Intrade now has McCain ahead - 51%. Obama has come down quite sharply to 47%.
Interesting times.
Interesting times.
U.S. Presidential Race: Official Thread
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran are here to talk about a frustrating 2 points dropped at Crystal Palace. They then discuss the regeneration of Old Trafford. Finally, Nik is joined by special guest Michael Statham from the Football Oranje podcast - who gives us a more in depth look at our EL opposition FC Twente, and then runs through the (many) Dutch connections currently at United.
Strange article. He says Obama has the most solidly left wing voting record in history, along with a extreme stance on abortion, beyond that of most Democrats.
Then he says that Obama has never challenged his party on any issue of substance, and won't change anything. The former seems to be mostly true, but if America shifted hard left, a lot will change, and it won't be only Republicans that will be challenged.
Also, "the urgent need to establish consensus on the emotive issue of abortion" and "Politician Obama's support for abortion rights is the most extreme of any Democratic senator" are two different, not necessarily related things.
Sarah Palin shows hawkish streak in first interview
A hawkish and occasionally combative Sarah Palin warned last night she might commit US troops to a war against Russia in defence of Georgia and Ukraine in her first interview since John McCain chose her as his running mate.
Palin, who admitted last night she made her first trip outside North America last year, also said she was certain she was ready to step in for McCain as president, if the Republican nominee were to be incapacitated. She said repeatedly she would not hesitate to use all options in an international crisis or resort to force against Islamist extremists.
"I have the confidence in that readiness and knowing that you can't blink. You have to be wired in a way of being so committed to the mission, the mission that we're on, reform of this country and victory in the war, you can't blink," Palin told ABC television.
Palin's interview was carefully stage-managed to counter criticism that she lacks foreign policy experience and to deflect media scrutiny of her personal life. But her occasionally stilted answers and uncompromising view of the world could sit uneasily with American voters, weary of the war on Iraq and the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan.
In sometimes tense exchanges, Palin demonstrated a more bellicose posture towards Russia than the Bush administration during the conflict with Georgia. She also supported military action against Islamist extremists in Pakistan even without the support of the Islamabad government.
Asked whether Nato membership would commit the US to going to war on behalf of Ukraine and Georgia if they were attacked, Palin said: "Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a Nato ally. If another country is attacked, you're going to be expected to be called upon and help. What I think is that smaller democratic countries that are invaded by a large power is something for us to be vigilant against."
She advocated speeding up full Nato membership for Georgia and Ukraine despite warnings from Moscow that it views attempts to expand US influence among the former Soviet states as provocative. Russia's invasion of Georgia was "unprovoked", she said and warned that America could not allow Moscow to control vital energy supplies. "We've got to keep an eye on Russia. For Russia to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable," she said.
Last night's broadcast was the first of four programmes based on interviews with Palin conducted in her home town of Wasilla and Fairbanks both in Alaska.
The broadcasts will include footage of Palin's soldier son, Track, who was scheduled to deploy to Iraq yesterday. The Alaska governor, who touts herself as a moose-hunting, salmon-fishing, hockey mom turned political reformer, has faced a steady drip of negative stories about her record and her family including daughter Bristol, who is pregnant at 17.
Until the interviews, she had not taken questions from reporters, and at campaign rallies stuck closely to a scripted speech that is largely a distillation of her address to the party convention.
McCain's strategists are working hard to capitalise on Palin's appeal to Republican women as well as some former supporters of Hillary Clinton. Palin's instant popularity and the success of Republican effort to present her as a feminist icon, have put the Democrats off balance.
Meanwhile Barack Obama made a belated personal appeal to Bill Clinton yesterday for advice on how to mount a fightback and reverse a slide in the polls.
Talking to journalists before they began lunch, Clinton said: "I predict that Senator Obama will win and win pretty handily."
Obama added: "You can take it from the president of the United States. He knows a little something about politics."
Obama said he saw parallels between his campaign and Clinton's in 1992: a relatively unknown politician fighting the Republicans against a backdrop of an ailing economy. After the lunch, a joint statement issued on behalf of the two by Obama's team, said: "They discussed the campaign briefly, but mostly talked about how the world has changed since September 11 2001. They also spoke about what the next president can do to help make the economy work for all Americans, as it did under president Clinton."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/12/uselections2008.sarahpalin1
A hawkish and occasionally combative Sarah Palin warned last night she might commit US troops to a war against Russia in defence of Georgia and Ukraine in her first interview since John McCain chose her as his running mate.
Palin, who admitted last night she made her first trip outside North America last year, also said she was certain she was ready to step in for McCain as president, if the Republican nominee were to be incapacitated. She said repeatedly she would not hesitate to use all options in an international crisis or resort to force against Islamist extremists.
"I have the confidence in that readiness and knowing that you can't blink. You have to be wired in a way of being so committed to the mission, the mission that we're on, reform of this country and victory in the war, you can't blink," Palin told ABC television.
Palin's interview was carefully stage-managed to counter criticism that she lacks foreign policy experience and to deflect media scrutiny of her personal life. But her occasionally stilted answers and uncompromising view of the world could sit uneasily with American voters, weary of the war on Iraq and the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan.
