NationStates Jolt Archive

Well aren't you just the progressive little female rights crusader? Nevermind the fact that, if she had her way, Sarah Palin would strip away one of the most important rights women have gained in the past 30 years, or that the Republicans are 24 years late to the female VP candidate party. No, that's not important. The Republicans nominated a woman, and that alone is something we should cheer.

Who's really the sexist here? You are touting a candidate merely because of her gender. You've shown, through your blind support for a VP candidate who is diametrically opposed to Clinton, that your ultimate consideration is gender. Experience, political views, policies; all can be damned. Palin's a girl, and that makes her good enough.
And through all of what you wrote, you perhaps missed the most crucial element regarding women's rights.

Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin are both women and they have rights as women, even though their goals may be diametrically opposed on certain issues, the fact remains that their rights should be respected.

And through all of what you wrote, you perhaps missed the most crucial element regarding women's rights.

Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin are both women and they have rights as women, even though their goals may be diametrically opposed on certain issues, the fact remains that their rights should be respected.

They are. They have the same right as any man to suffer the indignities and invasions of running for President in the Information Age.

I guess we can say, sure, it's progress for the Republicans
That is exactly my point. The Republicans are actually making progress. That is good for womens rights, even if Sarah Palin may have some different views regarding womens rights, she is still advancing the cause for women as a whole.

In the UK, a female politician in a high ranking position isn't that big a deal, for some reason. And the UK certainly isn't that outstanding... I can cast around to half a dozen places - right off the top of my head - that have (now, or have had) female politicians in the highest offices.

Fuck, Pakistan beat us. Pakistan.

That is exactly my point. The Republicans are actually making progress. That is good for womens rights, even if Sarah Palin may have some different views regarding womens rights, she is still advancing the cause for women as a whole.

It's progress in the same way that nominating Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court was progress.

Fuck, Pakistan beat us. Pakistan.

Nicaragua did, too (Violeta Chamorro).

That is exactly my point. The Republicans are actually making progress. That is good for womens rights, even if Sarah Palin may have some different views regarding womens rights, she is still advancing the cause for women as a whole.

That's absurd. What benefit to women's rights will Palin be other than being the first female VP?

That's like saying it would still be advancing the cause for African Americans if Obama was elected but supported a platform of segregation.

That's absurd. What benefit to women's rights will Palin be other than being the first female VP?

That's like saying it would still be advancing the cause for African Americans if Obama was elected but supported a platform of segregation.

Would have been Geraldine Ferraro back in 1984, but she was a nasty librul Democrat so the God-Fearing Reagan-Worshipping Republicans would have none of that.

That is exactly my point. The Republicans are actually making progress. That is good for womens rights, even if Sarah Palin may have some different views regarding womens rights, she is still advancing the cause for women as a whole.

Unless she gets into a position of real power, in which case she has promised to try her damnedest to try to take women's rights a huge step backwards. (And take gay liberty along for the ride... oh and religious freedom).

Sarah Palin is advancing the cause for women, in the same way that fucking is advancing the cause for abstinence.

Unless she gets into a position of real power, in which case she has promised to try her damnedest to try to take women's rights a huge step backwards. (And take gay liberty along for the ride... oh and religious freedom).

Sarah Palin is advancing the cause for women, in the same way that fucking is advancing the cause for abstinence.

Yeah, it's vaginal fascination in action. People forget it was women who also killed the Equal Rights Amendment.

You know, since CH thinks playing identity politics and touting it is progress, I'd like to call everyone's attention to the amount of melanin in Obama's skin...

People forget it was women who also killed the Equal Rights Amendment.
Those awful women. We should make sure they can never vote again. That will stop them from trampling women's rights!

Those awful women. We should make sure they can never vote again. That will stop them from trampling women's rights!

Good point. Removing rights is progress.

Holy fucking monkey crap, after all this time are we really still nursing CH?

And through all of what you wrote, you perhaps missed the most crucial element regarding women's rights.

Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin are both women and they have rights as women, even though their goals may be diametrically opposed on certain issues, the fact remains that their rights should be respected.

I'm not missing anything. If she had the power, Sarah Palin would do more to damage women's rights than thousands upon thousands of old white men in the Democratic Party.

Do you even consider the irony in what you write? "The fact remains that their rights should be respected"? Do you understand that Sarah Palin would like nothing better than to trample on one of those very rights you're referring to?

I'm not missing anything. If she had the power, Sarah Palin would do more to damage women's rights than thousands upon thousands of old white men in the Democratic Party.

Do you even consider the irony in what you write? "The fact remains that their rights should be respected"? Do you understand that Sarah Palin would like nothing better than to trample on one of those very rights you're referring to?

And this is the kind of people that the Republicans hope that I Can't Believe It's Not Hillary will scoop up in the general elections. Disgruntled Clintocrats who resent dat ebil mozlem for oppressing women by not picking their Messiah.

You know, since CH thinks playing identity politics and touting it is progress, I'd like to call everyone's attention to the amount of melanin in Obama's skin...

Ahem ... (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13973455&postcount=758)

What I can do is this: Heikoku 2, CanuckHeaven, do not discuss each other's past, present or future posts on the American election 2008. In addition, should there be any occurrence of your evident mutual sensitivity carrying over into discussions on other topics, you can expect mod action.

cough, cough ... (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13973516&postcount=759)

"Okay, that's it." He's on Ignore.

You're not getting that keyboard, Redwulf.

Infractions will primarily be used as an additional method of handling minor incidents. It's essentially a ticket from a passing cop. Cross the line too badly, and you'll end up handcuffed in the back of the squad car.

May I see your licence, sir?

EDIT:

Holy fucking monkey crap, after all this time are we really still nursing CH?

And does the gentleman with the bottle of alcohol in the back seat happen to have proof of age?

POST not POSTER, geddit? Post not poster. Post not ...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080905/ap_on_el_pr/from_clinton_to_palin;_ylt=AnBrWIF7N5IpeYs46HToOCFh24cA

McCain's identity politics are not working. It's not enough to pick a vagina with a politician around it for VP!

Snip.

Fine, fine...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080905/ap_on_el_pr/from_clinton_to_palin;_ylt=AnBrWIF7N5IpeYs46HToOCFh24cA

McCain's identity politics are not working!

From that article

"She was so down-to-earth, a regular person," says Peters. "She hasn't been in politics her whole life, so she isn't jaded or tainted. And I love that she's a mom. Yes, I disagree with some of her positions, but that's what this country is about."

And that is one of the biggest problems in the American electoral system. "I disagree with their positions, but I think they're a nice person so I'll vote for them!".

From that article



And that is one of the biggest problems in the American electoral system. "I disagree with their positions, but I think they're a nice person so I'll vote for them!".

Yet McCain's "VP bounce" was half of Obama's. And that WITH McCain picking the vagina with a politician around it.

Yet McCain's "VP bounce" was half of Obama's. And that WITH McCain picking the vagina with a politician around it.

Do you really need to describe Gov. Palin as "the vagina with the politician around it"?

Yes, I know it is a spin on our argument that Palin was picked (or defended by some in these forums) because she was female.

But can you see how your spin increases not just in viciousness but in borderline sexism.

You seem clever enough to debate without needing to reduce subjects into prejorative characatures.

Even if you are not, surely you are clever enough to come up with insulting way to refer to Palin that doesn't make you and your side of the argument look worse.

The United States is all ready overwhelmed by a zombie epidemic. Unfortunately it's not the clearly blatant flesh-eating kind that can be put down with massive cerebral trauma. These zombies don't have much of a brain to begin with and their bite spreads Bushevism.
Hey, stop putting zombies in a bad light!
your use of the word zombie there borders on libel, so it does.

I'm not missing anything. If she had the power, Sarah Palin would do more to damage women's rights than thousands upon thousands of old white men in the Democratic Party.

Do you even consider the irony in what you write? "The fact remains that their rights should be respected"? Do you understand that Sarah Palin would like nothing better than to trample on one of those very rights you're referring to?
And yet, I believe that Democrats are doing more to "damage women's rights" by defecating on their own. This was the year for the Democrats to shine.....a black man and a white woman in the White House, and now that is no longer possible.

I went searching, and although it is only from a blog (http://yappadingding.blogspot.com/2008/08/disenfranchisement-of-democratic-women.html), it seems to sum up my sentiment on this issue, and demonstrates that there is indeed an undercurrent of backlash. If there is enough of this sentiment out there, and I think there is, then there will be a white woman in the White House and her name will be Sarah Palin:

We could write volumes on why women are still excluded from the top ranks. Many people (both men and women) are locked into a paternalistic framework where women aren't acceptable as leaders. Our vision of a leader is a man in business suit. A woman seems wrong. Lots of things reinforce this. There aren’t enough female university professors so people don’t see women as authority figures and women lack role models. Our society increasingly presents women as sex objects for men. The “old boy’s network”, still going strong, excludes women.

But this year we had a glaring, monstrous, public demonstration of how women are shut out. A woman – for the first time – was a serious contender for the nominee for president, and she was brought down – for various reasons – but publicly because she was a woman. She was ridiculed and demonized for being female. Some of the most widely watched and influential media personalities said they were afraid she’d castrate them. Her biggest failing, we were told, was that she had a sense of entitlement – and people accepted that as a fair criticism. She was criticized for her laugh, ankles, age. She was called shrill, a hypocrite, too mannish, too womanish. The media was more interested in the husband than the candidate. It was blatantly obvious that no woman would be taken seriously.

And after it was all over, the sexism was almost completely denied by the media, her party, and the man who won.

What people don’t seem to get about Hillary supporters who don’t support Obama is that our problem is not that Hillary lost; it’s how she lost. I fully understand that there were numerous factors in that defeat - that her campaign staff made mistakes, that she made mistakes - but the key issue is that the sexism was so egregious and blatant that the campaign represents an attack on all women.
I know that this is hardcore stuff, but sometimes you need to get hit by the pitch to get you into the game.

More in reply (http://yappadingding.blogspot.com/2008/08/disenfranchisement-of-democratic-women.html#c1688576996463295067):

You're almost exactly right. I don't propose voting for McCain - just boycotting Obama. If Obama loses because Hillary supporters won't vote for him, maybe the Democratic party will act differently in the next election.....

This could rebound very negatively on Hillary: it might even doom her political future if her supporters turned on the party. But it's not about her. There's something really important at stake here, and it's worth losing an election over.
Definitely hardball....there is more (http://yappadingding.blogspot.com/2008/08/disenfranchisement-of-democratic-women.html#c5808708031249225399):

I was willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt until he chose another man for the VP position. It didn't have to be Hillary; it could have been Sibelius or someone else. But his refusal to address the issue of sexism in the primaries coupled with his all-male ticket has made me need to draw a line in the sand.

I am calling on other Democrat women to join me in a boycott of the male-dominated political elite. Remember Tommy Douglas's story about the white cats and the black cats? It's time for mice to vote for mice.
And from a black woman's perspective (http://yappadingding.blogspot.com/2008/08/disenfranchisement-of-democratic-women.html#c873719051400554157):

Hmmm...People please don't talk about the race card, because unless you are a black woman in America you have no idea that there is actually much more open sexism than there is racism today. Especially in the media.

Also, as a black New Yorker I have seen (first hand) the good work that the Clinton's have done for minority communities throughout America, and to have Obama then turn around and call a hero of the Democratic Party a racist... Well... This kid is yet to earn my vote. And earn is right. Being a double minority no one handed my ancestors the right to vote - it was hard won by both past generations of African Americans, and past generations of women; so yes, Mr. Obama... please don't think that I am going to just hand it over casually.
Yeah, I think that is a fair summary of how I feel about this matter.

Yet McCain's "VP bounce" was half of Obama's. And that WITH McCain picking the vagina with a politician around it.
you could just call her the 'gimmick' or the 'lego block'.
McCain appears to think that a woman is just like any other and that female voters will just vote for the estrogen-infused candidate regardless of their beliefs. Much like taking one blue lego block out and sticking a red lego block in.

And yet, I believe that Democrats are doing more to "damage women's rights" by defecating on their own. This was the year for the Democrats to shine.....a black man and a white woman in the White House, and now that is no longer possible.


It was a female judge who declared that women couldn't be considered to be raped or sexually assaulted, especially when they were coerced and gave no consent, depending on their vocation. You seem to have this idea that just by having an uterus, women will never willingly and knowingly make matters worst for the entirety of their gender.

I couldn't care less if it was an asexual robot from Jupiter that ran for the presidency. All I care about is whether whoever runs will protect the rights of the people they're supposed to lead.

And yet, I believe that Democrats are doing more to "damage women's rights" by defecating on their own. This was the year for the Democrats to shine.....a black man and a white woman in the White House, and now that is no longer possible.

I went searching, and although it is only from a blog (http://yappadingding.blogspot.com/2008/08/disenfranchisement-of-democratic-women.html), it seems to sum up my sentiment on this issue, and demonstrates that there is indeed an undercurrent of backlash. If there is enough of this sentiment out there, and I think there is, then there will be a white woman in the White House and her name will be Sarah Palin:


I know that this is hardcore stuff, but sometimes you need to get hit by the pitch to get you into the game.

More in reply (http://yappadingding.blogspot.com/2008/08/disenfranchisement-of-democratic-women.html#c1688576996463295067):


Definitely hardball....there is more (http://yappadingding.blogspot.com/2008/08/disenfranchisement-of-democratic-women.html#c5808708031249225399):


And from a black woman's perspective (http://yappadingding.blogspot.com/2008/08/disenfranchisement-of-democratic-women.html#c873719051400554157):


Yeah, I think that is a fair summary of how I feel about this matter.

First, a couple of comments on the complaints raised in the above blogs. The argument seems to be that Hillary did not win the nomination because of "sexism." Although this is repeated several times, it isn't backed by any data.

Second: "our problem is not that Hillary lost; it’s how she lost. I fully understand that there were numerous factors in that defeat - that her campaign staff made mistakes, that she made mistakes - but the key issue is that the sexism was so egregious and blatant that the campaign represents an attack on all women." Really? Obama's campaign represents an attack on all women because ..... he defeated a woman. You are going to have to do better than that.

As for the media and establishment treating Hillary poorly because she is a woman, that rather ignores the fact that Obama is a black man and has had to face some of the same stupidity.

Regardless, it seems clear that these bloggers are willing to cut off their nose to spite their face. Perhaps instead, they should listen to one they claim to be supporting:

I am honored to be here tonight. A proud mother. A proud Democrat. A proud American. And a proud supporter of Barack Obama.

My friends, it is time to take back the country we love.

Whether you voted for me, or voted for Barack, the time is now to unite as a single party with a single purpose. We are on the same team, and none of us can sit on the sidelines.

This is a fight for the future. And it’s a fight we must win.

I haven’t spent the past 35 years in the trenches advocating for children, campaigning for universal health care, helping parents balance work and family, and fighting for women’s rights at home and around the world . . . to see another Republican in the White House squander the promise of our country and the hopes of our people.

And you haven’t worked so hard over the last 18 months, or endured the last eight years, to suffer through more failed leadership.


No way. No how. No McCain.

Barack Obama is my candidate. And he must be our President.

Tonight we need to remember what a Presidential election is really about. When the polls have closed, and the ads are finally off the air, it comes down to you -- the American people, your lives, and your children’s futures.

...

I ran for President to renew the promise of America. To rebuild the middle class and sustain the American Dream, to provide the opportunity to work hard and have that work rewarded, to save for college, a home and retirement, to afford the gas and groceries and still have a little left over each month.

To promote a clean energy economy that will create millions of green collar jobs.

To create a health care system that is universal, high quality, and affordable so that parents no longer have to choose between care for themselves or their children or be stuck in dead end jobs simply to keep their insurance.

To create a world class education system and make college affordable again.

To fight for an America defined by deep and meaningful equality - from civil rights to labor rights, from women's rights to gay rights, from ending discrimination to promoting unionization to providing help for the most important job there is: caring for our families. To help every child live up to his or her God-given potential.

To make America once again a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws.

To bring fiscal sanity back to Washington and make our government an instrument of the public good, not of private plunder.

To restore America's standing in the world, to end the war in Iraq, bring our troops home and honor their service by caring for our veterans.

And to join with our allies to confront our shared challenges, from poverty and genocide to terrorism and global warming.

Most of all, I ran to stand up for all those who have been invisible to their government for eight long years.

Those are the reasons I ran for President. Those are the reasons I support Barack Obama. And those are the reasons you should too.

I want you to ask yourselves: Were you in this campaign just for me? Or were you in it for that young Marine and others like him? Were you in it for that mom struggling with cancer while raising her kids? Were you in it for that boy and his mom surviving on the minimum wage? Were you in it for all the people in this country who feel invisible?

We need leaders once again who can tap into that special blend of American confidence and optimism that has enabled generations before us to meet our toughest challenges. Leaders who can help us show ourselves and the world that with our ingenuity, creativity, and innovative spirit, there are no limits to what is possible in America.

This won’t be easy. Progress never is. But it will be impossible if we don’t fight to put a Democrat in the White House.

We need to elect Barack Obama because we need a President who understands that America can’t compete in a global economy by padding the pockets of energy speculators, while ignoring the workers whose jobs have been shipped overseas. We need a President who understands that we can’t solve the problems of global warming by giving windfall profits to the oil companies while ignoring opportunities to invest in new technologies that will build a green economy.

We need a President who understands that the genius of America has always depended on the strength and vitality of the middle class.

Barack Obama began his career fighting for workers displaced by the global economy. He built his campaign on a fundamental belief that change in this country must start from the ground up, not the top down. He knows government must be about “We the people” not “We the favored few.”

And when Barack Obama is in the White House, he’ll revitalize our economy, defend the working people of America, and meet the global challenges of our time. Democrats know how to do this. As I recall, President Clinton and the Democrats did it before. And President Obama and the Democrats will do it again.

He’ll transform our energy agenda by creating millions of green jobs and building a new, clean energy future. He’ll make sure that middle class families get the tax relief they deserve. And I can’t wait to watch Barack Obama sign a health care plan into law that covers every single American.

Barack Obama will end the war in Iraq responsibly and bring our troops home – a first step to repairing our alliances around the world.

And he will have with him a terrific partner in Michelle Obama. Anyone who saw Michelle’s speech last night knows she will be a great First Lady for America.

Americans are also fortunate that Joe Biden will be at Barack Obama’s side. He is a strong leader and a good man. He understands both the economic stresses here at home and the strategic challenges abroad. He is pragmatic, tough, and wise. And, of course, Joe will be supported by his wonderful wife, Jill.

They will be a great team for our country
link (http://www.demconvention.com/hillary-rodham-clinton/)

Regardless, it seems clear that these bloggers are willing to cut off their nose to spite their face. Perhaps instead, they should listen to one they claim to be supporting:


They don't. It's as simple as that. Now that Hillary is out of the running, they'll throw her out and run towards the next trendy thing to support.

Yet McCain's "VP bounce" was half of Obama's. And that WITH McCain picking the vagina with a politician around it.

That's not really what I was talking about. I was saying that far too many people are more concerned with a candidate's religion or what hobbies they have than what their political positions are.

Do you really need to describe Gov. Palin as "the vagina with the politician around it"?

Yes, I know it is a spin on our argument that Palin was picked (or defended by some in these forums) because she was female.

But can you see how your spin increases not just in viciousness but in borderline sexism.

You seem clever enough to debate without needing to reduce subjects into prejorative characatures.

Even if you are not, surely you are clever enough to come up with insulting way to refer to Palin that doesn't make you and your side of the argument look worse.

I refer to it as I Can't Believe It's Not Hillary. A product specifically marketed to disgruntled Clintocrats while still maintaining the oppressive evangelical values that have marked the current Republican Party.

Hey, stop putting zombies in a bad light!
your use of the word zombie there borders on libel, so it does.

My sincere apologies to ordinary flesh-eating infection-spreading zombies who aren't Busheviks.

:D

First, a couple of comments on the complaints raised in the above blogs. The argument seems to be that Hillary did not win the nomination because of "sexism." Although this is repeated several times, it isn't backed by any data.
Well you know that it is difficult to garner data on such a touchy subject, but there are sites out there (http://justsaynodeal.com/index2.html)that are magnets for the jilted ones?

Regardless, it seems clear that these bloggers are willing to cut off their nose to spite their face.
Apparently they are willing to pay that price?

Perhaps instead, they should listen to one they claim to be supporting:

link (http://www.demconvention.com/hillary-rodham-clinton/)
Clinton gave a speech that she had to give. You never know when she will want to run again.

*snip blogging bits*

88 years ago, women didn't have the right to vote. This year, a woman was a round away from being nominated for president. 150 years ago, black men weren't allowed to vote. This year, a black man is a round away from being elected president.

I don't like how slowly progress happens sometimes, either, but it does happen. And true progress happens not when we vote for "the black candidate" or "the female candidate", but when we reach a place where competent people who come in all races, genders, religions and orientations have the freedom and support of this society to pursue their dreams and reach the highest ranks, without bias or bigotry.

Hillary Clinton was a worthy candidate. Barack Obama is a worthy candidate. Sarah Palin neither a candidate, nor a politician worthy even of her proposed position. As a woman, I find the suggestion that a vote for Palin is a vote for feminism and progress to be disgusting. I wouldn't vote for any man of any race, creed or political party to take away my rights to my body, and I sure as hell won't vote for any woman to try and do the same.

As for your righteous indignation about the blatant sexism showed by the Democratic party... if you think Palin isn't a sex symbol and a scheme dreamed up by the "good ol' boys" network, you're either tragically naive or grossly ignorant.

you could just call her the 'gimmick' or the 'lego block'.

"The gimmick". Mmm. Has a nice ring to it. I like.

All in favor of us all refering to Palin that way, say "aye"!

Do you really need to describe Gov. Palin as "the vagina with the politician around it"?

Yes, I know it is a spin on our argument that Palin was picked (or defended by some in these forums) because she was female.

