Anyone see CNN last night?

[HAL 9000 96]

The difference is that this girl, like Chelsea Clinton, has not chosen to be in the spotlight.

You mean, by attending campaign events like this:

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/nm/2008090...HZz_r3oZtaGNw--

Nonsense. By campaigning with her mom she puts herself in the spotlight. Sorry, your invasion-of-privacy or spare-the-innocent-child nonsense doesn't fly.

The poster is funny as hell.

Her point is that this is a moot issue. And I agree.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

The difference is that this girl, like Chelsea Clinton, has not chosen to be in the spotlight.

You mean, by attending campaign events like this:

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/nm/2008090...HZz_r3oZtaGNw--

Nonsense. By campaigning with her mom she puts herself in the spotlight. Sorry, your invasion-of-privacy or spare-the-innocent-child nonsense doesn't fly.

The poster is funny as hell.

So does that apply if the Right suddenly taste blood and go after the Obama children? Hey - fair's fair!

[metta 0]

Yeah I don't like it either. Yet there it is on the news, for all to see and *ignore* the rest of what ails us.

Well exactly - and this time we don't have the Republicans to blame.

Of course- it just plays into their game, though.

Reality as of September 2, 2008 paints a picture quite different from all the hoopla being wanked about in that supposed 'liberal media' out there.

Yes, he said it, but to me it sounded half hearted. I think not because he wants this to be the type of campaign that he is associated with, I think his rationale was he should say something but not make too much of it because it would go away on its own. Clearly, there are some 'frothing at the mouth' types who can't see the wood for the trees and they are making this into one huge dung heap. He needs to squash it, and fast.

Maybe it was because he's sick and tired of people being completely retarded when it comes to what are real issues and what 'issues' play up to the Republicans campaign to win regardless of the issues.

didn't Obama already say that the families should be kept out of this...??

Oh, Marilyn, it's called deniability. Standard practice.

When Kerry was swiftboated,GW lamented and tuttutted it..

Obama's doing the same thing. oh, no please don't do this bla, blah blah...

But if you look at the attacks, they are well orchestrated. The MSM, blogs, launched a full-frontal assault...

it's not just one blogsite that launched the attacks.

Compare the last three days' coverage on Palin news with John Edwards' affair. Nat. Enquirer and Blogs started the news in December '08. Wasn't covered by MSM till July. They claim they were observing media decorum.

The orchestrated nature of these anti-Palin attacks places a very high index of suspicion on the Obama campaign.

'Prove it'

apply your oft-touted CRITICAL THINKING here!

Your comments- your burden.

Go back to what I said.

Maintaining deniablility is the standard practice in this kind of dirty tricks.

That's why l placed a high index of suspicion on the O campaign.

Well, for the one who would be Commander -in -Chief, he's displaying astonishingly ineffective sway over his troops.

I see that daily Kos and Andrew Sullivan's blogsite have removed their original hit pieces. Seems more like pulling off a hit-and-run job than following dear leader's command.

[HAL 9000 96]

Yeah I don't like it either. Yet there it is on the news, for all to see and *ignore* the rest of what ails us.

Well exactly - and this time we don't have the Republicans to blame.

Of course- it just plays into their game, though.

Reality as of September 2, 2008 paints a picture quite different from all the hoopla being wanked about in that supposed 'liberal media' out there.

My opinions are shaped based on what I read yesterday with my own eyes on websites that tout being "progressive." I noticed the mainstream cable networks, with their wall-to-wall Gustav coverage barely touched the story until late yesterday evening.

It all goes to show you that there is no such thing as a perfect news/blog outlet out there. What some of the more opinionated out there are doing in the long run, is damaging those they apparently want to help. Its not something I'd call particularly new.

[IAMX 3,055]

The difference is that this girl, like Chelsea Clinton, has not chosen to be in the spotlight.

You mean, by attending campaign events like this:

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/nm/2008090...HZz_r3oZtaGNw--

Nonsense. By campaigning with her mom she puts herself in the spotlight. Sorry, your invasion-of-privacy or spare-the-innocent-child nonsense doesn't fly.

The poster is funny as hell.

Her point is that this is a moot issue. And I agree.

I agree too. I suggested last page that this is a rather stupid to vote for or against a candidate on. Some have made a correct point that Republicans would have a field day if this were a Democrat. And that is likely correct, because they are the moral reactionaries. However, that poster is still funny as hell. Definitely one saved for the archives.

[HAL 9000 96]

Yeah I don't like it either. Yet there it is on the news, for all to see and *ignore* the rest of what ails us.

Well exactly - and this time we don't have the Republicans to blame.

Of course- it just plays into their game, though.

Reality as of September 2, 2008 paints a picture quite different from all the hoopla being wanked about in that supposed 'liberal media' out there.

Yes, he said it, but to me it sounded half hearted. I think not because he wants this to be the type of campaign that he is associated with, I think his rationale was he should say something but not make too much of it because it would go away on its own. Clearly, there are some 'frothing at the mouth' types who can't see the wood for the trees and they are making this into one huge dung heap. He needs to squash it, and fast.

Maybe it was because he's sick and tired of people being completely retarded when it comes to what are real issues and what 'issues' play up to the Republicans campaign to win regardless of the issues.

didn't Obama already say that the families should be kept out of this...??

Oh, Marilyn, it's called deniability. Standard practice.

When Kerry was swiftboated,GW lamented and tuttutted it..

Obama's doing the same thing. oh, no please don't do this bla, blah blah...

But if you look at the attacks, they are well orchestrated. The MSM, blogs, launched a full-frontal assault...

it's not just one blogsite that launched the attacks.

Compare the last three days' coverage on Palin news with John Edwards' affair. Nat. Enquirer and Blogs started the news in December '08. Wasn't covered by MSM till July. They claim they were observing media decorum.

The orchestrated nature of these anti-Palin attacks places a very high index of suspicion on the Obama campaign.

'Prove it'

apply your oft-touted CRITICAL THINKING here!

Your comments- your burden.

Go back to what I said.

Maintaining deniablility is the standard practice in this kind of dirty tricks.

That's why l placed a high index of suspicion on the O campaign.

Well, for the one who would be Commander -in -Chief, he's displaying astonishingly ineffective sway over his troops.

I see that daily Kos and Andrew Sullivan's blogsite have removed their original hit pieces. Seems more like pulling off a hit-and-run job than following dear leader's command.

None of which proves there is in the slightest a connection between Obama, his campaign, and what is being blogged. Get over it. With your suspicions and how well they index to you.

[IAMX 3,055]

The difference is that this girl, like Chelsea Clinton, has not chosen to be in the spotlight.

You mean, by attending campaign events like this:

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/nm/2008090...HZz_r3oZtaGNw--

Nonsense. By campaigning with her mom she puts herself in the spotlight. Sorry, your invasion-of-privacy or spare-the-innocent-child nonsense doesn't fly.

The poster is funny as hell.

So does that apply if the Right suddenly taste blood and go after the Obama children? Hey - fair's fair!

If they're out campaigning for him, why not?

Also, this teenager (Palin's daughter) is pretty much an adult, and can make conscious choices about things.

[rclouse 0]

Gary, I posted that because it highlights the hypocrisy of the positions Palin has versus what's happened in her own family. Plus it's damned funny.

[GaryC 7]

Gary, I posted that because it highlights the hypocrisy of the positions Palin has versus what's happened in her own family. Plus it's damned funny.

If you want to make political points that way then feel free. In fact I encorage it.

[maggieNomar 0]

I could care less as well however you cannot talk abstinence as the education of choice for teens when your own teen is pregnant, its kinda like "where were you while your teen was sleeping around?" Its kinda hypicritical if you ask me. I mean ppl are going to question what morals she has taught her own kids.

It is not hypoctitical. You can teach and teach and teach, but you simply cannot be with your children 24hrs. each day.... They can and will still exercise there own free will, and will make there own choices (sometimes even bad ones) .......

I agree with you on the hypocrisy. Like one of the commentators said last night, 'I have 3 sons and it's only by the Grace of God that we did not have to deal with that situation.' In other words you can teach, but kids will still make their own choices in the end.

It's not totally surprising that the media is running with every negative issue they can dig up. Still waiting to hear her stand on the REAL issues.

[Peikko 1,575]

Gary, I posted that because it highlights the hypocrisy of the positions Palin has versus what's happened in her own family. Plus it's damned funny.

If you want to make political points that way then feel free. In fact I encorage it.

Why do you encourage it? How very odd.

[GaryC 7]

Gary, I posted that because it highlights the hypocrisy of the positions Palin has versus what's happened in her own family. Plus it's damned funny.

If you want to make political points that way then feel free. In fact I encorage it.

Why do you encourage it? How very odd.

Because it will backfire in a large way.

[Peikko 1,575]

Backfire? Is this person a political hack? Whatever goes on on VJ, interesting thought it might be for the participants, is not going to have any discrenible affect on the presidential election, so the backfiring is rather a damp squib.

[IAMX 3,055]

Sounds like religious prophetic nonsense.

U'LL GET URS, NAYSAYER

[Sister Fracas 5]

Backfire? Is this person a political hack? Whatever goes on on VJ, interesting thought it might be for the participants, is not going to have any discrenible affect on the presidential election, so the backfiring is rather a damp squib.

WHAAAAAAAAAAAT?????????

VJ is NOT the center of the political universe? Opinions aren't made and changed here????

I don't believe it...

Edited September 2, 2008 by Sister Fracas