2008 Presidental Election: Obama v McCain
Comments
-
SevenOneEighty wrote: If you are not looking at the many polls to gauge a candidates NATIONAL status with respect to voters, what are you using?
I'm looking at the polls that have almost always shown Obama with a 3-5 point lead. What are you looking at? Polls from 2 weeks ago when Obama was on vacation? I like how you still call this a dead heat even though McCain has never held a lead for any period of time.
Close? Yes. Dead heat? hahaha.SevenOneEighty wrote: Asking local friends and associates isn't going to tell you anything if all of your friends think like you...a classic error (remember 1988, 2000, 2004...) these were happy times in NYC - before the election results.
Strawman. I'm not doing any of this, but you think Democrats are delusional and so you call me delusional. You're not actually refuting any of my arguments.SevenOneEighty wrote: People were so convinced the democrats were going to win...
I've detailed extensively why I think this election favors Democrats. You pretty much haven't refuted any of my actual points.NY is going democratic in 2008, so don't bother.
It's not Obama vs Clinton anymore, is it?
My concern (and your concern) is Ohio, W. Virginia, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Arkansas, Texas, Florida, etc.; these states will decide the election.
These are states were Barrack did NOT win against Hillary.Pessimism? No, I am acknowledging Obama has some work to do.
For the 100th time, he's given lots of details in speeches and policy papers and press releases. It's empty analysis like yours that claims he hasn't "filled in the blanks".
He needs to start answering some " fill in the blank" questions about his plans about "change".The debates and town hall meetings will be very interesting.
Still stuck with the soundbites, huh?
I fear Obama will be busted when he will finally be forced to answer a direct question. He got off easy against Hillary because she couldn't criticize him too much - they were so similar and she couldn't bloody him up too much. The slick "above my pay grade" answer in Saddleback will lose him votes, no doubt. Dude, you want to be president...Obama supporters are too emotional about him and I also fear what will happen if he loses. Some folks are going to need grief counseling and therapy. You have to keep your feet firmly planted on the ground about these things and that has always been the major weakness of he Democratic party.
You can't debate the points, you can only build mythical strawmen.
Pride come before a fall. -
FLASHBACK:
Polls are typically within a margin of error of 3 points minimum...
Dukakis Lead Widens, According to New Poll
Published: July 26, 1988
LEAD: In the aftermath of the Democratic National Convention, the party's nominee, Michael S. Dukakis, has expanded his lead among registered voters over Vice President Bush, the probable Republican nominee, according to a Gallup Poll.
In the aftermath of the Democratic National Convention, the party's nominee, Michael S. Dukakis, has expanded his lead among registered voters over Vice President Bush, the probable Republican nominee, according to a Gallup Poll.
This was among the findings of a national public opinion poll of 948 registered voters conducted late last week for Newsweek magazine by the Gallup Organization. The telephone interviews took place on July 21, which was the last night of the convention, and on the night after that.
Fifty-five percent of the 948 registered voters interviewed in the poll said they preferred to see Mr. Dukakis win the 1988 Presidential election, while 38 percent said they preferred to see Mr. Bush win. The poll had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus four percentage points.
This represented a shift in Mr. Dukakis's lead from the 47 percent to 41 percent advantage he held in the last pre-convention Gallup Poll, taken by telephone July 8-10. In that poll, 1,001 registered voters were interviewed.
Nominees usually enjoy a lift in the polls after the nomination. Ed Slaughter, project director at Gallup, pointed out that in 1984, Walter Mondale's standing rose 12 points after the Democratic convention that year. But the improved standing dissipated within ten days, Mr. Slaughter said.
Another poll, conducted in Texas, also showed Mr. Dukakis gaining ground from the convention. The survey of 504 registered voters likely to cast ballots, conducted on Friday and Saturday by Peter Hart, a Democratic poll taker, showed Mr. Dukakis leading Mr. Bush by 50 percent to 40 percent. A survey of that size has a sampling error of plus or minus four percentage points. A Hart survey of 265 such voters for The Chicago Tribune from July 5 to 9 had shown the race even in Texas - 46 percent for Mr. Dukakis, 46 percent for Mr. Bush, with a sampling error of plus or minus six percentage points. DON'T BITE!!!
If someone is leading only by 3 points - that's a dead heat. No bones about it.
Things are getting more and more interesting as time goes on.
Anyone measuring for drapes in the Oval Office right now would be foolish...
Everyone gets a convention bounce, no doubt.
But the argument that Obama is giving details doesn't wash at all.
Strawman? LOL! Are you watching television at all?
How many covers of TIME is this guy on already?
Obama has a lot of work to do and should be as concerned as I am right now.
If you listen to outlets other than CNN, MCNBC and NBC or NPR, you would know there is a groundswell of support building for McCain... His pick of Palin is a wildcard and it is too early to tell it's effect.
I stand by my original statements that Obama is in trouble and has to answer more direct questions about his plans (political fluff on websites aside). -
SevenOneEighty wrote: Things are getting more and more interesting as time goes on.
This is ambiguous and meaningless.Anyone measuring for drapes in the Oval Office right now would be foolish...
can you show me one major news magazine story or even a regular article that seems to be "measuring drapes"?
you have no evidence for your claimsBut the argument that Obama is giving details doesn't wash at all.
