Obama’s Acceptance Speech and Why You Don’t Like Him.
last night, in the middle of digging more holes in my superfund site of a backyard, i stopped to listen to mr. obama give his acceptance speech at the DNC. i care about politics, sure, but i don’t always care to listen to politicians speak. i might if i was a drinking (wo)man because i could take shots of vodka to certain buzz words and phrases like ” my plan” and “when i am elected..”. it would certainly make for a more entertaining night but i am not a drinker so i usually sit them out and read bits and pieces the next day…you know, to get the gist (as if i couldn’t just figure that out without hearing or reading their words)
on account of mr. obama being the first person of color to ever be nominated as president in a major party, i thought i might stop playing in the dirt and scoop me a big bowl of ice cream and listen up. it was truly a historical moment. too bad petunia had no interest in it all-could have been one of those moments she will always remember like i do when ms. ferraro was up for V.P. in ‘84.
at first, i wasn’t too impressed, it followed the standard political speech format and those “buzz” words annoyed me but when he got to this:
We may not agree on abortion, but surely we can agree on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country. The reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than for those plagued by gang-violence in Cleveland, but don’t tell me we can’t uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals. I know there are differences on same-sex marriage, but surely we can agree that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters deserve to visit the person they love in the hospital and to live lives free of discrimination. Passions fly on immigration, but I don’t know anyone who benefits when a mother is separated from her infant child or an employer undercuts American wages by hiring illegal workers. This too is part of America’s promise - the promise of a democracy where we can find the strength and grace to bridge divides and unite in common effort.
i was reminded why i will cast my vote for him. he has the ability to inspire us, to make us believe that we can be a better country. i believe he has made the people in this country excited about politics and social issues, something we haven’t seen for a very long time. he’s getting people to vote-one side or the other-people are caring about who sits in the white house. people are caring about who they elect. this is a great thing!
what are your thoughts on last night speech?
and….i’ve noticed many of you have expressed your disgust for him “i can’t stand him” is something i’ve heard a lot recently.
tell us why you don’t like him. seriously. go for it.
I think he is a charismatic man, a great orator, has abilities to excite people, is passionate. I respect hi life accomplishments immensely. But i fundamentally disagree with him on some policy issues. I think change and newcomers are good. I don’t think he can “do” all he talks about realistically/ economically. so i am not in his camp.
Comment by smartmama — August 29, 2008 @ 1:01 pm
smartmama, so you agree with all of mccains policies? it’s ok if you do.
it’s just that i hear that argument a lot and wonder, what don’t you agree with? i think people are scared of him. scared that he’s such a good speaker that he’s really got some “agenda”. personally i don’t see it but if someone could make a good argument about it, i might be willing to take a closer look.
and …i don’t think he will be able to do all that he “plans” to do either. i make lots of plans…
and sometimes that’s all i do.
Comment by mfranti — August 29, 2008 @ 1:06 pm
Getting people excited about politics and caring about who is in the White House is definitely a good thing - particularly the younger, more “apathetic” (from a voting standpoint) generation.
Comment by Stephanie — August 29, 2008 @ 1:07 pm
After working for the DNC for years, I have seen a lot of underhanded slimy candidates work there way up. I happen to know the way that Mr. Obama obtained some of his political seats was VERY underhanded…
Don’t take MY word for it though, Google ‘Alice Palmer’.
After I knew of that, I moved over to work with the campaign for Rod Blagojevich.
Comment by bettynobaby — August 29, 2008 @ 1:08 pm
Sorry I can’t help here, mfranti. I love the guy. I’ll still be voting for Palin/McCain, but if they lose, I really will not be disappointed. I love my choices this year.
Comment by Dan Ellsworth — August 29, 2008 @ 1:08 pm
i won’t vote for barack obama because he does not have the experience to understand he cannot single-handedly change the way things are done.
i appreciate his enthusiasm and believe he is sincere in thinking he can change things. he is, however, wrong. his lofty words depend on buy-in from a majority of citizens of the united states and, unfortunately, that’s simply not gonna happen. the very consitution that allows him to offer hope to the marginalized groups he highlights also allows their opposition to vocally (and litigiously) refute! and face it, republicans have more resources. i won’t vote for obama because i’m not willing to waste four years while he tries to reinvent ideals.
he speaks of “the promise of a democracy where we can find the strength and grace to bridge divides and unite in common effort.” but he’s not going to get opposing sides to agree!
Comment by anon — August 29, 2008 @ 1:11 pm
I didn’t get to hear all the speech last night, but I do remember well the paragraph you mentioned, and thought, “This sounds right.” His speech last night was more substantive and less emotional than others I have heard him give this year. My wife and I both do remember thinking, though, “how does this all get paid for?” But overall, my reaction was that it was a good, appropriate speech for him to be giving in this election year.
While I am a slightly left of center moderate, I liked much more of Sen. Clinton’s platform and ideas, but I am comfortable with Obama as president. Not the best choice available, but of those left standing, far and away to me the logical pick.
Comment by kevinf — August 29, 2008 @ 1:13 pm
I sat through the whole speach waiting for him to bring up abortion and guns and same-sex marriage. His statement, which you quote, cemented it for me too.
Of course, there was a lot of retoric. That’s politics. But what I see in Obama is a person willing to listen to and respect all sides of the arguments. And yes, he really is inspiring. We need more passion in this country.
Comment by CatherineWO — August 29, 2008 @ 1:14 pm
no I don’t agree with Mcain on all the issues or plans or policies, personally I don’t think Obamas Iraq strategy is unrealistic (as somewho has lived in middle east) I disagree on choice issue, his strategy for addressing healthcare and other social issues.
I don’t find him scary at all- I think he is a respectable,formidable man just with different ideas than me in quite a few areas.
I think it is a voter repsobisblity to know issues and candidates and try to make the decision. I hope the fervor on either side is based in and understanding of character and potential and policy plans- not status, sex, race, etc.
Comment by smartmama — August 29, 2008 @ 1:15 pm
mfranti (2),
I don’t agree with all of McCain’s policies; I really don’t agree with all of anyone’s policies. As much as I love Barack Obama, his press release in ‘07 on partial birth abortion sickened me.
I still would have voted for him, though, if Sarah Palin hadn’t entered the picture.
Comment by Dan Ellsworth — August 29, 2008 @ 1:15 pm
I’ve heard him speak well of Ronald Reagan. And for good reason - they have similar strengths and weaknesses. How much foreign policy experience did the great communicator have in 1980? Although I don’t agree with many of the policy decisions of his administration (and think that the Iran-Contra scandal was a far worse offense than anything Bill Clinton did) I think Reagan’s foreign policy success should be a good example for us.
In short, I think the great communicator II will be just fine.
Comment by cj douglass — August 29, 2008 @ 1:36 pm
“I still would have voted for him, though, if Sarah Palin hadn’t entered the picture.
Comment by Dan Ellsworth ”
So it is about gender for men.
The Democrats are running two men. Neither is a Mother. Looks like the Democrats have the Mormon vote.
Comment by Ruby — August 29, 2008 @ 1:38 pm
I don’t like him because he isn’t male, old, white, traditional, conservative, Mormon…anything else is a change and that means I have to use my own ntelligence to make a decision, oh wait, all I have to do is vote for the person with “republican” next to their name on the ballot. Whew! For a minute there I thought I’d have to think.
Comment by Molly — August 29, 2008 @ 1:39 pm
Ok, comment number 6 is the most cynical and deppressing thing I have ever heard.
