Hillary Accepts SOS. [Archive] - Dallas Cowboys Forum

WoodysGirl

11-21-2008, 03:43 PM

I read they're still in talks, but it's pretty much a deal, at this point.

Also read that Bill Richardson was offered the Secretary of Commerce spot.

CHICAGO (Reuters) – President-elect Barack Obama has selected Timothy Geithner as Treasury secretary, charging the respected head of the New York Federal Reserve with pulling the United States out of an economic nosedive, NBC news reported on Friday.

Geithner, 47, had been seen as one of two main candidates for the job along with former Clinton administration Treasury chief Lawrence Summers.

U.S. stocks soared on the news, pushing major indices up more than 6 percent. The Dow Jones industrial average closed above 8,000, an important psychological trading level.

"A fantastic choice to help lead the financial markets out of the wilderness," said Chris Rupkey, senior economist at The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi in New York, of Geithner. "A crisis manager par excellence who will hit the ground running as he has been on the case since the global funding crisis began way back in July 2007."

A senior Democrat told Reuters in Washington that Obama wanted Geithner for the Treasury job, but had yet to make a offer. He did confirm that Summers was no longer under consideration.

"Summers is off the list," the source said.

The New York Times, meanwhile, reported that New York Sen. Hillary Clinton had accepted Obama's offer to become his secretary of state, bringing his one-time main Democratic rival into a pivotal role in his new administration.

"She's ready," the Times quoted one of two Clinton associates who confirmed the deal as saying.

Clinton senior adviser Philippe Reines told Reuters: "We're still in discussions, which are very much on track. Any reports beyond that are premature."

Officials at Obama's transition office in Chicago had no immediate comment on any of the reports.

If confirmed by the U.S. Senate as Treasury secretary, Geithner would be at the helm of efforts to guide the country out of the financial crisis, which some analysts predict could lead to the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.

NBC also reported that New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson -- who was one of a crowded pack of Democratic presidential early this year -- could receive Obama's nod to become commerce secretary.

Richardson's elevation to the cabinet would give the Obama administration its first high-profile Hispanic member as its main liaison to the business community. Richardson was a United Nations ambassador and energy secretary under former President Bill Clinton.

NATIONAL SECURITY FRONTRUNNER

Obama, who beat Republican John McCain in the November 4 election, takes over from George W. Bush on January 20.

His early moves got the thumbs up from the Senate's Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, who said he believed the Obama team was preparing to "govern in the middle and tackle big things."

"I think the new administration is off to a good start," he told reporters on Capitol Hill.

Democrats increased their majority in the Senate and U.S. House of Representatives in the November 4 vote.

Obama has criticized the Republican's administration sharply for harming the United States' stature in the international community.

Set to become the first black U.S. president, he will inherit a deeply unpopular war in Iraq and another war in Afghanistan, where violence has soared, and will seek to rebuild relationships with allies, particularly in Europe.

Retired Marine Gen. James Jones has emerged as a leading contender for White House national security adviser, according to Democratic sources. Jones is a former top operational commander of NATO.

His military background would equip him well in a role that requires mediating among the various foreign policy players in the cabinet, some Democrats said.

They also said his former NATO role could bolster Obama's plans to push for more international help in Afghanistan.

Obama is also leaning toward keeping Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Gates, who replaced the combative Donald Rumsfeld in 2006, is praised by both Republicans and Democrats in Congress for overseeing a military strategy shift in Iraq that helped bring the country back from the brink of civil war.

Geithner, as Treasury chief will oversee the Obama administration's efforts to stem the financial crisis and prevent a drawn-out recession. Part of that will include addressing problems in the auto sector.

U.S. lawmakers on Thursday asked General Motors Corp, Ford Motor Co and Chrysler LLC to provide a business survival plan in exchange for their support of up to $25 billion in loans.

(Editing by Kristin Roberts and Frances Kerry)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081121/bs_nm/us_usa_obama

masomenos

11-21-2008, 03:57 PM

I read they're still in talks, but it's pretty much a deal, at this point.

Also read that Bill Richardson was offered the Secretary of Commerce spot.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081121/bs_nm/us_usa_obama

I hadn't read that about Richardson, he would be a great pick for Secretary of Commerce.

MetalHead

11-21-2008, 04:09 PM

CHANGE....to the past.

ZB9

11-21-2008, 04:37 PM

this doesnt make sense to me. I thought she would be better suited for Health and Human Services with her health care plan. She doesnt seem like a diplomat to me. Im surprised there are so many "Clintonistas" on the Obama team to start with. Talk about back to the past

Anyway, I guess that's why im not a politician, although I did stay at a Holiday Inn express...

Cajuncowboy

11-21-2008, 04:42 PM

I think Obama knows he's in over his head in this and is looking for anyone who can cover his tracks. Which is why he is going back to the Scandal laden Clinton regime for help.

Rowdy

11-21-2008, 04:54 PM

Will Monica be asked to come back and handle the White House drycleaning?

bootsy

11-21-2008, 06:20 PM

CHANGE....to the past.
CHANGE to when times were better than the past 8 years.

WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY BETTER.

Cajuncowboy

11-21-2008, 07:51 PM

CHANGE to when times were better than the past 8 years.

WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY BETTER.

Ahh the good old days of bipartisan politics.

:lmao2:

Whitewater, monica, Rose law firm, Julio Gonzalez, Waco....

Yep, waaaayyyy better.

The only terror attacks on us, were by us.

Very nice.

ZB9

11-21-2008, 09:18 PM

I think Obama knows he's in over his head in this and is looking for anyone who can cover his tracks.

I think you are right. I guess that is why he picked Biden also. I thought that was a terrible pick right off the bat.

lol maybe he is looking for people to deflect criticism too also. Biden and Hillary will be criticism magnets.

trickblue

11-21-2008, 09:32 PM

Not a whole lot of change going on IMO...

Polotics as usual...

VCDefectors

11-21-2008, 09:40 PM

It's too bad Obama didn't reach across the aisle and nab Palin for the position. She seemed so knowledgeable.

MilesAustinforMVP

11-21-2008, 10:06 PM

It's too bad Obama didn't reach across the aisle and nab Palin for the position. She seemed so knowledgeable.
Yeah and as Governor she had the responsibility of protecting America when Putin reared his head.:lmao2:

ZB9

11-21-2008, 10:09 PM

Yeah and as Governor she had the responsibility of protecting America when Putin reared his head.:lmao2:

that interview was terrible obviously. It was a train wreck

However, that wasnt as outlandish a claim as some think (check link). It's obvious what she meant, but she couldnt come out and say it. That is probably why the delivery and rambling on that question was so terrible.

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2008/08/commanding-the.html

anyway, everyone has a bad interview. The rest of hers were solid and they got better as she got along. Remember, she was focused on governing her state when Palin was suddenly thrown into the national spotlight with no preparation. She didnt have 20 months to polish her national platform pretty much away from the spotlight like some candidates. Considering that fact, it's amazing that Palin did was well as she did.

ZB9

11-21-2008, 10:16 PM

It's too bad Obama didn't reach across the aisle and nab Palin for the position. She seemed so knowledgeable.

at least she knows there arent 57 states....and that 10,000 people didnt die in the Mississippi river flood (if Palin would have made either of those comments that Obama did, she would not get such a pass obviously)

but Obama gets a pass because he went to ivy league schools...so he is obviously "brilliant" even though he made some ridiculous comments.

btw, did you see Biden's interview with Couric a week earlier than Palin? It wasnt much better.

MilesAustinforMVP

11-21-2008, 10:17 PM

that interview was terrible obviously. It was a train wreck

However, that was as outlandish a claim as some think (check link). It's obvious what she meant, but she couldnt come out and say it. That is probably why the delivery and rambling on that question was so terrible.

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2008/08/commanding-the.html

anyway, everyone has a bad interview. The rest of hers were solid and they got better as she got along. Remember, she was focused on governing her state when Palin was suddenly thrown into the national spotlight with no preparation. She didnt have 20 months to polish her national platform pretty much away from the spotlight like some candidates. Considering that fact, t's amazing that Palin did was well as she did.
What the heck are you talking about? I was referencing back to the Charlie Gibson interview. The only other 'real' interview she gave was with Katie Couric, and that was even worse. Charlie Gibson was a train wreck, and the Couric interview was Katrina incarnate. After that the campaign kept her away from the press. So I'm not really sure what "solid" interviews you are talking about, because I can only remeber her giving two, and both were miserable by any standard. In fact the second one she couldn't express complete thoughts. Joe the Plumber was more articulate. It is really sad that someone like that could have been a heart beat away from the presidency.

ZB9

11-21-2008, 10:20 PM

What the heck are you talking about? I was referencing back to the Charlie Gibson interview. The only other 'real' interview she gave was with Katie Couric, and that was even worse. Charlie Gibson was a train wreck, and the Couric interview was Katrina incarnate. After that the campaign kept her away from the press. So I'm not really sure what "solid" interviews you are talking about, because I can only remeber her giving two, and both were miserable by any standard. In fact the second one she couldn't express complete thoughts. Joe the Plumber was more articurlate. It is really sad that someone like that could have been a heart beat away from the presidency.

what about the Charlie Gibson interview was bad? Give examples (difficult I know)

ZB9

11-21-2008, 10:25 PM

has Palin made any statements like this?

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

Wasnt Obama's mother from Kansas? Someone should have told Obama that 7 people died in Kansas in that storm, not 10,000

MilesAustinforMVP

11-21-2008, 10:27 PM

at least she knows there arent 57 states....and that 10,000 people didnt die in the Mississippi river flood (if Palin would have made either of those comments that Obama did, she would not get such a pass obviously)

but Obama gets a pass because he went to ivy league schools...so he is obviously "brilliant" even though he made some ridiculous comments.

btw, did you see Biden's interview with Couric a week earlier than Palin? It wasnt much better.

There is a difference between misspeaking and obviously not know something. Let me ask you something: Do you honestly think that Obama doesn't know there are 50 states in the Union?

Are you kidding me? Biden's interview was way better. When Couric asked Palin about the economy, I don't know what the heck she was talking about. She just jumped from one incomplete thought to another; it was a mess.

ZB9

11-21-2008, 10:34 PM

Let me ask you something: Do you honestly think that Obama doesn't know there are 50 states in the Union?

no I dont believe that

politicians often misspeak in the grind of a campaign. Obama had a lot of gaffes when he first started running, but he got better as the campaign went on, although he continued making errors throughout. The media sure made it easier for him by suppressing gaffes that he made while amplifying gaffes that Hillary or Palin made.

the problem that I have is the double standard in the media. Their coverage in this election was pretty chicken **** imo. The give Obama and Biden a pass for everything

Are you kidding me? Biden's interview was way better. When Couric asked Palin about the economy, I don't know what the heck she was talking about. She just jumped from one incomplete thought to another; it was a mess.

I guess you arent going to give specific examples of what specific answers you had a problem with? It shouldnt be that difficult.

You must have been watching something different than I was. That interview was solid....and it was CERTAINLY not a "train wreck". That is absurd. The only train wreck interview was with Couric, and it was a train wreck lol

MilesAustinforMVP

11-21-2008, 10:37 PM

the Couric interview was the only train wreck interview that she gave.

what about the Charlie Gibson interview was bad? Give examples (difficult I know)
Oh where do I start: maybe when Palin was B.S.'ing the Bush doctrine:

GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?

PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?

GIBSON: The Bush -- well, what do you -- what do you interpret it to be?

PALIN: His world view.

GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.

PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that's the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.

GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?

Oh and how about the infamous Russia quote:

Palin: And, Charlie, you're in Alaska. We have that very narrow maritime border between the United States, and the 49th state, Alaska, and Russia. They are our next door neighbors.We need to have a good relationship with them. They're very, very important to us and they are our next door neighbor.

GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?

PALIN: They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska

GIBSON: What insight does that give you into what they're doing in Georgia?

PALIN: Well, I'm giving you that perspective of how small our world is and how important it is that we work with our allies to keep good relation with all of these countries, especially Russia. We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it's in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.

There are a bunch of others but I don't feel like going through the entire transcript right now

MilesAustinforMVP

11-21-2008, 10:39 PM

no I dont believe that

politicians often misspeak in the grind of a campaign. Obama had a lot of gaffes when he first started running, but he got better as the campaign went on, although he continued making errors throughout. The media sure made it easier for him by suppressing gaffes that he made while amplifying gaffes that Hillary or Palin made.

the problem that I have is the double standard in the media. Their coverage in this election was pretty chicken **** imo. The give Obama and Biden a pass for everything

I guess you arent going to give specific examples of what specific answers you had a problem with? It shouldnt be that difficult.

You must have been watching something different than I was. That interview was solid....and it was CERTAINLY not a "train wreck". That is absurd. The only train wreck interview was with Couric, and it was a train wreck lol
There is a difference between mispeaking and not knowing something. Palin just plain doesn't know what she is talking about.

Look above I have a couple of quotes for you.

ZB9

11-21-2008, 10:49 PM

those quotes dont prove your point Miles

but im heading out...discussion to be continued later? :)

VCDefectors

11-22-2008, 02:14 AM

but Obama gets a pass because he went to ivy league schools...so he is obviously "brilliant" even though he made some ridiculous comments.

I always find it amusingly ironic that conservatives love to knock American higher ed institutions in a political debate, but just can't seem to keep their kids out of them. Why is that?

silverbear

11-22-2008, 02:26 AM

I think Obama knows he's in over his head

IF that was true (it isn't), it would still put him one up on Dubya, who never has figured out that he was in over his head...

silverbear

11-22-2008, 02:37 AM

at least she knows there arent 57 states....and that 10,000 people didnt die in the Mississippi river flood (if Palin would have made either of those comments that Obama did, she would not get such a pass obviously)

Seems to me that Obama got laughed at for both of those remarks, so where's the "pass"??

And Biden got mocked by the media for his assorted gaffes...

Seriously, are you trying to argue that Sarah Palin was knowledgeable enough to be the Vice President of the United States, one heartbeat away from the Presidency?? She proved pretty conclusively that she was a dilettante when it comes to a) national politics, and b) foreign policy...

Being a good little attack dog is not a qualification for being the Veep...

The thing is, I didn't know that until she put herself out there for us all to see... at the time of the nomination, even before the nomination, I thought that either she or Bobby Jindal would be terrific choices...

So the media did us a favor, by exposing her for what she is... now, I guess it's possible that she can set out to educate herself so that in 4 years time she'll be a serious, viable candidate, but in all honesty, I think she destroyed her own ambitions by coming off as a distaff Dan Quayle... she's now pretty much a national joke, and I don't know if she can ever attain the gravitas needed to be taken seriously...

silverbear

11-22-2008, 02:42 AM

the problem that I have is the double standard in the media. Their coverage in this election was pretty chicken **** imo. The give Obama and Biden a pass for everything

Right wing paranoia lives... Obama ran a disciplined campaign, with remarkably few missteps, while McCain's campaign was beyond erratic... it was also quite mean-spirited...

So from where I sit, the media reported things HONESTLY, as they unfolded... rather than coddling Obama, protecting him, they reported fully on Ayers, Wright, Rezko et al... at least, I was able to find all kinds of info on all of them, with little effort...

But hey, it's always fun watching the righties whine about the "biased media"... it saves you the effort of placing the blame where it rightly belongs for the disaster that happened to y'all on November 4th... that works for me, if you don't figure out what the voters were REALLY telling you it'll be a while before y'all gain ground in Congress, or regain the White House...

So please, by all means, cling to your paranoia... I hope the powers inside the GOP are doing the same... LOL...

Cajuncowboy

11-22-2008, 06:49 AM

IF that was true (it isn't), it would still put him one up on Dubya, who never has figured out that he was in over his head...

He is and no it doesn't.

Cajuncowboy

11-22-2008, 06:50 AM

Right wing paranoia lives... Obama ran a disciplined campaign, with remarkably few missteps, while McCain's campaign was beyond erratic... it was also quite mean-spirited...

So from where I sit, the media reported things HONESTLY, as they unfolded... rather than coddling Obama, protecting him, they reported fully on Ayers, Wright, Rezko et al... at least, I was able to find all kinds of info on all of them, with little effort...

But hey, it's always fun watching the righties whine about the "biased media"... it saves you the effort of placing the blame where it rightly belongs for the disaster that happened to y'all on November 4th... that works for me, if you don't figure out what the voters were REALLY telling you it'll be a while before y'all gain ground in Congress, or regain the White House...

So please, by all means, cling to your paranoia... I hope the powers inside the GOP are doing the same... LOL...

I don't think you really believe that. I know you have a higher education to believe that and are just writing that to argue the point.

Rogah

11-22-2008, 10:55 AM

There is a difference between misspeaking and obviously not know something. Let me ask you something: Do you honestly think that Obama doesn't know there are 50 states in the Union?I agree with this. Biden knows how many letters there are in the word "jobs", Obama knows how many states there are and Palin knows Africa is a continent. But just out of curiousity, in your opinion, when Biden said "President Roosevelt" addressed the nation following the Stock Market Crash of '29, was that misspeaking or not-knowing?

ZB9

11-22-2008, 12:03 PM

I always find it amusingly ironic that conservatives love to knock American higher ed institutions in a political debate, but just can't seem to keep their kids out of them. Why is that?

They offer some of the best college educations on the planet obviously.

That is not what im saying. Im talking about the free pass the overly liberal NE media gives Obama, I guess because he fits their desired mold or criteria.

not that I know how to judge if someone is "brilliant", but neither do most of the people that I see in the NYtimes or on MSNBC, CNN, Huffpost, etc. who constantly assert that view despite Obama's limited political record and limited political accomplishments in a limited political career thus far. People are projecting that he will become a brilliant President, and perhaps he will, but he didnt show much as a Senator.

Going to an ivy league school doesnt automatically make someone brilliant (look at our offensive coordinator :))...and while it is impressive obviously, it doesnt automatically make someone qualified to be POTUS without also having an impressive political record. That is all that im saying.

ZB9

11-22-2008, 12:35 PM

Seems to me that Obama got laughed at for both of those remarks, so where's the "pass"??

not anywhere close to the level that Palin was, and you know it. There is clearly a double standard.

Seriously, are you trying to argue that Sarah Palin was knowledgeable enough to be the Vice President of the United States, one heartbeat away from the Presidency?? She proved pretty conclusively that she was a dilettante when it comes to a) national politics, and b) foreign policy...

that is the picture that the Obama media tried to paint right off the bat. However, when it comes to really looking at what she did that was so bad, it is obviously difficult for people to provide specific examples outside of the Couric interview. Just look at the quotes Miles provided earlier.

btw, most Governor's are limited when it comes to foreign policy experience. Reagan, Clinton, and W. Bush were all lacking foreign policy experience. Palin was no different. She needs to polish that if she has national aspirations for the future, like most Governors with such aspirations have done.

Being a good little attack dog is not a qualification for being the Veep...

The thing is, I didn't know that until she put herself out there for us all to see... at the time of the nomination, even before the nomination, I thought that either she or Bobby Jindal would be terrific choices...

So the media did us a favor, by exposing her for what she is... now, I guess it's possible that she can set out to educate herself so that in 4 years time she'll be a serious, viable candidate, but in all honesty, I think she destroyed her own ambitions by coming off as a distaff Dan Quayle... she's now pretty much a national joke, and I don't know if she can ever attain the gravitas needed to be taken seriously...

for such a dilettante, she sure does seem to scare the crap out of many liberals in the media and elsewhere for some reason.

Sarah Palin is a U.S. Governor, and a successful one at that. Before that she was the chairperson of the Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.

As far as the campaign, I guess you overrate what a VP is expected to provide. It would be difficult to ask for more from her.

anyway, Palin was governing her state when she was suddenly thrown into the national spotlight. She didnt have 20 months to prepare herself and polish her national platform like some candidates did. She did amazingly well considering that fact imo.

VCDefectors

11-22-2008, 12:53 PM

That is not what im saying. Im talking about the free pass the overly liberal NE media gives Obama, I guess because he fits the their desired mold or criteria.

Sometimes in life, the truth is hardest thing to accept. It's not that Obama got a free pass as much as Palin was clearly not ready to be VP. It's as simple as that. That was the real issue. Besides that, I would seriously like to know where this notion that the media owes equal bash time to candidates comes from.

Rogah

11-22-2008, 01:01 PM

Sometimes in life, the truth is hardest thing to accept. It's not that Obama got a free pass as much as Palin was clearly not ready to be VP. It's as simple as that. That was the real issue. Besides that, I would seriously like to know where this notion that the media owes equal bash time to candidates comes from.That is very easy to explain. The mainstream media purports themselves to be fair and impartial. For example, I have an MSNBC advertisement in Newsweek that says "Not just Liberal news. Not just Conservative news. A fuller spectrum of news."

MSNBC can run their station however the heck they want to. But if you are going to advertise your network as an impartial reporter of current events, then shouldn't your critical eye be cast equally on both sides?

ZB9

11-22-2008, 01:07 PM

Sometimes in life, the truth is hardest thing to accept. It's not that Obama got a free pass as much as Palin was clearly not ready to be VP. It's as simple as that. That was the real issue

I dont know man. It depends on how you look at it. Im sure she would have improved to the point to where she would have eventually been "ready", and she would have had good people around her.

Im not sure if Obama is "ready" to be President. I dont know if anyone is really "ready" for THAT job. It is good that he is surrounding himself with top people.

Besides that, I would seriously like to know where this notion that the media owes equal bash time to candidates comes from.

lol yea it's pretty outlandish these days to expect the sensationalized ratings driven media to be professional and fair in their coverage of news without always having such an agenda.

I realize that everyone has an agenda, but it doesnt have to be so obvious when it comes to the mainstream "news" media. If you are going to be a bias commentator, then say it. Dont pretend to be "non bias" or impartial when you clearly are not.

It is entertainment these days also. I realize that, and it's cool. It makes the circus more enjoyable to follow....but there is a fine line that too many dont seem to know how to walk, or care about, when it comes to also being fair and professional. There is a lot of "tabloid journalism" these days.

VCDefectors

11-22-2008, 01:11 PM

That is very easy to explain. The mainstream media purports themselves to be fair and impartial. For example, I have an MSNBC advertisement in Newsweek that says "Not just Liberal news. Not just Conservative news. A fuller spectrum of news."

MSNBC can run their station however the heck they want to. But if you are going to advertise your network as an impartial reporter of current events, then shouldn't your critical eye be cast equally on both sides?

Palin was given many opportunities to make her case and answer her critics. She failed. Simple as that. It's nothing personal against her, as her likability ratings remained consistently high. But clearly, Palin got what she deserved from the MSM.

Rogah

11-22-2008, 01:19 PM

Palin was given many opportunities to make her case and answer her critics. She failed. Simple as that. It's nothing personal against her,Of course it's nothing personal. I am sure you would be just as critical of her if she were a Democrat :rolleyes:
as her likability ratings remained consistently high. But clearly, Palin got what she deserved from the MSM.Well I respectfully disagree. It isn't that she didn't deserve the criticism, but rather she got criticized very heavily while her counterpart got a free pass.

Over the past few months, I saw 2 Vice Presidential candidates making gaffe after gaffe after gaffe. But only one of them really got significant attention from the MSM.

ZB9

11-22-2008, 01:22 PM

Palin was given many opportunities to make her case and answer her critics. She failed. Simple as that. It's nothing personal against her, as her likability ratings remained consistently high. But clearly, Palin got what she deserved from the MSM.

The majority of people spoke and preferred Obama/Biden

but dont give me that BS about the media. The media was obviously unfair to Palin from the moment she was announced. It was some of the most unfair, chicken **** coverage that ive ever seen in my life....and it was because the MSM wanted Obama to remain ahead in the polls.

MilesAustinforMVP

11-22-2008, 02:11 PM

I agree with this. Biden knows how many letters there are in the word "jobs", Obama knows how many states there are and Palin knows Africa is a continent. But just out of curiousity, in your opinion, when Biden said "President Roosevelt" addressed the nation following the Stock Market Crash of '29, was that misspeaking or not-knowing?
See when one misspeaks it is an instantaneous thing, an immediate brainfart.

However, with the Africa thing she she was not speaking in front of the media and made a slip of the tongue. She was in private conversations with her aides, and she was not able to come up with a correct answer after talking about Africa at length. Moreover, she gave a nondenial when she was questioned about it. She wouldn't even say, "of course I knew Africa was a continent." She just hemmed and hawed around the reporter's question.

Not knowing something and brainfarts is like porno; you know it when you see it.

MilesAustinforMVP

11-22-2008, 02:19 PM

Of course it's nothing personal. I am sure you would be just as critical of her if she were a Democrat :rolleyes:
Well I respectfully disagree. It isn't that she didn't deserve the criticism, but rather she got criticized very heavily while her counterpart got a free pass.

Over the past few months, I saw 2 Vice Presidential candidates making gaffe after gaffe after gaffe. But only one of them really got significant attention from the MSM.

Biden got quite a bit of attention for the "testing" comment.

The difference between the two is when Biden slipped up is when he wasn't on his guard and made slips of the tongue. When he was doing formal sit down interviews and on his guard, not casual questioning by reporters, he was almost flawless. When reporters questioned Biden on any number of topics he gave immediate well thought out responses. When the two reporter interviewed Palin in a formal setting, it was one bad response after another. There was an obvious difference between the two as any rational person could see.

Sasquatch

11-22-2008, 05:14 PM

Not a fan of this move. The only way I can rationalize it is that it was the only position prestigious enough to lure Clinton away from the center where she could be the focal point of in-party opposition especially on the impending health care reform. But who knows.

ZB9

11-22-2008, 06:31 PM

See when one misspeaks it is an instantaneous thing, an immediate brainfart.

However, with the Africa thing she she was not speaking in front of the media and made a slip of the tongue. She was in private conversations with her aides, and she was not able to come up with a correct answer after talking about Africa at length. Moreover, she gave a nondenial when she was questioned about it. She wouldn't even say, "of course I knew Africa was a continent." She just hemmed and hawed around the reporter's question.

lol Miles, I asked you before to provide specifics about what Palin said that was so bad, outside of the Couric interview, and you couldnt provide anything that backed up your argument. Now you are bringing up hearsay rumor?

you act like you were there or actually know what happened. Van Susteran said she talked to someone who was there and that the claim is BS. Then you have a made up source that was proven a hoax. Miles, are you David Shuster? :)

anyway, would you honestly believe that a Governor doesnt know Africa is a continent? Seriously? That is pretty difficult for me to believe, especially a governor who has dealt with issues involving Darfur and Sudan.

It's not too smart to blindly believe such a thing, especially when there are clearly agendas involved with such a leak in the first place. The same "source" also leaked Palin answering the door in a towel and the source being "taken back by it". That might be cool to believe lol (however, Im certainly never offended by a good looking women answering the door in a towel), but the point is that it shows a clear negative agenda from whatever anonymous "source" it is.

Not knowing something and brainfarts is like porno; you know it when you see it.

well you never actually saw Palin say that. You are going by a tabloid like rumor. You are going by hearsay.

However, you actually did see, straight out of the horses mouth, Biden state that the U.S. helped France kick Hezbollah out of Lebanon...which never actually happened. In fact, it was a complete fairy tale created by Biden, and we never heard one thing about it in the MSM. This is worse than anything Palin said during the campaign, and if she would have said it, it would have been all over the news obviously. Here is Michael Totten on our foreign policy expert and new VP's alternate universe

Totten states:

Biden said the strangest and most ill-informed thing I have ever heard about Lebanon in my life. “When we kicked — along with France, we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, I said and Barack said, “Move NATO forces in there. Fill the vacuum, because if you don’t know — if you don’t, Hezbollah will control it.” Now what’s happened? Hezbollah is a legitimate part of the government in the country immediately to the north of Israel.” [Emphasis added.]

What on Earth is he talking about? The United States and France may have kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon in an alternate universe, but nothing even remotely like that ever happened in this one.

Nobody – nobody – has ever kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon. Not the United States. Not France. Not Israel. And not the Lebanese. Nobody.

Joe Biden has literally no idea what he’s talking about.

It’s too bad debate moderator Gwen Ifill didn’t catch him and ask a follow up question: When did the United States and France kick Hezbollah out of Lebanon?

The answer? Never. And did Biden and Senator Barack Obama really say NATO troops should be sent into Lebanon? When did they say that? Why would they say that? They certainly didn’t say it because NATO needed to prevent Hezbollah from returning–since Hezbollah never went anywhere.

I tried to chalk this one up as just the latest of Biden’s colorful gaffes. Did he mean to say “we kicked Syria out of Lebanon?” But that wouldn’t make any more sense. First of all, the Lebanese kicked Syria out of Lebanon. Not the United States, and not France. But he clearly meant to say Hezbollah, not Syria, because he correctly notes just a few sentences later that Hezbollah is part of Lebanon’s government. He wasn’t talking about Syria. He was talking about Hezbollah all the way through, at the beginning, in the middle, and at the end of his outlandish assertion.

MilesAustinforMVP

11-22-2008, 06:56 PM

lol Miles, I asked you before to provide specifics about what Palin said that was so bad and you couldnt provide anything that backed up your argument. Now you are bringing up hearsay rumor?

you act like you were there or actually know what happened. Van Susteran said she talked to someone who was there and that the claim is BS. Then you have a made up source that was proven a hoax. Miles, are you David Shuster? :)

anyway, would you honestly believe that a Governor doesnt know Africa is a continent? Seriously? That is pretty difficult for me to believe, especially a governor who has dealt with issues involving Darfur and Sudan.

It's not too smart to blindly believe such a thing, especially when there are clearly agendas involved with such a leak in the first place. The same "source" also leaked Palin answering the door in a towel and the source being "taken back by it". That might be cool to believe lol (however, Im certainly never offended by a good looking women answering the door in a towel), but the point is that it shows a clear negative agenda from whatever anonymous "source" it is.

well you never actually saw Palin said that. You are going by a tabloid like rumor. You are going by hearsay.
Well I guess if Van Sustren says it then it's not heresay... right? Ha. Palin didn't deny the charges when a reporter asked her about it, so I'm calling B.S. on Sustren until she can give me real proof since Palin didn't deny it the first time she was asked about it.

And I gave you quotes on page two on this thread to back up my argument. Read them if you wish.

However, you actually did see, straight out of the horses mouth, Biden state that the U.S. helped France kick Hezbollah out of Lebanon...which never actually happened. In fact, it was a complete fairy tale created by Biden, and we never heard one thing about it in the MSM. This is worse than anything Palin said during the campaign, and if she would have said it, it would have been all over the news obviously. Here is Michael Totten on our foreign policy expert and new VP's alternate universe

Totten states:

Biden said the strangest and most ill-informed thing I have ever heard about Lebanon in my life. “When we kicked — along with France, we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, I said and Barack said, “Move NATO forces in there. Fill the vacuum, because if you don’t know — if you don’t, Hezbollah will control it.” Now what’s happened? Hezbollah is a legitimate part of the government in the country immediately to the north of Israel.” [Emphasis added.]

What on Earth is he talking about? The United States and France may have kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon in an alternate universe, but nothing even remotely like that ever happened in this one.

Nobody – nobody – has ever kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon. Not the United States. Not France. Not Israel. And not the Lebanese. Nobody.

Joe Biden has literally no idea what he’s talking about.

It’s too bad debate moderator Gwen Ifill didn’t catch him and ask a follow up question: When did the United States and France kick Hezbollah out of Lebanon?

The answer? Never. And did Biden and Senator Barack Obama really say NATO troops should be sent into Lebanon? When did they say that? Why would they say that? They certainly didn’t say it because NATO needed to prevent Hezbollah from returning–since Hezbollah never went anywhere.

I tried to chalk this one up as just the latest of Biden’s colorful gaffes. Did he mean to say “we kicked Syria out of Lebanon?” But that wouldn’t make any more sense. First of all, the Lebanese kicked Syria out of Lebanon. Not the United States, and not France. But he clearly meant to say Hezbollah, not Syria, because he correctly notes just a few sentences later that Hezbollah is part of Lebanon’s government. He wasn’t talking about Syria. He was talking about Hezbollah all the way through, at the beginning, in the middle, and at the end of his outlandish assertion.

Biden obviously didn't mean Hezbollah was kicked out, because in the exact same quote he said Hezbollah would step up and fill the power vacuum. He obviously meant Syria.

Lebanese kicking Syria out of Lebanon???? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. You got to be kidding me. For someone who is supposedly a middle east expert, this idiot doesn't know what he is talking about. Lebanon is Syria's ******.

The UN called (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4342705.stm) for the withdrawl and forced Syria out. Specifically France and U.S behind the scenes. Especially France since they have always been very influential in the region since the French mandate period. Totten is clueless.

Rogah

11-22-2008, 07:04 PM

MilesAustinforMVP

11-22-2008, 07:13 PM

What is it about my questions that people just don't answer them? Am I doing something wrong here? :( I am trying to be a polite contributor to the board (perhaps with the occassional non-partisan wisecrack thrown in). I gladly answer any question asked of me (unless it is based on a faulty premise in which case I still respond by pointing out such). And yet for some reason, when I ask a question it is like pulling teeth to try and get an answer.

I absolutely understand there is a difference between misspeaking and not-knowing. Biden knows how many letters there are in the word "jobs." Obama knows how many states there are, and Palin knows Africa is a continent.

Now to try once again: Just out of curiousity, in your opinion, when Biden said "President Roosevelt" addressed the nation following the Stock Market Crash of '29, was that misspeaking or not-knowing?
He didn't phrase it well. Biden was referring to the fire side chats following America's decent into economic troubles. I doubt he literally meant the next day FDR addressed the American people. You just chose to interpret it that way.

I admit Biden doesn't form his thoughts well before he talks, but it's pretty apparent what he means. The guy just needs to filter his words better.

Rogah

11-22-2008, 07:17 PM

He didn't phrase it well. Biden was referring to the fire side chats following America's decent into economic troubles. I doubt he literally meant the next day FDR addressed the American people. You just chose to interpret it that way.

I admit Biden doesn't form his thoughts well before he talks, but it's pretty apparent what he means. The guy just needs to filter his words better.Thank you for at least answering the question. All I can say is that my observations are you tend to give an awful lot of leeway to Democrats but absolutely none to Republicans. Biden makes a gaffe (which we can all see and hear on YouTube anytime we want to) and you say "he didn't phrase it well." Palin gets accused via 3rd party hearsay of making a gaffe, and you consider it solid evidence of ignorance, and go on and on about "non-denials" and the like.

I think there is some bias in how you form your opinions.

MilesAustinforMVP

11-22-2008, 07:29 PM

Thank you for at least answering the question. All I can say is that my observations are you tend to give an awful lot of leeway to Democrats but absolutely none to Republicans. Biden makes a gaffe (which we can all see and hear on YouTube anytime we want to) and you say "he didn't phrase it well." Palin gets accused via 3rd party hearsay of making a gaffe, and you consider it solid evidence of ignorance, and go on and on about "non-denials" and the like.

I think there is some bias in how you form your opinions.

And I'm basing my opinion not on a third party, but on the fact that Palin didn't deny the charge when a reporter asked her about it.

Secondly, Biden has been on the Senate foreign relations committee for decades, and was it's chairman for the past couple of years. The guy knows what he is talking about. He doesn't filter his words well. But when he is on his guard in a debate format or in a formal interview he always hits it out of the park because he is more careful in what he says, as oppose to informal settings when he doesn't use his filter. However, in formal interviews Palin looks horrible, so with her it is not about having a proper filter; it is that she just doesn't know what she is talking about.

ZB9

11-22-2008, 07:30 PM

ZB9

11-22-2008, 07:31 PM

Well I guess if Van Sustren says it then it's not heresay... right? Ha. Palin didn't deny the charges when a reporter asked her about it, so I'm calling B.S. on Sustren until she can give me real proof since Palin didn't deny it the first time she was asked about it.

And I gave you quotes on page two on this thread to back up my argument. Read them if you wish.

Biden obviously didn't mean Hezbollah was kicked out, because in the exact same quote he said Hezbollah would step up and fill the power vacuum. He obviously meant Syria.

Lebanese kicking Syria out of Lebanon???? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. You got to be kidding me. For someone who is supposedly a middle east expert, this idiot doesn't know what he is talking about. Lebanon is Syria's ******.

The UN called (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4342705.stm) for the withdrawl and forced Syria out. Specifically France and U.S behind the scenes. Especially France since they have always been very influential in the region since the French mandate period. Totten is clueless.

Im watching the Tech-OU game...will respond to this **** later...to be continued :)

Aikbach

11-22-2008, 11:20 PM

When you titled the thread 'Hillary accepts SOS did you mean that as a pun, as in Obama is seeking help from more experienced politicians?

Maybe i over analyzed.:)

silverbear

11-23-2008, 12:27 AM

I don't think you really believe that. I know you have a higher education to believe that and are just writing that to argue the point.

You're quite wrong about that... one campaign was ineptly run (even you on the right agree with that), and downright vicious, the other was efficiently run... one campaign was all over the place, throwing mud at the wall in the hopes that something would stick, the other stayed on message... one campaign did not have a clear and coherent plan, the other did...

And the MSM reported on all of it... they also covered the things that the McCain campaign wanted covered, all the crap about Ayers and Rezko and Wright... to suggest that they gave Obama a pass for the few stumbles he had is to revise history...

I mean, *I* knew all about them, and my sources were that same, "biased" MSM...

I've been hearing you on the right bleat about how the media is biased against you for literally decades now, and my response is the same as it always was-- no matter what the personal voting preferences of the media are, when it comes to their job, they want the Pulitzers and other awards that their business prizes... that's how they get better paying jobs with more influence, and they care about THAT a hell of a lot more than they do any political agenda...

Basically, the media likes to go after whoever's in power, and you can count on them jumping all over Obama when he makes any misstep... I call it "gotcha" journalism, and all journalists know the value of a good "gotcha" for their careers...

silverbear

11-23-2008, 12:42 AM

not anywhere close to the level that Palin was, and you know it. There is clearly a double standard.

Nope... Obama said a coupla things that were comically confusing, Palin did it on a near-daily basis...

that is the picture that the Obama media tried to paint right off the bat. However, when it comes to really looking at what she did that was so bad, it is obviously difficult for people to provide specific examples outside of the Couric interview. Just look at the quotes Miles provided earlier.

Look, I don't care if she did anything that was so "bad", what I cared about was she was utterly unqualified to be the Vice President of the United States with a 72 year old President in the Oval Office... her weak answers when asked about that experience only pointed that out...

So, you can see Russia from an island off the coast of Alaska, and that prepares her to deal with Russia?? She head up Alaska's National Guard, so that prepares her to be the Commander in Chief?? (Not when both units of Alaska's Air National Guard are currently NOT certified as combat-ready by the DOD, largely because both are undermanned)...

So, rather than continue this argument you seem eager to pursue, I'm changing it-- I challenge you to outline what her qualifications were to be Vice President, keeping in mind that McCain tried very hard to use Obama's inexperience against him...

btw, most Governor's are limited when it comes to foreign policy experience. Reagan, Clinton, and W. Bush were all lacking foreign policy experience. Palin was no different. She needs to polish that if she has national aspirations for the future, like most Governors with such aspirations have done.

Which is EXACTLY what I've been saying these past coupla weeks; if she seriously wishes to be a player on the national stage in the future, she's going to have to set about educating herself, particularly on matters of foreign affairs...

for such a dilettante, she sure does seem to scare the crap out of many liberals in the media and elsewhere for some reason.

To the contrary, I'm pretty sure the Democrats would dearly LOVE to see her heading up the Republican ticket in 2012...

Sarah Palin is a U.S. Governor, and a successful one at that.

She was fairly successful when a barrel of oil was pushing 150 dollars... let's see how popular she is when it's down around 50 bucks... her popularity was based on Alaska rolling in oil money, so she was able to give every man, woman and child in the state an extra 1200 bucks this year...

That'll make you popular, but she won't be passing out megabucks with oil prices at this level... and why exactly was she EVER asking for ANY earmarks, if Alaska had an extra 800 billion dollars last year??

Before that she was the chairperson of the Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.

I've always said that she has legitimate credentials in the area of Energy...

As far as the campaign, I guess you overrate what a VP is expected to provide. It would be difficult to ask for more from her.

All she did was play attack dog...

anyway, Palin was governing her state when she was suddenly thrown into the national spotlight. She didnt have 20 months to prepare herself and polish her national platform like some candidates did. She did amazingly well considering that fact imo.

Well, if winking at voters in a televised debate is an adequate substitute for sustantive positions, I guess you would see it that way... much as I like having a pretty woman wink at me, I was pretty much offended at her performance in that debate... it wasn't just the winking, it was the absolute refusal to answer any of the questions as asked... this suggested to me that she didn't HAVE any answers to those questions...

And out on the stump, her ONLY role was to play attack dog... again, while that's PART of the job description for a Vice-Presidential nominee, and Biden did some of that too, that's ALL she did...

Maybe you see that as qualified to hold national office, I don't...

silverbear

11-23-2008, 12:44 AM

That is very easy to explain. The mainstream media purports themselves to be fair and impartial. For example, I have an MSNBC advertisement in Newsweek that says "Not just Liberal news. Not just Conservative news. A fuller spectrum of news."

MSNBC can run their station however the heck they want to. But if you are going to advertise your network as an impartial reporter of current events, then shouldn't your critical eye be cast equally on both sides?

Are you similarly critical of Fox??

If not, then your argument is quite hypocritical... me, I figure as long as there's a Fox AND an MSNBC, then a voter who wishes to be informed can get a "fair and balanced" picture by watching BOTH...

Fox gives you the righty slant, MSNBC gives you the lefty slant... and they both portray themselves as "balanced"...

silverbear

11-23-2008, 12:50 AM

I dont know man. It depends on how you look at it. Im sure she would have improved to the point to where she would have eventually been "ready", and she would have had good people around her.

Im not sure if Obama is "ready" to be President. I dont know if anyone is really "ready" for THAT job. It is good that he is surrounding himself with top people.

A valid point, and I admire your fairness... the thing is, before selecting Palin to be his running mate, McCain was gaining some traction with his experience argument, but he took that tactic away from himself when he named somebody even less experienced, less qualified, to be his running mate...

I realize that everyone has an agenda, but it doesnt have to be so obvious when it comes to the mainstream "news" media. If you are going to be a bias commentator, then say it. Dont pretend to be "non bias" or impartial when you clearly are not.

And once again, how is Fox any different?? My take is that as long as there are "news sources" that are biased toward each side, a balance is achieved... those who want a lefty slant to their news can watch MSNBC, those who want the righty slant can watch Fox...

Me, I don't watch much of either one, or any TV news... I'm a dinosaur, I still rely on the old print media for my political input... but I try to include print media with sympathies to each side of the political fence, the New York Times AND the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post AND the National Review, the Huffington Post AND the National Journal...

Of course, what I read is then filtered through my own biases, but I'm no different from any of you on that score... we all do that... but unlike too many voters (on both sides), I do look for input from both sides...

IOW, there's no problem with any one "news source" being biased in one direction or another, so long as there are other "news sources" out there giving the other side's view...