home

Late Night: Soul Man with the Blues Brothers

John McCain today on Fox News called Sarah Palin his soul-mate.

Can you honestly say that Sarah Palin is the best person to put a heartbeat away from the presidency?

MCCAIN: Oh, yes. She’s a — she’s a partner and a soul-mate....

Enjoy. This is an open thread, all comment rules apply.

< The Republican View of the Economy | Palin's Pastors >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Watching US Open Men's finals on TV (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by andgarden on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:36:32 PM EST
    and then getting drinks with people who had tickets. . .

    I echo this (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by andgarden on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:37:06 PM EST


    A reporter is staying overnight for a NY paper (none / 0) (#104)
    by andrys on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 04:20:36 AM EST
    Interesting blog descriptions and photos, taken by her.

    "GUSTAV: Fear and Loathing in New Orleans"

      She's a net-friend and had reported on Katrina last time too.  Also did the Kosovo series for them in '99.  Writes in a very natural style, with more personality than usual.

      The winds are about 125 mph tonight and she'll be reporting on the scene tomorrow.  It has calmed down to a Category 3 now but I would not want to be in it, and over 2 million have been evacuated.

    Parent

    We will probably get some of the feeder bands (none / 0) (#122)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 07:20:34 AM EST
    but not many looking at the radar. It is hard to be in the region with a son down and not able to go help for a day or two after we are left with  the final result.  Everybody seems a lot more ready though this season.  When we were in Birmingham we were told that if the path shifted and began to center more on Pensacola that we would be staying in Birmingham because they were making interstate 65 all one way headed North.  We got home last night though and I'm very grateful, hospitals sort of stink in a nurturing the soul sort of way. Even when we all have a respectable form of healthcare coverage not many of us are beating the doors down trying to get in.

    Parent
    I could be wrong but I don't think (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by bjorn on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:37:58 PM EST
    McCain is being cynical in his pick or his comments.  I think he has romanticized the whole "reformer" thing and that is why he feels a connection with Palin.  Actually, I am not sure which one is worse, the cynical take or the romanticized one.  Ultimately, we probably won't know for at least several weeks how Palin is going to hold up.  Then we will see if he stills sees her as a soul mate or the reason his candidacy could tank.

    I also could be wrong (5.00 / 0) (#100)
    by Pianobuff on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 01:54:07 AM EST
    but am in complete agreement with you.  The "maverick" image means more to McCain on a personal level than a political level.  Whether one believes he is a maverick or not, he certainly does.  While revering Reagan, in various places (sorry, no links available - this was a while back), I had read that McCain is most emotionally connected with TR.

    Only time will tell whether or not this was a bad pick, but I, for one, give him credit for making an authentic pick.

    Parent

    CNN Poll: Obama 1 pt bounce from Convention (5.00 / 0) (#7)
    by Dan the Man on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:46:28 PM EST
    Link

    Obama 49, McCain 48 (8/23-24: Obama 47, McCain 47)

    Very few undecideds left (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by andgarden on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:52:57 PM EST
    This is going to be a close election, just like the last two.

    Parent
    this is surprising (none / 0) (#10)
    by bjorn on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:50:58 PM EST
    I thought the daily gallup was showing an 8 point lead

    Parent
    polls are useless this year (none / 0) (#19)
    by ChuckieTomato on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:59:34 PM EST
    130-135 million people will be voting. There is no way polls will be accurate.

    Parent
    Um, polling is generally ok, no matter the (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by andgarden on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:01:42 PM EST
    turnout.

    Parent
    Yes, you're right (none / 0) (#24)
    by ChuckieTomato on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:05:55 PM EST
    Dewey defeats Truman.

    I could go on...

    Parent

    good point... (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Chisoxy on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 01:14:39 AM EST
    ..since that happens every election, right?

    Parent
    Meh (none / 0) (#29)
    by andgarden on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:14:28 PM EST
    disagree with what? (5.00 / 0) (#36)
    by ChuckieTomato on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:36:29 PM EST
    All the times the polls have been wrong? That was the subject.

    I think you're trying to say the same thing that I am. There is no way to accurately poll this year because of all the variables. If you don't think turnout (record low or record high) can make the polls look dumb, then I can give you some examples. Think 2008 New Hampshire primary.

    And if you think people always vote their party affiliation, then I also have many examples to disprove that.

    Parent

    Bad reasoning (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Valhalla on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:44:50 AM EST
    Just because sometimes polls are wrong, does not mean that at all times all polls are wrong.  (just how many polling outfits were there for Dewey v Truman, anyway?).

    What Dalton is saying, as I understand it, is that while there are some wild variables this year, there are also some variables that don't really change that much, even during campaigns that have some significant components.

    And there are some mathematical limits based on reasonable assumptions that can be made.

    Plus, a reasoned skepticism should be applied to all polls, anyway.

    Parent

    Looks like McCain got a bounce too (none / 0) (#12)
    by ChuckieTomato on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:52:08 PM EST
    I never trust polls

    Parent
    Looking at ALL the polls gives a better idea (none / 0) (#105)
    by andrys on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 04:45:42 AM EST
    since it makes no sense to look at only one but that's done on the tv 'news' channels!

     Normally, I look at RCP's excellent page of round-ups, with much detail upon clicking this line or that.

     They don't include yesterday's Zogby poll which has it at McCain/Palin: 47 and Obama/Biden: 45 (or a 'dead heat').

      Palin was seen by polled as helping McCain: 52%
      Biden was seen by polled as helping Obama: 43%

     and states that:

    Republican John McCain's surprise announcement Friday of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate - some 16 hours after Democrat Barack Obama's historic speech accepting his party's presidential nomination -  has possibly stunted any Obama convention bump, the latest Zogby Interactive flash poll of the race shows.

      He adds
    "Palin is not to be underestimated. Her real strength is that she is authentic, a real mom, an outdoors person, a small town mayor . . . She is also a reformer."

    "A very important demographic in this election is going to be the politically independent woman, 15% of whom in our latest survey are undecided."

    "In the final analysis, this election will be about Obama vs. McCain. Obama has staked out ground as the new JFK - a new generation, literally and figuratively, a new face of America to the world, a man who can cross lines and work with both sides. But McCain is the modern day Harry Truman - with lots of DC experience, he knows what is wrong and dysfunctional with Washington and how to fix it, and he has chosen a running mate who is about as far away from Washington as he could find."

    Gallup had Obama up 8 yesterday, 6 today in their heads-to-heads match (now that there are two heads/ticket).

    Rasmussen stayed at Obama up 3 for the last two days, which is much better than the pre-convention lead by McCain for one day :-)

    Parent

    waiting on SUSA (none / 0) (#118)
    by Fabian on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 06:35:58 AM EST
    They will probably have a poll out this week, but have no new data just yet.

    Not keen on national polls, mostly because what they don't tell you is more important than what they do.

    Now if I could only fast forward two weeks from now to see a post DNC, post RNC, post Gustav and post Hannah SUSA poll.  

    Parent

    Comment by Key deleted (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:49:10 PM EST
    One more attempt to smear Palin through personal attacks and rumors and you'll be banned. I've warned all day to get off that topic.

    Thank you Jeralyn. (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by lilburro on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:53:10 PM EST
    Unfortunately someone just reposted the image below.  I guess it's "PC" to think Sarah Palin's pregnancy and family are none of our business.  

    Parent
    yes, jtaylor will also be banned (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:55:33 PM EST
    if he tries posting that smear again

    Parent
    My apologies... (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Key on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:13:48 PM EST
    My apologies...

    I didn't realize this was a rumor, as the matter had been reported in several news papers at the time.  (I won't provide links to the stories out of fear that you'll ban me for them.)

    I also didn't realize that what I had posted was a personal attack.  Rather, I thought my post was on whether or not the person in question has sound judgment.

    I won't post again on the topic.

    Parent

    thank you (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:14:42 PM EST
    tbat is appreciated.

    Parent
    the media sounds disappointed (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:04:19 PM EST
    the storm is weakening and getting further from New Orleans.

    Oh please (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by eleanora on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:06:17 PM EST
    please, please, let it pass those poor people and dissipate out at sea.

    Parent
    GREAT news! (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by andrys on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 04:50:11 AM EST
    Ugh (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by andgarden on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:15:31 PM EST
    Sounds like a pretty good reason not to watch TV news.

    Parent
    It's still going to hit somewhere. I guess (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Teresa on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:21:11 PM EST
    it won't be a fairly large city, but it's still a huge storm.

    Didn't Katrina move away too? Wasn't it the water that did it?

    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by SueBonnetSue on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:05:59 AM EST
    It was very much the same.  Katrina did not hit New Orleans dead center and it was 'only'  a cat 3 when it hit.  They kept saying then that they had 'dodge a bullet'  until the levies broke and flooded the city.  Gustav seems similar, I fear.  At least the city is much better prepared this time and most people now know they must leave.   They seem to be doing a good job at getting people out.  I hope, I hope.  

    Parent
    It sounds like they did a better job (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by Valhalla on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:49:21 AM EST
    of organizing transportation for folks in need of it to get away.  Although I couldn't find anything that said where they were being taken, just that it didn't sound like a repeat of that horrible Superdome scene last time.

    If the media's disappointed, I say, couldn't happen to a more deserving bunch of folks!

    Parent

    I did read that the governor had (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by andrys on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 04:51:57 AM EST
    contracted for enough buses but they did not meet contract promises and so he had to also use school buses...

    But they seem to have gotten 95% of the population out.  The rest seem set on a staying.

    Parent

    Prior to Katrina (none / 0) (#119)
    by Fabian on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 06:47:28 AM EST
    You couldn't convince a lot of people to evacuate even if you did provide buses.  They just weren't scared enough.  Been there, done that, got the t-shirt mentality.  Why go through all the hassle of leaving when you could hunker down in familiar surroundings?

    Post Katrina - people are scared.  They don't want to be huddled on the overpass, or sitting on their roof or stuck in a hotel with no power.  There was precious little good that came out of Katrina, but a profound respect for the forces of nature was one.

    Oh, a tremendous backlash against elected officials - that was good.  Amazing how responsive the authorities are this time.  Better to be the knight in shining armor than ridden out of town on a rail.

    Parent

    There's nothing they love more than (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Anne on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:47:51 PM EST
    disaster, and you can almost see the gleam in their eyes and the beginning of drool at the corners of their mouths at what horrors await.

    It's repulsive.

    Thoughts and prayers to all in the affected areas; stay safe.

    Parent

    Dirty Laundry (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by txpolitico67 on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:34:03 AM EST
    Don Henley summed it up best back in 1982:

    I make my living off the evening news
    Just give me something-something I can use
    People love it when you lose,
    They love dirty laundry

    We got the bubble-headed-bleach-blonde
    who comes on at five
    She can tell you bout the
    plane crash with a gleam
    In her eye
    Its interesting when people die-
    Give us dirty laundry

    Six evacuation centers opened up here in Fort Worth.  4500 evacuees are enroute.  Remnants of Gustav are supposed to arrive here Thur.  Last time remnants made it up this far was Hurricane Alicia...about 10 died and LOTS of flooding.

    Let's hope the waters cool and Gustav loses strength.

    Parent

    The Late George Carlin ... (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 06:18:15 AM EST
    used to say that if the end of world comes, he hopes it begins a few time zones away so he could watch the reports on cable news for a few hours before it hits him.

    ;)

    Parent

    The bad part about it (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Grace on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 01:55:10 AM EST
    is that, eventually, if more hurricanes are less than Category 4, people will stop evacuating for them.  They'll choose to ride them out.  Then another Katrina or Camille or Andrew will hit and a lot of people will die.  

    Unfortunately, they can't accurately predict either the strength (when it hits land) or the course of a hurricane yet.  

    The other problem is that it is a real hassle to evacuate:  traffic on the roads, pets, leaving your house, etc.  That's why most people will sit through anything under a Cat 3 or 4 unless they live directly on the beach or in a flood zone.    

    Parent

    VP has NEVER been "best person" (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Exeter on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:35:28 PM EST
    Let's take a little walk down memory lane--in the last 25 years there have been three vice presidential candidates with similar or weaker resumes, compared to Palin:

    2004 VPs were John Edwards and Dick Cheney. Cheney has a long resume, but Edwards? Only 2/3 of one Senate term under his belt.

    1992 Gore and Quayle  -- Quayle was... well, Quayle.

    1984 Ferraro and Bush I -- Ferraro was an assistant DA for four years and a U.S. Rep. for six years-- pretty thin resume.

    Went to Taste of Colorado today (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by echinopsia on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:38:53 PM EST
    Sat through a few cooking demos, sampled some great food, saw a Peter Noone and Herman's Hermits concert. Maude, that man is talented. And funny. It made me feel 16 again.

    It was a perfect Colorado summer day - hot, sunny and dry, with a brief afternoon shower and a gorgeous sunset.

    I have three questions:
    Why do people attend lectures/demos and talk loudly on their cells phones throughout instead of listening?
    Why do people go to concerts and sing along with every word - badly? (Yes, I'm very impressed that you know all the lyrics. So so I. STFU, I didn't come to hear you.)
    Why do people stand in the middle of walkways?

    Otherwise, had a great time watching Denverites reclaim their city. Especially nice because the city still looks great after the convention and it's interesting to look around and try to imagine seeing it for the first time. I'll bet people were impressed.

    I always sing along wiith every word (none / 0) (#55)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:31:19 AM EST
    it's part of the fun. And I have a bad voice but usually everyone around me is singing too. If you just want to see and hear the group, why not get the dvd? Going to a concert is a communal experience. Singing is very cathartic.

    Parent
    I LOVE (none / 0) (#60)
    by txpolitico67 on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:36:15 AM EST
    having a few cocktails here with friends at home, cranking up my 70s playlist on my iPod and singing as LOUD as possible.

    Barry Manilow and James Taylor are my favorites to sing to because I know all the words to most of their songs and their voices are well within my range.


    Parent

    It's one thing to sing along to your iPod (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by echinopsia on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:51:57 AM EST
    it's completely another to go to a concert and sing along to every single damn song.

    I went to a Heart concert some years ago and some goofball behind me sang along so loudly (and off-key) that I couldn't hear the band. It was a horrible experience and he would not shut up. And I couldn't move away. So basically a concert I paid for and was prepared to enjoy was torture. Bleah. I didn't go to another concert for years,

    The thing is, given Peter Noone and the crowd, there were plenty of times we were invited to sing along, and that was fun. "Henery the 8th" with parts of the crowd competing and call and respond? Fun and hilarious.

    But jeebus - not every damn song.

    Parent

    Oh, and why not get the DVD? (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by echinopsia on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:56:29 AM EST
    Because I want to enjoy a live show - duh - without having to listen to non-performers ruining it by drowning it out.

    If people did this at the opera, at the theater by saying every line, at the movies likewise, by humming along at the symphony, they'd be forcibly removed. And rightly so.

    Parent

    ok, you win, it's wrong (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 01:16:15 AM EST
    just don't hit me if you see me at a concert singing. (Since we live in the same town.)

    Parent
    At least now you know (none / 0) (#126)
    by echinopsia on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 10:48:44 AM EST
    how all the non-singing concertgoers surrounding you feel about it.

    Parent
    Actually, sometimes people do (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 01:22:50 AM EST
    hum along if the opera is, say, Carmen or La Boheme.  I'm with you--annoying.

    Parent
    I accidentally did that (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 01:30:07 AM EST
    I was in Vienna at the opera house, and wasn't thinking and started humming along to a bit of Mozart. Until I noticed a bunch of Austrians turning and looking at me. There's something very unsettling about a bunch of Austrians giving you a stern look.

    Parent
    I can envision that scene. (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 01:44:56 AM EST
    My daughter and I benefitted from a couple young women being so intimidated by the season ticket holders at the Met that the women left at intermission and we got their seats.  I asked why they were leaving and they sd. because they had been laughing and people were giving them the evil eye.  The opera, Lady Macbeth of Minsk, is a satire.

    Parent
    At opera prices (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by andrys on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 04:58:34 AM EST
    and with the rare chance to hear these people without microphones, it's a no-no.

      But even in standing room, where're all practically pushed up against one another, it's especially not good.

      I remember an aria (dramatic scene too) by Beverly Sills, and this woman was humming along, at a volume level 10 times what I could hear from Sills, so I said, "Um, I paid to hear Sills."

      :-)  

    Parent

    I now love youtube (none / 0) (#120)
    by Fabian on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 06:53:31 AM EST
    It's not the same as a live concert, but there's an amazing array of live performances out there.  Plus the time travel effect - I saw Leonard Cohen perform in Europe accompanied by a violin and a balalaika in the 1970s.  Plus watching performances from TV shows.

    And watching performances by artists I would never give a dime to.  Heh.

    Parent

    Washington Post (Dan Balz) (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Anne on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:54:52 PM EST
    had a lengthy article on the Palin selection process that was illuminating; takes a bit of the juice out of the "she was never vetted" story.

    Far from being a last-minute tactical move or a second choice when better known alternatives were eliminated, Palin was very much in McCain's thinking from the beginning of the selection process, according to McCain's advisers. The 44-year-old governor made every cut as the first list of candidates assembled last spring was slowly winnowed. The more McCain learned about her, the more attracted he was to her as someone who shared his maverick, anti-establishment instincts.

    "He looked at her like a kindred spirit," said one close adviser, who declined to be identified in order to speak more freely. "Someone who wasn't afraid to take tough positions."

    Rick Davis, McCain's campaign manager and the person at the point of the vice presidential process, said there was no abrupt change of course in the final hours. Nor, he said, was Palin selected without having gone through the full vetting process that was done for other finalists. That process included reviews of financial and other personal data, an FBI background check and considerable discussion among the handful of McCain advisers involved in the deliberations.

    "Nobody was vetted less or more than anyone in the final stages, and John had access to all that information and made the decision," Davis said. "It's really not much more complicated than that."

    In part to blunt criticism that McCain had pulled a last-minute switch and turned to Palin without all the information he may have needed to make a decision, some of those advisers shared details yesterday about the steps that led to McCain's choice, mostly on a not-for-attribution basis.

    [Not shilling, not promoting - just informing]


    That's the first thing I thought, (5.00 / 0) (#46)
    by SueBonnetSue on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:11:11 AM EST
    This woman is exactly like McCain!  No wonder he likes her.  

    I can't imagine why anyone would think that she wasn't vetted.  McCain's been a pol too long to take on someone who hadn't been vetted.  

    Parent

    There's been a Draft Sarah Palin VP movement (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:13:13 AM EST
    since February/07. LINK if you wish. So, McCain didn't just find her in the crack of his club chair.

    It's another instance of not knowing what the opposition has been doing - in plain view.

    Parent

    Everytime online sites listed possible VPs (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by andrys on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 05:07:22 AM EST
    She was on the list as an intriguing one and a long shot, because of the troopergate stuff.  Even MSNBC's Maddow said if that boy WAS tasered (that's been confirmed), then she would go throttle the guy herself  :-)

     No matter what the legal aspects, since the fired guy (Moneghan?) said she had never used his name in emails he got and never gave him directions herself to fire him, they thought that public perception would not be keen to penalize her.  The human realities thing, not saying that's right.

     I had the impression she'd never be picked though!
    Wrong again!

    Parent

    A visit by "deep throat" (none / 0) (#98)
    by Pianobuff on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 01:46:46 AM EST
    Go here.

    Do a find on "drew said".

    Look at the time and date on the post.  Interesting, isn't it?

    Now... start from the oldest page and keep looking at the progress of Drew's comments over time.

    Vetting is brought up.

    Parent

    For the record... (2.00 / 0) (#49)
    by CoralGables on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:16:02 AM EST
    There isn't one thing in that article you post that verifies she was vetted at all. She may have been, she may not have been, but the word of advisers is nothing more than fluff as fact.

    Parent
    The only information that she wasn't vetted (5.00 / 0) (#72)
    by Valhalla on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:55:49 AM EST
    was from speculation and some anonymous campaign 'advisors'.

    People have been speculating about Palin for months; I really doubt the McCain campaign, which has plenty of people who've been through other campaigns on it, were just like 'whatever' about it.

    All the potential VP picks on both sides had pros and cons.  The fact that Palin has some cons (from a vetting point of view) is hardly evidence of an absence of vetting, esp. since nothing has been turned up so far that wasn't publicly reported for months.  (I don't count various DKos revelations about her witch-named children, of course).

    Parent

    So if Rick Davis is not to be believed (5.00 / 0) (#82)
    by Joan in VA on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 01:06:19 AM EST
    then it follows that David Axelrod is not to be believed. So who can speak for a campaign and be believed? What would be verification of vetting anyway?

    Parent
    Probably (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by CoralGables on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 01:13:31 AM EST
    No one. But it doesn't matter because the picks are made and the media will do their own vetting process. All the talk about what kind of vetting process went on in advance is little more than spin from both sides.

    Parent
    CoralGables, you mean Davis might be lying? (none / 0) (#111)
    by andrys on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 05:15:26 AM EST
    Rick Davis said
    Nor, he said, was Palin selected without having gone through the full vetting process that was done for other finalists. That process included reviews of financial and other personal data, an FBI background check and considerable discussion among the handful of McCain advisers involved in the deliberations.

      You want other people to confirm what he said ??

    Parent

    What I am saying (none / 0) (#125)
    by CoralGables on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 08:49:43 AM EST
    Rick Davis did his job. If Palin was fully vetted or if they haphazardly pulled her name out of a hat, the campaign statement would have been exactly the same. Davis is paid to do a job and his statement wouldn't have changed regardless of the circumstances leading up to it.

    He could be telling the truth, he could be lying. All I can tell you for sure is if he said anything different he wouldn't have a job today.

    Parent

    I find it odd not to see any comments (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:04:01 AM EST
    that discuss Gustav within the context of the climate crisis; and nobody seems to be talking about the fact that the Dems haven't made this a campaign issue.

    I've tried to raise the question a couple of times and it just lays there like a lox.

    However, Robot Porter made a couple of good comments, and a new guy(?), named Lyle, denies that global warming is man-made.

    Have I missed anything?

    It is odd that ... (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 06:03:17 AM EST
    more of an issue hasn't been made of this.  First, because this is an issue a lot of independents care about.  Second, because McCain believes in the science but his policy provisions are hypocritical.

    For example although both Obama and McCain support a "cap and trade" system.  McCain would make broad allocations to our biggest polluters, while Obama would offer them through auction.

    In short, McCain grants the biggest polluters the right to continue to pollute, but the cap is lowered each year.

    While Obama's plan makes them bid (thus pay) for those rights from the beginning.  This gives them greater incentive to cut emissions now.

    Personally, I don't like a "cap and trade" system, because it turns the right to pollute into a commodity.  And this creates rampant opportunities for abuse and gaming the system.  I prefer the idea of a carbon tax.  

    But between the two plans, Obama's would lower carbon emissions faster.

    Parent

    Even people living in the area don't (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 07:35:01 AM EST
    want to discuss it.  It is sort of traumatizing it seems for people who are born and raised here that their beloved homeland now contains such destructive force. The Katrina season seemed to shock the people here in a profound way.  They have survived some pretty big bad storms and they have tons of hurricane stories that span generations, but what beast is this?  And it's happening one right after the other?  We had just arrived in the area and I wasn't emotionally attached to the gulf coast so I ended up simply asking a lot of questions figuring out what it took to survive and thrive in this area.  I came to understand that the warming of the gulf itself is going to be sending us these sort of super hurricanes.  It really annoys me as well when the weather shows get so stuck on CAT 3 or CAT 4 and blah blah blah windspeed, it isn't just the catagory that the storms come in at that indicates its devastation potential but also how low the pressure center is within the eye that indicates how much stamina and overall stored energy that the storm has and these new and globally warmed hurricanes are all coming in with extremely low pressure centers.  Fay was just a tropical storm and nothing more but she really pounded us with rain and then had the energy to swing back around and do it again.  Everybody rejoiced because she ended the droughtiness here but she was just one storm of the season and there is such a thing as too much water.

    Parent
    Pets in the storm area (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by nycstray on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:06:51 AM EST
    Just a heads up since I know some folks know people in the area. Even if they've left etc, they should tag their animals with a back up contact number. Especially if they might get the lesser effects of the storm and the pets are in unfamiliar surroundings. Power can still go out and during disasters, cells become unreliable and phones go down. If you have a person that can be contacted out of the storm area no matter where in the US, it really helps the shelters and increases the chances of the pet returning home. Also, shelters and rescues can usually find short term fosters easier if they know the pet is indeed a family member and the owners will be there as soon as possible to retrieve the wayward one :) And good samaritans are more likely to hang on to the pet vs turn it over to an over crowded shelter if they can reach someone.

    My dog is terrified of thunderstorms, so it's not a stretch to think I could lose her in a tropical storm or just heavy edge of hurricane storm, especially if I had evac-ed and we were in unfamiliar surroundings. Same with my cats.

    Don't forget, pets are welcome at evac locations! Noone needs to be in danger to protect their pets.

    They can take their pets with them. I saw it on an (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by DeborahNC on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:27:02 AM EST
    ABC news video(?), I think. The reporter interviewed a woman who said that she would not have left the city otherwise.

    Parent
    Supporting Obama because Clinton said so (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:18:06 AM EST
    Is sort of admitting that Obama failed to cross that threshold himself.  whatever that threshold might have been.

    there is a psychological dynamic at work in that line of reasoning that I think is dysfunctional for the party.  and for Obama.

    I mean it's nice to know Clinton has that much power, and she was going to say the right things regardless.  

    and i mean, i don't support certain solutions because Clinton supports them, I support them because I think they will solve the problem.

    So. Anyway.

    The argument that Dem ideas are better -- and more moral -- than Republican ideas -- remains the best argument.

    in the end, Obama wasn't able to cross a certain threshold (a threshold that I think would have totally unified the party) with me, and even though I should still believe he values the support of those afflicted with CDS more than he values my support, that Dems > Republicans might somehow still apply.

    I'll have to get over that too, I guess.

    When I said that about the Clintons telling me (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Teresa on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:46:58 AM EST
    so, I guess what I really meant is that they reminded me why I am a Democrat, not that they asked me to vote for Obama.

    Like Hillary said, it wasn't just about her (though she won me over to the extent that it is partly about her to me). It's the issues.

    If it helps you at all, in Obama's speech I saw yesterday and the one at the convention, he is finally telling people how good we had it under the Clinton admin.

    As far as his supporters, if I think about them (IBS ecspecially), I wouldn't be able to vote for him. I'm just doing my best to avoid them because they will find out he isn't the greatest thing ever eventually. They will be writing diaries about what a sellout he is and people like you and me, who don't like to see Democrats bashed that way, will probably be defending him. We just aren't like them and I'm proud of it.

    Parent

    I know that's what he's saying now (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 01:12:26 AM EST
    The primary is well over.

    It was just a simple matter of challenging his supporters to be better Democrats.

    Sorry if I mis-represented your view.  Taylor Marsh trotted out the "Clinton supports him, you're betraying Clinton if you don't support him too" argument a month or so ago.

    To anyone this might apply to, accusing me of betraying Clinton is a bad plan, at least as far as I'm concerned.

    My guess is no one means it that way, and I'm just being mired in something I know not what as usual.

    Parent

    Well, her argument wouldn't sway me either (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Teresa on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 01:25:50 AM EST
    (Taylor Marsh). I realize that Obama couldn't run on Bill Clinton's record while running against a Clinton and if the polls weren't so close, he might not be doing it now.

    He should have done it from the day Hillary suspended. And, he should have stopped the smears, period. I'm not through being mad by a long shot, but I want at least some health care reform and other Democratic positions enacted. I don't know how much Obama will do, but I know McCain won't do any.

    I read today that the Obama campaign will use Hillary more now that Palin is on the ticket. I think it was in the NYT. I'm too tired to look for it but it was interesting. I'd be tempted to say, so now you want me? But she's a better person than I am.

    Parent

    Calling the disaffected at the time (none / 0) (#112)
    by andrys on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 05:23:43 AM EST
    "the unhinged" or "unhinged fringe" did not help change people's minds or stay around...

    Parent
    Palin is such an opportunity for the Dems. (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by Lysis on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:43:40 AM EST
    Why aren't the Democrats coming out and celebrating her place on the ticket, then pointing out that it was the work of the Democratic party over the past forty years that created the climate for a woman to rise to the highest ranks of power in the first place?

    Why aren't we owning the women's rights legacy? Instead, we're getting sexist dismissals of Palin.  She's unqualified! She's the mother of a newborn with a disability!  She's a Barbie doll! She's a beauty queen!  She's a vpilf!  

    Why can't we celebrate the opportunity she's been given, while taking credit for her creating the conditions for her to be considered for it in the first place?  Why can't we make the case that we're the ones who will continue to break down barriers for women, so leaders like Palin can walk through?

    We're insulting and demeaning her instead of giving credit to our side for making her candidacy possible in the first place.  A simple statement like, "We're so proud that the barriers destructed by Hillary Clinton this year made the idea of a female president that much more acceptable to a society that has yet to elect one.  We congratulate McCain for building on the foundation that the Democrats laid down over the past forty years.  Maybe now he can see why our our policies championing women's rights make a positive difference in American society."

    Why attack a woman when you can celebrate the progress made on behalf of women?  

    I was thinking somewhat along these lines (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by Valhalla on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 01:07:42 AM EST
    in regards to the convention.  I think they lost an opportunity when they didn't make a big deal out of the anniversary of women' suffrage, and didn't take the opportunity to highlight Democratic accomplishments for women.  Or just plain celebrate women's accomplishments.  There were peripheral celebrations, and they had that sort of odd bit where each Democratic Congresswoman zipped on stage and talked for 5 minutes and they all came out at the end.  But it really wasn't used as a platform to highlight the party's accomplishments.

    Parent
    Yup! You're right! (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by Grace on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 02:33:17 AM EST
    Lysis, you are kidding? (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by andrys on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 05:36:46 AM EST
    It was the work of OUR party, that so abused Clinton and was daily pushing her out of the race no matter how capable, and popular, when she might "hurt" the other one by merely running against him and pointing out his negatives, which is done in every other primary season ?

    We can't take the credit because we couldn't even bear to do it.  At least Obama couldn't, and Pelosi had said, rather haughtily and somewhat pleased to be able to say so, there would be no unity ticket some time ago.  She was a bit more gracious in the last 2 weeks.  (I wonder why.)

    Good grief.  We give ourselves too much credit.  Did we open up the atmosphere for Bush to use Condaleeza Rice in two important positions?  Or Colin Powell?  Should we claim credit for that?  

      The world is so complex.  

      And now those Repubs (who'd never think to do it without our murmuring some idea of it) have done it again.  Now, some might not think Palin's qualified at all.  We'll see.  But we don't point out inexperience very much for similar past candidates when they were men. Or even some prospective candidates for VP THIS time.

    Parent

    Excerpt from AP article on Obama (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:59:54 AM EST
    campaign appearance today:

    "We're going to make sure that equal pay for equal work is a reality in this country," Obama said at an economic forum in Toledo, Ohio, a battleground state this fall. Alluding to Palin without saying her name, he told about 200 people sitting on a sun-drenched office rooftop that she "seems like a very engaging person, nice person. But I've got to say, she's opposed, like John McCain is, to equal pay for equal work. That doesn't make much sense to me."

    [Italics added.]

    Me, I don't think this is what BTD meant!

    Or Joe calling her "good looking"? (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Teresa on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 01:02:49 AM EST
    We need to sic BTD on them fast.

    Parent
    Did you see the photos of Sarah Palin (none / 0) (#99)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 01:49:19 AM EST
    and her youngest daughter, both dressed in pink.  The daughter looks quite pround.

    Parent
    Ugh (none / 0) (#123)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 07:24:03 AM EST
    they do support equal pay for equal work on the surface. This won't work. He needs to talk about how the GOP is against it.

    Parent
    re: Gov. Palin (5.00 / 0) (#78)
    by chopper on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 01:00:33 AM EST
    Alaska is the first line of defense in our missile interceptor defense system. The 49th Missile Defense Battalion of the Alaska National Guard is the unit that protects the entire nation from ballistic missile attacks. It's on PERMANENT ACTIVE DUTY, unlike other Guard units.

    As governor of Alaska, Palin is briefed on highly classified military issues, homeland security, and counterterrorism. Her exposure to classified material may rival even Biden's.

    She's also the commander in chief of the Alaska State Defense Force, ASDF, a federally recognized militia incorporated into Homeland Security's counterterrorism plans.

    Palin is privy to military and intelligence secrets that are vital to the entire country's defense. Given Alaska's proximity to Russia, she may have security clearances we don't even know about.

    According to the Washington Post, she first met with McCain in February, but nobody ever found out. This is a woman used to keeping secrets. She can be entrusted with our national security, because she already is.

    Biden: Palin's good-looking (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Firewalker on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 01:02:04 AM EST
    TOLEDO, Ohio (CNN) - Joe Biden says there are obvious differences between himself and fellow vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, but they're not just on policy. She's good-looking.

    "There's a gigantic difference between John McCain and Barack Obama and between me and I suspect my vice presidential opponent," Biden said at an outdoor rally Sunday, getting ready to hit the GOP ticket for their economic policies.

    "She's good-looking," he quipped.

    LINK

    With comments like this I think the Obama campaign definitely better stay away from the "Palin isn't experienced" argument.

    Joe also said (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by andrys on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 05:40:38 AM EST
    to a guy with a nice head of hair, that if HE, Biden, had such a head of hair he'd be running for President instead of going for Vice President.

    LOL!

    Like they say, let them have fun.  

    But with Biden, too much of his Unconscious is dying to speak and the controller mechanisms are very 'liberal' !

    Parent

    I almost had a Biden-like gaffe (none / 0) (#121)
    by Fabian on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 07:06:33 AM EST
    We could assume that the person he was addressing was both white and male.  That could be a loaded comment if addressed to someone who was erm non-white.

    Parent
    It certainly wouldn't explain (none / 0) (#127)
    by andrys on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:09:32 AM EST
    our current nominee's success !   :-)

    Parent
    So bizarre (1.00 / 1) (#51)
    by indiependy on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:18:24 AM EST
    Hard to imagine anyone reading this blog months ago would have ever guessed that Jeralyn would be full throttle on the ticket and BTD would suddenly be defending the GOP VP pick. I just find it crazy that BTD is the biggest apologist for what's clearly a horrible VP choice. Not sure if it's that he's that desperate to be contrarian, that joined at the hip with Jerome, or what.

    BTD thinks she is a bad pick, but the way to (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Teresa on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:26:29 AM EST
    combat her is to campaign against another Bush term, not an inexperienced VP. He also thinks there has been sexism in some of the coverage and he is right about that.

    Parent
    I disagree. BTD is not "defending" (5.00 / 6) (#56)
    by zfran on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:32:25 AM EST
    the McCain pick as vp. He only points out that attacking Gov. Palin personally is not a smart move nor is bringing out her perceived inexperience and the dems should just forget about her, connect McCain to Bush and move on. The more it's about Palin, the more the dems don't get their agenda moving. So far, it's been McCain who's been driving the subject and agenda.

    Parent
    I agree, and, as anyone with minimal (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by DeborahNC on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 01:16:13 AM EST
    psychology-based awareness knows, if a person or a group of people start bashing someone(A) personally, it will generate a backlash, with many people defending person A who would have not supported her/him otherwise.

    Also, personal attacks are tasteless and unbecoming, and would reflect poorly on the Dem brand. We all remember how many of us felt when Senator Clinton was maligned over her looks, her laugh, etc., and how it made those critics look small and sleazy. The images of those individuals are permanently imprinted on my brain and have zero credibility with me.

    That's not what the Dems need.

    Parent

    Call it what you will (1.00 / 0) (#63)
    by indiependy on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:39:41 AM EST
    But all I've seen is a whole lot of "concern trolling" and defending her.

    Parent
    Any Democrat should defend her against (5.00 / 4) (#71)
    by Teresa on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:53:53 AM EST
    sexist attacks. Our party failed badly to defend Hillary and we are still deeply angry about that. The one thing that could make me change my mind and sit at home would be to see these sexist attacks defended. Even a Republican woman is entitled to respect whether or not we agree with her.

    Parent
    I used to defend Clinton against sexist attacks (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 01:20:18 AM EST
    that I found on Obamablogs.

    That's what they called it there.  Concern trolling.


    Parent

    ha, actually you're right (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 01:20:54 AM EST
    BTD in saying he's concerned about you and others attacking her and me and others chiming right in about that concern, could indeed be considered concern trolling. And you have a point. One person's concern about what they think is bad strategy is definitely another person's concern trolling.

    So perhaps the message has been out there enough, and perhaps any more concerned talk is indeed trolling. Speaking for me, I'll stop that.

    Have at it. Trash her to your hearts content. That may indeed be absolutely the best thing to do.

    Parent

    The best thing about this blog (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Grace on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 02:22:52 AM EST
    is that people have actually gone and tried to find "real information" -- not just rumor, etc.  I don't think any of us knew a whole lot about her.  

    I didn't like the insults that were hurled just because she was picked.  I think it's great anytime a woman is picked for a higher position, but to compare her to Hillary is like comparing the ex-CEO of eBay to Vanna White.  They just aren't the same people.    

    Parent

    BTD's recommended strategy (none / 0) (#113)
    by andrys on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 05:29:30 AM EST
    is very close to what is proposed in another well-thought-out article, this one by Leighten Woodhouse.

    Parent
    I dunno (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by Steve M on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 01:01:13 AM EST
    Awfully hard for you to accept that sometimes people just hold a different opinion from yours in good faith, huh?  Wonder why that is.

    Parent
    Concering the CNN Poll (none / 0) (#14)
    by delacarpa on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:52:58 PM EST
    Bill Clinton got a 28% bounce out of his convention. Something is way wrong here. Should have picked Hillary and I know everyone is tired of hearing it but true, but then he will win because of his ground game. Asking when will it kick in.

    are you sure? (none / 0) (#20)
    by ChuckieTomato on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:01:18 PM EST
    He only won with 43 percent. He was at 15 percent before the convention????

    Parent
    In 1992 Clinton went from (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by ding7777 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:46:44 PM EST
    a pre-convention 31% to a post-convention bounce of 59%, however Clinton did not maintain the bounce - also Perot dropped out which impacted the polls

    Parent
    He had a 16 point bounce. (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Lysis on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:47:21 AM EST
    Comparing Bush-Clinton matchups without Perot before the convention to Bush-Clinton matchups after it.

    Parent
    Chuckie, these leads/drops are wild (none / 0) (#106)
    by andrys on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 04:49:19 AM EST
    From my memory, both McGovern and Dukakis had post-convention leads of about 17 to 19%.

      As we know, they lost those leads by voting time.

      In this election each side needs all the help it can get...


    Parent

    Some respect to Isaac Hayes as well. (none / 0) (#17)
    by EL seattle on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:56:26 PM EST
    He wrote "Soul Man" (with David Porter, I think) for Sam and Dave back in the Stax days.  R.I.P. Isaac, wherever it is that you wound up.

    The Fox interview (none / 0) (#37)
    by lilburro on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:37:24 PM EST
    with McCain is interesting.  

    MCCAIN:  ...I don't particularly enjoy the label "maverick,"

    Yeah I believe that.  Eyeroll

    McCain is just going to say she's ready, and that's that I guess!  I wonder if he's going to be able to make that stick.


    JERALYN: A plea for you and BTD (none / 0) (#42)
    by Upstart Crow on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:02:52 AM EST
    May I humbly suggest that the rating system for posts be abandoned?

    If something is really off, you or BTD have always been quick to flag it. Other writers have always challenged the "off" posts, too. I think we all recognize that it's your (and BTD's) site, and certain things are off-limits.

    Why I'm drawn to TL is that I find out-of-the-box thinking here, and people who have off-the-beaten-track knowledge and sources.

    But those very people are the most likely to be targeted for anonymous "1"s, often by cowards who won't articulate their gripe. I'd hate to see people subtly and anonymously pressured to conform to the "correct" P.O.V.  (If it ain't edgy, why bother?)

    A lot of these people, I suspect, are trolls working formally or informally for candidates, and there's no real way to protect the site from that. Therefore, why not abandon these?  On the last thread, it was really obnoxious seeing a regular contributor get a "9" for something pretty bland.

    Doesn't seem to be happening so much on this thread.

    Even trolls have to go to bed, I suspect.

    the rating system is built into Scoop (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:34:03 AM EST
    but if someone emails me the name of a commenter who is routinely handing out "1"s based on point of view, I delete all their ratings with one zap.

    Parent
    BOOYAH! (none / 0) (#61)
    by txpolitico67 on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:38:20 AM EST
    I love wielding that kinda power on my own blog as well.

    Mediation...gotta love it.

    Parent

    No way to know (none / 0) (#70)
    by Upstart Crow on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:53:42 AM EST
    that I know of. Any old geezer can just come in and stamp "1"s (or "2"s or "3"s) on anything. How can you tell who it is?

    Parent
    Unclear to me what difference it makes (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:57:27 AM EST
    The ratings don't do anything here.

    Parent
    Click on the rating itself and you'll see. (none / 0) (#73)
    by Teresa on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:56:09 AM EST
    Click on the rating numbers next to (none / 0) (#76)
    by Valhalla on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:59:48 AM EST
    your comment; a screen pops up with the usernames and what their ratings are.

    Parent
    you can turn it off if you like (none / 0) (#85)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 01:09:48 AM EST
    one way is to turn off "comment_rate" for all users. There may be another way to turn it off system wide as well.

    Parent
    Jeralyn, sorry if my comment (none / 0) (#52)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:23:30 AM EST
    gave offense or appeared to be in bad taste.

    I intended the comment as an indictment of the hyper-ventilating, sexed-up way the MSM covers storms - much in the same way they've covered the '08 campaign.

    it had a bad word in it (none / 0) (#59)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:35:23 AM EST
    that brings out the censors. It began with a "p."

    Parent