of New York from 1977 to 1989, said he has concluded that the country would be safer in the hands of Obama and running mate Joe Biden than presidential candidate John McCain and Palin.

"Protecting and defending the U.S. means more than defending us from foreign attacks," Koch said, citing such concerns as civil liberties, abortion rights, gay rights and access to health insurance.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iNxT ... gD933CTR80

Posted on September 9th, 2008, the 1,959th day after Shrub announced that major combat operations in Iraq had ended, the 57th day before the November 4th US general election, and the 134th day before the end of the Cheney Kakistocracy. RebLem

[Chalkperson]

If Team Obama is looking for an attack dog against Mrs. Palin, they may have to make another trip to the political pound.-- John Fund

It was Obama's decision not to give the VP to Hillary, his ego yet again, McCain made a very smart and very astute move...even though I am certainly far from a fan of his I think his move was brilliant...

But nobody knows the winner till the votes are counted...

[Corlyss_D]

Prejudice, schmejudice! I wish everyone would get off this prejudice thing.

Oh, we just get a big kick out of watching the Fems self-immolate over the success of one who doesn't share their ideology.

Since when is disliking somebody's ideology and political platform "prejudice"?

When the someone doesn't share the black or Fem victicrat agenda.

And I'm sure you agree that Congress is doing such a fabbo job right now, they'll stalwartly buck up to the McCain/Palin tide. And anyway, I was thinking more of what could transpire in the Supreme Court.

Precisely. Who do you think runs the Congress? The Senate Judiciary Committee? I predict that if McCain is elected, all government will grind to a complete stop except on those issues where McCain and the Dims already agree. Judges ain't one of them. My surmise is that if a SCOTUS job comes open with a Dim controlled Congress, the job will go vacant. It won't be the first time seats on the federal bench have languished because of Democratic obstuctionism. It has been happening all thru Bush's administration and it happened a lot under Reagan.

[slofstra]

If Team Obama is looking for an attack dog against Mrs. Palin, they may have to make another trip to the political pound.-- John Fund

It was Obama's decision not to give the VP to Hillary, his ego yet again, McCain made a very smart and very astute move...even though I am certainly far from a fan of his I think his move was brilliant...

But nobody knows the winner till the votes are counted...

I don't agree with your analysis, chalkie. You don't give any quarter to your key rival even if on the same team. With egos and all, she will work for the team, but not really work for the team, if you know what I mean.

[Teresa B]

Prejudice, schmejudice! I wish everyone would get off this prejudice thing.

Oh, we just get a big kick out of watching the Fems self-immolate over the success of one who doesn't share their ideology.

You'll be happy to hear I have no plans for imminent immolation, as I am much too level-headed for such dramatics. In fact, I think that unfortunate smilie is a PUMA.

Since when is disliking somebody's ideology and political platform "prejudice"?

When the someone doesn't share the black or Fem victicrat agenda.

OK then, by this definition, anyone who doesn't share the Reschlublicans agenda must be speaking from prejudice rather than opinion, too.

Teresa

[slofstra]

Bad news for the McCain camp. Just after the convention they are still 1% behind Obama (WSJ-NBC poll 9 SEP 08). You always get a boost after a convention, before another cycle of sober second thought sinks in, so this is as high as they get for a while. All the way down from here for Mccain until the next poll-shaking "event", whatever that may be.

[RebLem]

Bad news for the McCain camp. Just after the convention they are still 1% behind Obama (WSJ-NBC poll 9 SEP 08). You always get a boost after a convention, before another cycle of sober second thought sinks in, so this is as high as they get for a while. All the way down from here for Mccain until the next poll-shaking "event", whatever that may be.

National polls are totally meaningless. What is important are the state to state breakdowns because that tells you what the electoral vote is likely to be. Go to Real Clear Politics and check out the maps. There is a way, however, to get to a no victory for anyone 269 for each candidate. You accept RCP's solid and leaning too suggestions, and then go through the "too close to call" states. You assume a solid south, including Florida, for McCain, and you assume McCain gets Ohio and Indiana. You assume Obama gets New Mexico, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. That leads to 260 electoral votes apiece. The three states left undecided are New Hampshire (4votes), Nevada (5 votes), and Colorado (9). If one candidate then gets Colorado and the other candidate carries New Hampshire and Nevada, you're at 269 apiece and the election goes into the House of Representatives.

That, btw, is another argument for statehood for DC. With three more electoral votes, you'd always have an odd number of electoral votes, so that ties are not possible. Of course, Maine and Nebraska, the only two states that do not apply the unit rule, could break the tie in the electoral college so that wouldn't happen. Could be a much more exciting year than most people imagine now.

Posted on September 9th, 2008, the 1,959th day after Shrub announced that major combat operations in Iraq had ended, the 57th day before the November 4th US general election, and the 134th day before the end of the Cheney Kakistocracy. RebLem

[DavidRoss]

[re. Teresa's claim that electing McCain & Palin would be bad for women] Is there a factual basis for these predictions, or are they just an expression of sheer prejudice?

Come on, it isn't her, it's her ideology. What good will it do women to have their right to privacy (even to the point of the right to refuse to bear the child of a rapist) reversed, their sons and daughters going off to whatever war "God" directs them to, their reading material filtered through a Christian Right censor, their daughters kept in ignorance about sex and the prevention of pregnancy and STD's (Oh, wait a minute, you're 15, "just don't do it."), a Supreme Court that will be so ultraconservative they will swing the nation away from equal rights for all, an attitude of Christian Crusading that will continue to inflame the Muslim world and in turn, rather than encourage the improvement of women's lot in Third World countries, encourage more of the same--burqua'd women with few rights as human beings.

And what if we don't even care specifically about women's plight in other countries? All that oil drilling that will only help slightly to feed our nationwide "addiction" (as proclaimed by our illustrious president himself) will not decrease our desperate dependence on the Middle East even while we Crusade against them. Makes SO much sense.

Sheer prejudice it is. Thanks for making that clear.

Actually, it's called opinion. Fundamentally, election choices are value based; clearly McCain and Palin epitomize values held by some Americans and not held by others.

Yes, it's an opinion.

Opinions may be based on many things. Some opinions are rational, based on thoughtful and informed consideration of all the relevant facts. Some opinions are based on sheer prejudice. I asked if the opinion Theresa expressed were based on facts or prejudice. She answered very clearly and graphically by painting an extremely bigoted caricature of a conservative Christian. Read her response and see for yourself.