Here is more ambiguous and meaningless commentary from you.Strawman? LOL! Are you watching television at all?
first of all, you regularly accuse me of things that I've never professed. That, my friend, is a strawman. You constantly conflate me with mythical democrats. That is a strawman.
How many covers of TIME is this guy on already?
Secondly, are you claiming that Time magazine covers = predictions of victory? why can't you show me any such cover stories?If you listen to outlets other than CNN, MCNBC and NBC or NPR, you would know there is a groundswell of support building for McCain... His pick of Palin is a wildcard and it is too early to tell it's effect.
What outlets then?
"Groundswell of support". LOL. You have no evidence, b/c it's certainly not in the polls.I stand by my original statements that Obama is in trouble and has to answer more direct questions about his plans (political fluff on websites aside).
It's not surprising to me at all that you consider policy papers "fluff". I'm ever more convinced you get your news from the crawl on 24 hour news networks. -
you seem to be getting a little...emotional...
Way to skip over the poll info though! -
SevenOneEighty wrote: you seem to be getting a little...emotional...
Nope. Don't you worry about misinterpreting me. Stick to the questions.SevenOneEighty wrote: Way to skip over the poll info though!
we've beaten the poll issue to death. You think Obamas 3-5 point lead is meaningless. I don't.
Now I look forward to you responding to my points. -
So 718y, Obama is scheduled to be on Bill O's show on Thursday. Meanwhile, McCain canceled his appearance on Larry King because Campbell Brown made his spokesman Tucker Bounds look like a retard by daring to ask a real question!
Who's the one who's scared to answer the tough questions again? -
18 wrote: What If They Put On a Republican Convention and No One Came?[/size]
From: http://openleft.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=6C8627137B30F19DD5E3D5BC9AE5100B?diaryId=7911
by: Matt Stoller
Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 19:36
You can see my full set of RNC photos here.
I managed to snag a credential to walk around the Xcel Center where the Republicans are holding their convention. Most political conventions are designed around glitter and glitz, and a nagging feeling that there's a backroom you have to get into where important decisions are being made. Credentials are highly sought after, and the sense of history is palpable. But this one feels different. The glitz and glamor is half-assed, the Republican themselves seem mostly irrelevant, and there are probably more security guards than delegates and spectators. It feels like a funeral, or the scene of a disgraced CEO returning to his company to clean out his desk. The sense I get here is... embarrassment.
Matt Stoller :: What If They Put On a Republican Convention and No One Came?
Now McCain's decision-making skills are appalling, which makes planning impossible. There's no clear message, but even beyond message, they hadn't even announced the speaking lineup until a few hours ago. This is basic nuts and bolts stuff, and the pros are obviously elsewhere. Given three days of messaging to the public, the McCain campaign has chosen to articulate nothing, leaving a void where Palin is the only topic of conversation. There isn't even a controversial hit piece on Obama of some sort. It's a joke.
This is compounded by other factors, a sort of system-wide collapse of the Republican elite class. There aren't very many good Republican Congressional candidates this cycle, and many of the incumbents aren't showing up. This means that lobbyists and donors have no reason to be here, and they aren't. I'm told by Republican friends that Gustav caused lots of people to cancel their travel plans and parties, but my guess is that Gustav gave people an excuse to cancel their plans. It's dinner time, and there are very few people buying concessions.
It's so deserted that there aren't even the sleazy people that you find at every political convention, and the lunatics didn't bother to show up. The protesters are here to wrestle with the police in riot gear, and the media is despondent about how empty and sad it all seems. -
The bounce you may be looking for . . . anybody watch Five Thirty Eight for polls?
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/todays-polls-92.html -
Boygabriel wrote: we've beaten the poll issue to death. You think Obamas 3-5 point lead is meaningless. I don't.
Wow, Obama was up hard in the polls from yesterday. FWIW.NationalGallup TrackingObama 50, McCain 42Obama +8
I think there are several reasons why Obama having a 3-4 point lead is not good for him, but at 6-9 points it is definitely getting better.
NationalRasmussen TrackingObama 51, McCain 45Obama +6
NationalUSA Today/Gallup*Obama 50, McCain 43Obama +7
NationalHotline/FDObama 48, McCain 39Obama +9
NationalCBS NewsObama 48, McCain 40Obama +8
Edit: oops, those polls are all dated Tuesday, Sept. 02.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/latestpolls/index.html -
Carnivore wrote: So 718y, Obama is scheduled to be on Bill O's show on Thursday. Meanwhile, McCain canceled his appearance on Larry King because Campbell Brown made his spokesman Tucker Bounds look like a retard by daring to ask a real question!
It is interesting that after all this time of refusing to go on Fix, Obama is suddenly ready. And why the hell would O'Reilly agree to have him on against McCain's acceptance speech is beyond me. I guess they take what they can get. I'm glad to see Obama go on there though, O'Reilly is a boob. It will be interesting to see how it all goes, Obama has gained a rep (rightly or wrongly, we shall see) for not being very, uh, quick footed on the uptake when pressed. Survey says- he crams and aces the O'Reilly duck and run. I really can't see this as a bad thing for him unless he does positively horribly, which I can't see happening.
Who's the one who's scared to answer the tough questions again?
I need to track down the Brown/Bounds fiasco on a video site I can actually see before making a comment. -
daver wrote: I need to track down the Brown/Bounds fiasco on a video site I can actually see before making a comment.
