How much uglier can this election get??

[351Cleveland]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Same here, I'm waiting for Axelrod's Chicago-style political machine to kick into gear.

Hillary was a blessing in disguise. Her voters aren't buying the Palin ploy, and Hillary already used McCain's best material against Obama. Wright could have been a nice "October surprise" for McCain...instead, he's back-page news that the country has already heard and made a decision about.

NEWS FLASH: They didn't put Sarah on the ticket to grab the left over Hillary voters. That's McCain's job.

I said this in the other threads... Chris Matthews nailed it. She was brought on as a cultural juxtaposition to the Obamas. They aren't millionaires. They are Jane and Joe Sixpack with their five kids, their mortgage and their everyday existance. Smart, normal, common sense people who aren't out to craft an image.

She's a torpedo... with a rockin' bod and a sharp sense of humor.

Expect she isn't?

She's a ultra-conservative ex-beauty queen who's husband makes the big dollar, there is nothing average about her.

An hourly, union job. You hate him for THAT?! Seriously, is that your response? He makes the big money at his hourly, union job, and so she isnt a normal American?

I guess I missed something.... sounds a heck of a lot like my family.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Does any one think this thing is going to get uglier than it already is??

Or are we going to get around to talking about real issues??

The trash being pushed as news is just getting insane.

Let's hope this all ends soon and we can have McCain v. Obama on the issues.

Dems ALWAYS lose on the issues. This is why it always comes down to personal attacks.

Erm, No.

August 08 (links to prior months on site)
http://www.rasmussenreports.co...t_importance_on_issues

Gov't Ethics & Corruption - Dems +16
Health Care - Dems +15
Economy - Dems +12
Education - Dems +10
Immigration - Dems +10
Iraq - Dems +9
Social Security - Dems +8
Abortion - Dems +7
Natl Security/WoT - Dems +4
Taxes - Dems -3

exactly proves my point. If you lay down all the facts and analysis, dems will ALWAYS lose on most issues. The fact that they are not debating the issues and voters and dems in general go by "feelings" is why the dems are up on polls.

The biggest joke on that is Economy. I mean really? Higher corporate tax, higher taxes in dividend and cap gains = better economy? That is just retardation.

SS dems? haha what a joke. Bush tried to reform and fucking dems killed it every time.

Health care dems - laff. tax and insure 40 million with no infrastructure to support it. Quick plant the magic beans that grow new doctors.

National security dems? srsly? lol.

Abortion - dems, yup they love to kill unborn babies and like to add shit to the constitution that doesn't belong there.

Education - NCLB? ted kennedey wrote that shit.

We all know all politicians are corrupt. Dems have just done a better job of labeling GOP as the corrupt ones.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Same here, I'm waiting for Axelrod's Chicago-style political machine to kick into gear.

Hillary was a blessing in disguise. Her voters aren't buying the Palin ploy, and Hillary already used McCain's best material against Obama. Wright could have been a nice "October surprise" for McCain...instead, he's back-page news that the country has already heard and made a decision about.

Wishful thinking, perhaps delusional thinking.

The vast majority of voters don't pay attention to what is going on in the primaries.
We can be sure that Wright will show up in TV commercials through out October.

About 34 million people voted in the Democrat primaries. That is 25 million less than voted for Kerry in 2004. Which means there are a LOT of people out there that didn't vote and were most likely not paying that much attention to what was going on.

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: JS80

We all know all politicians are corrupt. Dems have just done a better job of labeling GOP as the corrupt ones.

Wow, you truly are stupid, even for a republican.

 

[Lemon law]

If we compare the election of 2004 to what the election of 2008 is shaping up to be, two and only two thing stands out.

(1) When GWB, in 2004, was asked to disavow the swiftboating of Kerry by well funded 521 groups, he gave Kerry some faint praise but stopped well short of denouncing the swiftboating of Kerry.

And in 2008, as a set of nebulous internet bloggers, started swiftboating Palin, Obama and Biden both came out and denounced the swiftboating and placed the children of candidates off limits.

(2) What has been somewhat amazing is how fast the swiftboating grew. In 2004, the groups that swiftboared Kerry were both nebulous and would not stand their claims up to real public scrutiny.

In 2008, the initial charges of the mysterious non showing Pregnancy of Sarah Pain were bolstered by a set of rather convincing photographs. And the contention, however scurrilous, was that Sarah Palin was in fact not the mother of Trig Palin. And if it was not Sarah, the number one suspect became Bristol. And by fast growing scandal day three, the Palin camp said it can't be Bristol, because she was already pregnant and that father was a fellow student named Levi Johnston. But it actually does nothing to exonerate Sarah Palin, it only eliminates one suspect. And the only thing that will put the whole thing to rest is a SINGLE DEFINITIVE FACT, namely a DNA tests that proves Todd and Sarah Palin are the biological parents of Trig Palin. And now that the National Inquirer and other groups are nosing around looking for facts and innuendo, I really think the Palin's should take that DNA test and put the rumor to bed.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: JS80

Dems ALWAYS lose on the issues. This is why it always comes down to personal attacks.

Erm, No.

August 08 (links to prior months on site)
http://www.rasmussenreports.co...t_importance_on_issues

Gov't Ethics & Corruption - Dems +16
Health Care - Dems +15
Economy - Dems +12
Education - Dems +10
Immigration - Dems +10
Iraq - Dems +9
Social Security - Dems +8
Abortion - Dems +7
Natl Security/WoT - Dems +4
Taxes - Dems -3

exactly proves my point. If you lay down all the facts and analysis, dems will ALWAYS lose on most issues. The fact that they are not debating the issues and voters and dems in general go by "feelings" is why the dems are up on polls.

The biggest joke on that is Economy. I mean really? Higher corporate tax, higher taxes in dividend and cap gains = better economy? That is just retardation.

SS dems? haha what a joke. Bush tried to reform and fucking dems killed it every time.

Health care dems - laff. tax and insure 40 million with no infrastructure to support it. Quick plant the magic beans that grow new doctors.

National security dems? srsly? lol.

Abortion - dems, yup they love to kill unborn babies and like to add shit to the constitution that doesn't belong there.

Education - NCLB? ted kennedey wrote that shit.

We all know all politicians are corrupt. Dems have just done a better job of labeling GOP as the corrupt ones.

This explains a lot about your reasoning.

You say Democrats always lose on the issues.
You are shown a poll that has Democrats winning on the issues.
You claim it supports your point because you don't agree.

Laff indeed.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Tab
Expect she isn't?

She's a ultra-conservative ex-beauty queen who's husband makes the big dollar, there is nothing average about her.

Oh please.
How much does Mrs O make per year at that Hospital??

Mr Palin made $92,000 in 2007.
Mrs O made $273,000 from the hospital and another $51,000 as a member of the board of directors of TreeHouse Foods. (2006 figures)

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
You'd have to be pretty young to think this campaign has been worse smear-wise than 2000 or 2004.

And the shameless OP was out front leading the charge.

Says who??

I wasn't even around this board back then and while I paid attention did not do any real sort of blogging or anything else back then.

In other words, keep your baseless charges to yourself.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: JD50
You must be having problems following the discussion. I was responding to the discussion between Atomic Playboy, Tab, QED, and Whoozyerdaddy, which revolved around Whoozyerdaddy describing Sarah Palin and her family like this -

They aren't millionaires. They are Jane and Joe Sixpack with their five kids, their mortgage and their everyday existance. Smart, normal, common sense people who aren't out to craft an image.

She's a torpedo... with a rockin' bod and a sharp sense of humor.

Atomic Playboy cut the quote down to just this

She's a torpedo... with a rockin' bod and a sharp sense of humor.

I added back in the other part of Whoozyerdaddy's description of Palin and her family. That seems pretty relevant to me, how about you?

You make it seem as though I intentionally removed relevant information to misrepresent what someone said. Allow me to retort. The sole reason I included the quote tree back to Whoozyerdaddy's post was to respond to the claim of sexism raised by QED; specifically, "She is the current governor of a US State, and you dismiss her as an "ex-beauty queen"?" It seemed relevant to me that Whoozyerdaddy used the phrase "rockin' bod." It did not seem relevant that he referred to her as Jane and Joe Sixpack in the context of the discussion of sexism.

Now, I realize I went on to discuss their financial status, so I can see how you would be confused. But my info for that was a combination of a later post by Whoozyerdaddy in this thread ("Dude works on the slope. Probably pulls in around 100k/year. They're not poor by any stretch of the imagination... But they're no where near Obama/McCain/Clinton/*Politician rich.") and a Google search for the annual salary of the Governor of Alaska. I did not specifically quote this post, because, as you said:

Originally posted by: JD50
Apparently you aren't aware that the mods frown upon nested quoting, thus the attempt to trim the quotes down to what appears to be relevant to the current discussion. Are you still confused?

I cut out what I deemed irrelevant given my response. My apologies for the confusion.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
You'd have to be pretty young to think this campaign has been worse smear-wise than 2000 or 2004.

And the shameless OP was out front leading the charge.

Says who??

I wasn't even around this board back then and while I paid attention did not do any real sort of blogging or anything else back then.

In other words, keep your baseless charges to yourself.

Sorry, that was 2006 when you were leading the attacks and the dirty mud slinging.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Does any one think this thing is going to get uglier than it already is??

Or are we going to get around to talking about real issues??

The trash being pushed as news is just getting insane.

Let's hope this all ends soon and we can have McCain v. Obama on the issues.

Never will happen.

The purchase of every Electoral vote is what is most important through lies and deception.

It is now the cornerstone of America.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
You'd have to be pretty young to think this campaign has been worse smear-wise than 2000 or 2004.

And the shameless OP was out front leading the charge.

Says who??

I wasn't even around this board back then and while I paid attention did not do any real sort of blogging or anything else back then.

In other words, keep your baseless charges to yourself.

Sorry, that was 2006 when you were leading the attacks and the dirty mud slinging.

What mud slinging???

It was the Democrats throwing mud at all the stupid Republicans who screwed up.

Why don't you just admit that you were wrong and get it over with.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: JD50
You must be having problems following the discussion. I was responding to the discussion between Atomic Playboy, Tab, QED, and Whoozyerdaddy, which revolved around Whoozyerdaddy describing Sarah Palin and her family like this -

They aren't millionaires. They are Jane and Joe Sixpack with their five kids, their mortgage and their everyday existance. Smart, normal, common sense people who aren't out to craft an image.

She's a torpedo... with a rockin' bod and a sharp sense of humor.

Atomic Playboy cut the quote down to just this

She's a torpedo... with a rockin' bod and a sharp sense of humor.

I added back in the other part of Whoozyerdaddy's description of Palin and her family. That seems pretty relevant to me, how about you?

You make it seem as though I intentionally removed relevant information to misrepresent what someone said. Allow me to retort. The sole reason I included the quote tree back to Whoozyerdaddy's post was to respond to the claim of sexism raised by QED; specifically, "She is the current governor of a US State, and you dismiss her as an "ex-beauty queen"?" It seemed relevant to me that Whoozyerdaddy used the phrase "rockin' bod." It did not seem relevant that he referred to her as Jane and Joe Sixpack in the context of the discussion of sexism.

I see what you're saying. To me, it seemed like Tab was ignoring everything else that she has done and was referring to her as JUST an ex-beauty queen, which has been done repeatedly over these last few days. But that was just my interpretation.

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
Now, I realize I went on to discuss their financial status, so I can see how you would be confused. But my info for that was a combination of a later post by Whoozyerdaddy in this thread ("Dude works on the slope. Probably pulls in around 100k/year. They're not poor by any stretch of the imagination... But they're no where near Obama/McCain/Clinton/*Politician rich.") and a Google search for the annual salary of the Governor of Alaska. I did not specifically quote this post, because, as you said:

Originally posted by: JD50
Apparently you aren't aware that the mods frown upon nested quoting, thus the attempt to trim the quotes down to what appears to be relevant to the current discussion. Are you still confused?

I cut out what I deemed irrelevant given my response. My apologies for the confusion.

"Who are you to decide what is relevant for other people?"

and

"This is actually a good example of repugs who think they know what is relevant for other people instead of letting other people decide for themselves."

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
You'd have to be pretty young to think this campaign has been worse smear-wise than 2000 or 2004.

And the shameless OP was out front leading the charge.

Says who??

I wasn't even around this board back then and while I paid attention did not do any real sort of blogging or anything else back then.

In other words, keep your baseless charges to yourself.

Sorry, that was 2006 when you were leading the attacks and the dirty mud slinging.

What mud slinging???

It was the Democrats throwing mud at all the stupid Republicans who screwed up.

Why don't you just admit that you were wrong and get it over with.

No why don't you get over yourself you hypocrite. You come in here pointing fingers when you're one of the worse offenders.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: JD50
"Who are you to decide what is relevant for other people?"

and

"This is actually a good example of repugs who think they know what is relevant for other people instead of letting other people decide for themselves."

I know, right? Following that logic, anyone who responds to a thread should be required to quote the entire thread for fear that they missed some tidbit of information that had nothing to do with their point, but which someone else deems relevant. After all, it's not like people can look through the thread themselves to verify anything that was said... that's downright unAmerican.

Some people are seemingly retarded...

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Does any one think this thing is going to get uglier than it already is??

Or are we going to get around to talking about real issues??

The trash being pushed as news is just getting insane.

Let's hope this all ends soon and we can have McCain v. Obama on the issues.

Dems ALWAYS lose on the issues. This is why it always comes down to personal attacks.

Erm, No.

August 08 (links to prior months on site)
http://www.rasmussenreports.co...t_importance_on_issues

Gov't Ethics & Corruption - Dems +16
Health Care - Dems +15
Economy - Dems +12
Education - Dems +10
Immigration - Dems +10
Iraq - Dems +9
Social Security - Dems +8
Abortion - Dems +7
Natl Security/WoT - Dems +4
Taxes - Dems -3

exactly proves my point. If you lay down all the facts and analysis, dems will ALWAYS lose on most issues. The fact that they are not debating the issues and voters and dems in general go by "feelings" is why the dems are up on polls.

The biggest joke on that is Economy. I mean really? Higher corporate tax, higher taxes in dividend and cap gains = better economy? That is just retardation.

SS dems? haha what a joke. Bush tried to reform and fucking dems killed it every time.

Health care dems - laff. tax and insure 40 million with no infrastructure to support it. Quick plant the magic beans that grow new doctors.

National security dems? srsly? lol.

Abortion - dems, yup they love to kill unborn babies and like to add shit to the constitution that doesn't belong there.

Education - NCLB? ted kennedey wrote that shit.

We all know all politicians are corrupt. Dems have just done a better job of labeling GOP as the corrupt ones.

I find this economy argument from the right the funniest... Now for the first time in modren history, starting in 2000 (through 2006), the reps had the house, senate and oval office - ability to easily pass all those fiscal policies they have been touting for 30 years... LOOK WHAT IT GOT US!!!

Record deficits, spending out of control, economy in turmoil. WHat the hell are you talking about???

 

[Coldkilla]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Does any one think this thing is going to get uglier than it already is??

Or are we going to get around to talking about real issues??

The trash being pushed as news is just getting insane.

Let's hope this all ends soon and we can have McCain v. Obama on the issues.

Dems ALWAYS lose on the issues. This is why it always comes down to personal attacks.

But since Obama won't debate the issues, GOP's only resort is to attack him personally. I'm still waiting for the barrage of TV ads of Wright/Rezko/Ayers, etc. You spam "God damn America" and "I don't regret setting bombs" and flag burning and GOP wins.

Wow....I'm sorry but all I've heard from Obama has been what he will do to help families (right or wrong he at least has been talking about it). All I've heard since McCain was nominated was attacks. I've been watching these GOP conventions and I have not heard a single solitary word on anything else other than "Obama sucks, elect me instead without me telling you how I plan on doing anything"....

 

[WHAMPOM]

OK Let's go by Palin's record, a vindictive, back-stabbing, if you're not with me, then you're against me hypocrite and flip flopper.



EDIT: That is what I got out of the first week, will a month of further investigation confirm or deny.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: JS80

Dems ALWAYS lose on the issues. This is why it always comes down to personal attacks.

Erm, No.

August 08 (links to prior months on site)
http://www.rasmussenreports.co...t_importance_on_issues

Gov't Ethics & Corruption - Dems +16
Health Care - Dems +15
Economy - Dems +12
Education - Dems +10
Immigration - Dems +10
Iraq - Dems +9
Social Security - Dems +8
Abortion - Dems +7
Natl Security/WoT - Dems +4
Taxes - Dems -3

exactly proves my point. If you lay down all the facts and analysis, dems will ALWAYS lose on most issues. The fact that they are not debating the issues and voters and dems in general go by "feelings" is why the dems are up on polls.

The biggest joke on that is Economy. I mean really? Higher corporate tax, higher taxes in dividend and cap gains = better economy? That is just retardation.

SS dems? haha what a joke. Bush tried to reform and fucking dems killed it every time.

Health care dems - laff. tax and insure 40 million with no infrastructure to support it. Quick plant the magic beans that grow new doctors.

National security dems? srsly? lol.

Abortion - dems, yup they love to kill unborn babies and like to add shit to the constitution that doesn't belong there.

Education - NCLB? ted kennedey wrote that shit.

We all know all politicians are corrupt. Dems have just done a better job of labeling GOP as the corrupt ones.

This explains a lot about your reasoning.

You say Democrats always lose on the issues.
You are shown a poll that has Democrats winning on the issues.
You claim it supports your point because you don't agree.

Laff indeed.

I use posts like that to add to Jonk's List of people to ignore and not bother responding to. At least on certain issues. Congrats JS!

Let's see, where to put you...

Butterbean (everything)
Dari (statutory interpretation)
event8horizon (anything 9/11)
JS80 (things requiring logic)
LemonLaw (anything Israel)
lupi (everything)
techs (anything Hillary)

Welcome!

 

[Cuda1447]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
I'm actually surprised by the level of hatred splashed on her and her family. Everyone wants an outsider... someone 'normal' to hold positions of power instead of the career do-nothing, corrupt politicians we always get stuck with. Well, here comes normal. Ready, aim fire. I guess normal isn't good enough if she doesn't have the right letter after her name.

Actually we're attacking her because of a combination of two things:

1) She's one of the most socially conservative candidates to run for the executive branch in decades.

2) She's one of the least experienced candidates to run for the executive branch in decades.

I have no problem with her being conservative.

Please tell me what experience BHO has that makes him more qualified to be Prez, much less VP?

He was a community organizer. Oooo-k. Sarah was in the PTA. Push
He was a state senator... and routinely refused to vote yes or no. PRESENT!
He is a US senator... who has not authored or passed a single piece of legislation. Sarah was/is a governor. Sarah wins.

Really... What has BHO does to make him more qualified?

You make it sound like it is ok that she is inexperienced because she is "just" running for VP. That is just wrong, when McSame kicks the bucket in the next 4 year she would have less then a day to do nothing ex-beauty queen to leader of the free world.

I don't think anyone is trying to make it "ok". They are simply saying that the Dem's can't really criticize Palin on being inexperienced, like Jpeyton points out is one of her two flaws, when she has the same amount of (or more) experience than the Dem's primary candidate. Its called being hypocritical.


Why can't you people get that in your head?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Cuda1447

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
I'm actually surprised by the level of hatred splashed on her and her family. Everyone wants an outsider... someone 'normal' to hold positions of power instead of the career do-nothing, corrupt politicians we always get stuck with. Well, here comes normal. Ready, aim fire. I guess normal isn't good enough if she doesn't have the right letter after her name.

Actually we're attacking her because of a combination of two things:

1) She's one of the most socially conservative candidates to run for the executive branch in decades.

2) She's one of the least experienced candidates to run for the executive branch in decades.

I have no problem with her being conservative.

Please tell me what experience BHO has that makes him more qualified to be Prez, much less VP?

He was a community organizer. Oooo-k. Sarah was in the PTA. Push
He was a state senator... and routinely refused to vote yes or no. PRESENT!
He is a US senator... who has not authored or passed a single piece of legislation. Sarah was/is a governor. Sarah wins.

Really... What has BHO does to make him more qualified?

You make it sound like it is ok that she is inexperienced because she is "just" running for VP. That is just wrong, when McSame kicks the bucket in the next 4 year she would have less then a day to do nothing ex-beauty queen to leader of the free world.

I don't think anyone is trying to make it "ok". They are simply saying that the Dem's can't really criticize Palin on being inexperienced, like Jpeyton points out is one of her two flaws, when she has the same amount of (or more) experience than the Dem's primary candidate. Its called being hypocritical.


Why can't you people get that in your head?

Actually she has more Executive experience than McCain though he was a POW.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: JS80

Dems ALWAYS lose on the issues. This is why it always comes down to personal attacks.

Erm, No.

August 08 (links to prior months on site)
http://www.rasmussenreports.co...t_importance_on_issues

Gov't Ethics & Corruption - Dems +16
Health Care - Dems +15
Economy - Dems +12
Education - Dems +10
Immigration - Dems +10
Iraq - Dems +9
Social Security - Dems +8
Abortion - Dems +7
Natl Security/WoT - Dems +4
Taxes - Dems -3

exactly proves my point. If you lay down all the facts and analysis, dems will ALWAYS lose on most issues. The fact that they are not debating the issues and voters and dems in general go by "feelings" is why the dems are up on polls.

The biggest joke on that is Economy. I mean really? Higher corporate tax, higher taxes in dividend and cap gains = better economy? That is just retardation.

SS dems? haha what a joke. Bush tried to reform and fucking dems killed it every time.

Health care dems - laff. tax and insure 40 million with no infrastructure to support it. Quick plant the magic beans that grow new doctors.

National security dems? srsly? lol.

Abortion - dems, yup they love to kill unborn babies and like to add shit to the constitution that doesn't belong there.

Education - NCLB? ted kennedey wrote that shit.

We all know all politicians are corrupt. Dems have just done a better job of labeling GOP as the corrupt ones.

This explains a lot about your reasoning.

You say Democrats always lose on the issues.
You are shown a poll that has Democrats winning on the issues.
You claim it supports your point because you don't agree.

Laff indeed.

I use posts like that to add to Jonk's List list of people to ignore and not bother responding to. At least on certain issues. Congrats JS!

Let's see, where to put you...

Butterbean (everything)
event8horizon (anything 9/11)
JS80 (things requiring logic)
lupi (everything)
techs (anything Hillary)

Welcome!

I had missed this gem. This is just beautiful.

JS80: Dems always lose on the issues!
jonks: This poll says that the public trust the dems more on the issues.
JS80: Well that just proves my point!
Rest of the world: ... What?

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Does any one think this thing is going to get uglier than it already is??
-snip-

Absolutely.

Too many "hit" commercials that can be done to Obama.

- Rev Wright & Black liberation theology,

- the whole "Bitter and cling top guns and religion" thing,

- Michelle's "I am now proud of my country",

- The inexperience issue

- Statements by Obama's primary opponents

- Ayers

- Rezko (his sentencing is coming up soon IIRC)

For McCain:

- "100 year war" comment

- Dumping 1st wife

- too rich/too many homes

- He's GWB #2

- He wants to start wars (Iran, Russia, whatever)

- He's too old

I expect these will be done by state polical groups; seems to me they are the ones who get rough in their ads.

Fern

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: QED

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Same here, I'm waiting for Axelrod's Chicago-style political machine to kick into gear.

Hillary was a blessing in disguise. Her voters aren't buying the Palin ploy, and Hillary already used McCain's best material against Obama. Wright could have been a nice "October surprise" for McCain...instead, he's back-page news that the country has already heard and made a decision about.

NEWS FLASH: They didn't put Sarah on the ticket to grab the left over Hillary voters. That's McCain's job.

I said this in the other threads... Chris Matthews nailed it. She was brought on as a cultural juxtaposition to the Obamas. They aren't millionaires. They are Jane and Joe Sixpack with their five kids, their mortgage and their everyday existance. Smart, normal, common sense people who aren't out to craft an image.

She's a torpedo... with a rockin' bod and a sharp sense of humor.

Expect she isn't?

She's a ultra-conservative ex-beauty queen who's husband makes the big dollar, there is nothing average about her.

Prime example of sexism in action here.

She is the current governor of a US State, and you dismiss her as an "ex-beauty queen"?

And what info do you have the leads you to believe "the husband makes the big dollar?". I'd love to see where you came up with this...

Uhh... Yea, because I totally want an ex-beauty queen in charge of this country :roll:

For 18 years, he worked for BP Oil in the North Slope oil fields of Alaska. In 2007, in order to avoid a conflict of interest relating to his wife's position as governor, he took a leave[11] from his job as production supervisor when his employer became involved in natural gas pipeline negotiations with his wife's administration.[4] Seven months later, because the family needed more income, Todd returned to BP, and again in order to avoid potential conflict of interest, he accepted a non-management position as a production operator.[11][1]
He is also a commercial salmon fisherman at Bristol Bay on the Nushugak River.[4] Financial statements filed in 2007 show that Palin earned $92,790.[5]

Straight from Wikipedia.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: Tab

Uhh... Yea, because I totally want an ex-beauty queen in charge of this country :roll:

At least you're willing to admit to being a bigot.