If she were to describe an African-American, or an Asian-American, or a Mexican-American according to such vicious stereotypes, you would instantly recognize it for what it is. Unfortunately, leftist bigots feel that their prejudices toward Christians and conservatives are justified. They seem sadly incapable of taking an honest look at themselves and seeing that they're no different in kind from the worst racist, sexist, ignorant fundamentalist redneck stereotype they can imagine.

That even reasonably intelligent and well-educated people who pride themselves on their moral righteousness so habitually and reflexively demonize others, rather than seeking to understand their differences, makes my heart ache as if squeezed in a vise. It is a terrible thing for so much hatred to divide our nation so deeply. Perhaps if we were quicker to seek to understand others, and slower to pass judgment on them, then we might be able to heal our wounds instead of worsening them.

Insofar as values are concerned, Henry, I think you could not be more wrong. Liberals and Conservatives generally share very similar fundamental values. Where they differ is in how those values can best be achieved and preserved.

[Chalkperson]

If Team Obama is looking for an attack dog against Mrs. Palin, they may have to make another trip to the political pound.-- John Fund

It was Obama's decision not to give the VP to Hillary, his ego yet again, McCain made a very smart and very astute move...even though I am certainly far from a fan of his I think his move was brilliant...

But nobody knows the winner till the votes are counted...

I don't agree with your analysis, chalkie. You don't give any quarter to your key rival even if on the same team. With egos and all, she will work for the team, but not really work for the team, if you know what I mean.

I meant that he was losing ground badly, Obama was High on his Hill being Ordained and rather than take Romney, and unable to have his choice of Lieberman, he was stuck, then he remembered the woman from Alaska and he took a chance, first everybody thought he was nuts but then she spoke (OK Scripted) at the Convention (I of course did not see or here this) and the world changed overnight, she turned Obama's World around and she has yet to be interviewed or debated, for taking that flyer I give him due credit, of course I don't want them to Win, but I don't want Obama either, I, like Corlyss and Saul would like a new set of candidates please...

If you are referring to Hillary then understand my deep rooted resentment of both of them for not coming together to form a team, she refused to stop Campaigning and now has $20 million of debts and he refused to work with her, the Bill Factor would not have made it easy but at least they would have won...the race is/was so tight Obama vs Clinton for the Nomination or Obama vs McCain for the Presidency that it's impossible to tell who will win...Obama/Clinton would have Won but she wanted Clinton/Obama, they both refused to yield and the Dim's lost, my friends at the DNC have been predicting for more than a year that if he runs without Hillary he will probably lose (or a total landslide)...he is not qualified for the Job, truly he is not, he will be Presidential and a Statesman but as for running the Country forget it, Governors become Presidents because they know how to Govern and the President is in charge of the Govern(ment)...it always helps if you can at least have a fair crack at doing what the people below you can do (in any Business even yours or mine) and Obama has no F****N Experience...

OK i'm gonna play Assasin's Creed on my PS3, I need to kill a few Templars to calm me down before dinner...

[Chalkperson]

Henry, read Rob's post about the Electoral Votes, it's not like Canada or the UK, it is an old and out of date model for electing a President, go to the sites he mentioned, it's an absurd system (to me anyway) but it is what is going to happen in November, and Rob and Corlyss have both said it's going to be an exciting Finish, I agree with them too...

[DavidRoss]

Henry, read Rob's post about the Electoral Votes, it's not like Canada or the UK, it is an old and out of date model for electing a President, go to the sites he mentioned, it's an absurd system (to me anyway) but it is what is going to happen in November, and Rob and Corlyss have both said it's going to be an exciting Finish, I agree with them too...

No, it's actually a very well thought out system that helps assure that our national government, including the executive branch, is broadly representational. It's far from a perfect system, but it has proven to work pretty well for over two hundred years.

I presume you have not become a naturalized citizen of the United States, otherwise you would have been required to learn a few things about our Republic and our representational system of government.

[Corlyss_D]

Bad news for the McCain camp. Just after the convention they are still 1% behind Obama (WSJ-NBC poll 9 SEP 08).

You can't rely on just one poll. You have to look at the RCP average, which has McCain up 2+ points today, 9 Sept 08. It will change as the campaign rolls on. That's why you have to check it every day.

In fact, since 1968, no Republican has done worse on Election Day than he was doing in major polls taken around Labor Day. On that basis, Mr. Obama should worry that Mr. McCain has now tied him or is leading in current polls. -- John Fund

National polls are totally meaningless. What is important are the state to state breakdowns because that tells you what the electoral vote is likely to be. Go to Real Clear Politics and check out the maps. There is a way, however, to get to a no victory for anyone 269 for each candidate. You accept RCP's solid and leaning too suggestions, and then go through the "too close to call" states. You assume a solid south, including Florida, for McCain, and you assume McCain gets Ohio and Indiana. You assume Obama gets New Mexico, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. That leads to 260 electoral votes apiece. The three states left undecided are New Hampshire (4votes), Nevada (5 votes), and Colorado (9). If one candidate then gets Colorado and the other candidate carries New Hampshire and Nevada, you're at 269 apiece and the election goes into the House of Representatives.

Rob's right about the state-by-state numbers being vastly more important than the national totals. The rest of his analysis is too complex for me. He must be channeling Rove. This is how Rove talks. Rob, do you have an electoral map and dry erase board too?

That, btw, is another argument for statehood for DC. With three more electoral votes, you'd always have an odd number of electoral votes, so that ties are not possible.

There is not now nor has there ever been an argument for DC statehood. I've lived there. I've seen it up close and personal. It will never get statehood if for no other reason than Congress would have more trouble jerking a state around than it does DC.

[Corlyss_D]

Henry, read Rob's post about the Electoral Votes, it's not like Canada or the UK, it is an old and out of date model for electing a President, go to the sites he mentioned, it's an absurd system (to me anyway) but it is what is going to happen in November, and Rob and Corlyss have both said it's going to be an exciting Finish, I agree with them too...

No, it's actually a very well thought out system that helps assure that our national government, including the executive branch, is broadly representational. It's far from a perfect system, but it has proven to work pretty well for over two hundred years.

Well, IMO what he would learn is that its an outdated and stupid system that lost what little relevance it once might have had when Senators ceased to be appointed by the states, the public at large was enfranchised, and women got the vote. Unfortunately, because it permits both parties to game the system by concentrating on either the states with the largest voting blocks or the states with the swing voters, instead of all states, nothing will ever be done about it. I don't think it has worked well at all. Sure it renders an result, but so would ditching it. But hey, that's just my opinion. I've never, and I mean never lived in a state where my vote counted.

[Corlyss_D]

I don't agree with your analysis, chalkie. You don't give any quarter to your key rival even if on the same team. With egos and all, she will work for the team, but not really work for the team, if you know what I mean.

Hillary's negatives never got down below 40% so picking her was going to be a crap shoot if he was stupid enough to take Bill the Priapic into the bargain and how could he refuse? Morris said constantly throughout the primary season that if Obama was stupid enough to take Hillary, he would render himself immediately evidently unfit for office because the Gruesome Twosome would forever be conniving behind his back to undermine him and because of Bill's shady shenanigans.

I meant that he was losing ground badly, Obama was High on his Hill being Ordained

You'll have to explain to me how McCain was losing ground badly when he routinely polled within a few percentage points of Obama in a year when Republicans are dead electoral meat and he consistently polls 10+ points ahead of the brand.

[Chalkperson]

Well, IMO what he would learn is that its an outdated and stupid system that lost what little relevance it once might have had when Senators ceased to be appointed by the states, the public at large was enfranchised, and women got the vote. Unfortunately, because it permits both parties to game the system by concentrating on either the states with the largest voting blocks or the states with the swing voters, instead of all states, nothing will ever be done about it. I don't think it has worked well at all. Sure it renders an result, but so would ditching it. But hey, that's just my opinion. I've never, and I mean never lived in a state where my vote counted.

Phew, I was thinking I may have to reply to Mr Ross...thanks...

[Chalkperson]

You'll have to explain to me how McCain was losing ground badly when he routinely polled within a few percentage points of Obama in a year when Republicans are dead electoral meat and he consistently polls 10+ points ahead of the brand.

I said he was losing ground badly when Obama was Ordained, that Thursday, a week later he came up with Palin as his VP, I was actually only referring to the seven day period that Obama was up on high, that week when the GOP had to cancel day one of their Big Show etc, I have repeatedly said that its ascloseasthis and therefore tooclosetoocall...

Hillary's negatives never got down below 40% so picking her was going to be a crap shoot if he was stupid enough to take Bill the Priapic into the bargain and how could he refuse? Morris said constantly throughout the primary season that if Obama was stupid enough to take Hillary, he would render himself immediately evidently unfit for office because the Gruesome Twosome would forever be conniving behind his back to undermine him and because of Bill's shady shenanigans.

They could have all pulled together for the Democratic Party after Super Tuesday, HillBill had no plan because they were so convinced they could not lose, then was the oppertunity to put the Party first, to merge the Ticket and put Obama on the top half, but instead the mudslinging started, by Bill of course...you don't like him but I do, I don't trust him but I do like him...

[RebLem]

Paradoxically, the best argument for statehood for DC is the general irresponsibility of its government at the present time. Why is it irresponsible? Because no one with any moxie decides to move there to make a political career because the highest office is mayor of the city. If they had a Congressional voting representative and two Senators, that would change.

I'd like piston to tell us something about the situation in Maine, but my impression is that every Congressional district there is likely to go for Obama, meaning a solid electoral vote for him from Maine, even though its one of the two states, along with Nebraska, where the unit rule does not apply. So, as I said before, it could all come down to Nebraska, and, specifically, to Omaha. Nebraska has three Congressional districts--one is greater metro Omaha, another is about a quarter (in area) of the state from the northern to the southern border just west of Omaha Metro, and the other district is the western 2/3 or so of the state. If Metro Omaha goes for Obama, it could break that 269-269 logjam and give Obama a 270-268 victory.

Oh, yes, another thing about the PUMAs. Folk who know their history have indulged the revisionist doctrinaire feminist version of history for too long. That's why they have come up with this canard that black men got the vote long before women did. The reason it took so long for women to get the vote across the country, though many states allowed it earlier on, was because the Women's Suffrage and the Prohibition Movements were virtually Siamese twins. Lots of men had no real objection to women voting, but were dead set against Prohibition, and had to fight Women's Suffrage to fight Prohibition.

Right now, the Repugnants are crying crocodile tears in an effort to attract the PUMAs. But if Obama had picked Hillary, there would be all kinds of weeping and gnashing of teeth about how Obama had chosen the worst of the old politics to accompany him on his journey, while preaching the new politics. Hillary, and, unfortunately, too many of her female supporters, have this rosy view of what she represents. In the first two years, the Clinton Administration destroyed the DEM majority in Congress; people were so alienated that not a single non-incumbent Democrat was elected to the House or the Senate in 1994. And it took the Democratic Party twelve years, until 2006, to recover from the damage they had caused. Hillary may, as she is fond of saying, still be standing despite all sorts of opposition, but lots of good Democrats went down the crapper because of her and her husband, and they seem blithely and completely unaware of it. Incredible! If she were on the ticket, and they won, it would be as if Harry Truman had picked Douglas MacArthur for his vice president in 1948. You'd have the worst first term. in terms of the president and vice president working at cross purposes, since Andrew Jackson's first term. It would have stood a very good chance of getting Obama defeated for a second term, with another 8 or 12 years of Repugnant rule after that. Already, they are saying Obama's choice of Biden is a regression to the old politics, despite all the things that Biden can say to the contrary that the Clintonistas can't. It would be ten times as worse with Hillary on the ticket.

Posted on September 9th, 2008, the 1,959th day after Shrub announced that major combat operations in Iraq had ended, the 57th day before the November 4th US general election, and the 134th day before the end of the Cheney Kakistocracy. RebLem

[Corlyss_D]

I have repeatedly said that its ascloseasthis and therefore tooclosetoocall...

Okay. My mistake.

Hillary's negatives never got down below 40% so picking her was going to be a crap shoot if he was stupid enough to take Bill the Priapic into the bargain and how could he refuse? Morris said constantly throughout the primary season that if Obama was stupid enough to take Hillary, he would render himself immediately evidently unfit for office because the Gruesome Twosome would forever be conniving behind his back to undermine him and because of Bill's shady shenanigans.

