Some people wish those who supported McCain were more compelling debaters.
Liberal intellectuals and elites have been scorned by Republicans in the past, but not intellectuals and elites in general. Have you not heard the praise for General Patraeus? Have you not heard the praise for the United States military? Do you really think Republicans despise someone like Alan Greenspan?
It'd be interesting to have Sting explain away what we witnessed in that video.
I found that video as discouraging and the McCain/Palin mob flick. Equally dishonest, equally deplorable. And again it was the people making the video not the "baddies" in the video that I found most dishonest and most deplorable.
Sad.
What I find ironic, is that we have had people in this forum claim that Bush is a Terrorist with the majority in here not stepping in to voice their opposition to that type of a statement.
What would possess you to ask Sting why we went to war?
Do you WANT to hear about Res...I can't even type it out...again?
Vote Obama. McCain lacks the character and temperament to be president. And Palin is simply a disgrace. - By Christopher Hitchens - Slate MagazineVote for Obama
MCCAIN LACKS THE CHARACTER AND TEMPERAMENT TO BE PRESIDENT. AND PALIN IS SIMPLY A DISGRACE.
By Christopher Hitchens
I used to nod wisely when people said: "Let's discuss issues rather than personalities." It seemed so obvious that in politics an issue was an issue and a personality was a personality, and that the more one could separate the two, the more serious one was. After all, in a debate on serious issues, any mention of the opponent's personality would be ad hominem at best and at worst would stoop as low as ad feminam.
At my old English boarding school, we had a sporting saying that one should "tackle the ball and not the man." I carried on echoing this sort of unexamined nonsense for quite some time—in fact, until the New Hampshire primary of 1992, when it hit me very forcibly that the "personality" of one of the candidates was itself an "issue." In later years, I had little cause to revise my view that Bill Clinton's abysmal character was such as to be a "game changer" in itself, at least as important as his claim to be a "new Democrat." To summarize what little I learned from all this: A candidate may well change his or her position on, say, universal health care or Bosnia. But he or she cannot change the fact—if it happens to be a fact—that he or she is a pathological liar, or a dimwit, or a proud ignoramus. And even in the short run, this must and will tell.
On "the issues" in these closing weeks, there really isn't a very sharp or highly noticeable distinction to be made between the two nominees, and their "debates" have been cramped and boring affairs as a result. But the difference in character and temperament has become plainer by the day, and there is no decent way of avoiding the fact. Last week's so-called town-hall event showed Sen. John McCain to be someone suffering from an increasingly obvious and embarrassing deficit, both cognitive and physical. And the only public events that have so far featured his absurd choice of running mate have shown her to be a deceiving and unscrupulous woman utterly unversed in any of the needful political discourses but easily trained to utter preposterous lies and to appeal to the basest element of her audience. McCain occasionally remembers to stress matters like honor and to disown innuendoes and slanders, but this only makes him look both more senile and more cynical, since it cannot (can it?) be other than his wish and design that he has engaged a deputy who does the innuendoes and slanders for him.
My bad, but the reason is still valid, bombing civilian targets when your intelligence isn't very good would make him a "terrorist" in the eyes of more than a few people
Maybe the November surprise will be the finding of the mythical WMDs ? Although personally I think he has a bigger chance of finding a colony of Unicorns....
Its funny, there are probably only 10 people on this board that support McCain or Bush, but clearly, some people in this forum wish that it was zero.
The drink sodden ex-trotskyist popinjay that came in from the cold.
I wasn't being dishonest before.
I don't know the first thing about Cheyenne or SLC society, so I'll guess no.
.
One-time Hillary Clinton chief strategist Mark Penn acknowledged -- sort of -- that Barack Obama had passed the infamous 3 A.M. test that Penn and his aides had artificially created as a criteria to be elected president.
Appearing at the Time Warner Summit conference on the 2008 election, Penn proclaimed that the state of the presidential race had broken down along the lines of which candidate voters assumed was best able to handle that late-night crisis moment.
"McCain really faltered in terms of answering the call, being contradictory and he blew a lot of electoral points that had been building up to that," he said. "The dynamic of this election is about who will be able to handle the economic crisis. They have looked to the response so far and voters have said this is the type of crisis that Obama can handle," and they don't see that with the McCain campaign.
The remark represents a full-circle moment of sorts for Penn, who throughout the Democratic primary was highly critical of Obama's experience and ability. The famous 3 A.M. ad that he engineered before the Ohio and Texas primary -- which questioned which candidate could handle a unexpected terrorism scare -- was, Penn said, the most discussed spot of the cycle.
Moreover, since the Democratic primary ended Penn has remained hostile towards Obama. On Monday he did not offer anything that could be interpreted as a measure of endorsement or support. But he did seem bullish on the Illinois Democrat's chances (at this point, who isn't)?
Penn had harsh words to say about Gov. Sarah Palin, who he said had wilted under press criticism.
"I don't think you will see her in politics again unless she goes back and gets the experience that she doesn't have right now," he said.
In addition, he admonished the media for -- among many things -- being too easy on John McCain.
"No one has really gone back on McCain and gone through the Keating Five and whether or not it is fair or unfair," he said, "which will be particularly relevant considering we have a banking crisis. And yet the background stories on that, whether favorable or unfavorable, have been zero."
I have to hand it to Hitchens for calling Palin a "proud ignoramus" because hell that's exactly what she is.
Example, please.
Name one... Just one.
Btw-
How do my friends on the Left feel about the integrity of ACORN and late breaking sex scandal of Mahoney-the guy that replaced Foley?
<>
Whats wrong, do you actually think that there has not been a single Bush basher over the past 8 years that has refered to George Bush as a terrorist or that he belongs in the Hague?