Obama's stuttering in debate...Why

[Ban Hammer 14,638]

It seems we are now past that and onto Palin. The Socialists next best hope to win tactic by destroying her.

She is doing that quite well with that on her own. Her appeal is very limited.

you hope.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I don't understand how you would possibly think Barack Obama--raised by white grandparents--is anti-white. If that's not what you meant by the post, then why the hell would we care what his preacher said about white people at all? If it didn't affect Obama's perspectives and positions, then what difference does it make?

If you think that being raised raised by Whites guarantees immunization against racism against Whites, you are sadly naive. I have no doubt it's affected his perspectives and positions, but then, I read his books. The man is definitely still knee deep in a racial identity crisis.

Edited September 28, 2008 by Virtual wife

[luckytxn 2,265]

It seems we are now past that and onto Palin. The Socialists next best hope to win tactic by destroying her.

She is doing that quite well with that on her own. Her appeal is very limited.

Spoken like a true Obama sheep. Palin has a lot of appeal and attracts a lot of people. Her pick was a huge spark for Mccain that was quite a bit behind in the polls and is now his to lose.

Obama was up in most national polls before McCain pulled his "postponing campaign" stunt, and thus far there hasn't been much change from that. I haven't read anyone saying this is McCain's to lose--it's still too close to call. Several battleground states (Ohio, Florida, Virginia, etc.) are within 1% (thus well within the margin of error) and the Electoral College is up for grabs right now. These debates can make a difference, as will any sort of "October Surprise." This is still anyone's game. Ultimately, I think it will come down to who has the best field organization on Election Day, which is why McCain needs Palin. The religious right is incredibly well-organized, and if he can't tap into that and turn out those voters he's fubared.

I also can add that is different when one can listen with no other distractions. As for partisan prdilections is a given except that I think either candidate are the wrong choice. McCain or Obama are more of the same regardless.

Oh absolutely--that's what I meant. There are advantages and disadvantages either way, but you definitely get a different perception depending on how you experience the event.

Polls are usually very wrong. When a pollster asks which of these two candidates would you vote for then you will get a certain poll. It is also in how the poll is worded. Obama is in a party that has many racists that would never vote for a black. There has been estimates from 10% to 30% that will not vote for him because of his skin color. That is a huge amount of votes. I have been wondering where he was gonna get those lost votes. I saw a lot of woman leaning his way and his numbers were going up. It looked good for him finally but that trend stopped. Now he is in a real battle. Palin energized the party but now many woman are now looking at her and not Obama. That is a huge difference in this election.

I am loving the tactics employed by Obama sheep to go after Palin so rabidly. I have actually seen this before and many times it backfires. They need to leave her be and run a Obama race and not a non Palin race.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

It seems we are now past that and onto Palin. The Socialists next best hope to win tactic by destroying her.

She is doing that quite well with that on her own. Her appeal is very limited.

you hope.

You have to be deaf, dumb and blind not to notice how substantive criticism of their presidential hopeful quickly morphs into Palin paranoia.

[luckytxn 2,265]

It seems we are now past that and onto Palin. The Socialists next best hope to win tactic by destroying her.

She is doing that quite well with that on her own. Her appeal is very limited.

you hope.

You have to be deaf, dumb and blind not to notice how substantive criticism of their presidential hopeful quickly morphs into Palin paranoia.

It is desperation. Palin is a true threat or why else go after her so vehemently?

[villaspurs 65]

It seems we are now past that and onto Palin. The Socialists next best hope to win tactic by destroying her.

She is doing that quite well with that on her own. Her appeal is very limited.

Spoken like a true Obama sheep. Palin has a lot of appeal and attracts a lot of people. Her pick was a huge spark for Mccain that was quite a bit behind in the polls and is now his to lose.

Obama was up in most national polls before McCain pulled his "postponing campaign" stunt, and thus far there hasn't been much change from that. I haven't read anyone saying this is McCain's to lose--it's still too close to call. Several battleground states (Ohio, Florida, Virginia, etc.) are within 1% (thus well within the margin of error) and the Electoral College is up for grabs right now. These debates can make a difference, as will any sort of "October Surprise." This is still anyone's game. Ultimately, I think it will come down to who has the best field organization on Election Day, which is why McCain needs Palin. The religious right is incredibly well-organized, and if he can't tap into that and turn out those voters he's fubared.

I also can add that is different when one can listen with no other distractions. As for partisan prdilections is a given except that I think either candidate are the wrong choice. McCain or Obama are more of the same regardless.

Oh absolutely--that's what I meant. There are advantages and disadvantages either way, but you definitely get a different perception depending on how you experience the event.

Polls are usually very wrong. When a pollster asks which of these two candidates would you vote for then you will get a certain poll. It is also in how the poll is worded. Obama is in a party that has many racists that would never vote for a black. There has been estimates from 10% to 30% that will not vote for him because of his skin color. That is a huge amount of votes. I have been wondering where he was gonna get those lost votes. I saw a lot of woman leaning his way and his numbers were going up. It looked good for him finally but that trend stopped. Now he is in a real battle. Palin energized the party but now many woman are now looking at her and not Obama. That is a huge difference in this election.

I am loving the tactics employed by Obama sheep to go after Palin so rabidly. I have actually seen this before and many times it backfires. They need to leave her be and run a Obama race and not a non Palin race.

I'm curious to see what evidence you have seen about women looking at Palin and not Obama. That seems to be conventional wisdom, but I've seen several credible polls that contradict that.

Also, polls are NOT usually very wrong. If they are conducted responsibly (random sample, sufficient N, etc.) they are quite accurate. Pollsters are using multiple methodologies to account for cell phone usage and anticipate historically unusual turnout patterns. The problem is people take non-scientific polls and hold them up next to scientific polls--for example, what readers on the Drudge Report say versus WaPo. Sure, there are discrepancies, often depending on how questions are asked, sampling issues, etc. But on the whole, polling is accurate.

As far as the racist Dems who won't vote for him, most evidence suggest those were Dems who aren't regular voters anyway. They are expecting record turnouts in this election with huge increases in young voters, so having non-regular voters not showing up (as usual) won't necessarily be a huge deal.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Except she is lacking even basic knowledge of current world events, which could be gained from say reading the newspaper?

Biden Rewrites History

[

Edited September 28, 2008 by Virtual wife

[villaspurs 65]

It seems we are now past that and onto Palin. The Socialists next best hope to win tactic by destroying her.

She is doing that quite well with that on her own. Her appeal is very limited.

you hope.

You have to be deaf, dumb and blind not to notice how substantive criticism of their presidential hopeful quickly morphs into Palin paranoia.

What exactly do you mean by Palin paranoia? Her incredible lack of knowledge? Her laughable responses to legitimate questions about important political issues? Her offensive record as mayor of a small town and governor of a small state?

These are legitimate concerns, not paranoia.

[Dan J 277]

It seems we are now past that and onto Palin. The Socialists next best hope to win tactic by destroying her.

She is doing that quite well with that on her own. Her appeal is very limited.

you hope.

You have to be deaf, dumb and blind not to notice how substantive criticism of their presidential hopeful quickly morphs into Palin paranoia.

It is desperation. Palin is a true threat or why else go after her so vehemently?

Because she is a new player. Obama, McCain, and Biden have all been on the playing field for months.

[IAMX 3,055]

It seems we are now past that and onto Palin. The Socialists next best hope to win tactic by destroying her.

She is doing that quite well with that on her own. Her appeal is very limited.

you hope.

You have to be deaf, dumb and blind not to notice how substantive criticism of their presidential hopeful quickly morphs into Palin paranoia.

It is desperation. Palin is a true threat or why else go after her so vehemently?

Likely because Palin isn't a great representation of women and how far they've come.

I'm likely not going to take seriously a baby-pushing moralist soccer mom (still refuse to associate her with hockey) who knows little about other countries, much less ever travels to them, when, additionally, she doesn't respect the progress that's been made in womens rights, especially the right of choice. Or separation of church and state.

I'm not getting why Republicans have to be a party of taking rights away and going backwards (this is what they must mean by "constructionist"). Stop the gays, stop the abortions, stop the protests, stop evolution. As much as I've seen Republican candidates ignorance regarding the extreme wing of the Muslim religion, I gotta say they sure as fck are looking one and the same in regards to repression and their inability to move and progress socially with the rest of the first world into the 21st century.

Edited September 28, 2008 by SRVT

[luckytxn 2,265]

It seems we are now past that and onto Palin. The Socialists next best hope to win tactic by destroying her.

She is doing that quite well with that on her own. Her appeal is very limited.

Spoken like a true Obama sheep. Palin has a lot of appeal and attracts a lot of people. Her pick was a huge spark for Mccain that was quite a bit behind in the polls and is now his to lose.

Obama was up in most national polls before McCain pulled his "postponing campaign" stunt, and thus far there hasn't been much change from that. I haven't read anyone saying this is McCain's to lose--it's still too close to call. Several battleground states (Ohio, Florida, Virginia, etc.) are within 1% (thus well within the margin of error) and the Electoral College is up for grabs right now. These debates can make a difference, as will any sort of "October Surprise." This is still anyone's game. Ultimately, I think it will come down to who has the best field organization on Election Day, which is why McCain needs Palin. The religious right is incredibly well-organized, and if he can't tap into that and turn out those voters he's fubared.

I also can add that is different when one can listen with no other distractions. As for partisan prdilections is a given except that I think either candidate are the wrong choice. McCain or Obama are more of the same regardless.

Oh absolutely--that's what I meant. There are advantages and disadvantages either way, but you definitely get a different perception depending on how you experience the event.

Polls are usually very wrong. When a pollster asks which of these two candidates would you vote for then you will get a certain poll. It is also in how the poll is worded. Obama is in a party that has many racists that would never vote for a black. There has been estimates from 10% to 30% that will not vote for him because of his skin color. That is a huge amount of votes. I have been wondering where he was gonna get those lost votes. I saw a lot of woman leaning his way and his numbers were going up. It looked good for him finally but that trend stopped. Now he is in a real battle. Palin energized the party but now many woman are now looking at her and not Obama. That is a huge difference in this election.

I am loving the tactics employed by Obama sheep to go after Palin so rabidly. I have actually seen this before and many times it backfires. They need to leave her be and run a Obama race and not a non Palin race.

I'm curious to see what evidence you have seen about women looking at Palin and not Obama. That seems to be conventional wisdom, but I've seen several credible polls that contradict that.

Also, polls are NOT usually very wrong. If they are conducted responsibly (random sample, sufficient N, etc.) they are quite accurate. Pollsters are using multiple methodologies to account for cell phone usage and anticipate historically unusual turnout patterns. The problem is people take non-scientific polls and hold them up next to scientific polls--for example, what readers on the Drudge Report say versus WaPo. Sure, there are discrepancies, often depending on how questions are asked, sampling issues, etc. But on the whole, polling is accurate.

As far as the racist Dems who won't vote for him, most evidence suggest those were Dems who aren't regular voters anyway. They are expecting record turnouts in this election with huge increases in young voters, so having non-regular voters not showing up (as usual) won't necessarily be a huge deal.

Actually in my young life (48) I have been through a few election cycles. Polls have historically been wrong. Many times it has been said on why even vote because the people have spoken. Truman is a good example. Kerry is another. I remeber the last National elections when Kerry was the winner. Many polls said so. HE LOST.

Hate to burst your bubble but many folks are assuming that the racists all live in the south. I travel to the north and the northeast quite often (Too much) and in the democratic strongholds there. These people are dyed in the wool Dems. They love Socialism and all the programs. Always have. Many of them are also the biggest racists I ever seen or heard. (Except when I was in Germany or Japan) Most tell me they will never vote for Obama and even will vote for McCain. Quite a few even told me that Mccain is a Lib anyway. (Reasoning away their throw away vote.)

I just laugh because I see that the Dems are thinking again of the same old battle ground states. The battle ground is in the Dem strongholds that they are ignoring at their own peril.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

What exactly do you mean by Palin paranoia? Her incredible lack of knowledge? Her laughable responses to legitimate questions about important political issues? Her offensive record as mayor of a small town and governor of a small state?

These are legitimate concerns, not paranoia

I mean that there is so little concern about Obama's lack of knowledge, his laughable responses to legitimate questions about important political issues, his thin resume, opportunist political career, and the inability to examine his past associations, comfort with fringe elements and activities without that discussion being diverted into criticism of Sarah Palin.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Likely because Palin isn't a great representation of women and how far they've come.

Palin is a great representative of the choices that women have now. We don't all need to be angry liberal feminist spinsters.

I'm likely not going to take seriously a baby-pushing moralist soccer mom (still refuse to associate her with hockey) who knows little about other countries, much less ever travels to them, when, additionally, she doesn't respect the progress that's been made in womens rights, especially the right of choice. Or separation of church and state.

She has every right to define progress for women through her own experience. Not every "progressive" idea comes out the left coast or NY upper east side journalism perspectives. Personally, I'd like to a see a separation of church and state when it comes to the Church of Global Warming".

I'm not getting why Republicans have to be a party of taking rights away and going backwards (this is what they must mean by "constructionist"). Stop the gays, stop the abortions, stop the protests, stop evolution. As much as I've seen Republican candidates ignorance regarding the extreme wing of the Muslim religion, I gotta say they sure as fck are looking one and the same in regards to repression and their inability to move and progress socially with the rest of the first world into the 21st century.

The difference between conservatives and liberals is that conservative emphasize the personal responsibilities that are inherent in rights, while Liberals emphasize individual rights, but want someone else to take responsibility.

Most people are ignorant of Islam, period.

I'm a Republican, and I'm quite 21st century. I wish liberal Dems would catch up with us.

[luckytxn 2,265]

It seems we are now past that and onto Palin. The Socialists next best hope to win tactic by destroying her.

She is doing that quite well with that on her own. Her appeal is very limited.

you hope.

You have to be deaf, dumb and blind not to notice how substantive criticism of their presidential hopeful quickly morphs into Palin paranoia.

It is desperation. Palin is a true threat or why else go after her so vehemently?

Likely because Palin isn't a great representation of women and how far they've come.

I'm likely not going to take seriously a baby-pushing moralist soccer mom (still refuse to associate her with hockey) who knows little about other countries, much less ever travels to them, when, additionally, she doesn't respect the progress that's been made in womens rights, especially the right of choice. Or separation of church and state.

I'm not getting why Republicans have to be a party of taking rights away and going backwards (this is what they must mean by "constructionist"). Stop the gays, stop the abortions, stop the protests, stop evolution. As much as I've seen Republican candidates ignorance regarding the extreme wing of the Muslim religion, I gotta say they sure as fck are looking one and the same in regards to repression and their inability to move and progress socially with the rest of the first world into the 21st century.

Really? Palin is not a model of how far woman have come? She was a mayor and Governor and now on the Republican ticket as a Vice President. This is pretty far I think. It was not long ago that a woman would never even be considered as a candidate for mayor. Now a woman on a big name party ticket is being considered such a threat to the other major party that she is being skewered to hopefully stem the tide being lost. Dammit. A woman is such a threat to a major ticket is not considered a big step forward?

No Palin is a huge plus right now. I would say that I am surprised she is able to withstand the vicious attacks but I know most woman are strong enough. Keep trying to take her down and if it backfires then I promise to not say I told you so.

I will try not to say it but probably will say I told you so.

Edited September 28, 2008 by luckytxn

[IAMX 3,055]

What exactly do you mean by Palin paranoia? Her incredible lack of knowledge? Her laughable responses to legitimate questions about important political issues? Her offensive record as mayor of a small town and governor of a small state?

These are legitimate concerns, not paranoia

I mean that there is so little concern about Obama's lack of knowledge, his laughable responses to legitimate questions about important political issues, his thin resume, opportunist political career, and the inability to examine his past associations, comfort with fringe elements and activities without that discussion being diverted into criticism of Sarah Palin.

Jesus..

Obama's "resume" is only thin to people who think you need to be over 70 to run -- oh wait, look, there's one! Isn't that convenient.

So where's your vote for Joe Biden or Robert Byrd? Byrd's 80, and has a hell of a lot more experience than McCain. Or Joe Biden, who's 66, and has ten more years of experience than McCain?

I doubt you'd ever admit that you're only saying these things because it favors the candidate you have an flaming slant toward, but regardless it sure is as obvious as day.