|
Post by Sue on Oct 8, 2008 11:36:06 GMT -5
More humor:
O'Bama's Irish roots. (Which is apparently quite true as his mother's grandfather was from Ireland---I think I have that right).
5 minutes. The chorus repeats, but worth sitting through because my favorite verse lyrics occur at about 3:35.
Also, from a Joe Biden speech on the campaign trail today.
He says he's quoting Bob Casey, a Catholic, Democrat, ex-gov of PA, after some talk about McCain's ties to Bush:
"You can't call yourself a maverick if all you have ever been is a sidekick."
True or not, it's a great quippy sound bite for the currently primary message of the Dems: tie McCain to the failed policies of Bush.
I like it so much better than in depth mud-slinging like the Ayers think on one side and/or the Keating thing on the other.
Besides, it's catchy, it's clever, the public will remember it, it undermines the opponent with a memorable zinger.
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Oct 8, 2008 11:43:20 GMT -5
Now, see? That last question, about what don't they know and how will they learn it, that's the sort of question that the candidates should be asked. Unfortunately, they both used it to give their closing statements.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Oct 8, 2008 12:29:59 GMT -5
Now, see? That last question, about what don't they know and how will they learn it, that's the sort of question that the candidates should be asked. Unfortunately, they both used it to give their closing statements. That was an interesting question. It would be nice if Bob Schieffer would ask some more open-ended questions like that, rather than the same things we've heard at debates #1 and #2. Like, "If there were no budget constraints, list you dream plans" On the one hand, maybe it wouldn't produce any specifics but it might help us get an idea of their individual "visions." And, really, haven't we already heard all the sound bites? However, unless Bob Schieffer is a much tougher moderator (and I think both campaigns negotiated "rules" to pretty much keep the moderator from being able to do much followup or pressuring) no matter how creative the questions you might still only get the pre-canned stock speeches. Pretty dangerous to give flight of fancy "what if" answers where you might say one single thing that will come back to haunt you in the press. Still, what are some other good potential non run of the mill questions?
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Oct 8, 2008 12:33:26 GMT -5
As I suspect the following LJ quip will only be funny to liberals who watch Doctor Who, I'm going to put it under a spoiler tag. Everyone's welcome to read it, of course, but please know I'm sharing it solely because of the amusement factor and not as any sort of serious commentary on the politician involved. Who would make a better world leader; The Master, or Sarah Palin?
I think it's a valid question. On one hand, you have a raving egomanical nutcase with no idea about planet Earth who will no doubt bring the world into chaos resembling a horrible apocalyptic dystopia. And on the other hand, you have a renegade Time Lord. A vague disclaimer and all that. ;D Okay, giggling like a crazy person....
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Oct 8, 2008 12:34:27 GMT -5
I feel like this debate is basically like McCain and Obama stumping separately, except in the same room and with Tom Brokaw occasionally interrupting. Kind of a disappointment. That's how debates usually go, unfortunately. "Debates", that is. The first Presidential debate, that's what I'd like to see more of.
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Oct 8, 2008 12:36:24 GMT -5
I feel kind of troubled that when we find Bin Laden that it's pretty much a given that we're going to kill him, thus making a martyr out of him. Even if we kill him physically, his memory will probably live on in among his followers and we're not going to be able to directly kill that. Though I don't know what else we can do. We can't *not* kill him at this point. Eh. I'm in favor of locking him in the deepest, darkest hole we can find for the rest of his life. I don't approve of the killing, even when he's responsible for thousands of deaths. I think it'd be better for him to just disappear into an American prison. Of course, then one wonders how many hostages would be taken in various "release Bin Laden" attempts. *sigh* Maybe we really do have to kill him.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Oct 8, 2008 12:50:50 GMT -5
I feel kind of troubled that when we find Bin Laden that it's pretty much a given that we're going to kill him, thus making a martyr out of him. Even if we kill him physically, his memory will probably live on in among his followers and we're not going to be able to directly kill that. Though I don't know what else we can do. We can't *not* kill him at this point. Eh. I'm in favor of locking him in the deepest, darkest hole we can find for the rest of his life. I don't approve of the killing, even when he's responsible for thousands of deaths. I think it'd be better for him to just disappear into an American prison. Of course, then one wonders how many hostages would be taken in various "release Bin Laden" attempts. *sigh* Maybe we really do have to kill him. Or - let's not, and say we did. Ah - there is no good answer. In a way, it's almost best to have him forever hiding - if he can be otherwise effectively nuetralized. Then he's not a marytr, and he's not a prisoner . . . he's just a pathetic loser. Of course, the "otherwise effectively nuetralized" is the tricky part . . . Maybe we really do have to kill him.
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Oct 8, 2008 13:08:08 GMT -5
Well, a few of the national tracking polls show a dispiriting decline in Obama's poll numbers over the "Ayers/Wright" weekend. Lost 2 (Now +6) in Rasmussen...four of the best five national polls show a slight decline. One (online, entirely volunteer so not all that scientific) poll shows it narrowing to only one point. The fivethirtyeight people aren't worried about that one.
Gallup, though...shows it UP by two points, to an eleven-point lead. They're the outlier today, though the folks at fivethirtyeight seem to feel that tomorrow all the polls will catch up to Gallup.
Makes me angry that this "palling around with terrorists" thing actually works, even on a small scale.
But the rebound should occur after the post-debate polls are in. Obama's probably at or near a ceiling for how many people he can talk over to his side, so now it's all about holding on.
|
|
|
Post by Julia, wrought iron-y on Oct 8, 2008 13:32:21 GMT -5
Well, a few of the national tracking polls show a dispiriting decline in Obama's poll numbers over the "Ayers/Wright" weekend. Lost 2 (Now +6) in Rasmussen...four of the best five national polls show a slight decline. One (online, entirely volunteer so not all that scientific) poll shows it narrowing to only one point. The fivethirtyeight people aren't worried about that one. Gallup, though...shows it UP by two points, to an eleven-point lead. They're the outlier today, though the folks at fivethirtyeight seem to feel that tomorrow all the polls will catch up to Gallup. Makes me angry that this "palling around with terrorists" thing actually works, even on a small scale. But the rebound should occur after the post-debate polls are in. Obama's probably at or near a ceiling for how many people he can talk over to his side, so now it's all about holding on. What's going to kill that line of attack, I suspect, is both McCain's growing negatives and the increasingly vocal racism of crowds at McCain and Palin rallies. Julia, because most of the US has got the point that racism is not cool and assassination is a bad thing
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Oct 8, 2008 14:32:04 GMT -5
And here is exactly why the candidates stick so very very VERY closed to pre-scripted answers. Winging it can get you into oh so very much trouble. 2 small words. (Course, also the attitude behind them). But it's just silly that this would have any kind of impact. Maybe is wouldn't if McCain had some big ideas to over-shadow it. www.thatone08.com/
|
|
|
Post by Julia, wrought iron-y on Oct 8, 2008 14:34:24 GMT -5
And here is exactly why the candidates stick so very very VERY closed to pre-scripted answers. Winging it can get you into oh so very much trouble. 2 small words. (Course, also the attitude behind them). But it's just silly that this would have any kind of impact. Maybe is wouldn't if McCain had some big ideas to over-shadow it. www.thatone08.com/ My fellow prisoners...Julia,
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Oct 8, 2008 16:07:14 GMT -5
And here is exactly why the candidates stick so very very VERY closed to pre-scripted answers. Winging it can get you into oh so very much trouble. 2 small words. (Course, also the attitude behind them). But it's just silly that this would have any kind of impact. Maybe is wouldn't if McCain had some big ideas to over-shadow it. www.thatone08.com/ My fellow prisoners...Julia, Erm. Okay....
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Oct 8, 2008 16:54:41 GMT -5
And here is exactly why the candidates stick so very very VERY closed to pre-scripted answers. Winging it can get you into oh so very much trouble. 2 small words. (Course, also the attitude behind them). But it's just silly that this would have any kind of impact. Maybe is wouldn't if McCain had some big ideas to over-shadow it. www.thatone08.com/Silly? Yes, very silly. To me the silliness is in the way the media has blown this up, and the Obama campaign is trying to fan the flames (standard campaign practice though this may be). Impactful? Well, if by impact you mean the extent to which the talkng heads talked about this, then I would agree it had a big impact . . . if by impact you mean the extent to which the utterance of those two words will actually affect the election, then I don't agree there is likely to be significant impact. As you mention, it's the "attitude behind" the words that this is really about. To me, the utterance of those two words came off as very "grumpy old man." I do think that the "grumpy old man" persona harms McCain and impacts the election, but that persona is built up of so much more than this, and that persona is/would be out there, impacting voter decision-making, with or without those two words. I don't think the candidates need to be so scripted; in the end, who you are will show, regardless. And sounded scripted is, in itself, a big turn-off to voters.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Oct 8, 2008 18:34:12 GMT -5
I doubt (at least I hope) that this kid hasn't "ruined his life" but it sure will take a BIG detour that neither he or his parents expected. How utterly stoopid. What did he think? That hacking someone's email was like reading their diary? Hey, kid: would you think it was legal to take something out of someone's snailmailbox and open it and read it? Huge, huge federal offense. The kid who hacked Palin's email: news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081008/ap_on_el_pr/palin_hackedI feel a tiny bit sorry for him, but, uh, NO, we really can't have that kind of behavior go unpunished. And not just a slap on the wrist.
|
|
|
Post by Julia, wrought iron-y on Oct 8, 2008 20:01:17 GMT -5
I doubt (at least I hope) that this kid hasn't "ruined his life" but it sure will take a BIG detour that neither he or his parents expected. How utterly stoopid. What did he think? That hacking someone's email was like reading their diary? Hey, kid: would you think it was legal to take something out of someone's snailmailbox and open it and read it? Huge, huge federal offense. The kid who hacked Palin's email: news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081008/ap_on_el_pr/palin_hackedI feel a tiny bit sorry for him, but, uh, NO, we really can't have that kind of behavior go unpunished. And not just a slap on the wrist. It really, really stretches the definition of "hacked" though: he guessed her password. The whole situation is full of foolishness, starting with Palin using Yahoo Mail, one of the least secure webmail services, for official communications, and ending with the dimwit who did it posting about it on 4chan. Julia, humans find new ways to disappoint me every day.
|
|