In sometimes tense exchanges, Palin demonstrated a more bellicose posture towards Russia than the Bush administration during the conflict with Georgia. She also supported military action against Islamist extremists in Pakistan even without the support of the Islamabad government.
Asked whether Nato membership would commit the US to going to war on behalf of Ukraine and Georgia if they were attacked, Palin said: "Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a Nato ally. If another country is attacked, you're going to be expected to be called upon and help. What I think is that smaller democratic countries that are invaded by a large power is something for us to be vigilant against."
She advocated speeding up full Nato membership for Georgia and Ukraine despite warnings from Moscow that it views attempts to expand US influence among the former Soviet states as provocative. Russia's invasion of Georgia was "unprovoked", she said and warned that America could not allow Moscow to control vital energy supplies. "We've got to keep an eye on Russia. For Russia to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable," she said.
Last night's broadcast was the first of four programmes based on interviews with Palin conducted in her home town of Wasilla and Fairbanks both in Alaska.
The broadcasts will include footage of Palin's soldier son, Track, who was scheduled to deploy to Iraq yesterday. The Alaska governor, who touts herself as a moose-hunting, salmon-fishing, hockey mom turned political reformer, has faced a steady drip of negative stories about her record and her family including daughter Bristol, who is pregnant at 17.
Until the interviews, she had not taken questions from reporters, and at campaign rallies stuck closely to a scripted speech that is largely a distillation of her address to the party convention.
McCain's strategists are working hard to capitalise on Palin's appeal to Republican women as well as some former supporters of Hillary Clinton. Palin's instant popularity and the success of Republican effort to present her as a feminist icon, have put the Democrats off balance.
Meanwhile Barack Obama made a belated personal appeal to Bill Clinton yesterday for advice on how to mount a fightback and reverse a slide in the polls.
Talking to journalists before they began lunch, Clinton said: "I predict that Senator Obama will win and win pretty handily."
Obama added: "You can take it from the president of the United States. He knows a little something about politics."
Obama said he saw parallels between his campaign and Clinton's in 1992: a relatively unknown politician fighting the Republicans against a backdrop of an ailing economy. After the lunch, a joint statement issued on behalf of the two by Obama's team, said: "They discussed the campaign briefly, but mostly talked about how the world has changed since September 11 2001. They also spoke about what the next president can do to help make the economy work for all Americans, as it did under president Clinton."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/12/uselections2008.sarahpalin1
Latest odds from hills:
Obama: 4/6
McCain: 11/10
Obama out to 4/6 from 1/2 a week ago. McCain into 11/10 from 6/4 a week ago.
The good people of the United States of America are coming to their senses.
Obama: 4/6
McCain: 11/10
Obama out to 4/6 from 1/2 a week ago. McCain into 11/10 from 6/4 a week ago.
The good people of the United States of America are coming to their senses.
Simple-minded article, for the reasons Spin states, also because it assumes most voters are aware of the details of Obama's voting record and its supposed incompatability with his rhetoric, and are judging him accordingly.
It's not patronising to tell the truth about large-scale voting patterns. Most people vote on a hunch, or from some prejudice, or for superficial reasons, or for tribalistic reasons. I'm the same: I will never vote for a Tory, I just could not bring myself to, even if rationally it got to the point when I should.
Also, to get to a position of power you have to compromise yourself. The journalist knows this, yet he points to Obama's pragmatic politicking as if there's something unusual about it. Of course you have to look at candidates' voting records to get a sense of them, but it's naive to think their records always capture their fundamental principles - or lack of principles.
It's not patronising to tell the truth about large-scale voting patterns. Most people vote on a hunch, or from some prejudice, or for superficial reasons, or for tribalistic reasons. I'm the same: I will never vote for a Tory, I just could not bring myself to, even if rationally it got to the point when I should.
Also, to get to a position of power you have to compromise yourself. The journalist knows this, yet he points to Obama's pragmatic politicking as if there's something unusual about it. Of course you have to look at candidates' voting records to get a sense of them, but it's naive to think their records always capture their fundamental principles - or lack of principles.
I thought Obama was against self interest?
This doesn't sound like ''change we can believe in''.
"Change we can believe in" is rhetoric. Reality is much more messy. Doesn't mean there will be no change, or that he has no integrity.
And that's not why he's he'll lose, if lose he does.
And that's not why he's he'll lose, if lose he does.
His healthcare policy is change you can believe in. It's fairly detailed, and would move America a big step towards universal healthcare.
Sure, he talks well, but he's got plans which you can assess. Something which is less easy to say for McCain.
But McCain has a war record, and a proper american woman as his VP, and knows how to twist every meaningless thing into a massive media frenzy to avoid discussing the issues.
The debates are going to be where this election is decided.
They must have missed the bit where she said that maybe they should look more closely at the reasons for terrorism in order to confirm that they are, in fact, 100 per cent right with their foreign policies.
Put it this way...if you had right of way on a motor way or whatever, and you were suddenly challenged by an articulated lorry, do you keep going just because you have right of way?
We dont need another year of Republicans.
Obama!
Obama!
