Why vote Obama?

solo

In a piece for the New York Times Magazine, Robert Draper peers behind the curtain of the McCain operation and cycles through, by his count, the six narratives that the campaign has pushed. (The latest being “The Fighter (Again) vs. the Tax-and-Spend Liberal”). But what’s remarkable about the piece is the extent to which McCain, who is supposed to be a born leader, is, in fact, the creature of his advisers. His chief campaign strategist, Steve Schmidt, severed McCain from his old garrulous self by insisting that the candidate keep the media at bay. Schmidt and other advisers apparently chose Sarah Palin (who, it turns out, has a voice coach) as his best-possible running mate before they even mentioned her to McCain. When all is said and done, it seems that McCain’s campaign will be best by a new narrative: McCain vs. his advisers.

Here is link to the story: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/26/magazine/26mccain-t.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Daniel

@bellwells said:

It's a real shame there were NO third party candidates in the debates. I think if enough people vote third party (Libertarian, in my case) we could pressure the networks into including them.

I agree it's a shame there were only two, but last I counted there were about eight people running for the office of the President (most of whom I never even heard of), and including them all would have been too much. The networks do not determine who is included in the debates, but rather the Commission on Presidential Debates. Amongst their criteria, a candidate must have support from 15% of the national electorate, as indicated by five national polling organizations, such as Ross Perot had in '92.

tomsdesk

I'd like to see Les included in the debates:

http://mefeedia.com/entry/video-beer-party-on-the-lips-of-voters/11967101

bellwells

@daniel said:

I agree it's a shame there were only two, but last I counted there were about eight people running for the office of the President (most of whom I never even heard of), and including them all would have been too much. The networks do not determine who is included in the debates, but rather the Commission on Presidential Debates. Amongst their criteria, a candidate must have support from 15% of the national electorate, as indicated by five national polling organizations, such as Ross Perot had in '92.

Appreciate the information. I think the percentage should be reduced to 5-10%; 15% is quite a lot and a tough barrier to overcome.

solo

LMFAO, they are desperate now.

Error 404 (Not Found)!!1

(ap.google.com)

bellwells

Sooooo, no reaction to Biden's crazy statement,huh? And some of you think the press isn't liberal?? My God!!! It's sickening. I may actually change my vote to McCain just to spite the network nitwits.

Pete, do you really think McCain's campaign had ANYTHING to do with this nutty lady's story? It's as likely that Obama's campaign did this.

ehaflett

@bellwells said:

@daniel said:

I agree it's a shame there were only two, but last I counted there were about eight people running for the office of the President (most of whom I never even heard of), and including them all would have been too much. The networks do not determine who is included in the debates, but rather the Commission on Presidential Debates. Amongst their criteria, a candidate must have support from 15% of the national electorate, as indicated by five national polling organizations, such as Ross Perot had in '92.

Appreciate the information. I think the percentage should be reduced to 5-10%; 15% is quite a lot and a tough barrier to overcome.

How is any candidate supposed to get that kind of support without
A: being seen on the national stage via the mainstream media. (a bit of a catch22 there.)
B: being included in the polls conducted by the national polling organizations (no 3rd party candidates are listed on those polls)

How about looking at how many ballots they're on? Nader is on 45 of the 50 state ballots despite nearly impossible state laws that make that very difficult.

bellwells

Eric, the system is rigged against third parties. Bastards. We need a revolution.

Baker518

Ron

I agree with you, we need another revolution. The first one got us out from under English tyranny. Now we need to take a look and see how we're gonna get out from under the next one. Do the words..."taxation without representation" ring any bells with anyone? Maybe we need to find another harbor somewhere and have another party....

I've been thinking about a write in campaign for "NONE OF THE ABOVE". Hell, it worked for Richard Prior in Brewsters Millions, why not now?

Does it not bother anyone but me that before coming to the US Senate, Obama had never held a public office outside of his neighborhood? His opponent's VP choice has had more experience than he has, but hey, she's just "a soccer mom". Huh, what could she possibly know about politics? not enough to get her name in the top spot apparently. But, this is a senators race, and she never has been a senator, that disqualifies her automatically.

Considering all that, looks like Nader may get the nod on this one.

tomsdesk

@bellwells said:

...Sooooo, no reaction to Biden's crazy statement,huh? And some of you think the press isn't liberal?? My God!!! It's sickening...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/22/earlyshow/main4539871.shtml (1:40 in)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619/#27328627 (3:55 in)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjeKgDipkYI (2:38 in)

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/10/22/obama-clarifies-bidens-rhetorical-flourishes/?mod=googlenews_wsj

410 Gone

(politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com)

Examiner is back - Examiner.com

At Examiner.com™ we help you excel personal finance, boost income, invest wisely, travel smart, reach financial freedom faster, and enjoy life on a budget.

Examiner.com (www.examiner.com)

Error 404 (Not Found)!!1

(ap.google.com)

@bellwells said:

...I may actually change my vote to McCain just to spite the network nitwits...

Gee, I take all this much more seriously...kinda steams me that I took you to be serious too, Ron.

bellwells

I understand your confusion, Tom. The lack of reaction I referred to was from this board. Not surprising, though.

The mainstream liberal press has focused more on Palin's clothing budget that Biden's dangerous and irresponsible statements. They have the nads to call into question Palin's "experience" while completely ignoring that Obama is nothing more than an empty suit with oratory skills. Period. I am sick and tired of the press. They are a dangerous lot.

You can't be as steamed as I am.

solo

LOL, the McCain bunch keep falling over themselves.

Meet Joe - the brother

Seems that anger is a family thing.

[flash=425,344:1mj72gr7]http://www.youtube.com/v/_Y6_s3O5Bj0[/flash:1mj72gr7]

Stinkie

@baker518 said:

Does it not bother anyone but me that before coming to the US Senate, Obama had never held a public office outside of his neighborhood?

How is this relevant now?

solo

LOL, grabbing straws again.

Obama's neighborhood has more citizens than The entire Wassila.

tomsdesk

Here's another excellent reason to vote for Obama:

Page not found |

(www.johnmccain.com)

They just keep sinking lower and lower.

solo

Another example of using parts of a dialogue to strike fear and appeal to the timid voters.

The McCain campaign is sinking fast, this type of rhetoric has plagued them from the start, yet they continue, but in fairness they really do not have anything else. They have no solutions, no winning points just negativity. Republicans are notorious for playing the person and not the issues, they try win by campaigning that their opponent is worse than them and not why they deserve the nod.
Like the guy everyone knows in the office that seeks promotion by discrediting his competition and not by hard and dilligent work.