But can you see how your spin increases not just in viciousness but in borderline sexism.

You seem clever enough to debate without needing to reduce subjects into prejorative characatures.

Even if you are not, surely you are clever enough to come up with insulting way to refer to Palin that doesn't make you and your side of the argument look worse.
Indeed. If you REALLY want to have humour at Sarah Palin's expense, do it in a classy way, like this:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v625/PIcaRDMPC/motivator1703948.jpg

A lot of people are complaining that Obama didn't pick a female VP. Obama picked the person who he believed would make the best VP, and who he believed would "fill in the gaps". That is what a VP should do. "Fill in the gaps" which the president has. Biden gives Obama the benefit of experience, which was supposedly Obama's weakness. Ultimately, Obama looked at the possible candidates for his VP, and chose the one who he thinked would be the best. Regardless of the reproductive organs.

McCain made no such choice. He chose his VP solely for the fact that she is a she.

So, who is more sexist? Someone who looks at a candidates credentials, or someone who looks at their genitals? Ask yourself - would Sarah Pallin have been chosen if she were a male, with the exact same political experience and values? The answer is no. McCain chose her strictly on her gender, not on her qualifications or abilities. McCain is clearly more sexist than Obama, and to deny this is basically sexist in itself.

A lot of people are complaining that Obama didn't pick a female VP. Obama picked the person who he believed would make the best VP, and who he believed would "fill in the gaps". That is what a VP should do. "Fill in the gaps" which the president has. Biden gives Obama the benefit of experience, which was supposedly Obama's weakness. Ultimately, Obama looked at the possible candidates for his VP, and chose the one who he thinked would be the best. Regardless of the reproductive organs.
Exactly.

Now, I'm a feminist. I was personally gunning for either Nepolitano or Sebelius for VP. But despite my initial disappointment at the choice of Biden, he really is the best choice for Obama.

Not just because of rounding things out, but because HE CAN WORK WITH THE SENATE.

I need to stress how important this is. Despite some general feelings about the President's power, they need to be able to work with Congress in order to do anything. Their policies on anything they have no direct control over--which is most of what's usually discussed--means NOTHING without being able to get them through Congress as well.

Biden can do that for Obama.

McCain made no such choice. He chose his VP solely for the fact that she is a she.
Right again. Governor Palin would have some serious difficulties working with Congress, especially since said Congress, whether Obama wins or not, is liable to be full of Democrats and thus much harder to work through for a Republican administration.

Furthermore, she doesn't even have Obama's organizational and basic administrative experience to draw upon should she somehow end up in the Presidency, which is rather likely given the state of Senator McCain's health.

So, who is more sexist? Someone who looks at a candidates credentials, or someone who looks at their genitals? Ask yourself - would Sarah Pallin have been chosen if she were a male, with the exact same political experience and values? The answer is no. McCain chose her strictly on her gender, not on her qualifications or abilities. McCain is clearly more sexist than Obama, and to deny this is basically sexist in itself.

I agree. It was sexism that resulted in the choice, because it assumed women only cared about vaginas rather than being "like men" and using their brains to decide based on policies. It's a slap in the face, to women and to feminists everywhere, and it has resulted in a loss of some of what little respect I still had for Senator McCain.

However, TO BE FAIR, she does still play to the Republican base, especially evangelicals. And unlike some of the other choice McCain had, her female status keeps her from being as much of an interference item as it would have been had he picked someone else evangelical, such as Romney or Huckabee. In other words, she'll work with him better, and stay in the shadows better.

Which is actually sexist in and of itself if you look at it the right way. It's not actually when you seriously think about it(Since the Vice President does do quite a lot), but it could be taken that way.

I agree. It was sexism that resulted in the choice, because it assumed women only cared about vaginas rather than being "like men" and using their brains to decide based on policies. It's a slap in the face, to women and to feminists everywhere, and it has resulted in a loss of some of what little respect I still had for Senator McCain.
Which is very odd, when you stop to think about this.

However, TO BE FAIR, she does still play to the Republican base, especially evangelicals.
In that respect it was a clever move. The evangelical right were very non-plus about McCain, and it was very possible/probable many of them wouldn't vote this election - thus gifting the presidency to Obama. Now, however, Palin has reignited them into wholeheartedly supporting McCain.
Quite possibly a clever strategy then. For election only, not for what comes afterwards. But then it's been pretty clear that all McCain cares about nowadays is getting into the Whitehouse anyway possible. If he thought buggering a dog would get him some votes, he'd be down to the SPCA like a shot.

Which is very odd, when you stop to think about this.
;)


In that respect it was a clever move. The evangelical right were very non-plus about McCain, and it was very possible/probable many of them wouldn't vote this election - thus gifting the presidency to Obama. Now, however, Palin has reignited them into wholeheartedly supporting McCain.
Quite possibly a clever strategy then. For election only, not for what comes afterwards. But then it's been pretty clear that all McCain cares about nowadays is getting into the Whitehouse anyway possible. If he thought buggering a dog would get him some votes, he'd be down to the SPCA like a shot.

Indeed. McCain is not a stupid man by any means; no one stupid gets as far as he has into politics. He knows that Obama has a lot of support to draw on that isn't reflected in the polls, support that would push him over the line and allow him to win if the polls stay close to even in support numbers. McCain needed something that would help him counterbalance that support.

With the evangelicals now firmly on his side due to Sarah Palin, he may have that ability. Evangelicals have always been extremely well organized compared to their opposition, mainly because they all have something basic in common while their opposition is streamed across multiple lines, from those who are simply pro-choice, to atheists, agnostics, and people of minor faiths, to the GLBT community, and so on and so forth.

What we can't know for the moment is whether it will be enough. Time will tell. We certainly shouldn't underestimate Senator McCain and Governor Palin. I'm still pretty confident that Senators Obama and Biden will win the election, but if we even start to act overconfident and underestimate their opponents, we will lose.

"The gimmick". Mmm. Has a nice ring to it. I like.

All in favor of us all refering to Palin that way, say "aye"!

I still prefer I Can't Believe It's Not Hillary. The name accents how much Palin really is a product being marketed towards disaffected Clintocrats while still managing to keep the evangelical base energized over McCain.

I think I'm beginning to understand the Palin pick a lot better after reading McCain's nomination acceptance speech. I actually found it to be a rather pleasant and well constructed speech, even if I do disagree with some of his positions.

I'm reconsidering my perspective on him as another Bush. I mean, sure, it's just a speech, but he genuinely does seem more level headed and focused now that he, personally, no longer needs to pander to the right-wing crazies. What Palin's position as his vice has allowed him to do is to be the more moderate of the two forces, and in many respects, that does him - and his party for having nominated him as their candidate - a great service.

Of course, I would strongly recommend keeping the right-wing evangelicals out of government at all, and the fact that Palin is on the ticket means that I would still feel immensely annoyed and upset were the Republicans to win. But at least that annoyance isn't directed generally at the party any more, so good job John!

I think I'm beginning to understand the Palin pick a lot better after reading McCain's nomination acceptance speech. I actually found it to be a rather pleasant and well constructed speech, even if I do disagree with some of his positions.

I'm reconsidering my perspective on him as another Bush. I mean, sure, it's just a speech, but he genuinely does seem more level headed and focused now that he, personally, no longer needs to pander to the right-wing crazies. What Palin's position as his vice has allowed him to do is to be the more moderate of the two forces, and in many respects, that does him - and his party for having nominated him as their candidate - a great service.

Of course, I would strongly recommend keeping the right-wing evangelicals out of government at all, and the fact that Palin is on the ticket means that I would still feel immensely annoyed and upset were the Republicans to win. But at least that annoyance isn't directed generally at the party any more, so good job John!
so you think that the religious right are happy to have been thrown a bone (again) by the republican party. that they will now eagerly vote for mccain even though he doesnt really support their positions and wont push their agenda. that they will get out the vote so that the pretty much powerless VP position can be filled by one of their own.

i think youre right.

I still prefer I Can't Believe It's Not Hillary. The name accents how much Palin really is a product being marketed towards disaffected Clintocrats while still managing to keep the evangelical base energized over McCain.

It appears it's not working...

Also, what about "Vagimmick"?

Do you really need to describe Gov. Palin as "the vagina with the politician around it"?

Yes, I know it is a spin on our argument that Palin was picked (or defended by some in these forums) because she was female.

But can you see how your spin increases not just in viciousness but in borderline sexism.

You seem clever enough to debate without needing to reduce subjects into prejorative characatures.

Even if you are not, surely you are clever enough to come up with insulting way to refer to Palin that doesn't make you and your side of the argument look worse.
In H's defense, he didn't start it. I was one of the first to describe her in such terms. My words were "political monkey-wrench with a vagina attached to it" and the context of those words was describing what the Republican party and McCain's campaign managers see her as and how they intend to use her.

If you want to talk about sexism, I think the McCain/Republican gang are generating far more that we critics ever could, no matter how petty we might get. It is clear as day that their interest in her is no deeper than our dismissive language suggests, and considering what they have brought her on to do, that speaks volumes for their attitudes toward Palin as a individual, towards women voters in general, and (not sexist, but still) their attitude towards the job of VP.

"The gimmick". Mmm. Has a nice ring to it. I like.

All in favor of us all refering to Palin that way, say "aye"!
I agree it's a better term.

I agree it's a better term.

I had come up with "Vagimmick". :p

I had come up with "Vagimmick". :p
I don't like that one as much.

I don't like that one as much.

Ah well. Back to the drawing board, I have to think of a duly demeaning and humiliating name for Palin.

i think "republican" is demeaning enough.

its best to refer to her as ms palin.

Ah well. Back to the drawing board, I have to think of a duly demeaning and humiliating name for Palin.
At this point, I think "Sarah Palin, McCain's pick for running mate who he couldn't be bothered even to vet beforehand" is demeaning and humiliating enough.

And yet, I believe that Democrats are doing more to "damage women's rights" by defecating on their own. This was the year for the Democrats to shine.....a black man and a white woman in the White House, and now that is no longer possible.

You continue to avoid even the most basic of questions. Again, I will pose to you.

Why do you believe Sarah Palin was a good choice for VP, other than the fact that she is a female?

So far you've said nothing. Your only point is that it was a good nomination simply because she's a woman. You've offered no opinion on her political views. You've yet to explain how you reconcile the fact that she would strip away one of the biggest rights women have earned in the past 30 years. You haven't said a goddamn thing except to continue to parrot the same lines about awful the Democrats are and how great the Republicans are. So say something of substance in your next post.

You continue to talk about how the Democrats are hurting women's rights just because they did not nominate Clinton. If you supported the election process in any way, you wouldn't level these complaints. Your entire position seems to rest on the idea that Clinton should have been strong-armed into the presidency or vice-presidency JUST BECAUSE she's a woman. You've presented precisely zero arguments for why Obama should have nominated her other than because she's a woman. There are numerous factors that are considered when nominating a vice president, but you want GENDER to be the deciding factor.

You're the sexist here. You are the only one who considers Sarah Palin a qualified candidate based merely on her gender. You are the only one who insists that Clinton deserves the nomination for vice president because of what it would mean to "women's rights." Your concern over each of their political views is nil. You've demonstrated multiple times that you only care about their gender. Any woman would do; your support for two women so completely diametrically opposed to one another shows that.

Ah well. Back to the drawing board, I have to think of a duly demeaning and humiliating name for Palin.

Here's a thought. Maybe you could stop trying to make the election discussion on this forum as childish and immature as you possibly can. I assume you're a smart person. Perhaps you could show your intelligence instead of trying to come up with combinations of "vagina" and "Palin." You know, contribute to the discussion. That sort of thing.

Here's a thought. Maybe you could stop trying to make the election discussion on this forum as childish and immature as you possibly can. I assume you're a smart person. Perhaps you could show your intelligence instead of trying to come up with combinations of "vagina" and "Palin." You know, contribute to the discussion. That sort of thing.

"Valin"? That makes no sense. o_O

:p

Sorry, had to be done.

"Valin"? That makes no sense. o_O

:p

Sorry, had to be done.

I can assume by this post that you have no intention of ever offering anything of value to this discussion?

At this point, I think "Sarah Palin, McCain's pick for running mate who he couldn't be bothered even to vet beforehand" is demeaning and humiliating enough.

You're good!

I can assume by this post that you have no intention of ever offering anything of value to this discussion?

Now, now: Just because SOME things I offered aren't of value doesn't mean I have no intention of EVER offering ANYthing. :p

Now, now: Just because SOME things I offered aren't of value doesn't mean I have no intention of EVER offering ANYthing. :p
that sums you up so very well!

I think we are all intelligent enough to see that from his posts that CH thinks Palin is a good choice for McCain for the exact same reason McCain does - her gender.

McCain didn't make a choice for VP based on experience, competance, ability to handle the job, ability to become president at the drop of a hat, international skill or knowledge, or any other factor that would make a good VP. No, he chose her because she has a vagina. Yes, she appeals to the evangelical republican fanbase, but there were numerous other, more qualified candidates out there who would do that for him, but they lacked vaginas. McCain has shown that Palin is nothing more than a female he can use to get himself elected, which is pure sexism.

Obama was chosen as the democrats presidential candidate because they believed he is the best person suited for the job. Obama chose Biden as his vice-presidential candidate because he believed Biden would do that job best.

It would have been nice if Obama chose Clinton as his VP candidate, but did anyone really think he would? She made the campaign so nasty, and she said some really not-very-nice things about Obama. Do you think Obama was really going to say "hey, no harm done. Sorry you didn't win the race. Wanna be my VP?" He might have, because he seems a nice guy. But I don't think he would have, especially when there were other candidates out there who didn't slander him relentlessly over the past few months. Not to mention, I also doubt Clinton would have accepted the position, as it would seem like a step down for her. It is clear that there was no sexism at all in any of the decisions made by Obama or the democrats. The democrats and Obama both did what they should have done - chose who they think will do the job BEST. McCain has not done that. He has opportunistically chosen someone who he is naieve enough to think will win him over some of the Clinton voters, who, in themselves, are sexist for voting for a candidate simply because of their gender.

CH has it wrong - the republicans are the sexist ones, McCain most of all, and CH is himself sexist for thinking otherwise.

</thread>

that sums you up so very well!

I'll try and take this as a compliment! :D

I think we are all intelligent enough to see that from his posts that CH thinks Palin is a good choice for McCain for the exact same reason McCain does - her gender.

McCain didn't make a choice for VP based on experience, competance, ability to handle the job, ability to become president at the drop of a hat, international skill or knowledge, or any other factor that would make a good VP. No, he chose her because she has a vagina. Yes, she appeals to the evangelical republican fanbase, but there were numerous other, more qualified candidates out there who would do that for him, but they lacked vaginas. McCain has shown that Palin is nothing more than a female he can use to get himself elected, which is pure sexism.

Obama was chosen as the democrats presidential candidate because they believed he is the best person suited for the job. Obama chose Biden as his vice-presidential candidate because he believed Biden would do that job best.

It would have been nice if Obama chose Clinton as his VP candidate, but did anyone really think he would? She made the campaign so nasty, and she said some really not-very-nice things about Obama. Do you think Obama was really going to say "hey, no harm done. Sorry you didn't win the race. Wanna be my VP?" He might have, because he seems a nice guy. But I don't think he would have, especially when there were other candidates out there who didn't slander him relentlessly over the past few months. Not to mention, I also doubt Clinton would have accepted the position, as it would seem like a step down for her. It is clear that there was no sexism at all in any of the decisions made by Obama or the democrats. The democrats and Obama both did what they should have done - chose who they think will do the job BEST. McCain has not done that. He has opportunistically chosen someone who he is naieve enough to think will win him over some of the Clinton voters, who, in themselves, are sexist for voting for a candidate simply because of their gender.

CH has it wrong - the republicans are the sexist ones, McCain most of all, and CH is himself sexist for thinking otherwise.

</thread>

You bear watching, for a newcomer, you're laying quite a smackdown.

I'll try and take this as a compliment! :D
its an observation, not a compliment.

nor is it a dis.

you do contribute to the debate but not in every post.

...
Why do you believe Sarah Palin was a good choice for VP, other than the fact that she is a female?
....

Why do we believe Sarah Palin was a good choice for VP, other than the fact that she is a female?


1: She will help McCain reform Washington. It’s one of the biggest draws to the Alaskan Governor’s record. She helps to demolish the Democrats' argument that McCain equals Bush, clearly, adding Palin to the ticket represents a challenge the Washington insiders club (of either party)...

2: Palin is an attack on the energy crisis. Her experiences with butting heads and taxing the oil companies and still getting more drilling and pipeline construction done (oil drilling and natural gas pipelines) and her record shows us that she wants to use the money made now to develop renewable energy sources for the future. And unlike the other three candidates on the tickets, she has real expertise in the field, not just talk: she already has experience with decision making and negotiations with the big companies (on the natural gas pipeline, a 40 billion dollar construction project). Whereas the Democrats are spewing the idiotic naysaying that more oil drilling won't solve the problem, Palin has argued that it IS an important part of getting us off the foreign oil addiction now while we improve other renewable sources for the future as well. More info on her economics…
http://kudlowsmoneypolitics.blogspot.com/2008/06/drill-drill-drill-my-interview-with_26.html

3: Despite what anyone outside of the party thinks about her, Palin absolutely sodifies the blue collar conservative core that was split between Romney and Huckabee during the primaries. The selection of Palin brings them both back, and not just a little, but enthusiastically and with renewed vigor. Because Palin represents all the social issues and family values that they found lacking (rightfully or not) with McCain.

4: Palin is an advocate for the small business owners and their job creating niche in the economy. She has experience in that and her record shows reform minded there as well.

As other have said:
She’s got an exceptional record of support for small business, and has worked hard to shake up the corrupt elements preying on Alaska’s state government,” said Langer. “When it comes to making choices this fall, the American people are going to be looking at what the candidates have actually done in their public service careers, not the empty rhetoric of campaign promises.”
Andrew Langer , President of the Institute for Liberty, a conservative small business advocacy group

5: Sarah Palin inspires people as the “Mr. Smith goes to Washington” role model she is, a ‘Mom’ who entered into politics to reform what she saw as things that are wrong with the country’s government. And she is not unique in that role. She shares that story with other examples like Madeleine Albright and Nancy Pelosi.

Why do we believe Sarah Palin was a good choice for VP, other than the fact that she is a female?

The question was directed towards fervent Clinton supporter CanuckHeaven, in an attempt to have him explain how he could switch support from Hillary Clinton to Sarah Palin and keep a straight face.

I understand why you support her. You've been quite clear on the matter.

The question was directed towards fervent Clinton supporter CanuckHeaven, in an attempt to have him explain how he could switch support from Hillary Clinton to Sarah Palin and keep a straight face.

I understand why you support her. You've been quite clear on the matter.

I can't speak for CH, clearly. But I remember a year ago thinking that a Hillary - McCain competition would leave me with no one to favor over the other, that essentially, I would be free to vote for a third party because the difference between either of them sitting in the white house would make almost no difference to the day to day practices of living in the US. Despite the fact that Obama now sounds more like what Clinton sounded like a year ago, at the time he was not that candidate. And people that were watching closely then remember that Obama and might not trust this Obama.

Why do we believe Sarah Palin was a good choice for VP, other than the fact that she is a female?
Oh, this should be good.


1: She will help McCain reform Washington. It’s one of the biggest draws to the Alaskan Governor’s record. She helps to demolish the Democrats' argument that McCain equals Bush, clearly, adding Palin to the ticket represents a challenge the Washington insiders club (of either party)...

Reform Washington how? Yes, she has some experience pushing for legislation in Alaska, which is about as Republican as you can get. What experience does she have with legislation in anything even remotely bi-partisan or on a national level? How will she reform Washington when the Democrats have a majority in both houses? What does she intend to do to reform Washington specifically?

2: Palin is an attack on the energy crisis. Her experiences with butting heads and taxing the oil companies and still getting more drilling and pipeline construction done (oil drilling and natural gas pipelines) and her record shows us that she wants to use the money made now to develop renewable energy sources for the future. And unlike the other three candidates on the tickets, she has real expertise in the field, not just talk: she already has experience with decision making and negotiations with the big companies (on the natural gas pipeline, a 40 billion dollar construction project). Whereas the Democrats are spewing the idiotic naysaying that more oil drilling won't solve the problem, Palin has argued that it IS an important part of getting us off the foreign oil addiction now while we improve other renewable sources for the future as well. More info on her economics…
http://kudlowsmoneypolitics.blogspot.com/2008/06/drill-drill-drill-my-interview-with_26.html

That's not an attack on the energy crisis. That's a "Let's try to keep doing the same thing we've been doing that's stopped working anywhere nearly as well and will continue to get worse" policy. That's an ostrich policy, in other words, and it's not a very good one, because oil's not going to stick around forever.

Energy independence requires not just some domestically produced oil(it does require that for a short time; after all, it's not like we can magick in new infrastructure overnight) but a vast amount of different sources, from the various renewables to fission and other, potential sources of energy we've yet to fully discover, such as fusion, or maybe that really interesting idea I read in a hard science fiction novel involving the Higgs bosen. It also requires a complete and total infrastructure overhaul.

I'm not seeing the Republicans pushing for that. I am, however, seeing McCain pushing for some nuclear and clean coal, which is about the only good policy decision I've seen him make so far. But it's not enough.


3: Despite what anyone outside of the party thinks about her, Palin absolutely sodifies the blue collar conservative core that was split between Romney and Huckabee during the primaries. The selection of Palin brings them both back, and not just a little, but enthusiastically and with renewed vigor. Because Palin represents all the social issues and family values that they found lacking (rightfully or not) with McCain.

Family values such as taking away the choice of reproductive rights from women. Family values such as treating violence like it's a wonderful okay thing to use all the time. Family values like preventing homosexuals from marrying and adopting children and generally being human beings just because of some religious belief. Family values like pushing those religious beliefs on everyone in so many other ways.