I personally am a big fan of idealism and think if everyone in the country is united in making it better and solving problems, then they will. Even amid disagreement. But it takes an idealist to lead that charge and create a culture and climate for it.
Comment by julie — August 29, 2008 @ 1:42 pm
I don’t dislike him; like others have mentioned I have some fundamental disagreements with policies and issues he endorses/supports.
But I think he is highly charismatic, obviously very intelligent, passionate, etc., he’s just not who I would pick for president.
Comment by Sariah — August 29, 2008 @ 1:43 pm
I received this letter from one of our soldiers and quite honestly it makes me sick.
“Hello everyone,
As you know I am not a very political person. I just wanted to pass along that Senator Obama came to Bagram Afghanistan for about an hour on his visit to “The War Zone”. I wanted to share with you what happened.
He got off the plane and got into a bullet proof vehicle, got to the area to meet with the Major General (2 Star) who is the commander here at Bagram.
As the Soldiers where lined up to shake his hand he blew them off and didn’t say a word as he went into the conference room to meet the General. As he finished, the vehicles took him to the ClamShell (pretty much a big top tent that military personnel can play basketball or work out in with weights) so he could take his publicity pictures playing basketball. He again shunned the opportunity to talk to soldiers to thank them for their service.
So really he was just here to make a showing for the American’s back home that he is their candidate for President. I think that if you are going to make an effort to come all the way over here you would thank those that are providing the freedom that they are providing for you.
I swear we got more thanks from the NBA Basketball Players or the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders than from one of the Senators, who wants to be the President of the United States. I just don’t understand how anyone would want him to be our Commander-and-Chief. It was almost that he was scared to be around those that provide the freedom for him and our great country.
If this is blunt and to the point I am sorry but I wanted you all to know what kind of caliber of person he really is. What you see in the news is all fake.
In service,
CPT Jeffrey S. Porter
Battle Captain
TF Wasatch
American Soldier ”
Even though I may disagree with the war to some extent I can’t forget or get a tear in my eye when I see a soldier in uniform. They protect me and if Obama can’t but shake their hand and show respect for the freedom he enjoys, why in the heck would we want him to lead our country?
Comment by Sassy Lady — August 29, 2008 @ 1:43 pm
julie #14: you’re right, i am cynical. if however past peformance is the best predictor of future performance, i may also be right!
Comment by anon — August 29, 2008 @ 1:44 pm
#12 - ???
Ruby, Dan said he is voting FOR the ticket with the woman on it!! How did you go from that comment to kicking all Mormon men in the crotch?
Comment by Ray — August 29, 2008 @ 1:54 pm
If Ruby is still around and wasn’t a hit-and-run commenter, I’d appreciate her explanation for comment #12. Dan had been going to vote Democratic, but switched today to Republican because of the woman added to the ticket. So Ruby, how do you get off making half@$$ed remarks like that about the Mormon vote?
Comment by Ardis E. Parshall — August 29, 2008 @ 1:54 pm
We need to do that pinky-finger thing you do when two people say the same thing at the same instant, Ray.
Comment by Ardis E. Parshall — August 29, 2008 @ 1:55 pm
because i’m actually trying to get some work done and not reading allt he comments
tsk, tsk, tsk. ruby, we’ve had this talk before. please be mindful of your tone and what you post.
Comment by mfranti — August 29, 2008 @ 1:57 pm
mfranti,
it is passages like the one you listed, throughout all of his speeches/debates, that have earned my heart. I HAVE to think he really believes in what he is saying.
Comment by sare — August 29, 2008 @ 2:00 pm
#12: Really, Ruby, what the hell?
Comment by janescott — August 29, 2008 @ 2:00 pm
Ruby (12),
No- as I said on the other thread, it’s about the following:
- executive experience
- intelligence
- demonstrated leadership
- proven reform in an executive capacity
- independent spirit/willingness to clash with her party
- ordinary upbringing
- understanding of energy issues
- motherhood
- distance from Washington/outsider status
I lived in Alaska and watched Gov. Palin, and she was the most effective and efficient reformer I have ever seen in American politics. If it had been Hutchinson, Rice, etc. I would still be with Obama.
Comment by Dan Ellsworth — August 29, 2008 @ 2:01 pm
Sassy Lady, you really believe e-mail forwards?
Comment by Ana — August 29, 2008 @ 2:01 pm
Okay okay I just got proven wrong it is false. Should of looked it up before I wrote about it. Thanks Ana.
Comment by Sassy Lady — August 29, 2008 @ 2:03 pm
25&26. didn’t we see this yesterday?
people, check your facts before you make statements.
this goes for mccain as well. they are people, remember?
Comment by mfranti — August 29, 2008 @ 2:06 pm
Down with email forwards! I call for a boycott on all email forwards (especially the ones with disgustingly cute pictures of baby animals and unsubstantiated attacks against public figures).
Comment by sare — August 29, 2008 @ 2:07 pm
Ardis, I clicked on what I thought was the link in your comment and got a microsoft e-mail message - because of the @ you used. Thought that was hilarious and just letting everyone else know that they needn’t bother trying to follow that “link”.
Comment by Ray — August 29, 2008 @ 2:08 pm
S#16 Sassy Lady—I hope you do more research for a presidential candidate than you do on e-mail forwards!!!!!!!
If you got to snopes.com, it catalogs all of the chain e-mails that circulate on the internet and researches their validity—-This one has been proven false! They have it well documented, including photos.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/afghanistan.asp
Comment by Molly — August 29, 2008 @ 2:10 pm
I am glad he is a good orator, and I don’t disagree with his views on a lot of things, but his idea of personal responsibility, state responsibility, fiscal responsibility and federal responsibility are not in line with mine. He is welcome to his opinion, but I do not have to support it.
I can say similar things for the other candidate, but I assume those questions will be asked when things get started in MN.
Comment by britt — August 29, 2008 @ 2:11 pm
I liked him at first. I don’t think he is horrible by any means. I’m not thrilled with either actually. My thing is that I saw a video and interview with him speaking of why he won’t wear the American flag on his lapel and why he didn’t stand and put his hand on his heart for the Anthem. I don’t think this is “un-american” because choice is American but I do think that he comes off as someone who says he loves our country but then seems to hate everything we have come from and stand for. It doesn’t make sense to me. Why do you want to be in charge of a country that you refuse to wear the flag of?
I do respect people’s opinion of him though but my vote will be going the other way.
Comment by cheryl — August 29, 2008 @ 2:14 pm
Dan Ellsworth, I am sincerely concerned about the change in your choice. I believe you’re right that Sarah Palin is an extremely effective administrator. My in-laws (Republicans all) live in Alaska and have been really pleased with her performance.
However, I DO NOT want her administering policy based on what she is known to believe in, based solely on her NRA life membership and her extreme anti-abortion stance (perhaps understandable given the lens of her personal experience, but dangerous for the country as a whole).
If you previously agreed with Obama, how can you now plan to vote for a ticket that represents the complete opposite point of view, based only on your love for Sarah Palin? I think it’s a very scary way to make a voting decision. Maybe if you explain further I will be less disturbed.
By the way, I am not sure whether most people know that Republicans in Alaska may be the only Republicans in the nation that compare with Republicans in Utah in terms of exactly how far right they are. Really, really far.
Comment by Ana — August 29, 2008 @ 2:15 pm
I haven’t read comments yet, but I did want to point out the obvious fact that abortions do nothing to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country. If you get an abortion, you already have an unwanted pregnancy and you are doing something about it, aborting the fetus.
Comment by Matt W. — August 29, 2008 @ 2:15 pm
less unwanted pregnancies means less abortions.
duh
Comment by mfranti — August 29, 2008 @ 2:19 pm
Cheryl 32, if willingness to wear a flag and hand-over-heart is your basis for electing a president, heaven help this poor jingoist mad country. Good freaking grief.
Comment by Rich — August 29, 2008 @ 2:37 pm
Ana (33),
I was going to vote for Obama in spite of the fact that I find his abortion views sickening. And I really don’t care either way about gun control. Neither of those are near the top of my important issues.
Comment by Dan Ellsworth — August 29, 2008 @ 2:38 pm
I loved reading these comments! This blog always makes me feel like I’m not alone — for being a Mormon and liking both. Even a lady at work (not Mormon) asked me why I was watcihng the DNC!! Helloooo, I like politics dang it — I’ll watch the RNC too!
I just wanted to add that it was one of my favorite parts of the speech, too.
Comment by Natalie — August 29, 2008 @ 2:45 pm
By the way Sassy Lady 16, that letter is pure BS. I know because my cousin’s son is that guy’s C.O. My cousin told me that the letter gets lots of circulation by republicans because it smears Obama’s character, but it simply isn’t true. Obama was NOT ALLOWED to spend time mingling with troops — security concerns. As an intelligence officer my cousin’s son didn’t even know he was coming (that’s how hush-hush it was), as he was whisked from one place to another to meet with the top brass ONLY.
This letter is typical political distortion, nothing more.
Comment by Rich — August 29, 2008 @ 2:51 pm
ok guys, stop picking on sassy. she admitted she was mistaken.
Comment by mfranti — August 29, 2008 @ 2:52 pm
Thank you Rich, Molly and everyone else. Like I said before I stand corrected. Forgive me!
Comment by Sassy Lady — August 29, 2008 @ 2:53 pm
Obama: “I don’t know anyone who benefits when…an employer undercuts American wages by hiring illegal workers.”
What about the employers? How about consumers of those goods? Not saying that makes it right, just that it is important to understand the issue before you can fix it.
Comment by minnie mouse — August 29, 2008 @ 2:58 pm
I really liked the speech last night. Obama at one point mentions something like that no matter what he wants to do as President nothing replaces everyone doing their part, etc. parents, employers… I really liked it because thats the complaint republicans use against time democrats all the time.
Comment by Miles — August 29, 2008 @ 3:02 pm
Cheryl #32, et al., I did notice that last night he was wearing a flag pin on his lapel. I think his point in statements about whether or not he wore one was that wearing one does not automatically make you patriotic. I think he was right to call out trite gestures as though they signified some kind of deep commitment–sticking a pin in your lapel doesn’t really tell me anything–it’s your behavior that will demonstrate what you believe.
Honestly, I don’t care if anyone wears a pin (although now I’m somewhat cynical about his wearing of the pin at key moments and since the criticism–I can almost hear him sigh, “yeah, I guess I should wear the red tie and the little flag”), or if they put their hand on their heart during the national anthem, or if they wear pants to church. I don’t think any of those things are good windows to the soul.
Comment by marianne — August 29, 2008 @ 3:05 pm
The ability to inspire is a great trait in a motivational speaker but not so much the MUST have in a political candidate.
Words and Speaches should mean little to the American people, Americans should look at a political candidate like an applicant to any job in “What have you DONE that qualifies you for this position?”
I don’t know of any employer that would hire someone based soley on what they say they will do.
In short- why I don’t support Obama for president- his resume is lacking. What has Obama accomplished that qualifies him for the job of president of the United States?
Comment by salt h2o — August 29, 2008 @ 3:10 pm
I didn’t keep count, but there were numerous times he said “I will invest in x.” With our government in the deficit we are in, I’m pretty sure that increasing our government spending is the last thing we need. But it got him applause. Whatever …
I also noticed a few lines and phrases that were recycled from other campaign speeches. But at least they were from his own speeches. Biden hasn’t rubbed off on him yet!
He seems to be a likeable, approachable guy. But his policies scare me. I don’t think he’ll be the Clintonesque President who, for the most part, steps out of the way, and lets the economy chug along. Obama appears to be more of a social engineer, willing to use the Presidency as a way to redistribute wealth for “justice”. Yikes!
Comment by Bull Moose — August 29, 2008 @ 3:16 pm
Bull Moose (46),
I had the same feeling: how in the world is all this going to be paid for? I wish Obama would address that, because I don’t think his tax ideas would even come close to covering the bill.
I have gripes with McCain, but I love his pledge to veto any bills that have earmarks. I hope he challenges Obama to do the same in the debates.
Comment by Dan Ellsworth — August 29, 2008 @ 3:25 pm
My problem with him is his lack of experience. I would much rather vote for someone who has been in an executive position before, ie governor of a state or even a senator that has been in charge of a major committe. Someone noted that the last time we were watching the summer olympics, he was still a state legislator. I want someone with more experience, I wasn’t a big fan of Hilary but she would be better than he. I also think that hype and media and celebrity endorsements have carried him a lot further than he should’ve gone.
Comment by LCM — August 29, 2008 @ 3:28 pm
Bush was a governor. It doesn’t necessarily qualify a person.
Comment by Ana — August 29, 2008 @ 3:30 pm
I could not help to think this, but when Palin was speaking this morning at the podium with the words “Country First” on it, I could not help but feel sad, and even a little disgusted when I saw her sweet little four month old down syndrome baby being held in the background. That baby needs HER (and her breastmilk, that does wonders for D.S. kids) She is obviously putting her country first, over her family. Something her family just does not deserve. The GOP is trying so hard to keep the “party of family values”, that they missed the boat. She thinks she is some seriously hot stuff, but in actuality the joke is on her. A sick way of playing politics to care about the game rather than the people. Picking someone on the far right is no way to unite this country. Poor thing.
I feel like this is all for publicity to distract away from the fact that for this election the party with the true “family values” is the democratic one.
Comment by Lorell — August 29, 2008 @ 3:32 pm
Dan Ellsworth @ 47: “I have gripes with McCain, but I love his pledge to veto any bills that have earmarks.”
McCain is not as staunch against earmarks as he claims: Foe of Earmarks Has a Pet Cause of His Own
Granted, it wasn’t a pork amendment slipped into a non-related bill, but if he brings earmarks up during the debates, he’ll be Obama fodder. They’ll have to do damage control afterward.
Comment by Bull Moose — August 29, 2008 @ 3:34 pm
Even if I didn’t plan on voting for Obama (which I do), I wouldn’t be voting for McCain. I don’t like him, I don’t trust him, and the fact that he keeps playing the POW card is highly offensive to me as the daughter of a man who was a POW in World War II. If you’d like to read more about why that is so, click over to my blog and read my take on McCain and how he uses his POW experience as a way to escape all criticism and claim entitlement to the White House.
And, no, his pick of Governor Palin as his running mate has not changed my mind. She’s a token, nothing more. As one who considers myself a feminist, I hate to say that, but I can’t read the situation any other way. Certainly McCain could have found a woman to run with who has at least a little foreign policy experience if he’d really wanted to. There are, after all, women in the Republican party who do have that experience. The fact that McCain chose a woman who has no such experience proves that he was looking to make an impression, not to find a truly qualified running mate.
Comment by Elaine — August 29, 2008 @ 3:35 pm
Well said Elaine!
Comment by Lorell — August 29, 2008 @ 3:37 pm
John Kerry 2004 redux?
“I have a great plan! But don’t ask me about my plan!”
Comment by queuno — August 29, 2008 @ 3:38 pm
Cheryl–
He’s wearing an American flag lapel pin on the cover of Newsweek this week. (Cover is shown on the left side of the homepage, about halfway down). So does that make him a flip-flopper?
Comment by Shelah — August 29, 2008 @ 3:38 pm
Lorell, so does that mean that any woman who chooses to do any kind of work rather than be at home with her baby lacks “family values”? I can hardly believe I am debating this side (particularly after my rant a few months ago over politicians who cheat on their wives), but what do her personal choices have to do with her politics? She was a mayor and a governor before having a baby. If she passes on this, the opportunity may not come again. I have a hard time questioning either her motherhood or her politics over this.
Comment by Stephanie — August 29, 2008 @ 3:40 pm
In my case, I’ve been a McCain supporter since 2000. Partly because he’s not a democrat and not a republican (I love it when he pisses off conservatives and liberals alike).
I could have voted for Hillary over Romney, for instance. But I can’t, just can’t, vote for Obama. He’s too far to the left of what I consider acceptable, and I just can’t see him getting things done.
Comment by queuno — August 29, 2008 @ 3:41 pm
Lorell @ 50: “She is obviously putting her country first, over her family. Something her family just does not deserve.”
It surprises me how quick the commenters here are to judge Gov. Palin and her family for this decision to accept Senator McCain’s offer to be his running mate.
It seems to me that if all you know is that she is: a) a woman who b) gave birth recently c) to a child with special needs, then you are in no position to judge if her decision is right for either her or her child.
I’ve seen plenty of strong families (some of them LDS even!) who have supported Mother in various endeavors that were very time consuming. After all, isn’t that what families do? Support one another?
Comment by Bull Moose — August 29, 2008 @ 3:43 pm
(setting out my bowl of popcorn) Sure looks like I’m in the right place! comment 50, wow.
Comment by cchrissyy — August 29, 2008 @ 3:44 pm
I haven’t read any of the comments, but I want to answer why I don’t like Obama:
He is the best speaker I’ve ever heard. He has the power to unite. But I read his platform, and his politics are borderline Fascism. Nothing scares me more than a people rallying behind a good speaker without knowing why, and I guarantee you that half of his supporters don’t even know what he stands for; nor do they realize that things he claims he can do will never happen. So, it’s a 2 edged sword: A slick speaker who can’t deliver.
Why would anyone vote for that?
That is all.
Comment by cheryl — August 29, 2008 @ 3:46 pm
Working a full time job and having a family is totally different from the pressures of being the Vice President of the United States.
Comment by Lorell — August 29, 2008 @ 3:47 pm
No, no, no. What that baby needs, no, what WE ALL need, is BIll Clinton’s breast milk.
Watch the whole thing.
Comment by Tim J — August 29, 2008 @ 3:52 pm
#61 - Lorell, do you know Dan?
Comment by Ray — August 29, 2008 @ 3:53 pm
And that disqualifies her … how?
Comment by Bull Moose — August 29, 2008 @ 3:53 pm
Sorry, my comment #64 was for Lorell #61.
Comment by Bull Moose — August 29, 2008 @ 3:54 pm
Sorry, I thought this was FMH. Does anyone know where FMH is now?
Comment by Ray — August 29, 2008 @ 3:54 pm
Mfranti, I guess the paragraph that you quoted is what turns me off of Obama…
How much of this is his doing, I don’t know, but he is really the candidate that is going to solve all of the social and economic woes of our time. He is the candidate of “hope” and “change.” That just leaves me feeling like I can’t trust him - where is his record to back up his claims? And what are his claims of “hope” and “change” based on, what policies? When I hear him talking about taxing oil windfall profits, I think great, more taxes for me. It may sound good to say that he is going to sock it to the oil companies but they, of course, are going to pass that tax off to the consumers. So, I have yet to hear from Obama anything that really substantiates his claims that he is going to help the working class etc etc etc….
Oh yeah, and I’m not a huge fan of redistribution of wealth… (just to clarify, I am not claiming that Obama is the only politician who promotes that…)
Comment by amanda — August 29, 2008 @ 3:54 pm
I would be okay with Obama as president if we had a Republican-controlled Congress. It worked well with Clinton, and I’m pretty confident it would keep Obama in check. Things always go a little haywire when the President and Congress are on the same side. Throws that checks and balances thing out of whack.
Comment by Tim J — August 29, 2008 @ 3:55 pm
That paragraph is why, if Obama wins, it’s a one-term presidency. He’s making a lot of promises and is inheriting a country at war and in economic disarray. It’s going to be difficult for him to change a lot of things (even with a Democratically-controlled Congress) in four years. It’s a lot to live up to.
Comment by Tim J — August 29, 2008 @ 3:58 pm
Tim J #69,
Exactly! He’ll be Carter’s second term.
Comment by Bull Moose — August 29, 2008 @ 4:03 pm
#50 A quick Google search reveals that Sarah Palin is still nursing her 4-month-old child. I don’t understand the fact that you are so quick to judge someone when she so obviously is trying to do right by her family in this regard. Just because women are the nurturers of the home doesn’t mean they aren’t meant to effect change, be it social, political, whatever.
As far as the Obama vs McCain debate, while I wish I had the same passionate feelings about Obama that some seem to have, I don’t. His voting record and stance on issues are far too partisan for this moderate.
And while I haven’t been all a’twitter with the McCain camp, adding Palin in it has me excited. Two people who have a history of going for the issues rather than party loyalty impresses me.
Comment by Moxie — August 29, 2008 @ 4:06 pm
So- for me saying that an infant needing a mother biologically is wrong? and not a feminist point of view?
Seriously?
Am I the only crazy that thinks this way?
Does it disqualify her? No, but her timing sucks.
Comment by Lorell — August 29, 2008 @ 4:06 pm
Lorell (#50),
Why not a question about how Obama is putting his country over his family in terms of priority? Granted, his children are both older (10 and 7), but running for president is VERY stressful and time-consuming, and his wife works outside the home in a high-powered job which means that neither of them therefore are home with the kids all the time–and yet no criticism there.
If it’s about keeping the family together and nurturing your children, how do you know Gov. Palin’s husband isn’t staying home to take care of their newest baby, or that grandparents aren’t helping out? Why do you assume that as a working woman she isn’t able to breastfeed and/or spend time with her young baby? Her baby was born in, what, April? While I wish our country had MUCH more comprehensive maternity/family leave policies, 4-5 months down the road seems a pretty reasonable timeframe to jump back in the working world.
Genuinely curious about the logic here.
Comment by Leah — August 29, 2008 @ 4:09 pm
Timing always sucks.
Comment by cheryl — August 29, 2008 @ 4:11 pm
Btw, Palin’s husband DID quit his job to stay home with the children…just FYI.
Comment by cheryl — August 29, 2008 @ 4:12 pm
#75 - That makes me love them all the more.
Comment by Stephanie — August 29, 2008 @ 4:13 pm
Lorell, re: #72, wouldn’t a truly feminist point of view be one that allows a woman to make up her mind either way, to do what she wants without being forced into a mother OR a politician peg? Why is her right any less than someone else (like Obama’s wife, as Leah asked)? To me it seems like it goes decidedly against what I would hope for all women, which is to be able to do what fulfills them and is in their hearts, be it motherhood, career or both.
