home

The Previous Statements Gambit

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 10:57:11 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I think these ads are generally pretty weak tea, but here is McCain's first ad using Biden's "previous statements" about Obama and McCain:

It is an obvious shot of course and there is more of that to come. But it really does not mean that much because Biden can make some new video now blasting McCain and praising Obama. Of course, that is why the Hillary Hating "she can't be VP because she said bad things about Obama" argument was so ridiculous. But logic never had anything to do with it.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Hillary Statement On Biden Pick | Saturday Afternoon Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Previous Statements Gambit | 174 comments (174 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Hillary was the logical and the emotional choice (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by robrecht on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 10:59:45 AM EST
    Clark would have been a very logical choice.

    We'll really only know in retrospect how well Biden will help the ticket.  We all know it needs help.

    Clark (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:11:03 AM EST
    would have been great cause he actually had management experience.  What do Senators have:  blah..blah...blah...


    Parent
    Oh my lord (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Salo on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:43:30 AM EST
    Mister break Iraq into three parts.

    This was a terrible pick on Iraq policy. However Joe is a nice chap and he'll take the heat for Obama.

    Roll On Obama Biden 08 I suppose.

    Parent

    Wanna have some fun... (5.00 / 5) (#64)
    by Jjc2008 on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:50:07 AM EST
    go to big Orange and read all the "defense of Biden's Iraq vote" and rationale as to why HIS Iraq vote is forgivable and Hillary's NOT. (HINT: It has to do with the mentality of adolescents who insist they will not be OK with the perceived perp no matter what unless they humble themselves with an apology). Having worked in middle school for years I recognize the jargon.

    Just sayin'

    Parent

    Biden on Iraq (none / 0) (#176)
    by jrterrier on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:46:43 PM EST
    i had forgotten biden's proposal to cut Iraq into 3 parts.  as if we hadn't done enough damage to a sovereign country, we now were goint to tear the country apart.  

    i think the worst (best for McC) part of this ad quoting biden is the look on obama's face.  he looks weak, insecure and sheepish as biden is saying that obama is not ready for prime time.  

    Parent

    Well, I can tell you one thing (4.94 / 19) (#38)
    by Dr Molly on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:29:19 AM EST
    This party is freaking clueless about women. Biden's behavior during the Anita Hill hearings was disgusting, any woman old enough to have seen those hearings will not be happy. And the trashing of Hillary continues unabated no matter what she says or does - it is really becoming blatantly abusive.

    I tell you - I've come to believe that Obama could come right out and say he thinks that abortion should be banned and most of his male supporters in 'progressive' world would find a way to get on board with that. That is how supportive most lefty men have shown themselves to be about how women should be treated.

    And this is coming from someone who's still voting for Obama. If anyone is surprised about PUMA, they've got their heads in the sand.

    The choice of Biden may do it for Obama, I really don't presume to know how it will work out because I am not smart enough politically. But I can tell you this - it just continues to show that women don't count.

    Parent

    God, I had conveniently forgotten about that (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:39:12 AM EST
    in the middle of the night, of course it was going to get brought up.  Now I'm flaming hot, total idiot.....total jerk!

    Parent
    In the sand? (5.00 / 6) (#58)
    by lambert on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:45:58 AM EST
    Polite, aren't you, Dr. Molly?

    Parent
    Even this morning.... (5.00 / 14) (#60)
    by Jjc2008 on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:47:11 AM EST
    Bernstein is on talking about how Hillary has to work harder and the little dipsh*t (a young attractive women, typical MSNBC anchor...probably in her later twenties early thirties) was sarcastically repeating Hillary saying "I have done more than anyone in my position (somewhat, in my view, mocking Hillary)."  It rubbed me the wrong way.

    And then Bernstein gets into how flat/rote Hillary was in FL and how she will have to do better.
    Are these people all clueless, heartless, stupid or all three????
    Hillary, as any normal person would have been months before this, has to be physically exhausted and emotionally stretched to the limit.  A close friend and supporter, Stephanie Tubbs, died suddenly the day before......does anyone have a clue as to how this kind of tragedy affects one? And not that much before this (a week, two weeks) another acquaintance/friend/supporter was gunned down in the Arkansas dem headquarters.

    And yet still the meme is "she's not doing enough."   Man, I just could scream.....and I really would love Bernstein and others to hear from us all about their a**hole statements of idiocy.

    Parent

    the Media, as always, (5.00 / 5) (#81)
    by ccpup on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 12:00:10 PM EST
    is hopelessly tone-deaf when it comes to the Public.

    Blasting Hillary may make them popular in the halls and in the lunch room, but the American People have an undeniable sense of right and wrong and when someone is being treated unfairly.

    Already people sense Obama didn't get this Nomination fair-and-square -- as you can see by the Generic Dem doing 10 points better than Obama in the Polls -- and the continued vilification of Hillary only makes people not want to give their votes to a Party which would continue to allow this.  There's no good reason to continue belittling her or dragging her through the mud, and yet Obama and the MSM still do it.

    That's not Presidential Material, folks.  And the American People can see that.

    Parent

    Sorry (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Claw on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 01:13:58 PM EST
    If you think that the American people can "see that Obama didn't get the nomination fair and square," you haven't paid attention to the last several election cycles.  The American people haven't been paying nearly the attention to process you seem to think they have.  If you conducted a poll asking whether or not Obama won the nomination fair and square or whether he [insert cheating theory here] it wouldn't even be close.  It would be like polling people on whether the earth was round.
    And, I hate to say it, but I imagine Clinton would also be running second to the generic dem.  She's a woman, Obama's AA.  Plus, they're both real people, with real attacks being leveled at them.

    Parent
    I misquoted you (none / 0) (#126)
    by Claw on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 01:14:59 PM EST
    "Sense," not see.  

    Parent
    bertstein and gang will have more to do (5.00 / 3) (#85)
    by hellothere on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 12:04:07 PM EST
    with helping obama to lose than anything hillary has ever said or done. she has been a good soldier so i say to the readers including some little green football types that call her pantsuit to such the xxxx up! we are sick of hearing berstein with their anti woman rants. i am sick of it. if i am you can bet many others are also. berstein can go to hades.

    Parent
    How odd... (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by waldenpond on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 01:01:35 PM EST
    The media was SOOOOOO complimentary of Clinton's  speaking style AAAAALLLLLLL throughout the primaries.

    Interesting they are STILL talking about Clinton.

    Parent

    I interpret (none / 0) (#150)
    by tek on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 01:48:46 PM EST
    this stuff as proof that Obama is a puppet for the corporations and big money people.  They are determined to destroy the Clintons because Bill Clinton is the only president in living memory who stood up to the corporate wealthy and reined them in.  Obama Democrats are perfectly wiling to sell out to a pretty face.

    Parent
    I know (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Dr Molly on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:55:46 AM EST
    I'm almost there.....

    Parent
    Clarification.... (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by Dr Molly on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:58:17 AM EST
    I don't support them. In fact, I'm not a democrat any more as of several months ago when I decided it was just as much of a boy's club party as the alternative, just with a better veneer.

    But, as of now, I'm still planning on voting to stop McCain for lots of reasons - environment, war, economy, etc.

    It's getting harder and harder all the time.

    Parent

    I hear you (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by Dr Molly on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 12:23:16 PM EST
    And I agree with you in many ways, except that your strategy speaks to only one thing - stopping the trashing of women - albeit an extremely important one.

    But the problem for me and many other voters is that I care passionately about many more things as well - the environment, the constant war machine, the economy and the fate of the poor vs. the rich, etc.

    So, I'm going to stop this discussion now because I don't want to hijack BTD's thread into oblivion. All I can say in conclusion is that I am way beyond heartbroken and angry about the way most lefty men have shown their cards on women's issues during this election. I am utterly convinced that they simply do not care about sexism.

    Parent

    Votes don't come with disclaimers or (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 12:42:37 PM EST
    conditions.

    Lots of Democratic congressionals tried that with their Iraq war vote. Bush only counted the "Yea" part, because that was the only part that he needed.

    If the DNC gets away with what they did, it opens the door to anything and everything. I can't be a party to giving them that power. Our young women who need their rights on reproduction and privacy are just going to have to fight to keep it.


    Parent

    Not sure how women who love Hillary could vote... (5.00 / 0) (#139)
    by NvlAv8r on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 01:36:43 PM EST
    For McCain.  Consider his joke in 1998:
    "Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno."