I keep meaning to watch it. I heard Bounds was thoroughly embarrassed. -
Boygabriel wrote: [quote=daver]I need to track down the Brown/Bounds fiasco on a video site I can actually see before making a comment.
I keep meaning to watch it. I heard Bounds was thoroughly embarrassed.
Depends where you hear it from. I've also heard that Bounds was repeatedly badgered by minutia for no apparent reason. *shrug* Which is why I'll dig it up when I get a chance and sees whats I thinks. -
daver wrote: [quote=Boygabriel][quote=daver]I need to track down the Brown/Bounds fiasco on a video site I can actually see before making a comment.
I keep meaning to watch it. I heard Bounds was thoroughly embarrassed.
Depends where you hear it from. I've also heard that Bounds was repeatedly badgered by minutia for no apparent reason. *shrug* Which is why I'll dig it up when I get a chance and sees whats I thinks.
Yes, Republicans do have a way of being irritated by little things like details. -
Boygabriel wrote: Yes, Republicans do have a way of being irritated by little things like details.
Would it be your position then that Democrats don't?
'Cause I'll be yer huckleberry on _that_ one if I can find the time... -
daver wrote: [quote=Boygabriel]Yes, Republicans do have a way of being irritated by little things like details.
Would it be your position then that Democrats don't?
'Cause I'll be yer huckleberry on _that_ one if I can find the time...
:roll:
Something tells me there's more important issues to debate. Let's both find the time to watch this video clip, and we'll go from there. -
This is the video:
Owned. -
I have to find it on some news website or at least not on youtube because I suck like that.
-
Watched the video, read the transcript. I still need to read the McCain camp reaction. I didn't find it that big of a deal. Bounds tried to shimmy out of an uncomfortable question, Brown nailed him on it. Rightly. And he answered directly. Finally. Then she did badger him with BS, and he handled it like crap. He got the McCain befuddle and pardoned himself before figuring out WTF was going on. I don't find it over any line, so to speak, but she was definitely pushing on him. So what? He was allowed to answer the questions fully, so I'm thinking no harm, no foul. It was obvious she didn't like his answers, oh well.
Is she commentary or straight news? I guess. If she is supposed to be straight news, then ha! If she isn't, then she didn't do anything even a tenth of what O'Reilly and Hannity do every day. -
daver wrote: Watched the video, read the transcript. I still need to read the McCain camp reaction. I didn't find it that big of a deal. Bounds tried to shimmy out of an uncomfortable question, Brown nailed him on it. Rightly. And he answered directly. Finally.
Really? I didn't see any point in that exchange when he ever answered the question directly.
Oh, the McCain camp reaction was to throw a hissy fit and pull a scheduled interview with Larry King (stuff like this is easy to find with Google News!):
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122041068725593803.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/jon-friedmans-media-web-palin/story.aspx?guid={AF2B9A29-5BA8-42E5-90A2-11EE0A690E84}&dist=hplatest
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/02/mccain-cancels-larry-king-interview/ -
apollonia666 wrote: [quote=daver]Watched the video, read the transcript. I still need to read the McCain camp reaction. I didn't find it that big of a deal. Bounds tried to shimmy out of an uncomfortable question, Brown nailed him on it. Rightly. And he answered directly. Finally.
Really? I didn't see any point in that exchange when he ever answered the question directly.
Oh, the McCain camp reaction was to throw a hissy fit and pull a scheduled interview with Larry King (stuff like this is easy to find with Google News!):
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122041068725593803.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/jon-friedmans-media-web-palin/story.aspx?guid={AF2B9A29-5BA8-42E5-90A2-11EE0A690E84}&dist=hplatest
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/02/mccain-cancels-larry-king-interview/
Exactly. He tried to say that being the head of the Alaska National Guard while they are deployed overseas is foreign policy experience. This is bullshit and they both knew it, and he had no answer for when she called him on it.
As for McCain's move, that just ensured that more people saw this video instead of people seeing him speak to Larry King. Another stupid move in a week full of them.
-
apollonia666 wrote: Really? I didn't see any point in that exchange when he ever answered the question directly.
brown wrote: Well, we know all that about John McCain, Tucker. I asked you about her, though, because we all know the role of the VP, as John McCain has defined it, is to be able to step into the job of the presidency on day one if something should happen to the president. So I'm asking you about her foreign policy experience.
-bullshit bullshit-Bounds wrote: I don't think there should be any problem explaining her experience. She has executive state level experience. She's been in public office reforming Washington. She's been in executive office longer and in a more effective sense than Barack Obama has been in the United States Senate. She's been the commander of the National Guard of Alaska's National Guard, who's been deployed overseas. That's foreign policy experience. And I do want to mention that these are --
Or, if you quote it how it actually went down:BOUNDS wrote: I don't think there should be any problem explaining her experience. She has executive state level experience. She's been in public office reforming Washington. She's been in executive office longer and in a more effective sense than Barack Obama has been in the United States Senate.
BROWN wrote: So --
BOUNDS wrote: She's been the commander of the National Guard of Alaska's National Guard, who's been deployed overseas.
BROWN wrote: OK. OK, Tucker --
BOUNDS wrote: That's foreign policy experience.
BROWN wrote: All right. All right. Just give me --
BOUNDS wrote: And I do want to mention that these are --
BROWN wrote: Tucker, sorry, if I can interrupt for one second -- commander, because I've heard you guys say this a lot.
