Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course Hillary and Obama are essentially the same candidate ideologically speaking, but I'm a diehard HRC supporter and I'm still bitter, frankly. I don't get the Biden choice. Toward the end, I wasn't naive enough to believe Clinton would be the VP pick. But really --at least half the democratic electorate supported her. I think it's hugely arrogant and wrongheaded of the Obama camp NOT to choose HRC. If we'd had revotes in Mich. and Fla., she'd be our nominee. And I think people will have voter's remorse after they see the number the GOP plays on our democratic ticket.

The democratic party was held hostage by these young voters, ultra-liberals and the "change" mobs and they've given us a candidate who CAN'T WIN in November. The Bubbas, the factory workers and the truck stop waitresses aren't going to vote for Obama. The left seems to think that they can shame these people (you're racists!) into voting for him. You can't. I want a democratic candidate who can win. Trying to educate and enlighten some blue-collar joe six-pack in a swing state somewhere ain't gonna work.

The blatant sexism of it also sickens me. The "sweetie" remark to the female reporter; the "likeable enough" remark; and that stupid hip-hop brush-off thing Obama did. I'm disguested. Biden is a hotheaded windbag whose off-the-cuff remarks and lack of message discipline (and he's no Bill Clinton who can get away with that) will be the death of their candidacy.

I can't pull the lever for McCain so maybe I'll sit this one out.

I'm with you. There are quite a few of us who feel a bit disenfranchised and I really can't apologize for that. I have no intention of voting for McCain and no intention of voting for Obama. This is a no win for me.

Forgive me for saying it, and I don't mean to be disrespectful, but you two sound like the kid who says "If I can't be captain, I'm taking my ball and going home!"

I admit that it was a struggle for me not to swear that I would never vote for HRC after the stuff her campaign pulled against Obama. I did not even start out as a big supporter of his, but I leaned that way, and the campaign pushed me further. I think it's just human nature to exaggerate the sins of the opposition.

My theory is that tribalism is one of the most harmful of human instincts, whether it is literally between tribes, between families, between sects, between religions, or between countries. Tribalism between supporters of two candidates who stand for the same policies seems particularly weird.

Anonymous wrote:I just think it is insanely stupid to go and whack off some part of someone's body, when giving them proper information and tools, is all that is needed.

I guess you'd say it's a wacky whacky policy?

Anonymous wrote:McCain was being tongue and cheek about five million being wealthy and even said he was sure the Obama people would make something of it and of course they did. Who cares how many homes or condos someone has. The reality was that he might have been confused because some were investment properties and his wife (who is really wealthy) may have had additional real estate as part of her trust. I loved the McCain response that Obama who bought a house with help from a soon to be felon shouldn't go there. Not to mention that Obama himself is rich and good for him on that-wealth is a good thing and not something to be embarrassed about.

I think the don't-throw-bricks-if-you-live-in-a-glass-house argument applies much more to McCain, who fired first. The ad works because it fits in with the argument that Republicans measure the economy by how the corporations and the wealthy are affected. The criterion the press uses for the ads is effectiveness, not purity, so I doubt Obama will go back to purely positive campaigning, even if some of us like purity.

By the way, forgive me for nitpicking, but that's "tongue in cheek".

Speaking of McCain's houses, the two blogs by Josh Marshall at http://talkingpointsmemo.com/ are fun reading on the difficulty of counting houses.

Anonymous wrote:It is an Obama ad, I believe, Rich. Everyone I know in the MSM is reporting it as one, and marveling at the swift response. It's aimed at McCain not being able to remember how many houses he owns in a conversation with Politico staff yesterday.

I saw the Obama ad after I saw the one I was referring to, which is much longer and more detailed than the Obama spot.
Here is the Obama ad:
http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=vpmFd25tRqo&rel=1&eurl=&iurl=http%3A//i3.ytimg.com/vi/vpmFd25tRqo/default.jpg&t=OEgsToPDskKWfwfu7ypfaNfHKk8TNwlG&use_get_video_info=1&load_modules=1&fs=1&hl=en
The one I was referring to is this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ek3jAkx9m10

Ironic that the longer video has the shorter URL!

In case you have not seen this atack on McCain's wealth:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ek3jAkx9m10

I admit that if he were my candidate, I'd say it's irrelevant, but considering the stupid things the McCain campaign has attacked Obama for, I'd say it's a reasonable counterpunch. But it's not from the Obama campaign, so I wonder if the MSM will pick it up the way they did the Paris/Britney ad.

Does it seem out of bounds to the McCain supporters on this list?

Anonymous wrote:Rich, did you read Jeffrey Toobin's book, The Nine? Fascinating discussion of how the Court worked to give us Governor Bush. Souter almost resigned, he was in such despair over the process and the blatant partisanship involved.

Although I'm not a believer, at the thought of Souter being replaced by a Bush appointment I admit that an involuntary "Thank God he stayed!" escaped my lips. I guess, to paraphrase an old saying, there are no atheists in the face of a Scalia majority.

Anonymous wrote:I think the separation of church and state is rather important. Democrats are usually outraged when theology makes it way onto the bench, as in the case of Antonin Scalia, or when it makes its way into the White House. I'm surprised no one here seems to agree with Parker that ". . . setting up the two presidential candidates for religious interrogation by an evangelical minister -- no matter how beloved -- is supremely wrong."

Kathleen Parker's full piece is here:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/purposedriven_politics.html

I agree on the importance of separation of Church and State. However, for a candidate to give any group of voters, be they a union, a veterans's group, a synagogue, mosque, or church, the respect of an appearance does not bother me. If Lieberman were running, I don't think he would have hesitated to go into that same setting and explain his beliefs as a Jew. And I hope that an agnostic or atheist would have been invited and treated with respect if one of us were running.

I wish I were running so I could play the godless card!

Anonymous wrote:I think OP confused "elected delegates" with presidential electors. The electoral college decides the president. Thus Gore won the popular vote in 2000 but not the presidency. Had the Supreme Court not halted recounts in Florida, the outcome of 2000 might well have been different. Thanks SO much, Supreme Court.

The Constitution does not even say that people elect the electors. The Florida legislature had the power to choose electors, and had every intention of overriding the Florida popular vote if Gore had succeeded in turning it around. Where things would have gone from there might be a good premise for a political thriller.

Since we have already had comments on the Saddleback event under the HRC thread, I think it's time to give it its own thread.

Clearly Obama tried to spin his positions to mollify his audience. However, I think that by making a point of reminding them where he differs, he managed to avoid pandering.

For example, I am not terribly happy with his view on marriage, but favoring civil unions at least keeps him from being an enemy of gays (IMHO). And, while it would certainly have been gutsier to say that fetuses are not people when they have 2, 16, or a few hundred cells, I think the "pay grade" comment was actually a reasonable (if too cute) way of saying that drawing the line is a complex question that neither theologians nor scientists are likely to agree on among themselves, let alone with each other.

McCain, on the other hand, was 100% with his audience -- no hesitation, no nuance.

On the Supreme Court question, Obama again gave a more complex answer, naming different factors about Thomas, Scalia, and Roberts that give him pause, whereas McCain just named the four "liberal" justices and said he would not appoint anything but "strict-constructionists". Given that his "strict constructionists" recently reconstructed the meaning of the second amendment, I hope we can all accept that "strict construction" is, at least in part, a euphemism for construing the Constitution strictly the same way he does.

I don't mean to say Obama won. My point is that we got a good chance to see two very different approaches. On the one hand (McCain), the morally certain, "I know what's right and that's what I'll do" approach, and on the other (Obama), the nuanced, "I have to work out the details on this" approach. I think these approaches are independent of political leaning, and while they could be characterized as McCain = Reagan, Obama = Carter, you could also perhaps say McCain = G W Bush, Obama = G H W Bush.

Personally I am more comfortable with the nuanced approach, but I'm not sure I would feel the same if the nuanced one were the conservative and the shoot-from-the-hip guy the liberal.

I don't live in VA, but I feel I have to reply to the last two comments.

I agree that the "likable enough" comment was dumb. But I don't think there is a politician (or anyone else) alive who has not made a dumb remark now and then. I don't believe you - 20:54 - are really going to base your vote on that. Saying it to get your anger out is reasonable though.

As for experience, I'm sure you - 20:48 - have seen the response: A law degree from Harvard, Law Review, community organizer, state and federal legislatures. It's not naval service and House and Senate for thirty years (or however long McCain has been around), but it brings a different perspective, whereas military and/or Senate experience are never in short supply in any administration.

I can understand voting for McCain because you're more comfortable with his policies, or even your gut reaction to him as a human being. But I hope neither of you will really decide your vote based on some sound-bite criticism of Obama.

Anonymous wrote:tanks

You're velcome!

[Sorry, couldn't resist.]

Anonymous wrote:... Also, an IQ test would be in order.

There is an old saying that the brain does not work very well when the blood is flowing elsewhere.