    I think most women would find that offensive, but to whitewash voting for someone with that attitude (as well as his wrong-headed approach on Iraq) over percieved slights is crazy.

    Parent
    Most who aren't voting for Obama (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by tree on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 01:43:25 PM EST
    aren't voting for McCain either. And some of those who are voting for McCain are specifically voting for a divided government as the lesser of two evils.

    And, BTW, McCain has since personally apologized to Clinton for that ugly demeaning joke. Get back to me, will you, when we've heard apologies from Jesse Jackson, Jr. and Clyburn and Powers,et al for their demeaning comments.

    Parent

    Jessie Jackson, Jr., Clyburn, and Powers... (none / 0) (#153)
    by NvlAv8r on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 01:52:58 PM EST
    aren't running, so you are comparing apples to oranges.

    I think McCain's joke shows his misogynistic character, though.  But, oddly enough there are many who would vote against their own interest (or the interest of the country), because they read of a percieved slight (goodness...he brushed his shoulder!!!!) on an internet blog.

    Reading some of these posts I weep for the future.

    Parent

    They are all part and parcel (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by tree on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 02:17:13 PM EST
    of the Obama campaign and symptomatic of the campaign's misogynistic character. Their statements were all made this year and, in contrast to McCain, none of them have apologized.

    Again, your reading comprehension is poor. No one here is voting for McCain because they think he is less of a misogynist than Obama. In fact most of us here aren't voting for McCain, period. Why is it so hard to understand what we are saying? We have issues with Obama's experience and competence and his stand on issues, or his lack of a stand on issues in some cases. We don't like the way he ran his campaign. Some will hold their noses and vote for him anyway. Some will not vote. Some will vote third party. This has nothing to do with "perceived slight" in your sense of the words. It has everything to do with our perception of who he is as a candidate for President. Color most of us supremely unimpressed. His problem is that as a Presidential candidate he is "perceived" by many as "slight".    

    Parent

    Actually Samantha Powers did apologize... (none / 0) (#165)
    by NvlAv8r on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 02:32:58 PM EST
    When she resigned.  Google is your friend.

    Parent
    Sigh. Just another condescending comment (5.00 / 4) (#158)
    by Valhalla on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 02:11:12 PM EST
    from the cleverboys who think that the problem with women is that they are just too stupid, or emotional, to understand their true interests.

    Many Clinton supporters are voting for neither Obama nor McCain.  Those voting for McCain are largely protest voting.  It's like disciplining spoiled children; sometimes, although it's unpleasant and frustrating, you have to punish them so that they will grow into better people eventually.  

    What many still don't get is that is that we are not falling for the Dem's simplistic tit-for-tat imitation of equality rhetoric.  Being 2% less sexist than the Republicans is not good enough.  We do not support Republicans, have not given them money nor volunteered for them for long years.  

    We have not supported them through thick and (mostly) thin because they promised us they stood for our equality and would promote issues we find important, only to find, when the time came to put their money where their mouths were that they just didn't give a cr*p, and were just as happy to stand silently by while the MSM and netrootz infotainmentsphere spewed the most offensive and demeaning insults to us, just because it helped their preferred candidate.

    Trying to 'zing' us with a comment McCain made years ago and has apologized for won't work.  I imagine you think you came up with quite a debate-club winning point there, but you've only revealed your own paucity of analytical abilities as applied to Clinton's supporters (and others) reasons for rejecting the Democrats.

    McCain at least has learned to fake respect for women; the Democrats haven't even noticed that they need to.

    Parent

    Sad but so true. (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by tree on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 02:27:00 PM EST
    McCain at least has learned to fake respect for women; the Democrats haven't even noticed that they need to.

    Who knew there were so many clueless Dems?

    Parent

    Please set me straight (seriously)... (none / 0) (#163)
    by NvlAv8r on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 02:23:17 PM EST
    Because of comments made on blogs or by talking heads on MSM programs that were sexist, you think folks are going to vote for the same party that has screwed up the country for the last 8 years?  So say some idiot says "Iron my shirt" at a rally, or a commentator says Sen Clinton reminds men of their ex-wives.  Because Obama/Dean/Pelosi, etc., didn't hold a press conference denouncing it you think people should vote for the party of no more habeas corpus/extraordinary renditions/illegal wiretapping?

    Parent
    Seriously. (5.00 / 2) (#166)
    by tree on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 02:55:15 PM EST
    If I can make a polite suggestion. Take a step or two back and realize that you are leaping to assumptions rather than listening to what is being said. It has been said here many multiple times that most are NOT voting for McCain but yet you continue to assert we are voting for him. Thats a sure giveaway that you aren't really listening. Its hard to set someone straight until they are really ready to really listen and hear what you are saying instead of jumping to false assumptions.

    Many of us are multi-taskers. We can be upset with bloggers, and the MSM and random idiots for being misogynistic and at the same time we can be mad at the separate misogyny of the Obama campaign, and its playing of the racial card, and its dishonesty, and its campaigning on "story" rather than substance, etc. etc. This does not mean that we are blaming one for the other. We are blaming both for their parts. I don't have to focus all my anger or disdain on one object only. I can  separately judge each element and assign it the responsibility and blame it deserves. This is not a zero-sum game where if the MSM has some blame for some things, that means that the Obama campaign actions can be discounted because the MSM "was worse".

    Me, I am not voting top of the ticket, or I will vote third party, or perhaps simply vote "Present". I am not doing this as "payback" for "perceived slights". I am doing this because I am not truly sure which administration will be the "lesser of two evils". I strongly suspect that Obama is a stealth libertarian and that the Democratic party is now completely bought and paid for by corporate interests. I don't think Obama has the experience or frankly the good instincts to be a successful President. And I don't want my party or my government run by Chicago machine politics. I suspect its unnecessary to explain to you why I will not vote for McCain.

    Parent

    Fair enough (none / 0) (#170)
    by NvlAv8r on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 04:01:34 PM EST
    And I do listen...I actually had a line in my previous post (that I deleted accidentally) that the election is Obama vs McCain.  If you vote for a third party or leave the top blank you are enabling McCain to win.  This isn't a "your with us or against us" thang...just mathematically that if you don't vote for Obama you make it easier for McCain to win.

    I guess we will agree to disagree (no disrespect towards you, BTW).

    Parent

    Then mathematically if I (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by tree on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:46:37 PM EST
    also DON'T vote for McCain I am  "enabling" Obama to win. Do you unerstand that? So in the zero-sum game, my lack of a vote is a null. If I vote third party I am lending my vote to supporting the idea of a third party vote eventually being a viable one. If every one waits for viability until they vote third party, viability will never come.

    I find both of the major candidates lacking, but in a different way, and I cannot honestly say that I  really KNOW which Presidency will be worse. And neither do you, although you can certainly have an opinion about it as well.  

    The Democratic party is not the same party that I believed in. If I automatically give them my vote when they trash some of my belefs then I'm not supporting my beliefs anymore, I'm simply cheerleading a name. I don't do empty cheerleading anymore. I've earned the right to stand up for my beliefs. I'm doing that. A democrat that mostly stands for what I stand for gets my vote. One who does not, won't.

    No disrespect to you either.    

    Parent

    If that was directed at me, (none / 0) (#146)
    by Dr Molly on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 01:44:29 PM EST
    I don't 'love Hillary'.

    And I'm not sure how someone who can come up with the offensive comments made by McCain about women can simultaneously pretend that this primary campaign hasn't been filled with offenses against women by republicans AND democrats.

    But why am I talking to some @sshat who uses phrases like 'over perceived slights' anyway?

    Parent

    Nope, it wasn't meant for you... (none / 0) (#155)
    by NvlAv8r on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 02:01:25 PM EST
    Nice talking with you.;)

    Parent
    Don't remember (none / 0) (#151)
    by tek on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 01:50:56 PM EST
    Obama's smears of the Clintons?  Don't remember his surrogates saying that Bill and Hillary Clinton were pimping out their daughter to get votes?  And they're supposed to be Democrats?

    Parent
    Ummm. It wasn't a surrogate. (5.00 / 0) (#157)
    by NvlAv8r on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 02:09:15 PM EST
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIxgw04Y0Fc
    It was David Shuster.

    Parent
    David Shuster From MSNBC (5.00 / 0) (#161)
    by daring grace on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 02:19:04 PM EST
    made the 'pimping remark.