I wouldn't teach it in Science class, I'd teach it in religious class, along with the beliefs and cultures of all other major World religions. We mustn't forget that Science isn't all 100% fact either, its often a collection of accepted beliefs as well as known fact. Often we may know something, but not how and why. The 'Big Bang' theory is precisely that, a generally accepted theory even though it may actually not have been the way the universe formed. A theory that's only been about for 50 odd years or so. And yet I remember being taught it as fact during my school days. Those Scientists can be plenty slippery themselves sometimes!
Incidently, I listen to a phone in on five live late night Weds sometimes, and the number of things they taught me as 'fact' at school that actually turn out not to be is incredible! I guess you pick some things up watching QI as well where you discover we've been hoodwinked!
Americans and McCain deserve each other.
Obama is too much of a smart, forward-thinking politician for such a thick country. ( No offense of course)
Obama is too much of a smart, forward-thinking politician for such a thick country. ( No offense of course
)More like 4 years, 8 years of those warmongering rednecks is quite enough.
Americans and McCain deserve each other.
Obama is too much of a smart, forward-thinking politician for such a thick country. ( No offense of course
Obama makes a few nice speeches and all of you Euros want to give him a blow job. Cut the hagiography, please. He's a normal, everyday, self-absorbed, ambitious, self-centered political opportunist who, fortunately, is not George W. Bush. That's it. He has never walked on water, turned water to wine, healed the sick, raised the dead, or run in a political campaign where the corrupt Chicago Democratic machine didn't control the outcome. You bozos are treating him like he's the new Messiah, and Brian isn't even gone yet.
I didnt say he's a messiah and I certaintly do think he has his flaws, but still he's IMO a HUGE improvement over Bush which quite frankly has only done more bad than good and is also a more sound option than John "more or less the same" McCain and Palin (I hope they offer habitation in the moon in the future incase she gets President).
Blizzard of Lies
Did you hear about how Barack Obama wants to have sex education in kindergarten, and called Sarah Palin a pig? Did you hear about how Ms. Palin told Congress, “Thanks, but no thanks” when it wanted to buy Alaska a Bridge to Nowhere?
These stories have two things in common: they’re all claims recently made by the McCain campaign — and they’re all out-and-out lies.
Dishonesty is nothing new in politics. I spent much of 2000 — my first year at The Times — trying to alert readers to the blatant dishonesty of the Bush campaign’s claims about taxes, spending and Social Security.
But I can’t think of any precedent, at least in America, for the blizzard of lies since the Republican convention. The Bush campaign’s lies in 2000 were artful — you needed some grasp of arithmetic to realize that you were being conned. This year, however, the McCain campaign keeps making assertions that anyone with an Internet connection can disprove in a minute, and repeating these assertions over and over again.
Take the case of the Bridge to Nowhere, which supposedly gives Ms. Palin credentials as a reformer. Well, when campaigning for governor, Ms. Palin didn’t say “no thanks” — she was all for the bridge, even though it had already become a national scandal, insisting that she would “not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that’s so negative.”
Oh, and when she finally did decide to cancel the project, she didn’t righteously reject a handout from Washington: she accepted the handout, but spent it on something else. You see, long before she decided to cancel the bridge, Congress had told Alaska that it could keep the federal money originally earmarked for that project and use it elsewhere.
So the whole story of Ms. Palin’s alleged heroic stand against wasteful spending is fiction.
Or take the story of Mr. Obama’s alleged advocacy of kindergarten sex-ed. In reality, he supported legislation calling for “age and developmentally appropriate education”; in the case of young children, that would have meant guidance to help them avoid sexual predators.
And then there’s the claim that Mr. Obama’s use of the ordinary metaphor “putting lipstick on a pig” was a sexist smear, and on and on.
Why do the McCain people think they can get away with this stuff? Well, they’re probably counting on the common practice in the news media of being “balanced” at all costs. You know how it goes: If a politician says that black is white, the news report doesn’t say that he’s wrong, it reports that “some Democrats say” that he’s wrong. Or a grotesque lie from one side is paired with a trivial misstatement from the other, conveying the impression that both sides are equally dirty.
They’re probably also counting on the prevalence of horse-race reporting, so that instead of the story being “McCain campaign lies,” it becomes “Obama on defensive in face of attacks.”
Still, how upset should we be about the McCain campaign’s lies? I mean, politics ain’t beanbag, and all that.
One answer is that the muck being hurled by the McCain campaign is preventing a debate on real issues — on whether the country really wants, for example, to continue the economic policies of the last eight years.
But there’s another answer, which may be even more important: how a politician campaigns tells you a lot about how he or she would govern.
I’m not talking about the theory, often advanced as a defense of horse-race political reporting, that the skills needed to run a winning campaign are the same as those needed to run the country. The contrast between the Bush political team’s ruthless effectiveness and the heckuva job done by the Bush administration is living, breathing, bumbling, and, in the case of the emerging Interior Department scandal, coke-snorting and bed-hopping proof to the contrary.
I’m talking, instead, about the relationship between the character of a campaign and that of the administration that follows. Thus, the deceptive and dishonest 2000 Bush-Cheney campaign provided an all-too-revealing preview of things to come. In fact, my early suspicion that we were being misled about the threat from Iraq came from the way the political tactics being used to sell the war resembled the tactics that had earlier been used to sell the Bush tax cuts.