Comment by Moxie — August 29, 2008 @ 4:16 pm
Ruby makes me so angry, and I wish she would come back to apologize. Other people do it when they are proven wrong, just sayin.
Comment by Roxanna — August 29, 2008 @ 4:16 pm
#66 Ray- I was wondering the same thing- people on an FMH board are critising a woman for being a mother and wanting to be VP? What has happened to this site?!?
Successful mother with a stay at home husband- Palin should be the poster child for FMH!
Comment by salt h2o — August 29, 2008 @ 4:20 pm
Lorell, it is the fact that you appear to condemn her acceptance of the VP slot without ANY idea of how she and her husband are dealing with their situation that rankles. Is a single mother who still has a child at home disqualified? What about someone who never marries, rises in politics, then adopts a child late in life? Etc., etc., etc.
This family appears to be deeply grounded and “real”. They easily are the most “common” family to be in this position for a long, long time. She has more experience as an executive running a business and a government than Obama and Biden combined. The fact that she has a young baby automatically disqualifies her? You can’t say, “her timing sucks” then say it doesn’t disqualify her. In practical terms, they are one and the same thing. (Besides, it’s not “her” timing.)
That’s the issue.
Comment by Ray — August 29, 2008 @ 4:22 pm
But Palin is a Republican. Doesn’t that automatically dismiss her from FMH ranks?
I could be wrong, but that seems to be the vibe.
Comment by cheryl — August 29, 2008 @ 4:28 pm
It would rock if she planned on carrying her baby with her in a sling wherever she went on the campaign trail, and nursing during meetings and press conferences. Wherever she is welcomed, her baby should also be.
#73 Excellent points.
Norway gets 12 months paid maternity leave. 4-5 months in this country seems pretty nice, but still not ideal.
My logic? Maternal and infant biology.
Really?
Obviously, my opinion is not popular, nor perfect. I should of taken debate in school.
Comment by Lorell — August 29, 2008 @ 4:32 pm
#32 -
Please tell me you did not make your decision based on something so insignificant as whether someone is wearing a silly pin.
Being against his policies I can stand - but allowing lapel pins, preachers, or the countries he grew up be the basis for voting or not for him really makes me scared for our country. No wonder Bush won a second term. (and I am sorry if this is harsh, its not really a personal attack on you, I just hear that so much and I cannot imagine allowing such insignificance determine the course of our country…)
Comment by julie — August 29, 2008 @ 4:34 pm
Dude. I didn’t carry my kids in a sling or nurse them past 10 months old, and I’m a SAHM! Does that make me the worst mother, or what?
Is it just because she’s in a high political position? Why all the hatin’? If it’s just her politics, than that’s fine. People are obviously not going to agree with her politics, just as people aren’t going to agree with Obama’s. But to criticize her mothering? It’s just low, that’s all.
Comment by cheryl — August 29, 2008 @ 4:34 pm
I don’t like Obama because I don’t trust him. I think he wants people to believe he’s just like them, when, in fact, he’s definitely not. I find him arrogant. He delivers wonderful speeches and then stands there to bask in the adoration. It just doesn’t feel right to me.
And if I hear the word “Change,” one more time …. Come to think of it, I have “changed.” I do believe I will be voting for the Republican candidate in November. John McCain showed us today that he, too, believes in “change” by choosing Sarah Palin as his running mate.
Comment by Kalola — August 29, 2008 @ 4:37 pm
Sassy LAge 16: Please read this snopes link re yet one more urban legend about Barack Obama
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/afghanistan.asp
If going to smear someone, don’t pretend you got the letter yourself. Some people know how to check snopes./
Comment by Fran — August 29, 2008 @ 4:41 pm
I am an independent (and become more of an independent with every election). I was really enamored with Barak when he broke onto the national stage and made his speech at the Convention four years ago. I guess my concern with him at this point is wondering just how extreme his personal views really are. In his heart does he mirror the fanaticism of Reverand Wright and Mr. Ayers? But notwithstanding those concerns, there is no doubt that he is a doing something amazing here. Last week my four year old son said out of the blue “Barak Obama dot com” - like he even knows what that means! Even four year olds are picking up on him!
Comment by minnie — August 29, 2008 @ 4:47 pm
I don’t like Obama because his is empty rhetoric. He’s a good speaker - although he lacks the sheer charisma and passion of the Clintons. (Turn off the sound and look at them. Obama looks distracted; Bill Clinton looks empassioned.) But there’s nothing but empty rhetoric. His policies aren’t as strong as Hillary’s. He’s too untested - the Republican attack machine will rip him to shreds. (They couldn’t rip Hillary to shreds because we already knew all of her dirt.) His voting record in the Senate isn’t strong. He is a typical politician, all while pretending he is not.
I don’t like McCain either. I think McCain would be more of a mistake for the US than Obama. So, on the balance, I hope Obama wins; I just don’t like him and don’t think he will be a good president.
Thankfully I’m registered to vote in Utah, which will go for McCain no matter what, so I can throw my vote away on a third-party candidate without having to worry about it costing Obama the election.
Comment by Quimby — August 29, 2008 @ 4:50 pm
#86 - Now that’s the FMH I know and love. Beat that dead horse into submission!! Once more, anyone?
Comment by Ray — August 29, 2008 @ 4:52 pm
#87 - my 8 year old cried when Romney dropped out of the race
Comment by Stephanie — August 29, 2008 @ 4:52 pm
Ok, I feel like I am taking crazy pills. McCain believes in ‘change’ by choosing Palin for a running mate? Just because she is a woman??? I feel like maybe everyone is quick to say yay Palin without knowing anything about her track record.
Which, when it comes to the environment - namely the melting glaciers and nearly extinct Polar Bears and Wolves in her state, is absolutely horrendous. Palin is far more right wing than Bush or Cheney, its quite scary to me. She panders to the special interests (namely OIL which is the industry her husband works in and which gave her most of her cash and which wants very badly to drill in her state…), she pretty much lied to the press just a few months ago about Scientific research being done on Polar Bears in her state and sued to have them removed from the endangered species list - one of the most endangered animals on the planet! She has actively worked to allow big oil to drill in Alaska’s wildlife refuge, distorting facts and lying about its environmental impact.
Her state is ground zero for the most important issues facing our country and the entire world - energy and global warming and she has failed miserably. I am absolutely devastated about her being chosen as VP.
Comment by julie — August 29, 2008 @ 4:52 pm
Good grief. No, that’s not my only reason for not voting for him. I was bringing it up because I hadn’t seen it addressed yet. It is NOT the wearing of the pin that I care about - it was his reasoning behind it.
I may be the optimist of the group or something but I think that America is still the best country in the world. We have our problems. We are not perfect. We will never be perfect. What I objected to in the interview was that he used the pin and the anthem as symbols of our country and he felt like he didn’t support that because he wanted to be less “We’re the best! I’m so proud.” Obviously I am paraphrasing here. I can’t remember the exact words.
My other reasons for not voting for him are many.
Honestly, and maybe I’m in the wrong place here, I would have voted for Romney over anyone. This is not because he is a Mormon. It was because of what he is capable of doing with financially screwed up places and things.
Let’s all just be happy that no matter which side you are on and who wins this election, this one is going to make history.
Comment by cheryl — August 29, 2008 @ 4:53 pm
I can’t believe we are still tallking about global warming.
Comment by cheryl — August 29, 2008 @ 4:56 pm
And Cheryl #60 - Obama is about as far from Fascism as a politician can get (Bush on the other hand…). On the opposite end of the spectrum.