    Hardly, by even the broadest definition, an Obama surrogate. At the time, I saw him as a more of a Clinton hater. In any case, no surrogate like Jackson, jr or Clyburn.

    Parent

    Right (none / 0) (#129)
    by Claw on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 01:17:32 PM EST
    The dems will surely stand up to McCain's appointments of wignuts...

    Parent
    Agree completely (none / 0) (#172)
    by Nan on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 04:34:09 PM EST
    A vote for Obama amounts to validating and rewarding sexism by the DNC and the media.

    The reason Dean et al pushed Hillary out is because they figured women had nowhere else to go. All Obama had to do was chant Roe! Roe! Roe and women like lemmings would fall in line.

    DNC feared offending African American. They do not fear offending women.

    That must change. And the only way it can change is for women to reject the DNC's candidate.

    Parent

    Right. (5.00 / 6) (#74)
    by oldpro on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:56:54 AM EST
    But their VOTES still count, so be sure to give them yours, sweetie!  They know you will...

    Yes.  Sarcasm.  Exasperated sarcasm, Molly.  If you know you are being used and abused, isn't it time to leave?  Why DO women stay?  Because they have been socialized to do so.

    This campaign and these candidates are the political version of domestic violence.

    Time for women to stop being enablers.

    Past time, I'd say.

    Parent

    See clarification above. (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by Dr Molly on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:59:16 AM EST
    Between a rock and a hard place.

    Parent
    Dr. Molly, they want you to feel boxed in and (5.00 / 4) (#120)
    by Anne on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 01:07:21 PM EST
    without options - it's the "nowhere else to go" strategy, and they are counting on you to give in to it.

    Face it - the party and the process have become dysfunctional, and giving them your vote is enabling the dysfunction, and ensuring that everything we have seen for the last however-many years will get worse.  Don't just look at what may happen if you don't vote (D) in November, look at what has already happened in the last 8 years when you did vote (D).

    Instead of seeing yourself between a rock and a hard place, try seeing yourself picking up that rock and heaving it as hard as you can against the system and the manipulation that pushed you up against that hard place.

    Heaving that rock out of the way will give you a freedom you didn't realize you could have, and the power to start your own push-back.

    Parent

    Absolutely right on. (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by oldpro on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 03:07:33 PM EST
    Tethered to the Democratic Party for the past 55 years (my adult activist lifetime), you cannot imagine how liberating it is to be watching from the sidelines with a bemused "a pox on both their houses" detachment.

    This is a lose/lose election and I am observing it as foreigners often do (so says my world-traveling son)...'those wacky Americans.  What are they thinking?'

    Thinking?

    Personally, I can't wait for the wildly amusing TV spots of Biden on Meet the Press in '04, urging Kerry to choose McCain as his running mate!

    Now about that Money Python SPAM sketch, as someone last night noted!  You just have to laugh.

    Parent

    The AH hearings are very old (1.00 / 1) (#56)
    by brodie on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:45:15 AM EST
    news.  Most of the particulars and the murky backstory involve plenty of blame to go around among a number of Dem senators -- including Teddy and Leahy, btw, both of whom put in lackluster committee performances.  

    And in the end, what mattered was that (iirc) Biden voted against Uncle Thomas, both in comm'ee and on the floor.  A few Dems voted Aye -- Byrd comes to mind.

    Both Obama and Biden have strong prochoice and pro-woman records in the senate, so I don't see any anti-woman issue here at all.  Some lingering issue with HRC and her backers, yes, but not women generally.

    Parent

    You prove my point (5.00 / 15) (#65)
    by Dr Molly on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:50:23 AM EST
    Another enabler.

    Biden enabled the trashing of Anita Hill along with the rest of the boys club. And, no, that's not all that mattered in the end, especially if you were Anita Hill.

    And, finally, no again - Biden does not have that strong of a prochoice record. For example, he voted against late-term abortions even in cases where the health of the mother is in danger.

    So, again, you prove my point. These things don't matter to YOU, but they matter a lot to women.


    Parent

    I remember Biden (1.00 / 1) (#82)
    by brodie on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 12:00:21 PM EST
    on that comm'ee somewhat differently, but it was 18 yrs ago.  He did allow her to testify and tell her story, often in excruciating detail.  Others may quibble that she wasn't allowed more corroborating witnesses (no opinion since I don't recall) or no surrebuttal to Clarence's misleading testimony, etc etc.

    But in the end, on two occasions when it came to voting, he did the right thing, and basically the anti-Clarence argument was given its day in court.  (may have gotten Byrd's vote wrong -- apparently though Sam Nunn voted Aye)

    As for Biden and choice, the late-term particulars I'd have to see referenced, but generally you're going to get some occasional difference of opinion on the 3d trimester exceptions angle even among solidly prochoice Dems, as both Biden and Obama are.

    But both I have no doubt stand solidly for Roe v Wade being upheld, and their Scotus picks will reflect this pov.  To do less would make their admin a lame duck one, fairly quickly, since 1-2 SupCt openings are likely w/n O's first yr or so.

    Sorry, but O/Joe is a ticket that is going to get support from women and women's groups across the country.  The only issue there is the lingering Hillary angle, not the Roe v Wade one.

    Parent

    No 'sorry' necessary (5.00 / 9) (#87)
    by Dr Molly on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 12:05:01 PM EST
    Like I said above, I don't pretend to know how the Obama/Biden ticket will work out, nor what percentage of women will vote for it.

    What I do know is what I said before - Obama/Biden could be as anti-woman as they wished to be, and what lots of women have learned during this primary is that IT WOULDN'T MATTER TO MALE DEMOCRATS, they would still support them.

    Parent

    QUIBBLE (5.00 / 7) (#89)
    by cawaltz on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 12:06:14 PM EST
    You don't get to call yourself pro choice if you are for LIMITING women's options. I don't care which trimester this refers to. Choice means that you recognize the best person to make decisions their body is the women themselves, not government.

    Parent
    You obviously don't understand the majority (5.00 / 9) (#100)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 12:21:04 PM EST
    of the women who make up the Democratic party or call themselves liberals and progressives, we vote with the party for full respect as peers and human beings and same acknowledgement politically.  You make the same mistake that Kos made during the pie wars and that the Dem party leadership made turning a blind eye to the sexism during the primaries.  You do this to your own detriment as women make up half of the party DUH! Learn from the mistakes of others.  Kos wouldn't be writing about PUMA's if they weren't something to contend and they are, so smarten up while you can or you will lose this election!  I doubt you could get AA's to vote for candidates who supported subtle forms of slavery.  Your above post is ridiculous!

    Parent
    support like naral does? no thanks (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by hellothere on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 12:30:47 PM EST
    they are chasing the bucks and ignoring women's problems in my view. take a look at their support of joe liberman and his outrageous remarks. thanks democrats, you may not have intended but you have awakened a sleeping giant, women!

    Parent
    I disagree with you (5.00 / 3) (#122)
    by MichaelGale on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 01:11:15 PM EST
    Biden did not stop the Republican attacks on Hill nor did he manage the process.  He, of course, lost his cool by attacking women's advocacy groups and civil rights organizations therefore refusing to take responsibility for his failure to conduct a hearing without chaos. It was one of the most disturbing television events of the decade; millions clued to the television sets watching a titillating display focused on Hill describing the most personal details of Thomas behavior. Note: Arlen Spector and Bob Barr were the leading attack dogs on Hill, who Biden refused to stop, however both have apologized for their behavior.

    His capitulation to the right on the Patriot Act, wiretapping, support of conservative judges, torture, criminalizing drug use, identity theft, just some of his choices, would take a few pages.

    Obama appears to have picked a man who is much like Libermann, more right than left, except he's better with the words and the charm.  


    Parent

    So that's the final pronouncement.... (5.00 / 6) (#67)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:50:29 AM EST
    ...you don't see a problem so therefore there is none? Not that it matters, but are you female?

    Parent
    That testimonial FOR McCain (5.00 / 6) (#2)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:00:51 AM EST
    can be incorporated into every McCain ad. That one would be a bit difficult to erase with new comments.

    I agree (5.00 / 8) (#4)
    by americanincanada on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:03:42 AM EST
    If I was McCain I'd use it in every ad.

    I also think this ad was very effective. We'll have to wait and see but the speed with which it was released should surprise no one. Nor should the fact that there are many more where that came from.

    Parent

    Maybe Biden's push back (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by zfran on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:05:49 AM EST
    to the part where he says Obama isn't ready to be president his reply could be...."he is now!"

    Parent
    ...since he selected ME for his running mate (5.00 / 5) (#23)
    by Josey on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:18:03 AM EST
    LOL

    Parent
    Has that ever worked? (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by pmj6 on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:26:52 AM EST
    People say the darnedest things whey they are running for president. It's well accepted that one does not recognize anyone but oneself to be qualified to be president. I think there is a certain level of awareness among the general public of that fact.

    Parent
    Yeah... (none / 0) (#77)
    by madamab on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:58:19 AM EST
    I don't see that this is going to be that effective. We don't vote for the vice-president, we vote for the President.

    Parent
    One thing to consider (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by nycstray on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 12:03:54 PM EST
    Timing of the ad. They had it out before their first public appearance and cable is running it on all the news shows and dissecting it. By tonight this ad will still be out there and contrasting with the warm n' fuzzy rally.

    Parent
    This election is about the Dems (none / 0) (#127)
    by MichaelGale on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 01:15:41 PM EST
    vice president. This move matters more than anything Barack Obama has ever said, done, or promised.

    Joe Biden IS now the 2008 Democratic election.

    In my opinion

    Parent

    IMO (none / 0) (#154)
    by tek on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 01:56:12 PM EST
    the whole thing is stupid because the PRESIDENTIAL candidate should be the determining factor not the VP.  We could have had a WONDERFUL, EXCELLENT presidential candidate who could have chosen a VP who would have strengthened the Democrats chances, but no, the old men dinosaurs in the Dem Party had to make a power play to boot out the Clintons so we've got this lame ticket.  Joe Biden has been a joke even in the Democratic Party for years, face it.

    Parent
    For those who continue to feed the MSNBC (none / 0) (#114)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 12:46:39 PM EST
    talking heads by viewing. I will be curious to hear how long they'll be able to listen to those mouths criticize and analyze the gaffes of Biden. You can bet there will a steady stream of advice to Joe, "think before you speak". Hospitals all over will be dealing with a sudden surge of broken lower jaws.


    Parent
    no, its a strength! (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by AlSmith on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 01:01:07 PM EST

    you have the spin all wrong.

    According to Slate gaffes are a sign of strength.

    "It's not just the foreign policy chops, important as those are; he brings some blood (and flab!) and jaw-flapping to a sometimes too-cool-for-school campaign. Voters actually liked it when Bush tripped over his own tongue; they could relate, and that is the beauty of the Biden choice: He's got the smarts, the experience, and without question could be president. ... But he also brings the humanity that Democrats have not always seen as important. It is."

    So there you go- its a brilliant pick because the Obama camp calculated that he will bring just the right amount of gaffes to the campaign.

    It the return of Earth Tones!

    Parent

    Not At All.... (5.00 / 3) (#104)
    by EddieInCA on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 12:24:43 PM EST
    Biden can easily say "I WOULD have voted for THAT John McCain. That John McCain was against extending the tax cuts. That John McCain was not for keeping us in Iraq for 100 years. That John McCain was against torture.  That John McCain wanted to change the GOP Abortion platform.  The current John McCain has changed his positions on each of those issues.  I don't recognize this John McCain."

    Parent
    The visual that is far more devastating (5.00 / 4) (#123)
    by Anne on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 01:12:33 PM EST
    in that ad is Obama with his head raised, looking superior, and down his nose at Biden.  It's the "how dare you speak of me that way" look that we have seen whenever criticism comes Obama's way.

    The inclusion of Obama's reaction is in that ad for a reason; it hurts.

    Parent

    It also shows the power of editing (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by tree on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 01:28:58 PM EST
    There's a cut from Biden saying "I stand by that statement" to the shot of Obama. That cut to Obama may or may not have been Obama's reaction to that comment or it may have been cut in from another segment of the debate, but the cutting makes it appear as a devastating "reaction" shot. Its very subtle but powerful.

    Parent
    The one thing (none / 0) (#148)
    by tree on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 01:46:11 PM EST
    I have to complement the McCain campaign team on is their ad campaign. Its been first-rate so far.

    Parent
    I think they're likely to go after him in CO (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by andgarden on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:02:37 AM EST
    for being very anti-gun.

    Oh oh, there goes Wisconsin (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 12:34:11 PM EST
    where even Feingold has to be against gun control.

    I didn't know that about Biden.  This really revs up a McCain revival of the "bitter and clinging to guns" quote from Obama, too.

    And just in time for hunting season.  Hahahahaha.

    Parent

    Oh Yeah (none / 0) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:08:29 AM EST
    and my country cousins will make it the cornerstone of their voting choice.......again and again and again.  It's so boring.

    Parent
    wouldn't be surprised if they did so in Va (none / 0) (#13)
    by cawaltz on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:09:51 AM EST
    as well. North Virginia barely pulled off Kaine and Webb and I could see the NRA chomping at the bit over Senator Obama's positions on guns.

    Parent
    I'm talking about Biden (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by andgarden on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:12:30 AM EST
    He has been a big gun control advocate in the past.

    Parent
    Obama is not much better (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by cawaltz on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:16:55 AM EST
    He's all over the map. It's not a big issue for me but for folks like my husband gun control(like the assault weapon ban) is a dealbreaker. I live in the SW tip of VA and the NRA plays pretty big here. Gun shows and gun shops are a great place to talk politics.

    Parent
    Last week Obama said... (none / 0) (#36)
    by EL seattle on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:27:55 AM EST
    .. that for vice president he wanted somebody who was "independent, somebody who is able to say to me, 'You know what, Mr. President? I think you're wrong on this and here's why.'"

    Will Biden's stand on gun control provide the sort of contrast of opinions that Obama seemed to be describing there?  

    I doubt if the NRA will think so.

    Parent

    the problem with being all over the place (5.00 / 10) (#42)
    by Valhalla on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:32:35 AM EST
    on gun-control is that the NRA only has to point to the anti-gun statements to demonstrate Obama can't be trusted.  The pro-gun statements don't cancel out the anti-ones.

    That's why backtracking on any litmus test issue is so dangerous, it alienates both sides instead of only one.

    Parent

    the most interesting thing about the debate clip (5.00 / 13) (#5)
    by esmense on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:04:26 AM EST
    they used is Obama's reaction. He looks incredibly young, vulnerable and hurt by what is being said. The ad intentionally lingers on his reaction.

    exactly! (5.00 / 5) (#45)
    by ccpup on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:37:06 AM EST
    he also appears to be looking down his nose at Biden in a very -- shall I dare say it? -- arrogant way.

    I'll have to disagree with BTD on this.  The ad is effective and, already, is serving to define Biden even BEFORE the official VP roll-out has happened.

    There's a lot of there there in Biden's history for the GOP to rummage through to help make Biden the focus, thereby basically making Obama a non-issue (which is devastating in and of itself) and put Team Obama-Biden forever on the defensive.

    Biden may help with that, but, really, if it's always Biden, Biden, Biden what does that say about the guy running for the Top Spot?

    Don't think the Republicans haven't thought of this.  You make Biden the story by constantly ruffling his feathers and people forget about Obama altogether.  Not a good thing.

    Parent

    obama's bringing his head up (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by hellothere on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 12:07:13 PM EST
    like that is probably very natural for him. i am sure he has done it for years and doesn't even think about it. but it will be used against him.

    Parent
    Found similar stills during the primary (none / 0) (#177)
    by andrys on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 03:02:23 AM EST
    Three of the four here are when he's looking at Hillary.

    I don't think he's aware that photos are always being taken, usually long-range.

    Parent

    I noticed.... (5.00 / 8) (#50)
    by p lukasiak on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:42:18 AM EST
    Obama's reaction as well.  It lasts just long enough for you to notice how he is reacting -- and the commericial is NOT about what Biden said, but really about Obama's reaction.  (I'd not be surprised if that was slowed down slightly...)

    Parent
    I wondered if the last reaction (none / 0) (#178)
    by andrys on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 03:04:59 AM EST
    ...to Biden's standing by what he said was a repeat of the earlier reaction.  Maybe not.  I think it's edited as I don't think they would have gone straight to Obama again.

    Parent
    It's a warm up... (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by oldpro on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:05:10 AM EST
    and it short, sweet and drowning them in their own words and visuals...undeniable.

    It's a pretty good beginning, actually.

    Variations on this theme will escort McCain/Sombody into the White House IMHO.

    I think the ad is a good one. It's (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by zfran on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:10:23 AM EST
    short, precise, clear and straight to the point. I imagine an Obama ad w/Biden is being edited as we speak to counter the McCain one.

    That's a pretty effective ad (5.00 / 7) (#17)
    by cawaltz on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:13:44 AM EST
    from where I am sitting. Biden becomes officially a flip flopper on Obama(for his own personal gain) and McCain gets to play that over and over again to immunize any criticizing Biden does on him and his opinions/fitness to be president.

    Sigh. We're gonna lose aren't we? Again, in a should be slam dunk year. Geez.

    Not to Nitpick, But... (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by WakeLtd on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:16:28 AM EST
    During Biden's comment about him, Obama does seem to have a look on his face "they are talking about me but I am going to pretend that it doesn't bother me". And I did note that the image of McCain at the end of the ad does seem a bit too wistful. Like he is "Old Man Time" who is seeing the past, the present, and the future, all at once, and is amused by it all. Or maybe he is just thinking about the statistical tie he finds himself in with his rival.

    That thing Obama does ... (5.00 / 6) (#53)
    by MichaelGale on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:43:01 AM EST
    petulant, defensive lift of the head, chin jut thing that he does when he is angry. No wonder they delay on his posture in that ad. It says alot.

    Someone needs to teach him how to do body language.

    Parent

    that's the power of the ad, (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by ccpup on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:50:23 AM EST
    right there.  In that reaction shot.  The audio is damning in itself, but to have it paired with Obama looking down his nose and obviously angry just makes it all the more effective.

    Of course, the kicker at the end when Biden PRAISES John McCain and says he'd be good for America.  Well, after SEEING Obama's unfortunate reaction and HEARING his now-VP Pick say Obama's not ready for the job, to then hear McCain is good for the Country from Biden's own mouth kinda makes you want to go, "yeah, he is".

    It's a great ad and, with money to burn before he gets public financing, you can expect more of these from McCain over the next two weeks.

    Parent

    The end of the ad (none / 0) (#25)
    by cawaltz on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:19:24 AM EST
    strikes me as the normal end of an ad where the candidate says he approves the message.

    Parent
    McCain's been finishing all of his ads (none / 0) (#28)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:23:41 AM EST
    lately with that shot.

    Parent
    Hahahaha (none / 0) (#121)
    by lilburro on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 01:10:10 PM EST
    that is really funny..."Old Man Time."  Maybe that explains why he is so willing to bomb Iran...oh the absurdity of all human life.

    Parent
    Biden undermines a lot of arguments (5.00 / 8) (#22)
    by dianem on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:17:55 AM EST
    He voted for Iraq, was highly critical of Obama's experience, and is a 66 year old career politician. Actually, he pretty much undermines every argument Obama has made against any of his opponents.

    Anita Hill (5.00 / 7) (#47)
    by Upstart Crow on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:38:27 AM EST
    Why is no one mentioning Biden's role in the hearings?

    I'll never forget them. This is another slap to women, in my opinion.

    Parent

    That McCain ad is in the making now (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 12:40:04 PM EST
    I actually hope.  Every man on that committee, but especially its chair Joe Biden, deserves to be reminded until the end of their days and at their wakes about how they treated all of us, when they treated Prof. Hill so abominably.

    And 17 years later, this Saturday morning is interesting with women friends, some I haven't heard from for a while.  One with whom I stayed up late into the night to watch the hearings, she on her phone counties away and me on mine, could hardly wait to call me this morning again about Biden.

    She is a diehard Dem but not this year, not now.  She called to say I was correct, all along, about Obama.

    Parent

    and the visuals (none / 0) (#140)
    by ccpup on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 01:40:19 PM EST
    of a team of white men -- one of whom is now running with the first AA Nominee for Pres -- quite literally ganging up on a lone black woman could be devastating.

    I don't remember how the AA Community reacted to the hearings at the time, but being reminded of it now may certainly take some of the air out of their GO-bama! balloon.

    Parent

    I've mentioned them a bunch of times (none / 0) (#119)
    by Valhalla on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 01:07:15 PM EST
    But for folks for whom history only started the year they were born, they are irrelevant it seems.

    Biden also voted to confirm right-wing jurist D. Brooks Smith, who was opposed by a number of liberal activist groups, in 2002.  NOW opposed him because, among several other problems, in his opinion the Violence Against Women Act is unconstitutional "because the issue of domestic violence lacked 'substantial national consequences.'"

    His Planned Parenthood/NARAL ratings have varied wildly, from a low of 34% to a high of 100%.  (I'm only counting the pre-Keenan NARAL ratings).

    Here's a brief discussion of Biden's role in the Anita Hill hearings.

    Parent

    Kinda makes you wonder about the whole (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Anne on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:19:22 AM EST
    vetting process, considering the hours and hours of this kind of video and the reams of Biden statements that have been pored over by the opposition, doesn't it?  Somehow, the negatives of Biden's loose lips did not outweigh his positives?  Interesting.

    McCain has to spend his remaining millions of primary funds before he accepts the nomination of his party - I can only imagine the delight of the ad makers and media outlets who are going to be the beneficiary of this largesse, and the sheer numbers of ads that will be played for the voters.

    This was triage (5.00 / 4) (#46)
    by p lukasiak on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:37:43 AM EST
    That is why I said Biden was not the original choice -- and a last minute one.

    I think that internal polls and focus groups taken in the last two weeks showed a sudden, and very significant, questioning of Obama's maturity of judgement.  Obama had to go with a familiar name, and Biden was the best they could do on short notice.

    While above someone joked about Biden deciding that Obama is now ready "because he picked me", there is a whole lot of truth in that.  Obama desperately needed a 'reassuring' pick -- and there was no time.  Biden stops the hemorrhaging that was beginning to occur... and the campaign hopes that it can deal with the problems caused by the Biden choice later.

    This was triage for a campaign that looked like it was going to red-line -- the first priority is stabilize the patient in any way you can.... then you can deal with the consequences of what you did to stabilize the patient.

    Parent

    Who do you think he (5.00 / 0) (#61)
    by zfran on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:48:01 AM EST
    really wanted?

    Parent
    best guess is Kaine.... (5.00 / 4) (#75)
    by p lukasiak on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:57:05 AM EST
    .... The theme that was emerging from the Obama campaign was that he was not "the same old washington politics" (in various incarnations).  While a number of VP candidates fit that bill, Kaine is from the state where his nomination would provide the biggest electoral college advantage.

    And I think that the EC factor was key.  Lets not forget how Obama got the nomination -- by identifying opportunities to pick up the maximum number of delegates regardless of where they came from.  That same kind of thought-process was likely to play a big role in determining who the nominee would be.

    Parent

    There's been enough real, honest... (none / 0) (#145)
    by EL seattle on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 01:43:26 PM EST
    ... history to the various aspects of campaign 2008 to keep many good writers (from every point-of-view) busy for years.  I only hope that the various teams don't try to seal off the campaign documents and accounts after January 2009.

    I think that the public deserves to know about what happened behind the scenes in this election, on every side.

    (Btw, I'd bet that you're absolutely correct about the triage.  But how will we know that for sure without honest open accounts after the fact?)

    Parent

    You are right (none / 0) (#149)
    by nell on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 01:48:28 PM EST
    I think...

    Smart thinking...

    I admit I was surprised about Biden because I thought he could lock up Indiana with Bayh (I'm from IN, people have been waiting to see Bayh in the White House for a long time). But your analysis makes perfect sense.

    Parent

    "voodoo economics" (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by Turkana on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:19:29 AM EST
    sure worked for carter...

    Exactly (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by andgarden on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:26:28 AM EST


    Parent
    thast the opposite argument (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by AlSmith on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:44:05 AM EST

    People still bring up "vodoo economics" precisely because the arguments of the home team against itself resonate so well.

    Carter wasnt going to beat anybody.

    Parent

    actually (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Turkana on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:55:16 AM EST
    when reagan first clinched the nomination, a lot of democrats were thrilled because they thought he'd be easy to beat. people remember "voodoo economics" mostly because it proved true. it had no political impact in the election.

    Parent
    Biden Macaca moment (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:21:55 AM EST
    You tube Biden about Indian Americans

    from the comments - (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Josey on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:27:06 AM EST
    "The CNN story on the pick says "Biden brings experience to Obama team" - isn't that nice? The Democrats picked as their number one choice to lead the country, someone they admit is so inexperienced that he needs someone with experience to fool the rest of the nation into voting for him. I guess it's too much to ask of them to nominate someone who has their own experience."

    Parent
    Please stop reminding me of why (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:32:58 AM EST
    I am certain that Joe Biden is deep down an idiot.

    Parent
    iirc - after that segment re Biden & Indians (5.00 / 5) (#59)
    by Josey on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:46:32 AM EST
    Obama jumped in and assured the public Biden wasn't a racist!
    Biden wasn't a threat to Obama during the primary, therefore Biden wasn't a racist.
    But any opponent citing published polling data that the white working class wasn't voting for Obama - was considered a "racist."

    It appears Obama engages in "selective accusations of racism."

    The many times Obama allowed the media and his bots to interpret any Clinton remarks as "racist" - guaranteed this Dem family won't vote for him.


    Parent

    Yeah but (none / 0) (#39)
    by oldpro on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:30:19 AM EST
    "we don't care!"

    How many of them take time out from the 711 to vote, anyway?  Twelve?

    (I'm channeling Biden here).

    Parent

    The ad is expected (5.00 / 6) (#29)
    by esmense on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:24:10 AM EST
    no surprises, nothing to change the dynamic. But, it does represent one more opportunity to repeat the one, most effective argument against Obama; his lack of experience. It is just one small drip in what will be a steady drip, drip, drip of efforts by the McCain side to drive that point home.

    the Race Card, Obama Girls, chants, etc (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Josey on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:32:43 AM EST
    all designed by Obama to distract from his inexperience.


    Parent
    But really displays (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:48:16 AM EST
    immaturity.

    Parent
    heck, if logic had anything (5.00 / 9) (#32)
    by cpinva on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:26:35 AM EST
    to do with it, we'd be getting ready to celebrate sen. clinton's nomination, and her near-certain election.

    But logic never had anything to do with it.

    instead, we get to watch a political train wreck in progress.

    Obama not ready... (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by lentinel on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:28:19 AM EST
    Saying that Obama is not ready for the Presidency is one thing...

    But Biden goes on to say that he would be "honored" to run "with or against McCain". A truly imbecilic statement.

    Maybe Obama had to choose Biden... (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by EL seattle on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:42:25 AM EST
    ... to prevent him from being McCain's running mate?

    And all this time everyones been so concerned that it was Hillary who was going to jump ship.

    ( Btw, I don't think Biden really meant that, but it sure does sound loopy. )

    Parent

    Biden's statements were 4 years apart (none / 0) (#179)
    by andrys on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 03:33:22 AM EST
    His statement about Obama was made in this year's debates,
    but the statement about McCain was made in 2004, the year when he encouraged Kerry to run with McCain and Biden said he had no second choice.

    Parent
    Logic has a partisan bias (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by lambert on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:42:34 AM EST
    But we're all post-partisans now!

    Biden will have lots of gaffes (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by Saul on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:45:15 AM EST
    between now and November

    Is there a poll yet on the Biden pick? (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Saul on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:51:09 AM EST


    Yes. (5.00 / 3) (#91)
    by esmense on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 12:08:36 PM EST
    I don't have a link. But it has been polled and pronounced a wash. Most people (75%) say it makes no difference to their vote. The (small) number of people who say it makes them more likely to vote for Obama is about equal to the (small) number of people who say it makes them less likely.

    But do we really need polls to tell us that? Has anyone seriously thought that there was any candidate -- with the possible exception of Hillary -- who would make a significant difference or change the dynamic (and direction) of Obama's campaign?

    Parent

    Bingo. (5.00 / 5) (#105)
    by blcc on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 12:26:22 PM EST
    There was only one choice who could make a difference.  She was the easy and obvious choice, and he didn't make it.

    And when he loses (and he will) his supporters will STILL try to blame her for it.

    Idiots.

    Parent

    I'm surprised that he didn't (none / 0) (#180)
    by andrys on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 03:45:39 AM EST
    do it based on internal polling when a few polls had him doing about 3 to 8 points better with her and ZERO points gained by any of the other candidates.  A few points is everything in an election.

      I had given him more credit for being pragmatic.

      Also, this has shown that when he, early on, hired Patti Solis-Doyle (who'd been fired by Clinton just before Clinton began her string of primary successes starting in March) PRECISELY to handle the VP Candidate and staffing for that, he was intentionally 'saying' that no, Clinton was not under consideration.

      He does not seem to have normal everyday experience in dealing with normal feelings, and 'empathy' is the one ingredient I've not seen in him.  The words, yes.  The feeling that normally comes with that, no.  Common business sense would have told him you don't hire someone who is a "short list" candidate's fired employee to handle the candidate-to-be, unless you wanted to give a clear and rude statement.  Which he denied of course.  

      It was tone-deaf for someone who says he wants Clinton's supporters but whose surrogates say for him that she is to do all the work to get them while he does little things to humiliate her like the hiring of Doyle to work for the future VP candidate or letting it be known by Roland Martin and several others that senior staff was telling them all along that in no way was she remotely considered.

      Considering he is polling within the margin of error, while other Dems are way ahead of Repubs, he should be aware he needs the votes of more people to see the inside of the White House as Preisdent, but he seems to assume they will just come to him.  As he told fundraisers in the last week, they should not worry, "I will win."

    Parent

    You can say that the ad is weak tea (5.00 / 7) (#78)
    by frankly0 on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:58:47 AM EST
    and no doubt it might be possible to make stronger tea, should that prove necessary for McCain.

    But I don't think that most voters would previously have had any clue that Biden had spoken so negatively of Obama's preparation for the Presidency, or spoken so well of McCain.

    I of course remember Bush Senior's "voodoo economics" comment, and how Reagan got elected nonetheless.

    But the truth is that Bush's comment never lost its traction over the course of Reagan's Presidency, and was quoted to effect for all Reagan's eight years and beyond, into Bush's own Presidency.

    And I don't see the "voodoo economics" comment as having the scope and impact of Biden's general statement that Obama isn't prepared to be President. "Voodoo economics" is simply a narrower statement, easier to compartmentalize and rationalize away.

    The real problem is that when Biden said that he didn't believe that Obama was prepared, it resonates powerfully because, in fact, Obama plainly isn't. That's why he should never have been foisted off on the Democratic Party as a Presidential candidate at this stage. That has always been the most basic problem with Obama's candidacy. No amount of clever excuse-making is going to make it go away. It's just hard to put a fine spin on a very plain and unpleasant truth.

    Sorry (5.00 / 4) (#99)
    by Upstart Crow on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 12:17:13 PM EST
    I don't see how any self-resecting woman can vote for this ticket.  

    Parent
    but but but He's a middle class champion (5.00 / 3) (#102)
    by cawaltz on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 12:22:46 PM EST
    Heh. I think it's hysterical that Obama thinks that middle class champion is a definition that fits Biden. I said it yesterday when BTD was guessing Biden, the Obama team is politically tone deaf.

    Parent
    Another GOP view from Hagel (5.00 / 0) (#88)
    by DemForever on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 12:05:36 PM EST
    "Joe Biden is the right partner for Barack Obama. His many years of distinguished service to America, his seasoned judgment and his vast experience in foreign policy and national security will match up well with the unique challenges of the 21st Century. An Obama-Biden ticket is a very impressive and strong team. Biden's selection is good news for Obama and America."

    Well that makes all the difference then (5.00 / 5) (#92)
    by americanincanada on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 12:11:00 PM EST
    Id the republicans approve then I guess us dems should too.

    I wonder if the repubs are telling us what we want to hear. Nah, they would never do that. /snark

    Parent

    Well... (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by cmugirl on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 12:21:08 PM EST
    if Chuck Hagel approves, then it must be good news for Dems! /snark

    Parent
    If the GOP attacks Obama/Biden (none / 0) (#143)
    by DemForever on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 01:43:07 PM EST
    it shows Biden was the wrong pick

    If they praise Biden, it shows he was the wrong pick

    Got it

    Parent

    "lesser of two evils" theme (5.00 / 10) (#94)
    by S Brennan on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 12:12:26 PM EST
    Is this the Democrats new slogan?

    "just slightly better than a totally bonkers right wing nutjob"

    I think it inspires, anyway, Biden was the best choice of the sad sacks of soap under consideration by Barak.

    So I guess it's a continuation of the "lesser of two evils" theme the Democrats have made into their anthem, it's quite a distance from the hopey changey thing...but hey if anybody notices...heck, just call 'em racist.  No need to think.

    On the other hand it does send a clear message out to the wealthy elite that the Obama/Biden team will put your interest above everybody elses.  And that couldn't hurt contrbutions [legal bribes]. Consider how taxpayers were harmed by Biden's "Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection" bill.

    Sen. Biden (D - Delaware) http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/3/6/63144/06015
    The "Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection" in this bill occurs for Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 bankruptcies - individual avenues of bankruptcy.  Conspicuous in absence, evidently not needing reform, are Chapter 11 bankruptcies.
    Want to guess what Chapter 11 covers?

    You guessed it.  Chapter 11 is bankruptcy for businesses:

    Chapter 7 Bankruptcy - The most common type of bankruptcy proceeding. It is a liquidation type of proceeding (as opposed to a reorganization proceeding). All of the debtor's assets, with the exception of "exempt" property, will be sold, and the proceeds will be used to pay their debts. If the proceeds are not enough to pay off all the debts, unpaid amounts on "dischargeable debts" will be discharged.

    Chapter 13 Bankruptcy - Known as reorganization bankruptcy. Chapter 13 bankruptcy is filed by individuals who want to pay off their debts over a period of three to five years. This type of  bankruptcy appeals to individuals who have non-exempt property  that they want to keep. It is also only an option for individuals who have predictable income and whose income is  sufficient to pay their reasonable expenses with some amount  left over to pay off their debts.

    Chapter 11 Bankruptcy - Typically used for business bankruptcies and restructuring. It is not commonly used by individual consumers since it is far more complex and expensive to pursue. It allows businesses to reorganize themselves, giving them an opportunity to restructure debt and get out from under certain burdensome leases and contracts. Typically a business is allowed to continue to operate while it is in Chapter 11, although it does so under the supervision of the Bankruptcy Court and its appointees.
    It seems evident that the only people the Republican crafters of this bill think are "Abusive" of the bankruptcy laws are individuals, and the only people needing "Protection" are the corporations.You have now gotten a glimpse into the next 2 years (at least) of what will pass for legislation in the Senate and the House. Orwell would be proud of the naming: Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005.

    No protection for the homes of the elderly and the medically infirm -- but by God, we made sure those exemptions for protected assets stayed firm. No protection for employees' earnings, pensions and retirement savings when an employer takes refuge in bankruptcy - but by God, we're gonna protect those credit card companies from too many intrusive rules that demand they properly inform their consumers of the small-print deal with the devil they've just made on that high-interest, high-limit, low-minimum-payment credit card.

    Outrageous.

    Tags: bankruptcy bill, Vichy Democrats, Joe Biden, mbna, Betrayal

    thanks for reminding me. (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by hellothere on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 12:16:29 PM EST


    Parent
    Biden and Obama are in tune there (none / 0) (#181)
    by andrys on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 03:53:41 AM EST
    Obama plays both sides of that fence.  On the amendment to the bill, he voted against any capping of consumer credit card interest.  

      When Clinton voted for the capping of consumer credit interest rates at 30%, Obama voted AGAINST it.  As a result, Mike Williams of the Bond Market Association, which represents Wall Street firms, said that

    "Some assumed he would just go along with consumer advocates, but he voted with us on several points.  He understood the issue.  He wasn't closed-minded.  A lot of people found that very refreshing."

     

    Parent

    I just saw this article from 2004 on DK where (5.00 / 4) (#106)
    by Teresa on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 12:28:40 PM EST
    Biden endorses McCain for Kerry VP.

    McCain, of Arizona, ''categorically" ruled out standing with Kerry, but Biden, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said he had no second choice.

    ''I'm sticking with McCain," Biden said.

    ''I think John McCain would be a great candidate for vice president," Biden, from Delaware, said on NBC's ''Meet the Press," where the two senators appeared together to take questions on Iraq and other subjects.

    What a goober.

    Slightly OT: Obama Biden anagrams. (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by RonK Seattle on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 01:23:24 PM EST
    Amoeba Bind
    Nabob Media
    A Dean Bimbo
    Mania Do Ebb
    Bone Bad Aim
    Bad Name Bio
    Boa In Bed, Ma
    Idea Man Bob
    A Bad Bi Omen
    Dean Bomb, Ai
    No Maid, Babe
    No Dame, Babi
    Bad Ion Beam
    A Dean Mob Bi
    Om, I Be A Band
    Bambi'd Aeon
    Maid BO Bane
    I, BO, Ban Dame
    Bad Anime, BO
    BO Abide Man
    Oops, forgot 'BO Ambien Ad' (none / 0) (#135)
    by RonK Seattle on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 01:30:28 PM EST


    Parent
    Love 'BO Abide Man'; describes Biden to a tee (none / 0) (#159)
    by Ellie on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 02:16:56 PM EST
    Add me to the doubters that Biden's there to "spar" with Obama.

    Opening up a mighty, daily can of kiss-ass, maybe. (Or pushing his shoulder gently and say, "Ohhhhh, yoooouuu! when The One delivers a plodding witticism?)

    Meh, my ringer's off till after I vote.

    Parent

    She can't be (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by tek on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 01:44:47 PM EST
    VP because she said bad things about Obama?  How about she can't be the nominee because she "voted for war?"  Obama's people all insisted they could never vote for any person who voted YES on the Iraq War Resolution, so will they stay at home in November?

    What a crock.

    I guess they're down to (none / 0) (#162)
    by Valhalla on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 02:19:22 PM EST
    "Biden's not married to Bill Clinton."

    Yeah, I'm hopin' for change, alright.

    Parent

    Dude (3.66 / 3) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:32:16 AM EST
    Who cares about ratings here?

    They mean nothing.

    And you are off topic.

    Biden was constantly name dropping (none / 0) (#6)
    by robrecht on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:04:34 AM EST
    and harping on his experience in his campaign for president.  His comment about Obama wasn't really all that bad, said he thought Obama could be ready to be president.  More damaging is the clever editing and Obama's nonreaction reaction, with his characteristic upward look.  Props to the McCain team in getting this ad out so quickly.  He's got some good ads it seems.  Stronger candidate than I would have expected a couple of months ago.

    I heard last night that after Biden (none / 0) (#11)
    by zfran on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:08:17 AM EST
    made the comment about he's clean, etc. he apologized for it the next day, he and Obama talked about it and became friends. Also, Sen. Lugar might have been an early influence on Obama's pick. It was reported when asked who Lugar thought the pick should be, he just said Biden.

    Parent
    I'm dying laughing (none / 0) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:06:26 AM EST
    I don't know why either.  I'm not thrilled that Obama is the Dem pick nor am I thrilled with Biden but this commercial just struck me as DOPEY, the dramatic voice, it is hysterical....like we are talking about nukes or AIDS or something.  And McCain's face staring out the window at the dawning of a new day at the very end...........I have to watch it again, it's better than SNL this morning.  I can't wait for John Stewart to get a hold of this.  I'm having playground flashbacks.

    Okay, I watched it again for particulars (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:14:34 AM EST
    Biden totally covered his bases.  He said he thought Obama could be ready but that at this time he wasn't.......well, that months ago people!  He also said that he would be honored to run with or against John McCain and guess what?  He's running against him.  Stupid ad

    Parent
    It still props up McCain. Biden has been (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by zfran on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:27:25 AM EST
    complimentary before to McCain. They've worked together a long time.

    Parent
    Being able to be bipartisan and get things (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:31:53 AM EST
    done is not necessarily a bad thing.  Being honored to work with, run with or against a dude who didn't have coffee for 5 1/2 yrs while earning his military medals and can now truly appreciate a Starbucks is not a bad thing.

    Parent
    If you're running as the man who understands the (none / 0) (#49)
    by Christy1947 on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:41:11 AM EST
    working class, who do NOT do Starbucks cappucino. All coffee is not created equal.

    Parent
    This latte thing is stupe too (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:48:53 AM EST
    who hasn't had a Starbucks?  Even my dad has had a Starbucks. I bought him one when they put one in the Safeway.  He passed out after discovering how much it cost but he drank it and pronounced it good.  I make my own latte at home with a $25 Mr Coffee expresso maker and a $10 coffee grinder.  I grew up working class which means that I'm a caffeine addict.  I drank pressed coffee before there was a Starbucks, now that was a precious find.  Puerto Rico serves the best friggin kickin coffee at all coffee locations by the way, not Starbucks.

    Parent
    Wow! (5.00 / 2) (#173)
    by Nan on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 04:44:16 PM EST
    "well, that months ago people!"

    In eight months Obama went from "not ready" to "ready"?

    What did he do to become ready? Apart from giving speeches?

    This is like people saying his one week world tour gave him "foreign policy credentials".

    Parent

    Using This Standard (none / 0) (#184)
    by daring grace on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:17:12 AM EST
    how many former opponents in the primaries could be considered for VP?  Very few. You'd have to say, for example, that Clinton could never be in the running with all the similar (and stronger) comments she and her campaign made about Obama's credentials for CinC. Maybe that's one reason she was not.

    Oh, what fun if McCain chooses Romney!

    Parent

    I think its a great ad for McCain (none / 0) (#10)
    by Exeter on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:08:09 AM EST
    Biden nailed it right on the head. Does anyone know what the rest of what Biden says when he says "the country would be better off..."?  That clumsy cut-off makes it seem like they are editing out what he just said.

    Headlines (none / 0) (#68)
    by BarnBabe on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:50:55 AM EST
    On CNN they have a picture of Biden that looks like he is saying, "Come on, you want a piece of me".

    On Yahoo:McCain's choice of running mate still a mystery. Nothing about Obama in top headlines.

    Back over to CNN. "McCain makes call to Biden."
    "Is Biden the right choice?" "Inmate sends McCain threatening letter."And my favorite, "McCain's roach wins in a landslide." I don't even want to open that story.  

    Saturday, the day when people stay in and watch television.
     

    actually (3.00 / 2) (#83)
    by AlSmith on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 12:03:46 PM EST

    3am is the time to execute criminals.

    I wonder if there is any worse time for the text announcement?

    Plus all those kids who through their phone against the wall when it went off when they were sleeping now will never get called by pollsters.

    Also, has it now become obvious that Obama's text plan never would work? People were supposed to feel special because they were "the first to know". If you look at dKos or DU, the messages came in over hours and people wonder why they havent received theirs while others have.

    Parent

    The text message bungle (none / 0) (#115)
    by tree on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 12:51:50 PM EST
    shows that the Obama campaign isn't any better at keep its promises on process  than it is at keeping its promises on policy.  Its failing on both.

    Parent
    Texting takes hours (none / 0) (#132)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 01:28:07 PM EST
    From what I understand, sending out that many text messages is not like email and it takes hours to do.  There was no way everybody was going to find out at the same time.

    So the reason for doing it in the middle of the night was so that most of the recipients would get it at the same time-- ie, when they got up in the morning and checked their phones.

    Parent

    so it was a bad plan (none / 0) (#171)
    by AlSmith on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 04:19:05 PM EST

    so the plan never made sense then

    Parent
    Not for the announcement, no (5.00 / 2) (#174)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 06:37:15 PM EST
    it didn't make sense.  But they got what they wanted, which was thousands and thousands of numbers of mostly young voters to keep bombarding with Obama text messages.

    Parent
    And so it would be The 3am Call (none / 0) (#182)
    by andrys on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 03:59:36 AM EST


    Parent
    weak ad, totally agree (none / 0) (#69)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:50:59 AM EST
    because there will be similar ads with Romney, and the counters are so easily. Very silly and boring and really has no effect in the end. I think the better approach, well, other than talking about issues, is to go after the candidates problems. Things like this video don't do it. But then, we've never had a campaign about issues.

    I think the negatives of both teams (for their corresponding constituents) are big enough and can be attacked. Ah, this is going to be fun.... not.

    McCain will get traction from (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by zfran on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:58:55 AM EST
    his ad at a time when Obama wants all the attention. Do you believe that when it's time for the repub. to convene the Obama campaign will sit idly by and just let McCain have all the coverage for a week?

    Parent
    I would not put on my eggs (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by americanincanada on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 12:04:31 PM EST
    on a Romney pick. McCain has the freedom now to make a more bold choice. It may still be Romney but I don't count out a dark horse or a woman.

    Parent
    I think McCain's choice (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by madamab on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 12:11:46 PM EST
    will be very indicative of what voting bloc he thinks he needs.

    He's done a lot to court PUMAs, but will he go NeoCon (Lieberman), TheoCon (Romney) or Moderate (Tom Ridge)?

    I guess we'll find out soon.

    Parent

    He might pick (none / 0) (#138)
    by Grace on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 01:34:27 PM EST
    Meg Whitman.  She'd be strong on economics but she isn't a politician.  

    Parent
    that's true. i checked in on the (none / 0) (#96)
    by hellothere on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 12:15:24 PM EST
    repub blogs this morning. they are thrilled with biden. i hear comments about romney and is it palin in alaska. i think i got her name right.

    Parent
    Palin is the dark horse (5.00 / 4) (#109)
    by americanincanada on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 12:36:13 PM EST
    I don't agree with her stands on many issues but I admire her spunk, fight against corroption in her own party and her personal story.

    A pick of her could blow Obama's personal narrative right out of the water.

    Parent

    Yeah, I like Palin's bio too (none / 0) (#130)
    by Valhalla on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 01:19:15 PM EST
    I think she could be real trouble for the Democrats in terms of luring Indies, moderate Republicans who might be on the fence, and a number of the more (politically) moderate Clinton supporters who are sitting on the Undecideds/Other ottoman right now.

    I don't agree with all her policy positions, but since both parties seem to be running their campaigns entirely on personality anyway, she'd be a kick in the wherevers to Dems.

    Parent

    is she being vetted? (none / 0) (#168)
    by hellothere on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 03:08:39 PM EST
    i see alaska as a real future for economic development, so maybe a dark horse should be considered. if i were mccain i'd list some possible cabinet positions to thrill the hearts of the conservative base.

    Parent
    McCain needs his conservative base and (none / 0) (#183)
    by andrys on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 04:01:37 AM EST
    his crowd does not think the choice of a woman would make him seem less 'liberal' to them.

    They already think him 'too soft'...


    Parent

    Do you think they'll run Biden on his bio (none / 0) (#112)
    by cmugirl on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 12:45:31 PM EST
    The whole tragedy about losing his first wife and daughter in a car wreck, his brain surgery, etc?

    Ambien (none / 0) (#124)
    by waldenpond on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 01:13:52 PM EST
    Biden's age softens the snipes at McCain for his age.  Also, the attacks against McCain for gaffes he makes being attributed to his age and taking Ambien will make Biden open to attacks for his gaffes based on his surgery.

    I expect to see surrogates making inflammatory statements that make the primary look mild... and they won't be banished from the campaigns this time.

    Parent

    CreamCity (none / 0) (#117)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 01:01:23 PM EST
    Could you refer me to more information about Biden and the Anita Hill 'trial' (that's what I call it, she was 'convicted' of lying by Biden and his ilk).

    Google doesn't really seem to be my "friend" in all of this.

    I would have watched the hearings at the time, but I was in transition and working two jobs.

    Thanks.

    Ask and you shall receive (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by waldenpond on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 01:42:29 PM EST
    I used 'Biden attacks Anita Hill' and got this.  Biden is criticized for not stopping this and here's clueless joe view.

    I typed in 'biden refused to defend Anita Hill'  and got hearing transcripts.  Biden and Thomas.  Some felt Biden was not open to having Anita Hill testify.

    Parent

    Barbara Boxer (none / 0) (#169)
    by eleanora on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 03:29:17 PM EST
    and Dianne Feinstein made Biden take Hill seriously. I will always love them both for that.

    Parent
    Warning - it isn't pretty (none / 0) (#134)
    by Dr Molly on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 01:29:44 PM EST


    Parent
    They will run this ad 'til election day (none / 0) (#141)
    by Dadler on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 01:41:09 PM EST
    And it will work on those undecided voters.  How could it not?  Good Lord, Obama has just teed the ball up for McCain.  Change?  Change THIS, you dupes.

    Most of them are run of the mill - except one (none / 0) (#156)
    by Notyoursweetie 0 on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 02:02:28 PM EST
    When Biden compliments McCain and says "I'd be proud to run with him or against him" - that's beyond the stuff politicians usually say. It's craven. It's covering all bases.

    The Previous Statements Gambit | 174 comments (174 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment