Sarah Palin Interview

[Dylflon]

[Jason1]

Nice Dyflon, tru dat.

[The Germanator]

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/k6lA3bgHc11ISwLz7m

This had to be done. Tina Fey is perfect.

[Jason1]

yea, I watched that last night. My dad actually thought it was really Sarah Palin for a few seconds.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by TheGame

I don't know about all that the hippocracy isn't in his opinions on it, its in the fact that Mccain chose her dispite using inexperience as a weapon against Obama. He picked someone less experienced on the national stage, and who a lot less people even know about. I think anyone who was bashing Obama for lack of experience, but who is now strongly supporting Palin are the biggest hypocrites there are personally.

(Yes, I'm twisting it back.)

The truth of the matter is the majority of the people are going to vote off of who's in the party they support regardless of how unfit they are for the job. They'll find every reason to defend their canadate and bash the others even if they share in the same downfalls. Most "democrats" and "republicans" are guilty of this.

I think that palin's a cool person with a cool story, but I really think Mccain picked her for all the wrong reasons. It just makes a bigger joke of what this whole election is. If Obama and Mccain are the only two people left fit to be president, then this country is pretty sad right now.

I agree with most of what you you say here. I'm not a fan of the Palin pick either, but the way that the media has lost its mind over her pick, when Obama barely has more experience than her, is just an example of how rediculous the media is. I agree, the Republicans went after Obama's ionexperience, but the media never did or never did with much care or vigor, and just the opposite is true for the Palin nomination. Also, how they have dug up and attacked her family is beyond the norm, especially considering the most they've done as a public face for the campaign was stand next to her on stage.

Dyflon, Germ and Jason, you can hoot and howl all you like about claims of media bias, but a spade is a spade. No amount of jokes or mocking can erase the OBVIOUS bias that the media has shown since the Palin pick. That doesn't mean that I am defending her pick, it just means I'm pointing out the obvious. At some point you'll have to look at a situation and recognize it for what it is.

The problem with how the left is reacting to this, is that its working for McCain. The more the Palin pick receives such hollywood and media backlash, the more they alientate the country from the cause, and point out Obama's own inexperience and the fact that he is the PRESIDENTIAL candiate with little experience, and not the VP candidate and thats a big difference.

In the end, if they continue with such wolfpack tactics, this is going to be 2004 all over again: The Republicans will win and the Democata will be left scratching their heads, wondering how the hell they lost.

[TheGame]

I agree to an extent, but there's one key difference between Obama and Palin. Obama, as inexperienced as he may be, actually was VOTED in to be where he is now. He went up against more experienced people and what not, and he BEAT them. He actually "earned" his sponsor from the democratic party by appealing to the people.

Palin on the other hand, well.. The problems I have with her are similar to yours so it goes without saying. But the difference is, her being VP is a direct reflection of Mccain's decision making ability. It doesn't fall on the voters shoulders whatsoever outside of the fact that they picked Mccain and believed in his judgement. And he made a bad decision to me personally.

The media can sound 'bias' all they want, but the fact remains there is no face you can put out as the 'person who made a bad judgement and picked Obama' because his party voted him in. Most republicans I know were not too happy with Palin being the choice, though some have warmed up, most of them still don't think it was a good idea.

[The Germanator]

Originally Posted by Professor S

Dyflon, Germ and Jason, you can hoot and howl all you like about claims of media bias, but a spade is a spade. No amount of jokes or mocking can erase the OBVIOUS bias that the media has shown since the Palin pick. That doesn't mean that I am defending her pick, it just means I'm pointing out the obvious. At some point you'll have to look at a situation and recognize it for what it is.

The problem with how the left is reacting to this, is that its working for McCain. The more the Palin pick receives such hollywood and media backlash, the more they alientate the country from the cause, and point out Obama's own inexperience and the fact that he is the PRESIDENTIAL candiate with little experience, and not the VP candidate and thats a big difference.

In the end, if they continue with such wolfpack tactics, this is going to be 2004 all over again: The Republicans will win and the Democata will be left scratching their heads, wondering how the hell they lost.

Okay...You call it obvious bias and I say that it's not obvious bias. Where have we gotten with this? You know who first called out the "liberal media?" It was segregationists. They were upset that Blacks were getting an equal say opposing Jim Crow laws. But, no, I guess they shouldn't have reported that because it was biased against the segregationists. I understand this doesn't really have to do with current times, but there's been nothing to show me coverage has been biased. It seems like the Right knows they have the media in their back pocket and are afraid when the left makes any kind of intrusion on it.