I think you can see why I would disagree here.


4: Palin is an advocate for the small business owners and their job creating niche in the economy. She has experience in that and her record shows reform minded there as well.

As other have said:
She’s got an exceptional record of support for small business, and has worked hard to shake up the corrupt elements preying on Alaska’s state government,” said Langer. “When it comes to making choices this fall, the American people are going to be looking at what the candidates have actually done in their public service careers, not the empty rhetoric of campaign promises.”
Andrew Langer , President of the Institute for Liberty, a conservative small business advocacy group
Source, please. I want to say she's done some manipulating on this, but I'm not sure if I'm remembering correctly so I don't want to make a false claim

5: Sarah Palin inspires people as the “Mr. Smith goes to Washington” role model she is, a ‘Mom’ who entered into politics to reform what she saw as things that are wrong with the country’s government. And she is not unique in that role. She shares that story with other examples like Madeleine Albright and Nancy Pelosi.
I'm sorry, but she's not that inspiring, not to most women. She is to some, I admit, but those who can see her for what she is--the representation of an oppressive ideology that countermands everything she does and would happily remove her ability to go into politics at all if it could turn the clock back that far--she's not inspiring at all. She's despicable.

I can't speak for CH, clearly. But I remember a year ago thinking that a Hillary - McCain competition would leave me with no one to favor over the other, that essentially, I would be free to vote for a third party because the difference between either of them sitting in the white house would make almost no difference to the day to day practices of living in the US. Despite the fact that Obama now sounds more like what Clinton sounded like a year ago, at the time he was not that candidate. And people that were watching closely then remember that Obama and might not trust this Obama.
ya but mccain is STILL mccain. if you think that him picking a vp that is more in line with your point of view is anything but pandering you are mistaken. he has just promised to work WITH a democratic congress, hasnt he?

or are you counting on him dying and leaving your girl in charge?

I think we are all intelligent enough to see that from his posts that CH thinks Palin is a good choice for McCain for the exact same reason McCain does - her gender.

McCain didn't make a choice for VP based on experience, competance, ability to handle the job, ability to become president at the drop of a hat, international skill or knowledge, or any other factor that would make a good VP. No, he chose her because she has a vagina. Yes, she appeals to the evangelical republican fanbase, but there were numerous other, more qualified candidates out there who would do that for him, but they lacked vaginas. McCain has shown that Palin is nothing more than a female he can use to get himself elected, which is pure sexism.

<snip>
I agree with your assessment that CH* is being nothing but sexist in everything he says about Palin, but the truth is that there were also more qualified candidates out there for the Republicans who DO also have vaginas. One I can think of off the top of my head is Christine Todd Whitman, former governor of New Jersey, former head of the EPA under Bush, and former a bunch of other decent jobs, too. She is smart, she has an impressive track record of hands-on work, she is a good public speaker who has a good relationship with the media, and she known is an independent thinker who made at least a show of standing up to Bush and not compromising herself to conform to his agenda (there was gossip about why she quit the EPA). She would have been a SLAMDUNK to win over large numbers of moderate and independent voters, and even steal away some (maybe many) of the more right-leaning Democratic voters. Forget the "Clintoncrats" and the rightwing god-botherers. A running mate like Whitman could have all but guaranteed a Republican victory.

Yet, he went with Palin, a woman of extremist religious views and close ties with big oil (hm, maybe Whitman's EPA connection would have been a problem after all) whose only demonstrated political skills are a willingness to abuse power and blind obedience to the party line. And the only way he has used her so far is as media-bait to get camera time and keep all the media talking about whether Clinton supporters (a small minority of voters) will like her or not. Gosh, I wonder what McCain could be up to with that.

*Who I put on ignore days ago, but why did I bother, since I can see all his posts quoted in other people's replies to his nonsense anyway. :p

</thread>
Heh, I wish.

1: She will help McCain reform Washington. It’s one of the biggest draws to the Alaskan Governor’s record. She helps to demolish the Democrats' argument that McCain equals Bush, clearly, adding Palin to the ticket represents a challenge the Washington insiders club (of either party)...
Patently absurd. Not being a "Washington insider" doesn't make some one not a dyed-in-the-wool politician. She is running for the position of vice president after a ridiculous short career running a middle-of-nowhere-state (whose neighbors she never visited for she never had a passport) but she is talking like she has been an Alaskan lobbyist on the Hill for decades.

2: Palin is an attack on the energy crisis.
Only if you think replacing one source of oil with another is a solution to the addiction to oil.

And unlike the other three candidates on the tickets, she has real expertise in the field, not just talk:
she already has experience with decision making and negotiations with the big companies (on the natural gas pipeline, a 40 billion dollar construction project).
So does the Alabama governor, but I wouldn't want him anywhere near Washington.

Whereas the Democrats are spewing the idiotic naysaying that more oil drilling won't solve the problem,
Considering the problem is addiction to oil, I have to agree.

Palin has argued that it IS an important part of getting us off the foreign oil addiction now while we improve other renewable sources for the future as well. More info on her economics…
Oh, of course, because Palin says so it must be true. Oh wait, I'm going to argue that we are never going to get off our addiction to oil by putting more oil in the system and it must be true because I have the same economic qualifications as Palin. Probably more than Palin because unlike her I don't have a vested interest in what energy we use or where it comes from.

3: Despite what anyone outside of the party thinks about her, Palin absolutely sodifies the blue collar conservative core that was split between Romney and Huckabee during the primaries.
Uh, no. It isn't the blue-collar that McCain is having an issue with. They would invite him to dinner and register their dog to vote for him. It is the radical evangelicals that were split between Huckabee and Romney. The ones whose asses McCain has been trying to kiss since he bombed the 2000 election by being a non-partisan maverick who actually stood up to the Republican status quo.

Sarah Palin inspires people as the “Mr. Smith goes to Washington” role model she is,
Oh yes, an airhead who people are attracted to is obviously a very qualified person to be on the edge of the presidency.

a ‘Mom’ who entered into politics to reform what she saw as things that are wrong with the country’s government.
Nothing says reform like out-corrupting and out-weaseling your own party during an election.

ya but mccain is STILL mccain. if you think that him picking a vp that is more in line with your point of view is anything but pandering you are mistaken. he has just promised to work WITH a democratic congress, hasnt he?

or are you counting on him dying and leaving your girl in charge?

Which part of McCain or Hillary did you miss? McCain by himself is better than Obama, now I have someone to vote for AND he picked Sarah Palin, VP for four years (at least) and then SHE can run for President after McCain is done. I'm win win here.

I think we are all intelligent enough to see that from his posts that CH thinks Palin is a good choice for McCain for the exact same reason McCain does - her gender.

McCain didn't make a choice for VP based on experience, competance, ability to handle the job, ability to become president at the drop of a hat, international skill or knowledge, or any other factor that would make a good VP. No, he chose her because she has a vagina. Yes, she appeals to the evangelical republican fanbase, but there were numerous other, more qualified candidates out there who would do that for him, but they lacked vaginas. McCain has shown that Palin is nothing more than a female he can use to get himself elected, which is pure sexism.

Obama was chosen as the democrats presidential candidate because they believed he is the best person suited for the job. Obama chose Biden as his vice-presidential candidate because he believed Biden would do that job best.

It would have been nice if Obama chose Clinton as his VP candidate, but did anyone really think he would? She made the campaign so nasty, and she said some really not-very-nice things about Obama. Do you think Obama was really going to say "hey, no harm done. Sorry you didn't win the race. Wanna be my VP?" He might have, because he seems a nice guy. But I don't think he would have, especially when there were other candidates out there who didn't slander him relentlessly over the past few months. Not to mention, I also doubt Clinton would have accepted the position, as it would seem like a step down for her. It is clear that there was no sexism at all in any of the decisions made by Obama or the democrats. The democrats and Obama both did what they should have done - chose who they think will do the job BEST. McCain has not done that. He has opportunistically chosen someone who he is naieve enough to think will win him over some of the Clinton voters, who, in themselves, are sexist for voting for a candidate simply because of their gender.

CH has it wrong - the republicans are the sexist ones, McCain most of all, and CH is himself sexist for thinking otherwise.

</thread>

It's a stark raving ironic hypocrisy that the Republican Party- well known for rabidly opposing and quashing anything that even vaguely smells of Affirmative Action- would pick I Can't Believe It's Not Hillary as Vice Presidential running mate primarily on the criterion that she is a woman. Being a fundie oil industry whore is merely a bonus that doesn't alienate their usual base constituents.

Which part of McCain or Hillary did you miss? McCain by himself is better than Obama, now I have someone to vote for AND he picked Sarah Palin, VP for four years (at least) and then SHE can run for President after McCain is done. I'm win win here.
the part i am confused about is where mccain wasnt good enough to vote for on his own so you were considering voting 3rd party.

so youre saying that you are feeling forced to vote AGAINST obama --even though he is all but identical to ms clinton in his policies--and ms palin is a bonus?

Only if you think replacing one source of oil with another is a solution to the addiction to oil.

So your solution would be...what? Cutting off any use of oil now, going cold turkey? Yeah, that's brilliant. And while billions starve in the US, you can sit back and gloat we've "cured" our addiction.

The solution is simple here. Should we be looking for alternative sources of energy? Yes! Are these sources of energy going to appear quickly enough that we can stop using oil now? No. Even if they are developed today, implementing them will take decades.

So, in the meantime, should we continue paying the cutthroat prices being offered by foreign oil companies? No. We should start developing our own resources of oil - yes, that will take about 10 years, but it's better than being dependent on outside sources for the decades it will take to hook everyone up on an alternative source of energy.

Oh yes, an airhead who people are attracted to is obviously a very qualified person to be on the edge of the presidency.

And now the sexism starts showing. She's a woman and she disagrees with your viewpoints. Ergo, she's an airhead.

the part i am confused about is where mccain wasnt good enough to vote for on his own so you were considering voting 3rd party.

so youre saying that you are feeling forced to vote AGAINST obama --even though he is all but identical to ms clinton in his policies--and ms palin is a bonus?

No, I'm saying that I didn't see any significant difference between McCain and Clinton, either was as good as the other to me, it didn't matter who won because both were 'okay.' Now I'm saying McCain is still okay, Obama is not okay, and I now have to vote for McCain and I can't put my vote on a third party to help them ensure public funding for their party the next time around.

Obama does sound more like Hillary now than he did when he was running against her though, I agree with you there. Interesting that, isn't it, would you like to explain it? I know I can't explain it. He made it sound like there was big differences between him and Hillary before, but they all evaporated for some reason?

I had come up with "Vagimmick". :p

Just stop. Stop. It's not okay to be a pig even to irrational, unqualified and possibly insane women like Palin. Yes, McCain picked her because she's a woman. That doesn't mean you have to make reference to her possession of a vagina in every freaking post. I've ignored it up to this point, but I'm getting sick of it. Just knock it the fuck off.

And now the sexism starts showing. She's a woman and she disagrees with your viewpoints. Ergo, she's an airhead.

No, your sexism is showing. Airhead has absolutely no denoted gender. Bush is an airhead. Quayle was the posterboy for airheads. Palin is an airhead who happens to be a woman.

No, your sexism is showing. Airhead has absolutely no denoted gender. Bush is an airhead. Quayle was the posterboy for airheads. Palin is an airhead who happens to be a woman.

I still refer to Palin as a product marketed towards disaffected Clintocrats to lure them in while not actually alienating the fundamentalist "wimmen should stay home and make babies and stfu" evangelical crowds or the petroleum interests.

The sad thing is, if NSG is even a vague sample of real world politics, the marketing campaign is working.

Obama does sound more like Hillary now than he did when he was running against her though, I agree with you there. Interesting that, isn't it, would you like to explain it? I know I can't explain it. He made it sound like there was big differences between him and Hillary before, but they all evaporated for some reason?

Same way you can explain McCain shadowing Bush's every move and then calling himself "The Maverick". They're both trying to win an election.

Yes, Obama and Clinton had differences. But the differences between them were on a smaller scale than the basic difference in mindset between the Democratic and Republican parties. There are things about Clinton's campaign I liked better than Obama's. There are things in Obama's campaign I liked better. Obama is the Democratic nominee for president. His views, both fiscal and social, fall much closer to my own than McCain's. MUCH closer. Hence, I plan to vote for Obama. Was that really so difficult?

Actually, that's much easier to explain than McCain's dogged insistence that he isn't like Bush, despite his record, because Obama and Clinton were going head-to-head for a single nomination, whereas Bush is not in the running. So McCain's attempt to distance himself from the Bush administration rather than his competitors makes no sense at all.

I still refer to Palin as a product marketed towards disaffected Clintocrats to lure them in while not actually alienating the fundamentalist "wimmen should stay home and make babies and stfu" evangelical crowds or the petroleum interests.

The sad thing is, if NSG is even a vague sample of real world politics, the marketing campaign is working.

And so she is. A fine example of sexism in the Republican party, for sure.

I don't think even NSG shows that it's working. I think NSG, at the very most, shows that the few people it's working on are loud about it. And at least one of those people (CH) can't vote, so I'm still optimistic.

So your solution would be...what? Cutting off any use of oil now, going cold turkey? Yeah, that's brilliant. And while billions starve in the US, you can sit back and gloat we've "cured" our addiction.

The solution is simple here. Should we be looking for alternative sources of energy? Yes! Are these sources of energy going to appear quickly enough that we can stop using oil now? No. Even if they are developed today, implementing them will take decades.

So, in the meantime, should we continue paying the cutthroat prices being offered by foreign oil companies? No. We should start developing our own resources of oil - yes, that will take about 10 years, but it's better than being dependent on outside sources for the decades it will take to hook everyone up on an alternative source of energy.
So your solution is to do something that keeps oil cheap. Well that's great - if you want to stay on oil forever. If you want research into alternative to oil to begin in earnest and with dedication, work with the oil we have - high prices and all. Otherwise people get complacent and work on alternatives stops - like what has happened over the past couple decades.

And now the sexism starts showing. She's a woman and she disagrees with your viewpoints. Ergo, she's an airhead.
So does your entire deck consist of gender cards? If you want to be holier than thou, you could at least call me out for the right thing. I said she was an airhead because she was a beauty pageant winner. But that's not what you did, so you just go on looking like a hypocritical moron for trying to act like I was being sexist.

So your solution is to do something that keeps oil cheap. Well that's great - if you want to stay on oil forever. If you want research into alternative to oil to begin in earnest and with dedication, work with the oil we have - high prices and all. Otherwise people get complacent and work on alternatives stops - like what has happened over the past couple decades.

Would you support making health care as expensive as possible so that the Citizens are forced to support universal government run health care? I'm just curious how far you are willing to manipulate the marketplace so that you get your way....


So does your entire deck consist of gender cards? If you want to be holier than thou, you could at least call me out for the right thing. I said she was an airhead because she was a beauty pageant winner. But that's not what you did, so you just go on looking like a hypocritical moron for trying to act like I was being sexist.

Wow, I guess your really showed them how non-sexist you are with that clarification then didn't you :rolleyes:

No, I'm saying that I didn't see any significant difference between McCain and Clinton, either was as good as the other to me, it didn't matter who won because both were 'okay.' Now I'm saying McCain is still okay, Obama is not okay, and I now have to vote for McCain and I can't put my vote on a third party to help them ensure public funding for their party the next time around.

Obama does sound more like Hillary now than he did when he was running against her though, I agree with you there. Interesting that, isn't it, would you like to explain it? I know I can't explain it. He made it sound like there was big differences between him and Hillary before, but they all evaporated for some reason?
i dont have an explanation. i was paying attention and never found a significant policy difference between the 2.

the small differences between them seem even smaller now that obama is being compared not to clinton but to mccain. the differences between obama and mccain are huge.

when you say that you saw no difference between mccain and clinton it says to me that policies are not what you were looking at.

Would you support making health care as expensive as possible so that the Citizens are forced to support universal government run health care? I'm just curious how far you are willing to manipulate the marketplace so that you get your way....

If you haven't noticed how many Americans are without health care, then either you are somehow unaware of just how expensive health care currently is, or you're too fucking rich to give a shit.

Wow, I guess your really showed them how non-sexist you are with that clarification then didn't you :rolleyes:

Jesus, why don't you say he's an Unpatriotic Tax-and-Spend Muslim while you're at it? The Republicans spared no insults towards the female Clintons and now that the Republicans have their own Pseudo-Ferraro in place all of a sudden they're complaining about sexism? Pshah. Then again this is the party that wanted to make homosexuality a crime or a shame while Mark Foley was writin' dirty to his pages and Larry Craig was tapdancing in an airport bathroom stall. Doublethink comes naturally to today's GOP.

Would you support making health care as expensive as possible so that the Citizens are forced to support universal government run health care? I'm just curious how far you are willing to manipulate the marketplace so that you get your way....



Wow, I guess your really showed them how non-sexist you are with that clarification then didn't you :rolleyes:
Having failed to label all critics of Palin "sexist" as a group, is it now your plan to try to knock us down one by one? Palin is an airhead because she doesn't think before she shoots off her mouth in public, because she behaves in a shallow, thoughtless, uncontrolled manner in public, where she's supposed to be making a good impression -- just as if her head were full of air. She'd be just as airheaded if she had never been in a pageant and if she were male.

And so she is. A fine example of sexism in the Republican party, for sure.

I don't think even NSG shows that it's working. I think NSG, at the very most, shows that the few people it's working on are loud about it. And at least one of those people (CH) can't vote, so I'm still optimistic.

NSG is far from a representative sample. Most of the conservative minded posters were driven off long ago by vitriolic attacks. What's left are the die-hards, the people who only post every once in a while and generally ignore the attacks, and the crazies. Oh, and the liberal left, who sneer at anyone who expresses an opinion different from their own.

And while billions starve in the US, you can sit back and gloat we've "cured" our addiction.

Wait, is everyone in the US going to starve to death, then come back to life and starve to death at least six more times?

Wow, I guess your really showed them how non-sexist you are with that clarification then didn't you :rolleyes:

Unless women are beauty pageant winners, that isn't sexism. A discriminatory statement, yes. A stupid statement, yes. A sexist statement, fuck no.

No, I'm saying that I didn't see any significant difference between McCain and Clinton

then you either have some really weird single-issue that you vote on or you didn't actually look. in so far as you can reasonably say there aren't significant differences between them, it is because from a certain standpoint there aren't significant differences between the parties in general.

i dont have an explanation. i was paying attention and never found a significant policy difference between the 2.

the small differences between them seem even smaller now that obama is being compared not to clinton but to mccain. the differences between obama and mccain are huge.

when you say that you saw no difference between mccain and clinton it says to me that policies are not what you were looking at.

Nonsense. Hillary (in the beginning, not at the end when she was moving far left to try and save her campaign) was more like McCain than Obama when it came to how to deal with Iraq and the war, how to deal with international trade, how to deal with the energy crisis, how to deal with foreign countries that provoke us for one reason or another etc.

When you say you see no difference between OBama and Hillary in the beginning then it must be only because they both want to put a (D) after their title.

But Hillary would work to get things done regardless of party, McCain will work across party lines to try and get things done. Democrats want everyone to know that McCain has voted with Republicans and Bush 90% of the time but you sure don't see them mentioning the fact that Obama has voted the Democrat line 97% of the time do you? Arguments like those are weak and nonsensical at the base and they won't sway those of us that look deeper than that.

Unless women are beauty pageant winners, that isn't sexism. A discriminatory statement, yes. A stupid statement, yes. A sexist statement, fuck no.

A sexist statement because it assumes that 'pretty' women can't also be smart.

Having failed to label all critics of Palin "sexist" as a group, is it now your plan to try to knock us down one by one? Palin is an airhead because she doesn't think before she shoots off her mouth in public, because she behaves in a shallow, thoughtless, uncontrolled manner in public, where she's supposed to be making a good impression -- just as if her head were full of air. She'd be just as airheaded if she had never been in a pageant and if she were male.

I labelled their sexist arguments as sexist because they are. I don't lable all arguments as sexists. Your statements here for example, are simply wrong, they weren't sexists. See, that's how it's done.

then you either have some really weird single-issue that you vote on or you didn't actually look. in so far as you can reasonably say there aren't significant differences between them, it is because from a certain standpoint there aren't significant differences between the parties in general.

As I told Ashmoria, Iraq and the war, how to deal with international trade, how to deal with the energy crisis, how to deal with foreign countries that provoke us for one reason or another etc., are all differences between Hillary and Obama. Hillary and McCain share those traits, as Hillary herself said when she was campaigning against Obama. Now we won't hear her talk about those things, of course.

Nonsense. Hillary (in the beginning, not at the end when she was moving far left to try and save her campaign) was more like McCain than Obama when it came to how to deal with Iraq and the war, how to deal with international trade, how to deal with the energy crisis, how to deal with foreign countries that provoke us for one reason or another etc.

source it.

Democrats want everyone to know that McCain has voted with Republicans and Bush 90% of the time but you sure don't see them mentioning the fact that Obama has voted the Democrat line 97% of the time do you?

nobody points it out because nobody sane thinks voting with bush more is better.

source it.

Source the debate between Hillary and Obama? And what they said about each other and their own differences? Mwahahahahaha,.... exactly what planet have you been on for the last 9 months? But okay, quick yahoo search of : Obama says Hillary is like Bush:



“I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran,” Clinton said April 22 in an interview with ABC. “In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.”

Obama said, “It’s not the language we need right now, and I think it’s language reflective of George Bush” akin to “bluster and saber rattling.”

“Senator Clinton during the course of the campaign has said we shouldn’t speculate about Iran, we’ve got to be cautious when we’re running for president, she scolded me on a couple of occasions on this issue, yet a few days before an election, she’s willing to use that language,” Obama added.

Clinton, asked about Obama’s criticism, didn’t back away from her comment.

“Why would I have any regrets? I’m asked a question about what I would do if Iran attacked our ally … and, yes, we would have massive retaliation against Iran,” Clinton said. “I don’t think they will do that, but I sure want to make it abundantly clear to them that they would face a tremendous cost if they did such a thing.”

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/05/clinton-obama-duel-over-iran-gas-taxes/

That's a nice little example of them disagreeing with each on energy crisis and foreign affairs ... I'm POSITIVE that you can search and find hundreds of more examples.

Source the debate between Hillary and Obama?

no, provide evidence that overall on whatever issues you are taking as most important clinton and mccain were very alike while clinton and obama were very different. answers to issue questions, rankings from independent groups, voting records, whatever. go go go!

Would you support making health care as expensive as possible so that the Citizens are forced to support universal government run health care? I'm just curious how far you are willing to manipulate the marketplace so that you get your way....
I didn't realize we were on a completely different topic

Wow, I guess your really showed them how non-sexist you are with that clarification then didn't you :rolleyes:
So you are saying only women can be in beauty pageants? Sexist.

A sexist statement because it assumes that 'pretty' women can't also be smart.
Second verse same as the first.

I labelled their sexist arguments as sexist because they are. I don't lable all arguments as sexists. Your statements here for example, are simply wrong, they weren't sexists. See, that's how it's done.
Hahaha, you're funny. :D

Wow, apperantly Republicans learned nothing from Hillary. Playing the "sexism" and "victim" cards will blow up in your face.


I also find it amussing that the people here who always talk about ebil minorities and ebil women always acting like victims are now playing the victim cards.


Youre all a bunch of hypocrits.

Source the debate between Hillary and Obama? And what they said about each other and their own differences? Mwahahahahaha,.... exactly what planet have you been on for the last 9 months? But okay, quick yahoo search of : Obama says Hillary is like Bush:

“I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran,” Clinton said April 22 in an interview with ABC. “In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.”

Obama said, “It’s not the language we need right now, and I think it’s language reflective of George Bush” akin to “bluster and saber rattling.”

“Senator Clinton during the course of the campaign has said we shouldn’t speculate about Iran, we’ve got to be cautious when we’re running for president, she scolded me on a couple of occasions on this issue, yet a few days before an election, she’s willing to use that language,” Obama added.

Clinton, asked about Obama’s criticism, didn’t back away from her comment.

“Why would I have any regrets? I’m asked a question about what I would do if Iran attacked our ally … and, yes, we would have massive retaliation against Iran,” Clinton said. “I don’t think they will do that, but I sure want to make it abundantly clear to them that they would face a tremendous cost if they did such a thing.”

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/05/clinton-obama-duel-over-iran-gas-taxes/

That's a nice little example of them disagreeing with each on energy crisis and foreign affairs ... I'm POSITIVE that you can search and find hundreds of more examples.

Not sure how this supports you. Clinton's comment was taken out of its proper context. She said we'd "obliterate" Iran if they attacked an ally (here I'll assume that ally is Israel). Your pull from Obama makes it look like she said it out of the blue. Context is everything.

Oh, and the liberal left, who sneer at anyone who expresses an opinion different from their own.

Yep, we are all out to get you.


Grow up and stop playing victim.

its an observation, not a compliment.

nor is it a dis.

you do contribute to the debate but not in every post.

That's because I do not always intend to help.

That's because I do not always intend to help.
i know.

i dont hold it against you.

A lot of people are complaining that Obama didn't pick a female VP. Obama picked the person who he believed would make the best VP, and who he believed would "fill in the gaps". That is what a VP should do. "Fill in the gaps" which the president has. Biden gives Obama the benefit of experience, which was supposedly Obama's weakness. Ultimately, Obama looked at the possible candidates for his VP, and chose the one who he thinked would be the best. Regardless of the reproductive organs.

McCain made no such choice. He chose his VP solely for the fact that she is a she.

Well, she also fills the gap of "not as likely to drop dead of old age or cancer before four years are up".

its an observation, not a compliment.

nor is it a dis.

you do contribute to the debate but not in every post.

Sometimes he contributes humor, sometimes he helps me meet my RDA of Chaos.

So does your entire deck consist of gender cards? If you want to be holier than thou, you could at least call me out for the right thing. I said she was an airhead because she was a beauty pageant winner. But that's not what you did, so you just go on looking like a hypocritical moron for trying to act like I was being sexist.

Thanks for reinforcing the accusation of sexism.

Unless women are beauty pageant winners, that isn't sexism. A discriminatory statement, yes. A stupid statement, yes. A sexist statement, fuck no.

Never heard of a male beauty pageant. I really wish his argument had been "I called her an airhead because she doesn't know what the vice president does." It would have come off less like a sexist asshat.

Having failed to label all critics of Palin "sexist" as a group, is it now your plan to try to knock us down one by one? Palin is an airhead because she doesn't think before she shoots off her mouth in public, because she behaves in a shallow, thoughtless, uncontrolled manner in public, where she's supposed to be making a good impression -- just as if her head were full of air. She'd be just as airheaded if she had never been in a pageant and if she were male.

All good reasons to call her an airhead, and the same reasons I think she's an airhead. TPH's reason just reinforced the claim he was trying to disprove.

You continue to avoid even the most basic of questions. Again, I will pose to you.

Why do you believe Sarah Palin was a good choice for VP, other than the fact that she is a female?

So far you've said nothing. Your only point is that it was a good nomination simply because she's a woman. You've offered no opinion on her political views. You've yet to explain how you reconcile the fact that she would strip away one of the biggest rights women have earned in the past 30 years. You haven't said a goddamn thing except to continue to parrot the same lines about awful the Democrats are and how great the Republicans are. So say something of substance in your next post.

You continue to talk about how the Democrats are hurting women's rights just because they did not nominate Clinton. If you supported the election process in any way, you wouldn't level these complaints. Your entire position seems to rest on the idea that Clinton should have been strong-armed into the presidency or vice-presidency JUST BECAUSE she's a woman. You've presented precisely zero arguments for why Obama should have nominated her other than because she's a woman. There are numerous factors that are considered when nominating a vice president, but you want GENDER to be the deciding factor.

You're the sexist here. You are the only one who considers Sarah Palin a qualified candidate based merely on her gender. You are the only one who insists that Clinton deserves the nomination for vice president because of what it would mean to "women's rights." Your concern over each of their political views is nil. You've demonstrated multiple times that you only care about their gender. Any woman would do; your support for two women so completely diametrically opposed to one another shows that.
I was reading along then got to the point that you call me a "sexist". That certainly confirmed to me that you know little about me or the posts that I have made in this thread and others. I suggest you try another slant.

As far as most of the other points you have raised, again, you either have not read my previous posts, or you are just fabricating your own version of my truths, and that won't get you anywhere.

Never heard of a male beauty pageant.
That's your fault. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Male_beauty_pageants)

Question:

Apparently Gov. Palin has been a popular target for anyone with racy pictures on their hard drives and access to photoshop. A few blogs I've read have covered it, and Snopes.com had addressed a couple of them (all false, of course), but I'd like to hear from someone who's actually had one in their inbox. It's an predictable *kind* of sexism, sure, but it's still pretty ugly and I'd like to know if this sort of thing is actually widespread.

"I called her an airhead because she doesn't know what the vice president does."

There are lots of good reasons to not vote for McCain/Palin. This isn't one of them. Let's look at the whole quote in context, shall we?Larry Kudlow of CNBC's "Kudlow & Co." asked her about the possibility of becoming McCain's ticket mate.

Palin replied: "As for that VP talk all the time, I'll tell you, I still can't answer that question until somebody answers for me what is it exactly that the VP does every day? I'm used to being very productive and working real hard in an administration. We want to make sure that that VP slot would be a fruitful type of position, especially for Alaskans and for the things that we're trying to accomplish up here for the rest of the U.S., before I can even start addressing that question."

Tell you what. Tell me what the Vice President does on a daily basis.

I know s/he is number two in the succession.
I know s/he's the President of the Senate, but I doubt Cheney or any other VP spends more than 1% of his time sitting in the Senate Chamber. These days, it's almost entirely ceremonial. Most of that would be at various speeches and the rare 50/50 split vote.
I know s/he's gets sent to a lot of foreign funerals.
According to TV's The West Wing, the Veep has various policy positions that he works on, a staff who works with him, and pretty much functions independently from POTUS. It was rarely made clear what those functions were, though. I'm not accustomed to depending on Aaron Sorkin's interpretation of the VP role when deciding how to vote, so help me out here.

So, anyone who is using this particular soundbite to bash Palin, come up with an answer yourself. Shouldn't be that hard, should it? C'mon, prove you're better than Fox News and give us more than a sentence and an insult.


.

Thanks for reinforcing the accusation of sexism.
Only women can be in beauty pageants? Sexist.

There are lots of good reasons to not vote for McCain/Palin. This isn't one of them. Let's look at the whole quote in context, shall we?Larry Kudlow of CNBC's "Kudlow & Co." asked her about the possibility of becoming McCain's ticket mate.

Palin replied: "As for that VP talk all the time, I'll tell you, I still can't answer that question until somebody answers for me what is it exactly that the VP does every day? I'm used to being very productive and working real hard in an administration. We want to make sure that that VP slot would be a fruitful type of position, especially for Alaskans and for the things that we're trying to accomplish up here for the rest of the U.S., before I can even start addressing that question."

Tell you what. Tell me what the Vice President does on a daily basis.

I know s/he is number two in the succession.
I know s/he's the President of the Senate, but I doubt Cheney or any other VP spends more than 1% of his time sitting in the Senate Chamber. These days, it's almost entirely ceremonial. Most of that would be at various speeches and the rare 50/50 split vote.
I know s/he's gets sent to a lot of foreign funerals.
According to TV's The West Wing, the Veep has various policy positions that he works on, a staff who works with him, and pretty much functions independently from POTUS. It was rarely made clear what those functions were, though. I'm not accustomed to depending on Aaron Sorkin's interpretation of the VP role when deciding how to vote, so help me out here.

So, anyone who is using this particular soundbite to bash Palin, come up with an answer yourself. Shouldn't be that hard, should it? C'mon, prove you're better than Fox News and give us more than a sentence and an insult.


.

Plenty of good reasons to not vote McSame/I Can't Believe It's Not Hillary without taking personal attacks into account. For one, it's practically a third George W. Bush term. Second, they will be a doorstop that fundamentalist evangelicals can use to attempt turning back major milestones in secular equality. And that's just the tip of the iceberg bobbing towards the S.S. Ameritanic.

wut?

And Canuck...what happened to you? You probably don't remember me, but a few years ago, we used to encounter each other quite a bit, back when I was a festering neocon. And we got along. We weren't dicks, just presenting other points of view. And I remember you well.

Now, I'm an anarchocapitalist, and you're back in full force, but now you're all grumpy.

New CH makes me sad. :(
If you spent as much time as I have with dopey, and sneezy, you would be grumpy too!! :D

There are lots of good reasons to not vote for McCain/Palin. This isn't one of them. Let's look at the whole quote in context, shall we?Larry Kudlow of CNBC's "Kudlow & Co." asked her about the possibility of becoming McCain's ticket mate.

Palin replied: "As for that VP talk all the time, I'll tell you, I still can't answer that question until somebody answers for me what is it exactly that the VP does every day? I'm used to being very productive and working real hard in an administration. We want to make sure that that VP slot would be a fruitful type of position, especially for Alaskans and for the things that we're trying to accomplish up here for the rest of the U.S., before I can even start addressing that question."

Tell you what. Tell me what the Vice President does on a daily basis.

I know s/he is number two in the succession.
I know s/he's the President of the Senate, but I doubt Cheney or any other VP spends more than 1% of his time sitting in the Senate Chamber. These days, it's almost entirely ceremonial. Most of that would be at various speeches and the rare 50/50 split vote.
I know s/he's gets sent to a lot of foreign funerals.
According to TV's The West Wing, the Veep has various policy positions that he works on, a staff who works with him, and pretty much functions independently from POTUS. It was rarely made clear what those functions were, though. I'm not accustomed to depending on Aaron Sorkin's interpretation of the VP role when deciding how to vote, so help me out here.

So, anyone who is using this particular soundbite to bash Palin, come up with an answer yourself. Shouldn't be that hard, should it? C'mon, prove you're better than Fox News and give us more than a sentence and an insult.


.
Here is the site that apparently Ms. Palin didn't think to look for when she was offered the running mate position, before she answered questions about it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_President_of_the_United_States#Duties

What made that remark of hers stupid was not its content per se. It was a stupid remark because it showed that she (A) accepted a position without bothering to educate herself about it, and (B) also did not bother to prep some answers for the press, like a competent politician would have. Both were stupid moves, indicative of a stupid person who acts stupidly about serious things.

Her "Ah, silly me, I don't even know what I'm letting myself in for with all this. Haha, ain't I a funny little regular American?" act is not really all that cute. It's just dumb.

So, it's sexist to call Palin an airhead because she has clearly demonstrated on numerous occasions poor intellectual ability, while making a play on the stereotype that women in beauty pagents are airheads, but it's perfectly fine to call McCain a senile old fart because he has demonstrated signs of senility on a regular basis, which is a play on the "old guy can't remember his grandchilds name" stereotype?

Rest assured to all you "anti-sexists" out there, if Palin were a man, we'd be making jokes about him. Maybe not the same jokes, but jokes nonetheless. Probably sexist jokes too. But it doesn't count because you can't be sexist towards men, only women. Mmmhmm.

So, it's sexist to call Palin an airhead because she has clearly demonstrated on numerous occasions poor intellectual ability, while making a play on the stereotype that women in beauty pagents are airheads, but it's perfectly fine to call McCain a senile old fart because he has demonstrated signs of senility on a regular basis, which is a play on the "old guy can't remember his grandchilds name" stereotype?

Rest assured to all you "anti-sexists" out there, if Palin were a man, we'd be making jokes about him. Maybe not the same jokes, but jokes nonetheless. Probably sexist jokes too. But it doesn't count because you can't be sexist towards men, only women. Mmmhmm.

It's because people have accepted the lazy way out that Sexism=Misogyny, just like how Antisemitism=J00h8ing has become the commonly accepted definition. Sexism is also about favoring one gender over another, even one's own.

Here is the site that apparently Ms. Palin didn't think to look for when she was offered the running mate position, before she answered questions about it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_President_of_the_United_States#Duties

What made that remark of hers stupid was not its content per se. It was a stupid remark because it showed that she (A) accepted a position without bothering to educate herself about it, and (B) also did not bother to prep some answers for the press, like a competent politician would have. Both were stupid moves, indicative of a stupid person who acts stupidly about serious things.

Her "Ah, silly me, I don't even know what I'm letting myself in for with all this. Haha, ain't I a funny little regular American?" act is not really all that cute. It's just dumb.

Are you kidding? Are you entirely unaware of the fact that she made that statement/question more than a month before she accepted the nomination? And you think she should have looked the answer up before making such a comment? Perhaps you should look up the facts before making ignorantly incorrect assumptions.

Clearly McCain answered that question for her DURING the veep process that you like to pretend never happened.

FYI: Palin asked that question when she wanted to know why she should seek the VP and what McCain would want her to do specifically. Perhaps you never ask questions before applying for a job, but obviously Palin does. Unlike your little tirade of ignorance about clear cut answers, different presidents ask different responsibilities and activities from their VPs.

Here is the site that apparently Ms. Palin didn't think to look for when she was offered the running mate position, before she answered questions about it:

The interview where she said she didn't know what the VP does was, hmm, let me see, a month before she took the position. For all those charming and yet ignorant people who are saying she took the position without knowing what the position was...well, presumably she looked it up, or found out some other way. To assume otherwise is just that, an assumption.

There are a lot of assumptions being made this election cycle. There are also a lot of sexist comments being made this election cycle. Questions people are asking like "can she be a mother and a vice president" are incredibly, hideously sexist. Statements like saying Palin's speech was "Shrill and sarcastic" are incredibly sexist. The Democratic party, far from being the beacon of hope for women everywhere, has turned into the beacon of sexism. Obama himself calls reporters "sweetie".

I don't agree with all of Obama & Biden's viewpoints. I don't agree with all of McCain & Palin's viewpoints. I do, however, find the Republican party a whole lot more welcoming towards women these days.

And, before we start on the tired old braying about abortion, that's one of the issues I don't agree with Palin on - but I don't choose who to vote for based on one issue.

How is that? She has the same number of years in office and more governing experience than Obama.


EDIT: the lady is a working mom of five, has good ethics proven by her fighting corrupt politicians in her own party, proven energy policy in Alaska and canada natural gas pipeline treaties etc., and womens rights goes without saying. Looks like a very strong conservative candidate for VP to me.You don't know nearly what you think about her. Might want to steer clear of this.

I don't agree with all of Obama & Biden's viewpoints. I don't agree with all of McCain & Palin's viewpoints. I do, however, find the Republican party a whole lot more welcoming towards women these days.

Yes! We all remember how welcoming and accepting of women they were when Clinton looked like the democrats presidential candidate! The were so sensitive to feminism when their opposition had a female candidate. They didn't say or do anything sexist at all. And now that they have picked a woman candidate for reasons not at all related to trying to draw women voters from the democrats, we have the big mean ol' democrats picking on the poor little woman. Those mean nasty democrats just won't leave female rights alone, what with their being pro-choice and doing what the republicans have done 24 years ago, and beating them oncemore in almost nominating a female presidential candidate, while the republicans have been exclusively male in terms of presidential candidates and vp-candidates until now. Yes, truely the democrats are a bunch of sexist pigs and the republicans are the saviour of womankind.

*Nods*

I was reading along then got to the point that you call me a "sexist". That certainly confirmed to me that you know little about me or the posts that I have made in this thread and others. I suggest you try another slant.

As far as most of the other points you have raised, again, you either have not read my previous posts, or you are just fabricating your own version of my truths, and that won't get you anywhere.

Again, you fail to answer the simplest of questions. What about this question is so difficult for you?

Why do you believe Sarah Palin was a good choice for VP, other than the fact that she is a female?

Answer it. Until you do, you're a sexist.

Yes! We all remember how welcoming and accepting of women they were when Clinton looked like the democrats presidential candidate! The were so sensitive to feminism when their opposition had a female candidate. They didn't say or do anything sexist at all. And now that they have picked a woman candidate for reasons not at all related to trying to draw women voters from the democrats, we have the big mean ol' democrats picking on the poor little woman. Those mean nasty democrats just won't leave female rights alone, what with their being pro-choice and doing what the republicans have done 24 years ago, and beating them oncemore in almost nominating a female presidential candidate, while the republicans have been exclusively male in terms of presidential candidates and vp-candidates until now. Yes, truely the democrats are a bunch of sexist pigs and the republicans are the saviour of womankind.

*Nods*

Just about as welcoming as the Democratic party. Not the voters, the party, which was even more sexist towards her than the Republicans. Crying wolf only works so many times.

I must say I was.. annoyed by some of the newspapers in the Netherlands friday. To paraphrase:
"Sarah Palin is a rolemodel because she combines a career, motherhood and religion. I would support her even though I do not agree with her ideas".

WHAT ? The VP is not something you should give to somebody you admire, but to someone who would actually do the job right, preferably in accordance to your own opinions. Not to mention that Ms Palin does not do such a good job of her combi-career, with her pregnant little daughter and her crazy priest...

Rolemodel indeed.

Again, you fail to answer the simplest of questions. What about this question is so difficult for you?

Why do you believe Sarah Palin was a good choice for VP, other than the fact that she is a female?

Answer it. Until you do, you're a sexist.
I stated why earlier in this thread. There is no need to rinse and recycle. Slapping a timer on me is not going to prove anything regarding your offensive claim.

Just about as welcoming as the Democratic party. Not the voters, the party, which was even more sexist towards her than the Republicans. Crying wolf only works so many times.

Except those Democrats drifted towards the Republican Party in the early 80s and onward.

Geraldine Ferraro mean anything to you?

Except those Democrats drifted towards the Republican Party in the early 80s and onward.

Geraldine Ferraro mean anything to you?

Hillary Clinton mean anything to you? The way she was treated in the primary was shameful. The way she was treated afterward is worse. She took almost half the Democratic votes in the primary, but people seem to like to conveniently forget that. Instead, there's a huge song and dance about the stunning victory of Obama. Well, the victory wasn't all that stunning, and when Barack "Sweetie" Obama chose to install a crusty old (male) Washington insider as his VP pick instead of Hillary (or one of the MANY other qualified women out there) he lost any right to the vote of Hillary's 18 million voters. From that point, he had to work for them, and he hasn't shown me, at ALL, that he's the one I want to vote for.

And yet, I believe that Democrats are doing more to "damage women's rights" by defecating on their own. This was the year for the Democrats to shine.....a black man and a white woman in the White House, and now that is no longer possible.

I went searching, and although it is only from a blog (http://yappadingding.blogspot.com/2008/08/disenfranchisement-of-democratic-women.html), it seems to sum up my sentiment on this issue, and demonstrates that there is indeed an undercurrent of backlash. If there is enough of this sentiment out there, and I think there is, then there will be a white woman in the White House and her name will be Sarah Palin:


I know that this is hardcore stuff, but sometimes you need to get hit by the pitch to get you into the game.

More in reply (http://yappadingding.blogspot.com/2008/08/disenfranchisement-of-democratic-women.html#c1688576996463295067):


Definitely hardball....there is more (http://yappadingding.blogspot.com/2008/08/disenfranchisement-of-democratic-women.html#c5808708031249225399):


And from a black woman's perspective (http://yappadingding.blogspot.com/2008/08/disenfranchisement-of-democratic-women.html#c873719051400554157):


Yeah, I think that is a fair summary of how I feel about this matter.

Interesting... the 'black woman' you cited says that only a black woman can have any idea of how much greater the power of sexism is, than of racism.... because, of course, only black women get discriminated against on both those fronts? That's torpedoing your own boat, right there.

