Liberal Wash. Post writer lambasts Obama

[Angus]

Too Cool to Fight?

By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, September 9, 2008; Page A23

Thank God for Sarah Palin. Without her jibes, her sarcasm, her exaggerations, her smug provincialism, her hypocrisy about family and government, her exploitation of mommyhood, and her personal attacks on Barack Obama, the Democratic base might never be consolidated. This much is certain: Obama could never do it.

Not, anyway, the Obama who appeared Sunday on ABC's "This Week" with George Stephanopoulos. That Obama was cool, diffident, above it all -- unflustered, unflappable, unexcitable and downright unexciting. These "uns" ran on, a torrent of cool that frosted my flat-panel TV and had me wondering if, as a kid, Obama ever got a shot in the mouth on the playground, he'd glare at the bully -- and convene a meeting.

Stephanopoulos vainly tried for some genuine reaction. In choosing Palin, did John McCain get someone who met the minimum test of being "capable of being president"? Everyone in America knows the answer to that. They know McCain picked someone so unqualified she has been hiding from the media because a question to her is like kryptonite to what's-his-name. But did Obama say anything like that? Here are his exact words: "Well, you know, I'll let you ask John McCain when he's on ABC." Boy, Palin will never get over that.

And how about this silly business that she's qualified for the presidency because she's commander in chief of the Alaska National Guard? Another softball. Another slow one, right down the middle. Obama reared back . . . and told Stephanopoulos that those questions should come from the media: "It's going to be your job and. . . ." Pathetic.

What Obama does not understand is that he is being Swift-boated. The term does not apply to a mere smear. It is bolder, more outrageous than that. It means going straight at your opponent's strength and maligning it. This is what was done in 2004 to John Kerry, who had commanded a Swift boat in Vietnam. Kerry had won three Purple Hearts, a Silver Star and a Bronze Star and emerged from the war a certified hero. It was that record that his opponents attacked, a tactic Kerry thought so ludicrous that he at first ignored it. The record shows that he lost the election.

Now Obama's opponents are going straight for his strength. At least twice at the GOP convention, speakers mocked Obama's service as a community organizer. "He worked as a community organizer," Rudy Giuliani said. "He immersed himself in Chicago machine politics."
ad_icon

And then Palin herself followed up with one of her aw-shucks low blows: "I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a community organizer, except that you have actual responsibilities."

In the biographies of both presidential candidates are episodes of pure wonderment. No man can read about McCain's time as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam and not wonder, "Could I do that?" For most of us, the answer -- the truthful answer -- is no.

For Obama, that episode has nothing to do with physical courage but much to do with moral commitment. At age 22 -- a graduate of Columbia University and already making good money as a financial researcher, he walked away to work with the unemployed and alienated in Chicago. Obama, who later went to Harvard Law School, knew precisely what a valuable commodity he was and how much money he could have made. He turned away from all that -- or, at least, postponed it, and not because community organizing was the route to political success. (Just name one.) Once again, ask yourself if you would have done it.

So, Stephanopoulos asked, what was Obama thinking when Giuliani mocked him for doing something Giuliani -- the most ambitious of men -- would never have done?

"It's a real puzzling thing," Obama said matter-of-factly. And then he went on to recount his experience as a community organizer, ending with the observation that "I would think that that's an area where Democrats and Republicans would agree."

Oy!

It is true that on the stump, Obama goes on the attack. But those are fragments -- maybe 15 seconds on the evening news. It is with extended interviews, such as the Sunday shows, that we get to visit with the man -- and that man, for all his splendid virtues, seems to lack fight. Maybe he's worried about how America would receive an angry black man or maybe he's just too cool to ever get hot, but the result is that we have little insight into his passions: What, above all, does he care about? The answer, at least to the Sunday TV viewer, was nothing much.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/08/AR2008090801909.html

[CanadianCowboysFan]

that rats are leaving the ship

[iceberg]

that rats are leaving the ship

the rats are tired of people whining at palins lack of experience from obama who has even less than she does and he's closer to the presidency than she is.

unless he admits (as the dems seem to do) that she IS closer to being president cause he won't win.

i'm tired of the blantat tag you're it politics many whine about but few stop doing.

if palin doesn't have legit experience, fine. it's a valid concern.

now lets use that paint brush fairly and in the proper places, shall we? or is this where the landscape suddenly changes?

does obama have more experience than palin? also, why are they so worried about the VP vs. the P candidate? what they're doing makes no sense and all the quick jabs and hits and "rats" comments won't help at all.

and now the press is worried obama isn't getting enough coverage? puh-leeze. and finally, how is this article lambasting obama? valid titles not getting you the attention the whiney children need?

[CanadianCowboysFan]

The Democrats will rue the day they didn't vote for the Clintons.

Palin would never have been given such a free ride had Carville and his boys been the lead pitbulls.

At the same time, why should Obama say anything about her, she is only the VP candidate. He should worry more about the 72 year old.

[iceberg]

The Democrats will rue the day they didn't vote for the Clintons.

Palin would never have been given such a free ride had Carville and his boys been the lead pitbulls.

At the same time, why should Obama say anything about her, she is only the VP candidate. He should worry more about the 72 year old.

and you should find some security blanket around your dreams and allow standards to be warped to perspectives vs. holding us all to the same set.

i'm not talking generalizations, those suck and all people do is OH YEA??? their way around and throw back some poorly thought out quib to hide behind to do anything but think that perhaps the other side has a point.

the world would end if we could ever do that first.

the simple fact in this case is 1. this title is misleading 2. the obama campaign is openly hypocritical about the 'experience' issue and they even misplace it more or less hoping for a mccain death so they have some fear to spread around to force people to their side.

does obama have more experience than palin? is this a apples to apples comparison or the only bullet they have left?

[ScipioCowboy]

And then Palin herself followed up with one of her aw-shucks low blows: "I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a community organizer, except that you have actual responsibilities."


This wasn't an "aw-shucks low blow." This was a precisely timed, devastating counter punch; she was responding directly to attacks the Obama campaign had launched against her experience and readiness.

Palin didn't start that particular line of criticism, but she did finish it. Don't hate the player, Mr. Cohen. Hate the game.

Quite frankly, the Left's reasoning in this article is a trifle befuddling: When members and "former" members of the Obama campaign viciously attack Palin's maternal abilities and question whether or not she's qualified to be Vice President, they're perfectly justified. Yet, when Palin and the McCain campaign question whether or not Obama is qualified to be President, they're satan spawn engaging in swiftboat-esque tactics.

Where's the intellectual honesty?

Why don't we ask Hillary Clinton supporters what they think of Obama's tactics?

