Nobody is under oath so let's be honest DU. Does Palin concern you?

I'm telling you what, the ovations I'm seeing for her outweigh anything I see for McCain.

Our local news had something about how the biggest reaction at a McCain viewing party at Republic headquarters last night was when McCain referenced her majesty during his speech.

I mean ka-ray-zee standing ovation stuff.

She has fired up the GOP. There is no question about it in my opinion, and people who ignore this situation have their heads buried in the sand .. which is dangerous.

I've read far to many posts from people here discounting this woman.

Not to say we won't win, but she is energizing female voters and bible thumper voters and voters who have been slow to embrace gramps because of his independent positions.

She very much worries me.

Biden must destroy her during their debate, and he must be ruthless. He has one shot.

She's not bringing anyone new to the party. Quite the opposite, she's driving the leaners to us.

Ignore her, make her irrelevant. She is a "sexist-baiter".

:kick:

has turned them off to the point that they'll either vote Obama or 3rd party.

The repuke base is small, and growing smaller. Paraphrasing one of the pundits last night, they will soon be irrelevant.

Mike Murphy: You know, because I come out of the blue swing state governor world: Engler, Whitman, Tommy Thompson, Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush. I mean, these guys -- this is how you win a Texas race, just run it up. And it's not gonna work. And --

Peggy Noonan: It's over.


Yep.

Exactly what I was going to say. She makes the base really, really happy because they were not enthused about Mr. Moderate. Last night's more moderate appeal means he has again pivoted and mixed his messages.

But so what--that base is about 30% of the electorate. In sheer numbers, Dems and Indies outnumber them.

You must not be watching the reactions of women that I see.

They are beside themselves with excitement.

sure they are

I completely agree with you.

Let's just hope you're not a Democratic strategist.

corrected for all the spelling nazis on DU

Uh, sure.

I'm seeing women who voted for Bush twice questioning this choice and stating that she isn't the right pick.

As my brother said yesterday, he thinks that the only reason McCain picked her is that more qualified Republican women despise him and said not just no, but fuck no. I don't want to be part of that train wreck.

A friend, actually after last night's conversation, an ex-friend, is raving about her, but this is a woman who is extremely wealthy and all she cares about is not paying additional taxes. She didn't care at all that this pit bull cut funding to the disabled 62%. AND, to top it off, this woman has a disabled child. A SEVERELY disabled child.

She and Palin would be great friends. Both put themselves ahead of their kids.

and I was amazed to hear her say she watched the speech and even more amazed to hear her say she thought Palin was mean, nasty, and didn't seem very intelligent.

Interesting to see how this all plays out.

I've seen a number of reports on DU from the news talking about how she alienated people left and right at the convention.

Really, think about it: why should women go crazy over her, when Hillary was running for president?

saw on television (huge roars above anything McCain got) during the convention and local events I saw on the news and in person.

Come on Estimated, do you not watch the television or youtube to see the reaction?

And you're asking me why Republican women should go crazy over her when Hillary was running for president?

I'm not sure what that means exactly, but how about they're going crazy because they didn't want Hillary since she's a Democrat, and now they have a woman running who's a Republican?

Why are you suggesting women are flocking to her when they made up less than half the audience that gave the standing ovations you reference?

percentage of delegates are women?

If whatever percentage is stoked about Palin, that's notable.

Furthermore, women flocking to her is not exclusive to delegates.

There are other women in the real world who are not delegates who are in my view extremely excited about this vice presidential candidate.

Your assertion has been that women are flocking to Palin and you based this assertion, at least in part, on the standing ovations she's received at the convention. You didn't say Republicans, you specifically singled out women. As such, the majority of people giving her the standing ovation at the convention were not women and your assertion is proven inadequate at best.

In fact, it seems to me you just want to blame women when the opposite is true. Obama polls 80% positive with women. We have no poll numbers yet for Palin so neither of us can say women are or are not flocking to her but just going by what you saw at the convention does not prove your point - in fact it only proves right now that men are flocking to her in greater numbers than women.

Democrats.

I'm referring to female Republicans, and maybe some independents who might not be as enthusiastic about this ticket had McCain picked someone other than an woman, and in particular, fundie moose hunter Palin.

Forget how Obama polls with women .. I'm not talking about Democrats.

And I'm not solely talking about the convention. I'm talking about reaction elsewhere, including local news.

And lastly, nowhere did I say women are "flocking" to Palin.

I said they are being "energized."

You've done an unfortunate job of mischaracterizing practically everything about my point.

And I'm not solely talking about the convention. I'm talking about reaction elsewhere, including local news.

I don't know what your local news is saying, but I have been seeing a number of reports (also Sirius satellite news) say that people were turned off by Palin Wednesday night. What energizing is being done is against her, not for her, from the reports I've read.

"She does better with men than she does with women, getting a yes from 55% of the men 48% of the women."

"Again, she does much better with men than with women with 45% of the men and 36% of the women, giving her a very favorable rating and 12% of the men and 23% of the women giving her a vary unfavorable rating."

"She is not hitting the mark on the question of experience either with 48% - 44% of the men and 52% of the women give the nod to Barack Obama and 44% - 47% of the men and 41% of the women saying it is Palin."

http://www.politicallore.com/election-2008/voters-not-sure-about-palin/373

So can we quit with the "energizing females" and "women beside themselves with excitement" meme now?

And I'm glad I didn't. What you saw were people that were going to support the ticket regardless at the convention. Sure, they're energized. that's why they're there. They don't represent most people in this country at all. And youtube can't be used as a gauge of public opinion at all, because there's way too many idiots on it. Most of them are too young to vote by at least 10 years.

Repubs will vote for a repub no matter what. The independents, moderates, and apolitical people are the ones that we need to be concerned about, and there's every indication that Palin disgusted them Wednesday night. Again, why should they (not the repubs of course) be excited now because a woman was running for VP, when there was a woman who almost got the nomination for president - especially if the VP candidate is against everything they stand for? The fact that repubs are supporting her only proves what I have known all along - they are loyal to the party before anything else. the rest of the country isn't like that.

Remember, a week ago, NO ONE had even heard of Palin. In the past week, she has been dumped on the nation in a media blitz. And in that past week, we have found out:
1) she's completely anti-abortion and pro-abstinence only, and has a pregnant unwed teenaged daughter (I'm not trying to go there, just using the example)
2) she's involved with a self-proclaimed anti-American organization
3) she was involved in some of the most notorious pork projects to ever come out of Washington, while claiming to be against big government at the same time
4) she has at least one abuse of power scandal in only 1 1/2 years in office
5) she left the small town she was mayor of with a debt that many large cities couldn't handle
I know there's a lot more that has come out in just this week, adn I'm sure much, much more is going to come out too. It may take some time for all this to get to the average person, but it will. We don't have people campaigning for us that are blocks of wood. They'll make sure people know this, and know it well. Of course we will have to work, and work hard, but it's far from over. Have faith, it's early yet.

... for the VP pick, and they would ardently defend that choice.

The convention was a room filled with sexist, racist, lecherous, homophobic, fat, pathetic putzes and Rush Limbaugh wannabes who would rather stare at Palin's chest and ass than wonder if she was truly prepared for the office she's been chosen for.

But you don't win elections with 35% of the vote. You need to appeal to moderates, independents, and maybe even turn a few Democrats. She didn't do any of that. All those groups were horrified at how hateful she was and a lot of folks were incensed at her jab at community activism.

Tell me something--if Palin had gone up on stage, recited this exact speech, but instead of the RNC it was the DNC, how do you think the crowd would have reacted? Or if Obama had stood in front of the RNC and articulated his plans for America? Both would have been roundly booed.

Palin "blew the roof" off the RNC.

And, while some focus groups looked at her negatively, not all of them did. There is also no question she fired up the formally dispirited Republican base.

The key is if Obama, Biden and the Dem surrogates can hit Palin on her lack of openness and her fear of facing reporters.

so the claim that women are flocking to her is not supported by the fact that she "blew the roof" off the RNC convention.

She may be firing up the base, and I agree it is wrong to discount her, but I don't think it's women we have to worry about. "The base" of the Republican party is not women.

Stepford Falls maybe, but not America.

in this debate, considering you admit you've not watched/are not watching coverage of the reaction Sarah Palin is receiving.

Is the entire coverage of the reaction in the convention? If you think it is, theny you are sadly mistaken. The convention is a small, very biased part of the media exposure. And repub women are not at all representative of women in this country, especially not the ones at that convention. They are overwhelmingly anti-choice and anti-feminism, while the average American woman is overwhelmingly in favor of both those ideals.

I gave you perfectly good arguments upthread. You ignore them and insult me instead here. Obviously I wasted my time trying to argue rationally.

commment: 'repub women can't be counted as representatives of American women...'

Come on now.

I have moderate Republican female friends who are certainly American women.

As for your other point, if you bothered to read my OP, my argument is not based solely on the reaction at the convention.

And you, with all due respect, are in no position to argue televised reaction of any kind if you don't watch television.

The convention is not the main emphasis of TV. And I never said I didn't watch TV, just not the convention. You are the one that made that assumption. TV is only a small part of the whole picture anyway. What counts for far more in my opinion than the reactions of people at the convention is the reports of people being driven away from Palin because of her views and her speech on Wednesday night. There's been a huge number of those reports all week.

Repub women do not represent American women. They are only a fraction, and a small one at that, and the ones who have been getting all the media pro-Palin time are a small, extreme section of American women. That's simply the way it is. American women as a whole DO NOT want to get rid of Roe v. Wade, they DO NOT want to undo all the gains they have made in the lst century, they aren't anti-feminism, and they aren't falling for Palin in droves. But the repub minority of women iat that convention are all those things. That's why they screamed their support, but they would have done so anyway. In a word, they're biased. They simply can't be taken as a huge groundswell of support for Palin.

rarely lies.

Journalists/Pundits/Commentators, etc... sure.

Raw video of jubilation? Not so much.

And what's this comment about Republican women not representing America by insinuating they're all anti-choice and anti-women?

Women of all political affiliations represent America.

But there are certainly enough Republican women to help carry an election. The country is so evenly divided as it is.

I don't believe that coverage of the convention, and anecdotal coverage of a few people's opinions, are indicative of a national trend. downthread I put up 10 articles that have appeared on DU in just the last day, which reference articles in the media that are either very anti-Palin, or discuss people turning away from her because of her speech and/or views. IMO that counts for much more.

And again, the views of repub women don't represent the views of most American women. It's a biased sample. That's simply fact. A higher proportion of American women are pro-feminism, pro-choice and pro Roe v. Wade, and are adamant about it. A higher proportion of repub women are anti-feminism, anti-choice, and anti-Roe v. Wade. Therefore, they don't represent wmen in this country.

THAT'S what we need to be worried about.

With Palin on the ticket, a LOT of far right voters are now pumped up and ready to go to the polls.

She can fire up every single one of them, but if she alienates everyone else she's going to decimate the party. Repubs are not the majority.

Republican identification has been declining the past four years, while Democratic ID has been growing.

negative opinion of her.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6946863

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6946923

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6944993

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6941910&mesg_id=6941910

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6931647&mesg_id=6931647

http://mudflats.wordpress.com/2008/09/04/a-letter-about-sarah-palin-from-anne-kilkenny/

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6945724

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6943382

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6944986

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6940598

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6942266

That's all I can get right now, because the archives are down. these are all just from the last 24 hours. There were a ton more yesterday, a lot of them talking about reactions from people who were completely turned off by Palin. Where are you getting your information from?

Not DU!

She only energizes the wing nuts. Most rational people, regardless of party affiliation, have told me that they think she is a joke. She has, and will continue to, push undecided voters to Obama/Biden.

I know some, and they are gushing about the fact a woman could be second in command of the free world.

I saw at a minimum 30 different reports in the media yesterday posted here that talked about people being turned off of her because of her speech. I have to go by that.

I'm starting to see McCain stickers now .. hadn't been seeing any before Palin was picked.

And perhaps some DUers who live in bright red Placer County, California can back me up.

And I have seen maybe 2 McCain stickers so far, and a bunch of Obama stickers and yard signs. I've seen more Ron Paul support than McCain!

I am practically your neighbor--nice to meet you!

:)

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Nice try, but I see you.

seem to despise her intensely and I am talking about 2 fairly apolitical coworkers, one conservative leaning woman and well ok the rest of them are hard-core liberal Dems so that is not surprising.

I was surprised with the intensity with which one of my most apolitical coworkers (who is only just getting into politics) seemed to despise her.

...who never gets angry BTW.

I haven't seen any polls on that yet. If you have, please let us know.

counting.

I am no fool. This will not be an easy fight and nothing is in the bag.

I made the mistake of thinking like that in the past.

That doesn't stop me from continuing the fight though.

This is NOT going to be some cakewalk or some electoral landslide.

Quite frankly, thoughts of 2000 are going through my mind right now. We never thought such a thing as the 2000 election could ever happen. And really, has anything really changed since then?

I will fight as hard as I can. I'm going to contact the Obama/Biden campaign and see what volunteering opportunities are available. And I'll donate when I can. But this will NOT be easy.

And now I'll be labelled as defeatist for posting these things.

Thanks for the sanity. Putting on blinders and shouting "Landslide" in response to everything is not a working strategy. I was at DU in 2004 when people were doing exactly that, and we lost.

It's a recipe for disaster.

One minute I worry about the effect of firing up the base.

The next minute some new tabloid-y revelation comes out and I think that nobody in the middle could possibly vote for this freakshow of a ticket.

I agree WHOLEHEARTEDLY with the posters who say that is isn't HER that scares me as much as the MORONS in this country who voted for Reagen, Bush and 75% of the other Rs at the national level who were flat out disasters.

Her - she is a freakin trainwreck. I am sorry, but there are anecdotal stories both ways, but I just don't see how this woman doesn't turn off more people IN THE MIDDLE than she appeals to. And, they only have 60 days to package her.

MAYBE if she had been on the ticket for a year, they would have time to gin her up to the country, but two months is just too short of a time to introduce a complete new comer with her SUBSTANCIAL bagggage. And, frankly, as her pick does in some many ways, it takes the whole meme about the country not knowing BO off the table and puts it on McCain's ticket.

I agree with those who got the sense from her convention speech that a lot of people are going to get that "who the F does she think she is going after BO" from people who up until THAT moment had not yet viewed BO as estblished.

Again, it IS going to be close, it won't be easy either way, but this was just such a self defeating pick by McCain in so many ways.

it's the gullibility of the American people. Keep in mind , there are people out there who bush , not once but twice.

gullible.

But you have to concede Palin could therefore potentially amplify gullibility as opposed to a candidate who's less attractive (and I'm not talking about physical appearance).

I don't understand how people cannot be even slightly concerned about her as a force.

to bush: to vote for an idiot/fascist/tool because s/he's a regular gal/guy.

On edit: I totally agree with your point. The bushers concern me.

I am afraid we are going to piffle it away and end up regretting it. I hope the Dems stay cautious.

I started noticing the reaction from Republicans.

They LOVE her.

Obama raised $10 million the night of her speech. Largest day in history for funds to be raised for a candidate.

My more mainstream Republican friends despise her. Especially the women.

friends around.

Because I'm seeing something different.

herself (she's a stupid hockey mom) a pitbull with her friends. :puke: They really do here in MI.


I've missed you so much.

:loveya:

The one running for President is supposed to be the one that looks strong and in charge. It is not a good idea to have put so much emphasis on the VP candidate. They are to be in a supportive role without weakening the image of the candidate. First do no harm....They may have energized the evangelical base somewhat, but they lost any Hillary Dems and many Independents who are pro-choice.

Sorry, but it does. This kind of talk is "let's sit back and enjoy the big landslide" time.

This is pure complacency. And we should NOT be doing this.

And realize that Obama & the Democrats offer real change.

in 2004.

You've taken your eye off of the prize when every one of us needs to be working our asses off.

That's okay baldguy, we'll carry the load for you while you sleep on the couch.

Did you want us to bring you some chips while you rest and we work?

You should stop whining. That's not what winners do.

Just like last week with the Dems, the national party convention is THE VERY BEST DISPLAY they can put on. Its not going to get any better. And while we put on a show that people actually enjoyed (with Obama out drawing the Olympics, for heaven's sake), the GOP can't go 10 min without stumbling, making mistakes or lying outright. You don't think people can see that?

The GOP is on the run because they know the people are on to them.

potential of my opponent.

Overconfidence has doomed many throughout time.

So what winners do is they play hard every game, they treat every opponent as a threat, and then they celebrate after they've fought to the death after they've outplayed and outclassed and outsmarted that opponent.

Please learn the difference between whining and cautious respect.

Had he addressed the swiftboating head-on, instead of waiting and assuming people would see it for the cheap political trick that it was, we'd be looking at the beginning of Kerry's second term.

In fact, the immediate reaction was to put out 36 pages listing lies and discrepancies in the book, just as Obama's team issued 41 pages disputing Corsi's book. That was done within ONE DAY of the book's emergence in August. In addition, Kerry surrogates including some of his crew, Rassman and Cleland countered it on TV. This should have been sufficient to spike their attack. How many lies are people usually allowed when they are disputing the official record, offering nothing - not one Telex, photo, or record sent upward discussing Kerry as the problem portrayed in the book - as proof. They also proved the links to Bush - in funding, lawyers, and in one case the B/C people were caught passing it out.

Even before the August re-emergence, the Kerry campaign had already provided the media with more than enough backup for them to reject the August attack out of hand. It should also be mentioned that it was not Kerry's accounts they disputed, it was the NAVY's official record. Backing the NAVY account over the SBVT, Kerry had the following:

he had 120 pages of naval records - spanning the entire interval with glowing fitness reports - all given to the media and on his web site from April on. That alone should have been enough.

He had every man on his boat for every medal earned 100% behind him. That alone should have been enough.

He had the Nixon administration on tape (that they thought would never be public) saying he was both a genuine war hero and clean, but for political reasons should be destroyed. (SBVT O'Neil was one of those tasked to destroy Kerry in 1971.) That alone should have been enough.

He also was given a plum assignment in Brooklyn as an aide to a rear admiral. From the naval records, this required a higher security clearance - clearly his "employers" of the last 3 years (many SBVT) had to attest to his good character. That's just standard. That alone should have been enough.

The then secretary of the Navy (John Warner) said he personally had reviewed the Silver Star Award. That alone should have been enough.


In any previous election, calmly and professionally countering lies by disproving them would have been the obvious preferred first step. It is only when there is no open and shut case (as there is here) that the candidate would try anything different.When this didn't work, Kerry did speak to the issue - and he did so before the Firefighters as soon as it was appear that the attack was beginning to hurt him. Many here - all political junkies didn't here this. Why? The media that gave a huge amount of free time to people they had to know were lying didn't think that it was important to give the Democratic nominees response air time. Now, it was - I think less than 5 minutes long - so there is no excuse.
http://www.kerryvision.net/2007/08/jk_the_fire_fighters.html
click on little photo of the Senator.)

Would Obama have done as well if the networks and cable TV failed to give coverage to his speech on race in the furor over Reverand Wright? Many people on the Obama team came from Kerry's team and Kerry himself has been a top adviser on this.

What Kerry didn't do was to counter the over $40 million dollars of ads with ads of his own. But, Kerry was constrained by having taken public financing. As it was, they had to stop advertising in VA and CO at the end because they couldn't afford it. Those states ended up close. Had Kerry pulled even 1/4 the the money the SBVT used ($10 million of his $65 million)to counter those ads, he would have had even less money available and we would now see posts that he lost because he was over sensitive to these attacks that the majority of people did not believe by November. The biggest problem Kerry had was that the media gave the SBVT billions of dollars worth of free air time.

The country now is at 80% of the people thinking we are going in the wrong direction - then it was less than half. The media refected that by protecting Bush.

What Kerry didn't do was to counter the over $40 million dollars of ads with ads of his own. But, Kerry was constrained by having taken public financing. As it was, they had to stop advertising in VA and CO at the end because they couldn't afford it. Those states ended up close. Had Kerry pulled even 1/4 the the money the SBVT used ($10 million of his $65 million)to counter those ads, he would have had even less money available and we would now see posts that he lost because he was over sensitive to these attacks that the majority of people did not believe by November. The biggest problem Kerry had was that the media gave the SBVT billions of dollars worth of free air time.

That's the one thing he should have done, immediately. I know he was constrained, but that was what would have made the difference. Putting out the report wouldn't convince people, but answering the ads directly would. I agree that the media really was biased against him and gave the swiftboaters a free pass, but the real reason they won isn't because the public didn't want to hear Kerry's message, it's because they didn't get the chance to. What is true is that we can't sit back and rely on the truth of our message to sway people, because they won't hear it that way.

The normal thing to do was to send out surrogates and get your side to the media. This was all Clinton ever did in 1992 - and in his case, what the media got was simply a response in cycle - not something like Kerry had that pretty decisively showed they were lying.

One problem was that Kerry took the public financing - something he was clearly an advocate for Obama not doing. It was, in fact, Kerry's experience that was the justification for not taking the public financing. In Kerry's case, there would have been nothing to justify not doing so. Even, the idea Kerry floated to not "accept" the nomination at Boston, but to "commit to accepting the nomination at the beginning of teh Republican convention, 5 weeks later - was completely rejected by the Democratic party - leaving Kerry with 13 weeks he needed to stretch his general election funds over, rather than Bush's 8. He could not have matched the SBVT dollar to dollar, without spending more than half his money. (matching dollar to dollar is what Kerry has said Obama will do)

Even if there was equal advertisement, it would STILL have had some effect - because it would further create the idea that there were too sides. The problem was LESS the ads, but that the cable media gave them credence. Even then, by late October, well over a majority of people knew the truth - and the word swiftboating has the meaning it does.

Would you really have had Kerry use even $10 million of his $75 million that August? Or $40 million as they say Obama would? Either would have crippled his campaign at the end. I personally think the best thing they could have done was recruited every voice of authority they could - starting calls on the first day of the Republican convention - to publicly demand before he accepted his nomination that Bush demand that the delegates remove the despicable purple heart bandaids. As it was only K/E spoke against them. Without that, the media treated them like 2004's "funny convention hats" sending the message that they were ok and not condemning people like the despicable Bob Dole who said Kerry never bled.

As it was, had there been enough voting machines in Ohio, the story would have been Kerry won in spite of this because the US liked his high road campaign.

My point was, and is, that voters didn't reject Kerry because he offered real change, and they didn't want it.

Had Kerry used the money at the outset of the swiftboating, it may have made a difference by the election. It may not have too. It may have made it worse. We don't know. Had there been enough voting machines in Ohio, it would have made a difference, I agree. I was in Cleveland the night before at the Kerry rally, and it is hard for me to believe that Bush won Ohio. That's not the point I was trying to make though. I was responding to the assertion that Kerry lost 2004 even though he offered change because the voters didn't care. What actually happened is that voters were confused, and one way that may have been stopped would have been to address the lies in the media head-on in a very public forum, not in a report. How they could have done that doesn't really matter - what matters is that they didn't.

I do thing there is some real possibility that we hadn't passed the threshold of enough people wanting change. Currently, the people who say we are on the wrong track is around 80%. That is why everyone from Obama to Clinton to all the Republicans, had a change message this year.

In 2004, that number was below 50%. Kerry's convention speech and his debates both had change messages. His campaign speeches which were on CSPAN - especially his environmental/alternative energy one, were very much on change (that was a topic that Kerry actually did better than Obama)

As to a very public forum - did you notice that NONE of the networks carried or covered Kerry's comments on the SBVT before the Firefighters. This was labeled by the campaign as Kerry's response to the SBVT. (They were giving the SBVT tons of airtime so you can't argue Kerry's words weren't news) There was no You tube.

And I also remember the media coming up with some pretty ridiculous memes - like the one where voters elected Bush because they were mad at him! They trotted out a few people who claimed they voted for Bush because he had made a mess of things, and they expected him to fix them! I laughed out loud at that one, it's so absurd.

I never heard that reason given by anyone in real life - nor, the variation that it was better for the Democrats if he won and the mess was seen to be as bad as it was under him leading to a complete disaster for the Republicans. That was far too cynical to believe.

are completely in love with this woman-and that we are fooling ourselves if we think everyone is going to be knowledgeable enough to not just vote on appearances and lifestyles.

vote with their heads.

Show them the real Palin, and we can win them over.

That's what I was talking about upthread. :(

Personally, I think the overwhelming majority of people showing up at the polls will intend to cast a vote for Obama. What gets counted may very well be another matter.

We should NOT be assuming and talking "landslide," or even victory. Look what happened in 2000 and 2004. Democratics were ROBBED . . . literally.

The Rethugs will stop at nothing to stay in power.

And, I live in a red/purple state. The only people I see here who like Palin are the members of the base who were going to vote for McCain anyway.

More moderate Republicans are appalled at her.

Check this article out from this morning's paper. It's very hopeful.

http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/news/politics.apx.-content-articles-RTD-2008-09-05-0053.html

Of course, this doesn't mean we should sit back and just let it happen. We still need to work to get the word out, etc.

People who don't think this will be a landslide have fucking been there before. We've been in the trenches, working our asses of, SURE that we were winning and winning big, only to have it all fall apart in the end.

You don't think think we see reality? I assure you we are well aware of reality.

But, for me, here in VA, things feel very very different than they did four years ago. I truly believe we're going to win in November.

I am just praying that I'm right.

They are convinced they are going to have the landslide, just as dozens of them were convinced in 2004. Didn't happen then, won't happen now.

There will be no landslide. We will be lucky to win at all, and frankly I don't care who wants to insult me for saying so. They are just wasting time and energy that could be used to support the campaign.

This is America. Anyone imagining a landslide is putting WAY too much faith in the American voter. This is the nation that elected Bush twice. Wake up and smell the coffee.

We shall see in November. And yes... we cannot allow ourselves to become lazy.

I'd love to be proven wrong.

But we CAN'T become lazy. I'm very uncomfortable with this "let's sit back and watch the big blowout on November 4th" talk. It implies that we don't have to donate to Obama/Biden anymore, it implies that we don't have to do a thing. It's just going to happen. And that talk scares the hell out of me. We can NOT have John McCain as the next President of the United States. That is simply not an option.

Campaigns take work. That's why they're called campaigns. But the other extreme from it will be a landslide for us, is it will be a landslide for them. There's a whole lot of middle ground in between. DU seems to bounce between the extremes and ignore the middle.

Phonebank, donate, volunteer, double your efforts to help Obama win. I know I am.

But I would like to have confidence in my candidate for once--something I didn't have with Gore or Kerry.

And that is certainly not how to win a campaign.

monkey brigade after all.

win in 2004, when he should have been soundly defeated.

America's stupidity never ceases to amaze me. 1980 Reagan absolutely stupefied me. In the debate with Carter, Carter was poised with intelligent responses and Reagan reminded me of Mortimer Snerd.

BUT -- He won the election. After the Kennedy assassination and Warren Commission report, I am one cynical dude.

Part of me says she is a hard right wing extremist who's only appeal is to the base of the GOP--the 30% or so who think Bush is doing a good job.

The portrayal of her after her speech as a rock star, a hero and the coverage that was almost devoid of substance--as to who she really is and what she really thinks, however has me worried. I could see a-political working women voting for her because "she's one of us". These are an important swing block.

I think that Obama was correct in his approach to say that he assumes that she wishes to be treated as a man would be treated. I liked his remark about how he's been undergoing scrutiny for two years--she for four days. They need to find ways to play up her extremism and John McCain's willingness to gamble the future of the country in order to get right wing voters excited.

They need to tell the truth and the news media needs to report the truth. Whether that's going to happen, is yet to be seen.

the right wing's "Obama" which will only work if she keeps her ignorant mouth shut,and she won't do that.I expect many examples of foolishness to spring from her lips in the next 60 days.

combined with the attempt to innoculate her against any attacks by setting up the false sexism construct, worries me.

She's not as bad for McCain as we hoped, but she's not as good for McCain as they hoped. I think the Obama campaign is still adjusting to her as VP, and they'll find an effective strategy to use against her.

They could have slapped a dress/suit on a turd and it would have had the same effect.

Matter of fact that's exactly what they did.

And the pukes were dying for someone to tell them that they had some sort of chance. The media has been plugging how wonderful GWB in a Beehive is, and the zombies are lapping it up.

In a fair election she would be rejected.
But we have the track record of the last 8 years to think about and if the election is stolen this time we should be afraid...very afraid.

The novelty will wear off, and she'll end up as nothing but the answer to a "Trivia Pursuit" question.

By driving them to our side.

Seriously, Palin is a massive vote-loser for the Republicans. Sure, she fires up the base big-time, but the Republicans can't win a national election with just their base. Picking her is driving all of the moderates and independents our way. Hello, Democratic landslide!

I think too many partisans on both ideological sides misunderstand the nature of voters in this country. Roughly speaking, the third of voters who are not aligned with either party are character voters, not issues voters. And Palin is obviously a low-class act. She completely neuters McCain's lingering appeal among these voters, who are the ones who decide national elections. Obama wins on perceived character and we win the election. It's as simple as that.

Personally, I think the Repubs already know they are going to lose this one. The insistence of party insiders on McCain choosing a fundie nut VP was to help the down-ticket races, not to win the Presidency.

:banghead:

How on earth can anyone, with the country evenly divided, predict a landslide?

I mean your optimism is great.

But you sound like a Cubs fan who know deep in their heart they'll never win.

Strictly on partisan identification, Democrats significantly outnumber Republicans. We've been losing because we keep nominating candidates who fail to establish themselves as likable in the eyes of swing voters. This year, with the Repubs floundering for a coherent message, McCain's obvious age issues and unappealing speaking style, and now this disastrous Palin pick, they are losing the likability game.

Even a seemingly small 6% advantage in the popular vote like polling is currently showing for Obama translates into a huge electoral vote advantage. If the election were held today, Obama would win in a landslide. So yeah, a lot can happen in eight weeks, but Obama's campaign has already been battle-tested for over eight months. I seriously doubt they're going to suddenly screw it up.

discussion if you can't even admit the country is evenly divided.

If you're confused about this, I'd review the popular vote totals from '00 and '04.

According to a http://pewresearch.org/pubs/773/fewer-voters-identify-as-republicans">Pew Research survey conducted in March 2008, this is the breakdown in the USA:

36% Democratic
27% Republican
37% Neither

Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans can win with only their bases. And I adamantly maintain that most of those 37% non-affiliated voters are character voters. They make their decisions based on what they see of the candidates and the campaigns. Bush won in 2000 because he was successfully portrayed as a "compassionate conservative". We lost in 2004 because we ran a lousy candidate and failed to put forth a positive platform -- trying to run on the single issue of not being Bush. McCain's strength is his reputation as a "maverick", but he is a lousy candidate too and has a hard time staying on message. He is losing this race more and more every time he panders to the right, because it damages his branding with non-affiliated voters.

The country is not evenly divided. That is a Rovian myth. If you are unclear on this, I would direct you to look back at the vote totals before Rove established this meme. In 1996, Clinton won 379-159 in the electoral vote and beat Dole by almost 8 million votes. And this was only eight years after Bush I creamed Dukakis by 426-111 and almost 7 million votes. That 1/3 of the electorate that decides national elections votes based on the candidates, not the parties. And Obama is winning the character competition.

cite vote totals.

Times change .. there's no doubt in my mind more Americans jumped on the Republican bandwagon after 9/11. Even if they didn't, party affiliation can shift .. especially at the end of eight years of Democratic rule, and a President who was dogged by Monicagate and impeachment.

And let's for argument sake say I accept your Pew Research numbers, and they may be accurate .. Progressive, considering we (Democrats) have more difficulty getting people to vote, especially those who feel disenfranchised, the numbers come out to pretty much evenly divided as we witnessed during the 2000 and 2004 elections.

Look at the 2006 midterms. We won, but it was extremely close .. closer than it probably should have been considering how bad the war was going at the time .. another sign of how evenly divided the country is.

Surely you don't think I'm the only person who believes it's essentially 50/50.

It is entirely possible that this whole thing could fizzle out and even implode. I certainly hope so.

Even if Sen. Obama wins the Presidency and the short term goal fails, the extreme right might very well have found their voice.

Like many demagogues she has demonstrated an ability to wrap a right-wing extremist message in the language and imagery of working class populism to Orwellian levels - and she and her handlers are very, very good at it - so far, anyway.

MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT!! This is a VERY dangerous development, whatever the result of the November election!!

As I said, It is entirely possible that this whole thing could fizzle out and even implode. I certainly hope so. But ANYONE who is not at least deeply concerned about this is either flat-out stupid or is in denial!!!

I would be sickened if McCain were to become president. I would be terrified if Palin were to become president.

But he became the unifying figure of what emerged as the right-wing coalition which has now dominated the American political scene for a generation.

Before Ronald Reagan they had Barry Goldwater who lost in 1964 in one of the greatest landslides in American history. But he brought together the necessary elements to create this reactionary scourge which has so plagued our country and the world. At the time of 1964 most Americans considered Goldwater an extremist nut. "In your gut you know he's a nut." By the end of the 80's Goldwater was way too moderate and reasonable for the political movement he once led, a movement which came to dominate the American body politic.

I have a nightmare that whatever the result of the election, Sarah could very well emerge as the voice of the movement that Reagan once led Goldwater was too liberal to lead....someone who would make Reagan look like a Birkenstock socialist.

Again it is entirely possible that the whole thing could fizzle or implode. For the sake of the world and the future of humanity, I certainly hope so. But, Reagan "could" have fizzled or imploded too, way back in the 60's or 70's, but he didn't.

I'm optimistic that we have a very good chance in November. But Palin's emergence is very worrisome, for all the reasons you listed and more. It is not to be ignored, and if we do ignore it, we may be sorry.

They are going to give this woman a free pass. Meredith has been literally giddy with laughter over something new to cover and how exciting and fresh Palin is. The media are the ones who frame the debate over how America will perceive this woman. The McCain campaign has served the press notice that any questions about Palin are off limits and the media have taken their marching orders like the good foot soldiers they are. So, in a round about way she does concern me.

but if you have been following politics for the last thirty years (which it sounds if at least you have) then this position the Corporate-owned media has should be quite clear. People that worry about Obama smooching with those large corporations better get a clue about how things operate. I don't like a lot of things Obama is having to do but he is a good chess player and i don't think his morality is going to be at stake in the end. To be able to change anything about how people interact with one another you much first gain some trust with them. I think of it as having to charm a bunch wild animals so they don't try to eat you.


As for Palin, she seems naive and boisterous, a combination of two traits the often lead to ones own demise, but in the end i guess we all get to wait and see :shrug:

Of course we should continue digging dirt on Palin but we must not take the focus off of Mccain while doing it.

In fact, Palin dirty laundry should be used to emphasize Mccain's lack of judgment and extremely poor decision making capabilities.

...but what her speech revealed: that the G.O.P. is going to throw any shreds of dignity or honesty to the winds, try every low road possible, play the "identity politics" card, and lie with abandon to win this race.

Maybe this shouldn't be a surprise, coming from the Bush/Cheney party, but, until now, I held out a sliver of hope that McCain had some honor about him that would cause him to say that he didn't run campaigns that way (i.e. the way Bush did to him in 2000).

But now, it's clear, this is just going to be another sewer-level, scorched-earth campaign from the G.O.P. And my concern is that it's worked so often before, the American people might be trained, Pavlov-style, to respond to it no matter what their circumstances or the state the nation is in. And that makes me worried, not just for this election -- but, if we can't win under these circumstances, I honestly can't see how we're ever going to in the future, either. I guess the next few weeks will answer that question.

And, she is pissing off the majority of female voters who have seen her...

Most don't even know her yet.

Thanks John. WELL DONE!

And it would be a disaster for the country of monstrous proportions, especially if McCain didn't survive his term.

She is what portends for the future of the Republican party

It doesn't look pretty

May god have mercy on your concerned soul.

election results in 2000 and 2004.

In fact, despite his what, 17 percent approval rating, how much you wanna bet Bush could win a third term (if he could run), despite a devastating eight years of war and recession?

And even if he lost, it would be close.

No doubt in my mind.

Your concern is noted.

you're quite the scholar aren't you LibFromWV?

I know you didn't read what I just wrote .. you know, with you head buried in the sand and all.

Scholar? What? who? Can't fathom what you mean. What sand? We ain't got no stinking sand here.

from the presidency?

If it doesn't scare you, I don't know what would.

The MSM and repubs are googly-eyed over her, but from what I've been hearing the average person is not.

spunky and all those other names used to describe her.

I think she has initially impressed some Independents and Moderates but I think that once the initial excitement wears off and people start taking a closer look they will realize she is not up to the task.

Also the main campaigning is getting underway and once again the attention will be between McCain--Obama not Palin.

Of course they're more excited about her than they are about him.

But ask yourself: who is she? Does anyone really know? Do any of those who are wild about her today really know who she is? To them (including those in the media), she's a speech written by someone else to market her as a threat.

She is pure product marketing. Is that something to be worried about? Given Americans' susceptibility to marketing, yes, to a degree. But is it *her* we need to worry about? No. It's the marketers. The antidote is either pure unadulterated good product or some nasty marketing of the Dems' own. Or maybe a combination of the two.

Tell the McCain camp to stop whining about the media - if John McCain and Sarah Palin can't face some moderately tough questions from a mediocre press, how can they face Vladimir Putin, Hu Jintao, Ayman al-Zawahiri, the president of Iran and other world leaders? Is Sarah Palin going to whine if Putin makes a tough demand? Is John McCain going to through a hissy hit if Hu Jintao threatens to stop financing the US debt?

on account of our spineful candidate team.

While I think we need to take her seriously, I think that she could play either way. I am in NJ, a state that the Republicans like to pretend is always in play - even though it last had a Republican Senator in the 1970s. My local paper, in the most Republican area of the state, had an editorial today that ends with saying McCain wrote off NJ by picking Palen. http://www.dailyrecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080905/OPINION01/809050312/1094/OPINION

Let me put this in some context, this paper under the same editor endorsed Kean JR for Senate in an endorsement that admitted he ran a campaign that did not say anything about where he stood and instead argued that Menendez was crooked. These also said the charges against Menendez were false! Additionally, from limited canvassing and phone banking, an issue that worked in our favor in 2004 was that the view of Bush as a Fundie scared mainline Republicans. There were houses that had Bush signs in 2000 with Kerry signs in 2004. (In other areas of the state, Gore people went to Bush over things like abortion or terrorism). Now, I had worried that McCain, who is not seen as a fundie RWinger could do better. I know what I intend to do is to have a list of 100% provable, but scary fundie things Palin has said or supported. Raising the issue that she could replace a 72 year old MCain sometime during the next 4 years is far more a possibility (or at least perceived possibility) than Cheney replacing Bush was (or Edwards replacing Kerry or Biden replacing Obama).

The question is what other states could this take out of play. I wonder about NH where McCain has been liked for years, but which in the primaries was said to be a place where people like Huckabee play poorly - and Palin is a nasty, female Huckabee. Given her extreme position in her party and McCain's age, I think that it could hurt in states where the Republicans are Republicans because of economic issues and help in areas with many evangelicals.

Along with the ads the Obama campaign is running there informing voters of McCain's long-time anti-choice stance. Amazing that so many moderates and independents believed erroneously that McCain was pro-choice. Funny how people project what they want to believe even when the truth is exactly opposite.

Earlier this year my husband and I were at dinner with 2 couples where all were very informed, political people leaning left. What surprised me was one who said that McCain would not have pursued Bush's atrocious foreign policies had he been the Republican nominee and then President. One of the others quickly pointed out that he was actually the one who had run on that typr of program in 2000.

There was then still a residue of the media infatuation for Mccain in 2000 that was based on personality. The Kerry convention speech's candidate McCain/Senator Mccain language should be used (adapted to fit other speakers) by Obama surrogates. That hits directly at what people need to knock down to completely knock down McCain as change.

If McCain somehow gets a victory with this "pistol packing" girl on his ticket, then this country is officially a lost cause. Our precious endangered wildlife and environment will continue to take serious hits and continue disappearing faster than even what Bush has done to them. Any thoughts of gun control, even in the mildest form, will be flushed right down the toilet.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

And some who know her say she's very smart and shouldn't be underestimated.

We should not discount her, no.

Biden, I believe has said that he will not sling one-liners during their debate and will stick to the facts. He must destroy her with the facts and his savy, but not with sarcasm or one liners. Make her look bumbling and stumbling.

No, because I think she is transparent in her unfitness for the office. I have talked to far too many Republicans who are utterly appalled. I think even more and more dirt will come out on her before the election.

Yes, because I fear the integrity of our election system and a rigged election would put her a heartbeat away from the White House where she could do tremendous damage.

Now that this shitfest is over and we get back to campaigning and issues, the distinction of ideas between Obama and McCain will render Palin irrelevant. She's had her Warhol 15 min. No worry here.

it is not her raggedy ass that concerns me, per se, but it is the American electorate that concerns me. The American electorate and its modern propensity to be drawn blindly into the cult of personality. That is how I spell doom.

out of independents.

That's a loss for McCain, no matter how jeeped up his base is. We've been on the ground for months, getting people registered to vote--and millions of first time voters will cast their ballots for Barack Obama this November.

airhead idiot though she is. I agree, she must be exposed on every point possible. No exceptions.

She's nothing in herself - except that she can deliver votes into the hands of mega-predators, and will cheerfully do it.

but I think her redneck (I say that in a good way), rightwing, evangelical, anti-environment stance is gonna fire up your basic Joe SixPack; let's face facts - some people do not want to vote for a black man. A right wing woman is a great choice for them.

Very scary.

Some of thse folks are waiting for someone to make them forget Bush; I think McCain found her.

Remember 2000? No one was worried about dumb-ass Bushy 2.. no way he could get elected. We were half right.. he didn't get elected, but his cronies did steal the damn election. Fuck.. we should have been concerned.

And then in 2004 - No reason to be worried, because there was no way that anyone would vote for that idiot AGAIN, RIGHT? Ummm.. Fuck Fuck Fuck. Yup.. should have been worried then too.

So, now it's 2008... and we have the most dynamic candidate in recent history on the top of our ticket.. we're running against an incumbant party that has run this country into the ground, and the main guy we're running against looks like a scarecrow, and he picked a female VP who has more scandals then months of experience. No reason to be worried, right?

Wrong. This country has a very strong track record of being swayed by the stupidest and most un-informed of reasons. "Ohh.. i'll vote for the white guy".. "Ohh.. i'm voting for the guy who put a woman on the ticket", and many MANY won't go farther then that.

So, THAT is why i'm worried. The average IQ in this country seems to go down as much as gas prices go up each year.

Your points are all very well taken and I couldn't agree more.

:thumbsup:

I absolutely could not agree with you more.

The past two elections have shown us the danger of underestimating the Republicans. Just because things look well now, that does not mean we should get complacent. They will pull every dirty trick they can to keep their hold on the Executive Branch (and, by extension, expand their hold on the Judicial Branch). We know they will do this because we have seen them do it before, time and time again. We can't afford to be complacent this time, there is way too much riding on this election.

Excellent post! :thumbsup:

and yet we get posts like this which to me reveal a "buyers remorse" because your candidate is not running. What you're really saying is "Palin wouldn't be an issue if xxx was on the ticket". You have no faith in Obama's or Biden's abilities, whatsover.

Obama gave a brilliant press conference yesterday that put the Palin fad (and yes, it will wane) in its place with a few deft responses.

(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/26548013#26548013)

He knows he wins by ignoring her and letting the press & surrogates hack away at her record. Meanwhile, he focuses on McCain and his poor judgment (for choosing her) and lack of focus on the economy.

We should get out to vote in November and continue spreading the word to others. We should not go spastic after every positive spike for the Republicans.

And the base was always going to vote for McCain no matter what even though many have said they were cool towards McCain early on. The base was never going to vote for Obama, or any DEM in that case.

Palin does not have any appeal beyond the base.

as a candidate, she's more a distraction or annoyance.

I don't trust the wisdom of our electorate. They are so taken in by superficial bullshit that many people probably didn't notice what she did or didn't say that was meaningful or real.(Full disclosure, I did NOT watch her- I have a weak stomach).

I am worried that she might help McCain win, and then I am REALLY fucking worried if she becomes President. I am SO scared that I am seriously exploring places to emigrate.

unfortunate that they may show up after all in November, but they still don't like McCain that much, and they're still losing in all composite polling.

We should not forget to factor in that McCain is unable to speak coherently on his feet in front of the media and unless he's lobbed softballs, often contradicts himself and/or flipflops on key issues. So the opportunity for an even greater gaffe than heretofore gaffed remains high and promising. I look forwrd to it, in fact.

Evidently they're frightened to let Secessionist Barbie near the microphones. It's been suggested that she'll do a kind of limited fundraising role where all her remarks are prepared and no interactions with media are permitted. Not much of a help to McCain strategically when h's already outnumbered, especially when our team can field a Joe Biden to boost Obama -- and on his own two feet.

Palin weakens an already-weak McCain. Biden bolsters an already-strong Obama.

Advantage Obama/Biden.

I am seeing McCain/Palin signs in people's yards around here already. Every single person I have spoken two except one is impressed by her. :scared:

We've got to keep hammering on the ISSUES and leave this "trash the family" stuff alone because it is causing a backlash.

Unelectable except in Alaska.

over substance.

She is a wolf in sheep's clothing, IMHO. I think her nomination was partly intended to convince us to put our guard down, because she is supposedly an inexperienced lightweight. She may come across to some as sweet and naive, but she is absolutely tough as nails and is not above fighting hard and dirty to help McCain win this election. She has already come out swinging, and she won't stop until November.

We cannot afford to underestimate her.

But there is some truth to that. Remember people actually voted for Bush because he would be more fun to have a beer with.

Not all women are stupid, but not all women are smart either (sorry but I come from the state that elected that idiot Michelle Bachman)

She will play the aww shucks I am just a hockey mom, if you are mean to me its because I am a woman card, and it will work with a certain population.

What concerns me more is this.... I think the Rovians are soooo confident that the repukes will win in the fall that they can afford this ninny of a VP pick. Just like they were confident Bush would win both terms and did nothing to reel him in. The reason they were so confident is because they knew the outcome of the vote before people voted and changed or deleted any votes to the contrary.... I think the same will happen again.


There are billions of dollars at stake.... a few companies that have gained so much in the last 7 yrs are not going to let that (oil) well dry up

but that she has fired up the "culture war"/"permanent majority" crowd which is dangerous for the polarized country, puts an uncomfortable hate in my heart and makes me want to stock the gun cabinet.

but for her NOT to be ready to hold a press conference.

The funniest part is when they say she can learn Foreign Policy "At the feet of the master..."

I like the John Kennedy model of the presidency, including his sure-footed, witty, informed, and instructive, and respectful press conferences. The best ever, IMO.

I think moose-huntin' Barbie is a far cry from that model!

And this "concern troll" business needs to depart from DU. Rose-colored glasses don't help anything.

that, as it often leads to victory.

Overconfidence often leads to defeat.

Hell, look at Bush planning Iraq.

Tons of "landslide" posts... and lots of refusal to face the facts that American voters are notoriously dumb, Rove is notoriously smart, 2000 was stolen and they were ready to do it again, etc.

And sadly, not one of those facts has changed this time around.

She is bush in a dress and I think she made that clear to people.It may take people a few days to figure it out but they will.

"elected" to "only" two terms.

And as I said somewhere else in this thread, I wouldn't have bet against him winning a third term had the constitution allowed him to run again as the Republic nominee.

So I'm not so sure Bush in a dress is necessarily the kiss of death, despite his 17 percent approval rating .. or whatever it is.

But I am.

And thats why I actually love the fact they made her the nominee.

me not so much

elections slip out of our hands again.

Warriors size up their opponents and aren't afraid to point out strengths.

It can perhaps help build a winning strategy. For once.

And by the results of my poll, I think DU has spoken.

The GOP's purpose in picking her was to motivate conservatives who were so lukewarm to McCain that they would have stayed home on election day.

We are at great risk of a third consecutive very close Presidential election here.

Once Charles hooked up with Diana, the press was no longer interested in him. She made better copy and was easier to look at. I think McCain is going to rue the day he picked her because she's going to draw all the attention away from him.

n/t

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Hey everybody, look at the idiot!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

And if it comes down to the issues such as war, economy, environment, we win hands down.

the RW/neonazis are hoping to clinch this election with her.

They just felt unenthralled by the GOP candidates running in the primaries, including MCain. They're now very much back in the game.
And..... they're not JUST Republicans, lest anyone forget the Dem primaries so soon. And they DO TURN OUT.

We ignore/underestimate the appeal of her at our own peril.

"I tell you, America is goddamned weird and getting weirder."

- Joe Bageant

*******************************************************
The Sleep of Reason Amid Wild Dogs and Gin
The Politics of the Comfort Zone
By JOE BAGEANT

The hardest thing for garden variety American liberals to grasp is what a truly politicized and hateful place much of America has become---one long mean ditch ruled by feral dogs where the standards of civility no longer apply. The second hardest thing for liberals is to admit that they are comfortably insulated in the middle class and are not going to take any risks in the battle for America's soul not as long as they are still living on a good street, sending their kids to Montessori and getting their slice of the American quiche. Call it the politics of the comfort zone.

http://www.counterpunch.org/bageant01082005.html

Why some:

1) I do not trust the electorate - they made it close enough for Bush to steal office
2) I do not think there are as many PUMAs or Hillary supporters thinking about voting McCain out there, but who knows for sure
3) Media intimidation/corporate media RW leanings might make her seem something she isn't or blunt news of scandals
4) Biden has to be careful in the debate because of her sarcastic style

Why only a little:

1) I still believe she energizes BOTH bases - ours against her - and that independents and undecided Hillary supporters won't like what they see
2) Scandals, scandals, scandals
3) Obama's team has gained my trust. He's already sending out high-profile female supporters to speak on Obama's behalf
4) Her extreme policies will be used against her

I see PUMAs mentioned in the same sentence as Hillary supporters.

Especially since DU Hillary supporters are certainly not PUMAs.

Unfortunately, to make my point, I had to mention both.

you're talking about. None.

I'm stirring the pot? Interesting.

MPK

stirring up shit about Hillary .. unlike your posts.

You know, the ones insinuating DUer Hillary supporters were at one time PUMAs, if not still currently.

On your best day, you're not as clever as I am on my worst day.

You get all your best dialogue from World of Warcraft.

MPK

I feel like I'm picking on a disabled kid. :(

I'm feel like you are lonely. :hug:

MPK

It intimidates too many people MPK.

We should do lunch because you seem like a dick. And that's a compliment coming from me. :hug:

Actually, I'm a mild mannered ceramics artist. But we are both in NorCal according to your profile. Perhaps we will do lunch someday. Stranger things have happened!

MPK

edit: clarification

There may be some initial excitement for her, but when people get to know her, she'll only help us.

She's not going to change anyone's mind in favor of that old wrinkled guy.

but what concerns me much more is the possibility that she might actually become president.

marginally. Mainly:

1.) Revs up the base (this will REALLY affect down ticket races more)
2.) Carries Alaska, which Obama was targeting
3.) Stepped on the weekend coverage of the Democratic convention after it was over.