I love your term, "wolfpack tactics." I guess that means FLAT OUT LYING from the McCain campaign. They were even called out by FACTCHECK.ORG for mis-quoting one of their articles. They said Palin went to Iraq, she didn't. Their attack ads have been downright shameful. They said Obama taught sex-ed to kindergarteners, but it was really just a bill to teach them how to avoid approaching threatening strangers. And guess what? The media hasn't given McCain nearly as much shit as he deserves for it. You can say it's as effective as it is, but you can't deny that it makes McCain lose a hell of a lot of integrity. You can stand by these so-called "wolf-pack" ideals if you want, but I don't know how you live with yourself by supporting them, just like I don't know how McCain does. Case in point from the McCain campaign

'We’re running a campaign to win. And we’re not too concerned about what the media filter tries to say about it.’

They don't care about people or the issues. Sad.

Palin is a fad. The post-convention bump has already showed itself. Gallup has it at 47% to 45% McCain, a statistical tie. Smart people will tire of the negative campaign run by the countless D.C lobbyists and Karl Rove. Just because the media calls them out on his lies doesn't mean they are biased. Have you ever thought that maybe Palin just has a hell of a lot more dirt on her than Obama?? It's been 19 months, maybe Obama has a lot less skeletons in his closet than you want him to. McCain cheated on his bed-ridden wife, I haven't heard much about this. I wonder why...

EDIT: And I posted the SNL thing because I thought it was, you know, funny. There's no reason to get bent out of shape about it.

[Bond]

Stop polarization!

[The Germanator]

Originally Posted by Bond

Stop polarization!

Tell that to the "Straight Talk Express." Seriously. Back in 2000 (if I could have voted) I might have gone for McCain instead of Gore, but the guy has really lost his integrity.

[Dylflon]

Prof: The reason I mock is because anyone on the right wing can do as much mudslinging at anyone they choose. And they do it extensively. The anti-Kerry swiftboat commercials come to mind.

I see so much right wing mud slinging yet when it comes from the other direction, republicans just boo-hoo because it's not fair and the media is biased.

I hear this liberal bias argument FAR TOO OFTEN, and it honestly just sounds to me like whiny spoiled child syndrome. Don't dish it if you can't take it.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by The Germanator

Tell that to the "Straight Talk Express." Seriously. Back in 2000 (if I could have voted) I might have gone for McCain instead of Gore, but the guy has really lost his integrity.

Mccain on the view was the funniest thing ever. This video sums up a lot of thoughts:

[Professor S]

1) If you read all of factcheck.org, you'll see a lot of dirt coming from Obama as well. The mud-slinging has gone both ways.

here is an excellent example:


The truth is that the hunting was culling wolf overpopulation that was destroying Carilbou herds. So I guess not the McCain camp should come out and attack Obama as anti-caribou? Do you see how silly all of the claims that McCain has been more negative than Obama? They've both been negative.

As for the sex-ed claim: Did you read the bill, or just repeat what Obama said? Read the legislation, and then get back to me. It was a LOT more than avoiding predadators.

2) What does segregation have to do with any of this? Do you honestly think that argument holds any water in today's political media scene? Why won't anyone challenge the points I made instead of dismissing them because "you've heard it before"? Once again, a spade is a spade, regardless of whther or not you've seen one before.

3) Palin was not my first, second or fourth choice, but you can't argue with the pick, politically. Now McCain is winning where he was being handed a drubbing before. Palin gave him a 10 point swing, got the Obama campaign on the defensive, mobilized the conservative base, raised a ton of money and will launch him into the debates. He needed that if he wanted to win. If you don't win you don't get to make any judgements, and with McCain's long history of independently minded legislation, I'm willing to forgive some actions taken during the heat of a campaign because I feel he is by far rthe superior candidate based on the issues (namely healthcare tax rebates, energy policy, vetoing earmarks, and international issues).

You want to question McCain's judgement because of the Palin pick? Fine. He was losing, now he's winning. How's that for judgement? Obama picked Biden because he needed experience on the ticket and he was scared to death of the Clintons. The truth is, if Obama had picked Clinton, this race would be OVER right now.

Anbd haven't they figured out this doesn't work?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13433.html

The strategy of attaching Bush to McCain HAS NOT WORKED. Voters over 30 with a memory remember the 200 campaign. They remember McCain coming out against certain Bush policies and a long history of centrist legislative leadership, and they aren't buying it. "McSame failed at the convention and it will fail again. You don't have to believe me, look at the polls:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/7360265.stm

Obama was slipping against McCain since the beginning of the summer, and now he's losing. YET they are going to go back to more of the same. I don't think they've figured out that McCain is bulletproof on that point.

Obama should be attacking McCain on where THEY differ, and leave Bush out of it. He should be putting out ads, with more specifics (all you need is a single sentence blurb as McCain has shown), about healthcare, taxes, Iraq strategy, etc. He needs to give more than just "lower taxes for 95% of Americans". "provide healthcare", and "get out of Iraq in a timely manner".

Instead, they'll continue with more of what has done nothing for them to gain new support. Once again, this shouldn't even be close.

[The Germanator]

Originally Posted by Professor S

1) If you read all of factcheck.org, you'll see a lot of dirt coming from Obama as well. The mud-slinging has gone both ways.

here is an excellent example:


The truth is that the hunting was culling wolf overpopulation that was destroying Carilbou herds. So I guess not the McCain camp should come out and attack Obama as anti-caribou? Do you see how silly all of the claims that McCain has been more negative than Obama? They've both been negative.

As for the sex-ed claim: Did you read the bill, or just repeat what Obama said? Read the legislation, and then get back to me. It was a LOT more than avoiding predadators.

2) What does segregation have to do with any of this? Do you honestly think that argument holds any water in today's political media scene? Why won't anyone challenge the points I made instead of dismissing them because "you've heard it before"? Once again, a spade is a spade, regardless of whther or not you've seen one before.

3) Palin was not my first, second or fourth choice, but you can't argue with the pick, politically. Now McCain is winning where he was being handed a drubbing before. Palin gave him a 10 point swing, got the Obama campaign on the defensive, mobilized the conservative base, raised a ton of money and will launch him into the debates. He needed that if he wanted to win. If you don't win you don't get to make any judgements, and with McCain's long history of independently minded legislation, I'm willing to forgive some actions taken during the heat of a campaign because I feel he is by far rthe superior candidate based on the issues (namely healthcare tax rebates, energy policy, vetoing earmarks, and international issues).

You want to question McCain's judgement because of the Palin pick? Fine. He was losing, now he's winning. How's that for judgement? Obama picked Biden because he needed experience on the ticket and he was scared to death of the Clintons. The truth is, if Obama had picked Clinton, this race would be OVER right now.

Anbd haven't they figured out this doesn't work?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13433.html

The strategy of attaching Bush to McCain HAS NOT WORKED. Voters over 30 with a memory remember the 200 campaign. They remember McCain coming out against certain Bush policies and a long history of centrist legislative leadership, and they aren't buying it. "McSame failed at the convention and it will fail again. You don't have to believe me, look at the polls. Obama was slipping against McCain since the beginning of the summer, and now he's losing. YET they are going to go back to more of the same. I don't think they've figured out that McCain is bulletproof on that point.

Obama should be attacking McCain on where THEY differ, and leave Bush out of it. He should be putting out ads, with more specifics (all you need is a single sentence blurb as McCain has shown), about healthcare, taxes, Iraq strategy, etc. He needs to give more than just "lower taxes for 95% of Americans". "provide healthcare", and "get out of Iraq in a timely manner".

Instead, they'll continue with more of what has done nothing for them to gain new support. Once again, this shouldn't even be close.

Did I miss something, Professor? Explain to me where the ad you posted says that it is approved by Barack Obama. It doesn't? Oh yeah, it doesn't. It actually specifically says it is not affiliated with any candidate. Nice try though. All of the ads I mentioned were specifically endorsed by McCain. The things dismissed by Factcheck were about smears from liberal blogs, not anyone in Obama's camp.

Here is an article about the Obama legislation...

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09...x-ed-for-kids/

http://www.newsweek.com/id/158314

He wasn't even a sponsor, but he voted for it. Parents didn't have to agree to it and it didn't teach anything explicit. What exactly is the problem here? I couldn't find the full legislation, but only every major news organization denouncing it as absurd. Spin it your own way though, go ahead.

In the end, yeah I agree, in the short term, the Palin pick has worked. I don't think the enthusiasm will last for more than another week or so, but maybe I'm wrong. I've never said that the Obama was running a great campaign, and yeah, the point is to win, but I respect Obama's take on it. He called the media's bullshit on the "lipstick on a pig" story when McCain ran with it and he immediately said Palin's family was off-limits from the get go. The Republicans cry sexism every time a criticism has run against Palin, but didn't feel that way when Hillary was a threat. In the end, the Republicans will do whatever they can to win, whether that means bending the truth or taking any position when it favors them. Yes, this is politics, and if they need to play dirty to win, great, but it feels better to root for the good guys who actually seem to have the country's interests in hand rather than their own power. Call me naive if you want, but nothing about McCain's borderline untruthful campaign tells me he's going to help this country. When is the last time he mentioned a specific policy of his own and how it will help America? I wish I was being facetious in asking this question, but I really can't remember. In the end, I'd rather believe in truth and hope than fear and lies, but I suppose we differ there.

And I did challenge your assertion on the "liberal media." I asked you whether it's possible that Palin just really has more skeletons in her closet than Obama. The media has had 19 months to run at Obama and they've dug up what they could (secret Muslim, terrorist sympathizer, anti-American wife, Jeremiah Wright, etc). The media was presented with somebody the general public didn't know with just 60 days left in the election and you expected nothing to happen? Palin has had a questionable past (Troopergate, congressional earmarks, Bridge to Nowhere, hiring friends to high-level positions in Alaskan government) and these are all legitimate concerns.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Professor S

You want to question McCain's judgement because of the Palin pick? Fine. He was losing, now he's winning. How's that for judgement? Obama picked Biden because he needed experience on the ticket and he was scared to death of the Clintons. The truth is, if Obama had picked Clinton, this race would be OVER right now.

That's a good point, however it goes against what he stood for in the begining. He didn't pick her because she's fit to be president in case he dies. He picked her to scoop up a few extra votes and to get more attention. Basically Mccain has sold completly out to try and win this election.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by The Germanator

Did I miss something, Professor? Explain to me where the ad you posted says that it is approved by Barack Obama. It doesn't? Oh yeah, it doesn't. It actually specifically says it is not affiliated with any candidate. Nice try though.

Honestly, I missed that. I don't try and "slip things passed". I thought it was an approved Obama ad, and I'll concede the point.

All of the ads I mentioned were specifically endorsed by McCain. The things dismissed by Factcheck were about smears from liberal blogs, not anyone in Obama's camp.

Here is an article about the Obama legislation...

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09...x-ed-for-kids/

http://www.newsweek.com/id/158314

He wasn't even a sponsor, but he voted for it. Parents didn't have to agree to it and it didn't teach anything explicit. What exactly is the problem here? I couldn't find the full legislation, but only every major news organization denouncing it as absurd. Spin it your own way though, go ahead.[/quote]

I never said that there was a porblem, I said that the statement the Obama campaign made in saying it was only about child protection was dishonest, AND IT WAS regardless of what anyone says about it. I never made value judgements on the legislation, only Obama's dishonest response to it. The fact is the legislation involved teaching chjildren as young as 5 about intercourse, same-sex couples, etc., and not just protection. No spin needed.

In the end, yeah I agree, in the short term, the Palin pick has worked. I don't think the enthusiasm will last for more than another week or so, but maybe I'm wrong. I've never said that the Obama was running a great campaign, and yeah, the point is to win, but I respect Obama's take on it. He called the media's bullshit on the "lipstick on a pig" story when McCain ran with it and he immediately said Palin's family was off-limits from the get go. The Republicans cry sexism every time a criticism has run against Palin, but didn't feel that way when Hillary was a threat.

I agree completely. I think the Republicans have lost their mind in trying to push everything as an attack against women/age/etc. Republicans don't do well playing themselves as victiums, nor should they do so.

In the end, the Republicans will do whatever they can to win, whether that means bending the truth or taking any position when it favors them. Yes, this is politics, and if they need to play dirty to win, great, but it feels better to root for the good guys who actually seem to have the country's interests in hand rather than their own power. Call me naive if you want, but nothing about McCain's borderline untruthful campaign tells me he's going to help this country. When is the last time he mentioned a specific policy of his own and how it will help America? I wish I was being facetious in asking this question, but I really can't remember. In the end, I'd rather believe in truth and hope than fear and lies, but I suppose we differ there.

My biggest complaint here is the willful blindness you show in this post. You blame Republicans for doing whatever it takes, and not Democrats? Obama has been dishonest down to his policies, renaming government grants as "tax breaks" when they are really redistributiuon of wealth programs. He has said that McCain was against Bush's tax cuts, without explaining that he was against the tax cuts not being associated with cuts in spending, and not against the tax cuts themselves. That is a lie of omission and a misrepresentation.

And I did challenge your assertion on the "liberal media." I asked you whether it's possible that Palin just really has more skeletons in her closet than Obama. The media has had 19 months to run at Obama and they've dug up what they could (secret Muslim, terrorist sympathizer, anti-American wife, Jeremiah Wright, etc). The media was presented with somebody the general public didn't know with just 60 days left in the election and you expected nothing to happen? Palin has had a questionable past (Troopergate, congressional earmarks, Bridge to Nowhere, hiring friends to high-level positions in Alaskan government) and these are all legitimate concerns.

No, you aren't arguing my point. My point wasn't about whether or not the media addressed Obama's skeletons, but how they did so. It took over a YEAR from Obama's announcement that he was running for the media to even mention William Ayers or Reverend Wright. It took 4 DAYS for them to dig up everything on Palin. If you can't see the difference, nothing I say will help you see it.

And for the record, the media never claimed that Obama was a secret Muslim, they debunked the assinine e-mail that went around claiming that he was a secret Muslim.

And as long as we're posting SNL skits, remember thje debate parody when Obama was asked if he needed a pillow? Yeah, its like that.