To continue my rant on Palin - she also allowed the expansion of hunting of the Grey Wolves in Alaska - making it legal to get in a plane and chase them until exhaustion at which point they shoot them and throw them away. They are hunting them to near extinction, all because of her policy.
Comment by julie — August 29, 2008 @ 4:56 pm
why shouldn’t global warming be talked about?
Comment by julie — August 29, 2008 @ 5:02 pm
Re: 60
I think there’s some hilarious formula/rule/thing that says the longer responses to a blog post go on, the more likely someone is to compare someone to Hitler.
just thought I’d say that before this next bit, since I’m going to bring in Hitler and all, but the #60 post did make me think of Hitler… what with the mention of fascism and the screaming crowds moved by rhetoric.
now, I’m SO not going to compare Obama to Hitler (or the anti-christ like I REALLY HAVE heard people say he might be! really!), but I do find something disturbing about someone who is so persuasive and such a good speaker that people faint when he talks. I mean, I get goosebumps every friggin time the man speaks, but then I go… so… what was he going to do again?
I guess that much power over a crowd worries me.
Comment by Isis — August 29, 2008 @ 5:03 pm
Well, some people would have you believe that all scientific research points to global warming being a fact but there is just as much research that says it isn’t. I don’t think it is the most important thing to be worrying about.
Comment by cheryl — August 29, 2008 @ 5:05 pm
I’d never vote for a pro-death, killing babies is ok at any stage of pregnancy, candidate like Obama. Praise God for Palin!
Comment by Joel — August 29, 2008 @ 5:05 pm
I think it’s going too far to compare Obama to the anti-Christ. Just about the only thing he’s got going for him is his Messiah complex - he’s the Second Coming! Well, we all know what happened to the Messiah the first time around . . .
Comment by Quimby — August 29, 2008 @ 5:05 pm
Joel #98, I’d think you’d be praising God you were born with a penis so you’ll never have to actually go through a complicated thought process with regards to abortion.
Comment by Quimby — August 29, 2008 @ 5:07 pm
Ooh! Two cheryl’s! I’m the Fascism Cheryl, btw, and he may claim to be on the other end of the political spectrum, but his crowd-pleasin’ ways prove otherwise.
Isis-
That’s why I never came out and said it. I don’t think Obama wants to eradicate an entire race. But his speech skills are in the same league, and yes! That is scary.
Amen, Joel.
Comment by cheryl — August 29, 2008 @ 5:08 pm
Is it even possible that we are debating whether a mother of five, who chose to carry a Down’s Syndrome baby to term, and who has a stay-at-home spouse (and, I suspect, a breast pump) is a bad mother because she is in politics. Sheesh! I thought this was 2008, not 1968.
Many very good mothers don’t nurse. Many very good mothers go to work, while the husband stays home (or works). Many bad mothers nurse, or stay at home. Vice versa on both, of course. I never knew that my mammary glands were what defined me as a person.
No wonder women get implants! If that’s all that matters, make sure they are big.
Comment by Natasha — August 29, 2008 @ 5:08 pm
Quimby-
As if a man never had to be involved with an abortion decision. Wow.
Comment by cheryl — August 29, 2008 @ 5:09 pm
BTW. I’m a Obama gal. Don’t like Palin’s policies one bit. But to say she’s a bad mother without knowing anything other than the fact that she recently gave birth and is now a prominent, very busy political figure. . .wow, that takes gall.
Comment by Natasha — August 29, 2008 @ 5:10 pm
What? Obama’s stance on abortion is not like that. Go read up.
BTW, I’m getting tired of people telling me I like to kill babies. The church’s stance is a pro choice position. What? YES. It’s pro-choice.
“Church leaders have said that some exceptional circumstances may justify an abortion, such as when pregnancy is the result of incest or rape, when the life or health of the mother is judged by competent medical authority to be in serious jeopardy, or when the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.”
Taken directly from the church website.
What does this mean? Women should have a right to get an abortion in these circumstances. That’s right: to choose.
Sorry. Huge threadjack, I know. But I’m tired of it!!
Comment by sare — August 29, 2008 @ 5:11 pm
No, it’s because she’s outside Washington, far from it.
Yes, how dare Palin melt those glaciers and kill the Polar Bears!!!
Comment by Tim J — August 29, 2008 @ 5:11 pm
Cheryl, when did I say a man has never had to be involved in a decision regarding abortion? Putting words into my mouth. Wow.
Comment by Quimby — August 29, 2008 @ 5:14 pm
sare,
If the Church’s policy on abortion were law, you wouldn’t hear much complaint from me. But seeing that there is a HUGE gap between the two, I think you’re waaaay off.
Comment by Tim J — August 29, 2008 @ 5:14 pm
Please people, do your research before you post.
#73 - Mrs. Obama has quit her job (presumably to care for the children and campaign) during this crazy time for them and their family. A simple google search will document that.
Not that I completely agree, I’d like to point out that Lorell’s concern is valid. The point isn’t whether or not a woman, or even a mom, can be VP. It is whether we can really trust someone’s judgement who thinks they can nurse a 4 month old, parent 3 other children, continue in her Alaskan duties, etc while on the grueling campaign trail. Her job as VP does not start in November or January… it essentially started early this morning. Furthermore, if any of you have tried to get from Alaska to any other portion of the country (with perhaps the exception of Seattle), it is VERY time consuming. And being VP is not exactly a flex hour job. Even with a SAHD for a spouse.
So, coming from someone claiming “family values,” the first thing I am curious about is “how is she going to make this work?”
(This coming from a woman who dragged her 4 month old across the country for 10 weeks to keep progressing on her PhD with a long list of familial help. But it wasn’t easy. And it was for 10 weeks. I can do anything for 10 weeks.)
Full disclosure - I wouldn’t vote for McCain if he were the last person on earth, so I really could care less who his running mate is.
Comment by Cole — August 29, 2008 @ 5:15 pm
Ummm…because you said this:
I’d think you’d be praising God you were born with a penis so you’ll never have to actually go through a complicated thought process with regards to abortion.
My apologies for reading it wrong…?
Comment by cheryl — August 29, 2008 @ 5:15 pm
Julie (91),
Most if not all of those points are way open to debate, but at least you’re not attacking her mothering.
When I was working in Alaska this year, I saw her clash with the oil companies constantly. They hate her. She does support drilling in ANWAR, and so do I. I lived and worked up there, and I would not be worried at all about the environmental impact, especially with horizontal drilling. ANWAR is a moot point anyway, though, unless you see Congress swinging overwhelmingly Republican in the near future. Not going to happen.
Comment by Dan Ellsworth — August 29, 2008 @ 5:17 pm
Tim J, I have to agree with you. #91 made me laugh…I have a hard time using the word horrendous and exclamation points when discussing polar bears. Soldiers dying, Iraqis being displaced, aborted fetuses…maybe. Polar bears? Nah.
Comment by amanda — August 29, 2008 @ 5:18 pm
TimJ - as a governor she has blocked every attempt at conservation and actively promoted the opposite - removing all safe guards that are in place. Also, do you have anything to add? I mean, it easy to make jokes and be sarcastic, is all I’m saying.
Oh dear lord that is depressing. No wonder the US lags behind every other industrialized nation in caring for the environment.
Comment by julie — August 29, 2008 @ 5:20 pm
Like I said, there is just as much evidence that it is NOT happening so why should it be a more important topic than unborn children, soldiers overseas, taxes, gas, oil, etc. etc etc
Comment by cheryl — August 29, 2008 @ 5:22 pm
Re: 102 “No wonder women get implants! If that’s all that matters, make sure they are big!”
Thought I’d pee my pants laughing at that. I want it on a t-shirt or something. (maybe I can have my plastic surgeon write in on the implants themselves… ;-))
Comment by Kerry — August 29, 2008 @ 5:24 pm
re:50. Lorell: Yea, it’s so un-PC to say, but that thought crossed my mind as well before I shamed myself for it. I wondered how it is that the lady has 5 children including a new baby and doesn’t prefer to spend her time as a Mother. Perhaps some might been unexpected pregnancies. Who are we to speculate? Oh dear, perhaps we might best go with Obama and Joe Biden.The Democrats at least seem to understand that birth control is a really good way to reduce unwanted pregnancies if you aren’t in the Mothering mood. yes, sorry, I do cringe for writing that.
re: 91 Julie is right.
Ms Palin is the Oil Companies candidate.
This country is built on petroleum. Our gas taxes (among the lowest in first world countries) are spent for highway work, not for mass transit. Fuel efficiency standards have been successfully maintained at very oddly low levels for many many years. Big Oil spends billions attempting to persuade Americans that they are taking care of the environment.
When diesel went to $5.10 a barrel, and GREEN started looking really good to a lot more folks, those guys said “oops, guess we pushed the prices and profits a bit too high this time.” So now they’re lower by a wee tiny bit…. The kind of shift away from oil that we need for true energy independence challenges some very powerful entrenched interests who want more of the same. They prefer having an Oil man in the Whitehouse, no more so than now when an alternative energy future is becoming clear to so many. McCain is their man as his running mate is their woman.
What I don’t get about it is the evangelicals falling all over themselves on the TV fauning about her selection. They live on this planet too, and indeed many acknowledge
an obligation to honor the gift of it.
Personnally, I find the selection insulting. AS IF this woman is even CLOSE to Hillary in ability and experience.
AS IF they are saying to themselves “”any” woman is good enough to attract female voters to our ticket. Those girls don’t care about competence in selecting their president. It’s all about style with them.”
I am appalled anyone would think us all so gullible.
And here we are chatting about her family arrangements.
Hope she’s paid her Nanny tax….
Comment by Betty Jo — August 29, 2008 @ 5:25 pm
Dan, thank you for actually responding thoughtfully instead of mocking
Also, I appreciate your opinion and that it is an informed one.
But, visiting a place doesn’t exactly make you an expert on the environmental impact of something either (um, unless you are an expert…?)
Also, Amanda bringing up that there are indeed other horrendous issues facing the world doesn’t mean that environmental issues aren’t both horrendous and incredibly important in this election. But way to join up with the sarcasm crowd.
Comment by julie — August 29, 2008 @ 5:26 pm
ray, i love ya, but that was a cheap shot.
Comment by mfranti — August 29, 2008 @ 5:29 pm
“go through a complicated thought process with regards to abortion”
Too bad millions of girls killed in the womb never get to go through a thought process when their parents kill them.
Comment by Joel — August 29, 2008 @ 5:30 pm
“Well, some people would have you believe that all scientific research points to global warming being a fact but there is just as much research that says it isn’t. I don’t think it is the most important thing to be worrying about.”
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
The link above is an article that discusses the claim above. Essentially, a study was shown indicating that there are more than 928 peer-reviewed scientific articles substantiating the claim that global warming is occurring. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.
If you believe scientists, there is no question, no doubt. If you prefer to get science via the media, well then, yes, there is a debate. I
loved what one of the DNC speakers said about what a relief it will be to have a president who believes in science.
Comment by Natasha — August 29, 2008 @ 5:32 pm
Cheryl, gas and oil and the environmental issues I am pointing out are one and the same, completely intertwined.
And obviously, what is most important in an election is a personal decision, but as I mentioned before, just because there are other important issues doesn’t diminish the importance of the health and safety and security of our planet. Which also influences the health and safety and security and economy and on and on of the planets residents. Do you ever walk outside? Breath the air? Enjoy drinking clean water? Do you have an appreciation for the planet and its wildlife and beauty that I assume you believe God created? Or are you willing to just sell at that for a mess of pottage (as it were)? (damn I cannot believe I just busted out scripture…sorry I’m getting all attack dog on you…)
Comment by julie — August 29, 2008 @ 5:33 pm
and anyway, once Hitler gets brought up, doesn’t it kill the thread anyway?
Comment by Natasha — August 29, 2008 @ 5:33 pm
That is so funny. I wish I had a link to all of the science magazine reports and reviews that I have read and seen that contradict that point but I have not kept them as I never have felt like debating this before. Science via the media is the one that is all about global warming- not the other way around.
Anyway I am done with this discussion… carry on.
Comment by cheryl — August 29, 2008 @ 5:35 pm
#123 reminds of Orrin Hatch during the Anita Baker hearings: “I have thousands of letters right here in my pocket that say you’re a liar.” He never produced any evidence, either.
Comment by Quimby — August 29, 2008 @ 5:41 pm
I don’t see any ties to big oil for Palin. Let’s see here:
Passed a tax increase on oil companies profits. Bet they weren’t excited about that.
Created a sub-cabinet group to address climate change. Of course she signed this on a polar bear hunt while melting glaciers with all the hot air coming out of her mouth.
Presented plans for a NATURAL GAS pipeline to be built.
Comment by Tim J — August 29, 2008 @ 5:43 pm
Re 105 Sare, the LDS Church position is not understood by the majority of it’s members in the State of Utah. The laws in this state more closely resemble the platform of the Dems. I, too, tire of being called pro-abortion. I don’t know anyone who is pro-abortion. Pro-choice, yes.
By the way, don’t try to get an abortion in Utah, even under those circumstances stated in church policy. Next to impossible.
Comment by Darlene — August 29, 2008 @ 5:46 pm
Julie, (this is a threadjack!) but a serious question for you. In #121, you talk about appreciating fresh air, being outside etc etc etc. Do you honestly believe that people who are pro-drilling don’t like to be outdoors and/or drink fresh water? That is how your post came across to me, as if only “anti-oil environmentalists” enjoy the outdoors. That seems like such a one-dimensional way to look at issues and how people believe and vote that I am sure that I am not understanding what you mean….Maybe you could clarify for me?
Comment by amanda — August 29, 2008 @ 5:47 pm
From the WSJ:
Yep, in bed with oil.
Hold on though, I’ll keep looking.
Comment by Tim J — August 29, 2008 @ 5:47 pm
Funny, sare, I hope don’t have to get an abortion anywhere.
Comment by Tim J — August 29, 2008 @ 5:50 pm
Betty Jo (116),
What is Hillary’s experience?
Julie (117),
I concede your point, that being in the area doesn’t qualify me to make an enviro assessment. But I think there is a case to be made that the North Slope has set a precedent for how ANWAR would be developed, only it would be much better, since the North Slope installations began to go online in the 70s and there is such better recovery technology nowadays.
Again, though- this should not factor in as an issue in the election, because there will not be a Republican congress in the near future. Meanwhile, both McCain and Obama believe in global warming and support cap-and-trade (I prefer a carbon tax and way more toll roads).
Part of evaluating a candidate is assessing the areas where you disagree, and part of that process is assessing whether the candidate would even be able to implement the policy you disagree with. Palin couldn’t bring about drilling in ANWAR as VP, and she has a very strong record of clashing with the oil companies and the Republican Party in Alaska.
Comment by Dan Ellsworth — August 29, 2008 @ 5:51 pm
Hmmmm…
Here’s what one non-partisan site found out about Palin’s campaign contributors.
