An avalanche of polling today, but a consistent theme emerges:
And what is that theme? Well, it's that the popular vote and the Electoral College are significantly diverging. Although the Republicans seem to be polling stronger than they were in the pre-convention period almost everywhere, the differences are much larger in traditionally red states, particularly in the South and the rural West (Colorado and Nevada, by the way, are not rural states). Basically, I think the Republicans are getting the evangelical vote, and a significant fraction of the Perot vote.
Unfortunately, these are not particularly useful votes for them to have in terms of the electoral math. Here is a comparison of our projected margins of victory on August 26th -- the Tuesday of the Democratic convention, before polling had any chance to take Michelle Obama's opening night speech into effect -- with our projections today in a select group of states that have been polled since the RNC ended.State 8/26 9/11 Change
McCain's gain in our popular vote projection has been 2.1 points. Note, however, that his gains have been less than that in essentially all of the most important swing states, including Ohio, Michigan, Florida, Colorado, Pennsylvania and New Hampshire. Only Virginia is on the other side of the line, and then only barely so.
NH Obama +1.4 Obama +3.3 Obama +1.9
WV McCain +8.1 McCain +7.4 Obama +0.7
ME Obama +12.9 Obama +13.0 Obama +0.1
FL McCain +3.5 McCain +3.8 McCain +0.3
NJ Obama +8.0 Obama +7.5 McCain +0.5
OH McCain +0.7 McCain +1.3 McCain +0.6
NM Obama +2.2 Obama +1.5 McCain +0.7
MI Obama +3.0 Obama +2.0 McCain +1.0
WI Obama +7.1 Obama +5.8 McCain +1.3
CO Obama +1.2 McCain +0.4 McCain +1.6
PA Obama +6.3 Obama +4.6 McCain +1.7
NV McCain +0.5 McCain +2.2 McCain +1.7
==============AVERAGE: McCAIN +2.1 ===============
VA McCain +0.6 McCain +3.1 McCain +2.5
ND McCain +9.1 McCain +12.5 McCain +3.4
NC McCain +3.8 McCain +7.5 McCain +3.7
MS McCain +13.4 McCain +17.4 McCain +4.0
MT McCain +3.5 McCain +8.3 McCain +4.8
GA McCain +8.5 McCain +13.5 McCain +5.0
WA Obama +11.5 Obama +6.3 McCain +5.2
ID McCain +19.1 McCain +30.0 McCain +11.9
AK McCain +6.6 McCain +20.4 McCain +13.8
As a result of all this, the Electoral College remains too close to call, even though McCain has a 1-2 point advantage in the popular vote. Obama now has an 8.4 percent chance of winning the Electoral College while losing the popular vote, which is far and away the highest that this number has been all year. And that number may get larger rather than smaller, once polling filters in from other red states like Texas, Nebraska and South Carolina. Palin may have been a brilliant VP selection -- I think even Palinophobes like me have to concede that right now McCain's looking pretty savvy -- but some of that sheen is taken off by her somewhat lackluster effect on the Electoral College.
9.11.2008
Today's Polls, 9/11
@ 6:43 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
529 comments
Russian elections are easy. There's only one man on the ballot.
Anybody who thinks Sarah Palin got a honeymoon is either a mean spirited dickweed or has had their head in the sand for the last two weeks. I've never seen anyone get that pummeled right out of the gate before.
I think there's a fair chance that Obama will win either OH or FL. If he does, we probably won't have to stay up all that late.
Direct election is a non-starter, because it would require a consitutional amendment, and thats not happenning.
Democrats was in the left since 1968. Before they´re more right than the GOP.
joseph,
Are you sure that your area would get attention even if there were no EC? Unless a problem like that is widespread nationwide, it would probably be pretty much ignored. At least with the EC, individual problems like that are at least a little more isolated on a state level, which becomes more important to a candidate because of EVs. Believe me, I feel your pain with the lack of importance of one's vote. I live in true blue CT. But I think all problems would be dilluted immensely without the EC.
I'll agree that the Democratic party imploded in 1968.
I think if RFK had been elected in 1968, this country would be vastly different today.
sedi said...
Maybe Palin was so horrified by the Bush Doctrine that she just mentally blocked it out. I know that many of us would like to do the same.
For all of you debating Gov. Palin's performance in tonight's interview, you may as well save your energy for more meaningful pursuits. The love affair that this country is having with her will be coming to an end within the next week or two... just wait for the MSM to pick up on her abuse of power, extra-marital affairs, countless flip-flops, lies from the campaign stump, etc.
"I fired the cook... but I didn't"
"I sold my plane on eBay... but I didn't."
"I was always against the Bridge to Nowhere... despite evidence that I was originally FOR the Bridge and then kept the federal goverment's money when I killed the project."
This avalanche is about to pound the Mc/P candidacy. Once the sh*t hits the fan, she will drag McShame into the dumpster before the end of September.
Some countries of South America likes Brazil or Argentina have a ballotage system.
Brazil have this system since 90¨s.
Argentina had an electoral college system between 1880-1994.
Russia is a dictatorship country.
53 days left for the media/Obama to keep hammering Palin. Hope they don't come up for air.
This is a great gift from the heavens (is that ok to say here?) for McCain.
Way to take your eye off the ball Obama!
A great gift from the heavens.
'The love affair that this country is having with her will be coming to an end within the next week or two... just wait for the MSM to pick up on her abuse of power, extra-marital affairs, countless flip-flops, lies from the campaign stump, etc."
Broken record. Devoid of substance. Hope against hope. What would you do if you couldn't console yourself with such crap?
There is no equivalent in the Republican party. The last real conservative put forth as the PRESIDENTIAL candidate was Reagan. GHW Bush was a relative moderate as was Dole as was GW Bush as was McCain. You don't see the Buchanans, Santorums, Quayles, Romneys (circa 2008), Gramms, Helms of the world getting anywhere close to winning the Republican primary.
Since 1972, we have had McGovern (very liberal), Carter (moderate/liberal), Carter, Mondale (very liberal), Dukakis (very liberal), Clinton (moderate), Clinton, Gore (liberal), Kerry (very liberal), Obama (very liberal).
So, when we choose somewhat not on the left-wing fringe of our party, we win most of the time. When we do not, we are batting .000
Just saw clips of Palin that weren't on the ABC News website earlier....the questions were hard (not "unfair") but jesus, she had no clue what she was talking about. I think we all knew that as long as Gibson didn't treat this as a People interview, this would come out clearly.
Based on this interview tonight, Sarah Palin knows about as much as I do about the current state of American foreign policy. Considering I am a chemist, this is a very bad sign. These weren't issues that required high-level inside Washington knowledge, they just required her to have read a newspaper for the last eight years.
kozierok,
Is that all you've got? Smarminess?
Hold on, let me ask good ol' Jerimiah...if that's the route you want to go.
Charlie Gibson treated Palin in a sexist, demeaning, and patronizing matter.
I thought that Gibson tried to trap into saying she'd go to war with leading questions....but I don't think he was that bad.
It did come off as he though he thought that it was a waste of his time to be interviewing her in the first place, however. I don't know if he's always like that though.
The cries of sexism for political posturing are getting so ridiculous that they will soon be akin to crying wolf. No one will give a damn anymore...and that will be do a disservice to actual cases of sexism.
greg...come on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Charlie Gibson treated Palin in a sexist, demeaning, and patronizing matter."
Are you kidding me? Let's just be honest. She simply was not qualified to answer those questions. That's it. No more can be said.
Oh lord...John McCain is going on Rachel Ray's show tomorrow.
I'm watching the interview right now.
She sounds like a 17-year-old trying to pass a college entrance interview.
This is awful. People need to wake up.
You'll never see Charlie Gibson asking Obama bout his disturbing ties to criminals and terrorists.
"The Perot vote?"
Can we get back to the 21st century please? There is no such thing as a "Perot vote."
Kinda makes your whole analysis on any level look like complete and total bullshit.
Hey Greg: Read it, live it.
I find it interesting that most of the handwringing comments about teh US defending NATO allies against Russia are so very similar to the hyperventilated concerns about Reagan in the 80s.
Peace through strength was his answer, and it worked.
Appeasement and backsliding on principles is far more likely to result in war. Just as the failure to deal early on with Al Quaeda resulted in a far bigger task than would have been necessary early on, allowing Russia to throw its weight around Europe would eventually result in a far messier problem.
Obama's talk about pushing back the capabilities of our defensive weapons would only embolden Russia and any other potential aggressor.
greg....COME ON!!!!!!!!
You'll never see Charlie Gibson asking Obama bout his disturbing ties to criminals and terrorists.
Did you watch Obama's fox news interview?
Why didn't Obama accept McCain's town halls proposal?
Now we know why, it would make him look more normal and less Messianic.
Gibson looked ridiculous looking down those half glasses acting like he was so superior to the person he was interviewing.
That's the elite media for you. They just don't get it.
I remember his interview with Barack Obama. He almost looked like he wanted to give him a blow job. These bozos cannot even pretend.
greg,
good question.
uhh uhhhhh uh let me uhhh answer that for the Amer...uhhh You know, I absolutely agreed to.....uhhh uhh. No, not at this time.
Why didn't Obama accept McCain's town halls proposal?
Because he stacked the audience. That was revealed at the very first one.
"Charlie Gibson treated Palin in a sexist, demeaning, and patronizing matter."
Oh please. Gibson could run circles around Palin in terms of foreign policy understanding, so if he had wanted to demean her he could have. But he asked her about presidential decisions....letting Georgia and Ukraine into NATO, how she felt about the current president's foreign policy doctrine, how she would deal with a country violating NATO....these are decisions, God help us, that she might someday have to make.
Again, and this is the first time I've ever said this, but Fox News, when calling Hillary Clinton a whiner for complaining about sexism, if foreign leaders see her as a policy lightweight (which from today she clearly is) it reflects badly on this country. The voters need to know this. To some degree, this is a test, and she's failing it.
Also, as has been commented before, this interview was hand-picked by the McCain campaign and is being done in stages. If the McCain camp felt this was a demeaning interview, this should be the end of it. If it goes on tomorrow, the McCain camp thought it was fair.
Justin, take it easy.
You do realize that almost every one of your critiques about Palin on foreign policy ("lightweight") apply with at least equal force to Obama?
And, notwithstanding the left wing's chant of "One Third Chance McCain dies in First Term", Palin is running for VP, while Obama is running for President.
Therefore, the risk of having a foreign policy lightweight in charge is 100% if Obama wins, and some percent less than 33% if McCain wins. Accordingly, your own reasoning defeats the rationale for an Obama Presidency.
If Sarah is such a "pitbull" why does she need whiny supporters to defend her?
She said Clinton whined too much during the primaries. I detest Clinton but Palin has whined 10x more in 2 weeks than Clinton did in six months.
Bunch of raving lying hypocrites.
stop_the_stutter said:
Are you sure that your area would get attention even if there were no EC? Unless a problem like that is widespread nationwide, it would probably be pretty much ignored. At least with the EC, individual problems like that are at least a little more isolated on a state level, which becomes more important to a candidate because of EVs. Believe me, I feel your pain with the lack of importance of one's vote. I live in true blue CT. But I think all problems would be dilluted immensely without the EC.
There's plenty of truth in that too, an idea I think would be interesting would be to split EC votes up within a state proportionally somehow, by county or congressional district or something, but on the other hand that has the possibility to produce some nightmares too. I just don't like that some of the biggest and most important states get no attention other than fundraising you know? California, New York, Texas, Illinois etc. are all large and important but are monolithically safe for one side or the other in the EC system but this county for instance is split right almost right down the middle when you look at the registered voters. There's less than a 1,000 voter split in a county of 760,000 registered voters. Registration here is fairly low though, less than 62% of those eligible to vote are even registered and even less than that obviously actually turn out. I think something that could institute the need for competition here would boost registration and make democracy a more healthy thing here.
Go watch O'Reilly's interview with Obama -- he would have had Palin in tears in 3 minutes if he did the same.
This wimp wants to lead the free world?
When did Republican supporters become such whiny little babies?
Obama's disturbing ties to a terrorist?
Do you mean his ties to John McCain?
Let's not forget that John McCain bombed innocent civilians in Vietnam.
Someone should ask McCain how many innocents he's murdered and whether he ever thinks about them.
john,
that was a sorry, sad thing to say.
honestly.
I don't think most people would be able to go thru what Mr. McCain did.
John: Over the line.
On the terrorist scale, John McCain is far, far worse than Bill Ayers.
geoff--the characterization of Obama as a foreign policy lightweight is an extreme mistake. I'm not talking about experience--Obama has not served as a diplomat--but an understanding of the current world stage.
Obama has been in numerous foreign policy interviews (as an example http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/13/zakaria.obama/). Reading that interview and countering it with Palin's interview today, it's obvious that there is absolutely no comparison.
The critique of Palin's interview today most certainly do not interview to any Obama foreign policy interview I've ever seen.
My daughter is a admission consular and says that SAT scores will last on your record forever but who cares? It is your record after you are in college that matter... Barack is brilliant and his uh is because he thinks first and that's just fine with me. A president who thinks .....
John, those comments are out of line. You are a disgrace.
Why is the R2000 poll of MS listed wrong? The result was 52-39 not 55-37.
@justin32099,
>>>>Also, as has been commented before, this interview was hand-picked by the McCain campaign and is being done in stages. If the McCain camp felt this was a demeaning interview, this should be the end of it. If it goes on tomorrow, the McCain camp thought it was fair.<<<<
I think the interview was fair, Charles was pushy, but no more pushy than O"Reilly with Obama. We are all biased on the left and right and can agree to disagree on her answers. I LIKED most of what she said, but that is immaterial. It is what moderates/independents think.
The key was that Palin did not get angry, flustered, kept on smiling, did a little push back, etc. She is cool under fire. Biden is not going to get to her --- and she can handle any of the reporters.
Maybe a hard one would be Olberman, BUT he is so dumb to attack, not let her reply, and generally disrespect her. Then we can compare his interview with Palin with Olberman's softballs to Obama. This might HELP McCain.
The hardest interview for Palin might be Rachel Maddow.
"Why didn't Obama accept McCain's town halls proposal?
Now we know why, it would make him look more normal and less Messianic."
Because the candidate who believes he is likely to win never accepts the debate requests of the opposition.
Nate,
I would like to know more about the window in Ohio for registering and voting (Sept 30-Oct 6). Does that give Obama a huge advantage?
It's remarkable how McCain can blame Obama for the tone of the debate and nobody says a word. Apart from that I saw the John McCain I used to admire today, except it has become a gimmick, as if he didn't run his own campaign.
And, what about the sorry display we saw today on ABC? Since when does it require two weeks of preparation and scripting for a (vice) presidential candidate to give an interview, who then has the guts to say "we must not blink". Americans simply don't want a president who thinks or speaks in full sentences.
I've been a guest in this country since August 2001 and seen this country's naivete morph into willful and shameful ignorance. What's wrong with having an education and having seen the world? How many Americans think this is the greatest country on earth without having ever seen another one? (including, until very recently our next (vice) president). Give a rat's ass and try a little harder.
The Nevada Insider Advantage poll is incorrect. Not complaining, just telling you it's wrong and I've got telephone confirmation they posted the wrong numbers.
For starters, McCain is not winning the AA vote by 60 some-odd points like the poll internals say. In addition, McCain is not winning the 18-35 vote nor is McCain winning the female vote and Obama is not winning the male vote.
They need to re-post this poll which should show Obama as up 2.27 points in NV.
floridagop: Charlie Gibson treated Sarah Palin like Queen Elizabeth compared to the O'Reilly interview of Obama.
Here's one part of it. Watch it yourself. O'Reilly went right for the jugular, asked him about his associations, nothing held back, he cut cutting him off and shouting him down.
Now contrast that to this. Yes, Gibson persisted a couple of times in asking his questions, but really, there is no comparison between the two.
Come on. :)
dh: I still have faith. But if Americans are stupid and crass and thoughtless and narcissistic enough to elect McCain and Palin to office, this nation has officially jumped the shark.
john -
The real terrorist, in this case is Lyndon Baines Johnson.
He was a Democrat.
Eat it.
Louder, John, louder!
When will Amerika wake up to the fact that people are better off under communism and that the military-industrial complex stifles that fact so Amerika can satisfy its imperialistic hunger?
floridagop--
I don't think Biden or any reporter is going to "get to her" in the sense that she would blow up and chew anybody out. She's new to the national stage but she's been a politician for a long time and she knows how to hide her feelings.
The concern (from the GOP side) is that Biden will simply exhibit a much better understanding of the issues....which is what the debates will be about. On foreign policy, I should think anyone would concede that Biden understands the world stage more than Palin. On other issues? I don't know.
But really, she is miles below both Obama and McCain (I haven't seen any interviews with Biden as a VP candidate) in terms of a general understanding of national diplomacy. The VP debate will be a net loss (as much as a VP debate can be...which I'm not sure is much) unless she does a lot better then than she did today.
Now everything about Sarah Palin starts to make sense:
Moose in headlights.
Justin: She could go out onto the stage, lift her skirt, dump a load on the moderator's head and then prance off-stage and the right-wingers here would declare that she "hit it out of the park!"
I've finally figured it out. This whole campaign is like that season of the show "Dallas". I'm going to wake up on November 5th and find out it was all a bad dream and the real campaign is just beginning.
2 States that matter most:
1. Colorado (McCain wins, game over)
2. Ohio (Obama wins, game over)
Everything else will fall in line.
If Obama wins Ohio, he is not losing Michigan or Pennsylvania.
If McCain wins Colorado, he is not losing Nevada.
...and probably not New Mexico either (though NM is less clear)
The positioning of Palin and McCain as "New Western" Conservatives, will help McCain appeal well in Nevada and Colorado.
STS -
Gambling is not an investment. But if you think it is, then go on with that plan. In about ten years you'll be one of those people "lookin for a government handout" that you despise so much.
Re Palin on Olbermann, I would love to see it and I do think Olbermann would be infinitely more respectful than BillO was of Obama. I do watch Olbermann sometimes when I want some good ol' Bush (and lately McCain) bashing, but I've never seen a conservative-leaning interviewee on his show, so I have no idea how he behaves.
Even if Olbermann does interview conservatives, considering the Palin interview strategy, we can safely say the probability of her going on Countdown before the election is about the same as the US going to war with Russia.
She was obviously avoiding a trap by the interviewer on the nebulous definition of the Bush Doctrine.
Your claim that everyone who doesn't agree with you is stupid is only evidence of your own lack of intellectual dexterity.
Your two points:
1. Obama served in the Senate. He didn't do anything substantial related to foreign policy, other than sign on to a slight adjustment of the Nunn-Lugar Act of the early 90's. His amendments didnt even deal with nuclear weapons - they dealt with mobile fired missiles against planes. He did chair a subcommittee on NATO in the near East, but failed to hold a hearing, ever. He was campaigning for President a year or so into his Senate term. You really think this is a qualification, seriously? The only substantial proposal Obama has EVER offered into law is the one in January 2007 to pull all troops by March of 2008. We all know how the surge decision by Bush turned out, and how Obama now admits it was a wild success.
2. Obama has run for President and hence thought alot about foreign policy for a year or so (at least). How is this a qualification? Obama has a team of 300 foreign policy advisors writing up stuff for him as a second State Department, true - but that doesn't give him any actual foreign policy experience.
As for Palin, she negotiatied a 40 billion dollar deal with companies and Canada to do a natural gas pipeline. She was more engaged than the average Governor with her national guard - ask the commander of the Guard. Name any foreign policy accomplishment of Obama that matches either of those.
The audacity of koolaid is to call me stupid because I don't walk in lockstep to the fantasy that Obama is not a foreign policy lightweight (which he clearly is).
It's probably time to deal with the Nebraska split.
Can college kids plus understanding the Czech vote help Obama peel off an EV?
First candidate that figures out what Vitame Vas means wins.
Who will be buying ads in the Czech Slavnosti or on the All-Star Polka Show,
KJSK 900 AM? McCain or Obama
Who will be at these events:
September 12 & 13, 2008
Gerda’s Bakery-Oktoberfest
Omaha, NE
The Prague Czech heritage day, Sunday Sept. 28th, 2008
Oct. 5th, 2008,
4th Annual October Czechfest
Oct. 26th, 2008,
3rd Annual October Polka Fest
at South Omaha Sokol Hall
21st & "U" Streets, in York, NE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Czech1346.gif
To czech, so musikant I think is the saying.
@Charles,
There may be a difference between the Obama and Palin Interviews in pressure applied. I respected Obama for the way he handled pressure. I was not sure, but now I believe that Palin is enough of a politician to handle the pressure as well -- we will see.
There are still 2 hours tomorrow, but I do not think that the McCain Campaign is "afraid" to put her out there with other reporters.
@justin32099 Biden, after 26 years should have more Foreign Policy experience. Americans will expect that... A couple of things may help Palin. The debate will only be a third about foreign policy.
Barack may be under a similar deficit (not quite as big) compared to McCain.
I am actually not sure how this will work out. Biden versus Palin combined with Obama versus McCain.
I think there is a edge to Obama-Biden, but it is not guaranteed. Anything can happen in a debate.
I keep trying for clarity. It doe snot matter how I view Obama/Biden and it does not matter how you view McCain/Palin -- we know they are tied with partisan supporters. It matters how independents ( those on the fence NOW) see these candidates.
She could have simply said that the Bush Doctrine had a nebulous definition, she didn't.
Anyone who sees that interview can see she didn't know what it was.
Sadly, I don't think it means much. Most people don't care about the Bush Doctrine and if they are already a fan of Palin they are going to lie to cover up for her and those of us who think she is unqualified for the job are only going to think so even more. I wonder what the independents think about it and if it would effect their vote at all. Any independents care to enlighten us?
"The audacity of koolaid is to call me stupid because I don't walk in lockstep to the fantasy that Obama is not a foreign policy lightweight (which he clearly is)."
1. "I've been so focused on state government, I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq" (2007)
2. You are stupid.
Such a double-standard... if Joe Biden went in there and needed to be explained the Bush Doctrine, he'd be laughed out of the Senate.
Bush Doctrine... nebulous? Yeah, right. It's basically preemptive military actions and war on a unilateral scale placed under the umbrella of defeating terrorism spreading democracy.
Bush Doctrine
It wasn't even meant to be a "gotcha" question, but it is now since she didn't know what it was. Just admit she screwed up and move on. The more you try to defend it, the more attention you'll bring to it.
chun: Sadly, you're right. I'm looking at some of the comments at ABC, and it's clear that many people have completely abdicated their responsiblity to take voting seriously.
They're worried about Gibson being "nice" to her? Wake the fuck up, people! She's not applying for a job as Gibson's personal assistant! This is the presidency!
Boggle * googol.
Such a double-standard... if Joe Biden went in there and needed to be explained the Bush Doctrine, he'd be laughed out of the Senate.
Sorry, I shouldn't have said that. It's sexist to assume that a person running for national office should have a basic grasp of her party's policies.
Let's try this again:
1."I've been so focused on state government, I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq" (Sarah Palin, 2007)
2. "Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.
The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don’t oppose all wars.
My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton’s army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.
I don’t oppose all wars.
After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.
I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.
That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.
Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.
He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.
I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.
I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.
So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.
Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance, corruption and greed, poverty and despair.
The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not — we will not — travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain." (Barack Obama, 2002)
3. You, Geoff, are very, very stupid.
The Republicans who continue to defend Palin simply care more about winning the election than they do about their country. There is no other logical conclusion.
McCain and Palin are both utter embarrassments to a party that claims to care about national security.
Hopefully Obama's impressive ground game can be the x' factor here. I recently read this interesting article about Obama's Ohio ground game:
http://demockracy.com/the-buckeye-ground-game/
geoff,
i was curious so i looked it up:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/09/business/worldbusiness/09pipeline.html
and you're right. Palin does review proposals given from businesses about international pipelines. But reviewing business proposals and actually dealing with governments are different. But i don't have any counter as to what obama has done, so point you.
as far as national guard:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iT8aoviwbHBFg8jpTnrik8i3EAjgD9300R700
basically she was a stand offish governor like most are. And the order that is given as an example of what she has done is to send them out to fight fires. Not exacly a great demonstration of military understanding (in fact when they are deployed as military the pentagon controls them). I would be very hesitant to call this national security. However, i am aware that Obama has security clearance but cannot state a military decision he has made (since he has no authority to do that only the cnc or a military career would have that). I'm going to call this one a draw since they both don't really have a military decision.
Can you say something nice about obama? or are you like all of the rest of them that think obama cannot do anything right or good and Senator Mccain and Governor Palin may as well be part of the holy trinity because of their infallability?
Chun said...
Sadly, I don't think it means much. Most people don't care about the Bush Doctrine and if they are already a fan of Palin they are going to lie to cover up for her and those of us who think she is unqualified for the job are only going to think so even more. I wonder what the independents think about it and if it would effect their vote at all. Any independents care to enlighten us?
I'm not independent, but I think you're right that this isn't a big deal in the long run. Unless it starts getting some media traction and the McCain camp themselves blow it up into something bigger with their defense.
But, it gives me hope. Biden's gonna wipe the floor with her.
Um, what?
GIBSON: But I, color me a cynic, but I hear a little bit of change in your policy there. When you say, yes, now you're beginning to say it is man-made. It sounds to me like you're adapting your position to Sen. McCain's.
PALIN: I think you are a cynic because show me where I have ever said that there's absolute proof that nothing that man has ever conducted or engaged in has had any affect, or no affect, on climate change.
"You're a cynic because show me proof?" What?
@Tito,
Bush Doctrine
It wasn't even meant to be a "gotcha" question, but it is now since she didn't know what it was. Just admit she screwed up and move on. The more you try to defend it, the more attention you'll bring to it. <<<<<<
You might be right but I would suggest you discuss with republicans or moderates.
I watch CNN or MSNBC because I dislike koolaid.
I watched Chris Matthews 7PM EST show. He and his panel reviewed Palin's answers, Showing the question and Palin's answers being repeated by Chris. When he repeated Palins "Bush Doctrine?" Chris added SMART Clarification and none of his mostly liberal panel did not catch or stop him,
Basically there is a LOT to bush doctrine, and Palin started on the Declared War on Terrorism, You are either with us or against us, etc before Gibson clarified on "Preemptive War".
You might think this is a big GAFFE, but like almost everything, reasonable people can disagree
And, no, she didn't say "there's absolute proof..." but she did say:
What is your take on global warming and how is it affecting our country?
A changing environment will affect Alaska more than any other state, because of our location. I'm not one though who would attribute it to being man-made.
Scott -
What I think she meant to say was :
"I personally believe that U.S. Americans are unable to do so because, uh, some, people out there in our nation don't have maps and, uh, I believe that our, uh, education like such as, uh, South Africa and, uh, the Iraq, everywhere like such as, and, I believe that they should, our education over here in the U.S. should help the U.S., uh, or, uh, should help South Africa and should help the Iraq and the Asian countries, so we will be able to build up our future, for our children."
lol @tito
I apologize tonight, everyone. I normally try to avoid going after Palin, but I'm particularly ornery tonight.
Her ANWR answer - no matter what your position - was good. You can clearly tell the topics she's more comfortable talking about.
Wow. I can't believe the level of denial on this board coming from both the right and left.
Dems: Obama is currently behind. If the election were held today, HE'D LOSE. NM, an in-the bag state, is now favoring McCain. Ohio and Florida look farther away than ever. The 50-state play is gone. The only piece of good news in the last week is that NH has moved decisively into Obama's column, and Palin will keep it there. But he doesn't have 270 and he's got a lot of work to do get that back. McCain's lead won't just evaporate: Obama needs to make it go away. Even Nate is telling you this. Get over it.
Republicans: McCain won't win Pennsylvania. Give it up. Keystoners may not like Obama, but that's Biden country, and they'll come home in the end. And Palin was about surprise: he's gotten about all the bounce he's going to get out of that horse without another major development: that means, the electoral map is a dead heat. McCain wins the game if he flips Michigan or keeps NM and NV and takes Colorado. He's got a good chance of doing that now, but another month of culture wars won't make Michigan or Colorado any redder. He needs a new, winning argument to do that.
So it's really up to either of these candidates to bring the election home. Otherwise it's going to be down to the wire fight over two or three votes in Colorado. But if anyone thinks now the election won't be close, they're kidding themselves.
Whether you wanna consider it a gaffe or not, she doesn't seem too prepared to give spontaneous answers as a person who is versed in these things might be. So, her and McCain have been doing the two-fer on the trail and it's been ginning up the crowds. But they have got to take time to get her prepped for the debates. All candidates go through it, and like it or not, her learning curve is a little bit steeper.
So, does the McCain camp start cutting back on her campaign trips in order to get her ready, or do they keep sending her out with McCain to gin up this rally-style support they've been getting? Somewhere a choice has to be made and something's gonna be sacrificed. I wonder which is more important to McCain's campaign: a well-prepared debate performance or day-to-day rally spirit that they've been groovin on for the last week?
Wow. I can't believe the level of denial on this board coming from both the right and left.
I agree with your points, but I disagree about it being denial. I think it's more about pride/confidence in the given nominees (or the lack of confidence in the other side's).
Oh, and Matt J. H. - I supported Obama over Clinton, but truer words were never spoken. Good intentions mean nothing if you aren't willing to do what it takes to get there. Look at how McCain is constantly, well, saying "that's just the way things are" when asked about the tone of the campaign. Basically his attitude is, I'll do what it takes and appologize when I win. Voters basically reward his for that approach. The public takes the nasty campaigning as a show of strength. Don't understand why Obama can't see that.
People always seem to have a strong desire to paint races as close.
Blowout elections happen, the fact that the last two have been close doesn't fate us to close elections forever.
I hope the Obama campaign can avoid taking the bite with that Palin clip. Yes she fumbled the ball but Obama needs to stop making Palin the story. She'll probably be the story tomorrow but if the Obama campaign ignores this and tries to get back on message then maybe he can avoid Palin covering the news cycle the days after that.
Good or bad the story has to stop being about Palin.
"Height of convention bounce" is known when that supertracker curve flattens out.
Every denial of the polls trending towards McCain by the Dems is a godsend to McCain. And there are A LOT of these CTFO/STFU/TrustTheOne/IgnoreThePolls/RidiculeDoubtersasChickenLittles Dems around in the blogosphere.
By shutting down voices and opinions that do not square with their worldview that Obama should be measuring the WH drapes rather than taking note of the increasing unease towards his choices, the discomfort among a large segment of his base about his campaign's failure to seize the narrative, the collective reflection of the electoral mood via Intrade and Polls, they will ensure the Obama campaign stays the course rather than address the initial signs of a potential looming crisis.
It is as if by ignoring the symptoms, the disease wouldn't matter. As if Obama's road to the WH is ensured by drowning out the voices of dissent from the electorate.
This current trajectory trends towards a McCain win unless the momentum goes back to Obama.
The feeding frenzy in the leftwing echo chamber on Palin attacks serves as useful distraction. McCain is simply glad that the spotlight is off Obama. All those "Celebrity" ads against Obama is to target his biggest strength, his prominence and the media's adoration. His own presence paling in comparison, he ropes in a new media star, a "historic" VP, a pretty face with a "maverick" reputation to upstage Obama. In other words, a Republican Obama. The more attention - positive or negative - is focused on Palin, the more Obama fades.
Once again, when the Rovian attacks come, the Dems backed off from their strength, Obama retreated from his electrifying rallies, change his "Change" message, move to the "centre" instead of attacking Washington, pick an "experienced" Washington hand, doing everything McCain hoped he would while McCain quietly and brazenly stole his message and his thunder.
McCain and his advisors seized the initiative from the Dems despite their weaker hand. Obama has been ignoring this at his own peril, reprising the Kerry/DLC strategy of inching carefully towards the Centre-Right, with the Party faithful applauding every disatrous move as sheer brilliance even while the Polls tank.
Some people here are trying to spin Palin's Russia comments as merely responding to some airy hypothetical about what we would do if Georgia were a member of NATO, but the real point here is that immediately before that she had unequivocally supported allowing Georgia and the Ukraine to join NATO:
GIBSON: Would you favor putting Georgia and Ukraine in NATO?
PALIN: Ukraine, definitely, yes. Yes, and Georgia.
GIBSON: Because Putin has said he would not tolerate NATO incursion into the Caucasus.
PALIN: Well, you know, the Rose Revolution, the Orange Revolution, those actions have showed us that those democratic nations, I believe, deserve to be in NATO.
So the point here is that if you actually make a logical connection between this view and her later comments about what she would do if Georgia had joined NATO and was invaded, she is saying she thinks it's a great idea for the U.S. give Russia an ironclad guarantee that we'll go to war with them if they invade Georgia or the Ukraine. Of course Obama has also made some comments about letting these countries join NATO, which I think is foolish too, but at least he's been a lot more equivocal about it, saying he support's Ukraine's "membership action plan" to join NATO, and that he supports the democratic reforms they'd need to make to meet the requirements, without ever saying outright that he definitely wants them to become members (see obama.senate.gov/press/080128-obama_statement_118/ for example).
What is the point of pointing out Palin's ignorance on the blogosphere when more than half of the electorate are probably none any wiser and have neither the time nor the inclination to figure out for themselves?
Her fraudulent record has to be exposed, yes, the electorate should know the truth, but then what does Obama have to offer?
They probably don't give a f*ck about Russia, they want to know if either Obama or McCain has a plan to address the PROBLEMS in their lives now, a tanking economy, inflation, employment, unaffordable healthcare, foreign wars, Social Security, and they want to hear it in SIMPLE LANGUAGE, preferably soundbites.
I think if you asked the average person on the street
"Should we go to war with Russia over Georgia?"
it would be no, massively.
Unless of course, we are talking about Atlanta.
I think a lot of this popular vote McCain, EC Obama stuff is a little short sighted, personally.
My dream scenario for revenge of 2000 would be this.
Kerry + Iowa and Colorado = 268
Win Omaha and get to 269 in a tie. McCain wins the popular vote, ties in the electoral vote and the house gives it Obama.
Almost impossible, but it would make me smile.
Should we go to war with Russia over Poland?
Should we go have gone to war with Germany over the Sudatenland?
Over France?
Over England?
Russia believing that we will go to war with them over something is the only thing that will keep them in check.
This isn't beanbag.
The problem i have with this whole thing against russia is this. YOU DON'T EVER EVEN DISCUSS A HYPOTHETICAL WAR BETWEEN TWO NUCLEAR NATIONS. Its fucking basic. How many times since 1946 (the year russia detonated its first nuke) have you heard a single major candidate, president, vp, diplomat, or senator do that????
for a good chuckle:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/opinion/11collins.html?ex=1378872000&en=e4cda573c0ae30dd&ei=5124&partner=facebook&exprod=facebook
Rudy,
If FDR had tried to declare war on Hitler before Pearl Harbor, he would have been impeached.
He ran in 1940 on staying out of the war and it got him reelected.
Them's the facts, bro.
Again, the key to containing Russia is them understanding we'd kick their butt if they start running over free countries.
We have a responsibility to NATO, and both Georgia and Ukraine deserve to be in NATO.
That said, Poland is the real battleground, and we connot back down to Russia's threats there.
That would be stupid.
Anthony, you may be correct about FDR possibly getting impeached if we'd taken on Germany sooner, but we had grounds as they'd violated the armistice. Our staying out of the war for so long made it a worse war than it would have been otherwise.
My favorite part of the interview had to be this classic exchange:
Gibson: "What insight into Russian actions -- particularly in the last couple of weeks -- does the proximity of the state [of Alaska] give you?"
Palin: "They're our next-door neighbors and you can actually see Russia, from land here in Alaska."
Gibson then moved on to the next question.
And the insight was?
I can see skyscrapers, but it doesn't give me any particular expertise in the field of modern architecture.
Does anyone -- Joe Sixpack, Hannah Hockeymom, Elderly Agnes in Altoona -- actually buy this next-door neighbor stuff? Every time I hear it, I feel like the McCain campaign is taking a giant dump on my admittedly moderate intelligence.
Man oh man. Every time my conscience pulls me back towards Nader, McCain/Palin drags me right back to Obama. It's actually pretty annoying, 'cause I'd love to support my boy Ralphie.
Ah well. Take care all, I have to go. I'm going to apply to be Police Commissioner of my local metropolis. You see, I have advanced knowledge of law enforcement techniques, because my next-door neighbor is a police officer.
-- Joe
My favorite part of the interview had to be this classic exchange:
Gibson: "What insight into Russian actions -- particularly in the last couple of weeks -- does the proximity of the state [of Alaska] give you?"
Palin: "They're our next-door neighbors and you can actually see Russia, from land here in Alaska."
Gibson then moved on to the next question.
And the insight was?
I can see skyscrapers, but it doesn't give me any particular expertise in the field of modern architecture.
Does anyone -- Joe Sixpack, Hannah Hockeymom, Elderly Agnes in Altoona -- actually buy this next-door neighbor stuff? Every time I hear it, I feel like the McCain campaign is taking a giant dump on my admittedly moderate intelligence.
Man oh man. Every time my conscience pulls me back towards Nader, McCain/Palin drags me right back to Obama. It's actually pretty annoying, 'cause I'd love to support my boy Ralphie.
Ah well. Take care all, I have to go. I'm going to apply to be Police Commissioner of my local metropolis. You see, I have advanced knowledge of law enforcement techniques, because my next-door neighbor is a police officer.
-- Joe
((PS -- My sincere apologies for the accidental double-post.))
Rudy,
I do believe that in a completely conventional war (re non nuclear) Russia would get their asses handed to them by us. But consider the way Russia is right now. Their economy isn't great (its not terribly but definately not good, they just got off that bad inflation). Their military may not be at par with us, but its definately capable of defeating most of Europe. They are not that far behind us. In the end, if it comes down to it, are you willing to bet the lives of every single western nation on your belief that Russia won't go nuclear? MAD has been the de facto military diplomatic policy since 1946, why would it suddenly change? I believe strongly that the Georgia ploy had nothing more than to tell the rest of the world "we still exist, and our military isn't as bad as you think". The truth of the matter is you can only strong arm someone so long before they hit back, and how do you think Russia will do that? Because I belive we'll go tactical nuclear, they'll go full nuclear and the whole of humanity will suffer.
I would posit that Russia is more likely to go nuclear now because their conventional forces are so down, its the only true weapon they have. Cheaper, too in terms of men and material.
2004- Kerry won DC,MA,RI,and VT by more than 20 points.
Nate Silver has Obama winning
DC by a 55 point margin. Obama has to win DC by a 80 point margin.
MA by a 13 point margin. Obama has to win MA by a 25 point margin.
RI by a 18 point margin. Obama has to win RI by a 21 point margin.
VT by a 22 point margin.
NY by a 14 point margin. Obama has to win NY by a 18 point margin.
MD by a 12 point margin. Obama has to win MD by a 13 point margin.
IL by a 12 point margin.
CT by a 14 point margin.
CA by a 9 point margin. Obama has to win CA by a 10 point margin.
HI by a 13 point margin.
ME by a 13 point margin.
DE by a 8 point margin.
WA by a 7 point margin.
NJ by a 8 point margin.
OR by a 5 point margin.
MN by a 6 point margin.
MI by a 2 point margin. Obama has to win MI by a 3 point margin.
PA by a 5 point margin
NH by a 3 point margin.
WI by a 6 point margin.
IA by a 6 point margin.
NM by a 2 point margin.
Obama states add up to 264ev.
The first state to give Obama the 270ev is
CO
Then OH and then NV.
VA and FL will narrowly go for McCain. but high Black vote will swing those states to Obama.
Rudy said...
Again, the key to containing Russia is them understanding we'd kick their butt if they start running over free countries.
I know this thread is dead, but I feel compelled to reply to this point. In a different time, not too long ago, this is a statement I could totally get behind. This is what we did in the first Gulf War. And it worked.
But towards the end of 2002 and into 2003 we turned away from one of our greatest lines of credit - We don't strike first. WMDs or not, lies or not, and irrelevant is everything that has happened since within the Middle East. Even before the invasion of Iraq we made a philosophical shift in foreign policy. You don't hit first. And when someone else strikes out on a crazy power trip then we were the warrior standing there in the defense of those who needed us, with our sword stabbed into the ground in front of us saying "Cross this line. I dare you."
Even after 9/11 we walked into Afghanistan and the rest of the world just stood back and said "Do what you gotta do." Whether they agreed or not, we had been the ones hit first for once and everyone knew the times we'd been there for other countries, in other fights. They knew we would have justice come hell or high water.
But we don't have that any more. We went preemptive and it's such a reversal for how we had been doing things. Some of the other members in the global community have been looking at us like we've gone mad. And in their eyes they are skeptical. The brand has been tarnished.
We've gotta work on reestablishing the American brand. We were not weak before when we built up our reputation after our heroism in World War II. We are not weak now, and won't be weak in the future if we change course. But we have to be calm, collected, and capable of showing restraint. Making off-the-cuff or direct remarks about being ready at a moment's notice to jump right into the fray of another war betrays the very image we need to relearn to show.
America once walked with a swagger and no one messed with us. We got pushed very hard, and we gave that swagger away. If we want the rest of the world to trust us and believe in us being on the right side of things then we have to begin the fundamental work it's going to take to get it back. We'll get it back. But right now we have got to stop running around talking about how we'll kick everyone's butt. America needs to lead by example and not by threats.
[Fuck. I didn't mean to write an essay.]
"On a related note, I get a chuckle when people who spell with British English explain what the American electorate is thinking and what they want."
I get a laugh when people who cannot identify a passport when they see one think the rest of Americans live like they do.
Maybe if you're less concerned about spelling and more focused on the MEANING of the English language, you would have discovered "trajectory" to mean the development in time of a path taken by a particular object. Right now, the path of this election is veering towards a McCain advantage, and its momentum, if left unchecked, could result in a McCain victory. You don't need to be a clairvoyant to predict the future, by studying weather patterns, you can project with some accuracy if it's going to rain on your parade. You can of course urge everyone to ignore the polls and miraculously, the trajectory would, in your fantasy election, veer magically back to an Obama advantage.
You're one of the ridiculous chorus out there drunk on the Kool Aid - "all is well if only we would all believe" - even as your American Idol, Axelrod, concedes that Palin's success was unanticipated. What else are they *not prepared* for by shutting off dissenting voices?
The only truth you have uttered is that the Media is all about Palin right now and Obama can't do a damn thing about it. Do you think that was purely an accident and McCain's gambler's luck when he chose to pick Palin after Obama picked Biden?
So if this site has no effect on the race, why are you wasting your time here trying to shut down other voices? If you can't bear opinions that are different, why don't you go back to the sites where everyone drinks from the same fountain and wears the same jackboots?
If you think the polls are too kind to McCain now, watch out when McCain and Palin go on the road to campaign. The more excitement they generate, the more enamored the media, the surer the trajectory to a McCain win. Red states turning redder spells trouble for Purple states, it's not chess, it's not checkers, it's go. You win by flipping them over, one by one. You need to contain the Reds, grab the corners/take the stage and start flipping back the Purples aggressively because any go player will tell you the bigger the encirclement, the harder it is to win.
Qute -
What do you suggest be done to change the trajectory as you see it? You're complaining about people complaining about people complaining. Seriously.
I can't tell if you're a disaffected Obama supporter or pulling for McCain. That's not to call you a troll or anything derogatory. But all you are bringing to the table is a dour and pissy mood. If you're so upset about the state of the race and people supposedly being in denial, then what are you doing to change that? I stay positive. I stay confident. I have faith in what's right and that what is right will prevail. A leader leads with confidence, chest out and chin held high. Not by aggressively dismissing every bad sign as a collapse or failure.
As Sedi said, we aren't going to have much affect on the campaign one way or the other with our amateur political punditry. Being a supporter does not give you a voice in strategy. I have reasonable doubts that anyone here has done more political work than volunteering. Obama might have 2+ million contributors, but that surely does not make us 2+ million campaign managers. You either trust your leader or you don't. I trust Obama. And as much as some folks on the other side my get on my nerves, I know they trust John McCain.
But who do you trust? Who do you put your faith in to be the victor? And besides bemoaning the state of things, how do you specifically suggest we improve things if you think they are so bad?
I don't say this to sound cocky, but just to point out your choices - Lead. Follow. Or get out of the way. Are you going to lead with specific suggestions? Are you gonna follow with faith? Or are you going to just sit there sounding sad and disappointed and never do anything to improve your circumstances? We're two months out, nothing is certain. 90% of this is all in your head.
Some random thoughts inspired by this thread, in no particualr order-
* The electoral college may not make a whole lot of sense to some, but actually its a pretty reasonable way of ensuring the views of all of the country are repsresented in the process. If the college didn't exist all the money in elections would be spent in the big, rich states, California, Texas, New York etc. The small towns and states would be ignored.
* I think that McCain's bounce has been fuelled by two types of people, evangelicals (who most likely will stick) and independent white women (who I think are still up in the air really). Evangelicals lock up some states, but states like Ohio, Virginia and a few others may well look a whole lot redder when the initial bounce wears off.
*Palin's answer on the Bush Doctrine was bad. Not so much her answer on the Bush tactics, but more not understanding what was meant by the term. It showed her as not very bright really. I don't suppose many people would pick up on that, but I do think it was a train wreck moment actually. Gave metropolitan types at least a bad impression, but is it goint ot register with her supporters?
* I don't think Palin did that well on ABC, but then again I don't like her anyway. I thought she was wordy and didn't really answer the questions, One time Gibson brought her up on it. But I don't think its going to change impreassions of her.
* The Democratic Party didn't die in 1968, it died in 1972. And it destroyed itself. The party could have recovered from 1968, it lost a fairly close election after all. But in 1972 it turned to a liberal, hippie type that allowed Nixon, and by extension all GOP Presidential candidates since as reasonable and moderate. It was 1972 when the party started to care more about its conscience than winning elections. Do you thnk a GOP that cared about its conscience would have nominated John McCain this year? He was nominated because he could win not because he was the perfect candidate.
* Tags like moderate/liberal/conservative are funny to me. Most great Presidents, of the first order would be considered liberal (Lincoln, FDR) whilst probably the best a conservative could do would be Reagan (probably in the second rank right now historically). And yet its Liberalism that some people think of as UnAmerican?
Turns out Gibson is a knuckleballer.
I think Palin showed she was smart and fast, as she bluffed her way past, and I doubt if she is going to get caught out a second time on the same subject, but she struck out this time. The trouble is that next time it will be something else. The press corps must be smelling blood now.
"The truth of the matter is you can only strong arm someone so long before they hit back, and how do you think Russia will do that? Because I belive we'll go tactical nuclear, they'll go full nuclear and the whole of humanity will suffer."
Weav, that's the same appeasement argument people have been using forever to justify not standing up. I think you misstate the case saying that we're "strong-arming" them. They're doing the strong-arming. The sooner and stronger we stand up to it, the LOWER the risk of escalation. Otherwise, we'll always be blackmailed.
To reduce the risk of nuclear attack is exactly why we have developed our anti-missile technology and intend to deploy it as a check to nuclear threats that have already been made.
" The ones that don't have much substance detract from the site, in my view."
Whoa, who are you to judge which posts are substantial and which aren't? You can only speak for yourself. My own judgment is that the ones who shut up debate are the worst, be they Democrats or Republicans. Random trolling is one thing, as long as someone has something to say, they SHOULD say it, whether they agree or disagree. I have one vote as do you as does the next Republican or Independent. From a strategic point of view, your voice isn't particularly more important or interesting. In fact, if Obama is wise, he should be listening to ALL the other voices, the ones who are feeling frustration, who are not giving anymore, who have turned from undecided to McCain, not the voice of the ones whose votes are in the bag. By attempting to censor the others, you and your ilk are doing him harm by distorting the mood of the electorate. Now this one post makes a hundred times more sense than all your infantile attacks on my posts so far...spelling??? Obama's lead has been shaved by a few percentages, can he afford more?
Tito, agree that America is not well served by making empty, boasterous (if that's a word)statements. Despite the claims of some, we've yet to take pre-emptive action against an enemy that hasn't attacked us directly.
Indeed, we've so often turned the other cheeck, such as on Al Queada's early attacks against us and Iran's incursions against us in Iraq presently, that the norm has become to keep poking at us until we do react. That can only lead to quick escalation if we don't react on a timely basis.
No one advocates a hair-trigger policy to provocation, and diplomatic leverage is always the first-line primary tactic to diffuse possible violence. That seems to be working with Russia, despite their bellicosity.
But we cannot allow the fear of military action, to paralyze us into inaction, which is why liberals cannot be trusted with national security.
Obama has stated he'd back off development of our defensive weapons, which would be the short path to emboldening Russia, Iran, China, or any other ne'er-do-well.
And can he afford turning off more Democrats and Independents who are flummoxed with what he's been doing and whose views are reflected in the changing polls?
tito ,
"I don't say this to sound cocky, but just to point out your choices - Lead. Follow. Or get out of the way."
You sound supremely cocky, and you;re asking people who are voting and who have been giving or supporting the Democratic ticket to get out of the way?
How useful or substantial are all the GET OUT OF THE WAY posts that you, sedi and the other Obama bots have pushed? You don't think these GTFO posts hog up valuable space, space where jaywood, who meekly expressed "frustration" and the threat of not voting in a post not longer than a few words, could have explained why he felt that way and be persuaded back to the fold, and better, to be renewed, energized and motivated to slog till November???
There is a demoralized, disgruntled Democratic faction and you want to THROW AWAY their votes, pray tell, where are you looking to GOTV?
Hey, if this a Thought Police kind of neighborhood where only certain types of views from a particular breed of Dems are welcomed, maybe the mods can give us the straight up. I'd be happy to leave!
"Happy 9/11, folks! GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!"
What the fuck?
"Happy" 9/11?
"Indeed, we've so often turned the other cheeck, such as on Al Queada's early attacks against us and Iran's incursions against us in Iraq presently, that the norm has become to keep poking at us until we do react. That can only lead to quick escalation if we don't react on a timely basis."
What fucking planet do you live on?
Iran's incursions against us in Iraq?
So, when psyops people supply insurgents with weapons doctored incompetently to look like they came from Iran, that counts as an incursion?
You know, when Japan invaded Manchuria, they sold the attack as being a "pre-emptive" attack against an obviously hostile native country, that had designs against Japan. It's amazing what you can do with "pre-emptive" logic. You invade one country "pre-emptively", sit there for 5 years, and suddenly you can use the presence of your troops there to justify a "pre-emptive" attack on a second country!
At what point are we all simply going to agree that the US is the aggressor here?
The idea that the US has "turned the other cheek" is laughable.
By using the term "Bush Doctrine", did Gibson mean 1) the 2002 NSS document that outlined the use of pre-emptive force against nations that supposedly were developing/possessed WMDs; or 2) the current 2006 NSS document that calls for multilateral approaches to fighting terrorism and supporting democracies?
In either case, "Bush Doctrine" is a term that, to my knowledge, has not been defined by any member of the Bush administration. Typically, people who use the term are critics of it.
Calling Palin out on this perceived flub comes off as petty and whining. Which blogger here is prepared to reach out to voters that can be swayed to Obama through effective methods (not condescending rhetoric about how stupid the opponent is, or how perfect Obama is).
I read everywhere that Republicans campaign through fear. I see fear here as well. Can we elevate the discussion a bit?
So what on this Palin nonsense. She is not an all star at foreign policy. Did anyone here expect her to be? McCain has plenty of foreign policy experience. She is on the tickets for domestic reasons. Oil and Energy, Executive experience, government reform, balancing a budget and creating a surplus. I had to look up the Bush Doctrine to know what Charlie was talking about. Why would anyone know what the Bush Doctrine means? For those of us religious persons, Doctrine means one's personal beliefs about the scripture and the deity.
I live in Nevada and volunteer for the Obama campaign, that 73% AA support for McCain is just not correct, they flipped the numbers or their sample was 4 AA voters and they just happened to poll 3 who like McCain
情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,潤滑液,自慰套,威而柔,威而柔,威而柔,威而柔,自慰套,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,自慰套,潤滑液,威而柔,FleshLight,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,跳蛋,按摩棒,FleshLight,充氣娃娃,情趣商品,情趣網站,情趣網站,潤滑液,性感內衣,充氣娃娃,按摩棒,情趣精品,跳蛋,情趣網站,情趣商品,跳蛋,FleshLight,充氣娃娃,情趣內衣,情趣精品,按摩棒,威而柔,自慰套,成人玩具,Nexus,lelo,聰明球,後庭,後庭g點,g點,美國fleshlight,STU訓練大師,Fleshgirls,Toys Heart,Tenga,日本 Vibratex,日本Toys Heart ,日本Tenga,美國aneros,rudeboy,英國rudeboy,英國Rocksoff,德國Fun Factory,Fun Factory,英國甜筒造型按摩座,甜筒造型按摩座,英國Rock Chic ,瑞典 Lelo ,英國Emotional Bliss,英國 E.B,荷蘭 Natural Contours,荷蘭 N C,美國 OhMiBod,美國 OMB,Naughti Nano ,音樂按摩棒,ipod按摩棒,美國 The Screaming O,美國TSO,美國TOPCO,美國Doc Johnson,美國CA Exotic,美國CEN,美國Nasstoy,美國Tonguejoy,英國Je Joue,美國Pipe Dream,美國California Exotic,美國NassToys,美國Vibropod,美國Penthouse,仿真按摩棒,矽膠按摩棒,猛男倒模,真人倒模,仿真倒模,PJUR,Zestra,適趣液,穿戴套具,日本NPG,雙頭龍,FANCARNAL,日本NIPPORI,日本GEL,日本Aqua Style,美國WET,費洛蒙,費洛蒙香水,仿真名器,av女優,打炮,做愛,性愛,口交,吹喇叭,肛交,魔女訓練大師,無線跳蛋,有線跳蛋,震動棒,震動保險套,震動套,TOY-情趣用品,情趣用品網,情趣購物網,成人用品網,情趣用品討論,成人購物網,鎖精套,鎖精環,持久環,持久套,拉珠,逼真按摩棒,名器,超名器,逼真老二,電動自慰,自慰,打手槍,仿真女郎,SM道具,SM,性感內褲,仿真按摩棒,pornograph,hunter系列,h動畫,成人動畫,成人卡通,情色動畫,情色卡通,色情動畫,色情卡通,無修正,禁斷,人妻,極悪調教,姦淫,近親相姦,顏射,盜攝,偷拍,本土自拍,素人自拍,公園露出,街道露出,野外露出,誘姦,迷姦,輪姦,凌辱,痴漢,痴女,素人娘,中出,巨乳,調教,潮吹,av,a片,成人影片,成人影音,線上影片,成人光碟,成人無碼,成人dvd,情色影音,情色影片,情色dvd,情色光碟,航空版,薄碼,色情dvd,色情影音,色情光碟,線上A片,免費A片,A片下載,成人電影,色情電影,TOKYO HOT,SKY ANGEL,一本道,SOD,S1,ALICE JAPAN,皇冠系列,老虎系列,東京熱,亞熱,武士系列,新潮館,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,整型,水噹噹,貸款,貸款,信用貸款,宜蘭民宿,花蓮民宿,未婚聯誼,網路購物,珠海,下川島,常平,珠海,澳門機票,香港機票,婚友,婚友社,未婚聯誼,交友,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,未婚聯誼,婚友社,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,婚友,未婚聯誼,婚友社,未婚聯誼,單身聯誼,單身聯誼,婚友,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,婚友,交友,交友,婚友社,婚友社,婚友社,大陸新娘,大陸新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,越南新娘,外籍新娘,外籍新娘,台中坐月子中心,搬家公司,搬家,搬家,搬家公司,線上客服,網頁設計,線上客服,網頁設計,網頁設計,土地貸款,免費資源,電腦教學,wordpress,人工植牙,關鍵字,關鍵字,seo,seo,網路排名,自然排序,網路排名軟體,
^^ nice blog!! ^@^
徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 感情挽回, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 女子徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 外遇沖開, 抓姦, 女子徵信, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 女人徵信, 外遇
徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信網, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 女人徵信, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,
徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 離婚, 外遇,離婚,
徵信, 外遇, 離婚, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 征信, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,
^^ very nice
徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,
徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
Post a Comment