They could have all pulled together for the Democratic Party after Super Tuesday, HillBill had no plan because they were so convinced they could not lose, then was the oppertunity to put the Party first, to merge the Ticket and put Obama on the top half, but instead the mudslinging started, by Bill of course...you don't like him but I do, I don't trust him but I do like him...

We're both engaging in rank speculation. We'll never know, but I just don't think with her high negatives she would have been a good strategic choice, egotism or no egotism. That was how Soros and the party adults made the decision to run Obama in the first place: Hillary's negatives scared the crap out of them. They knew electing her was only a 50-50 proposition even with the generic Democrat leading the generic Republican by such large numbers. Rove said last week that both sides made political choices when presented with an opportunity to make governing choices. I thought that was a little fatuous since without making the political choices you don't get to make the governing choices.

[Corlyss_D]

Paradoxically, the best argument for statehood for DC is the general irresponsibility of its government at the present time. Why is it irresponsible? Because no one with any moxie decides to move there to make a political career because the highest office is mayor of the city. If they had a Congressional voting representative and two Senators, that would change.

Interesting take. I'd never thought of it like that before. Seems dicey, making total incompetents a state to cure their incompetence. That's like giving people a performance award that everyone knows they didn't earn in hopes that it will encourage them to stop behaving badly when all that does is reinforce their bad behavior. First of all, it's just a city-sized chunk of land. No other city-sized chunk of land is a state. Second, because it's so small, the political incest is much harder to eliminate. It functions just like any small Southern town. Third, there's this instinct there, largely because of Congress, to make governance decisions based on what Congress would think is the most outrageous. They have been so busy stickin' it to Whitey since they got self-government that they don't give a damn about much else. You can't even talk sense to them when so many of them are dying in the street because crime is out of control. They come whining to Congress for more money to provide therapy, early prison release, and job training to the crud abusing them. What's their solution to gang violence? Purge the word "gang" from their vocabulary. That way the can say "we don' got no gangs hera." That's why when DC blacks become middle class, the move to Prince Georges' County in Maryland. Fourth, they have no more instinct for self-government than the Haitians do. Rich whites live in upper Northwest and leave the inmates and Congress to take care of the rest of it. In short, before we consider statehood for DC, I want to talk about a realistic program for relocating the dysfunctional citizenry to other places in the nation. Alaska, say, or North Dakota, or Hawaii, or better yet, all three.

I'd like piston to tell us something about the situation in Maine, but my impression is that every Congressional district there is likely to go for Obama,

I didn't think Maine's becoming a blue state was so novel. It went for Kerry in 04. It's been trending Democratic for years. The only reason Collins and Snow continue to be elected is because they are RINOs, just like their mentor and former boss, Bill Cohen. Very different from 1974.

So, as I said before, it could all come down to Nebraska, and, specifically, to Omaha. Nebraska has three Congressional districts--one is greater metro Omaha, another is about a quarter (in area) of the state from the northern to the southern border just west of Omaha Metro, and the other district is the western 2/3 or so of the state. If Metro Omaha goes for Obama, it could break that 269-269 logjam and give Obama a 270-268 victory.

Oh, yes, another thing about the PUMAs. Folk who know their history have indulged the revisionist doctrinaire feminist version of history for too long. That's why they have come up with this canard that black men got the vote long before women did. The reason it took so long for women to get the vote across the country, though many states allowed it earlier on, was because the Women's Suffrage and the Prohibition Movements were virtually Siamese twins. Lots of men had no real objection to women voting, but were dead set against Prohibition, and had to fight Women's Suffrage to fight Prohibition.

Rob, you are definitely becoming more interesting reading!

In the first two years, the Clinton Administration destroyed the DEM majority in Congress; people were so alienated that not a single non-incumbent Democrat was elected to the House or the Senate in 1994. And it took the Democratic Party twelve years, until 2006, to recover from the damage they had caused. Hillary may, as she is fond of saying, still be standing despite all sorts of opposition, but lots of good Democrats went down the crapper because of her and her husband, and they seem blithely and completely unaware of it. Incredible!

True Clinton was the poster boy Gingrich tied the Democratic Congress to, but Congress had its own problems. The House post office scandal being on the front pages day after day in the first year of the administration convinced a lot of marginal or corrupt Democrats not to run. That was really what gave Newt a chance to fashion the Contract with America and succeed with it. You said it yourself, I think: not a single non-incumbent Dem was elected that year. 73 new members, all Republicans, came in in 1994. But let's flip that around: even with the stunning Republican victories in 1994, incumbent return rate for all members of Congress was 96%. Remember, all the Contract promised was to bring certain issues to a vote that had not been allowed a vote under the Democrats. That was all. It was sooooooo inside baseball that it's a wonder they actually campaigned on it. However, some of the issues were favorites with some constituencies and Gingrich and Luntz were able to convince a large number of people that the way the Dems ran the House was so corrupt they wouldn't even bring matters to a vote on the floor. Sound familiar? Many Dems, seeing the handwriting on the wall, decided to retire right then or not to run in 1996. Discouragement was what really cleaned out the Democratic ranks as much as savvy political strategy on the Republicans' part. You see the same thing with the Republican retirements this cycle - they know the Dims are likely to be in control for a while, and they don't want to be there if that's the case.

[Chalkperson]

We're both engaging in rank speculation. We'll never know, but I just don't think with her high negatives she would have been a good strategic choice, egotism or no egotism. That was how Soros and the party adults made the decision to run Obama in the first place: Hillary's negatives scared the crap out of them. They knew electing her was only a 50-50 proposition even with the generic Democrat leading the generic Republican by such large numbers. Rove said last week that both sides made political choices when presented with an opportunity to make governing choices. I thought that was a little fatuous since without making the political choices you don't get to make the governing choices.

Agreed we will never know, except nobody, Soros included, knew what a hit Obama was going to be, that shocked everyone, from then on Obama had the upper hand and the rest of the story i've repeated way too many times...

I need to go kill Templars on my PS3, i've been typing for hours...

[RebLem]

We're both engaging in rank speculation. We'll never know, but I just don't think with her high negatives she would have been a good strategic choice, egotism or no egotism. That was how Soros and the party adults made the decision to run Obama in the first place: Hillary's negatives scared the crap out of them. They knew electing her was only a 50-50 proposition even with the generic Democrat leading the generic Republican by such large numbers. Rove said last week that both sides made political choices when presented with an opportunity to make governing choices. I thought that was a little fatuous since without making the political choices you don't get to make the governing choices.

