2008 U.S. Presidential Campaign Discussion Thread-Part 10.

[U2isthebest]

Originally Posted by U2democrat

When it comes to governing, it is not Hillary, it is Bill that would make things difficult.

And this sums everything up. I think Bill Clinton will go down in history as one of our best presidents. His charisma and compassion have been met only by Obama in recent U.S. political history. However, if he was anywhere near the presidency, even as the husband of the VP, his shadow would eclipse Obama's. A president cannot govern effectively when they're playing second fiddle to someone else.

[diamond]

A terrific blooper:

YouTube - Joe Biden Introduced As John McCain Next Vice President (Blooper)

[U2isthebest]

Originally Posted by diamond

A terrific blooper:

John McCain, the next VP?

Sarah "In a Palin/McCain administration..."Palin seems to think so.


ETA: Sure beats the hell out of calling us his fellow Americans. He's switching up the game, gettin' all mavericky up in our grillz. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/1..._n_133037.html

[diamond]

Originally Posted by U2isthebest

And this sums everything up. I think Bill Clinton will go down in history as one of our best presidents. His charisma and compassion have been met only by Obama in recent U.S. political history. However, if he was anywhere near the presidency, even as the husband of the VP, his shadow would eclipse Obama's. A president cannot govern effectively when they're playing second fiddle to someone else.

how old were you when bill was in office?


and according to you by asserting that bill knows how do be an 'effective leader', don't you think he would know when to stand down if his spouse were in office?

don't great leaders know how do that, or does bill's out of control 'chrismo and compassion' supercede his leadership skills?

<>

[anitram]

Here is a perfect example of the celebration of ignorance and stupidity by the right:

– “When Obama says Pock-i-stahn I have an uncontrollable urge to read the New Yorker and find some Chardonnay. Fortunately I have an old copy of NR and a Coors Light to snap me back to reality. Seriously though — no one in flyover country says Pock-i-stahn. It’s annoying.” [E-mail posted by Kathryn Jean Lopez]

– “Re Senator Obama’s ostentatiously exotic pronunciation of Pakistan, one thing I like about Sarah Palin is the way she says ‘Eye-raq’.” [Mark Steyn]

– “Most overwrought pronunciation of the night: The academic way that Obama says ‘Pakistan,’ with a soft ‘a’ - reminscent of a 1980s ‘Saturday Night Live’ sketch in which newscasters over-pronounced ‘Managua, Nicaragua.’” [Philadelphia Daily News]

– “Drinking Game: A shot every time the candidates pronounce ‘Pakistan’ or ‘Taliban’ in an annoying way?” [Ramesh Ponnuru]

Even the Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder liveblogged yesterday, “Noticing that Obama says Pahk-istan and McCain says Pack-istan.” However, Gen. David Petraeus also pronounces Pakistan with a soft “a,” the same as Obama.

Yes, let's celebrate incorrec pronunciations of foreign places. After all, who the hell cares what the right way is, the American way is BEST!! Don't be such effete liberal intellectuals.

David Brooks (Republican for those keeping score) really put it best when he stated that:

[Sarah Palin] represents a fatal cancer to the Republican party. He [Bill Buckley] thought it was important to have people on the conservative side who celebrated ideas, who celebrated learning. And his whole life was based on that, and that was also true for a lot of the other conservatives in the Reagan era. Reagan had an immense faith in the power of ideas. But there has been a counter, more populist tradition, which is not only to scorn liberal ideas but to scorn ideas entirely. And I'm afraid that Sarah Palin has those prejudices. I think President Bush has those prejudices.

[U2isthebest]

Originally Posted by diamond

how old were you when bill was in office?


and according to you by asserting that bill knows how do be an 'effective leader', don't you think he would know when to stand down?

don't great leaders know how do that, or does bill's 'chrismo and compassion' supercede his leadership skills?