Is it worth losing an election to make a point about racism or sexism? That rather depends on the cost - I'd say. If Democrats lose this election, the candidates standing on the other side have pledged to reduce the rights for women, and remove rights from homosexuals. They have also pledged to damage the separation of church and state.

Is it worth losing an election with THAT price attached, to make a point that YOU think the female candidate should have been given preference over the male one?

No - that would not be a good trade.

Hillary Clinton mean anything to you? The way she was treated in the primary was shameful. The way she was treated afterward is worse. She took almost half the Democratic votes in the primary, but people seem to like to conveniently forget that. Instead, there's a huge song and dance about the stunning victory of Obama. Well, the victory wasn't all that stunning, and when Barack "Sweetie" Obama chose to install a crusty old (male) Washington insider as his VP pick instead of Hillary (or one of the MANY other qualified women out there) he lost any right to the vote of Hillary's 18 million voters. From that point, he had to work for them, and he hasn't shown me, at ALL, that he's the one I want to vote for.

What exactly was so wonderful about mudslinging Hillary, except that she is a woman ?

Clinton gave a speech that she had to give. You never know when she will want to run again.

Clinton gave a damned good speech. I don't see why you are denigrating her in this way.

Indeed, I don't understand it.

I thought you were arguing that she was a good candidate, and yet here you are saying that her speech was nothing but a cynical ploy, in case she decides to run later?

Which is she? Puppetmaster, pawn.. or politician?

What exactly was so wonderful about mudslinging Hillary, except that she is a woman ?

Or like certain NGers, this could be a ploy by a closet Bushevik who wants to come off as an angry, righteously indignant Democrat rather than admit to being a Bushevik in the first place.

Despite the fact that Obama now sounds more like what Clinton sounded like a year ago, at the time he was not that candidate. And people that were watching closely then remember that Obama and might not trust this Obama.

And people that were watching McCain a year ago have noticed how far McCain has gone to sound like Obama, and might not trust that McCain.

Especially since - with his voting record - it is easy to see that his pandering to the centre is a ploy.

Hillary Clinton mean anything to you? The way she was treated in the primary was shameful. The way she was treated afterward is worse. She took almost half the Democratic votes in the primary, but people seem to like to conveniently forget that. Instead, there's a huge song and dance about the stunning victory of Obama. Well, the victory wasn't all that stunning, and when Barack "Sweetie" Obama chose to install a crusty old (male) Washington insider as his VP pick instead of Hillary (or one of the MANY other qualified women out there) he lost any right to the vote of Hillary's 18 million voters. From that point, he had to work for them, and he hasn't shown me, at ALL, that he's the one I want to vote for.

Yes, it was shameful. The way Obama was treated was also shameful. It continues to be shameful. Which does nothing to change the fact that McCain chose Palin over more qualified candidates of both genders, or that McCain is as much a crusty old male Washington insider as Biden, or that the individuals on the Republican ticket hold sexist beliefs and wish to take rights away from women.

I wonder, where's the outcry against McCain for not choosing a minority running mate? Is he a racist? Surely there must have been people who weren't white in his pool of possible VPs. How about the fact that he choose a Christian running mate over a Jewish one? Isn't that blatant racism and religious intolerance?

...how to deal with foreign countries that provoke us for one reason or another etc...

I'm not sure what this even means, and I notice you've left it deliberately vague.

What you SEEM to be saying (and that's deduced by subtracting Obama from the equation, and the politics he pushes, which you are decrying...) is that you favour militarism over diplomacy, since both the candidates you compare favourably play much more 'Hawkish' politics.

I'm not sure what this even means, and I notice you've left it deliberately vague.

What you SEEM to be saying (and that's deduced by subtracting Obama from the equation, and the politics he pushes, which you are decrying...) is that you favour militarism over diplomacy, since both the candidates you compare favourably play much more 'Hawkish' politics.

Hey, the US hasn't blasted any more Ebil Mozlem countries to shit since the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Maybe he's looking forward to McSame/I Can't Believe It's Not Hillary dropping more shit on Iran and Pakistan?

I was reading along then got to the point that you call me a "sexist".

To be fair, what you are doing looks an awful lot like sexism.

Discriminating against someone because they are NOT a woman, is still sexism. Discriminating 'for' someone because they are a woman, is still sexism.

Hillary Clinton mean anything to you? The way she was treated in the primary was shameful. The way she was treated afterward is worse. She took almost half the Democratic votes in the primary, but people seem to like to conveniently forget that. Instead, there's a huge song and dance about the stunning victory of Obama. Well, the victory wasn't all that stunning, and when Barack "Sweetie" Obama chose to install a crusty old (male) Washington insider as his VP pick instead of Hillary (or one of the MANY other qualified women out there) he lost any right to the vote of Hillary's 18 million voters. From that point, he had to work for them, and he hasn't shown me, at ALL, that he's the one I want to vote for.

I liked Hillary's campaign okay. I think it started off a bit weak, and ended strong... but ended strong TOO LATE. If she'd played it differently, she'd have fared differently.

Do I think there was sexism involved. Absolutely. I heard so many people say they wouldn't vote for Clinton BECAUSE 'she wants to be the first woman president'. To me, that's sexism.

But - that doesn't mean that Hillary would be the best VP choice now that Obama is the nominee. And Obama IS the nominee. He's not obligated to give Hillary the VP slot just because she did well in the primary. He's not obligated to give Hillary the VP slot because she's a strong, confident woman. He's obligated to pick a VP that he thinks is a good candidate for the VP slot.

If you choose to spoil your vote for the party that Hillary wanted to represent, in order to punish that party for not choosing Hillary as their candidate, then that's your choice. But I don't believe it's the position she would have chosen for you - given the situation on the ground NOW.

If people are going to keep living in the past, and carrying out vendettas, there'll be no progress.

If Democrats lose this election, the candidates standing on the other side have pledged to reduce the rights for women, and remove rights from homosexuals. They have also pledged to damage the separation of church and state.
Not entirely doubting your assertions here, but can you link to any source that details these "pledges"?

Not entirely doubting your assertions here, but can you link to any source that details these "pledges"?

Do you require a Cartoon Villain Confession from McSame/I Can't Believe It's Not Hillary stating they'll pledge to eradicate rights for homosexuals and other women, or is common observation of their associations with fundamentalist evangelicals with no secret of such ambitions who wholeheartedly endorse them not enough for you?

Not entirely doubting your assertions here, but can you link to any source that details these "pledges"?

Palin is running her strengths as being pro-life, which means - if she is elected on that stance, she will remove rights from women. She is running as anti-gay-marriage, which means - if she is elected on that stance, she will remove rights from homosexuals. (Indeed, she supports actual constitutional amendment designed for no purpose other than specifically removing such rights). She is also running on teaching creationism as an alternative to science, which means - if she is elected on that stance, she will remove separation of church and state.

Those are the 'values' Palin brings to the table, for the Republican voter.

okay, i'm jumping in after 70+ pages but...

obama couldn't pick clinton has his running mate, absolutely could not. he couldn't have an ex president as his vp's husband. the vice president has to be politically subordinate to the president and an ex president is politically subordinate to no one. he could not legitmately ask bill to shut up and toe the line but he would be forever in danger of being blindsided if his vp's husband decided to oppose him on policy something that is always an ex presidents perogative to do. if hillary had been married to anyone else her husband would be expected to support her as she supported the president, but to make that demand on a retired two term president is unreasonable and to expect him to do so considering bill's temperment would extremely foolish.

I liked Hillary's campaign okay. I think it started off a bit weak, and ended strong... but ended strong TOO LATE. If she'd played it differently, she'd have fared differently.
It ended strong in States that matter to Democrats come November.

Do I think there was sexism involved. Absolutely. I heard so many people say they wouldn't vote for Clinton BECAUSE 'she wants to be the first woman president'. To me, that's sexism.
I am glad that you posted that. So many other posters here are in denial.

But - that doesn't mean that Hillary would be the best VP choice now that Obama is the nominee. And Obama IS the nominee. He's not obligated to give Hillary the VP slot just because she did well in the primary. He's not obligated to give Hillary the VP slot because she's a strong, confident woman. He's obligated to pick a VP that he thinks is a good candidate for the VP slot.
Here is a couple of reasons why Hillary was the best candidate for VP:

http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/080826Clinton4_j8b4d2.gif

2008 Democratic Party Nominations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)_presidential_primaries,_2008#Candidates_and_results)

Hillary Clinton: 48% of the pledged delegate support.

2008 Democratic Popular Vote (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html)

Hillary was supported by 18,000,000 voters.

How popular was Joe Biden?

Iowa Caucus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_Democratic_caucuses,_2008#Caucus_results)

Joe Biden got a whole 23 votes out of 2,501 ballots cast or .93%.

Delegates won = ZERO!!

If people are going to keep living in the past, and carrying out vendettas, there'll be no progress.
The problem here is that the Democrats ARE living in the past, and there is no progress to another failed bid?

It ended strong in States that matter to Democrats come November.


I am glad that you posted that. So many other posters here are in denial.


Here is a couple of reasons why Hillary was the best candidate for VP:

http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/080826Clinton4_j8b4d2.gif

2008 Democratic Party Nominations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)_presidential_primaries,_2008#Candidates_and_results)

Hillary Clinton: 48% of the pledged delegate support.

2008 Democratic Popular Vote (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html)

Hillary was supported by 18,000,000 voters.

How popular was Joe Biden?

Iowa Caucus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_Democratic_caucuses,_2008#Caucus_results)

Joe Biden got a whole 23 votes out of 2,501 ballots cast or .93%.

Delegates won = ZERO!!


The problem here is that the Democrats ARE living in the past, and there is no progress to another failed bid?

Just drop the whole Righteous Indignation farce and admit that you're pissed that the Democrats didn't put a woman in the White House who isn't First Lady so you're more than happy to see Four More Years of Bushevism just because the Republicans want to.

She is running as anti-gay-marriage, which means - if she is elected on that stance, she will remove rights from homosexuals.

In the majority of states "continue to deny" would be more accurate than "remove".

okay, i'm jumping in after 70+ pages but...

obama couldn't pick clinton has his running mate, absolutely could not. he couldn't have an ex president as his vp's husband. the vice president has to be politically subordinate to the president and an ex president is politically subordinate to no one. he could not legitmately ask bill to shut up and toe the line but he would be forever in danger of being blindsided if his vp's husband decided to oppose him on policy something that is always an ex presidents perogative to do. if hillary had been married to anyone else her husband would be expected to support her as she supported the president, but to make that demand on a retired two term president is unreasonable and to expect him to do so considering bill's temperment would extremely foolish.
excellent point.

hillary clinton is one of the very few candidates for office who has a spouse who must be taken into consideration.

it makes it very hard to seperate personal history from sexism.

It would have been nice if Obama chose Clinton as his VP candidate, but did anyone really think he would? She made the campaign so nasty, and she said some really not-very-nice things about Obama. Do you think Obama was really going to say "hey, no harm done. Sorry you didn't win the race. Wanna be my VP?" He might have, because he seems a nice guy. But I don't think he would have, especially when there were other candidates out there who didn't slander him relentlessly over the past few months. Not to mention, I also doubt Clinton would have accepted the position, as it would seem like a step down for her.

I'm quoting myself, because I think it is a point that once again, needs bringing up. There's no point complaining that Obama didn't pick Clinton, because it was never going to happen. It is incredibly unreasonable to expect Obama to forgive Clinton for what she did during the campaign. If she had played a nicer, cleaner campaign, then we would very likely have an Obama/Clinton ticket. But she was nasty to him, and I don't think anyone in his position would have picked Clinton.

I'm quoting myself, because I think it is a point that once again, needs bringing up. There's no point complaining that Obama didn't pick Clinton, because it was never going to happen. It is incredibly unreasonable to expect Obama to forgive Clinton for what she did during the campaign. If she had played a nicer, cleaner campaign, then we would very likely have an Obama/Clinton ticket. But she was nasty to him, and I don't think anyone in his position would have picked Clinton.
Like I said before, I think Obama is actually a graceful enough character to let that slide if he thought that taking Clinton as his VP would be in the interests of the American public. Petty squabbles aren't sufficient reason to go against the general well-being, and he knows that. Like GnI said, he's obligated to pick a VP that he thinks is a good candidate for the VP slot, and if that candidate had been Clinton, he'd have picked her.

Like I said before, I think Obama is actually a graceful enough character to let that slide if he thought that taking Clinton as his VP would be in the interests of the American public. Petty squabbles aren't sufficient reason to go against the general well-being, and he knows that. Like GnI said, he's obligated to pick a VP that he thinks is a good candidate for the VP slot, and if that candidate had been Clinton, he'd have picked her.

There's also the detail that Clinton as Presidential or Vice Presidential candidate would have been a Godsend to the Republican Noise Machine, who would harp on the staple crop of baloney such as Whitewater, Blowjob, Health Care, so on and so forth.

Like I said before, I think Obama is actually a graceful enough character to let that slide if he thought that taking Clinton as his VP would be in the interests of the American public. Petty squabbles aren't sufficient reason to go against the general well-being, and he knows that. Like GnI said, he's obligated to pick a VP that he thinks is a good candidate for the VP slot, and if that candidate had been Clinton, he'd have picked her.

My point was more that, given a choice between her, and someone equal to her in policy, but not her, he would have most likely chosen her, and to expect him to do otherwise is nonsense. But, as we have both mentioned, he may have been graceful enough to look past that.

Old Man McCain and his cutesy-ass secretary.

I must say I was.. annoyed by some of the newspapers in the Netherlands friday. To paraphrase:
"Sarah Palin is a rolemodel because she combines a career, motherhood and religion. I would support her even though I do not agree with her ideas".

WHAT ? The VP is not something you should give to somebody you admire, but to someone who would actually do the job right, preferably in accordance to your own opinions. Not to mention that Ms Palin does not do such a good job of her combi-career, with her pregnant little daughter and her crazy priest...

Rolemodel indeed.
Well they gave the presidency to some one they would have a beer with...

Well they gave the presidency to some one they would have a beer with...
do pentecostals drink?

do pentecostals drink?

Not when someone asks.

Not when someone asks.
not that youre WRONG about picking someone they would like to have a beer with. that was supposedly the reason that people voted for bush over kerry even though bush is an alcoholic who wont have a beer with you.

Are you kidding? Are you entirely unaware of the fact that she made that statement/question more than a month before she accepted the nomination? And you think she should have looked the answer up before making such a comment? Perhaps you should look up the facts before making ignorantly incorrect assumptions.
Oh, I see, so when you're under consideration for a job, you don't bother to look up anything about what you're being considered for, not even a quick check of wiki? Not smart, B, very not smart. You never know what people could be volunteering you for that way.

And yeah, I DO expect a politician to look up the answer to a basic question about a job she being considered for BEFORE she sits down to be interviewed by the media. That's called professionalism -- something she apparently lacks along with several other skills and qualities.

Clearly McCain answered that question for her DURING the veep process that you like to pretend never happened.
If McCain dies during his term, she won't have him to tell her the answers.

FYI: Palin asked that question when she wanted to know why she should seek the VP and what McCain would want her to do specifically. Perhaps you never ask questions before applying for a job, but obviously Palin does. Unlike your little tirade of ignorance about clear cut answers, different presidents ask different responsibilities and activities from their VPs.
You know what I don't do, B? I don't ask such questions IN THE MEDIA. I go on the internet to look them up. Or I go to -- gasp! -- books to read up about what I want to know. And sometimes -- yes, sometimes -- I ask experts (like professionals or teachers) to answer my questions personally. And if the thing I don't know about is a job search or project I'm being asked to take on, then I ask the person who asked me to do it in the first place, personally, when they first issue the invite.

But what I DON'T is sit down in front of a microphone and laugh about how I'm thinking of taking up this invitation to go after the second most powerful job in the country even though I have no idea what it entails. THAT is something I DON'T do.

You know why I don't do it? Because if I did, it would make me look as stupid as Sarah Palin, that's why.

I'm quoting myself, because I think it is a point that once again, needs bringing up. There's no point complaining that Obama didn't pick Clinton, because it was never going to happen. It is incredibly unreasonable to expect Obama to forgive Clinton for what she did during the campaign. If she had played a nicer, cleaner campaign, then we would very likely have an Obama/Clinton ticket. But she was nasty to him, and I don't think anyone in his position would have picked Clinton.
There will be lots of time for 2nd guessing after the crushing defeat.

It ended strong in States that matter to Democrats come November.


It didn't end strong enough overall, which is what matters.

If Hilalry had applied the more honest (at least, more honest appearing) approach we saw at the END of her run, earlier... it might have all been different.

But, she didn't. So let's deal with that.


I am glad that you posted that. So many other posters here are in denial.


I speak as I find.


Here is a couple of reasons why Hillary was the best candidate for VP:

http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/080826Clinton4_j8b4d2.gif

2008 Democratic Party Nominations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)_presidential_primaries,_2008#Candidates_and_results)

Hillary Clinton: 48% of the pledged delegate support.

2008 Democratic Popular Vote (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html)

Hillary was supported by 18,000,000 voters.

How popular was Joe Biden?

Iowa Caucus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_Democratic_caucuses,_2008#Caucus_results)

Joe Biden got a whole 23 votes out of 2,501 ballots cast or .93%.

Delegates won = ZERO!!


It doesn't matter how popular Joe Biden was. The primaries pick your rpesidential candidate (in theory), and your president (in theory) picks his running-mate. Popularity be damned, in the VP stakes.

I like Hillary as a candidate. I like latter-run Hillary even better, and I think she's learned lessons that might put her in the White House, yet.

But, in this election, she's an also-ran.


The problem here is that the Democrats ARE living in the past, and there is no progress to another failed bid?

Anyone who swaps parties over Clinton being 'denied' is living in the past. The current regime continues if McCain gets in - and that's the present and the future. McCain votes with Bush... what, 90% of the time? Palin appeals to the evangelical base?

If Democrats want to see ANY chance of reform, they've got to support the current Democrat candidate. That's not past. That's NOW.

There will be lots of time for 2nd guessing after the crushing defeat.

Thank you, Nostradamus.

The interview where she said she didn't know what the VP does was, hmm, let me see, a month before she took the position. For all those charming and yet ignorant people who are saying she took the position without knowing what the position was...well, presumably she looked it up, or found out some other way. To assume otherwise is just that, an assumption.
Uh-huh. We listen to her actual words and comment on what we think it means, but we're making unreasonable assumptions. You, on the other hand, ignore her words and decide that she meant and did the exact opposite of what she said, but you're not making assumptions at all. Mmm, yeah, right.

And, before we start on the tired old braying about abortion, that's one of the issues I don't agree with Palin on - but I don't choose who to vote for based on one issue.
Neither do I. I can think of nine separate reasons (seven issues and two political matters) not to vote for Palin all by herself. They include abortion rights, sex-ed, gay rights, environmental issues, big oil and corporate influence in government, gun control, censorship, the ethics questions hanging over her, and her conflation of her religion with her politics. Her cluelessness and lack of professionalism and maturity in public are merely additional irritants that come with the package of her.

I can also think of several reasons not to vote for McCain that have nothing at all to do with Sarah Palin, including his militaristic attitudes and premature sabre-rattling, his cavalier talk about US personnel dying overseas and airy talk about continuing as we are in Iraq indefinitely, his tax proposals which are nothing but more sops thrown to corporate party donors, his health care proposals which amount to little more than a total dismantling of even the foundations of a public health system, his near-constant shifting of position on every issue that is ever raised with him more than twice -- it's gone so far beyond flip-flopping that it now looks more like someone trying to walk across melting ice in slick-soled shoes -- and that includes his shameful flip-flopping on the issue of torture, which is not only a matter of ethics and basic human decency, but is also a matter of defending the Constitution and upholding US law, which would be his sworn duty if he became president, and is also something HE -- he of all people -- should know better than to play politics with.

Sarah Palin is merely the cherry on top of that sundae of lies, disgraces and disappointments.

Okay, that's it, SEVENTH FLUSH!

***7th Flush***

Why are some people STILL behaving as if a vagina was a magical talisman against electoral defeat? It certainly didn't help Hillary.

Why are some people STILL behaving as if a vagina was a magical talisman that granted sudden political competence? Sarah Palin didn't know what a VP does a month ago!

Why are some people STILL behaving as if a vagina was a magical talisman that granted sudden progressiveness of views? Sarah Palin is a creationist religious fanatic against the most basic rights of women and minorities!

Why are some people STILL behaving as if a vagina was a magical talisman against corruption? Both Hillary and Palin have more skeletons in their closet than a necrophile with a big attic!

Why are some people STILL behaving as if a vagina was a magical talisman that changes anyone who has it into a holy uncriticizable being? Both Clinton and Palin have been criticized, and rightly, on several issues!

Why are some people STILL behaving as if a vagina was a magical talisman that makes the Party that nominates someone as a VP/President progressive? Republicans are against progress in any form!

Why are some people STILL behaving as if a vagina was a magical talisman that MADE SOMEONE WHO HAS IT ENTITLED TO A JOB THEY WOULD NOT OTHERWISE HOLD? HILLARY AND PALIN ARE NOT ENTITLED!

I'll give candy to whoever answers!

Okay, that's it, SEVENTH FLUSH!

***7th Flush***

Why are some people STILL behaving as if a vagina was a magical talisman against electoral defeat? It certainly didn't help Hillary.

Why are some people STILL behaving as if a vagina was a magical talisman that granted sudden political competence? Sarah Palin didn't know what a VP does a month ago!

Why are some people STILL behaving as if a vagina was a magical talisman that granted sudden progressiveness of views? Sarah Palin is a creationist religious fanatic against the most basic rights of women and minorities!

Why are some people STILL behaving as if a vagina was a magical talisman against corruption? Both Hillary and Palin have more skeletons in their closet than a necrophile with a big attic!

Why are some people STILL behaving as if a vagina was a magical talisman that changes anyone who has it into a holy uncriticizable being? Both Clinton and Palin have been criticized, and rightly, on several issues!