Agreed we will never know, except nobody, Soros included, knew what a hit Obama was going to be, that shocked everyone, from then on Obama had the upper hand and the rest of the story i've repeated way too many times...

I need to go kill Templars on my PS3, i've been typing for hours...

The thing is, you either love Hillary or you despise her and her husband. Very few people in-between. Obama was the first choice of a lot of folk. But he was the second, or third choice of a lot of other folk. Hillary was the first choice of many, probably a plurality, but was the second or third choice of very few. So, when the other people started dropping out, an impressively sizable number of their supporters wound up with Obama, and not Hillary. Most of us DEMS thought that what Bill Clinton did in the Lewinsky case did not reach the level of perfidy required for removal from office. But that doesn't mean we want him back in the WH, even as First Laddie, as he preferred, or First Dude, in the words of Sarah Palin, or even with Hillary as Veep. Good Lord, NO!

Posted on September 9th, 2008, the 1,959th day after Shrub announced that major combat operations in Iraq had ended, the 57th day before the November 4th US general election, and the 134th day before the end of the Cheney Kakistocracy. RebLem

[piston]

Quote:
I'd like piston to tell us something about the situation in Maine, but my impression is that every Congressional district there is likely to go for Obama,


I didn't think Maine's becoming a blue state was so novel. It went for Kerry in 04. It's been trending Democratic for years. The only reason Collins and Snow continue to be elected is because they are RINOs, just like their mentor and former boss, Bill Cohen. Very different from 1974.

Well, that's just it, isn't it? Cohen, Collins and Snowe might not be Palins but they are Republicans and that's who Mainers voted for, over their Democratic opponents. I can't speak for Mainers as a whole but I do know that the most Democratic counties are not the poorest ones. Remember Russ Perot? He did very well in Maine, too! The notion that the least fortunate folks are those who will blindly vote for the "I am God and will solve all your problems" candidate is very much off the mark.

And, incidentally, I'm still not completely satisfied about explanations pertaining to the Latino very guarded response to Obama. Interestingly, I have detected a similar attitude among some Native Americans. Perhaps Obama is the ideal middle to upper middle class American candidate but he's spinning his wheels with many who stand at the margin of these social groups.

Thus far Obama has not had great success with blue-collar workers and Latinos and now that he has defeated Clinton and that Palin has entered the fight, he is going to feel some resistance from that proportion of American women which is supposedly as much "shallow" politically as the Latinos and blue-collar workers.

[Corlyss_D]

Most of us DEMS thought that what Bill Clinton did in the Lewinsky case did not reach the level of perfidy required for removal from office.

A lot of us savvier Republicans thought impeachment was suicidal, given Clinton's popularity ratings. I couldn't even bear to watch it. The Republicans misjudged that from jump if they couldn't control the dialog about whether he was being impeached for having sex with a subordinate who made herself all too available or for lying to a federal prosecutor. They lost control of the debate very early on and should have had sense enough to back off. Having said that, I can't but feel regret that now we know lying to a federal prosecutor is not an impeachable offense, even for an attorney who should know better. Next time the munchkins attack the king, they better have more in their arsenal than sex offenses.

[Corlyss_D]

At bottom, and after rummaging through a lot of the blather and hyperbole on this thread, I detect the faint odor of sour grapes on the part of those who did not think of this move first. The scam is, BO is trying to think of a way to get rid of Biden and get Hillary back...any news on that front??

No. I think this is amateurish wishful thinking. The worse thing Team Obama could do now is exhibit buyer's remorse over Biden. I've remarked for months now on the veritable stench of indecisiveness that surrounds Obama. He would lose many voters with a reversal.

[Corlyss_D]

You'll be happy to hear I have no plans for imminent immolation, as I am much too level-headed for such dramatics. In fact, I think that unfortunate smilie is a PUMA.

I rather think it's folks like Michelle Cottle. That whiring noise is Friedan rolling over in her grave.

anyone who doesn't share the Reschlublicans agenda must be speaking from prejudice rather than opinion, too.

Well, yeah. Remember Krauthammer's excellent epigram: "To understand the workings of American politics, you have to understand this fundamental law: Conservatives think liberals are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are evil." We think you're just stupid. You think we're evil. I seem to see this playing out in spades here. According to the Moonbats, even tho' only a VP candidate, Palin represents retrogression to something like the turn of the 20th century, despite the fact that everything you raised as an allegedly reasonable consquence of her election is so far beyond likelihood that it doesn't behoove discussing. You can't seriously think, with ID going down to defeat everywhere it's been challenged in court, that a lone female VP candidate who believes in ID is going to suddenly by fiat include it in school curricula nationwide, can you? You can't seriously believe that a Congress, in which the looney left holds the majority and is likely to hold a filibuster-proof majority in 2009, would confirm any nominee of a conservative P, even a P who was a founder of the Gang of 14, can you? I mean seriously. You can't seriously think that the right to abortion is in real jeopardy, even though something like 78% of Americans approve of abortion in some cases and less than 5% oppose abortion under any circumstances or approve of abortion in all cases, can you? I mean seriously. Your parade of horribles is simply not credible, and because it's not credible, it seems more like Dim talking points designed to induce hysteria in the gullible rather than rational analysis. I'd like to see your level-headedness, of which I have no doubt, deployed in a realistic analysis of what's likely to happen with a McCain/Palin win.

[Chalkperson]

The thing is, you either love Hillary or you despise her and her husband........

You make good and valid points Rob, and you really do know what you are talking about, especially in the Electoral thingy, just wanted to tell you that...thanks...chalkie

[Chalkperson]

At bottom, and after rummaging through a lot of the blather and hyperbole on this thread, I detect the faint odor of sour grapes on the part of those who did not think of this move first. The scam is, BO is trying to think of a way to get rid of Biden and get Hillary back...any news on that front??

Surely not, that would make him toast, going backwards because of a Woman from Alaska...that would only cause him huge problems, if you can't stick with the guy you picked what are you going to do when the Joint Chiefs need a decision, one thing Col. Bob always told me was once you let us soldiers go there is no stopping us, remember the Current Occupant of that Office...He's the Decider...He makes Decisions...the minute President Obama sits in the New Sit Room with the real Chiefs he is the only Indian, he will have to learn really quickly what it is to be a War President...