[SultanOfSix]

I still don't see how Obama is hypocritical over the experience issue, which was specifically a foreign policy experience issue. It was the McCain camp who questioned his such experience first, and then chose a VP candidate who has just as little experience as well. I saw it as more of a "how can you attack me for a qualification that you don't take into consideration" rebuttal? To me, it appeared more hypocritical for McCain post facto. Sure, she's not going to be the president, but it's a two person ticket now, and she can be one assassin's bullet or a heart attack away from taking over the most powerful office in the world.

[iceberg]

This wasn't an "aw-shucks low blow." This was a precisely timed, devastating counter punch; she was responding directly to attacks the Obama campaign had launched against her experience and readiness.

Palin didn't start that particular line of criticism, but she did finish it. Don't hate the player, Mr. Cohen. Hate the game.

Quite frankly, the Left's reasoning in this article is a trifle befuddling: When members and "former" members of the Obama campaign viciously attack Palin's maternal abilities and question whether or not she's qualified to be Vice President, they're perfectly justified. Yet, when Palin and the McCain campaign question whether or not Obama is qualified to be President, they're satan spawn engaging in swiftboat-esque tactics.

Where's the intellectual honesty?

Why don't we ask Hillary Clinton supporters what they think of Obama's tactics?

like i said - a standard is a standard. period. if experience is an issue (and i agree, a very valid one but moreso for president vs. president) then let's see what experience both parties bring.

well, they can't attack mccain on this one so they tell you he's bush even though his voting record (when you look past 1 year) tells you otherwise.

that's out.

now let's attack the new kid and historically the new kid has very little experience.

well is obama or palin the new kid? well they both are. so let's attack 1 who's NOT running for president and say she has no experience.

then let's ignore that our own PRESIDENTIAL candidate has even less.

yes with mccains age it's a valid concern.
however, with obama's YOUTH it's just as valid.

i simply cannot stand the twisting of standards to fit a side and have to wonder how on earth people can overlook such things to pursue their political beliefs or continue to think they're right cause they can slant a perspective vs. daring to see it how it is.

i'll ask again - does obama have more or less experience than mccain?

that should be simple. that's pres vs. pres and avoided? why?

does obama have more or less experience than palin?

that's played to the hilt but ignored and cried upon when applied evenly.

this is what i hate about liberals. "do as i say not as i do". well if it's not good enough for you to live by, i damn sure won't buy that stink.

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Scipio, you don't actually expect intellectual honesty in a political campaign do you?

Hell, listening to the right, if the Democrats are in power, the borders will be opened up and terrorist attacks will occur every day. That is dishonest because the Dems do not support terrorists anymore than the Reps and to say an attack will occur is dishonest since the attack that is claimed to have changed the world happened during a Rep administration.

Politics is all about the game.

[iceberg]

I still don't see how Obama is hypocritical over the experience issue, which was specifically a foreign policy experience issue. It was the McCain camp who questioned his such experience first, and then chose a VP candidate who has just as little experience as well. I saw it as more of a "how can you attack me for a qualification that you don't take into consideration" rebuttal? To me, it appeared more hypocritical for McCain post facto. Sure, she's not the president, but it's a two person ticket now, and she can be one assassin's bullet or a heart attack away from the most powerful office in the world.

because he doesn't have any either? and is attacking the #2 about experience really an issue when #1 has it covered?

to a point yes. experience is vital now. would you agree? and if so, exactly *what* is obama's experience here?

i'm not debating the attacks or the reasons behind them - i'm digging for facts. what is obama's foreign experience that puts himself well ahead of 1 sides VP candidate and well behind the Pres candidate and why avoid 1 to attack the other?

as for pronouncing mccain dead so easily, another FEAR/FUD tactic. "the old man is gonna die then what!!?????"

i'm not voting on what *might* happen in a worst case scenario yet that's what they seem to be telling me.

so i'll ask again - and hope one day a reply quits fighting and just answers it.

how is obama more experienced than palin? first, what has obama done in the interest of foreign policy?

[iceberg]

Scipio, you don't actually expect intellectual honesty in a political campaign do you?

Hell, listening to the right, if the Democrats are in power, the borders will be opened up and terrorist attacks will occur every day. That is dishonest because the Dems do not support terrorists anymore than the Reps and to say an attack will occur is dishonest since the attack that is claimed to have changed the world happened during a Rep administration.

Politics is all about the game.

does obama have more experience than palin?

[JBond]

That whole article is so poor it made me throw up a little in my mouth. Almost everyone has figured out Obama can't measure up to Palin let alone McCain in experience. I am confused how Obama made money to live on when quit his job to work with homeless people.

If working with the homless really means with the help of a terrorist distribute 48 million dollars to the Chicago political machine and get elected to a state senate seat, then ya I guess he helped the homeless.

Can any of the Obama lovers explain exactly what he did as an organizer?

[iceberg]

That whole article is so poor it made me throw up a little in my mouth. Almost everyone has figured out Obama can't measure up to Palin let alone McCain in experience. I am confused how Obama made money to live on when quit his job to work with homeless people.

If working with the homless really means with the help of a terrorist distribute 48 million dollars to the Chicago political machine and get elected to a state senate seat, then ya I guess he helped the homeless.

Can any of the Obama lovers explain exactly what he did as an organizer?

i'm trying to ask that w/o the offensive tone and so far no one is stepping up. i'm not fighting or arguing, i simply want facts and not overblown emotional hype.

i don't care that's politics as normal. then admit obama does NOT have the experience but this is his only chance or simply help me understand what this vast experience is that makes him better than a new VP candidate on the block.

[JBond]

does obama have more experience than palin?

Palin has ten times the experince of Obama. Only a blind leftist would see it any other way. That debate was settled last week.
;)

[iceberg]

Palin has ten times the experince of Obama. Only a blind leftist would see it any other way. That debate was settled last week.
;)

they seem to disagree. i'm giving those who feel otherwise an honest attempt (from me anyway) to simply tell me what this experience he has is.

i don't care it's misplaced for now. i don't care they can talk about mccain falling over dead and lord look at the problem but what foul would it be to think that obama could be killed by a redneck racist and how dare we think that?

i don't want harm to come to either but how low is it to say "hey, he could die then what?" is the fear that deep? the hope so faded?

i'd love to hear an unbiased listing of his experience and how he outweighs someone who in reality shouldn't matter.

so far i'd have to say he doesn't and it's a fools game to go there. yet his party does time and again and can't answer the question of his own experience, but we should fear what's 2nd cause something bad could happen to the first.

fear factor was a bad tv show. i hate it's use in politics.

still waiting.

[SultanOfSix]

because he doesn't have any either? and is attacking the #2 about experience really an issue when #1 has it covered?

to a point yes. experience is vital now. would you agree? and if so, exactly *what* is obama's experience here?

i'm not debating the attacks or the reasons behind them - i'm digging for facts. what is obama's foreign experience that puts himself well ahead of 1 sides VP candidate and well behind the Pres candidate and why avoid 1 to attack the other?

as for pronouncing mccain dead so easily, another FEAR/FUD tactic. "the old man is gonna die then what!!?????"

i'm not voting on what *might* happen in a worst case scenario yet that's what they seem to be telling me.

so i'll ask again - and hope one day a reply quits fighting and just answers it.

how is obama more experienced than palin? first, what has obama done in the interest of foreign policy?

I don't know the candidates well enough to answer. I merely pointed out my opinion on what I saw the Obama campaign do. I'm rather cynical of the whole process as it stands right now, although I lean more towards Obama because I see McCain as another four years of Bush - which you may say is wrong - which I don't want.

In these debates, I see a lot of - I forgot the technical term for it - but, it's the psychological state that manifests itself where one tends to be more critical of evidence that contradicts one's beliefs or opinions, and less critical of evidence that supports them.

[CanadianCowboysFan]

does obama have more experience than palin?

is 2 years in the Senate worth more than 2 years as governor of a state with a population under 1 million. Being a mayor of a town with fewer people than live in my condo complex doesn't count if you ask me.

In the end who cares, one is running for Pres, the other isn't so that is irrelevant.

[ScipioCowboy]

I still don't see how Obama is hypocritical over the experience issue, which was specifically a foreign policy experience issue. It was the McCain camp who questioned his such experience first, and then chose a VP candidate who has just as little experience as well. I saw it as more of a "how can you attack me for a qualification that you don't take into consideration" rebuttal? To me, it appeared more hypocritical for McCain post facto. Sure, she's not going to be the president, but it's a two person ticket now, and she can be one assassin's bullet or a heart attack away from taking over the most powerful office in the world.

My issue isn't with Obama. Palin's experience is fair game.

My issue is with this article and its pervasive disingenuous. It's reminiscent of certain convention hacks who would have you believe that the other party is full of big meanies who attack without provocation while their party discusses only the issues.

[Doomsday101]

Liberal media is now making Obama out as a victim? I was wondering when the victim card would be played.

[ScipioCowboy]

like i said - a standard is a standard. period. if experience is an issue (and i agree, a very valid one but moreso for president vs. president) then let's see what experience both parties bring.

well, they can't attack mccain on this one so they tell you he's bush even though his voting record (when you look past 1 year) tells you otherwise.

that's out.

now let's attack the new kid and historically the new kid has very little experience.

well is obama or palin the new kid? well they both are. so let's attack 1 who's NOT running for president and say she has no experience.

then let's ignore that our own PRESIDENTIAL candidate has even less.

yes with mccains age it's a valid concern.
however, with obama's YOUTH it's just as valid.

i simply cannot stand the twisting of standards to fit a side and have to wonder how on earth people can overlook such things to pursue their political beliefs or continue to think they're right cause they can slant a perspective vs. daring to see it how it is.

i'll ask again - does obama have more or less experience than mccain?

that should be simple. that's pres vs. pres and avoided? why?

does obama have more or less experience than palin?

that's played to the hilt but ignored and cried upon when applied evenly.

this is what i hate about liberals. "do as i say not as i do". well if it's not good enough for you to live by, i damn sure won't buy that stink.

You're an insightful man, Ice.

[JBond]

I don't know the candidates well enough to answer. I merely pointed out my opinion on what I saw the Obama campaign do. I'm rather cynical of the whole process as it stands right now, although I lean more towards Obama because I see McCain as another four years of Bush - which you may say is wrong - which I don't want.

In these debates, I see a lot of - I forgot the technical term for it - but, it's the psychological state that manifests itself where one tends to be more critical of evidence that contradicts one's beliefs or opinions, and less critical of evidence that supports them.

The last thing I want is four more years of Bush either. Bush wimped out way to many times. His weakness on "man made global warming" his open border policy, his crazy expansion of entitlement programs, his misguided public school policy and on and on. I do like that he stands up to terrorists and made some good supreme justice picks (with some help) and he lowered taxes. That's about it.

[iceberg]

I don't know the candidates well enough to answer. I merely pointed out my opinion on what I saw the Obama campaign do. I'm rather cynical of the whole process as it stands right now, although I lean more towards Obama because I see McCain as another four years of Bush - which you may say is wrong - which I don't want.

In these debates, I see a lot of - I forgot the technical term for it - but, it's the psychological state that manifests itself where one tends to be more critical of evidence that contradicts one's beliefs or opinions, and less critical of evidence that supports them.

well you're right. both sides cloud things up so much in rhetoric and "feel good jabs" we don't even really allow on here but our country chooses it's leaders by who can jab best. go figure.


i hear a lot of mcsame, more bush - but what is mccains overall voting record? before he became a candidate for the repubs, all i heard was how he was a maverick and won't toe the party line. suddenly when he's nominated he's just like bush cause we can sell the fear.

hell, it even rhymes, so this will be easy to sell to the political masses.

i like obama and if he wins, i hope he's genuine. i think he'll get a rude wake up call but so far he's handled himself ok. i'd have to think he'd continue to do so. but the *only major* decision he's said he'd made was not doing the surge.

if he were president and called it off, where would we be? did his lack of experience in the real world and perhaps too much living on the polls make that call? however he man'd up and said "i was wrong".

that takes a lot to say when it becomes a soundbyte for the other side. so far i have a lot of respect for obama but not much any for the liberal side of what's left of the democrats.

the 4 more years of bush i don't want isn't necessary his policy, but the bile bitterness from those who will never give the man an ounce of credit for what he has done. we just laugh and say "yea, what?" cause it's clever and we've got a pocketfull of excuses to blow apart anything someone could say.

whether obama or mccain wins, i wish we could vote out that mentality from our country. there's valid points of concern and there's blind hate fed by stereotypes and pre-determined thinking.

so i still wait for someone to tell me just what obama has done to give him more experience than someone he's not even running directly against or why it's ok to fear people into thinking their choice will die soon.

both are crappy things to do to. yes all sides do it but when do we put that crutch down and grow up as a nation?

if this is so obvious why has the obama camp not put out a spreadsheet or flowchart to show it in undebatable terms?

[iceberg]

is 2 years in the Senate worth more than 2 years as governor of a state with a population under 1 million. Being a mayor of a town with fewer people than live in my condo complex doesn't count if you ask me.

In the end who cares, one is running for Pres, the other isn't so that is irrelevant.


fluff. please stop the fluff and tell me what he did in those 2 years as a senator that gave him all this experience, local or global.

being community organizer doesn't count to some either, does it? so we can say what DOES NOT count, but you've not given me what does either.

still waiting. also, have we now set a standard that you must be a leader of over 1mil before you can be considered viable? if that is the standard, please tell me how obama beats it.

or stop the double-standard.

[ScipioCowboy]

Scipio, you don't actually expect intellectual honesty in a political campaign do you?

The question is irrelevant.

Regardless of my expectations, I will still point out blatant and egregious wrongs when I uncover them.

And before anyone can ask, the answer is yes. I'll do the same with McCain. In fact, just last night, I criticized his economic plan and his stance on free trade.

[ScipioCowboy]

I don't know the candidates well enough to answer. I merely pointed out my opinion on what I saw the Obama campaign do. I'm rather cynical of the whole process as it stands right now, although I lean more towards Obama because I see McCain as another four years of Bush - which you may say is wrong - which I don't want.

In these debates, I see a lot of - I forgot the technical term for it - but, it's the psychological state that manifests itself where one tends to be more critical of evidence that contradicts one's beliefs or opinions, and less critical of evidence that supports them.

Cognitive dissonance?

[ScipioCowboy]

fluff. please stop the fluff and tell me what he did in those 2 years as a senator that gave him all this experience, local or global.

being community organizer doesn't count to some either, does it? so we can say what DOES NOT count, but you've not given me what does either.

still waiting. also, have we now set a standard that you must be a leader of over 1mil before you can be considered viable? if that is the standard, please tell me how obama beats it.

or stop the double-standard.

He voted present.:D

[iceberg]

He voted present.:D

jokes aside, this is what i hate. canadian can say palin isn't valid because gosh, alaska only has 1 mil people.

so fine. are we setting the standard there? if so, great. i disagree but it's a starting point.

now where does obama have this experience you just held against palin? or do both lack this and we're back to square 1?

[JBond]

is 2 years in the Senate worth more than 2 years as governor of a state with a population under 1 million. Being a mayor of a town with fewer people than live in my condo complex doesn't count if you ask me.

In the end who cares, one is running for Pres, the other isn't so that is irrelevant.

What executive decisions has Obama made? What great law has he authored to help the "little guy" while in Chicago or the US senate? Come on. You can do it. What great things has Obama done? Has he ever had to balance a budget? Nope! Has he ever had an 80% approval rating of the the people he works for. Not even close. I'll trust the people that elected and love Sarah Palin over the empty suit of Obama.

The big question is how does he stack up to McCain in life experince? That my fellow Cowboy fan is not even close.

[iceberg]

i'm trying not to answer my own questions but if i did it would at least be someone trying.

if we're to set strange standards great. just apply them evenly but that doesn't even happen.

[Doomsday101]

What executive decisions has Obama made? What great law has he authored to help the "little guy" while in Chicago or the US senate? Come on. You can do it. What great things has Obama done? Has he ever had to balance a budget? Nope! Has he ever had an 80% approval rating of the the people he works for. Not even close. I'll trust the people that elected and love Sarah Palin over the empty suit of Obama.

The big question is how does he stack up to McCain in life experince? That my fellow Cowboy fan is not even close.

He voted present 130 times. :laugh2:

[iceberg]

He voted present 130 times. :laugh2:

while not really what i'm after, it's so far at least more accountable/verifyable than dogging on someone else w/o any backup to show your worth to judge in that area.

[JBond]

Scipio, you don't actually expect intellectual honesty in a political campaign do you?

Hell, listening to the right, if the Democrats are in power, the borders will be opened up and terrorist attacks will occur every day. That is dishonest because the Dems do not support terrorists anymore than the Reps and to say an attack will occur is dishonest since the attack that is claimed to have changed the world happened during a Rep administration.

Politics is all about the game.

His best buddy is a terrorists. Take the blinders off. He launched his campaign at this terrorists house. This terrorist help Obama reach the level he has. A terrorist. What part confuses you?

[iceberg]

His best buddy is a terrorists. Take the blinders off. He launched his campaign at this terrorists house. This terrorist help Obama reach the level he has. A terrorist. What part confuses you?

well for me the total lack of evidence that he is makes me wonder about it.

seems more fear/fud to play off his name to scare people.

[JBond]

well for me the total lack of evidence that he is makes me wonder about it.

seems more fear/fud to play off his name to scare people.

Maybe I'm confused. Are you doubting that Bill Ayers is a terrorist? Or, are you doubting that Obama has had a close relationship and sat on boards together and that he announced his exploratory run for the Presidency from this self admitted terrorist's house?

[iceberg]

Maybe I'm confused. Are you doubting that Bill Ayers is a terrorist? Or, are you doubting that Obama has had a close relationship and sat on boards together and that he announced his exploratory run for the Presidency from this self admitted terrorist's house?

i'm doubting that in a time where our own government is hypercritical to terrorism that somehow a terrorist would wind up on the ballot.

great for a movie, i don't see it in life. you can put a fantasy connection in there but i won't follow along cause my gun needs bullets.

i'll need a bit more than a quip on a newsgroup to come close to believing it.

[iceberg]

and can someone tell me how the title fits the article? i may be having a dense moment (it happens) so i'm checking still.

[CanadianCowboysFan]

fluff. please stop the fluff and tell me what he did in those 2 years as a senator that gave him all this experience, local or global.

being community organizer doesn't count to some either, does it? so we can say what DOES NOT count, but you've not given me what does either.

still waiting. also, have we now set a standard that you must be a leader of over 1mil before you can be considered viable? if that is the standard, please tell me how obama beats it.

or stop the double-standard.

it's a crap question and you know it

if I say yes he is because national is more important, you will say I am lieing and being dishonest because he did nothing at the national level

If I say no, you will say, see my girl is more experienced.

In my view 2 years as a national senator from an important state is more important than being a governor of a small outpost.

[CanadianCowboysFan]

I see Sarah belongs to a church that believes homosexuals can be converted.

Rhetorically speaking, is it worse to belong to such a church or one where the leader hates whites as Obama's church leader does/did.

Granted they aren't running for the same job but it seems they are being compared.

[zrinkill]

Sarah has gotten to someone.

:laugh2:

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Sarah has gotten to someone.

:laugh2:

you just like her because she is cute, if she looked like Hillary you would hate her, don't lie

[zrinkill]

you just like her because she is cute, if she looked like Hillary you would hate her, don't lie

Sorry buddy ..... thats you.

I like her because she is a conservative.

[iceberg]

it's a crap question and you know it

if I say yes he is because national is more important, you will say I am lieing and being dishonest because he did nothing at the national level

If I say no, you will say, see my girl is more experienced.

In my view 2 years as a national senator from an important state is more important than being a governor of a small outpost.

if it's a crap question then it must be a crap attack, right?

i'm merely trying to understand how YOU use a standard for one and hopefully the other in the same way. however you seem to use a standard against palin and not against obama.

by what standard does palin have no experience? by what standard does obama have experience? i'm not after much other than trying to understand how "logically" you got here. i see how you did it emotionally but i can't follow the logic so it just seems you're letting emotions drive.

if palins 1 mil people leadership isn't enough, what is? and if that is the standard we set for palin, how do *all* sides compare to that standard.

don't go changing the standard just cause it sucks for your side. i'm trying to be fair, not biased. i'm trying to see how you got SHE GOT NO EXPERIENCE yet obama has it.

if you just feel obama will do a better job, fine. but experience doesn't have a damn thing to do with it at this point does it? just a mudpoint of crap and that's all i'm out to prove. small outpost? let's make sure we belittle it as much as we can along the way now that we know it's a crap attack.

feel how you wanna feel but stop lying about it.

[iceberg]

I see Sarah belongs to a church that believes homosexuals can be converted.

Rhetorically speaking, is it worse to belong to such a church or one where the leader hates whites as Obama's church leader does/did.

Granted they aren't running for the same job but it seems they are being compared.

what in the name of god does this have to do with a thing about her?

i suppose we only need an open mind when looking at things your way.

i'm gonna back out again. i asked for some serious input on how we gauge experience and was told it was a crap question. normally my bulldog kicks in now but it won't prove anything.

CCB - you have no evidence or proof palin has less experience than obama. cry it out if you must but we both know it's more "crap" than my asking for your proof. i can understand if you just say you "feel" that way but made up excuses and "small outpost" of only 1 mil people not being enough i don't understand unless it's just emotional.

sounds like it is so i can quit looking for logic.

[zrinkill]

In my view 2 years as a national senator from an important state is more important than being a governor of a small outpost.


:lmao2:

Alaska is small now? And being a junior Senator of Illinois is more important than being a Governor?

:lmao:

Wow is all I can say

[iceberg]

:lmao2:

Alaska is small now? And being a junior Senator of Illinois is more important than being a Governor?

:lmao:

Wow is all I can say

it's a small outpost because you need it to be, not cause it is. i asked a very honest question of how you objectively used standards and all i got back was "i don't, i just feel..." and that's fine.

just stop making it to be some fact then when you just "feel" that way.

[CanadianCowboysFan]

:lmao2:

Alaska is small now? And being a junior Senator of Illinois is more important than being a Governor?

:lmao:

Wow is all I can say

I am sure you consider Alaska equal in importance to Texas right?

Ice, I have NEVER made the argument your girl was the wrong choice due to lack of experience. I think she is the wrong choice because she is a fundamentalist who believes God tells her what to do, is anti-choice, anti-sex education, and generally a right wing religious wingnut, but she does have a great behind so I cut her some slack

As for the experience factor, who cares, you have to learn on the job. None of the four have ever been President nor run anything of significance. Being a POW hardly makes you ready to be Pres. Being a short term governor of an outpost hardly makes you ready to be Pres. Being a community activist and short term Senator hardly makes you ready to be Pres and being whatever the hell Biden is, oh yeah Senator from a state that is really only known for being a commuter state for Philadelphia and having good corporate law, hardly makes him ready to be Pres.

Sad part, one or more of those four will be Pres in the next four years.

If Obama is Pres, he will say, gee Iran,you know I have a muslim sounding name, talk to me and then be told to take some sucks"

If McCain is, he will start off "I hate those ****s who kept me prisoner so I don't like you"

If Sarah is pres, she will say "God is calling me to fight you" and then be asked by the Iranian leader if she is wearing any panties

if Biden is, he will play with his lips.

you should all vote "none of the above"

[iceberg]

is 2 years in the Senate worth more than 2 years as governor of a state with a population under 1 million. Being a mayor of a town with fewer people than live in my condo complex doesn't count if you ask me.

In the end who cares, one is running for Pres, the other isn't so that is irrelevant.

it's a crap question and you know it

if I say yes he is because national is more important, you will say I am lieing and being dishonest because he did nothing at the national level

If I say no, you will say, see my girl is more experienced.

In my view 2 years as a national senator from an important state is more important than being a governor of a small outpost.

I am sure you consider Alaska equal in importance to Texas right?

Ice, I have NEVER made the argument your girl was the wrong choice due to lack of experience. I think she is the wrong choice because she is a fundamentalist who believes God tells her what to do, is anti-choice, anti-sex education, and generally a right wing religious wingnut, but she does have a great behind so I cut her some slack

well hopefully the quotes above show you were attacking or questioning her experience and hell, making alaska a small outpost, that was about as fair of a description as you can get, right? no jab there, huh? next up canada makes it to one day be as significant as that small outpost and we'll take it from there.

As for the experience factor, who cares, you have to learn on the job. None of the four have ever been President nor run anything of significance. Being a POW hardly makes you ready to be Pres. Being a short term governor of an outpost hardly makes you ready to be Pres. Being a community activist and short term Senator hardly makes you ready to be Pres and being whatever the hell Biden is, oh yeah Senator from a state that is really only known for being a commuter state for Philadelphia and having good corporate law, hardly makes him ready to be Pres.

so no one is ready. at least now the bashing is equal opportunity. please, send the french here. we're lost on our own and our outposts.

the rest i'm just going to go back to ignore cause it's just mud.

[masomenos]

does obama have more experience than palin?

Did Romo have more experience than Bledsoe when they threw him into the fire? That turned out alright didn't it?

:D

Really, I'm only being half serious with that example.

[iceberg]

Did Romo have more experience than Bledsoe when they threw him into the fire? That turned out alright didn't it?

:D

Really, I'm only being half serious with that example.

and i can live with that example but romo was prep'd and sooner or later the only way you get experience is to experience something. kinda the defination isn't it?

but ya know, i can handle it as a point just fine if applied the same. this comment can go against obama or palin at this point and fit, right? if you excuse a lack of experience do it for all, not your horse.

don't make experience an issue if you don't have any.

[CanadianCowboysFan]

well hopefully the quotes above show you were attacking or questioning her experience and hell, making alaska a small outpost, that was about as fair of a description as you can get, right? no jab there, huh? next up canada makes it to one day be as significant as that small outpost and we'll take it from there.



so no one is ready. at least now the bashing is equal opportunity. please, send the french here. we're lost on our own and our outposts.

the rest i'm just going to go back to ignore cause it's just mud.

those were AFTER you did your best Perry Mason imitation demanding responses to a position I had never taken the clear imitation being all liberals say Sarah is inexperienced.

Not sure who pissed in your cornflakes today but damn you are pissing vinegar

[masomenos]

and i can live with that example but romo was prep'd and sooner or later the only way you get experience is to experience something. kinda the defination isn't it?

but ya know, i can handle it as a point just fine if applied the same. this comment can go against obama or palin at this point and fit, right? if you excuse a lack of experience do it for all, not your horse.

don't make experience an issue if you don't have any.

Oh, I agree. I think the issue of experience should really be a non-issue. The fact of the matter is that who ever is elected President will most likely face things that are new to them and with which they have no experience in. That's part of the reason Presidents surround themselves with cabinet members they trust, so when one of those issues comes up they have a someone more knowledgeable to turn to.

There's been a number of presidents who have done well without experience. Heck, Palin did well as Mayor without any previous experience. I've never understood the experience attack and I agree that if you excuse a lack of experience then you have to do it across the board.

[iceberg]

those were AFTER you did your best Perry Mason imitation demanding responses to a position I had never taken the clear imitation being all liberals say Sarah is inexperienced.

Not sure who pissed in your cornflakes today but damn you are pissing vinegar

i'm asking for honesty and look, no one is playing but i do appreciate your trying.

it's a simple question and if loaded, then it must have been a stupid attempt to discredit her. the rest you came up with had more open field merit than experience. the entire experience argument is bogus and simply "not there".

i tried to blow aside jokes and the like from both sides and merely asked by which standard palin has no experience yet obama does. i don't hear people say obama does usually, just scream bad palin louder when pressed.

looking for the common ground is hard when you're the only one trying. forgive my frustrations.

[iceberg]

Oh, I agree. I think the issue of experience should really be a non-issue. The fact of the matter is that who ever is elected President will most likely face things that are new to them and with which they have no experience in. That's part of the reason Presidents surround themselves with cabinet members they trust, so when one of those issues comes up they have a someone more knowledgeable to turn to.

There's been a number of presidents who have done well without experience. Heck, Palin did well as Mayor without any previous experience. I've never understood the experience attack and I agree that if you excuse a lack of experience then you have to do it across the board.

all i was ever out to say. if you have a standard, keep it or it's not a standard, is it? not to me anyway.

but you're right. no one knew what bush would face or that it would get this complex. but it did. he had to go where "no man has gone before" and did the best he could.

i believe that. i believe he has the best interests of our country at heart but that doesn't mean i agree with him. those who hate bush seem to confuse those two.

lord only knows what obama or mccain will have to face but my main hope is we find some way under God to do it as a country, not a divided faktion.

[CanadianCowboysFan]

that's ok, no worries

I never thought the experience factor had any merit. It isn't like anyone who becomes pres for the first time ever has experience.

Even Hillary didn't have that experience although at least she lived in the white house

[iceberg]

that's ok, no worries

I never thought the experience factor had any merit. It isn't like anyone who becomes pres for the first time ever has experience.

Even Hillary didn't have that experience although at least she lived in the white house

well you were the only one to really respond so yea, i was kinda waiting because i really could not see a connection and honestly wanted to find out if we stopped the mudfight, was there one. it doesn't seem to be but i can't argue with your other points because i just don't know.

we'll see how much is exagguration (from the overall situation, not just you please understand) is out there soon enough.

[masomenos]

:lmao2:

Alaska is small now? And being a junior Senator of Illinois is more important than being a Governor?

:lmao:

Wow is all I can say

Um, look at the map...

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/Trafficinfo/usmap.gif

Alaska is barely bigger than Oregon.

:p:

[iceberg]

Um, look at the map...

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/Trafficinfo/usmap.gif

Alaska is barely bigger than Oregon.

:p:

i could survive getting lost in oregon probably.

[trickblue]

Um, look at the map...

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/Trafficinfo/usmap.gif

Alaska is barely bigger than Oregon.

:p:

:laugh2:

[Angus]

Too Cool to Fight?

By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, September 9, 2008; Page A23

Thank God for Sarah Palin. Without her jibes, her sarcasm, her exaggerations, her smug provincialism, her hypocrisy about family and government, her exploitation of mommyhood, and her personal attacks on Barack Obama, the Democratic base might never be consolidated. This much is certain: Obama could never do it.

Not, anyway, the Obama who appeared Sunday on ABC's "This Week" with George Stephanopoulos. That Obama was cool, diffident, above it all -- unflustered, unflappable, unexcitable and downright unexciting. These "uns" ran on, a torrent of cool that frosted my flat-panel TV and had me wondering if, as a kid, Obama ever got a shot in the mouth on the playground, he'd glare at the bully -- and convene a meeting.

Stephanopoulos vainly tried for some genuine reaction. In choosing Palin, did John McCain get someone who met the minimum test of being "capable of being president"? Everyone in America knows the answer to that. They know McCain picked someone so unqualified she has been hiding from the media because a question to her is like kryptonite to what's-his-name. But did Obama say anything like that? Here are his exact words: "Well, you know, I'll let you ask John McCain when he's on ABC." Boy, Palin will never get over that.

And how about this silly business that she's qualified for the presidency because she's commander in chief of the Alaska National Guard? Another softball. Another slow one, right down the middle. Obama reared back . . . and told Stephanopoulos that those questions should come from the media: "It's going to be your job and. . . ." Pathetic.

What Obama does not understand is that he is being Swift-boated. The term does not apply to a mere smear. It is bolder, more outrageous than that. It means going straight at your opponent's strength and maligning it. This is what was done in 2004 to John Kerry, who had commanded a Swift boat in Vietnam. Kerry had won three Purple Hearts, a Silver Star and a Bronze Star and emerged from the war a certified hero. It was that record that his opponents attacked, a tactic Kerry thought so ludicrous that he at first ignored it. The record shows that he lost the election.

Now Obama's opponents are going straight for his strength. At least twice at the GOP convention, speakers mocked Obama's service as a community organizer. "He worked as a community organizer," Rudy Giuliani said. "He immersed himself in Chicago machine politics."
ad_icon

And then Palin herself followed up with one of her aw-shucks low blows: "I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a community organizer, except that you have actual responsibilities."

In the biographies of both presidential candidates are episodes of pure wonderment. No man can read about McCain's time as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam and not wonder, "Could I do that?" For most of us, the answer -- the truthful answer -- is no.

For Obama, that episode has nothing to do with physical courage but much to do with moral commitment. At age 22 -- a graduate of Columbia University and already making good money as a financial researcher, he walked away to work with the unemployed and alienated in Chicago. Obama, who later went to Harvard Law School, knew precisely what a valuable commodity he was and how much money he could have made. He turned away from all that -- or, at least, postponed it, and not because community organizing was the route to political success. (Just name one.) Once again, ask yourself if you would have done it.

So, Stephanopoulos asked, what was Obama thinking when Giuliani mocked him for doing something Giuliani -- the most ambitious of men -- would never have done?

"It's a real puzzling thing," Obama said matter-of-factly. And then he went on to recount his experience as a community organizer, ending with the observation that "I would think that that's an area where Democrats and Republicans would agree."

Oy!

It is true that on the stump, Obama goes on the attack. But those are fragments -- maybe 15 seconds on the evening news. It is with extended interviews, such as the Sunday shows, that we get to visit with the man -- and that man, for all his splendid virtues, seems to lack fight. Maybe he's worried about how America would receive an angry black man or maybe he's just too cool to ever get hot, but the result is that we have little insight into his passions: What, above all, does he care about? The answer, at least to the Sunday TV viewer, was nothing much.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/08/AR2008090801909.html

Ice, the darkened passages are as belittling of Odama as anything Sarah Palin spoke about him the other night. That's the reason I think he has been lambasted by this article. It is sort of a whip applied by a supporter to make him work harder to win.

:)

[jman]

Scipio, you don't actually expect intellectual honesty in a political campaign do you?

Hell, listening to the right, if the Democrats are in power, the borders will be opened up and terrorist attacks will occur every day. That is dishonest because the Dems do not support terrorists anymore than the Reps and to say an attack will occur is dishonest since the attack that is claimed to have changed the world happened during a Rep administration.

Politics is all about the game.

You mean the Canadian Boarder, the one that the 9/11 terrorist crossed to enter into the United States? That boarder?

Okay, that was a cheep shot. But maybe Canada needs to tighten things up a little too before you worry about the US.

[JBond]

i'm doubting that in a time where our own government is hypercritical to terrorism that somehow a terrorist would wind up on the ballot.

great for a movie, i don't see it in life. you can put a fantasy connection in there but i won't follow along cause my gun needs bullets.

i'll need a bit more than a quip on a newsgroup to come close to believing it.

I am not being clear. Let me say it this way. I do not believe Obama is a terrorist. I do believe he has surrounded himself with horrible people, one of whom is a admitted terrorist. I am mainly questioning Obama's judgement and relations.

[JBond]

I see Sarah belongs to a church that believes homosexuals can be converted.

Rhetorically speaking, is it worse to belong to such a church or one where the leader hates whites as Obama's church leader does/did.

Granted they aren't running for the same job but it seems they are being compared.

What is wrong with believing people can be saved? Are you one of those people terrified of those that believe in ? I suppose a continual life of unrepentant sin could make someone feel uncomfortable and fearful of those that believe in something bigger than themselves.

[masomenos]

What is wrong with believing people can be saved? Are you one of those people terrified of those that believe in ? I suppose a continual life of unrepentant sin could make someone feel uncomfortable and fearful of those that believe in something bigger than themselves.

There's nothing wrong with believing people can be saved. There is something wrong with condemning the nature of a person though. It's like saying that someone could/should be cured of being black.

[trickblue]

There's nothing wrong with believing people can be saved. There is something wrong with condemning the nature of a person though. It's like saying that someone could/should be cured of being black.

Oh my... and masomenos plays the race card and plays it HARD... damn boy... :laugh2:

[iceberg]

Ice, the darkened passages are as belittling of Odama as anything Sarah Palin spoke about him the other night. That's the reason I think he has been lambasted by this article. It is sort of a whip applied by a supporter to make him work harder to win.

:)

i'm not falling for this one. no way in hell is this a lambasting or even close. it's very pro obama and that's fine.

making it something it's not isn't.

[masomenos]

Oh my... and masomenos plays the race card and plays it HARD... damn boy... :laugh2:

No, that wasn't my intention. I guess I could have said it's no different than saying someone should/could be cured of being tall. It's not a race issue though, it's an issue of trying to "cure" someone of something that is just part of their nature.

[iceberg]

No, that wasn't my intention. I guess I could have said it's no different than saying someone should/could be cured of being tall. It's not a race issue though, it's an issue of trying to "cure" someone of something that is just part of their nature.

i get what you're saying. like i could be cured of my sarcasm.

won't happen. : )

seriously, i do understand your point.

[Angus]

i'm not falling for this one. no way in hell is this a lambasting or even close. it's very pro obama and that's fine.

making it something it's not isn't.

I'm sorry you disagree.

:)

[iceberg]

I'm sorry you disagree.

:)

find me sanity that would agree with you and we'll go from there.

hint:
Obama reared back . . .

WOW. how will obama ever recover from being told he reared back.

the horrors he faces.

[burmafrd]

Canadian: do you have ANY idea at all what the duties of a governor are?
Compared to a US Senator?

I guess not or you would not have embarrassed yourself so badly.

I will try and keep it simple.

You do know that the President is an EXECUTIVE. Right?
While a senator is of the LEGISLATIVE side.

Now what is a GOVERNOR? An EXECUTIVE.

By the way Arkansas is pretty small as well.

Also- a mayor has a lot more responsibility then a community organizer.

[trickblue]

No, that wasn't my intention. I guess I could have said it's no different than saying someone should/could be cured of being tall. It's not a race issue though, it's an issue of trying to "cure" someone of something that is just part of their nature.

Hey... I'm giving you a hard time... ;)

[masomenos]

Hey... I'm giving you a hard time... ;)

Oh :laugh2:

and now I look like an :moon:.

edit: as a sidenote, does that count as skirting around the language filter lol?

[CanadianCowboysFan]

What is wrong with believing people can be saved? Are you one of those people terrified of those that believe in ? I suppose a continual life of unrepentant sin could make someone feel uncomfortable and fearful of those that believe in something bigger than themselves.

that assumes being gay is a sin that requires saving

[WoodysGirl]

i'm not falling for this one. no way in hell is this a lambasting or even close. it's very pro obama and that's fine.

making it something it's not isn't.
I don't consider the article "lambasting."

I see it from a pro-Obama writer who is questioning Obama on why he doesn't go respond the way he (the writer) would like him too when attacked in certain ways.

[iceberg]

I don't consider the article "lambasting."

I see it from a pro-Obama writer who is questioning Obama on why he doesn't go respond the way he (the writer) would like him too when attacked in certain ways.

that much sure. but he doesn't really insult him, maybe a jab or two but kinda to ... "keep it real". overall i liked the article and thought it spoke well of obama. brought up some good points, some interesting points, and that was about it. you only see "bad" if you're looking for it here.

to me anyway. well, to you too now! :cool:

[iceberg]

that assumes being gay is a sin that requires saving

i don't think it's natural but that doesn't mean those who are gay should feel it's not. hetero may not feel natural to them so whatever.

people make too much out of private choices people make.

[WoodysGirl]

that much sure. but he doesn't really insult him, maybe a jab or two but kinda to ... "keep it real". overall i liked the article and thought it spoke well of obama. brought up some good points, some interesting points, and that was about it. you only see "bad" if you're looking for it here.

to me anyway. well, to you too now! :cool:
Well I thought that all along when I read it earlier in the day. When I popped back in later and saw all the posts, well I wasn't quite sure of what to make of what was being argued.

[iceberg]

Well I thought that all along when I read it earlier in the day. When I popped back in later and saw all the posts, well I wasn't quite sure of what to make of what was being argued.

i was trying to get 2 things.

1. why was "experience" an issue and how was it rated. canadian took a stab at it but in the end, it's not but he has other more valid points.
2. is the title of the thread misleading. guess not to the one posting it but to about everyone else. : )

i was trying to run a fair comparison and that just never seems to get very far.

[WoodysGirl]

i was trying to get 2 things.

1. why was "experience" an issue and how was it rated. canadian took a stab at it but in the end, it's not but he has other more valid points.I think experience should no longer be argued as a negative towards Obama nor should it be used against Palin. I just don't think either side can make the argument effectively.

From my perspective if experience was such a big deal to McCain as he consistently pointed out as a negative towards Obama, then to me it would've made sense to nominate someone equally as experienced as him to the ticket and then hammer it home.

2. is the title of the thread misleading. guess not to the one posting it but to about everyone else. : )Title is misleading in the sense it is not the title of the article and it may be a bit inflammatory. We've all done it a time or two, no harm no foul if one takes the time to actually read the article.

[iceberg]

I think experience should no longer be argued as a negative towards Obama nor should it be used against Palin. I just don't think either side can make the argument effectively.

From my perspective if experience was such a big deal to McCain as he consistently pointed out as a negative towards Obama, then to me it would've made sense to nominate someone equally as experienced as him to the ticket and then hammer it home.

Title is misleading in the sense it is not the title of the article and it may be a bit inflammatory. We've all done it a time or two, no harm no foul if one takes the time to actually read the article.

that would have made perfect sense to me. but i also think he got what he wanted in palin and likely more. as it is they have to go for his age and then attack her cause they can't him. just seems like the wrong approach.

[vta]

There's nothing wrong with believing people can be saved. There is something wrong with condemning the nature of a person though. It's like saying that someone could/should be cured of being black.

No it's not. Being black isn't a nature, it's a skin pigmentation. It doesn't come with a predisposed behaviour and ideology.

And we should be wary of putting too much legitimacy into the 'nature' of a person. Nature isn't always right.

[iceberg]

No it's not. Being black isn't a nature, it's a skin pigmentation. It doesn't come with a predisposed behaviour and ideology.

And we should be wary of putting too much legitimacy into the 'nature' of a person. Nature isn't always right.

then how do we know when it's wrong?

[masomenos]

No it's not. Being black isn't a nature, it's a skin pigmentation. It doesn't come with a predisposed behaviour and ideology.

And we should be wary of putting too much legitimacy into the 'nature' of a person. Nature isn't always right.

Being black can be the nature of a person in the sense that it's genetic. It has nothing to do with behavior or ideology.

[masomenos]

then how do we know when it's wrong?

It's easiest to just assume nature is always wrong and destroy it ;)

[trickblue]

Being black is nature in the sense that it's genetic.

But Obama is half white...

That's genetic too... he's as much white as he is black... I don't get the historic aspect...

[vta]

then how do we know when it's wrong?

When we come across the minds of people who have it in their nature to commit horrible acts. Not that people engaging same sex are categorized as such, but the 'nature' of a person is natural. Natural doesn't make it right.

My main point, is don't try to use nature legitimize something. A brain tumor is natural. So is murder for some.

[masomenos]

But Obama is half white...

That's genetic too... he's as much white as he is black... I don't get the historic aspect...

Oh, I wasn't making any reference to Obama.

...I'm hoping something didn't go over my head again lol.

[WoodysGirl]

that would have made perfect sense to me. but i also think he got what he wanted in palin and likely more. as it is they have to go for his age and then attack her cause they can't him. just seems like the wrong approach.I agree Palin was a very good choice. She's the wildcard in all this.

People have heard Obama speak. They know what he's about.

Joe Biden's no secret.

And McCain is McCain.

Palin is a mystery. There's a good article on how that mystery has continued to be manifested based on how the Republicans have handled her since her nomination and big speech. I believe her first interview is just as important as her speech.

Because she has so little *national* experience, there's very little for the Democrats to attack besides the few crumbs in her bio. As soon as she opens her mouth, they'll be on her like sharks on chum. I've already read that Biden is to be the attack dog as Hillary refuses to do so.

Lost in all this, is that the presidential candidates is still between Obama and McCain. Palin may be the future, but McCain is right now.

[vta]

Being black can be the nature of a person in the sense that it's genetic. It has nothing to do with behavior or ideology.

It can't be a nature of the person, it can only be a physical characteristic.
Sex isn't a physical characteristic, it's a behaviour.

Comparing blacks (natural physical characteristics) and gays (people engaging in an inate behaviour) is so far off the mark.

[masomenos]

It can't be a nature of the person, it can only be a physical characteristic.
Sex isn't a physical characteristic, it's a behaviour.

Comparing blacks (natural physical characteristics) and gays (people engaging in an inate behaviour) is so far off the mark.

Physical characteristics are a part of an individuals nature. As you even say they are "natural", thus it is included in the definition of the nature of a person. Sex is a behavior, you're right, but it's a behavior that's dictated by a persons natural persuasion.

[vta]

Physical characteristics are a part of an individuals nature. As you even say they are "natural", thus it is included in the definition of the nature of a person. Sex is a behavior, you're right, but it's a behavior that's dictated by a persons natural persuasion.

But would you really equate the treatment of a person because of how they look, with how people are treated because of how they act?

[trickblue]

I agree Palin was a very good choice. She's the wildcard in all this.

People have heard Obama speak. They know what he's about.

Joe Biden's no secret.

And McCain is McCain.

Palin is a mystery. There's a good article on how that mystery has continued to be manifested based on how the Republicans have handled her since her nomination and big speech. I believe her first interview is just as important as her speech.

Because she has so little *national* experience, there's very little for the Democrats to attack besides the few crumbs in her bio. As soon as she opens her mouth, they'll be on her like sharks on chum. I've already read that Biden is to be the attack dog as Hillary refuses to do so.

Lost in all this, is that the presidential candidates is still between Obama and McCain. Palin may be the future, but McCain is right now.

I'm nervous about this pick...

There is something they will find and exploit...

[iceberg]

I'm nervous about this pick...

There is something they will find and exploit...

as if who they pick would stop this.

[masomenos]

But would you really equate the treatment of a person because of how they look, with how people are treated because of how they act?

Yes I would look at it the same because just as someone doesn't decide their race they don't decide their sexual orientation. So, I do think their equatable.

[WoodysGirl]

I'm nervous about this pick...

There is something they will find and exploit...Of course they will.

And I don't think anybody should be outraged about it at all, since it's been going on since the beginning of the election cycle. Palin's fair game just as Hillary was. At least as far as I'm concerned.

[iceberg]

Of course they will.

And I don't think anybody should be outraged about it at all, since it's been going on since the beginning of the election cycle. Palin's fair game just as Hillary was. At least as far as I'm concerned.

agreed to a point. even i think people went overboard on hillary. when obama's preacher said hillary felt she was entitled to the presidency because she was white? i've never heard hillary utter racists comments, it just came across playing up to the crowd, knowing they were full of it.

it gets nasty. for that alone i think we keep "good" candidates away from office.

[vta]

Yes I would look at it the same because just as someone doesn't decide their race they don't decide their sexual orientation. So, I do think their equatable.

That's not what I asked though. How could you equate the treatment of each?
The color of somone's skin say's nothing about their character or abilities.
And while, misguided in it's notion notwithstanding, you can change a persons behaviour, but you can never change their skin color.