BOUNDS wrote: Yes.
She was lying in wait, and she jumped him. Right out of the playbook of Hannity or O'Reilly or Rush or whoever. And if they can do it, then why shouldn't she be able to, I suppose. Turnabout is fair play, right?apollonia666 wrote: Oh, the McCain camp reaction was to throw a hissy fit and pull a scheduled interview with Larry King (stuff like this is easy to find with Google News!):
Yah, thanks for the links, I just haven't had time to read any yet. Sounds like a pretty lame whiny reaction though, offhand.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122041068725593803.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/jon-friedmans-media-web-palin/story.aspx?guid={AF2B9A29-5BA8-42E5-90A2-11EE0A690E84}&dist=hplatest
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/02/mccain-cancels-larry-king-interview/ -
Carnivore wrote: Exactly. He tried to say that being the head of the Alaska National Guard while they are deployed overseas is foreign policy experience. This is bullshit and they both knew it, and he had no answer for when she called him on it.
She asked about Palin being able to step into the presidency, and about foreign policy. He listed their boilerplate on the qualifications. When she called him on how the Alaska National Guard qualifies her on foreign policy, he flustered and reacted like shit, but said that it was more than anything Obama had. Which is a bullshit answer, except that her whole spiel was based upon Palin not being any better than Obama, which actually made it an appropriate (if lame) answer. *shrug*
Hopefully McCain will keep guys like that in charge, he's not doing himself any favors. -
daver wrote: Which is a bullshit answer, except that her whole spiel was based upon Palin not being any better than Obama, which actually made it an appropriate (if lame) answer.
No. Her frame for the question was that the McCain camp, by saying that Obama didn't have enough foreign policy experience, had set a higher standard. That Palin didn't seem to meet the standard as defined by the McCain campaign. She asked how Palin met the standard for the necessary amount of foreign policy experience as defined by the McCain campaign. Comparing Palin to Obama, when your campaign is saying that's not adequate, is not just lame, but is avoiding the question.
Also the dude just said some stuff that was just plain not true, like that she was Governor for longer than Obama was in the Senate. Kind of like the people who are saying that she was in government when he was still a community organizer when in fact she was in College at the time. The McCain camp is following the old Rove strategy of "if you repeat it enough times, it doesn't matter if it's true." -
Boygabriel wrote: [quote=SevenOneEighty]Things are getting more and more interesting as time goes on.
This is ambiguous and meaningless.Anyone measuring for drapes in the Oval Office right now would be foolish...
can you show me one major news magazine story or even a regular article that seems to be "measuring drapes"?
you have no evidence for your claimsBut the argument that Obama is giving details doesn't wash at all.
Here is more ambiguous and meaningless commentary from you.Strawman? LOL! Are you watching television at all?
first of all, you regularly accuse me of things that I've never professed. That, my friend, is a strawman. You constantly conflate me with mythical democrats. That is a strawman.
How many covers of TIME is this guy on already?
Secondly, are you claiming that Time magazine covers = predictions of victory? why can't you show me any such cover stories?If you listen to outlets other than CNN, MCNBC and NBC or NPR, you would know there is a groundswell of support building for McCain... His pick of Palin is a wildcard and it is too early to tell it's effect.
What outlets then?
"Groundswell of support". LOL. You have no evidence, b/c it's certainly not in the polls.I stand by my original statements that Obama is in trouble and has to answer more direct questions about his plans (political fluff on websites aside).
It's not surprising to me at all that you consider policy papers "fluff". I'm ever more convinced you get your news from the crawl on 24 hour news networks.
Palin rocked the house last night.
McCain's Palin gamble is going to pay off and make this thing closer than anyone imagined (this is MY prediction and my opinion). Short of some unknown scandal, she may be the tide that turns this thing. She is definitely shaking it up.
Let's see - your "point", as you call them:
You are debating me over whether or not I think something is getting interesting...? hmm...Thats' telling. Are you after mind control as well in this election cycle..
YES, it is interesting - the most interesting and intriguing election ever in my lifetime. And it got even more interesting last night with the introduction of Palin. THIS IS THE BEST ELECTION EVER!!!!!
YES, Obama supporters are "measuring for drapes" - listen to any major news outlet and you would think the newscasters ARE the "interior decorators" for Obama..seriously. BTW, BG, that is an expression that speaks to over confidence...it's a figure of speech.
On "details": It is amazing (and worrisome) that so many Obama supporters when asked, can't tell you one thing he has done or examples of reaching across the aisle. John McCain has. I have now read FOUR books on Obama, inlcuding his 2 memoirs. I don't watch much 24 hour news crawls, but I do read a lot an can tell you that through most of Obama's career he has been unchallenged and somewhat unaccountable. And I say this as a person who LIKES Obama. I do know that facts about him and his career and I would love to debate you on those facts if you would like.
( For example, do you know how he intiially got elected in Chicago and his oponent's fates? - I do. Do you know how many times he voted " present" as legislator instead of making a vote "yes or no" - I do).
The media coverage of Obama defintely shows favoritism. C'mon
Seriously, I refuse to even debate you on that. Anyone with half a brain knows that to be the case. But, live by the media, die by the media.
I am so GLAD that he is going on O'Reilly. This will be his toughest interview. Obama is a sharp guy and he can handle himself on CNN, but he is going to be asked the toughest questions ever in an interview. He cannot afford to stumble, stutter or otherwise "skip" questions. I hope I I'll learn something about this guy's mettle.
BTW, Hillary Clinton did FANTASTIC against O'Reilly and said FOX was treating here the most fair of ALL the networks.
And to your question about Obama running against Hillary - Yes, BG he IS runing against Hillary - RIGHT NOW. That is the part some dont seem to get with all of their emotion. People are fainting and crying at Obama speaches - you are kidding about "evidence" right?
OMG: And the fact that you can't name any other news sources than the ones I've named is also very telling... And you tell me I am the one using the 24 hr. news crawl? hmm..
Polls: Obama finally got a fairly typical convention bump and FINALLY got above 50% in the polls for the first time ever. Now the question is can he keep it after the republican convention He definitently promises everyone everything and is very likeble.
I have read his website papers, I know his voting history ( State and U.S. Senate), and I know his promises. The O'Reilly interveiw is going to be awesome, no doubt. But Pailin and Giuliani kicked his ass last night and he needs to come back strong with solid answers, clear positions and no " above my pay grade" dodges.
Saw a funny t-shirt on TV making fun of Obama's "present" votes as a state senator:
"REMEMBER TO VOTE "PRESENT" IN NOVEMBER!"
DAMN! -
SevenOneEighty wrote: Palin rocked the house last night.
Watched about three minutes, maybe, then got bored and watched some crazy guy and his drunk Russian pal travel across Romania slaughtering pigs and taking horse tranqs. Good TV there!SevenOneEighty wrote: YES, Obama supporters are "measuring for drapes" - listen to any major news outlet and you would think the newscasters ARE the "interior decorators" for Obama..seriously. BTW, BG, that is an expression that speaks to over confidence...it's a figure of speech.
If anything I'm finding rabid Obama supporters _less_ confident than, say, a month or several months ago. FWIW.SevenOneEighty wrote: On "details": It is amazing (and worrisome) that so many Obama supporters when asked, can't tell you one thing he has done or examples of reaching across the aisle.
Interesting. One could say the same of Palin pushers(tm).SevenOneEighty wrote: ( For example, do you know how he intiially got elected in Chicago and his oponent's fates? - I do.
There is some interesting stuff in there, and can buy the history angle, but if you are going to play it then I'm sure you're aware that McCain has a LOT more skeletons in his closet than Obama could even fathom. The man nearly went to federal prison, ferchrissakes. McCain's closet is more like a goddamn ballroom!SevenOneEighty wrote: Do you know how many times he voted " present" as legislator instead of making a vote "yes or no" - I do).
I don't. I stoopid.SevenOneEighty wrote: The media coverage of Obama defintely shows favoritism. C'mon
Yes, but what about those of us with _full_ brains?
Seriously, I refuse to even debate you on that. Anyone with half a brain knows that to be the case.
Hmm?
SevenOneEighty wrote: But, live by the media, die by the media.
Damn. I wasted my money buying this sword on Ebay, I guess.SevenOneEighty wrote: I am so GLAD that he is going on O'Reilly. This will be his toughest interview. Obama is a sharp guy and he can handle himself on CNN, but he is going to be asked the toughest questions ever in an interview. He cannot afford to stumble, stutter or otherwise "skip" questions. I hope I I'll learn something about this guy's mettle.
I think it will be really interesting too. I disagree that he can't afford to stumble, stutter, etc. I think that he _won't_, but I don't think it will be any kind of death knell if he does, it would undoubtedly be played off.SevenOneEighty wrote: BTW, Hillary Clinton did FANTASTIC against O'Reilly and said FOX was treating here the most fair of ALL the networks.
I don't remember her saying that, but she definitely did do well on there, I was impressed.SevenOneEighty wrote: And to your question about Obama running against Hillary - Yes, BG he IS runing against Hillary - RIGHT NOW. That is the part some dont seem to get with all of their emotion. People are fainting and crying at Obama speaches - you are kidding about "evidence" right?
Beat the Meetles!SevenOneEighty wrote: OMG: And the fact that you can't name any other news sources than the ones I've named is also very telling... And you tell me I am the one using the 24 hr. news crawl? hmm..
I like to get all my news from the backs of greasy napkins at 24hr diners, but that is just me. Oh, and from the numbers on the bathroom walls.SevenOneEighty wrote: Polls: Obama finally got a fairly typical convention bump and FINALLY got above 50% in the polls for the first time ever. Now the question is can he keep it after the republican convention He definitently promises everyone everything and is very likeble.
Will be interesting...SevenOneEighty wrote: I have read his website papers, I know his voting history ( State and U.S. Senate), and I know his promises. The O'Reilly interveiw is going to be awesome, no doubt. But Pailin and Giuliani kicked his ass last night and he needs to come back strong with solid answers, clear positions and no " above my pay grade" dodges.
I've generally found Obama's positions to be _clear_, just _fluid_.SevenOneEighty wrote: Saw a funny t-shirt on TV making fun of Obama's "present" votes as a state senator:
I guess since Palin has to pull on her executive experience being the mayor of Wasilla (2000 pop 5,469) it is only fair to pull on Obama's experience as a state senator for a district 2000%+ that size...
"REMEMBER TO VOTE "PRESENT" IN NOVEMBER!"
DAMN! -
Carnivore wrote: No. Her frame for the question was that the McCain camp, by saying that Obama didn't have enough foreign policy experience, had set a higher standard. That Palin didn't seem to meet the standard as defined by the McCain campaign. She asked how Palin met the standard for the necessary amount of foreign policy experience as defined by the McCain campaign. Comparing Palin to Obama, when your campaign is saying that's not adequate, is not just lame, but is avoiding the question.
They are going to continue to equivocate this one. Obviously. They never set a list of requirements that one should have, just that Obama didn't have enough. When asked why Palin does have enough experience, they answer with the reasons why they think she has enough.She has executive state level experience. She's been in public office reforming Washington. She's been in executive office longer and in a more effective sense than Barack Obama has been in the United States Senate. She's been the commander of the National Guard of Alaska's National Guard,
What can you say? If the roles were reversed, so would the lines. It is up to voter to say, "Hey, Obama's experience is jack shit. Fuck him." Or- "The Palin chick knows jack shit. Ran a city of 6,000? Big whoop. Fuck her."
Ya know. Whatever. I don't think they are avoiding the question, it is just that the answer is lame and the questioner doesn't like it. Just like if someone tried to nail Obama directly on foreign policy experience, the answer is either going to go tangential or be lame. What other place is there to go?Carnivore wrote: Also the dude just said some stuff that was just plain not true, like that she was Governor for longer than Obama was in the Senate.
No, he said that she had been in executive office longer than Obama has been in the US Senate. They are counting her Walla Walla <10k pop Mayor time, not just her Governor time. Which is technically true, the Mayor role was most definitely and executive office. *shrug*Carnivore wrote: Kind of like the people who are saying that she was in government when he was still a community organizer when in fact she was in College at the time. The McCain camp is following the old Rove strategy of "if you repeat it enough times, it doesn't matter if it's true."
I haven't heard that one, but it wouldn't bother me anyhow. I met a bum the other day who was a productive member of the workforce while I was still in diapers, but I'm not about to turn the management of my 401k over to him. -
Palin rocked the house last night.
You value political attacks, I value actual political discourse. Palin didn’t actually say anything of substance.You are debating me over whether or not I think something is getting interesting...? hmm...Thats' telling. Are you after mind control as well in this election cycle..
That’s not what I did at all. I said you use ambiguous language and make few real points.YES, Obama supporters are "measuring for drapes" - listen to any major news outlet and you would think the newscasters ARE the "interior decorators" for Obama..seriously.
Broad generalizations with no references or quotes. Without –evidence- your observations remain shallow.BTW, BG, that is an expression that speaks to over confidence...it's a figure of speech.
Did you really not think I understood that or are you just being condescending?On "details": It is amazing (and worrisome) that so many Obama supporters when asked, can't tell you one thing he has done or examples of reaching across the aisle. John McCain has.
Nuclear non-proliferation and campaign reform, for starters. Oops, looks like I’m an Obama supporter who can name things he’s done.
It’s amazing to me that people like you still argue that McCain is this magical maverick who brings people together. He’s changed positions on everything he’s ever believed, (he's campaigning against legislation that has his own name on it!). McCain is now a Bush Republican through and through (he hired team Rove!). If you think that’s going to bring people together, I have a bridge to sell you.I have now read FOUR books on Obama, including his 2 memoirs. I don't watch much 24 hour news crawls, but I do read a lot an can tell you that through most of Obama's career he has been unchallenged and somewhat unaccountable. And I say this as a person who LIKES Obama. I do know that facts about him and his career and I would love to debate you on those facts if you would like.
You didn’t state any facts to debate.I( For example, do you know how he intiially got elected in Chicago and his oponent's fates? - I do.
Yep, he played ugly politics. Isn’t that what you’ve been suggesting he do for months now? Which way do you want it?I Do you know how many times he voted " present" as legislator instead of making a vote "yes or no" - I do).
What are your thoughts on all the votes McCain’s missed while campaigning? (votes Obama hasn’t missed, btw) Oh that’s right, you only criticize Obama.The media coverage of Obama defintely shows favoritism. C'mon
Lol. Obama gets far more coverage, but a much larger percent of it is NEGATIVE. Anyone with half a brain knows that. I’ll debate you on it.
Seriously, I refuse to even debate you on that. Anyone with half a brain knows that to be the case. But, live by the media, die by the media.And to your question about Obama running against Hillary - Yes, BG he IS runing against Hillary - RIGHT NOW.
I honestly don't understand what you're saying. Are you honestly suggesting that a majority of Hillary voters are going to vote McCain? Do you have any poll showing that? (no)People are fainting and crying at Obama speaches - you are kidding about "evidence" right?
This is a great example of you taking an observation and using it as evidence for something much larger and unrelated. “people faint at Obama speeches = all his followers are mindlessly star struck”
Can I use the same logic you use? Racist minutemen in Arizona are going to vote McCain, therefore all McCain followers are racists. See how how flawed that is?OMG: And the fact that you can't name any other news sources than the ones I've named is also very telling... And you tell me I am the one using the 24 hr. news crawl? hmm..
It’s clear that’s not what I was saying. You twist my words when you can’t answer my questions. It’s a cute tactic.I have read his website papers, I know his voting history ( State and U.S. Senate), and I know his promises. The O'Reilly interveiw is going to be awesome, no doubt. But Pailin and Giuliani kicked his ass last night and he needs to come back strong with solid answers, clear positions and no " above my pay grade" dodges.
You value attack politics over actual political discourse. I think that’s why we disagree so much. You’re concerned with how Obama’s going to win or lose, I’m concerned with whether he’s actually the right person for our country. -
Boygabriel wrote:
OMG! Did you just list campaign reform as something Obama has done!?! Or UN-done?!?!On "details": It is amazing (and worrisome) that so many Obama supporters when asked, can't tell you one thing he has done or examples of reaching across the aisle. John McCain has.
Nuclear non-proliferation and campaign reform, for starters. Oops, looks like I’m an Obama supporter who can name things he’s done.Boygabriel wrote:
It depends where you draw the line. They both suck at voting. If you draw the line BEFORE the big time campaigning started, then McCain gets the nod for missing out the most. If you draw the line AFTER big time campaigning started, then Obama gets the nod for being absent more. In my mind- Advantage: Obama. I figure at least he had an excuse.I Do you know how many times he voted " present" as legislator instead of making a vote "yes or no" - I do).
What are your thoughts on all the votes McCain’s missed while campaigning? (votes Obama hasn’t missed, btw) Oh that’s right, you only criticize Obama.
Another interesting stat is that over their Senate times, McCain has voted the party line 88% of the time, Obama, 96%. Hmm.
Oh yeah, funny one on CNN Blog:CNN Blog wrote: In a statement criticizing Obama’s positions on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, the organization claiming credit for the missile launches, McCain wrote, “This is the same organization 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.”
Lol.
The problem with the critique? McCain also missed that vote on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment on September 26, 2007. Records show that Obama was in New Hampshire and McCain was in New York instead of being in the Senate chamber for the vote in question.Boygabriel wrote:
Good one by Larry Elder regarding this. Perhaps he has _less_ than half a brain, haha!The media coverage of Obama defintely shows favoritism. C'mon
Lol. Obama gets far more coverage, but a much larger percent of it is NEGATIVE. Anyone with half a brain knows that. I’ll debate you on it.
Seriously, I refuse to even debate you on that. Anyone with half a brain knows that to be the case. But, live by the media, die by the media.Examining stories from June 4, when Obama became the presumptive nominee, until Aug. 15, the Post ran 142 political stories about Obama, compared with 96 about McCain. As to front-page stories, Obama was 35 to McCain's 13.
Surprise. But then...
What about photographs? The Post ran, during this time, 143 pics of Obama versus 100 of McCain.Take the recent studies by the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism, a nonpartisan, non-ideological and nonpolitical research organization. PEJ finds that from June 9 through Aug. 17, Obama received significantly more coverage than McCain – even during Obama's Hawaii vacation. During the not-particularly-memorable week of June 23-29, Obama received more than twice the coverage of McCain – 82 percent to 40 percent.
OMG!?! WTF?!? It _gotsta_ be Pew Research Center, damn puny half brains!
And it's not just Obama. Last year, Harvard and PEJ studied presidential campaign stories from January through May in print, TV, radio and Internet outlets. Surprise, surprise, it turns out Democrats got more stories (49 percent) than Republicans (31 percent). Also, the tone of the coverage was more positive for Democrats (35 percent) than for Republicans (26 percent).
"Not only did the Republicans receive less coverage overall," the Harvard study authors say, "the attention they did get tended to be more negative than that of Democrats. And in some specific media genres, the difference is particularly striking." For example, 59 percent of front-page stories about Democrats in 11 newspapers had a "clear, positive message vs. 11 percent that carried a negative tone."
Obama's coverage was 70 percent positive and 9 percent negative. Hillary Clinton's was 61 percent positive and 13 percent negative. Yet 26 percent of the stories on Republican candidates were positive, and 40 percent were negative.
On TV, evening network newscasts gave Democrats 49 percent of their campaign coverage and Republicans 28 percent. As for tone, 39.5 percent of the Democratic coverage was positive and 17.1 percent negative, while 18.6 percent of the Republican coverage was positive versus 37.2 percent negative.
I have seen a poll on this since the Dem convention, and so I suspect the numbers have changed. Leading up to the Biden VP announcement, 16% of pro-Hill were supporting McCain, after the announcement that went up to 27%. That is from a CNN poll. I don't have a URL, it is from memory, but it shouldn't be difficult to find. I bet that the 27% number came down after her speech at the convention.And to your question about Obama running against Hillary - Yes, BG he IS runing against Hillary - RIGHT NOW.
I honestly don't understand what you're saying. Are you honestly suggesting that a majority of Hillary voters are going to vote McCain? Do you have any poll showing that? (no)Can I use the same logic you use? Racist minutemen in Arizona are going to vote McCain, therefore all McCain followers are racists. See how how flawed that is?
Hey, I gots no problems with that! -
OBAMA: SURGE SUCCEEDED BEYOND ‘WILDEST DREAMS’
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/04/obama-surge-succeeded-beyond-wildest-dreams/The troop surge in Iraq has been more successful than anyone could have imagined, Barack Obama conceded Thursday in his first-ever interview on FOX News’ “The O’Reilly Factor.”
Somebody is officially all alone...on an island!!
As recently as July, the Democratic presidential candidate declined to rate the surge a success, but said it had helped reduce violence in the country. On Thursday, Obama acknowledged the 2007 increase in U.S. troops has benefited the Iraqi people.
“I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated,” Obama said while refusing to retract his initial opposition to the surge. “I’ve already said it’s succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.”
Watch Barack Obama’s interview with Bill O’Reilly at 8 p.m. ET Thursday on FOX News Channel. Click here for a preview.
However, he added, the country has not had enough “political reconciliation” and Iraqis still have not taken responsibility for their country.
Speaking on other national security matters, Obama said he would not take military action off the table in dealing with Iran, but diplomacy and sanctions can’t be overlooked.
The Islamic republic is a “major threat” and it would be “unacceptable” for the rogue nation to develop a nuclear weapon, he said.
“It is unacceptable for Iran to possess a nuclear weapon, it would be a game changer,” Obama said. “It’s sufficient to say I would not take military action off the table and that I will never hesitate to use our military force in order to protect the homeland and the United States’ interests.”
But Obama also warned against the current U.S. administration lumping radical Islamic groups together.
“They have fueled a whole host of terrorist organizations,” Obama said of Iran, but “we have to have the ability to distinguish between groups. … They may not all be part and parcel of the same ideology.”
Obama sat down with O’Reilly in York, Pa., after holding a discussion on the economy with voters nearby. The Illinois senator has been campaigning in battleground states since accepting the Democratic presidential nomination last Thursday at his party’s convention in Denver.
Obama said he “absolutely” believes the United States is fighting a War on Terror, with the enemy being, “Al Qaeda, the Taliban, a whole host of networks that are bent on attacking America, who have a distorted ideology, who have perverted the faith of Islam.”
He repeated his campaign’s foreign policy position that Afghanistan must become the “central front” in the War on Terror.
Obama was first asked to come on “The O’Reilly Factor” in early 2007. The interview will air in three more parts after Thursday, from Monday through Wednesday next week.
OH SNAP!!!
LOL!
WHat else will he flip on next?
Cant wait for the interview tonight and tomorrow! -
This is exactly what I am talking about with Obama.
He says whatever is most popular...this is his 4th or 5th MAJOR flip since July. CHIRST!!
Seriously, if I thought you really wanted to debate Barrack's record, I would with you and could go toe to toe because i know it. I KNOW McCain's record. See that is the thing, I know where he stands now and before - he has been a public figure for a long time and has a clear record. The Public doenst know Obama...except that he sings a pretty speech.
Are you saying the media doesnt favor Obama!!?????!!OMFG!!!
Boygabriel, really.... "Just say no", man.
I still dont know who this guy is...he is a shape shifter.
As you can see above, with a real vetting, you can make him say things he doesnt want to. Only O'Reilly was able to drag that out of him.
My concern is that an Obama Presidency turns in to a disaster.
THAT is why I think he needs to be asked harder questions.
But that time is coming real soon...the debates are going to be awesome and we will see what he is truly made of against McCain.
YES! Palin rocked. Even the democratic pundits had to concede and I do hear the energy on the blogs, radio post- Palin speech. This is going to be good.
And it was Rendell - hillary campaigner about FOX.
But he didnt say it on CNN MSNBC, NBC...He said it on FOX, so many on this board probably didn't see it...just saying.
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/fnc/rendell_fox_has_done_the_fairest_job_81180.aspMONDAY, MAR 31
...
Rendell: "Fox Has Done the Fairest Job"
Pennsylvania governor and former DNC chairman Ed Rendell appeared this morning on Fox & Friends, and complimented the network for its "very balanced" coverage.
"Fox has done the fairest job, has remained most objective of all the cable networks — you hate both our candidates," Rendell said. "No, I'm only kidding, but you actually have done a very balanced job of reporting the news."
Rendell, who is a supporter of Sen. Hillary Clinton, also mentioned how FNC has not gotten "caught up with Senator Obama" (maybe he didn't mind those "two hours of Obama bashing" a couple weeks ago).
F&F co-anchor Steve Doocy was so excited by the compliment, apparently things reached a Chris Matthews level.
Click continued to see the clip of the segment
</object"></object
Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- 40K All Categories
- 27.1K Neighborhoods
- 5.1K Crown Heights/Prospect Lefferts Gardens
- 7.1K Prospect Heights
- 2.3K Fort Greene, Clinton Hill, Bed-Stuy
- 8K Park Slope
- 549 Williamsburg, Greenpoint, Bushwick
- 442 Flatbush/Midwood/Ditmas Park
- 657 BoCoCa (Boerum Hill, Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens)
- 151 Red Hook
- 104 Gowanus
- 304 Bay Ridge/Bensonhurst
- 130 Coney Island, Brighton Beach, Sheepshead Bay
- 270 Brooklyn Heights, DUMBO and Downtown
- 598 Windsor Terrace / Kensington
- 673 Greenwood Heights and Sunset Park
- 749 Brooklyn and Beyond
- 6.3K Stuff
- 86 Brooklyn Back When
- 1.2K Brooklyn Pets
- 257 Brooklyn Kids
- 241 Brooklyn Eats
- 51 Brooklyn Booze
- 3.6K The Lounge / Random Stuff
- 611 Brooklyn Politics
- 122 Brooklyn Sports and Fitness
- 111 Brooklyn Photos
- 339 Site Issues
- 8 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
- 6.2K Listings
- 1.1K APARTMENTS and REAL ESTATE
- 1.3K Sales Openings Events
- 2.3K The Classifieds