likearock

Ummmm No. I still don't see where McCain or Palin themselves tried to get any mileage out of it. Campaign workers will do stupid things, some very stupid. I wouldn't hold McCain accountable for some isolated worker's remarks any more than I would Obama for an isolated remark coming from his side. Interesting enough that the conservatives are the ones making really lame connections to Obama but yet people that wear the McCain color's and are on their campaign payroll should just be brushed over. Ok. Sure. Enjoy those double standards. It's not a double standard if you condemn both sides for those activities. The last thing the voters want to see is a "he did it first" mentality.

Ummmm No. I still don't see where McCain or Palin themselves tried to get any mileage out of it. Campaign workers will do stupid things, some very stupid. I wouldn't hold McCain accountable for some isolated worker's remarks any more than I would Obama for an isolated remark coming from his side.

But it's looking like someone from the McCain camp started this off. Then, disgustingly, soo many conservatives allowed their hidden racism come out as they cheered for this to be true. Once you start characterizing people as in the "McCain camp", you open yourself to the same criticism as those who try to characterize an "Obama camp" that includes all those unsavory people. Neither McCain nor Palin tried to get any mileage out of this story, even before it was exposed as a hoax. Time to move on.

I don't agree with that statement. Some young college aged racist who takes it upon herself to race-bait is not the same as McCain telling her to go out and do it. Afterall if McCain or his staff were actually behind it, it would have appeared much more authentic. I have to agree here. To blame McCain for the hoaxer is completely equivalent to blaming Obama for the assault. Neither candidate is responsible for nut jobs.

You got me thinking about my sh*tty English skills. Where is the adjective in "... an Arab"?? Sounds more like a substantive to me. OK, today I like to be the nitpicker "I don't trust Obama...he's an Arab." Obama is the subject, Arab is the adjective describing Obama. I'm pretty sure Arab is a noun when used in that way.

It's a bit more than that. Obama unilaterally decided to reject public financing after saying he would negotiate with McCain so they could both go that route: Source:

The endorsement perhaps but the commentary will have an effect. The fact that Powell, who was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during a war, considers the Ayers mudslinging inappropriate and a non-issue will definitely minimize its impact among independents.

McCain was funnier, edgier, and sounded more sincere in praising his opponent.

Wow, that sounds a little like Joe the Plumber

I take it you're a freeflyer?

"Dude, Vegas has you at +250!"

Wow - I never realized that it was only in the last 8 years that the VP acts as the agent of the President - thanks for clearing that up for us. Does the added emphasis help? Perhaps you need to re-read the Constitution - the VP's duty IS Legislative, as President of the Congress. Right. And up until recently that role has been generally restricted to acting as a tie-breaker in votes. I'll leave it up to the American people as to how much enthusiasm they have for the more expansive role advocated by Cheney and Palin.

Great debating tactic: if you're shown to be wrong, redefine the terms until you're right. It doesn't matter how we define the terms, if we're talking about McKiernan all that matters is how he defines it. And judging from nerdgirl's quote clearly, however he defines it, he doesn't think it's appropriate for Afghanistan.

Wow, your credibility just went out the window with that statement. Do you ever watch Lou Dobbs? He hates Obama. He is more in the tank for the Republicans (unless they go against his anti-immigrant jihad) than O'Reilly. Personally, I'll take Olbermann or O'Reilly any day over Dobbs.

Wow - I never realized that it was only in the last 8 years that the VP acts as the agent of the President - thanks for clearing that up for us. Does the added emphasis help?

No, it wasn't. That's still dumbing-down the definition of "a good job". Some things are absolute. Rising to the level of insipid mediocrity is not "doing a good job." The term "good job" is only relevant in reference to the sought after goal. In her case, the most important goal was to counteract the terrible PR that came from her previous public appearances and I believe she succeeded in doing that. I think that the "Palin factor" will now be substantially reduced and people will be voting on other issues in November. You may disagree that she did succeed in that way and that's fine, but your subjective assessment of her mediocrity is much less important in the overall scheme of things.

That "gaffe" will only serve to help her with independents. IMO, it was one of the high points of her night. It put some real meat on her claim of being a "maverick". If the Rs are smart, they won't rush to retract that statement. What for? The base isn't going anywhere. The one true gaffe I would point to was when she agreed with Cheney's position that the VP incorporates both the executive and legislative branch. After all that's gone on in the past administration, that statement was genuinely chilling. If she doesn't retract it, the Dems will make her pay.

She really went toe to toe with Biden - didn't just tread water. Yeah sure, she had some weak moments when she reverted back to the Stepford candidate but she had some great moments too. My favorite was when she gave the Reaganesque, "There you go again, Joe..." How could you not love that? Even if it was rehearsed, the timing was perfect. That said, they're still going to lose. Especially, if the House Republicans continue playing chicken the economy. The longer the bailout dominates the news, the worse it is for McCain.

If you think that has a higher chance than it just making the event longer and more drawn out, Yes. But the simple fact is no one knows if this plan will work. It very well could make things worse. Good point. I propose we all sit on our hands until a consensus is reached.

Great read.

Unbelievable. 12 Republicans switched their bailout vote because their feelings were hurt Whether you supported or opposed the big bailout proposal rejected by the House of Representatives today, one news item is particularly unsettling. Some 12 House Republicans (according to House leaders Boehner, Blount and Cantor) decided to vote against the bill at the last minute because Speaker Nancy Pelosi said some mean things about Republicans prior to the vote. Deviating from her prepared text, Speaker Pelosi said: "When President Bush took office, he inherited President Clinton's surpluses — four years in a row, budget surpluses, on a trajectory of $5.6 trillion in surplus. And with his reckless economic policies within two years, he had turned that around ... and now eight years later the foundation of that fiscal irresponsibility, combined with an anything-goes economic policy, has taken us to where we are today. They claim to be free-market advocates when it's really an anything-goes mentality, no regulation, no supervision, no discipline. ..." "... Democrats believe in a free market ... but in this case, in its unbridled form as encouraged, supported by the Republicans — some in the Republican Party, not all — it has created not jobs, not capital, it has created chaos." Look, I admit the comments were poorly timed but, please, twelve Republican House members had their feelings hurt and switched their vote as a result? Let me get this straight - the Dow just dropped 777 points following the House vote, the single largest one day decline in U.S. history, foreign markets will open later today to unknown, but most likely, similar fates, many thousands of retirement age Americans watched their plans to retire go up in smoke this afternoon, U.S. corporations are wondering whether they will be in a position to borrow funds for needed expansion or have to lay off portions of their workforce, and these 12 Republicans switched their vote at the last minute because their delicate egos were bruised by Pelosi's comments? I have a feeling we will never know the names of those 12 Republicans. But we should.

Are you kidding me? You're bitching about the Democrats (who delivered a majority of their votes) when the Republicans couldn't even manage one third? And that, in spite of the fact that Bush, McCain, and Boehner all urged them to pass it? Give me a break, Max. This is the most disgusted I've ever been with the Republican party ever. And as the stock market continues to tank over the next few days there will be no doubt who is playing chicken with the life savings of the American people.

You understand of course that blacks have overwhelmingly[/url] voted for Democrats over Republicans even when race isn't a factor, right (for example, in 2004)? Under the circumstances, it's a little dangerous to make any assumptions regarding blacks voting for Obama simply because he's black. A real test would be what percentage of blacks vote for a black Republican against a white Democrat.

They did a McCain/Obama debate last night that pretty much skewered each candidate equally.

Just curious, did you feel the same way when Geraldine Ferraro was running with Mondale?