And now the team that hopes to form the next administration is running a campaign that makes Bush-Cheney 2000 look like something out of a civics class. What does that say about how that team would run the country?
What it says, I’d argue, is that the Obama campaign is wrong to suggest that a McCain-Palin administration would just be a continuation of Bush-Cheney. If the way John McCain and Sarah Palin are campaigning is any indication, it would be much, much worse.
Did you hear about how Barack Obama wants to have sex education in kindergarten, and called Sarah Palin a pig? Did you hear about how Ms. Palin told Congress, “Thanks, but no thanks” when it wanted to buy Alaska a Bridge to Nowhere?
These stories have two things in common: they’re all claims recently made by the McCain campaign — and they’re all out-and-out lies.
Dishonesty is nothing new in politics. I spent much of 2000 — my first year at The Times — trying to alert readers to the blatant dishonesty of the Bush campaign’s claims about taxes, spending and Social Security.
But I can’t think of any precedent, at least in America, for the blizzard of lies since the Republican convention. The Bush campaign’s lies in 2000 were artful — you needed some grasp of arithmetic to realize that you were being conned. This year, however, the McCain campaign keeps making assertions that anyone with an Internet connection can disprove in a minute, and repeating these assertions over and over again.
Take the case of the Bridge to Nowhere, which supposedly gives Ms. Palin credentials as a reformer. Well, when campaigning for governor, Ms. Palin didn’t say “no thanks” — she was all for the bridge, even though it had already become a national scandal, insisting that she would “not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that’s so negative.”
Oh, and when she finally did decide to cancel the project, she didn’t righteously reject a handout from Washington: she accepted the handout, but spent it on something else. You see, long before she decided to cancel the bridge, Congress had told Alaska that it could keep the federal money originally earmarked for that project and use it elsewhere.
So the whole story of Ms. Palin’s alleged heroic stand against wasteful spending is fiction.
Or take the story of Mr. Obama’s alleged advocacy of kindergarten sex-ed. In reality, he supported legislation calling for “age and developmentally appropriate education”; in the case of young children, that would have meant guidance to help them avoid sexual predators.
And then there’s the claim that Mr. Obama’s use of the ordinary metaphor “putting lipstick on a pig” was a sexist smear, and on and on.
Why do the McCain people think they can get away with this stuff? Well, they’re probably counting on the common practice in the news media of being “balanced” at all costs. You know how it goes: If a politician says that black is white, the news report doesn’t say that he’s wrong, it reports that “some Democrats say” that he’s wrong. Or a grotesque lie from one side is paired with a trivial misstatement from the other, conveying the impression that both sides are equally dirty.
They’re probably also counting on the prevalence of horse-race reporting, so that instead of the story being “McCain campaign lies,” it becomes “Obama on defensive in face of attacks.”
Still, how upset should we be about the McCain campaign’s lies? I mean, politics ain’t beanbag, and all that.
One answer is that the muck being hurled by the McCain campaign is preventing a debate on real issues — on whether the country really wants, for example, to continue the economic policies of the last eight years.
But there’s another answer, which may be even more important: how a politician campaigns tells you a lot about how he or she would govern.
I’m not talking about the theory, often advanced as a defense of horse-race political reporting, that the skills needed to run a winning campaign are the same as those needed to run the country. The contrast between the Bush political team’s ruthless effectiveness and the heckuva job done by the Bush administration is living, breathing, bumbling, and, in the case of the emerging Interior Department scandal, coke-snorting and bed-hopping proof to the contrary.
I’m talking, instead, about the relationship between the character of a campaign and that of the administration that follows. Thus, the deceptive and dishonest 2000 Bush-Cheney campaign provided an all-too-revealing preview of things to come. In fact, my early suspicion that we were being misled about the threat from Iraq came from the way the political tactics being used to sell the war resembled the tactics that had earlier been used to sell the Bush tax cuts.
And now the team that hopes to form the next administration is running a campaign that makes Bush-Cheney 2000 look like something out of a civics class. What does that say about how that team would run the country?
What it says, I’d argue, is that the Obama campaign is wrong to suggest that a McCain-Palin administration would just be a continuation of Bush-Cheney. If the way John McCain and Sarah Palin are campaigning is any indication, it would be much, much worse.
Never have there been truer words layed before us...
Here's to holding politicians to the flame of truth!
Anybody who can't believe that Obama could lose obviously has no grasp of the electoral map. He could easily lose this and if he wins, it will be a close call.
bollocks FB....who is the self centered candidate here? Country First?...he nominates a brainless joke....I mean the guy is not all that well for chrisake...and this bimbo could actually end up being President...she make Bush look like a genius.....
On policies...what does McCain offer the country...zero health care....in fact he wants to tax benefits...and the same failed Bush tax plans...yeah drive the country into recession....and he does feck all for education...Obama actually wants an educated population...the tuition credit in exchange for community service or even in the forces...
of course Obama inspires people with his speeches....so did JFK...who inspired an entire generation to service of the nation...
Country first my ass...McCain is the selfish politician who knows feck all about the economy...and he has a moron by his side now...
the elction will be close...because of the race factor...plain and simple....but Obama has a great voter registration machine....