Why are some people STILL behaving as if a vagina was a magical talisman that makes the Party that nominates someone as a VP/President progressive? Republicans are against progress in any form!

Why are some people STILL behaving as if a vagina was a magical talisman that MADE SOMEONE WHO HAS IT ENTITLED TO A JOB THEY WOULD NOT OTHERWISE HOLD? HILLARY AND PALIN ARE NOT ENTITLED!

I'll give candy to whoever answers!

Dude, have you ever seen one? They are magic talismans.

They shouldn't affect your employment, though... up or down.

I want candy.

Or like certain NGers, this could be a ploy by a closet Bushevik who wants to come off as an angry, righteously indignant Democrat rather than admit to being a Bushevik in the first place.
Heh, gosh, ya think?

excellent point.

hillary clinton is one of the very few candidates for office who has a spouse who must be taken into consideration.

it makes it very hard to seperate personal history from sexism.
Not for me because if it had been reversed, and it had been Bill in running with ex-president spouse Hillary (you know if the US was already as enlightened as most other countries when it came to electing female leaders), it would still be the same political problem for Obama. Having an ex-president loitering in the background would always cause the media and critics to speculate (and we know how outrageously the US media speculate these days) about how much that ex-pres is influencing Obama's decisions. Note, not "whether" the ex-pres is influencing him, but "how much."

Regardless of gender, in today's US political scene, having that kind of a personal connection in your administration amounts to an "appearance of impropriety" trap. The poster is correct. There is no way Hillary could have been the running mate, regardless of anything else, because of Bill.

Okay, that's it, SEVENTH FLUSH!

***7th Flush***

Why are some people STILL behaving as if a vagina was a magical talisman against electoral defeat? It certainly didn't help Hillary.

Why are some people STILL behaving as if a vagina was a magical talisman that granted sudden political competence? Sarah Palin didn't know what a VP does a month ago!

Why are some people STILL behaving as if a vagina was a magical talisman that granted sudden progressiveness of views? Sarah Palin is a creationist religious fanatic against the most basic rights of women and minorities!

Why are some people STILL behaving as if a vagina was a magical talisman against corruption? Both Hillary and Palin have more skeletons in their closet than a necrophile with a big attic!

Why are some people STILL behaving as if a vagina was a magical talisman that changes anyone who has it into a holy uncriticizable being? Both Clinton and Palin have been criticized, and rightly, on several issues!

Why are some people STILL behaving as if a vagina was a magical talisman that makes the Party that nominates someone as a VP/President progressive? Republicans are against progress in any form!

Why are some people STILL behaving as if a vagina was a magical talisman that MADE SOMEONE WHO HAS IT ENTITLED TO A JOB THEY WOULD NOT OTHERWISE HOLD? HILLARY AND PALIN ARE NOT ENTITLED!

I'll give candy to whoever answers!
Um... Is it because the magic talisman is all they have left, and they're hoping like hell that it really is magic, and they're just going to keep rubbing and rubbing it until the genie pops out who will grant all their wishes?

(And yes, I am aware of the mental image.)

Um... Is it because the magic talisman is all they have left, and they're hoping like hell that it really is magic, and they're just going to keep rubbing and rubbing it until the genie pops out who will grant all their wishes?

(And yes, I am aware of the mental image.)

Could be worse, you could have compared it to a button and fingering.

Could be worse, you could have compared it to a button and fingering.
Hm...now that you mention it...

EDIT: I better not.

Oh, I see, so when you're under consideration for a job, you don't bother to look up anything about what you're being considered for, not even a quick check of wiki? Not smart, B, very not smart. You never know what people could be volunteering you for that way.

And yeah, I DO expect a politician to look up the answer to a basic question about a job she being considered for BEFORE she sits down to be interviewed by the media. That's called professionalism -- something she apparently lacks along with several other skills and qualities.


If McCain dies during his term, she won't have him to tell her the answers.


You know what I don't do, B? I don't ask such questions IN THE MEDIA. I go on the internet to look them up. Or I go to -- gasp! -- books to read up about what I want to know. And sometimes -- yes, sometimes -- I ask experts (like professionals or teachers) to answer my questions personally. And if the thing I don't know about is a job search or project I'm being asked to take on, then I ask the person who asked me to do it in the first place, personally, when they first issue the invite.

But what I DON'T is sit down in front of a microphone and laugh about how I'm thinking of taking up this invitation to go after the second most powerful job in the country even though I have no idea what it entails. THAT is something I DON'T do.

You know why I don't do it? Because if I did, it would make me look as stupid as Sarah Palin, that's why.

You can't be more than 100% wrong, but you sure do try.

What did Biden say about the VP position before he was asked? He said he wasn't interested in a VP slot AND he said Obama wasn't ready to be President. AFTER he was asked, he changed his mind. Clarification of the situation was different than the hypothetical.

What Palin said about the VP position BEFORE she was asked, was why should she be interested in it. The Press asked her if she was in the race for VP and if she was asked would she accept it and she clearly did NOT just say "yes" she said she wanted to know what it would consist of on a daily basis before answering that question because shes currently doing work and there is more work to be done. Her answer and change was better than Bidens and Bidens was just fine too. But you can't even concede that.

No, you have completely and utterly misconstrued the events and sequence, so much so that your version of the story is complete fantasy.

Um... Is it because the magic talisman is all they have left, and they're hoping like hell that it really is magic, and they're just going to keep rubbing and rubbing it until the genie pops out who will grant all their wishes?

(And yes, I am aware of the mental image.)

Do we really want to see what genie cums out of Palin's vagina?

You can't be more than 100% wrong, but you sure do try.
Well I can't be more wrong than you, for sure.

What did Biden say about the VP position before he was asked? He said he wasn't interested in a VP slot AND he said Obama wasn't ready to be President. AFTER he was asked, he changed his mind. Clarification of the situation was different than the hypothetical.
And that is equivalent to him NOT KNOWING what the job is...how exactly?

What Palin said about the VP position BEFORE she was asked, was why should she be interested in it. The Press asked her if she was in the race for VP and if she was asked would she accept it and she clearly did NOT just say "yes" she said she wanted to know what it would consist of on a daily basis before answering that question because shes currently doing work and there is more work to be done. Her answer and change was better than Bidens and Bidens was just fine too. But you can't even concede that.
It's not that I can't concede it. It's that I WON'T, and I won't because it's bullshit. But carry on, please. It's fun watching you twist her words trying to make them into something else. Like one of those guys who make balloon animals at parks and carnivals. Can you twist her words into a giraffe for me?

No, you have completely and utterly misconstrued the events and sequence, so much so that your version of the story is complete fantasy.
^^ Praise from the master.

Do we really want to see what genie cums out of Palin's vagina?
I know I don't. ;)

Do we really want to see what genie cums out of Palin's vagina?

...I think it just fell off... :(

Finding ways to insult a political candidate may pass for political debate elsewhere, but not here. Palin's gender is an issue; her vagina ain't. Little-kid snickering may chase others away from genuine discussion.

Um... Is it because the magic talisman is all they have left, and they're hoping like hell that it really is magic, and they're just going to keep rubbing and rubbing it until the genie pops out who will grant all their wishes?

(And yes, I am aware of the mental image.)

And thank you for it.:p

Democrats want everyone to know that McCain has voted with Republicans and Bush 90% of the time but you sure don't see them mentioning the fact that Obama has voted the Democrat line 97% of the time do you? Arguments like those are weak and nonsensical at the base and they won't sway those of us that look deeper than that.
They don't for some pretty major reasons:
1. Obama, unlike McCain, hasn't built his entire platform on being a "MaverickTM who bows to no man and no party, but follows what he thinks is right - just please ignore my voting record."
2. Obama has never said he's anything bar a Democrat, unlike McCain who spends most of his time telling everyone he might be running as a Republican but really he's his own man. Honestly. Other than my voting record I am.
3. And, finally, Obama doesn't support Bush and has proved it by NOT voting for his policies. Unlike McCain, who - when he's not telling everyone what a 'MaverickTM' he is - tells them he doesn't support Bush at all, no way, uh-uh - but then votes for him 90% of the time.

You can see the difference there between the two claims now, I hope?

The solution is simple here. Should we be looking for alternative sources of energy? Yes! Are these sources of energy going to appear quickly enough that we can stop using oil now? No. Even if they are developed today, implementing them will take decades.
years, not decades. And so will setting up all the drilling platforms that would be needed to wean the US off foreign oil.
So all Palin's idea does is drag America's dependence on oil and set back the quest for alternative energy for several more years. Hardly a winning strategy then - unless you're an oil company.

They don't for some pretty major reasons:
1. Obama, unlike McCain, hasn't built his entire platform on being a "MaverickTM who bows to no man and no party, but follows what he thinks is right - just please ignore my voting record."
2. Obama has never said he's anything bar a Democrat, unlike McCain who spends most of his time telling everyone he might be running as a Republican but really he's his own man. Honestly. Other than my voting record I am.
3. And, finally, Obama doesn't support Bush and has proved it by NOT voting for his policies. Unlike McCain, who - when he's not telling everyone what a 'MaverickTM' he is - tells them he doesn't support Bush at all, no way, uh-uh - but then votes for him 90% of the time.

You can see the difference there between the two claims now, I hope?

That's almost cute, but are you really sure you want to say Obama has no history of crossing party lines to accomplish objectives for the American people? All of a sudden you're saying that Obama isn't claiming that he can work across party lines to get things done? I thought he claimed to have some expeirence in that area? But honestly, if he votes 97% stock and barrel with the party, when exactly is he reaching across the party line? The other 3% of the time?

Well then, if so, McCain must be reaching across the party lines 10% of the time and that means that he is 333% MORE likely than Obama to reach across party lines and break with party issues to get the job done. Nice.

years, not decades. And so will setting up all the drilling platforms that would be needed to wean the US off foreign oil.
So all Palin's idea does is drag America's dependence on oil and set back the quest for alternative energy for several more years. Hardly a winning strategy then - unless you're an oil company.

Palin taxes the oil Alaska pumps out of the wells now, more oil pumped, more tax money for Alaskan coffers to give back to the people AND use for developing new energy sources like wind, solar, wave and geothermal energy production. Money Alaska wouldn't have for development if they didn't pump out more oil and tax the big oil companies for that oil.

Palin's gender is an issue

No. It isn't. Or it shouldn't be. That people make it into an issue by claiming she should be voted for (or against, but I have yet to see one of THOSE here) BECAUSE of her gender results, naturally, in others laughing at the absurdity of that claim. As that absurd claim persists, the annoyance level grows, and people begin pointing out that there are actually people out there who believe in the utterly insane notion that Palin should be voted, or "will/should be elected" for because of her anatomy.

Palin's gender would not be an issue if it weren't for people trying to make it into one. For that, yes, I DO blame Hillary and I DO blame Palin and McCain: They were the ones who began using gender as a prop. Yes, a PROP. And as for "new ways to insult", trust me, I can think of few as bad as "person who uses a piece of their identity as a political prop". But this they are, and this is the entire reason Palin's gender, which should not be an issue, is one.

That's almost cute, but are you really sure you want to say Obama has no history of crossing party lines to accomplish objectives for the American people? All of a sudden you're saying that Obama isn't claiming that he can work across party lines to get things done? I thought he claimed to have some expeirence in that area? But honestly, if he votes 97% stock and barrel with the party, when exactly is he reaching across the party line? The other 3% of the time?

Well then, if so, McCain must be reaching across the party lines 10% of the time and that means that he is 333% MORE likely than Obama to reach across party lines and break with party issues to get the job done. Nice.
Actually, that's not what he said at all. He is criticizing McCain for NOT working across party lines but claiming that he does/would. But I can understand why you wouldn't want to address that.

Actually, that's not what he said at all. He is criticizing McCain for NOT working across party lines but claiming that he does/would. But I can understand why you wouldn't want to address that.

I did address that, I pointed out that McCain is 333% MORE likely to reach across party lines than Obama is.

years, not decades. And so will setting up all the drilling platforms that would be needed to wean the US off foreign oil.
So all Palin's idea does is drag America's dependence on oil and set back the quest for alternative energy for several more years. Hardly a winning strategy then - unless you're an oil company.

It's wonderful someone's crystal ball is working. The technology might be available within years - changing everyone over..well, that's another matter entirely. In the meantime, either way, we can either cut off our use of oil entirely (as the original post seemed to suggest) and have millions of people in this country starving for those years...or we can continue to pay the insane prices from foreign oil without making any effort to even alleviate that problem.

I'd love to open a discussion of Obama's positions on the issues, but since he flip-flops worse than a trout washed up on the river bank, that might prove difficult. And that sort of politician is, in my mind, absolutely the most dangerous type of politician to elect. There is no way of telling which direction someone like that might turn...and he certainly doesn't have enough of a voting background (other than his innumerable "present" votes) to determine much of what he actually believes in. This is not an attempt to belittle Obama, it is simply the truth. Every time he comes up with a position which proves politically unsound, that position is swiftly reversed. Joe Biden's views are more publically known...and while I can agree with some of them, I cannot agree with all of them. I also do not believe a Washington insider with close, family ties to lobby corporations is the type of person I'd like to see as Vice President.

What I said earlier, that Obama needs to earn the votes of the people who voted for Hillary, still stands. He has made no effort to bridge the gap. Hillary has, but given my views on Obama, it wasn't enough to swing my vote towards him.

And, finally, for those criticizing women who are voting for Sarah Palin because she's a woman...I suggest you also turn your attention to those voting for Obama because of his race. As before, braying that this does not happen is absurd and hypocritical.

And, finally, for those criticizing women who are voting for Sarah Palin because she's a woman...I suggest you also turn your attention to those voting for Obama because of his race. As before, braying that this does not happen is absurd and hypocritical.

1- Yeah, because blacks are widely known for voting Republican.

2- Yes, we GET to criticize women voting for Palin because she's a woman, if only on account of the fact that the comparison to "voting for Obama because he's black" would only hold true if Obama were a member of the goddamn KU-KUX-KLAN!

I did address that, I pointed out that McCain is 333% MORE likely to reach across party lines than Obama is.
Yes, I saw that but ignored it because it's silly and not relevant because it's not what the criticism was about.

...
2- Yes, we GET to criticize women voting for Palin because she's a woman, if only on account of the fact that the comparison to "voting for Obama because he's black" would only hold true if Obama were a member of the goddamn KU-KUX-KLAN!

So now you are saying that Republicans are for Women what the KKK is for Blacks? :rolleyes:

Patently absurd. I wonder how much further you would have to take it before it's called "beyond the pale?" If you haven't already crossed the stake you must be balancing on one toe on top of it.

Yes, I saw that but ignored it because it's silly and not relevant because it's not what the criticism was about.

The criticism says he wouldn't cross the line to accomplish tasks frequently enough, so we should vote for someone that does it even less? Interesting argument you have there.

The criticism says he wouldn't cross the line to accomplish tasks frequently enough, so we should vote for someone that does it even less? Interesting argument you have there.
No, and I already explained this to you. Seriously, I wish you would read the posts you respond to.

The criticism is that McCain lied and continues to lie about his willingness to act like a "maverick."

The criticism is that McCain is a liar.

No, and I already explained this to you. Seriously, I wish you would read the posts you respond to.

The criticism is that McCain lied and continues to lie about his willingness to act like a "maverick."

The criticism is that McCain is a liar.

He acts like a maverick 333% more often than Obama does, okay okay, I get it.

He acts like a maverick 333% more often than Obama does, okay okay, I get it.

Just so I'm clear (I'll disclose I'm presently planning to vota Obama), is your claim here that McCain does act as a "maverick", at least more often than Obama, and thus he did not lie when claiming to be a maverick?

For our context here, "maverick" is attached to the frequency with which one votes contrary to the party line, or are some using a different premise for what makes a maverick?

Also, is being a "maverick" a relative term? That is to say, must one cross lines XX percent of the time to be the "maverick" or must one merely cross the line more often than one's opponent to be the "maverick"? Can one be "a maverick relative to the other guy"?

Does McCain's claim to being the "maverick" mean the latter?

Suppose two achondroplasiatics are standing around, one is 4' 3", the other is 4' 5". The second takes out a personal ad claiming to be "tall". Is he lying?

Does whether he is lying depend on whether these two dwarfs are the only people in the town? If they were, does the claim become essentially correct because of reference frame, or is there a statutory stature (law pun) to be considered tall?

Suppose McCain isn't just comparing himself to Obama, but to the legislature at large; is he still a maverick (he may be, I'll look at any data you've got) by that standard? Or does the current election mean he is now measured ordinally to Obama and not cardinally to some requisite amount of dissent from his party?

Just so I'm clear (I'll disclose I'm presently planning to vota Obama), is your claim here that McCain does act as a "maverick", at least more often than Obama, and thus he did not lie when claiming to be a maverick?

For our context here, "maverick" is attached to the frequency with which one votes contrary to the party line, or are some using a different premise for what makes a maverick?

Also, is being a "maverick" a relative term? That is to say, must one cross lines XX percent of the time to be the "maverick" or must one merely cross the line more often than one's opponent to be the "maverick"? Can one be "a maverick relative to the other guy"?

Does McCain's claim to being the "maverick" mean the latter?

Suppose two achondroplasiatics are standing around, one is 4' 3", the other is 4' 5". The second takes out a personal ad claiming to be "tall". Is he lying?

Does whether he is lying depend on whether these two dwarfs are the only people in the town? If they were, does the claim become essentially correct because of reference frame, or is there a statutory stature (law pun) to be considered tall?

Suppose McCain isn't just comparing himself to Obama, but to the legislature at large; is he still a maverick (he may be, I'll look at any data you've got) by that standard? Or does the current election mean he is now measured ordinally to Obama and not cardinally to some requisite amount of dissent from his party?

If there is a mathematical definition for Maverick or not Maverick, I don't know what it is. I submit that a when Lieberman votes 89% democrat party line during the Bush years, he gets booted from his party for not being 'democrat' enough and he has to run as an Independent. It is agreed that McCain votes 90% with the party line, if the Republicans hold the same standards as the Democrats, then McCain is only a few maverick votes from being booted from the Republican party.

Of course there are no rules like that, it's all opinion about when someone crosses the line or not. But the sample still works as evidence of what 10% can represent.

No. It isn't. Or it shouldn't be. That people make it into an issue by claiming she should be voted for (or against, but I have yet to see one of THOSE here) BECAUSE of her gender results, naturally, in others laughing at the absurdity of that claim. As that absurd claim persists, the annoyance level grows, and people begin pointing out that there are actually people out there who believe in the utterly insane notion that Palin should be voted, or "will/should be elected" for because of her anatomy.

Palin's gender would not be an issue if it weren't for people trying to make it into one. For that, yes, I DO blame Hillary and I DO blame Palin and McCain: They were the ones who began using gender as a prop. Yes, a PROP. And as for "new ways to insult", trust me, I can think of few as bad as "person who uses a piece of their identity as a political prop". But this they are, and this is the entire reason Palin's gender, which should not be an issue, is one.
Then maybe instead of constantly bringing it up, you could take the high road and deny them the point of the talking point and, you know, NOT BRING IT UP.

Is there a "Who cares?" choice?

Harping on about whether John McCain only picked Sarah Palin because she's female is one of the more pointless and, in fact, self damaging claims. It's almost pathetic to centre one's opposition on this point.

As G.K. Chesterton wrote 'when a man feels that any stick will do, they unfailingly pick a boomerang'.

Constant bashing of Sarah Palin on gender alone is about the weakest argument one can make about the McCain/Palin ticket, Democrat supporters should be advised to drop it, if nothing else it's become extraordinarily boring.

Finding ways to insult a political candidate may pass for political debate elsewhere, but not here. Palin's gender is an issue; her vagina ain't. Little-kid snickering may chase others away from genuine discussion.

My, my, aren't we feeling hypermature today. I'll stop, of course, I'm a nice person and don't feel like stirring up real trouble, but I think you are severely overestimating the General forum here.

Also, what Kyro said. Repeating stuff doesn't make it any better.

He acts like a maverick 333% more often than Obama does, okay okay, I get it.
It's like a whole menagerie of baloon animals. Twisty twisty twisty.

Wrong again, B. McCain LIES about being a maverick because he says he is one and then acts like a party lapdog. Obama doesn't because he doesn't make the claim in the first place.

Now, I know that you're going to pretend to not understand the above sentences, but that's okay. Everyone knows you're being dishonest. Including you.

It's like a whole menagerie of baloon animals. Twisty twisty twisty.

Wrong again, B. McCain LIES about being a maverick because he says he is one and then acts like a party lapdog. Obama doesn't because he doesn't make the claim in the first place.

Now, I know that you're going to pretend to not understand the above sentences, but that's okay. Everyone knows you're being dishonest. Including you.

Why don't you define what a Maverick is, and then explain to the rest of the world why we have to abide by your definition alone and everyone outside of that definition must, by default apparently, be dishonest if they use the term ...

Secondary point, I think people will get upset if they recognize that you are saying Obama must be even worse than a party lapdog. If 90% is party lapdog, what is 97%?

It ended strong in States that matter to Democrats come November.



It's the 'states that matter' strategy that lost her the primary in the first place.

Why don't you define what a Maverick is, and then explain to the rest of the world why we have to abide by your definition alone and everyone outside of that definition must, by default apparently, be dishonest...
McCain defined it for us in describing himself as a person who votes his own conscience and his own "first principles"* and not as person who just blindly votes according to party.

Then, for the past 8 years, while he has made that claim about himself, he has voted according to party line and in agreement with Bush 97% of the time INCLUDING ON MATTERS THAT DIRECTLY CONTRADICTED HIS OWN EARLIER STATEMENTS OF PRINCIPLE, especially on matters of torture, military policy, war, and economic issues.

By his own measure, a maverick would not be swayed to vote against his own conscience in order to conform to his party or his leaders. By his own measure, McCain is no maverick, no independent thinker. The fact that he keeps characterizing himself as such is what makes him a liar in addition.


* "First principles" is a phrase McCain used to use, back in 2000, but doesn't use anymore.

McCain defined it for us in describing himself as a person who votes his own conscience and his own "first principles"* and not as person who just blindly votes according to party.

Then, for the past 8 years, while he has made that claim about himself, he has voted according to party line and in agreement with Bush 97% of the time INCLUDING ON MATTERS THAT DIRECTLY CONTRADICTED HIS OWN EARLIER STATEMENTS OF PRINCIPLE, especially on matters of torture, military policy, war, and economic issues.

By his own measure, a maverick would not be swayed to vote against his own conscience in order to conform to his party or his leaders. By his own measure, McCain is no maverick, no independent thinker. The fact that he keeps characterizing himself as such is what makes him a liar in addition.


* "First principles" is a phrase McCain used to use, back in 2000, but doesn't use anymore.

97%? Source?

We've been using 90% because that's what Obama himself said the ratio was. Now suddenly you want to switch it to Obama's number 97%?

He said McCain, far from being a maverick who’s "broken with his party," has voted to support Bush policies 90 percent of the time. True enough, but by the same measure Obama has voted with fellow Democrats in the Senate 97 percent of the time.
and
It's true that McCain's voting support for Bush policies has averaged slightly above 89 percent since Bush took office, according to Congressional Quarterly’s vote studies. But it has ebbed and flowed. It reached a low of 77 percent in 2005. Last year it was 95 percent. By comparison, Obama's own record of supporting Bush policies has averaged slightly under 41 percent since the senator took office. However, Obama's voting record is no less partisan than McCain's. He has voted in line with his party an average of nearly 97 percent of the time. The truth is that neither candidate can claim a strong record of "breaking with his party" if Senate votes are the measure.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_obama.html

Factcheck is where I got Obama's 97% from, where did you get your source from?

If McCain defined it for us in describing himself as a person who votes his own conscience and his own "first principles"* and not as person who just blindly votes according to party. Is correct, then I don't have a problem with it. It's essentially unchallengeable, if he thinks himself a Maverick, he's a Maverick.

Kay, we need a humor break:

http://orangemocha08.ytmnd.com/

Kay, we need a humor break:

http://orangemocha08.ytmnd.com/

That's funny, but it's not good enough for a full length video, someone should turn it into a .gif and a avatar :)

Is there a "Who cares?" choice?

People who really don't care don't vote :p

Just a little perspective, of late:
http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/story/518512.html
After Trig was born, Palin sent relatives and close friends a letter she wrote in the voice of God.

"I let Trig's mom and dad find out before he was born that this little boy will truly be a gift," Palin wrote, signing it "Trig's Creator, Your Heavenly Father."
Sounds a bit like when Bush said:
I believe that God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn't do my job.
Same article:


What if her own daughter was raped and became pregnant? Palin was asked that in a Nov. 2, 2006, debate that aired statewide on public television. "I would chose life," Palin answered.
So, when considering womens' rights, which some people here mistakenly took as a given ....
Palin may not have wanted to battle the Democrats over abortion because she needed their support for a natural gas pipeline project, said Geran Tarr, director of the Anchorage-based, abortion-rights group Alliance for Reproductive Justice.

"She had to use her political capital to get the gas line project through, and I believe that's why we haven't seen her take on any social issues just yet," Tarr said. "She was not going to get any Democrats to vote with her" on the gas line if she pushed anti-abortion legislation, she said.
Everyone know what gas-line project that might be? Figured it should matter, what with her experience and all.

*more to come*

97%? Source?

We've been using 90% because that's what Obama himself said the ratio was. Now suddenly you want to switch it to Obama's number 97%?
That's called a typo. Sorry.

I meant to type the lower number. Since I admit that mistake, you don't get to paint me as a liar for it.

If McCain defined it for us in describing himself as a person who votes his own conscience and his own "first principles"* and not as person who just blindly votes according to party. Is correct, then I don't have a problem with it. It's essentially unchallengeable, if he thinks himself a Maverick, he's a Maverick.
In other words, whatever lie he tells is good enough for you.

http://home.mindspring.com/~samrc/sounds/laugh.wav

Oooh, on General, it indicates The Brevious is the last post whereas, in fact, it's Muravyets...

...is this the return of the timewarp?

Hurrah!

So now you are saying that Republicans are for Women what the KKK is for Blacks? :rolleyes:

The Republican Party seeks to deny women the right to bodily integrity. I'd say the comparison is quite apt.

...
In other words, whatever lie he tells is good enough for you.


In other words, since you don't feel the need to actually define it, you can call whatever he says a lie... :rolleyes:

Why don't you define what a Maverick is, and then explain to the rest of the world why we have to abide by your definition alone and everyone outside of that definition must, by default apparently, be dishonest if they use the term ...

Secondary point, I think people will get upset if they recognize that you are saying Obama must be even worse than a party lapdog. If 90% is party lapdog, what is 97%?

Simple version:

McCain = bad because he votes along party lines? No.

McCain = bad because he SAYS he doesn't vote along party lines - and then he does.

Contrarily: Obama = bad because he votes along party lines? No.

Why? Because he's not pretending he doesn't.


The 'bad' here, of course - is that one of the candidates is lying about what he is.

If there is a mathematical definition for Maverick or not Maverick, I don't know what it is. I submit that a when Lieberman votes 89% democrat party line during the Bush years, he gets booted from his party for not being 'democrat' enough and he has to run as an Independent. It is agreed that McCain votes 90% with the party line, if the Republicans hold the same standards as the Democrats, then McCain is only a few maverick votes from being booted from the Republican party.

Of course there are no rules like that, it's all opinion about when someone crosses the line or not. But the sample still works as evidence of what 10% can represent.

I see where that the "McCain is 90% with Bush" was claimed by Obama's camp (the one I'm in on most things, including where I will vote), but does that make it true? Could it be demonstrated that the figure is higher?

Also, is there a spectrum in between "party lap dog" and "maverick", some interval or range in between?

If Obama does not claim to be a "maverick", is he necessarily admitting to being a party lap dog?

But to firm it up, are we declaring one's placement on this scale to be a function of percentage of votes compliant with party (or as some have used, with/against the president)?

Also, you claimed areas where Obama had made statements comparable to making the claim of being a "maverick" or a comparable term. If you could provide some of those, I'd like to look at them.

What'd I'd like to be able to find common ground on is this:

Is "maverick" a function of dissent from party voting trend?

Is the term relative, (i.e., "I'm a maverick compared to him/her") or can one claim to be a maverick on individual numbers (whether we find its 10% or 3% contrarian, etc.)?

What is McCain's actual number, and if we decide the term is relative, what is Obama's?

Did Obama ever claim to depart appreciably from Democratic political lines in a way that fits the nomenclature "maverick", and again, if so, when and how?

If Obama did not claim such, does it necessarily reflect badly on him if he only departs from party trend 3% of the time, on which issues, and why?

Oooh, on General, it indicates The Brevious is the last post whereas, in fact, it's Muravyets...

...is this the return of the timewarp?

Hurrah!
We broke the clocks again. :D

EDIT: Or is it the space-time continuum we screw up? I keep forgetting.

Part 2 (of what may or may not be several parts)
http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/story/518522.html
State paid for trip when Palin told students to pray for pipeline...
Gov. Sarah Palin used state funds in June when she traveled from Juneau to Wasilla to speak to graduating evangelical students and urge them to fan out through Alaska "to make sure God's will be done here."
+
The records show Palin flew from Juneau on Saturday, June 7. She returned to Juneau that Monday afternoon. The plane tickets cost the state $519.50, and she claimed an additional $120 for meals and other expenses.

Palin couldn't be reached for comment Friday as she campaigned for vice president. Her spokeswoman at the McCain campaign said she wouldn't grant an interview.Transparency, indeed.
Again, which project is she referring to?
And also, for perspective:
According to a six-minute promotional video by the Wasilla Assembly of God, the master's commission program is a live-in, year-long educational program for young adults. The church's description shows there's nothing secular about it.

"The Master's Commission program is something that's going to take a young person and lead them for the rest of their lives in passionate journey for Jesus," the video says. The instruction is "designed to take students in from around the nation, and through that we're able to shape and mold disciples of the lord Jesus Christ."

The program isn't just inward looking -- the graduates are expected take the message to people around the state.

"We seek him in the morning with worship, with live worship, with intimate worship, to know him face to face," the video says. "The first part in the morning is to know God, and then from that afternoon you go out and make him known."

A FAITH-BASED AUDIENCE

In words similar to Palin's, the video stresses the program's ties to Alaska:"God has a destiny for the state of Alaska, and we know that master's commission is one of the keys that God is going to use to unlock his glory for that state," a speaker says.


It was posted earlier about who should pray for what, and i figured this would help with that particular perspective.

In other words, since you don't feel the need to actually define it, you can call whatever he says a lie... :rolleyes:
I did define it.

I did define it.

If you are using his definition, then what's your problem? Clearly he meets his own credentials for being a Maverick...

Simple version:

McCain = bad because he votes along party lines? No.

McCain = bad because he SAYS he doesn't vote along party lines - and then he does.

Contrarily: Obama = bad because he votes along party lines? No.

Why? Because he's not pretending he doesn't.


The 'bad' here, of course - is that one of the candidates is lying about what he is.

This is where I think the two dwarves come in. Two dwarves, one 4'2" and the other 4'4" put an ad in the paper. The second one claims to be "tall" in his ad.

It seems that justifying his claim by saying "Well, I'm 4'4" and the other guy is 4'2", so I am tall within the options given and by comparison" still seems problematic, so I believe thus far I agree with you.

If McCain can say "Well, I'm not lying because I am a maverick with my 10% dissent compared to his 3% dissent", well...

If we were to find, say, the 5 most dissenting members of either party in either the house or the senate, would any of them be able to put both 3% and 10% to shame? (actual party members, not independents)

Is McCain a maverick if the town has more people placing ads than just the two dwarves?

Clearly he meets his own credentials for being a Maverick...That's like "I hear you're a badass ... mostly, from you."
:)
'sides, letting Republicans "define" things doesn't bode well for anyone, especially truth itself. There's myriad examples as such. Rest assured.

That's like "I hear you're a badass ... mostly, from you."
:)
'sides, letting Republicans "define" things doesn't bode well for anyone, especially truth itself. There's myriad examples as such. Rest assured.

Near as I can tell, McCain's swing here consists of "Obama goes party line 97%, I go 90%, so I am more maverick than thou art".

But I think its a "maverick" contest Obama hasn't necessarily entered. I haven't seen anything from Obama where he says "I'm in the maverick contest".

So, I guess, McCain can try to make hay by saying he is "more mavericky than Obama", which, I guess by 7% is true, but again, its the 4'4" dwarf claiming to be tall, when his competition just admits to be 4'2" and tries to sell himself on other points.

If you are using his definition, then what's your problem? Clearly he meets his own credentials for being a Maverick...
I already told you that, too. My problem is that he's lying. I laid it out for you -- he says a maverick does A, and then he does B but still calls himself a maverick. Ergo, he is lying. He never changes his definition of maverick to include B. He just keeps claiming he's doing A, while he does B. Ergo, liar.

You do realize that I'm typing this for the benefit of other readers, right? I don't want you to think that I think you're actually going to pay attention to these sentences.

Near as I can tell, McCain's swing here consists of "Obama goes party line 97%, I go 90%, so I am more maverick than thou art".

But I think its a "maverick" contest Obama hasn't necessarily entered. I haven't seen anything from Obama where he says "I'm in the maverick contest".

So, I guess, McCain can try to make hay by saying he is "more mavericky than Obama", which, I guess by 7% is true, but again, its the 4'4" dwarf claiming to be tall, when his competition just admits to be 4'2" and tries to sell himself on other points.

Obama doesn't call himself Maverick, he calls himself 'change' he says we need to do something 'new.' Well how 'new' IS toeing the party line 97%? The maverick vs., the change, different words for the same thing, they both claim to be able to reach accross party lines to accomplish tasks, but McCain has three times the actual number of attemps at not voting with his party to get things done as Obama does over the same period of time.

Whereas Obama doesn't even vote enough to get anything done if the Democratic website has any truth to it...

In researching voting records I found the following:

In the 110 Congress-the most recent congressional record

Obama missed 39% of his votes
Clinton missed 28% of her votes

Both too high but looks like Obama is campaigning much more than he is doing his job. No wonder he is doing so well. Wonder what kind of president that would make?

2/28/08 On the Cloture Motion H.R. 3221
Obama didn't even vote on this bill for energy independence
Obama voting record: Moving the United States toward greater energy independence and security, developing innovative new technologies, reducing carbon emissions, creating green jobs, protecting consumers, increasing clean renewable energy production, and modernizing our energy infrastructure, and to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide tax incentives for the production of renewable energy and energy conservation. Cloture Motion Rejected (48-46, 3/5 majority required) Not Voting-Senator Obama

On the Cloture Motion S. 2634
A bill to require a report setting forth the global strategy of the United States to combat and defeat al Qaeda and its affiliates. Cloture Motion Agreed to (89-3, 3/5 majority required) Not Voting-Senator Obama
We are supporting someone because he speaks well and creates energy.But above where words actually moves into action you can see part of Obamas record. There is no action only words that makes everyone feel good.
But at least he's popular.
http://www.democrats.org/page/community/post/brendakrause/CpvR

Looks to me like Obama doesn't do much Senatoring at all, even as far back as last spring, the date of that link...

Did i say part 3?
http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/story/518490.html
"It's not to make her look bad. It's not to make her look good. It's just to make her what she is," she said.

In the letter, she lauds the former mayor as smart, hardworking and savvy. But, she says, far from being a fiscal conservative, Palin left Wasilla in debt, was intolerant of "divergent opinions" and "has bitten the hand of every person who extended theirs to her in help."

Much of what Kilkenny states has been pointed out by others in news stories. Palin, on the national pulpit, has lauded herself as a fiscal conservative who cut government budgets. But as mayor and governor she presided over growing budgets. Some of her information has received less attention.

As mayor, as Kilkenny notes, Palin benefited enormously from a sales tax passed by the previous mayor John Stein, whom she defeated in a bitter campaign in which she derided him as a "good ole boy." That sales tax, passed to fund the police force, left the city flush with so much cash Palin was able to cut property taxes and still have revenues increase.

Some of the claims are hard to substantiate, including that Palin tried to fire the city librarian because she refused to consider removing books from the shelves. Palin did send a termination letter to the librarian, but it was unclear whether books were involved in that decision. At the time, Palin noted the librarian had supported her opponent in the election.
Nothing "good ol' boy" about that bolded part.
When taken in perspective of the current issue with Wooten/Monegan/Branchflower ...
http://www.adn.com/monegan/story/517072.html
However, legislators still want their investigator to interview Palin.

Legislators also have decided to move up the date for completing their investigation into whether Palin abused her powers as governor by leaning on former Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan to fire a state trooper involved in a messy divorce with Palin's sister.

The Legislature's independent investigator, retired state prosecutor Steve Branchflower, will complete his investigative report on Oct. 10 rather than at the end of October, which would be right on top of the Nov. 4 election.
+
Although Palin earlier this summer said she and members of her administration would gladly cooperate, in recent days she's retained a lawyer and questioned the legitimacy of the legislative investigation.
+
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/national/stories/090408dnpolpalinethics.f3ce11.html
ANCHORAGE, Alaska – Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin wants a state board to review the circumstances surrounding the dismissal of Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan – taking the unusual step of making an ethics complaint against herself.
Her lawyer sent an "ethics disclosure" Monday night to Attorney General Talis Colberg. The governor asked that it go to the three-person Personnel Board as a complaint. While ethics complaints are usually confidential, Palin wants the matter open.

The lawyer, Thomas Van Flein, also asked the state legislature to drop its own investigation into the Monegan matter. He says the Personnel Board has jurisdiction over ethics.

A senator running the investigation immediately refused.
Quaint and curious lore ... and finally
http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/516746.html
The union representing state Trooper Mike Wooten has filed an ethics complaint against Gov. Sarah Palin and members of her administration charging a possible unlawful breach of Wooten's confidential personnel and workers' compensation files.
+
On the recording, Bailey makes reference to Wooten "lying on his application," and also possibly making a false workers' compensation claim.

The trooper commander, Lt. Rodney Dial, replied to Bailey: "Frank, where did you get that information from?" Dial added that such information "a lot of times is extremely confidential."

Bailey replied: "Well, I'm a little bit reluctant to say ... ."

Palin has said Bailey's phone call was wrong and that he wasn't directed to make it. She has suspended Bailey with pay.

Thomas Van Flein, an Anchorage attorney representing the governor, said Thursday he couldn't discuss or even acknowledge a new ethics complaint.
Wow. Transparency abounds.
Well, enjoy.

I already told you that, too. My problem is that he's lying. I laid it out for you -- he says a maverick does A, and then he does B but still calls himself a maverick. Ergo, he is lying. He never changes his definition of maverick to include B. He just keeps claiming he's doing A, while he does B. Ergo, liar.

You do realize that I'm typing this for the benefit of other readers, right? I don't want you to think that I think you're actually going to pay attention to these sentences.

The problem with what you are saying is that you haven't shown how McCain isn't doing A. I asked you to define what you think A is, but his definition of A is not an equation that can be measured by anyone but himself. You claiming he lied by his own definition implies that you can see into his heart and know that he isn't voting for the things he thinks are right. Clearly you must surely understand why we can't accept that definition of yours.

Obama doesn't call himself Maverick, he calls himself 'change' he says we need to do something 'new.' Well how 'new' IS toeing the party line 97%?

What if Obama considers his party's recent policies to be a significant change, whether from the current administration's emphasis (executive rather than legislative, of course, but still a standard of comparison for change) or even from his party's policies from a decade ago?

I'm not asking you to agree that his view is correct, but if Obama believes that his party's current direction, including its voting trends, are the change that is necessary, then he can act in conformity with the party and still represent what he believes is change, can't he?

Show me some places where Obama claims to depart from the party line.

Saying he advocates change does not alone accomplish that, since he could believe that the progression of his party's policies represent a change, whether from the other side or from his party's past.

What if Obama considers his party's recent policies to be a significant change, whether from the current administration's emphasis (executive rather than legislative, of course, but still a standard of comparison for change) or even from his party's policies from a decade ago?

I'm not asking you to agree that his view is correct, but if Obama believes that his party's current direction, including its voting trends, are the change that is necessary, then he can act in conformity with the party and still represent what he believes is change, can't he?

Show me some places where Obama claims to depart from the party line.

Saying he advocates change does not alone accomplish that, since he could believe that the progression of his party's policies represent a change, whether from the other side or from his party's past.


I'm not calling Obama a Liar, Obama his insinuating that McCain is a liar, and others here are flat out calling McCAin dishonest for calling himself a Maverick. The entire issue is essentially stupid, a nickname is a nickname.

1- Yeah, because blacks are widely known for voting Republican.

2- Yes, we GET to criticize women voting for Palin because she's a woman, if only on account of the fact that the comparison to "voting for Obama because he's black" would only hold true if Obama were a member of the goddamn KU-KUX-KLAN!


http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/04/obama.black.republicans/index.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-06-14-black-republicans_N.htm

As I said, it's an incredible and bald-faced show of hypocrisy to pretend it's not happening. It's also incredibly hypocritical to criticize women for doing the same thing with Palin while giving the thumbs up to the black conservatives doing EXACTLY what you're criticizing the women for.

The problem with what you are saying is that you haven't shown how McCain isn't doing A.
Yes, I have, and so have others. We showed it in the first posts on this subject. Your problem is, you seem to think every post exists in a vacuum, but it doesn't. It exists in the content of a conversation, and what was posted before counts.

I asked you to define what you think A is, but his definition of A is not an equation that can be measured by anyone but himself.
Bullshit. He stated specific qualities as a requirement for being independent, i.e. "maverick." Then he abandoned those qualities in his own actions. Nothing subjective about that. It's simple A versus B. Maverick versus liar.

You claiming he lied by his own definition implies that you can see into his heart and know that he isn't voting for the things he thinks are right.
I don't have to see into his heart. All I have to do is listen to what he says and then watch what he does.

Clearly you must surely understand why we can't accept that definition of yours.
It's not mine. It's his. Have you forgotten that part of the conversation already?

Part 4?!?
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/1150170,gay090708.article
Sarah Palin's church hopes to 'pray away the gay' and convert homosexuals to heterosexuals

ANCHORAGE, Alaska — Gov. Sarah Palin’s church is promoting a conference that promises to convert gays into heterosexuals through the power of prayer.

‘‘You’ll be encouraged by the power of God’s love and His desire to transform the lives of those impacted by homosexuality,’’ according to the insert in the bulletin of the Wasilla Bible Church, where Palin has prayed for about six years.
And here's the where the evil thrusts itself:
Focus on the Family, a national Christian fundamentalist organization, is conducting the ‘‘Love Won Out’’ Conference in Anchorage, about 30 miles from Wasilla.
This, of course, was on state news last night, up here in AK, where she's mostly ... not.

Did i say part 3?
http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/story/518490.html

Nothing "good ol' boy" about that bolded part.
When taken in perspective of the current issue with Wooten/Monegan/Branchflower ...
http://www.adn.com/monegan/story/517072.html
....

I don't care about the rest of that stuff, but censoring books would be bad. I agree.

However, the issue isn't so clear cut as that bolded part made it sound.

Were any books censored banned? June Pinell-Stephens, chairwoman of the Alaska Library Association's Intellectual Freedom Committee since 1984, checked her files Wednesday and came up empty-handed.

Pinell-Stephens also had no record of any phone conversations with Emmons about the issue back then. Emmons was president of the Alaska Library Association at the time.Books may not have been pulled from library shelves, but there were other repercussions for Emmons.

Four days before the exchange at the City Council, Emmons got a letter from Palin asking for her resignation. Similar letters went to police chief Irl Stambaugh, public works director Jack Felton and finance director Duane Dvorak. John Cooper, a fifth director, resigned after Palin eliminated his job overseeing the city museum.

Palin told the Daily News back then the letters were just a test of loyalty as she took on the mayor's job, which she'd won from three-term mayor John Stein in a hard-fought election. Stein had hired many of the department heads. Both Emmons and Stambaugh had publicly supported him against Palin.

Emmons survived the loyalty test and a second one a few months later. She resigned in August 1999, two months before Palin was voted in for a second mayoral term.

Palin might have become a household name in the last week, but Kilkenny, who is not a Palin fan, is on her own small path to Internet fame. She sent out an e-mail earlier this week to friends and family answering, from her perspective, the question Outsiders are asking any Alaskan they know: "Who is this Sarah Palin?"

Kilkenny's e-mail got bounced through cyberspace and ended up on news blogs. Now the small-town mom and housewife is scheduling interviews with national news media and got her name on the front page of The New York Times, even if it was misspelled.
http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/story/515512.html

Sounds like the Librarian might have a little agenda of her own going on, personal dispute with Palin, whom she never got along with... National spot light, questionable source, a she said she said scenario by all reasonable outlooks.

I'm not calling Obama a Liar, Obama his insinuating that McCain is a liar, and others here are flat out calling McCAin dishonest for calling himself a Maverick. The entire issue is essentially stupid, a nickname is a nickname.
Where is Obama "insinuating" anything about McCain? Is that your way of saying that you wish to take some random comments by Obama and claim that what he's really saying is that McCain is a liar? Oh, please do that. It would be so much fun to watch.

I'm not calling Obama a Liar, Obama his insinuating that McCain is a liar, and others here are flat out calling McCAin dishonest for calling himself a Maverick. The entire issue is essentially stupid, a nickname is a nickname.

What you did claim was that Obama was not about change. I demonstrated that he could be, while still being consist with his party, as long as his party as a whole is changing or working for change.

A nickname, especially in politics, is a very clear attempt at claiming certain attributes as inherent to this architecture as a candidate and as a leader.

If he claims to be a Maverick, but is only more "maverickish" than those not even trying to be "mavericks", I think it would be fair to see if he can earn that nickname in the context of real dissent, not 7% up from a guy who isn't trying to be a maverick.

Its like me taking four months of boxing lessons, beating up a guy who doesn't fight and isn't trying to fight, and then claiming "I'm a great fighter".

Well, I haven't earned the nickname "Hammurab the Hammer" until I've fought and beat guys who ARE fighters.

Is McCain a maverick compared to, say, the top dozen most dissenting party members in the Senate?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/04/obama.black.republicans/index.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-06-14-black-republicans_N.htm

As I said, it's an incredible and bald-faced show of hypocrisy to pretend it's not happening. It's also incredibly hypocritical to criticize women for doing the same thing with Palin while giving the thumbs up to the black conservatives doing EXACTLY what you're criticizing the women for.
Yeah... except that the people you claim are saying it doesn't happen have actually acknowledged that it does happen, and have acknowledge it in this very thread. The argument is not that there are no black people who will vote for Obama just because he's black. The argument is that Palin is being foisted upon the voters as the VP candidate only because she is female. That has nothing to do with what voters do, however. Guess you missed the point a bit.

Too bad. All that net research for nothing.

What you did claim was that Obama was not about change. I demonstrated that he could be, while still being consist with his party, as long as his party as a whole is changing or working for change.

A nickname, especially in politics, is a very clear attempt at claiming certain attributes as inherent to this architecture as a candidate and as a leader.

If he claims to be a Maverick, but is only more "maverickish" than those not even trying to be "mavericks", I think it would be fair to see if he can earn that nickname in the context of real dissent, not 7% up from a guy who isn't trying to be a maverick.

Its like me taking four months of boxing lessons, beating up a guy who doesn't fight and isn't trying to fight, and then claiming "I'm a great fighter".

Well, I haven't earned the nickname "Hammurab the Hammer" until I've fought and beat guys who ARE fighters.

Is McCain a maverick compared to, say, the top dozen most dissenting party members in the Senate?

I already compared it to Lieberman's 89% agreeing with the Democrats wasn't enough to keep him in the party. McCain has 90%, if the same rules apply, McCain is almost maverick enough to be booted from the Republican party...

I don't care about the rest of that stuff, but censoring books would be bad. I agree.

However, the issue isn't so clear cut as that bolded part made it sound.I did preface it in context, though, what with the "harder to substantiate" part. There was enough follow-up for consideration. I do appreciate you looking it up, though. I figured i'd provided enough in quotes.

Palin told the Daily News back then the letters were just a test of loyalty as she took on the mayor's job
Ah, yes. Sounds nothing like anything a republican would do ... especially at conventions and speaking engagements and such, those loyalty issues.

Kilkenny, who is not a Palin fan, is on her own small path to Internet fame. She sent out an e-mail earlier this week to friends and family answering, from her perspective, the question Outsiders are asking any Alaskan they know: "Who is this Sarah Palin?"That's already in the article i provided. There were a lot of people who were originally uninvolved with it, and then it became her pointing out there was no "blog" to speak of in the first place.


Sounds like the Librarian might have a little agenda of her own going on, personal dispute with Palin, whom she never got along with...That's why a post or another i've provided along with this might give some insight into innocuousness or not, see Wooten/Monegan/Branchflower.

Yeah... except that the people you claim are saying it doesn't happen have actually acknowledged that it does happen, and have acknowledge it in this very thread. The argument is not that there are no black people who will vote for Obama just because he's black. The argument is that Palin is being foisted upon the voters as the VP candidate only because she is female. That has nothing to do with what voters do, however. Guess you missed the point a bit.

Too bad. All that net research for nothing.

If you think it's ONLY because she's female, then you haven't been paying attention. Clearly the conservative base love her as the VP choice because of her postions and they want her to do what she did in Alaska in Washington. You pretending otherwise is simply you plugging your ears and screaming LA LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA LA LA!



edit: alas, it's bed time...

If you think it's ONLY because she's female, then you haven't been paying attention. Clearly the conservative base love her as the VP choice because of her postions and they want her to do what she did in Alaska in Washington. You pretending otherwise is simply you plugging your ears and screaming LA LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA LA LA!

And that's the point he's been making. I Can't Believe It's Not Hillary has been marketed towards disaffected Democrats as a woman candidate while still keeping the Fundie Evangelical base energized for McCain with traditional Women Should Stay Home and Make Babies values.

I already compared it to Lieberman's 89% agreeing with the Democrats wasn't enough to keep him in the party. McCain has 90%, if the same rules apply, McCain is almost maverick enough to be booted from the Republican party...

One data point does not a trend or definition make. Give me at least 5, or our confidence level of inference is minimal, by definition.

As for Lieberman, is it possible his schism from the party had a context that went beyond his voting record, and that even within that record, it was the specific issues that made up his 11% break that made him walk?

For instance, if I'm talking to a catholic who agrees with the Catholic church on 99% of issues, but that 1% is "Jesus wasn't the messiah", he's not going to make cardinal.

And that's the point he's been making. I Can't Believe It's Not Hillary has been marketed towards disaffected Democrats as a woman candidate while still keeping the Fundie Evangelical base energized for McCain with traditional Women Should Stay Home and Make Babies values.

Because, you know, every woman who voted for Hillary was joined at the hip to her and to each other, and agreed with every single issue Hillary espoused and could never even IMAGINE having *gasp* a viewpoint or 20 in common with Palin as well as with Hillary.

Here's a newsflash - people are an interesting, fascinating mixture of beliefs and ideals. You'd be hard pressed to find two people who agree with each other on *every* issue, let alone 18 million people. Somehow I suspect many of those women who are moving over to Sarah Palin's side find something in her positions (and in many cases, many somethings) which reverberate with them. If one of those issues is she's a woman...well, that makes the no different from millions of other people who vote because of skin color, or because they find the person attractive, or because the speaker "sends a tingle" up their leg.

It's wonderful someone's crystal ball is working. The technology might be available within years - changing everyone over..well, that's another matter entirely. In the meantime, either way, we can either cut off our use of oil entirely (as the original post seemed to suggest) and have millions of people in this country starving for those years...or we can continue to pay the insane prices from foreign oil without making any effort to even alleviate that problem.
My crystal ball is working just as well as your own. Since you seem to be able to predict that it'll take decades to make alternative energy. Where. pray tell, did you come up with that figure? I mean, other than your arse of course.

I'd love to open a discussion of Obama's positions on the issues, but since he flip-flops worse than a trout washed up on the river bank, that might prove difficult. And that sort of politician is, in my mind, absolutely the most dangerous type of politician to elect. .
Ah, yes. the biggest insult the right can throw: That of Flip-flopper. Where exactly has he done this?
Oh yes, by saying he's against off-shore drilling, but, if necessary, would support limited drilling if it meant preventing gridlock and/or the benefits outweighed the costs.
Oh how dreadful! A politician willing to work with the other side!
how utterly utterly disgraceful.

Still, it makes you sleep better thinking him a flip-flopper, unlike mighty, infallible John "I'm against the immigration bill I co-sponsored!" McCain.

Still, it makes you sleep better thinking him a flip-flopper, unlike mighty, infallible John "I'm against the immigration bill I co-sponsored!" McCain.

Remember, when Democrats have an open mind it's Flip Flopping. When Republicans flip flop, it's called being Open-Minded.

That's almost cute.
And it'd almost be cute your total ignorance of the point being made - except for the fact that you've spent the entire thread doing just this to pretty much every point raised.
But - hey! - don't let me stop you in your happy quest for ignorance and blind obedience to the MCain cause.

If McCain defined it for us in describing himself as a person who votes his own conscience and his own "first principles"* and not as person who just blindly votes according to party. Is correct, then I don't have a problem with it. It's essentially unchallengeable, if he thinks himself a Maverick, he's a Maverick.
I think you owe me $10,000 so you must. Please pay up now.
Also, I think I can hold my breath for 14 minutes, am 9ft tall and own 1/2 of Scotland. I also think you eat bugs for lunch and sweat creosote. All this must be true because I think it is.


Also, on a more personal level: Don't do any jobs that require basic maths skills. You can't compare 3% of something to 10% of something else and claim the 10% is 3.33 times bigger. Percentages don't work like that!

I'm not calling Obama a Liar, Obama his insinuating that McCain is a liar, and others here are flat out calling McCAin dishonest for calling himself a Maverick. The entire issue is essentially stupid, a nickname is a nickname.
Except when it's used as a slogan and base for one's entire political career and heavily used in this current election campaign. Then it does become an issue that should be examined.
It was McCain himself who introduced himself as the 'Original Maverick' and Palin as the 'New Maverick' who are coming to 'shake Washington up'.
Kinda difficult to shake up a place you follow 90% of the time.

I'd be curious as to the 10% he disagreed with. What, and how important, were they?

Obama doesn't even vote enough to get anything done if the Democratic website has any truth to it...

[INDENT]In researching voting records I found the following:

In the 110 Congress-the most recent congressional record

Obama missed 39% of his votes
Clinton missed 28% of her votes

Both too high but looks like Obama is campaigning much more than he is doing his job. No wonder he is doing so well. Wonder what kind of president that would make?.
What indeed?
Let's compare this to McCain:
Oh look, he has missed 407 votes (63.8%) during the current Congress.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/m000303/votes/missed/
If 39% is too high and an indication they'd make a poor president, what do you rate 64% absenteeism?

What indeed?
Let's compare this to McCain:
Oh look, he has missed 407 votes (63.8%) during the current Congress.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/m000303/votes/missed/
If 39% is too high and an indication they'd make a poor president, what do you rate 64% absenteeism?

Hey, if Dear Leader can spend most of his first term in perpetual vacation, why shouldn't McSame be allowed to do it as well?

:D

Hey, if Dear Leader can spend most of his first term in perpetual vacation, why shouldn't McSame be allowed to do it as well?

:D

That was not vacation. Clearing brush on your ranch is not a vacation, its hard work, especially since the reason he has to do it is he buried 30 kilos of uncut cocaine there in 1983, and he can't remember where.

Its like poor Vern in "Stand by Me", with his jar of pennies.

Ah, yes. the biggest insult the right can throw: That of Flip-flopper. Where exactly has he done this?
Oh yes, by saying he's against off-shore drilling, but, if necessary, would support limited drilling if it meant preventing gridlock and/or the benefits outweighed the costs.

Let's take a look at a few of his flip-flops then, shall we?

In January, the Obama campaign described union contributions to the campaigns of Clinton and John Edwards as "special interest" money. Obama changed his tune as he began gathering his own union endorsements. He now refers respectfully to unions as the representatives of "working people" and says he is "thrilled" by their support.

Obama replied "yes" in September 2007 when asked if he would agree to public financing of the presidential election if his GOP opponent did the same. Obama has now attached several conditions to such an agreement, including regulating spending by outside groups. His spokesman says the candidate never committed himself on the matter.

Despite Pledging To Withdraw American Troops From Iraq Immediately, Barack Obama Now Says He Would "Refine" His Policy After Listening To The Commanders On The Ground.

During The Primaries, Barack Obama Pledged To Unilaterally Renegotiate NAFTA. NBC'S TIM RUSSERT: "A simple question. Will you as president say to Canada and Mexico, this [NAFTA] has not worked for us, we are out?" OBAMA: "I will make sure that we renegotiate in the same way that Senator Clinton talked about, and I think actually Senator Clinton's answer on this one is right. I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labor and environmental standards that are enforced."

In an interview with Fortune to be featured in the magazine's upcoming issue, the presumptive Democratic nominee backed off his harshest attacks on the free trade agreement and indicated he didn't want to unilaterally reopen negotiations on NAFTA. 'Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified,' he conceded, after I reminded him that he had called NAFTA 'devastating' and 'a big mistake,' despite nonpartisan studies concluding that the trade zone has had a mild, positive effect on the U.S. economy." (Nina Easton, "Obama: NAFTA Not So Bad After All," Fortune, 6/18/08)


I could go on...and on...and on. To quote an earlier poster, plugging your ears and going LALALALALALA doesn't change the facts.

Anyone who wants to start a McCain/Obama thread, go ahead. This one is US VeePs: McCain and Palin .

Out of interest, I've just been looking up voting records (along party lines)this current Congress:
Dick Durbin (D-IL) has the highest with 97.5% (617 from 633 votes)
Hilary (D-NY) has 97.2% (420 from 432 votes)
Obama (D-IL) has 96% (334 from 348 votes)
McCain (R-AZ) has 88.3% (203 from 231 votes)
There's a further 36 (37 if you count Leiberman as a Dem) Senators whose voting records are less than McCain and 3 just 0.1% above (all GOP incidently). Of the 37 whose records are less along party lines than McCain, 31 are Republican (and 8 voted less than 80% of the time along party lines). He lands in 18th place (out of 49) for Republicans voting along party lines.
The average % for GOP senators voting along party lines is 80.8% - and McCain, the "MaverickTM" who votes according to his conscience and not what the party tells him to, is sitting on 88.3%.
Some Maverick.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/party-voters/

This thread is full of people throwing boomerangs..

'Look, Barack Obama is inexperienced'...whirr whirr whirr smack

'Look, John McCain changes his mind'...whirr whirr whirr smack

'Look, Barack Obama is absent from congress'...whirr whirr whirr smack.

'Look, John McCain votes along party lines'...whirr whirr whirr smack.

That's what happens when you argue on the most pointless of subjects.

Let's take a look at a few of his flip-flops then, shall we?
In January, the Obama campaign described union contributions to the campaigns of Clinton and John Edwards as "special interest" money. Obama changed his tune as he began gathering his own union endorsements. He now refers respectfully to unions as the representatives of "working people" and says he is "thrilled" by their support.
And why wouldn't he be thrilled by people giving him money and want to belittle the money given to others? Did he, at any time, declare he was against Unions giving him money and would never, ever, take it even if offered?
No?
Well, you lose again at muck-slinging.

Obama replied "yes" in September 2007 when asked if he would agree to public financing of the presidential election if his GOP opponent did the same. Obama has now attached several conditions to such an agreement, including regulating spending by outside groups. His spokesman says the candidate never committed himself on the matter. [QUOTE]
And how is this flip-flopping? He still agrees but wants conditions. Did he say he was unconditionally for this? No? Well, you fail then. But nice, albeit desperate, try. Nothing to do with actual policy either but let's not let that stop you.


[QUOTE]Despite Pledging To Withdraw American Troops From Iraq Immediately, Barack Obama Now Says He Would "Refine" His Policy After Listening To The Commanders On The Ground.
Do you know what the word "refine" means? Obviously not as you seem to be laboring under the impression that it means changing one's opinion.

During The Primaries, Barack Obama Pledged To Unilaterally Renegotiate NAFTA. NBC'S TIM RUSSERT: "A simple question. Will you as president say to Canada and Mexico, this [NAFTA] has not worked for us, we are out?" OBAMA: "I will make sure that we renegotiate in the same way that Senator Clinton talked about, and I think actually Senator Clinton's answer on this one is right. I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labor and environmental standards that are enforced."

In an interview with Fortune to be featured in the magazine's upcoming issue, the presumptive Democratic nominee backed off his harshest attacks on the free trade agreement and indicated he didn't want to unilaterally reopen negotiations on NAFTA. 'Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified,' he conceded, after I reminded him that he had called NAFTA 'devastating' and 'a big mistake,' despite nonpartisan studies concluding that the trade zone has had a mild, positive effect on the U.S. economy." (Nina Easton, "Obama: NAFTA Not So Bad After All," Fortune, 6/18/08)
My word, he admits he was hasty and now says he is willing to reconsider his position. And the flip-flop is....where exactly?
My word, how nasty of him to agree with an opponents ideas. Not the sort of person we want in the White House!

I could go on...and on...and on. To quote an earlier poster, plugging your ears and going LALALALALALA doesn't change the facts.
please do, it's mightily amusing for us to watch you flounder about grasping at straws the way you do.


As for McCain, here's a few of his more choice ones:
2008 McCain" “This is the same organization (Iran Revolutionary Guard) that I voted to condemn as a terrorist organization when an amendment was on the floor of the United States Senate. Senator Obama refused to vote.”
2007 McCain: Missed that vote on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment on September 26, 2007. Obama was in New Hampshire and McCain was in New York instead of being in the Senate chamber for the vote in question.

2008 McCain: "I am not for, quote, privatizing Social Security. I never have been. I never will be."
2004 McCain: "Without privatization, I don’t see how you can possibly, over time, make sure that young Americans are able to receive Social Security benefits"
2003 McCain: "As part of Social Security reform, I believe that private savings accounts are a part of it - along the lines that President Bush proposed."

2008 McCain, on the Death tax: "most great civilized countries have an income tax and an inheritance tax” and “in my judgment both should be part of our system of federal taxation"
2008 McCain: 'the estate tax is one of the most unfair tax laws on the books"

2008 McCain: "I am in favor of doing whatever’s necessary to save the Everglades."
2007 McCain, on supporting Bush's veto for $2 billion in funding for the restoration of the Everglades national park: "I believe that we should be passing a bill that will authorize legitimate, needed projects without sacrificing fiscal responsibility."

2008 McCain: Calls for the international community to target Iran for the kind of worldwide sanctions regime applied to apartheid-era South Africa.
1986 McCain: voted against sanctions on South Africa on at least six occasions.

2008 McCain, on job losses in Michegan: "I won't give false hopes that somehow we can bring back lost jobs.... it isn’t government’s job to protect buggy factories and haberdashers when cars replaced carriages and men stopped wearing hats."
2008 McCain: "I will fight for new jobs and the state won’t be left behind"

2008 McCain, on Hurrican Katrina/New Orleans: "I’ve supported every investigation and ways of finding out what caused the tragedy. I’ve been here to New Orleans. I’ve met with people on the ground."
2005/06 McCain: Twice voted against a commission to study the government’s response to Katrina; Opposed three separate emergency funding measures providing relief to Katrina victims, including the extension of five months of Medicaid benefits; Made just one public tour of New Orleans since Hurricane Katrina.

not that youre WRONG about picking someone they would like to have a beer with. that was supposedly the reason that people voted for bush over kerry even though bush is an alcoholic who wont have a beer with you.

I hated that explanation. "He's just a regular guy." Ignoring the fact that "regular guys" aren't the sons of former presidents who can get into and through Yale with the same ease most people pass preschool... do you really want a "regular guy" running the country? Do you really want your buddy at the helm of the country? I love my friends, and I'd wager many of them are far more intelligent than the current President, but there's no way I'd vote for any of them if they ran. It's kind of an IMPORTANT job. You don't want a regular person, you want an extraordinary person.

And, finally, for those criticizing women who are voting for Sarah Palin because she's a woman...I suggest you also turn your attention to those voting for Obama because of his race. As before, braying that this does not happen is absurd and hypocritical.

I don't deny that some people may vote for Obama because he's black. I don't endorse it; I think you should vote on the issues. But this isn't an episode of "You Can't Criticize Me Until Your Party Is Perfect", and the fact that people may vote for Obama because he is black has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that McCain picked a female VP just to get female votes.

It's essentially unchallengeable, if he thinks himself a Maverick, he's a Maverick.

I think of myself as a super hero. You're under citizen's arrest! Now bring me my Lamborghini.

Part 4?!?
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/1150170,gay090708.article

And here's the where the evil thrusts itself:

This, of course, was on state news last night, up here in AK, where she's mostly ... not.

Pray away the gay. That's catchy.

"Okay folks, we're going to need all your help to pray away the great evil that's plaguing this country. We need to pray for--no, no, not the war. We need to--no, not more jobs. We need--no, not global warming, or an end to genocide, or the 20% of Americans living in poverty that are children!! We need to pray for the GAYS. That Tim Gunn is ruining us with his fashion savvy and the sex he probably might have with other men behind closed doors!"