<>

Your hatred for Bill Clinton makes it impossible to reason with you, so I'm not even going to try. I don't know what difference my age makes, but if you must know, I was 4 when Clinton got elected and 12 when he left office. I am able to read and listen, though, so I've learned a lot about the laws passed and reforms he made as president, and I think they prove that he was one of our country's best. I wasn't even alive during the Lincoln, FDR, or Kennedy administrations, for example, but I've read and learned a great deal about them, and I feel that they're also among our country's best presidents.

[diamond]

i don't hate anyone.

ps-

you left out reagan as being a great president.

<>

[BVS]

Originally Posted by diamond

and according to you by asserting that bill knows how do be an 'effective leader', don't you think he would know when to stand down if his spouse were in office?

don't great leaders know how do that, or does bill's out of control 'chrismo and compassion' supercede his leadership skills?

<>

You're not understanding. The Dem party has been the Clinton's party for a while now, they either had to take first chair or pass the baton, second chair would have created uneasy balances of power. It has nothing to do with Bill knowing when to stand down, his presence there alone would cause old alliances.

[U2isthebest]

Originally Posted by diamond

i don't hate anyone.

ps-

you left out reagan as being a great president.

<>

I don't feel that Reagan was a great president. I find him highly overrated especially in his asinine trickle-down economics philosophy and his defense policies (i.e. the massive waste of money that was STAR WARS). I give him credit for helping to end the Cold War and standing firm to Gorbachev, but I don't feel he belongs on a list of our best presidents.

[U2isthebest]

Originally Posted by BonoVoxSupastar

You're not understanding. The Dem party has been the Clinton's party for a while now, they either had to take first chair or pass the baton, second chair would have created uneasy balances of power. It has nothing to do with Bill knowing when to stand down, his presence there alone would cause old alliances.

Thank you. You said that clearer than I did.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by anitram

Here is a perfect example of the celebration of ignorance and stupidity by the right:



Yes, let's celebrate incorrec pronunciations of foreign places. After all, who the hell cares what the right way is, the American way is BEST!! Don't be such effete liberal intellectuals.

David Brooks (Republican for those keeping score) really put it best when he stated that:

That portion of the right scares the shit out of me...

[Utoo]

That "Palin mob" video is 100% scary. It looks like "small town America" has a bigger problem with drugs and alcohol than they'd like to admit...


Here's John from yesterday, feeding the flames of senility:

YouTube - Mccain Losing it - "My fellow Prisoners"

I love how his daughter (I'm assuming that's who the blonde is) makes half a grimace as she realizes her old man is exactly that.

Again---do we really want a guy who spent years in a box, having his limbs broken, tortured--as the guy with his finger on every major button? Looks to me like it's constantly on his mind...

[diamond]

Originally Posted by U2isthebest

I don't feel that Reagan was a great president. I find him highly overrated especially in his asinine trickle-down economics philosophy and his defense policies (i.e. the massive waste of money that was STAR WARS). I give him credit for helping to end the Cold War and standing firm to Gorbachev, but I don't feel he belongs on a list of our best presidents.

many historians disagree w you.

<>

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by Utoo

I know everyone wanted him to get off the "my friends" thing, but I don't think "my fellow prisoners" is an improvement.

[corianderstem]

I can't even begin to tell you how disturbing I find it that so many Americans think that it's a bad thing to be smart. Learned about the world. Curious about learning new things. For pete's sake, why would you NOT want the leader of our country to be seen as an intelligent person?

Even if you're from modest backgrounds and modest means, and haven't had a lot of education, wouldn't you want the person running your country to be smarter than you? I do not understand it, and I never will.

Is it that some people have the perception that anyone who has more education than they do looks down on them? If that's the case, kindly tell them to take the chip off their shoulders and GET OVER IT.

(Yes, I realize that there are people who look down on those less educated. But you can't just assume that every educated person does.)

Also, and somewhat related, Sarah Vowell was on The Daily Show a few nights ago and said something really interesting.

Basically, she chided the Republican politicians for coming to New York and embracing them all in a big 9/11-we-will-never-forget-we-stand-by-our-New-Yorkers hug and as soon as they're gone, sneering at all those "east coast snooty elites."

[Utoo]

Factcheck.org hasn't been churning out as many analyses as they should be.

CNN.com, however, seems to have picked up the slack.

Looking at the fact checks on CNN.com, it seems to me that in the last week or so, Obama's claims are getting more "True" or "True but incomplete" grades, while McCain's seem to be garnering many, many more "False" or "Misleading" grades.

Obviously, this can be a result of which statements CNN.com chooses to factcheck. However, I believe that it's also a direct result of the strategies that each campaign has been using. Obama--talk the issues, point out contrast, and ride high. McCain--dirt and slime and twisted truths in order to plant seeds of doubt.

[Utoo]

Originally Posted by corianderstem

I can't even begin to tell you how disturbing I find it that so many Americans think that it's a bad thing to be smart. Learned about the world. Curious about learning new things. For pete's sake, why would you NOT want the leader of our country to be seen as an intelligent person?

Even if you're from modest backgrounds and modest means, and haven't had a lot of education, wouldn't you want the person running your country to be smarter than you? I do not understand it, and I never will.

Also, and somewhat related, Sarah Vowell was on The Daily Show a few nights ago and said something really interesting.

Basically, she chided the Republican politicians for coming to New York and embracing them all in a big 9/11-we-will-never-forget-we-stand-by-our-New-Yorkers hug and as soon as they're gone, sneering at all those "east coast snooty elites."

I completely blame George Bush & Karl Rove. During the 2000 and 2004 elections, they pointed out cultural differences within the United States and magnified them to cartoonish proportions in order to use them to their advantage.

[MrsSpringsteen]

Originally Posted by diamond

i do think john eschews angry women tho.

Not this again..

Is John McCain an ANGRY man? Do you have the same standards for angry men and angry women?

fyi, some of the "angriest" women are those who feel forced to internalize their anger and other emotions. Sometimes that's because of an angry man

[indra]

Originally Posted by corianderstem

I can't even begin to tell you how disturbing I find it that so many Americans think that it's a bad thing to be smart. Learned about the world. Curious about learning new things. For pete's sake, why would you NOT want the leader of our country to be seen as an intelligent person?

Even if you're from modest backgrounds and modest means, and haven't had a lot of education, wouldn't you want the person running your country to be smarter than you? I do not understand it, and I never will.

That always strikes me as odd too.

[Lila64]

saw this article/link on the Yahoo home page

McCain changes homeowner plan Mike Allen
Thu Oct 9, 12:29 AM ET



Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) made an overnight change in the homeowner bailout he proposed at Tuesday’s presidential debate, making it more generous to financial institutions and more costly for taxpayers.

ADVERTISEMENT

McCain's staff says it was always meant that way.

When McCain sprang his surprise idea at the start of the debate in Nashville, his campaign posted details online of his American Homeownership Resurgence Plan, which would direct the government to buy up bad home mortgages, allowing strapped people to keep their property.

The document posted and e-mailed by the McCain campaign on Tuesday night says at the end of its first full paragraph: “Lenders in these cases must recognize the loss that they’ve already suffered.”

So the government would buy the mortgages at a discounted rate, reflecting the declining value of the mortgage paper.

But when McCain reissued the document on Wednesday, that sentence was missing, to the dismay of many conservatives.

That would mean the U.S. would pay face value for the troubled documents, which was the main reason Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) gave for opposing the plan.

A McCain campaign official explained the change: “That language was mistakenly included in the initial draft, and it’s been corrected. It doesn’t reflect the intentions of the initiative, which necessitated the correction and the removal of the sentence. A simple mistake.”

Obama Campaign Economic Policy Director Jason Furman said in the campaign statement opposing McCain's plan: "John McCain wants the government to massively overpay for mortgages in a plan that would guarantee taxpayers lose money and put them at risk of losing even more if home values don’t recover. The biggest beneficiaries of this plan will be the same financial institutions that got us into this mess, some of whom even committed fraud."

The McCain campaign estimates in both documents that the plan would cost about $300 billion