I'm amazed that being a good orator can be held against someone.
only in the world of the Republicans...they want low information voters....the more uneducated the better....then they can talk about guns and gays....and get themselves elected....
pretty soon we will be well behind most developed nation.....and we wont even have a decent enough armed forces to defend ourselves....
Christ....to think of what that motherfecker Bush has done to this country and what McCain is promising to do.....
eveen Toobin on CNN...who has also been one of those MSM clowns not challenging McCain...finally lost it...he down right said McCain lies....
the debates will be crucial...we'll see if McCain can talk about just him being POW and get away with it....
'policies??? feck all....hey but I am a war hero....so bend over.....'
All four of the politicians on the slate are self-centered, comes with the territory. My point was that Obama hasn't really done much yet, but people on this site are treating him like the greatest statesman in the history of Western Civilization. Let's get the race for the White House back into perspective, Obama's not great, or even particularly good, but might be the least repugnant choice of a rather uninspired litter.
Spot on.
missed the point.....
Policies...polices....what is McCain running on....I'm never said Obama was a saint...heck I dont want a saint.....he is no Gandhi...Gandhi was a great civil rights leader...but an awful politician.....
Obama wants to be held accountable....and wants to involve ordinary people in his policies....total transparency in his negotiating with the insurance and drug companies.......look at the cretins McCain has around him...every one of those pieces of shit is responsible for one sector of the mess we have in this country....and he is going to reform Washington?...give me a break....
McCain wants the presidency as a prize for being in a POW camp....Yes he served his country.....but many more have served...as well if not more so...and many also never came back.....imo we need to honor him for that service....but we dont owe him our vote....simply his judgment is suspect at best.....his judgment in siding with an idiot by going to war.....a war from which 4,000 wont be coming back from..by selecting a buffoon...as his VP.....
but with every lie....he tarnishes the flag he claims to honor.....
I would stack Obama's accomplishments of community service, education...the guy was Harvard Law President, intelligence and just being clear thinking and calm against someone who knows nothing about the economy, gets rattled and loses his temper....and worse of all is willing to throw aboard the one thing he claims to be his asset...that of being a 'maverick'...he has now gone against every law he helped pass......McCain 2000 would spit on the soul of McCain 2008......
this goes to the core of the argument.....can you trust someone who has betrayed himself over and over again to put his personal interest ahead of that of his country? OK never mind...lets just say he changed his mind on policy....and I use that word lightly in reference to McCain...because he has none.....other than we owe him the Presidency because he was a POW....
the very political act of him selecting a total incompetent as his VP shows his disdain for his Country....
McCain First would be an apt slogan....
..and please stop putting words in the mouths of posters here to further your argument......I did not read anyone saying Obama was the greatest Western Statesmen ever....many all over the world and in the states have been inspired by him...so whats wrong with that...I know many people who are going to vote for the first time after many years....as he says...its not about him...its about US...just as a generation that was inspired by President Kennedy,Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. to go into public service were inspired to that for the benefit of others....
...anyway...I live in Hope.....this time We can make a difference......
Gov. Palin’s Worldview
As we watched Sarah Palin on TV the last couple of days, we kept wondering what on earth John McCain was thinking.
If he seriously thought this first-term governor — with less than two years in office — was qualified to be president, if necessary, at such a dangerous time, it raises profound questions about his judgment. If the choice was, as we suspect, a tactical move, then it was shockingly irresponsible.
It was bad enough that Ms. Palin’s performance in the first televised interviews she has done since she joined the Republican ticket was so visibly scripted and lacking in awareness.
What made it so much worse is the strategy for which the Republicans have made Ms. Palin the frontwoman: win the White House not on ideas, but by denigrating experience, judgment and qualifications.
The idea that Americans want leaders who have none of those things — who are so blindly certain of what Ms. Palin calls “the mission” that they won’t even pause for reflection — shows a contempt for voters and raises frightening questions about how Mr. McCain and Ms. Palin plan to run this country.
One of the many bizarre moments in the questioning by ABC News’s Charles Gibson was when Ms. Palin, the governor of Alaska, excused her lack of international experience by sneering that Americans don’t want “somebody’s big fat résumé maybe that shows decades and decades in that Washington establishment where, yes, they’ve had opportunities to meet heads of state.”
We know we were all supposed to think of Joe Biden. But it sure sounded like a good description of Mr. McCain. Those decades of experience earned the Arizona senator the admiration of people in both parties. They are why he was our preferred candidate in the Republican primaries.
The interviews made clear why Americans should worry about Ms. Palin’s thin résumé and lack of experience. Consider her befuddlement when Mr. Gibson referred to President Bush’s “doctrine” and her remark about having insight into Russia because she can see it from her state.
But that is not what troubled us most about her remarks — and, remember, if they were scripted, that just means that they reflect Mr. McCain’s views all the more closely. Rather, it was the sense that thoughtfulness, knowledge and experience are handicaps for a president in a world populated by Al Qaeda terrorists, a rising China, epidemics of AIDS, poverty and fratricidal war in the developing world and deep economic distress at home.
Ms. Palin talked repeatedly about never blinking. When Mr. McCain asked her to run for vice president? “You have to be wired in a way of being so committed to the mission,” she said, that “you can’t blink.”
Fighting terrorism? “We must do whatever it takes, and we must not blink, Charlie, in making those tough decisions of where we go and even who we target.”
Her answers about why she had told her church that President Bush’s failed policy in Iraq was “God’s plan” did nothing to dispel our concerns about her confusion between faith and policy. Her claim that she was quoting a completely unrelated comment by Lincoln was absurd.
This nation has suffered through eight years of an ill-prepared and unblinkingly obstinate president. One who didn’t pause to think before he started a disastrous war of choice in Iraq. One who blithely looked the other way as the Taliban and Al Qaeda regrouped in Afghanistan. One who obstinately cut taxes and undercut all efforts at regulation, unleashing today’s profound economic crisis.
In a dangerous world, Americans need a president who knows that real strength requires serious thought and preparation.
As we watched Sarah Palin on TV the last couple of days, we kept wondering what on earth John McCain was thinking.
If he seriously thought this first-term governor — with less than two years in office — was qualified to be president, if necessary, at such a dangerous time, it raises profound questions about his judgment. If the choice was, as we suspect, a tactical move, then it was shockingly irresponsible.
It was bad enough that Ms. Palin’s performance in the first televised interviews she has done since she joined the Republican ticket was so visibly scripted and lacking in awareness.
What made it so much worse is the strategy for which the Republicans have made Ms. Palin the frontwoman: win the White House not on ideas, but by denigrating experience, judgment and qualifications.
The idea that Americans want leaders who have none of those things — who are so blindly certain of what Ms. Palin calls “the mission” that they won’t even pause for reflection — shows a contempt for voters and raises frightening questions about how Mr. McCain and Ms. Palin plan to run this country.
One of the many bizarre moments in the questioning by ABC News’s Charles Gibson was when Ms. Palin, the governor of Alaska, excused her lack of international experience by sneering that Americans don’t want “somebody’s big fat résumé maybe that shows decades and decades in that Washington establishment where, yes, they’ve had opportunities to meet heads of state.”
We know we were all supposed to think of Joe Biden. But it sure sounded like a good description of Mr. McCain. Those decades of experience earned the Arizona senator the admiration of people in both parties. They are why he was our preferred candidate in the Republican primaries.
The interviews made clear why Americans should worry about Ms. Palin’s thin résumé and lack of experience. Consider her befuddlement when Mr. Gibson referred to President Bush’s “doctrine” and her remark about having insight into Russia because she can see it from her state.
But that is not what troubled us most about her remarks — and, remember, if they were scripted, that just means that they reflect Mr. McCain’s views all the more closely. Rather, it was the sense that thoughtfulness, knowledge and experience are handicaps for a president in a world populated by Al Qaeda terrorists, a rising China, epidemics of AIDS, poverty and fratricidal war in the developing world and deep economic distress at home.
Ms. Palin talked repeatedly about never blinking. When Mr. McCain asked her to run for vice president? “You have to be wired in a way of being so committed to the mission,” she said, that “you can’t blink.”
Fighting terrorism? “We must do whatever it takes, and we must not blink, Charlie, in making those tough decisions of where we go and even who we target.”
Her answers about why she had told her church that President Bush’s failed policy in Iraq was “God’s plan” did nothing to dispel our concerns about her confusion between faith and policy. Her claim that she was quoting a completely unrelated comment by Lincoln was absurd.
This nation has suffered through eight years of an ill-prepared and unblinkingly obstinate president. One who didn’t pause to think before he started a disastrous war of choice in Iraq. One who blithely looked the other way as the Taliban and Al Qaeda regrouped in Afghanistan. One who obstinately cut taxes and undercut all efforts at regulation, unleashing today’s profound economic crisis.
In a dangerous world, Americans need a president who knows that real strength requires serious thought and preparation.
She’s Not Ready
While watching the Sarah Palin interview with Charlie Gibson Thursday night, and the coverage of the Palin phenomenon in general, I’ve gotten the scary feeling, for the first time in my life, that dimwittedness is not just on the march in the U.S., but that it might actually prevail.
How is it that this woman could have been selected to be the vice presidential candidate on a major party ticket? How is it that so much of the mainstream media has dropped all pretense of seriousness to hop aboard the bandwagon and go along for the giddy ride?
For those who haven’t noticed, we’re electing a president and vice president, not selecting a winner on “American Idol.”
Ms. Palin may be a perfectly competent and reasonably intelligent woman (however troubling her views on evolution and global warming may be), but she is not ready to be vice president.
With most candidates for high public office, the question is whether one agrees with them on the major issues of the day. With Ms. Palin, it’s not about agreeing or disagreeing. She doesn’t appear to understand some of the most important issues.
“Do you believe in the Bush doctrine?” Mr. Gibson asked during the interview. Ms. Palin looked like an unprepared student who wanted nothing so much as to escape this encounter with the school principal.
Clueless, she asked, “In what respect, Charlie?”
“Well, what do you interpret it to be?” said Mr. Gibson.
“His worldview?” asked Ms. Palin.
Later, in the spin zones of cable TV, commentators repeatedly made the point that there are probably very few voters — some specifically mentioned “hockey moms” — who could explain the Bush doctrine. But that’s exactly the reason we have such long and intense campaigns. You want to find the individuals who best understand these issues, who will address them in sophisticated and creative ways that enhance the well-being of the nation.
The Bush doctrine, which flung open the doors to the catastrophe in Iraq, was such a fundamental aspect of the administration’s foreign policy that it staggers the imagination that we could have someone no further than a whisper away from the White House who doesn’t even know what it is.
You can’t imagine that John McCain or Barack Obama or Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton or Joe Lieberman would not know what the Bush doctrine is. But Sarah Palin? Absolutely clueless.
Ms. Palin’s problem is not that she was mayor of a small town or has only been in the Alaska governor’s office a short while. Her problem (and now ours) is that she is not well versed on the critical matters confronting the country at one of the most crucial turning points in its history.
The economy is in a tailspin. The financial sector is lurching about on rubbery legs. We’re mired in self-defeating energy policies. We’re at war. And we are still vulnerable to the very real threat of international terrorism.
With all of that and more being the case, how can it be a good idea to set in motion the possibility that Americans might wake up one morning to find that Sarah Palin is president?
I feel for Ms. Palin’s son who has been shipped off to the war in Iraq. But at his deployment ceremony, which was on the same day as the Charlie Gibson interview, Sept. 11, she told the audience of soldiers that they would be fighting “the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans.”
Was she deliberately falsifying history, or does she still not know that Iraq and Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the Sept. 11 attacks?
To burnish the foreign policy credentials of a vice presidential candidate who never even had a passport until last year, the Republicans have been touting Alaska’s proximity to Russia. (Imagine the derisive laughter in conservative circles if the Democrats had tried such nonsense.) So Mr. Gibson asked Ms. Palin, “What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?”
She said, “They’re our next-door neighbors. And you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska. From an island in Alaska.”
Mr. Gibson tried again. “But what insight does that give you,” he asked, “into what they’re doing in Georgia?”
John McCain, who is shameless about promoting himself as America’s ultimate patriot, put the best interests of the nation aside in making his incredibly reckless choice of a running mate. But there is a profound double standard in this country. The likes of John McCain and George W. Bush can do the craziest, most irresponsible things imaginable, and it only seems to help them politically.
While watching the Sarah Palin interview with Charlie Gibson Thursday night, and the coverage of the Palin phenomenon in general, I’ve gotten the scary feeling, for the first time in my life, that dimwittedness is not just on the march in the U.S., but that it might actually prevail.
How is it that this woman could have been selected to be the vice presidential candidate on a major party ticket? How is it that so much of the mainstream media has dropped all pretense of seriousness to hop aboard the bandwagon and go along for the giddy ride?
For those who haven’t noticed, we’re electing a president and vice president, not selecting a winner on “American Idol.”
Ms. Palin may be a perfectly competent and reasonably intelligent woman (however troubling her views on evolution and global warming may be), but she is not ready to be vice president.
With most candidates for high public office, the question is whether one agrees with them on the major issues of the day. With Ms. Palin, it’s not about agreeing or disagreeing. She doesn’t appear to understand some of the most important issues.
“Do you believe in the Bush doctrine?” Mr. Gibson asked during the interview. Ms. Palin looked like an unprepared student who wanted nothing so much as to escape this encounter with the school principal.
Clueless, she asked, “In what respect, Charlie?”
“Well, what do you interpret it to be?” said Mr. Gibson.
“His worldview?” asked Ms. Palin.
Later, in the spin zones of cable TV, commentators repeatedly made the point that there are probably very few voters — some specifically mentioned “hockey moms” — who could explain the Bush doctrine. But that’s exactly the reason we have such long and intense campaigns. You want to find the individuals who best understand these issues, who will address them in sophisticated and creative ways that enhance the well-being of the nation.
The Bush doctrine, which flung open the doors to the catastrophe in Iraq, was such a fundamental aspect of the administration’s foreign policy that it staggers the imagination that we could have someone no further than a whisper away from the White House who doesn’t even know what it is.
You can’t imagine that John McCain or Barack Obama or Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton or Joe Lieberman would not know what the Bush doctrine is. But Sarah Palin? Absolutely clueless.
Ms. Palin’s problem is not that she was mayor of a small town or has only been in the Alaska governor’s office a short while. Her problem (and now ours) is that she is not well versed on the critical matters confronting the country at one of the most crucial turning points in its history.
The economy is in a tailspin. The financial sector is lurching about on rubbery legs. We’re mired in self-defeating energy policies. We’re at war. And we are still vulnerable to the very real threat of international terrorism.
With all of that and more being the case, how can it be a good idea to set in motion the possibility that Americans might wake up one morning to find that Sarah Palin is president?
I feel for Ms. Palin’s son who has been shipped off to the war in Iraq. But at his deployment ceremony, which was on the same day as the Charlie Gibson interview, Sept. 11, she told the audience of soldiers that they would be fighting “the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans.”
Was she deliberately falsifying history, or does she still not know that Iraq and Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the Sept. 11 attacks?
To burnish the foreign policy credentials of a vice presidential candidate who never even had a passport until last year, the Republicans have been touting Alaska’s proximity to Russia. (Imagine the derisive laughter in conservative circles if the Democrats had tried such nonsense.) So Mr. Gibson asked Ms. Palin, “What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?”
She said, “They’re our next-door neighbors. And you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska. From an island in Alaska.”
Mr. Gibson tried again. “But what insight does that give you,” he asked, “into what they’re doing in Georgia?”
John McCain, who is shameless about promoting himself as America’s ultimate patriot, put the best interests of the nation aside in making his incredibly reckless choice of a running mate. But there is a profound double standard in this country. The likes of John McCain and George W. Bush can do the craziest, most irresponsible things imaginable, and it only seems to help them politically.
The problem I foresee is that continuing to ask her questions she can't answer will not make the public see her as incompetent, but rather as a victim of Democrat attacks.
We could end up with her attracting voters as the underdog. The average Jane Public who doesn't necessarily know everything, but knows she loves her gun, god and country, and will fight those nasty Iraqis (who apparently attacked the WTC) and Commie Soviets at every turn.
Sounds like a vote winner to me.
Edit : Just read this
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/u...&hp&adxnnlx=1221393778-gvxpIB PV6vPSYzFFgNopg
Some interesting, and sometimes disturbing stuff about Palin's record.
We could end up with her attracting voters as the underdog. The average Jane Public who doesn't necessarily know everything, but knows she loves her gun, god and country, and will fight those nasty Iraqis (who apparently attacked the WTC) and Commie Soviets at every turn.
Sounds like a vote winner to me.
Edit : Just read this
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/u...&hp&adxnnlx=1221393778-gvxpIB PV6vPSYzFFgNopg
Some interesting, and sometimes disturbing stuff about Palin's record.
Palin has a communication degree....half the cafe would ace that paper...I certainly could do that asleep in my class...
and McCain came 494 out of 498 or something in his class...
compare that with Obama and Biden who are both lawyers...as were most Presidents.....
and McCain came 494 out of 498 or something in his class...
compare that with Obama and Biden who are both lawyers...as were most Presidents.....
McCain will win. It will be quite some turnaround too. Can't see Obama getting the votes.
I saw McCain on a CNN interview about service and thought he came across well. Palin is worrying though. And something feels wrong about rewarding the republicans with another term after the sheer disaster of Bush. But not convinced about Obama either.
Well if McCain gets in he will not be able to do a lot as Democrats will control both Houses from the sound of things.
Personally I don't think wither candidate will make a good President, not in today's volatile economic and political climate. That said, and mainly because of the choice of Palin as Republican VP, I would prefer Obama.
Personally I don't think wither candidate will make a good President, not in today's volatile economic and political climate. That said, and mainly because of the choice of Palin as Republican VP, I would prefer Obama.
It would be an amazing howler by Democrats to lose this election. They really ought to have held Obama off for his turn in 4 or 8 years.
43% of Americans think Iraq was responsible for 9/11.
For that reason alone John McCain would win. Sadly the US people don't seem to have grown out of their "more guns, less gays" mentality.
And some American women really are very stupid, even the frickin female senators only justify supporting Adolf Palin simply because she has a vagina, ignoring her actual political positions:
For that reason alone John McCain would win. Sadly the US people don't seem to have grown out of their "more guns, less gays" mentality.
And some American women really are very stupid, even the frickin female senators only justify supporting Adolf Palin simply because she has a vagina, ignoring her actual political positions:
Hillary Clinton had every opportunity to win the primaries...even with her name recognition and political machine she failed...Obama won fairly....and smartly no one could have held him back...
sure the polls show the enthusiasm for McCain with his pick of a brainless hockey mom...which I am ashamed to say reflects the stupidity of half this country....who are probably even less educated than her pregnant idiot of a daughter....
the key to who wins...will be two things....the debates and new voter registration...the polls reflect past voter rolls and ignores new voters registered and cell phones....young voters....
...and a key point the three western states of Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico are not showing the convention/Palin bounce which is already beginning to go down.....The Dems lost all three states in 2004...thats 19 electrol votes....
Obama can afford to lose Ohio and still win handily....
but it will be close....because the country is split down the middle....
it may be a factor but in the end it will be something much worse. In these times with our economy crumbling the obvious choice is to go with the democrats. Obama has the plan but we dont hear about it because we are drowning in the smearing campaign for the republicans. He survived it against hillary but in the end he may not against the Republicans.
Along with the smears and the "way out" offered to fence sitting whites in this country (Palin) it is clear this race could be lost and if that happens we in this country deserve it.
And that mate is possibly the most frustrating of all. I honestly think that people like them more because they are idiots. Frankly its shocking. We impeach a president for lying about a personal issue (i did not have sexual relations with that women) but Bush Cheney have sold us out and destroyed our economy in the process. And please i dont want to hear that the dems took over in 06. This was on the republicans watch.
You might be right that the Americans deserve such a president and the consequences if they let themselves blind by McCain and Palin. On the other hand, we Europeans suffer as well if the American economy is crumbling
Some comic relief to distract us from Escobar's harshly anti-American sentiments...
Tina Fey, formerly of SNL doing a perfect Palin:
Tina Fey, formerly of SNL doing a perfect Palin: