Oh, come on, surely you remember the unforgettable "WHO AM I? WHY AM I HERE?" from Admiral Stockdale?

This one clip from the debate shows how even slight hiccups in delivery can effectively throw a candidacy down the drain. I thought that was such a tragic example of how an absolutely outstanding person can be made to look so foolish in a debate. Stockdale was someone we all should thank and admire for his lifelong service to our country. What a shame he had to have that blemish on his otherwise stellar record.

And there is this snippet from Qualye/Gore and, by the way, historians have shown that Quayle was knowingly misrepresenting what was in Gore's book, Earth In the Balance. One of the guys who helped Quayle prepare, Kenneth Adelman, later explained how they rationalized sending Quayle out prepared to deliver the lie, "on balance it seemed justified. And it had the advantage of suggesting that he had read the whole book and could remember the page number."

This has since been cited as the opening salvo in the Bush-Quayle campaign's well executed plan to label Gore as a liar.

And as far as black pots, I would argue in return that there is nothing more tarnished than McCain, the champion of earmark reform trying to pretend his selection of Palin was because she was a crusader against earmarks. You can't soften the blow by comparing her to previous governors. I'm amazed that you don't see that clear hypocrisy.

And where do you come up with the idea that Palin cut Alaska state expenditures by 20%?? The reality, according to the Alaska legislative finance office is that their budget has INCREASED 30% in the last two years. They've managed to salt away money because we are all paying $4.00 for a gallon of gas! See the following:

"Fueled by oil taxes, Alaska spending soared under Palin" - Boston Globe 9/13/2008

I'm starting to think that you are still falling for the same tricks that Quayle used in his debate. They just lie their asses off to you and you swallow it.

You may want to check your link again.
McCain did not vote to kill the amendment, he was one of the 3 who did not vote.



Actually I can argue that point because McCain did vote no
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll...&vote=00220



I don't know why you bring up Bush's name, it was initiated by Carter an greatly expanded by Clinton.
I consider the rest to be splitting hairs.
The the Republican deregulation is a great catch all to blame the current crisis on. My problem with it is the lack of link between subprime mortgages an the actual deregulation resulting from Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. The GLB act allowed the different financial services ( banks, securities companies and insurance companies ) to intermix, it had nothing to do with subprime mortgages.
Everyone automatically points to the GLB act because it was the largest banking deregulation to pass. What people are not as quick to do is point out how the GLB act directly caused the increase in subprime mortgages, because it didn't.
In fact the increase in subprime mortgages wasn't a result of deregulation, it was a result of government regulation of CRA an Fannie & Freddie enabling banks to write crappy paper.
This crisis is a result of a housing boom mostly financed on phantom money. Much the same way dot-coms created a market collapse over money tied up in products an business models which didn't exist.
I would agree with you about The commodity Future Modernization Act was part of the problem because it allowed banks a way to cook their books, hiding their true asset to risk ratio.
If you want to argue that Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act is the cause. Then you need to show me how allowing a bank to sell insurance or an insurance company to offer long term investments caused the subprime mess. Sorry but I don't see the connection.


You are correct about the Alaskan budget, I meant a comparison between her request for earmarks an the previous governor. I thought I had read it was 20% but it turns out a lot more after checking the numbers.
The previous Gov. Frank Murkowski. had $550 Million
compared to Palins $200 Million
Sorry for the confusion, I was doing other things at work while I was writing my post.

Here are some classics

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omHUsRTYFAU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxBX8sz3tO8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws...feature=related

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/...a.iraq.trip.cnn

http://boortz.com/more/video/obama_faith.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLZ9nRlyzN8...feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5QxTxUbUoc...feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nTHV980ZOQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHgH5i8ug6E...feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUURYlgEAWI

Either way, I dont think that should be a disqualification, look what we have now.

I think his policy stinks. at least what little change he would tell us about.

Robert, you are doing a great job at digging thru the noise.

Here was an article on Bloomberg that has some good links in it.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=new...id=aSKSoiNbnQY0

Have you looked into the whole Mark to market issue?

http://business.inquirer.net/money/breakin...inancial-crisis

I still need to do some research on it, but because most ofthe issues are mortgages it makes sense that the values would go back up in most cases. the talk is that the suspension of Mark to Market would limit the crisis to around 100 billion?

THoughts?

I speculate things will go badly for Palin judging by even more recent interviews she's participated in lately.
I had a feeling this would be her achille's heel a week after she was in as VP choice. I didn't know of course, but I had a feeling judging by her 'home-lyness' demeanour-which is a good thing too.
I think the coming VP debate might trump the Dan 'Kennedy' episode and be quite memorable.
What her new role is pointing out is that whatever prominent independant qualities she had in attaining being a governor are now being stifled by the line she must tow according to mccain campaign guidelines, as well as her obvious disinterest in being comfortable in foreign affairs in depth and intricasies.

I find myself in the awkward position of defending Obama about his flubs during unscripted speeches.
I'm sure I could find just as many flubs from McCain. The difference is Obama has been falsely been sold as a great public speaker, he's not. So people take note of every public goof. What he is good at is delivering a prepared speech, he's only average when it's unscripted. There is a bid difference between the two.
Clinton and Reagen were good at both.
Bush 43 sucks ass at both
Obama would be closer to Bush 41, who was only so-so without a script but did really well delivering prepared speeches like his 1000 points of light speech.
Just my opinion.

I was only able to catch parts of the debates, busy with the kiddies.
McCain got hurt on Iraq as I would expect.
He nailed the part about needing to cut spending, I noticed several times during it, the Independent score was even higher than Republican. Which is weird because it's a classic stance of Rep's
Now I'm waiting to see what the fact checkers have to say tomorrow.
I'm sure both sides will claim their guy won, the only thing I think everyone will agree on is the Mod did a shitty job. It was pathetic how far an often their answer were off topic to the original question. He tried to call them on it during the 2nd or 3rd question but pussed out by letting them do the same thing after asking the same question again after both of them didn't answer it the 1st time.
I want someone who will put them in their place.
I want a Mod who will say.....
That was a great answer but that wasn't my question, care to try again?
Did you not understand the question?
I asked a question, I don't remember asking for a speech.
Or for the "Pulp Fiction" fans like myself.
Do I stutter?
English mother fucker.... Do you speak it?

nah- the mod was good- he was like a good ref in a boxing ring- he stayed out of the way to let everyone see the dust-up going on....
I liked the debate's flow- started a thread on it btw

Damn, I really shouldn't try to work and gab with you guys at the same time. My bad.

I forget how many votes McCain has missed these past couple of years.

My point is that true pork barrel spending comes from earmarks that are inserted in unrelated, and often essential bills, or bills that are almost certain to pass easily with little debate. Holding a Senator up for supporting an earmark (like McCain voting for the very Bear DNA bill he loves to rant against) is grossly unfair, you might as well castigate all the Senators ... hey, wait a minute ... we might be on to something here! :-)



Wow, that isn't what I've read. In fact, as I understand it (and hell, this area is so complicated, even the so-called experts failed to grasp what was happening), the key ingredient was the ability for the mortgage brokers to bundle those bad subprime mortgages and sell them to insurance companies as swaps. Some of my best clients have been banks (and hell, my soon to be ex-wife is a Senior VP at one of the nation's biggest banks) and I remember keenly when the insurance companies started mixing readily in the banking business. The bad thing was once the bundlers unloaded their crap, they were free to grab more lenders. All they were concerned about was volume and fees, all the risk was passed on to unregulated and unrelated businesses.

One investor explained that it is easy to evaluate one mortgage. You look at the house, you look at the buyer and you make a judgment based on what you see. With a bundle of a 1,000 mortgages, it is impossible to properly evaluate the actual worth. The real problem was the "go-go" attitude where everyone thought real estate would always go UP.

Here is a great article from early 2000 that made the potential problem so very apparent.

And a more modern explanation.

MY point exactly, Here is the solution to fixing the debate issue
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXTDURmSrQo

P.S. Newt is a WAY better debater and speaker than enyone running out there now. That clip was part of the Cooper Union Debate with Mario Quomo. It runs 1-1/2 hours and is a very good debate.

It can be seen here

http://www.scribemedia.org/2007/03/03/lincoln-debate/


Back to your regular chanel...... Oh and Palin at Least got everyone interested again I for won was very apathetic about this election.

Sorry hamma but neither of your links point to any connection between the GLB ACT an the current Financial mess. I agree it's easy to find an economist to lay blame on GLB but it's because they point to generalized deregulation like GLB as the problem, I have yet to see a write up which isn't more fluff than fact. I have done a ton of reading over the last week an have seen countless indirect accusation as GLB as the cause but not single in depth article pointing out why.
It's a lot of smoke an mirrors. I think we partially agree credit swapping via mortgage backed securities played a part by enabling this mess. What we don't agree is the link between MBS and the GLB. I've read dozens of article which mention mortgage backed securities an GLB Act, thereby linking the two. That's a intentional misrepresentation by people who for whatever reason are trying to link the two together.
If there was such a direct link between credit swapping via MBS an the GLB Act, why hasn't someone pointed directly to what part of the GLB act that is to blame. I'll tell you why, because the GLB Act has zero to do with mortgage backed securities.
We've both previous pointed to credit swapping as part of the problem. Well the reason why GLB doesn't have anything to do with credit swapping via MBS, is because MBS predated it by 11 years.
The GLB Act was passed in 1979
The National Housing Act of 1968, part of the Civil Right Act is what introduced MBS securities not the GLB act.
By now everyone has heard of Fannie Mae an Freddie Mac. Well let me introduce you to their illegitimate little brother "Ginnie Mae"
"Ginnie Mae is credited with creating the Mortgage-Backed Security (MBS) [2] program in 1968. The purpose of the mortgage-backed security program is to attract new sources of capital for residential mortgage loans by increasing liquidity in the secondary mortgage market."
So now the challenge for you or anyone else who wants to point to the GLB act as the cause of the problem. You would have to completely bypass the part Fannie an Freddie played in allowing banks to write bad mortgages and the part Ginnie Mae played by enabling banks to hide the amount of subprime debt via credit swapping. Credit swapping via MBS which was legislated 11 years before the GLB act.
A little more impartial look at the subprime mess than the typical "it's the fault of the Republicans an the GLB Act."
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2007/12/dodd.htm
http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArti...;issue=20080918

I am worried about Sarah on Thursday. I think Biden will unleash on her.

There is a good article printed in the New York Times which mirrors much of what you are saying, but they point the finger in a very specific direction:

They got in trouble by making a series of risky new bets while Washington did nothing new to stand in the way. “What you’ve got,” said Robert Barbera, a Wall Street economist, “is a system that has gone wildly beyond the safety nets that were in place.” Financial firms chopped bad mortgages into thousands of little pieces and deluded themselves into thinking that the sum of the parts was safer than the whole.

Gramm-Leach-Bliley isn’t entirely blameless. For one thing, the mergers it encouraged left banks with more capital to invest; some of the capital ended up in that deluded subprime mortgage market. But the law doesn’t deserve the mythical importance it’s now accumulating.

Who, then, in Washington, is to blame? As it happens, it’s many of the same people who were behind Gramm-Leach-Bliley. The Clinton administration and Congressional Republicans failed to create a strong framework in place of Glass-Steagall. Democrats pushed for riskier mortgage lending, in an effort to expand home ownership. But surely the bulk of the blame lies with the policy makers and regulators who were on duty while the housing bubble inflated and Wall Street went wild — the Bush administration and Alan Greenspan’s Federal Reserve. Their near-religious belief in the powers of the market led them to conclude that the mere fact that a company was willing to make an investment made that investment O.K.

One of the most influential members of this crowd was none other than Phil Gramm, the Texas Republican and former senator who helped bring down Glass-Steagall. For more than two decades in Congress he argued that the forces of the market had to be freed from government interference. Just a year after the passage of Gramm- Leach-Bliley, he was largely responsible for another bill — the Commodity Futures Modernization Act — that clearly did contribute to the current crisis. That law unleashed the derivatives market and paved the way for banks to become more aggressive about investing in mortgages. As recently as this summer, he was still saying that the biggest problem facing the American economy was excessive regulation. So the bill that bears Gramm’s name may be getting a bad rap, but there is also a bit of justice in the misunderstanding.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/28/magazine...reconsider.html

I'll try to restate my opinion one more time here. The key change that the Gramm-Leach-Bliley brought about was not the credit swapping, it was the ability of NON-REGULATED financial firms to play an active role. Prior to GLB, only banks could be players, GLB enabled firms like insurance giant AIG to become active.

A quote I found that sums up the problem with blaming instruments like credit swaps, "It's like saying it's the gun's fault when someone gets shot."

The same can be applied to GLB. That ensured that every player had access to the gun, the problem was that no one bothered to watch how the gun was used.

Funny but also very right
http://www.videosift.com/video/Craig-Fergu...ous-Voting-Rant

Yes, lets bring this thread back to Palin!

Everyone has to be startled by her performance in the Couric interviews. Shocking, upsetting, mysterious even.

Is it a ploy? Would they have her purposefully act like a space cadet to push expectations into the gutter, with the hope that even a modest performance in the debate will seem like a screaming home run? Could they really be that tactical?

That interview was so dramatically different from the Palin we saw as Governor, it absolutely has to be a stunt, and the McCain campaign has so obviously become the campaign of stunts.

All of McCain's distractions seemed timed to lessen the impact of that interview and their falling poll numbers.

What do you say, Robert? Are you still a firm Palin supporter, or are you having buyer's remorse like Kathleen Parker and George Will ?

The Rovian playbook is becoming a bit too well known. Rule number one: attack your opponent with your weakness. Rule number two: lower expectations. Rule number three: distract

The shouts of concern from conservative talking heads has a ring of Rovian talking points to me. I think a plan has been hatched and Rove is about to pull a fast one. I say, expect to see Palin hitting them out of the park during the debate.

i would like to see more talk on the bail out,palin seems to be irrelevent at this point.

I think this thread should stay Palin. She pales a bit in comparison to the current economy issue, but her as a VP/potential prez is a future issue to ponder.

I think the bailout plan needs a new thread - I'll start it up.
Maybe Robert can shift current bailout specific posts into that thread.



The first thing that troubled me about Palin amidst all her triumphant impressive entry into the race was that in spite of all her bravado, she gave off no inclination to giving her agenda on worldly affairs. She also had a very antagonizing tone that worried me regarding her having sincere diplomatic skills in an international theater.

I hardly think this is a grand-master ploy. Palin is in quicksand in this regard. She naturally doesn't have that world-stage demeanour/information depth or 'eagerness' required as a world leader. Just about everyone not in denial notices she's that she struggles to give the impression she has that capability or desire... Conservatives who are down to earth see it too.

I think the Obama Campaign did a good move in lowering expectations for his first debate.



I think the Obama campaign is telling Biden DO NOT UNLEASH on Palin.
They know the offended/sympathetic vote is ready to rally to Palin if she gets too trashed upon and she actually holds up against the storm.... ie, gets considerable homework done by the time of the debate in appearing capably worldly. That's why Biden should refrain from playing pitbull - if he doesn't succeed at it, it'll blow up in his face.
Biden must be getting tactical orders to do what mcCain did to Obama in their debate, and for the most part put forth his experience and simply ignore Palin.... their ploy maybe to simply let Palin trip up over herself without too much provocation -or if any, very trickily underplayed yet decisive.

Concerning the notion GLB act is somehow to blame for this current mess. Hamma even the NYT article you linked to admits the connection between the 2 is vague at best.
"To many banking experts, the reason is simple enough: namely, that the law didn’t really do much to create the current crisis. It is a handy scapegoat, since it’s easily the biggest piece of financial deregulation in recent decades."
Which has been my point all along.
Even the 2nd Newsweek article you link to does nothing to show a connection between the GLB Act an the current financial crisis. The GLB had zero to do with allowing CDS or their derivatives.
The repeal of Glass-Steagall had no effect on Wall Street’s move into complex and risky financial instruments like credit derivatives because Glass-Steagall wasn't about preventing those kinds of risk.
Even more to the point is the fact no where else has laws preventing of intermixing of insurance, banking and securities which Glass-Steagall prevented yet they didn't suffer the same crisis as us.
Consider this, Lehman was one of the 1st to fail even though it was about as pure of investment only bank as possible, so GLB made little change in how it did business.
Greed by both Wall Street an Main street are to blame but you can't ignore the fact Government has their fingerprints all over this mess too.
* CRA required banks to increase high risk ( subprime ) loans by 20%
* Fannie and Freddie enabled banks an lenders like countrywide to write junk loans.
* Ginnie Mae created Mortgage-Backed Security which allowed other lenders to hide the amount of risk they carried
Just like the dot-com bust, which was built on phantom goods an services. This was a financial bubble built most on junk mortgages



Back to the Palin an the upcoming debate.
I don't expect the debate to be a Palin victory, probably break even. I do think those who expect her to curl up in the fetal position will surprised. Much like Hamma mentioned, it's been interesting to see the liberal perspective swing form "Biden is going to rape her during the debate" to the current idea her previous poor showing was some supper secret plan to lower expectations.
As for
"What do you say, Robert? Are you still a firm Palin supporter, or are you having buyer's remorse like Kathleen Parker"
Liberals have been very quick to point to the so-called buyer remorse among "Conservatives" like Kathleen Parker.
A few things worth pointing out.
1) Parker never was a Plain supporter, only said she thought she was a good pick based on Obama dissing Hilliary, which bring me to point #2
2) How can anyone still call Kathleen a conservative when she considered herself a Hillary supporter during the democrat presidential race. Doesn't sound like a conservative to me.
3) Parker is only more of the same sexism seen previously in the race in regards to Palin. Implying Palin should recuse herself to take care of her kids. This by the way from the same person who claimed women have no place in the military an personally attack Jessica Lynch in her book. This is the same so called "Conservative" who found herself not only in agreement with Ahmadinejad but supports his views when it comes to women in the military.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7040601549.html
Sorry, but calling her a conservative, dirties the name.

People seem to overlook how much of a free ride Biden has got when compared to the news media criticism of Palin. Since Biden was picked there have been numerous fumbles by him which barely if at all got any mention in the news. Just look at his newest one
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/...ation-question/
The press would have been all over McCain or Palin if they would have implied scores where down in schools because of to many black students. If McCain or Plain had made that remark, Democrats along with most media outlests would be calling for their heads.

Kathleen Parker, September 5, 2008 - "It is delightful to feel good about oneself and Palin delivered energy where spirits had flagged and inspired a vision that had become blurred.

Glancing around the convention center in St. Paul, it was not hard to see that the GOP is in dire need of a transfusion. I've been to retirement villages that had fewer gray hairs and to Old South parties that were more diverse. For whatever reason, the Republican Party has not been able to attract young people or minorities in numbers that reflect the mainstream America they purport to represent.

Is it the message or the messenger? Both — and Republicans know it. Behind closed doors around the Twin Cities, talk focused on the need for new templates, new models. Republicans have to communicate that they, too, care about the issues Democrats have claimed as their own — education, health and the environment. They need new ideas and new — younger — faces to deliver the message.

Voila. Enter Palin.

Some have criticized McCain for cynically selecting a woman only to try to attract former Hillary Clinton supporters. Obviously, there's some truth to that. Being a woman is part of Palin's appeal and running mates are often picked in hopes of securing a particular state or demographic.

But Palin brings more to the ticket than the possibility of a few female voters. She has animated voters who had little enthusiasm for the race. She has given them the very thing Democrats have been enjoying the past several months: hope and change.

That's potent medicine. It also should come with a warning label: "May cause delusions and a false sense of power."

Kathleen Parker, Sept 10 - "And can she lead it, if necessary? McCain seems to think so. Or does he? Whatever the case, his political judgment in selecting the Alaska governor was keen. With that singular flourish, he signaled the Republican base that he isn't a RINO (Republican In Name Only) after all. And, he co-opted the Democrats' claim to represent women's interests by picking a woman who makes feminists look like sissy-girls."

2) How can anyone still call Kathleen a conservative when she considered herself a Hillary supporter during the democrat presidential race. Doesn't sound like a conservative to me.

Weren't all[u] the conservative's supporting the Hillary campaign? Rush Limbaugh was going out of his way to drum up support for Hillary.

I get a kick out of how quickly people are thrown under the bus when they voice an independent thought. By the way, I'm still waiting for you to throw George Will under the bus. Is he a neo-liberal now?

For starters no sane Dem/ Lib/Repub /conserv is expecting Palin to curl up. She's as tough as nails and has the record to show it. The overwhelming consensus is that she doesn't have any capable international insight. She'll be tripping up over herself- Biden won't be going after her throat like most right wingers seem to think. That's a bad strategy if Palin turns out to hold her own; it'll make her look stronger.

You're surely aware many conservatives had grave misgivings about Palin when she was first picked up as the VP option. You're making it seems like all conservatives were soundly behind her as the pick and they have suddenly switched in their opinion. That's not true. I think that's a right-wing fanciful notion circulating around in their circles.

The media goes after whoever makes the biggest stir - Obama was hammered for months over the Rev.wright issue. What exactly has Biden done that's so worthy of media sensation and scrutiny compared to Palin's recent seqences of flubbing interviews.... all the candidates have been making foolish statements/ 1 liners... and McCain was up to some bizarre antics last week- simple truth is Palin has topped the list. It's funny how right-wingers who ponder on those those thoughts were not wishing Biden had equal media time when Palin was rolling in her 1st 2 weeks of solid sensational media coverage.

Another common right wing observation is that somehow Obama and Biden get away with doing/saying certain things. It was alright for Palin to call hockey moms bulldogs with lipstick -but then Obama makes a referral to pigs with lipstick and he gets slaughtered over the assumed implication. After the initial 2 weeks of Palin's entrance in which the media also made the expected low blow attacks on Palin they backed off and didn't touch her for some time. Maybe right-wing crowd would like viewpoints like those expressed on FOX to resound more, but life's not fair - right now it's Palin getting her fair share of knocks -maybe Biden's is coming up soon. Obama and McCain have taken their fair share so far. Palin would be wise to not adopt a sour grapes /'why is everyone picking on me' demeanour ; that's one good thing amongst other good qualities she has at least.

I'm really starting to think that you don't read anything I write. Did you miss my opening sentence??? "There is a good article printed in the New York Times which mirrors much of what you are saying..."

I linked to the NYTimes article PRECISELY because of their quote "the law didn’t really do much to create the current crisis."

The closest we have to an "evil-doer" here is Gramm and his Commodity Futures Modernization Act which paved the way for credit swaps, and is what has been blamed for our $4/gallon gas this summer.

If you want to talk about bubbles, here is the root cause, the 262-page bill specified that neither the SEC or the Commodity Futures Trading Commission were able to oversee the financial institutions that were dealing with credit swaps. No oversight meant these folks didn't have to prove they had assets to cover their investments.

So let me get this straight, you don't think the fact Parker was a Hillary support changes the story?

For the NYT article, yes I read your post. I just took it wrong.
As in, yes this kind of agree with you but really doesn't.

Although this is a strictly partisan video. It hit's on a couple of key points listed above

CRA, and Ginnie Mae

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okJxAHBDn2k...feature=related

The original video had a million hit's in 3 days or so and was taken down by a copyright claim by time warner.

Look under the users video's and you can see another version. V2 of the original.

Updated link for what Blitz is talking about
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NU6fuFrdCJY
BTW I posted the original 2 days ago.
Apparently Time Warner forced YouTube to pull the video over copyright infringement due to the songs used in the video. What's really interesting is all the songs are still on youtube, TImeWarner didn't care about the song themselves just the video. BTW if you do a search to see who the top Obama contributor are, TimeWarner comes in at #13 but I'm sure that has nothing to do with them making youtube pull a video because of the background music.

Whats even funnier is that the video is now down for the following reasons from your link Robert.

"This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Universal Music Publishing"

Version 2 was pulled..... as was version 3.....

Hey no one ever uses WB or Universal songs on youtube videos...

Here are links to (2) similar videos.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiEWCnpNnBQ

LOL
Yep I noticed this morning he or someone else put up 10 different versions of the original video.
I even downloaded a copy so I could put it back up if needed.

Question of the Day: did dinosaurs and people coexist together on the earth 6,000 years ago?

It seemed this was the question that Katie Couric just couldn't quite bring herself to ask in tonight's Sarah Palin interview.

In preparation for tomorrow's question, practice thinking of U.S. Supreme Court decisions that have meaning for you.

if this bill was passed by Jimmy carter and the Dems in the 70s ,it was probably aimed at trying to boost a non existent Real estate market with up to %18 interest rates going through the 80s. why is it that the sub prime disaster didnt take place till the housing boom in the 2000s?

The single bill isn't the direct cause just one of many but there was a large increase in CRA related activity in 1995.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/20080924/bs_ib...080924general01
Banks were forced to show the had written at least a 20% increase in low income minority housing.
If they didn't, their CRA rating would fall which could resort in all kinds of problems.
1) Banks request to open a new branch or expand through mergers and acquisitions could be denied.
2) They could loss their all important FDIC coverage
I doubt #2 ever happened but it was one of the things banks could be threaten with.
Then Fannie & Freddie opened the flood gates even more with their huge increase in mortgages they bought regardless of the mortgage's real value, enabling banks to right even more risky paper.
In 1968 they both had 2.5 Billion in their portfolios. from the 1900's to 2003, they grew to 10 times their previous size. Now they hold over $5 trillion in mortgage debt, nearly half of what’s outstanding in the United States.
By law Banks are required to hold a reserve of cash and other investments equal to 10 percent of the dollar amount of loans they make.
Because of special rules setup just for them to allow them to buy as many mortgages as possible, their $5 trillion in mortgages was backed by only $81 billion in capital.
While banks had to hold 10% in capital, Fannie and Freddie only had .36%
As much as this company grew, their CEO still overstated their profits to increase their bonuses.
It was a house of cards.

http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/post/1867539.aspx


"In 1995, as a result of interest from President Bill Clinton's administration, the implementing regulations for the CRA were strengthened by focusing the financial regulators' attention on institutions' performance in helping to meet community credit needs. "

"The number of CRA mortgage loans increased by 39 percent between 1993 and 1998, while other loans increased by only 17 percent. [7] [8]
Other rule changes gave Fannie and Freddie extraordinary leverage, allowing them to hold just 2.5% of capital to back their investments, vs. 10% for banks. By 2007, Fannie and Freddie owned or guaranteed nearly half of the $12 trillion U.S. mortgage market. [9] "

http://www.elliscountypress.com/news/126/A...2008-09-29.html

"In 1995, President Bill Clinton put CRA on steroids and imposed even stronger regulations that coerced banks to substantially increase loans to low-income, poverty-area borrowers or face fines or possibly restrictions on expansion. These revisions allowed for securitization of CRA loans containing subprime mortgages. Congress created processes through the Research the Community Redevelopment Act whereby community activist groups and organizers could effectively stop a bank’s efforts to grow if that bank didn’t make loans to unqualified borrowers. Hence, the sub-prime mortgage. These lenders knew a very high percentage of the loans would turn to garbage, but it was something they were coerced into doing if they expected to grow and expand. These garbage loans were then bundled up and sold with the expectation they would eventually be paid off when rising home values led some borrowers to access their equity through re-financing and others to sell and move to bigger homes."

"The revisions also for the first time allowed radical "housing rights" groups led by ACORN to lobby for such loans. ACORN and the feds made lenders offer zero-down loans. "No credit scores … undocumented income" under the auspices of CRA."

See the ACORN thread for sme more info...

Considering all the issues which I think people would be justified in criticizing or questioning her, ( not that I agree with them ) this would have to be the dumbest ones.
I would think religious affiliation would be the last line of attack any Obama supporter would want to use.
A short example of which would be.....
* Not God Bless America, God Damn America
* Aids was invented by the white man to kill blacks.
* Obama's non-negotiable pac with Africa.
* The implication 9-11 was justified payback for sins of white America
But of course he never heard those kinds of statements during his 20 years at the church.
There is a very important distinction I want to make here. All the controversy surrounding Obama an his church had NOTHING to do with his religious beliefs. The issues had to do with the un-American views of his minister an racist views of his church. While the attacks against Palin are a direct attack on her religious views an freedom in how she expresses them. You tell me which attack is more unfair.

Then there is the other line of attack from your article, saying Palin tried to force creationism to be taught in schools. That's still being reported even though it's been proven several times, all she ever said was she thought if the subject was brought up by a student then the students should be allowed to debate the subject. She never said or took any action to force teachers to teach it.

It's a sad day when peoples line of attack is a youtube video of her given a speech at her church, in some lame ass attempt to show her as some kind of religious radical. A speech which would be a common sight in most churches across America.

If you think her religious beliefs which include the idea the world is only 6000 years old is reason to attack her or prevent her from serving as VP, then I have a few questions for you.
Both Obama an McCain come from churches which believe the bible is the literal word of god.
So that would mean they believe the universe was created in 6 days, does that prevent them from serving as President? if not, wouldn't that make them religious hypocrites?
Not weird enough? then lets just focus on something a little more comparable to Palin and her belief in a religious tenet which says the world is only 6000 years old. Biden is a Catholic, do you know what it means when he receives Communion. As part of his faith, he believes thru some mystical act of transubstantiation, the wine an bread he takes becomes the blood an body of Christ.
Wow, what a freak, he actually thinks on some atomic level he's eating the blood an body of Jesus.
Yucko....
This fact alone should bar him from serving as VP. As Matt Damon said about Palin, do will really want someone who believes this kinds of stuff to have the nuclear launch codes.
I apologize to anyone who might be offended by my remarks, I'm only trying to point out just how unfair an stupid that line of attack on Palin is. If anyone were to make the same kinds of attacks on McCain, Obama, Biden or any other leader, they would be heavy criticized an rightfully so. For some odd reason that doesn't apply to Palin.
I wonder why?
Maybe some people have spent a little to much time watching Olbermann, who refers to Palin's former Pentecostal church as "terrifying" while at the same time call Rev. Wright "mainstream".


This bring up another point I would like to make concerning Palin.
Did she screw up in her interview? Of course she did, it was an ugly bellflop. She talked herself right into a hole. Some how this is big news like it's never happened before.
Biden telling a person in a wheelchair to stand up.
Biden during an interview condemning an anti-McCain ad ran by Obama.
Obama an his numerous gaffs while running for President, plus his painful 20 seconds of dead air during a speech when he could remember the name of an asthma inhaler, finally referring to it as a breath analyzer.
Just like the complains about Plain being unable to articulate what the Bush doctrine is, even though the the 3 media organization which complained about it the most didn't agree on what her answer should have been.
I don't remember anyone in 2000 asking Gore or Lieberman their opinion or definition of the Clinton Doctrine.
Now the newest complain is she's not familiar with McCain's Senate voting record.
Well here is a question, are you? For that matter did anyone ask....
Biden about Obama's voting record while in the Illinois Senate?
Obama about Biden's voting record while in the US senate?
Cheney about Bush's record as Governor of Texas?
Lieberman's about Gore's Senate record?
Gore about Clinton's record as Governor?
Going on an on back.
Yet suddenly it's a big news that Palin isn't familiar with McCain's Senate record, which by the way has zero to do with being VP.

Being Catholic myself [ not practising now though ] , the communion / bread eaten is more like entree time at church. Furthermore the congregation does not drink wine -it's the Priest that does it.... and half of the Priests are doing it out of ceremony rather than for spiritual absorption. The bread/wine consumption are symbolic spiritual consumption references not actual cannibilism.

Here's where alot of right-wingers conveniently/deliberately skewer the coverage on Palin's screw-ups. We all know all the candidates make huge mistakes all the time. The Press is there crucifying all of them-so the 'sour grapes-woe is me n' my candidate/why's everyone picking on my choice' attitude by each candidates supporters should be tossed out of the window. Palin's problems are considerable regarding the fact that she obviously has not been prepped to ANY significant degree regarding her party's inner workings - the questions she's been asked she has been expected to have at least a good grasp on -that's what those Palin supporters need to comprehend like those of their fellow Conservatives who see an Achille's heel here.

If she keeps Bs'ing around issues [ie,Republican policies -Washington level!] she should have a basic understanding for in the eyes of the voters she will entirely undermine McCain's own efforts.
I'm not sure how one can say her not knowing her 'mate's' voting record has nothing to do with her running as VP -in fact I find that incredible- these are basic things she should know- particularly if she needs to defend McCain in attacks oon his own voting/poilitical record. The majority voters have the realistic view that given McCain's age/past health issues, there is a likelihood she could be Prez -ie, one of the most powerful people on Earth. She's not running for Governor -this is real.
Although McCain got the edge in several areas in the debate, Obama proved he has a firm base of self confidence and can lead - significantly, McCain couldn't pound him on International Affairs. That and the fact McCain fumbled the ball on economic issuues in the past week is giving Obama momentum and a breach into several Repub-States. If Biden screws up with not letting Palin screw herself up in the debate [if she's not prepped fully], then this race is over.......

Look at the polls all around - Palin's rallying surge is over -she's still got a strong voice, but her impact is now over. Obama is increasing his lead. I heard Hillary is campaigning hard for him. I'm assuming once the press has time to cover her efforts, then we'll see a little more increase in Obama's lead.

Wow, I seem to have touched a nerve. Didn't mean to get you all worked up. The question was directed at readers of this forum, not Palin. I wanted to hear opinions, not from a religious standpoint, but from a scientific standpoint.

The question of dinosaurs and humans walking the earth together is a basic question that gets at the role of science in our society. Do you believe in scientist's ability to measure, via carbon dating, the age of an object (such as skeletal remains)?

I was looking for a scientific perspective, as Katie Couric was in her line of questioning.

I have never, and would never, attack Palin for her religious views.

That said, I certainly can see how you would jump to that conclusion as this subject enters the quasi-religious area where science and religion stand at odds. The questions Couric was posing centered around global warming, and this discussion dovetails nicely with our previous threads on the subject.

Global warming as a threat to mankind, no matter the root cause, requires a dramatically different response if you are someone who rejects the basic tenets of scientific research. I asked the question as a means of determining where we all stood on the matter.

I certainly reject the idea that man and dinosaurs walked the earth together. My step-dad spent his life studying the cosmos as a world-renowned astro-physicist. He devoted much of his life trying to determine the volume of interstellar matter as a means of determining if the universe will continue to expand or if there is sufficient mass to pull matter back upon itself. At the end of his life, he could say with relative certainty that the universe will continue to expand, as there is not enough mass to reverse the expansion.

So, I have a very strong bias towards science, but I recognize that my bias may not be held by other readers of this forum. It appears as if Palin has a strong bias against science and, thus, her approach to solving the problem of global warming were she to become president might be extremely compromised.

Again this line of questioning never came up with Obama, McCain or Biden.
I wonder why that is.
Sorry but to me this stinks of the same mentality an early criticisms of Kennedy shouldn't/couldn't be President because he was a Catholic.
This isn't directed specifically at you, more to how this line of attack has been tossed around between the public an media.
Let's go ask all the canidates....
how they justify the conflicts between their belief, the bible as the literal word of god an the real world.
Their views on war or the death penalty based on the direct conflict with the 6th Commandment.
This kind of stuff isn't asked of anyone else, yet it's viewed as completely acceptable when it comes to Palin.

Again this has less to do with your question as it does with some of the generalized attacks on Palin.

To HF
I'm not up on the different aspects of catholic belief or how they receive communion.
Most of the Catholics I know do take wine on special occasions, most other times the wafer is dipped into a common cup filled with wine before each member receives it. So when the person takes the bread they are fulfilling the act of blood an body.

To Hamma.
Okay lets assume your point concerning the dinosaurs is not a religious question but one of scientific fact.
Well here is why I still think your argument is biased.
Based solely on scientific fact.
Does that mean Obama an McCain as Christians believe a guy died 2000 years ago an came back to life 3 days later?
Wow what idiots they are, don't they understand an believe in the science of anatomy an physiology?
Same goes for Biden, he's actually so much of a religious crack that he believe in immaculate conception.
Wow what a goof ball, he shouldn't be considered for VP.

Again, I don't mean to offend anyone, just trying to get my point across.

BTW I've been unable to find anything to support the claim Palin actually said she saw a human footprint inside a dinosaur footprint or however the story goes.
This looks like an unsubstantiated 3rd hand story.
If I'm wrong, please point to it.

One last thing I would like to add when it comes to religion an politics.
While I'm agnostic, I would defend anyone's right to practice their religion as long as it doesn't interfere with the same rights and freedoms of the rest of the public. With that said, I'm also a big believer in a rarely enforced law dating back to LBJ which is suppose to prevent any church leader from endorsing or opposing ANY political candidates during open church services. If they do so, they become political organizations versus religious an should rightfully loose their tax exempt status.

Are these 'most catholics' you know in one family/household- bcause most certainly they are taking on a personal derivation of the traditional custom of wafer only in a church- and as for special occasions, I'm curious what they are? - their derivation is certainly not a custom on Easter Weekend or Christmas. Priests only regarding wine-officially.... but these catholics you know of adapting the tradition need not fear being ex-communicated - methinx

Actually I don't think it's wine, more like the fake grape juice they sell as wine.
They are not in the same family but go to the same church. They also go through the whole thing for ash Wednesday even though I don't think every does. Some services are formal while other are more laid back.
It was so embarrassing when I made the mistake of telling one of them they had some dirt on their head. I realize what Ash Wednesday, it just didn't dawn on me that day because I had been working 7 days a week for a while so the days tended to run together. Plus it didn't look like a cross, just a little smear across their forehead.

So to stay on topic before we get in a retarded religious rant. so Jimmy and the Dems started this,then Reagan (Rep) used it ,then clinton (Dem) and then Bush (Rep) so why are we pointing fingers? At one point in this country ,when times were extremely tuff ,they passed a bill to help the small guy get a home....years later you cant blame the Dems over it,in fact on the last post above was Bush claining he wanted http://www.mobclan.com/forums/upload/index...mp;#entry173642 now we are in a crisis and im seeing " Jimmy Carter and the Dems did it too us!" My question is ,why didnt the current administration realize this issue was coming back in 2006?

i wasnt born yet but my grandfather told me that pretty much prior to Kennedy being in office an irish citizen couldnt even attend a public pool or country club so religion or race should never come up.its the first thing i hear from idiots down here concerning Obama.Religion is an ENDLESS battle with no answer.i think it should stay on the politics rather.

Maybe I didn't do a good job making my point.
The original accusation was, those mean Republicans and their crazy deregulation schemes caused this financial mess. Everything I've said was to show the other side of the coin.
I think most politicians are somewhat to blame for our current mess.
You asked why the administration didn't see this happening back in 2006.
As I've already posted, Bush called for something to be done all the back to 2003 as did McCain in 2005. In all fairness, while some people tried to raise the alarm, I don't think anyone knew just how bad it could get or how quick. Then there is the fact, whenever someone tried to do something which probably wouldn't have prevented the fall only cushion it, they ran into all kinds of interference from people who were either making money off of it or it went against their political methodology.
Then there is the problem of how hard it is to prove a negative.

There are several different things which got us to this point, I'm not trying to say it was a single piece of legislation or single political party. In fact the only long term politician who I think has always genuinely had the publics best interest at heart would be Ralph Nader. Not that I would want him as President but he has done more for consumer safety an public interest than any other 10 people put together.

Faith in the immaculate conception has no present-day ramifications. Failure to believe the earth is older than 6,000 years has SERIOUS ramifications for public policy regarding perhaps the biggest issue facing the world today. Therefore, trying to determine the level of support for scientific research is an essential duty for voters in this election.

I certainly don't feel that a President Palin would do any better at taking steps to curb global warming than Bush has in the previous 8 years.

Today we are seeing the highest rates of CO2 emissions in history. These rates are at the "worst-case" scenarios of many of the climate models that predicted dramatic climate change. This is a matter that certainly supercedes such a minor issue as what religious fantasy one chooses to believe as their own.


Getting back to Palin - I was astonished to hear McCain compare her to Reagan and Clinton when questioned about her experience.

Ronald Reagan majored in economics and sociology and graduated from college in 1932.
He spent five years as a sports radio broadcaster.
He completed fourteen home-study Army Extension Courses and then enlisted in the Army Enlisted Reserve and entered active duty five years later.
He was "separated" from active duty 3 1/2 years later.
He served on the Board of Directors of the Screen Actors Guild in 1941 and ran successfully for seven one-year terms as president of SAG, a role that required he testify before Congress.
He served eight years as Governor of California before being elected to two terms as President.

Bill Clinton attended Georgetown University in Washington, earning a bachelor of science in foreign service.
He worked as an intern for Senator William Fulbright.
He won a Rhodes Scholarship to University College in Oxford, England where he studied Government.
He then attended Yale Law School and earned his Juris Doctor degree in 1973.
He became a professor at the University of Arkansas.
He ran successfully for attorney general and served for two years before running for governor.
Elected in 1978, he served as the nation's youngest governor in history before losing his next election.
He ran successfully again in 1983 and served two more terms.
He was elected as U.S. President in 1992 and served two terms.

So, Clinton served thirteen years as governor and Reagan served eight years.

Is it any wonder that Palin is choking on questions that are outside her purview of Alaska politics?

She is woefully unprepared to assume the second highest office in our land.

I thought it might be beneficial to compare her to Dan Quayle.

Dan Quayle earned a B.A. in political science from DePauw University.
He served in the Indiana Army National Guard from 1969-1975 (back when that service guaranteed him he wouldn't be assigned to battle in Vietnam).
He served as an investigator in the Indiana Office of the Attorney General.
He was an administrative assistant to Governor Edgar Whitcomb.
He was the Director of the Inheritance Tax Division in Indiana.
He earned his law degree from the Indiana School of Law.
He worked as associate publisher for his family's newspaper and practiced law.
In 1976 he was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives and won reelection.
In 1980 he was the youngest person ever elected to the U.S. Senate from the state of Indiana.
He was reelected with the largest margin ever achieved to that date by a Indiana candidate.
He was chosen to be George H.W. Bush's running mate in the 1988 election.

Wow. So, here we have a candidate who is dwarfed by Dan Quayle's experience!!

Despite all the claims that Sarah Palin has been governor of Alaska for two years, she hasn't. She was elected December 4, 2006. She is still in the process of completing her second year.

Her claims of building a natural gas pipeline are as close to reality as the claims that Al Gore invented the internet, only problem with that is that Al Gore never claimed any such thing. Palin has regularly claimed credit for a pipeline, and has called it "God's will," but the reality is that it may never be built and is a project the Michigan Journal called a "pipe dream."

Hamma,

So your point was that both Quayle and Clinton were both politicians that never held a job other than politics while Reagan had a real job and Palin held other jobs and worked her way up from school board, to mayor, to gov?

I guess in my opinion most people with more degrees than a thermometer and carear politicians are about as far away as leaders that I want because to lead you have to lead, not just get elected from a polished resume from harvard, yale, princeton, brown...etc

I would rather have somone that only agree's with me 75% of the time but actually has some core values and will fight for their belief, rather than be a politican at least i know they have a belief system.

and cmon global warming.... it's the largest farce propogated against mankind. One of the coldest winters and summers on records all over the world.... Oh wait a min... it's climate change now.

If you want to get back to that debate... read my last entry of peer reviewed data here.
http://www.mobclan.com/forums/upload/index...16185&st=45

My laughter, and a continuation of climate discussion occurs here.




So, you obviously aren't a McCain supporter...

That's exactly why I can't believe so many people support Obama.
Think about, the down on America an racist would he have to be, for Obama to a supportor of Reverend Wrong for so long, Mr hate spewing bigot.
Supposedly he's all about helping the little guy, just at long as it doesn't come out of his pocket. I make a fraction of what Obama or Biden make but had more claimed for charitable contributions on my tax form then either one of them except for Obama in the last two years. Even after the Obama's income skyrocketed over the last two years, I still do more based on percentage of income.
That doesn't matter because you can get enough votes based on empty but feel good promises of Hope and Change.


Something I've always found interesting, as a general rule people hate lawyers.
The most common profession before becoming a member of congress is lawyer, I wonder why.


If you want to do the experience is all important argument than.
Bush 41 should have beaten Reagen in 1980
Bush 41 should have also beaten Clinton 1992
So Experience isn't all it's cracked up to be.
Bush 41 is without a doubt the most experienced President in my lifetime an not just the limited experience of being a senator for 30 straight years, I'm talking about well rounded an personal experience in almost every aspect of government, yet he couldn't win a 2nd term.

Don't feel too bad- the least they could do was explain it to you at the time.

To say Obama is a supporter of Rev.Wright is implying he holds unpatriotic racist views. Does it make any sense at all that if that was the case why has much of what America got Obama's back!?
Obama isn't a guilt-trip candidate - he has ideas and a view of the future for america that all those supporting him believe in. Were he a clumsy doofus he would not have that support. It's fair enough people have their reasons for not liking Obama, but it's a huge oversight to start assuming fanciful ideas why people do like him. There's no guilt trip involved - People simply like his ideas and his direction and that he's relatively straight as an arrow in his progress and has momentum. Of course that's not what anti-Obamists see, but those are the facts.
People who frown on Obama's popularity remind me of this; Most people love Dark Knight the movie.... but if you go in movie review forums, you'll see although 95% loved the movie, there are 5% who didn't - and that's fine - but then they make ridiculous comments about how the other 95% of positive commenters are uninformed idiots for not disliking the movie as they do.



I wonder why you say these things- a little while back you claimed Obama ONLY uses teleprompters when he speaks. You now imply Obama comes straight out of Harvard and has a fairy tale idea of helping the masses. You know his background do you not? He could've used his education to take some snooty job and done well for himself. Instead he made the choice to help those not so fortunate in society. That's core values right there not to mention himself walking the walk in his belief to help those not as fortunate as him.
You know McCain originally wanted either Lieberman or Tom Ridge as his running mate - Palin was thrown in as a quick-fix tactical measure -a gamble to win over independants and conservatives/right wingers who seemed like they wouldn't vote. I won't say the Repubs are altogether responsible for bringing in Palin, but the McCain campaign is hardly a model of core values with all the cheesy moves they've been playing out the last 6 months.
If Palin screws up tonight -> and Biden does not screw up by not allowing her to screw up- then the McCain gamble will blow up in their faces- the fear in the eyes of Dems and Repubs and Independants of her as an incompetent VP will totally undermine his chances.

Even though I got a little chuckle out of your comparison between someone running for president an the popularity of a movie, ultimately in a strange way your right just not of reasons you think. In the end, it all comes down to a popularity contest. Whoever is most popular at any give time has the best chance to win.
That simple fact explains how someone like the Terminator can become Governor of the richest an most populated state in the union. Two thing are all that matters, how someone got there an what are they going to do.
This is just my personal opinion but when it comes to Obama, for lack of a better term, I believe he's an empty suit. He's grown widely popular based mostly on empty promises an feel good sound bytes of "Hope" and "Change"
I'm not saying there aren't people who believe in his political ideology. I just think it will be the feel good, we want to be part of change, voters who will put him over the top. Not people that beileive in his platform or great Seante voting record. Sorry but voting "present" all the time is the same as voting "don't care".




As for what he will do when he wins?
I guess we'll have to wait an see. what i do know is...
Wealth redistrubution via taxes is not the same as an economic plan.
An energy plan that doesn't include nuclear is stupid.


Looking forward to the debate tonight, should be interesting.
While she sucked ass on the interviews, I think she will nail the debate.

This has to be the weakest argument I've seen you put forth.

We see what happens to "empty suits" in America. They get fried under the glare of the lights. If you need an example, look no further than Palin's recent disastrous interviews. Obama came into our collective culture by delivering a speech. He wrote that speech and the telling line in that speech was:

"E pluribus unum," out of many, one.

Now even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spin masters and negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything goes.

Well, I say to them tonight, there's not a liberal America and a conservative America; there's the United States of America.

There's not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there's the United States of America."

After 8-years of some of the most divisive politics our nation has endured, this reaffirmation that we all should stand together and face the problems before us rings true to the majority of Americans. Obama's reponse to the economic crisis has proven that he offers an approach that many appreciate and that is why Obama is ahead in the polls. An "empty suit" wouldn't have been able to best the most powerful Democratic duo in the land. And an empty suit wouldn't have been able to stand up to John McCain during that debate.

The choice is simple. Do you like what George W. Bush has done to our economy? Do you like what George W. Bush has done in the Middle East and around the world? If you do, then by all means, vote for John McCain and Sarah Palin as they certainly are promising more of the same. Let them further trash our children's future, let them continue to rack up outrageous debt which is making us ever more indebted to China.

You backed a candidate who came out of one of the least populous states in America. Someone who had never stepped foot on the national stage. That was a gamble, a stunt really. She may stand on that stage tonight and handle the questions, but the damage has been done. The polls reflect her plummeting support among the American population. She has been revealed to be an energetic, attractive, but empty suit with little education and experience to prepare her for the incredibly challenging times facing this nation.

I have no way of knowing what an Obama presidency will truly be like, but I certainly know what these past 8 years have been like. The very concept of "awarding" the Republicans for their recent disastrous performance is reason enough for me to support someone else.

You just proved my point.
He delivers a great speech
"There's not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there's the United States of America.""
While in real life he belong to a church for 20 years thats main focus isn't religion but how black a person is.
He tries to run on a platform of unity but relies on race-baiting when it suits him.
There going to say he has a funny name << --- No One ever made an issue of that
There going bring up how he doesn't look like the the people on the money <<<--- Never happened


He professes the belief everyone should give everyone else a hand up
While in real life he gives less to charity then the people he condemns as uncaring.

An please don't make me laugh by bringing up his "community service" it was a predictable stepping stone into political office an/or contact with such people. Or do you honestly believe he earned his way into Harvard with grades at Colombia which weren't good enough to graduate with honors.

When I say empty suit, it's not only personal reflection, it's about his platform.
Talking about Hope an Change while doing your best to steer clear of taking a stand, to me doesn't say a lot.
Same as all his "present" votes while in the senate.
For the people who are genuinely excited about voting for Barrack, good for you, It's great you can get excited about your candidate but that doesn't mean I agree with you or believe in his stump speech about "Change"
Hell, I wish I was more excited about McCain but I'm not. As I previously said I think he was a better candidate back in 2000. Whats sad is even though I'm honest enough to identify things I don't like about McCain, I can't find anything I particular like about Obama.

Actually, no If he selected another beltway insider I would most certainly have voted for Bob Barr.
I most likely still will, because once you are in the either party you have to toe the line or you will lose all power and effectively be neutered, without party backing and out your next election. Palin being a somewhat outsider and a little more down to earth has interested me, but because of the McCain and party baggage I still will most likely vote libertarian.




Please read my Acorn thread on wy views of his wonderful experience of helping.
secondarily IMO Obama will say anything and do anything to get elected, As a rule the Democratic party is way to close to socialism for my liking and I could never vote for them.
For a person with no vast list of acomplishments (legislation, projects, leadership roles etc), no background, no real history it really makes me think that he was pushed forward as a figurehead and nothing else.

To ascend to that level of power, break the political machine of the Clintons, and do all of this in this amount of time just seems to hollywood fake to me. That's why I believe he has no real core, and is a product of great coaching, and spews the political rhetorict to the masses that will win elections with 30 second sound bites but does not translate to real leadership.

Barr does seem to be an interesting candidate.

Clearly, we don't have enough choices in this country. Vast issues have to be overlooked to support any given candidate.

I'll be very interested to see how the bailout plays with the majority of Americans. Talk about socialism. We've reached a point where many in the Republican party has come full circle (as Pat Buchanan wisely predicted years ago) and now they could actually be seen as toeing the same position as many Leftists. I agree that the bailout is socialism for the wealthy corporations.

The world has been turned upside down...

In all sincerity, I don't believe you've been following McCain's campaign closely the last 8 months. He's turned on a dime so many times in issues JUST to appeal to his republican masses its not funny. Many times.
And once again the sound bites you see are merely that. Have you watched a full Obama speech without teleprompters. You keep imagiing the masses are like yourself watching just 30 second soundbites - many -like myself watch full sessions of his lengthy dialogues with the public he speaks before. If you decide to watch a few such speeches/sessions in their entire length - and not just 30 second soundbites, then you'll truly be in a position to judge his leadership capability.
And once again if he was all about saying just what the people want to here, he'd be like Mccain shrilling 'no new taxes' - but McCain HAS admitted several months ago in a small interview that if circumstances arose that he had to wisely raise taxes HE WOULD.... but he doesn't mention that in his speeches.
McCain's flip-flopping stance that is designed over to the Conservatives who have no real love for him is orchestrated by his Campaign - some of the stances he takes are not his by choice as was Palin not his original choice for VP.
It's similar to the problems Palin is having - while she's very competent as a Governor and in related debates that got her to that position [ clips showing her debating without any hesitation and in full clarity her position on issues -shown by of all people, on Keith Olbermann > -Robert ]
But like I mentioned a couple of weeks ago- the campaign has been holding her back and restricting her from acting 'Palin'. She's visibly all out of keel in the role. Even tonight it's being said she'll be herself, but I'm predicting more disaster because the campaign is telling her how to act like 'herself'.



The only race-baiting Obama did without provocation was more with the dollar bill faces episode.
The 'funny-name' part was directly a broadside at the lunatic neocons acting on the fringes outside of the McCain campaign going on tv deliberately emphasizing 'obama HUSSEIN' - the occasions were many on mainstream tv during supposedly informative interviews and all by bozo neocons in suits.
Your point about what you like and what you personally don't like about Obama is fair - and it's good you've not made negative assumptions about why people for their own very varied reasons prefer or see as tangible in the Obama whirlwind. I was initially leaning towards Clinton as you know last year, but then I saw things you Americans knew already that disgusted you... what switched me from her was her giving a blank check to Bush as a senator last November to attack Iran basically on his whim - this after she expressed her big mistake in supporting Bush's crusade into Iraq.
I know Palin is competent- but as I feared just as a Governor. It was scary seeing the McCain campaign going on the air today saying Palin ONLY needs to explain how she's a hard-working mom and show people who she really is as the recipe for victory in the soon-to-be debate. They seem oblivious to the fact the non-Palin supporters want to see her redeem herself only by showing she can give informative answers to theVP-related questions asked of her without whining about 'gotcha questions'.