Corlyss better copy this quick, I think I just said something good about Our Glorious Leader...

[Corlyss_D]

one thing Col. Bob always told me was once you let us soldiers go there is no stopping us

Don't remind me of my screaming fits during Bush's mismanagement of the Fallujah debacle in 04. One of Batchelor's contacts, ex-military, wrily observed in the aftermath, "Didn't he [Bush] understand what was going to happen when he unleashed a Marine division on a practically undefended town?" Answer: apparently not. Americans and Iraqis paid for his hesitancy, and the ultimate showdown was only delayed 3 or so years.

[Corlyss_D]

Somebody needs to grab Obama and slap him upside the head. He's forgetting who his opponent is. He seems utter oblivious to the damage he's doing to his campaign by focusing so obsessively on Palin.



Lipstick

By John Batchelor. posted on September 10, 2008 at 1:30 AM

Collapse

The sweaty palms in the Democratic leadership now are not only because of Barack Obama's behavior on the campaign trail the last several days with regard Mrs. Palin, culminating in his grotesque and self-destructive "lipstick on a pig" remark today in Lebanon, Virginia, but also because there is now a small chance that the candidate himself will break down and not finish the course. It is unprecedented for a nominee to take himself out of a race. Yet so is it unprecedented for a nominee to spend five days attacking the other party's vice-presidential choice. There is no model for what is happening. The atmosphere on the campaign plane must be toxic. No one can defend the candidate from the candidate. Joe Biden is powerless. Howard Dean is wordless. Mrs. Clinton is not in this now. Real live hard-working human beings are watching their hard work disintegrate. This is as bad as you think it is. Beyond panic is collapse. It hasn't happened yet. You will not have to ask when and if, if it does happen.

Unacceptable

If you have not see it yet, below is the unacceptable moment. Does the candidate hear himself? Yes. The head-scratching, the reload, that is when 47 years of some unnamed demon just spilled out with the forceful, modulated, contrived drawl, "It's still a pig."

"Witch!"
By John Batchelor. posted on September 08, 2008 at 10:37 PM

Panic

New webad from the Obama Team accusing, mocking, disdaining, denouncing, name-calling, scoffing, just generally hooting at Sarah Palin and her pal the older person. This is heaven. Each time Sarah Palin is attacked for being on Planet Earth, she becomes more powerful. What is happening to the Democrats is self-torment. They want to scream "Witch!" But there is a nagging sense that this will undermine their credibility. It would be more effective than this whining. This is what panic looks like, September 2008: a bunch of smart guys sitting around in a leased luxury airplane and staring at the abyss of the poll numbers.

[Chalkperson]

He's F****N nuts, this is what he does for a living...no wonder I don't like him...that's a really cheap line, too cheap, he could have used Barracuda instead, that would have made the Papers...God, when will this end...when one of them loses I guess...

Maybe he forgets that the media are there 24/7 if he gives a good soundbite then he's OK, They Who Worship Him, will run it, Lipstick on a Pig, that's really Low, and it's on the Record, he needs to stay focused on McCain, and 'Whoop His Ass' is the phrase I believe......where's David Ross when we need him...

[Chalkperson]

Collapse

The sweaty palms in the Democratic leadership now are not only because of Barack Obama's behavior on the campaign trail the last several days with regard Mrs. Palin, culminating in his grotesque and self-destructive "lipstick on a pig" remark today in Lebanon, Virginia, but also because there is now a small chance that the candidate himself will break down and not finish the course. It is unprecedented for a nominee to take himself out of a race. Yet so is it unprecedented for a nominee to spend five days attacking the other party's vice-presidential choice. There is no model for what is happening. The atmosphere on the campaign plane must be toxic. No one can defend the candidate from the candidate. Joe Biden is powerless. Howard Dean is wordless. Mrs. Clinton is not in this now. Real live hard-working human beings are watching their hard work disintegrate. This is as bad as you think it is. Beyond panic is collapse. It hasn't happened yet. You will not have to ask when and if, if it does happen.

I have been saying for a long time that he will not get thru September without Screwing Up, he can't rescind, as I personally would like, but he ain't listening to nobody, and it's His focus we see being off track, he smells the lure of the Presidency, but, one Rule that usually helps is Stay On Message...where the Hell is Biden, they need to campaign together...and quickly...

[Corlyss_D]

one Rule that usually helps is Stay On Message...

Remember that the young man has not had any meaningful Republican opposition in his previous contests. The toughest he's ever had in terms of opponents has been Hillary. His battle was half won for him by her high negatives and he didn't win in many states where he must in November. He's been campaigning for 2.5 years. When experience gets fatigued, it can run on muscle memory. When inexperience gets fatigued it has nothing to fall back on.

where the Hell is Biden, they need to campaign together...and quickly...

Where indeed. Where has he been since the end of the Rep. convention? Has there been a Biden sighting anywhere useful? And how much help can that equally gaffe-prone gas bag be?

[Agnes Selby]

I think Obama has become Obamatised, hyptonised by his
own ego and importance. However, as far as entertainment
value goes, the crowd behind him had a good time at Palin's expense.

America is a land of achievements. Most Americans should
applaud, even if they do not wish to vote for Palin, for she has achieved
something which in America is reserved for men only.
Finally, America, the number one nation in scientific, literary,
technological and other achievements, has come of age, managing to
keep up with nations like India, Germany, Israel and even tiny little
New Zealand where a woman Head of State is nothing unusual.

There was to be a redemption for sins committed and uncommitted
in the choice of Obama as President. America was to be viewed
by Europeans as the nation of change, of values never before perceived.
As it turns out, the harm America is doing to herself in the eyes of the
world through Obama himself is worse than what has been tooted
as the harm done by President Bush during all his years in office.
At least during the Bush years, America was feared as a nation not to be
trifled with. How are we to perceive America now when the
prospective President is even frightened of a woman Vice-Presidential
nominee? How is such a man going to manage the most powerful nation
in the world when he falls apart at the sight of a smart woman?

I wonder how this is playing out in Russia? Or in the Middle East,
or in North Korea?
---------------

[Teresa B]

OK, this is my last post in this thread, because it's clear that my statements have been turned into a straw man and blown down by those who yell "prejudice, not valid opinion". Just for the record, here is what I said:

Particularly if Palin were to become president through McCain dying, then

Women will have their right to privacy reversed. This is not prejudice, but based on Palin's own statment that she is against abortion even in the case of rape. If she (or McCain) were to get a couple more Supreme Court justices in, despite Corlyss insisting that Congress won't allow it, a reversal of Roe vs Wade would be in the offing.

McCain has made several comments about staying in Iraq, going into Iran and countries next to Russia, is hawkish, and I don't think Palin is going to be different in that regard. Her inflammatory "God's" task rhetoric is on video, not a figment of my personal prejudice.

Her stance on teaching abstinence-only is known.

I made no comment at all about the Creationism/ID teaching in school that she has publicly advocated. I don't think that's the most critical issue at this point, although I think it's stupid.

I admit to perhaps too much gut response when it comes to women's rights in other countries; I don't know the ultimate outcome of a McCain or Palin presidency there.

I did not make up Palin's public stance on oil drilling, which agrees with McCain's flip-flop. (As you recall he did say "Drill, drill, drill".) This might in 10 years bring a little more oil, but has been repeatedly dismissed as a way out of our dependence on Middle Eastern oil. OK, fine, drill--but while you are still depending heavily on Muslim nations for oil, why engage in "crusader" style rhetoric? Palin is on video doing such.

Those are the fact, ma'am.

'Nuff said. The Pub is getting a bit humorless and vituperative for me.
Teresa

[DavidRoss]

Henry, read Rob's post about the Electoral Votes, it's not like Canada or the UK, it is an old and out of date model for electing a President, go to the sites he mentioned, it's an absurd system (to me anyway) but it is what is going to happen in November, and Rob and Corlyss have both said it's going to be an exciting Finish, I agree with them too...

No, it's actually a very well thought out system that helps assure that our national government, including the executive branch, is broadly representational. It's far from a perfect system, but it has proven to work pretty well for over two hundred years.

Well, IMO what he would learn is that its an outdated and stupid system that lost what little relevance it once might have had when Senators ceased to be appointed by the states, the public at large was enfranchised, and women got the vote. Unfortunately, because it permits both parties to game the system by concentrating on either the states with the largest voting blocks or the states with the swing voters, instead of all states, nothing will ever be done about it. I don't think it has worked well at all. Sure it renders an result, but so would ditching it. But hey, that's just my opinion. I've never, and I mean never lived in a state where my vote counted.

And you think that a direct democracy would yield better results? BTW, Senators are appointed by the States today, via elections, and the only problem with enfranchisement of the public at large is that the public education system intended to create an informed electorate has failed. The 2000 election is evidence enough for me that the system still has merit. As bad as Bush has been, it could have been much worse--we could have had that corrupt cretin Gore in the White House, were it not for the electoral college.

[RebLem]

He's F****N nuts, this is what he does for a living...no wonder I don't like him...that's a really cheap line, too cheap, he could have used Barracuda instead, that would have made the Papers...God, when will this end...when one of them loses I guess...

Maybe he forgets that the media are there 24/7 if he gives a good soundbite then he's OK, They Who Worship Him, will run it, Lipstick on a Pig, that's really Low, and it's on the Record, he needs to stay focused on McCain, and 'Whoop His Ass' is the phrase I believe......where's David Ross when we need him...

Ah, now I see. McCain is making a big deal out of this, distorting the meaning of what Obama said in an attempt to slander him with furryners, and, perhaps, new citizens unfamiliar with American mores.

The fact is "putting lipstick on a pig," is a common American idiomatic expression. It may not be common in Wales. It may not be common in Tribecka, and it may not be common among new citizens of Hispanic descent, whom McCain is trying to woo, but it is common everywhere else. It means trying to dress up a flawed idea or situation with as much glamour as possible. The best example I can think of that a Brit might be familiar with is Holbein's famous portrait of Anne of Cleves. She was really a quite plain, not to say ugly, woman, so Holbein went to some length to try to disguse that fact with all sorts of intricate clothing and elaborate headwear and jewelry. Not so much lipstick, as I recall, but you get the idea. Its not a literal term. Its an idiom, never meant to be taken literally.

And, it wasn't about Palin. It was about Grandpa Munster's attempt to dress himself up as the change candidate concerned with establishing, to take just one issue as an example, a progressive energy policy when he has virtually ignored that problem for the 26 years he's been in Washington.

And look at the people in the vid. Do they look like elitists to you? Does it look like a rally in Harvard Yard or Washington Square or the Smithsonian, or Carnegie Hall? These are working people in small town/city America, and they stood and they cheered because they knew esactly what Obama was talking about. Don't believe me, Chalkie? Ask your employees.

Finally, Teresa, don't let the barbarians and the practitioners of the politics of personal destruction run you off. Keep fighting the good fight. Corraggio!

Posted on September 10th, 2008, the 1,960th day after Shrub announced that major combat operations in Iraq had ended, the 56th day before the November 4th US general election, and the 133rd day before the end of the Cheney Kakistocracy. RebLem

[pizza]

What it's really about is Obama's desperate need to get back into the news after being upstaged for the past week. If he was as smart as he thinks he is, he would drop it and move on. The more he and his gang protest, the more it underscores his obvious meaning. I hope he keeps it up.

[JackC]

The fact is "putting lipstick on a pig," is a common American idiomatic expression. It may not be common in Wales. It may not be common in Tribecka, and it may not be common among new citizens of Hispanic descent, whom McCain is trying to woo, but it is common everywhere else. It means trying to dress up a flawed idea or situation with as much glamour as possible. The best example I can think of that a Brit might be familiar with is Holbein's famous portrait of Anne of Cleves. She was really a quite plain, not to say ugly, woman, so Holbein went to some length to try to disguse that fact with all sorts of intricate clothing and elaborate headwear and jewelry. Not so much lipstick, as I recall, but you get the idea. Its not a literal term. Its an idiom, never meant to be taken literally.

And, it wasn't about Palin. It was about Grandpa Munster's attempt to dress himself up as the change candidate concerned with establishing, to take just one issue as an example, a progressive energy policy when he has virtually ignored that problem for the 26 years he's been in Washington.

Well, I think it is obvious what he was TRYING to do. He wanted to say that nothing would change under McCain/Palin and that those Republican policies qualified as the "pig". He used the lipstick expression as a way of saying that Palin is just putting "lipstick" on those old bad policies, i.e. the pig. (Just like a "hockey mom is a pitbull with lipstick") It was not an accident and he used the "lipstick" remark because it got a lot of play aftre Palin used it in her speech.

It's sort of funny, but too subtle/clever by half. He should have realized the reaction that it would generate. Now he has to spend time explaining what he meant, as assuring some women that he meant no offense, and was not being sexist. As everyone knows, however, when you are explaining you are on defense and losing.

It doesn't mean much, other than it seems like rookie mistake. Also, the more he engages in these red meat attacks on McCain/Palin (who lots of people seem to genuinely like), the less he looks like the "Great Uniter" that he ran against Hillary as. Surprise surpise, you didn't believe all that stuff about being a "Uniter" anyway, did you? At least it helped get rid of Hillary, for which we should all be thankful.

[Ted]

Without a doubt it “Lipstick/Pig” was a bad choice of words for Obama—that McCain uttered the same “Idiom” about Hillary may mitigate a bit of criticism, but in the end Obama’s recent gaffes prove “Murphy’s Law” is still very much in play. Let’s see how Palin makes out with Gibson.

[RebLem]

Here's the most popular definition of "putting lipstick on a pig" @
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... k+on+a+pig Please note the date on the entry: August 10, 2004. RebLem.

putting lipstick on a pig
54 up, 5 down

A term used by many, generally in reference to someone who may be trying to make something or someone look appealing or attractive when it quite clearly will not work, or will only deceive the dumbest of people.

Car salesmen are generally good at "putting lipstick on a pig" because they are always selling unroadworthy buckets of s*** and try and hide their s***fulness by tarting them up.

Example: "The dude in that car yard just put a body kit on that piece of s***. Talk about putting lipstick on a pig."

by Scoundrel Aug 10, 2004 email it 0 comments

Arugula lovers of the world, Unite! You have nothing to lose but your guilt! RebLem

[johnQpublic]

It's really hard for me to parse out whether the remark was intentional or not. I've been leaning towards it being unintentional except for the fact that the Annointed One is suppose to be very bright. But if so, why couldn't he think before speaking?

[RebLem]

Obama accuses McCain camp of lies, phony outrage

By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer
Wednesday, September 10, 2008

NORFOLK, Va. - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Wednesday accused Republican John McCain's campaign of using "lies and phony outrage and Swift-boat politics" in claiming he used a sexist comment against vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin.

Calling it "the latest made-up controversy by the John McCain campaign," Obama responded to the Republicans' charge that he was referring to Palin when he used the phrase "lipstick on a pig" at a campaign stop Tuesday.

"I don't care what they say about me. But I love this country too much to let them take over another election with lies and phony outrage and Swift-boat politics. Enough is enough," he said.

Obama's reference was to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, an outside group that in 2004 made unsubstantiated allegations about Democratic nominee John Kerry's decorated military record in Vietnam.

On Tuesday, Obama criticized McCain's economic policies as similar to those of President Bush, saying: "You can put lipstick on a pig ... it's still a pig. You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change. It's still going to stink after eight years."

The McCain campaign contended that the comments were directed at Palin, the GOP's first woman on a presidential ticket. In her acceptance speech last week, she had referred to herself in a joke about lipstick being the only difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull.

Accusing Obama of "smearing" Palin in "offensive and disgraceful" comments, the McCain campaign demanded an apology — though McCain himself used the folksy metaphor a few times last year, including once to describe Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's health care plan.

The McCain campaign on Wednesday issued an Internet ad that said Obama was talking about Palin and said of Obama: "Ready to lead? No. Ready to smear? Yes."

Obama began a discussion of education at a Norfolk high school on Wednesday by assailing McCain's campaign.

What their campaign has done this morning is the same game that has made people sick and tired of politics in this country. They seize on an innocent remark, try to take it out of context, throw up an outrageous ad because they know that it's catnip for the news media," Obama said.

Obama's campaign has accused the GOP camp of engaging in a "pathetic attempt to play the gender card." In an e-mail to reporters Wednesday, the campaign noted two other instances of McCain using the phrase "lipstick on a pig" and its use by other Republicans such as House Minority Leader John Boehner and Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080910/ap_ ... a_lipstick

Arugula lovers of the world, Unite! You have nothing to lose but your guilt! RebLem

[RebLem]

The problem is, or course, that the Repugnants don't want a discussion of the issues, because they know they will lose if they conduct a dignified campaign that sticks to the issues. So, they try to paint their opponents as too crude, rude, and lewd to be in the White House by taking a perfectly innocent remark using a long established, common idiomatic expression for dressing up a failed policy to look better than it is, and trying to say its sexist.

Now, they are saying that because Sarah Palin used the word "lipstick" in her convention acceptance speech, Obama was trying to make a connection with that to make a cheap, sexist comment about her. In other words, Palin thinks she now owns the word "lipstick," and henceforth, no one else is allowed to use it. Sort of like that special language that only Emperor Hirohito was allowed to use.

All I can say is, John McCain better not mention "oil" for the rest of the campaign. We are likely to consider it a snide comment about Michelle Obama's hair.

Barry Goldwater must be rolling over in his grave.

Arugula lovers of the world, Unite! You have nothing to lose but your guilt! RebLem

[Madame]

Without a doubt it “Lipstick/Pig” was a bad choice of words for Obama—that McCain uttered the same “Idiom” about Hillary may mitigate a bit of criticism, but in the end Obama’s recent gaffes prove “Murphy’s Law” is still very much in play. Let’s see how Palin makes out with Gibson.

I don't like the expression at all ... any more than I like the expression
'icing on a turd' ...

I don't think the context or tone are anywhere near comparable between
McCain and Obama, but even more telling is that the McCain video wasn't
posted on YouTube until this morning (Wednesday, September 10). I had never
heard it prior to that, in fact am not sure when or where the interview took
place. It is so muted and fuzzy. Were Hillary supporters offended by it at
the time?

I wonder whether Obama's was deliberate -- using 'lipstick' and 'fish' as
bait to get a reaction from the McCain camp. That isn't the language he
typically uses ... nor does he typically talk in a drawl.

[Ted]

Sometimes Colleen, depending on whom Obama's adressing, the "drawl" appears.
As for McCain's use of the Lipstick/Pig, trust me, I saw it and heard it clearly, it was said in precisly the same manner in which Obama spewed it. Both of them are equally guilty, though Obama comes off dumber in the spirit of two wrongs don't make a riight and no, I don't recall Hillary making a big deal about it