Big oil everywhere!
Comment by Tim J — August 29, 2008 @ 5:52 pm
Re: 126 Oh my goodness, I wrote it wrong. I should have said “the position of the CHURCH more closely resembles the Dem platform in the state.”
Comment by Darlene — August 29, 2008 @ 5:53 pm
so why don’t you guys like obama?
Comment by mfranti — August 29, 2008 @ 5:53 pm
Amanda…because the actions of many in power (including Palin, who tried to have Polar Bears removed from the endangered species list, TimJ, so that they would not be a road block to drilling…) are actions that are contributing to the destruction of our planet. Rising water levels from melting glaciers (caused by a shrinking ozone caused by carbon omission caused by dependence on oil…) would destroy much of the environment you love, threaten much of our clean water supply etc etc.
Obviously (its 2 in the morning where I live I really should let this go and quit with the thread jack but what the hell…) I did not make my point well, which was I cannot understand why if you enjoy those things or appreciate those things (which obviously everyone does…) you would want to support and promote policies and actions that threaten those very things you love and depend on. Focusing on drilling is very short sighted, when instead we should be focusing on alternative sources of energy, namely clean ones that will actually help in the long one and not just for one election cycle. Thats my only point, which I am very very done making.
Comment by julie — August 29, 2008 @ 5:59 pm
and sorry mfranti, for the horrible thread jack!
Comment by julie — August 29, 2008 @ 6:00 pm
…oh because he’s a good speaker, he doesn’t have any real experience and …he’s pro choice.
phew. glad to know that. i should totally vote for mccain.
sigh
Comment by mfranti — August 29, 2008 @ 6:04 pm
I didn’t read all the comments, so forgive me if this has been said, but I am a small government kind of girl. I don’t like HMOs telling me what medicine I am allowed to take and which doctor I am allowed to see anymore than I like the government telling me what I should make, if I should work, or what I should think is fair. (my experience with socialized medicine is that it is like a big HMO telling em what medication is allowed, when and where and who to see).
It isn’t that Obama loves HMOs or is forcing me to work, but I prefer a small government, which is more McCain. That’s it- pretty simple for me. I like privacy more than I like big government making choices for me. I know people will disagree and argue- so FYI- I won’t take it up. I just that I like what I like-, art, government, spicy level of mexican food- it is what I prefer and find most tasteful.
Comment by spunky — August 29, 2008 @ 6:04 pm
If you affect drilling in Alaska, you affect human lives. It’s obviously a huge industry in Alaska and Palin’s primary job as governor is to protect her citizens.
Like natural gas? The we agree, Palin is a great choice.
Comment by Tim J — August 29, 2008 @ 6:05 pm
#118 - Yeah, it probably was. Sorry. I’ll rephrase it:
“Fran, about 6-8 comments already said exactly what you just typed, and she has apologized twice for posting it. There are times when people here pile on a bit too long, but do you really think it’s necessary to beat a horse that expired about 20 comments ago?”
How’s that?
mfranti, seriously, feel free to delete everything after “Sorry” once you’ve read it. It’s typed tongue-in-cheek mostly for you to read. I’m just a little giddy reading these threads today.
Comment by Ray — August 29, 2008 @ 6:07 pm
Quimby #124, “Orrin Hatch during the Anita Baker hearings”
The eight-time Grammy Award winning singer??
(What’s on your iPod right now?)
Comment by Bull Moose — August 29, 2008 @ 6:09 pm
#71
LOL If anyone googled my name, would they see whether I was nursing my infant?
Seriously guys, TOO MUCH INFORMATION
Comment by Lupita — August 29, 2008 @ 6:18 pm
#109 - So, Cole, it isn’t okay for anyone else to question your judgement in getting your PhD with a 4 month old (you know - because you had familial help, it was only 10 weeks, etc.) Basically, as a feminist, shouldn’t you be able to set and obtain any career goals you choose, make the choices that you feel are best for your family, not be limited by your gender, etc?
But, it’s okay to question Palin’s judgement because she is going to run for VP with a four month old (you know - because four year olds need to be nursed, she’s the only one who can do it, she has 3 other kids, a stay-at-home dad isn’t enough for all of her responsibilities, etc.)
I’m sorry, but the hypocrisy is just killing me.
Comment by Stephanie — August 29, 2008 @ 6:25 pm
Um, correction, four *month* olds need to be nursed (heaven help me if I ever nurse a four year old)
Comment by Stephanie — August 29, 2008 @ 6:27 pm
The curious thing to me is that both you and Lorell use this to question the Republican party and as evidence that the Democrats really are the ones with “family values”. So, now the Democrat position is that women with babies should be limited in what they are allowed to take on and accomplish?
I honestly don’t even know if I am a conservative or liberal anymore. My head is swimming.
Comment by Stephanie — August 29, 2008 @ 6:32 pm
he’s too good-looking and charismatic, mfranti. That’s why I’m afraid of him.
Comment by Shelah — August 29, 2008 @ 6:46 pm
#142 -
While it seems hypocritical, I was disclosing my stint of weird family situations with a 4 month old because I am saying I know what it means to take on a (seemingly crazy) temporary situation for employment/ other pursuits. I would be fine with a “different” living arrangement or working arrangement then the norm for Palin. And I’d be fine with Palin as a VP with a toddler (or 10 young children for that matter).
Where I lose it is how is she going to meet the nutritional and emotional needs of her 4 month old on a campaign trail? Is she going to sling the baby (I’d love to see that.. probably won’t happen)? Is her 16 year old daughter going to follow her around carrying the babe for when she wants to nurse? Is SAHD going to hold the baby except for when babe needs to eat? Then who is with the other children? Or is SAHD going to go home to Alaska and feed baby (likely formula unless Palin is airmailing milk home every night) and see mom every once and a while?
So, I’m mostly curious how she is juggling this and getting her family as well as her own needs met. In other words, I struggle to take her pro-life, “pro-family” stance seriously when she will put national politics in front of her nursing relationship with her 5 month old. Granted, nursing isn’t everything. But it is a pretty big deal. Let’s call it as it is.
And while it probably won’t satisfy you, I’ll tell you a few more details about my stint away from “home” with a 4 month old. Although my location was problematic and across the country from my husband’s job, I had an apartment in the other city and and time away from baby was less than 8 hours a week. Husband averaged being with us greater than 2 days a week during that time. I had a family member with me at all times. I slept in the same bed every night. It was quite stable and I feel good about meeting my infant’s every need.
Comment by Cole — August 29, 2008 @ 6:46 pm
Cole, I am honestly not questioning your judgement, but I am not questioning Palin’s either. Personally, I started and dropped out of a PhD program when my oldest was 6 months. I did about 3 days of passing the baby as my husband got home from his graduate school and I left for mine and decided it just wasn’t for me. But, I still support your ability to make your own choice and don’t question your judgement over it.
Comment by Stephanie — August 29, 2008 @ 6:54 pm
So is “speech” intentionally misspelled in the title? (a play on words I am missing?)
I am not voting for Obama because I don’t like the Democrat platform. That’s about it. I don’t really have much against him.
Comment by Stephanie — August 29, 2008 @ 7:03 pm
Sarcasm right? ” I really have to wonder why, on this site esp, the issue of having young children at home while serving in a high political office is brought up for Palin but not Biden or Obama….
Comment by amanda ”
Or we would be honest and upfront about what it is. Sexism.
Comment by Ruby — August 29, 2008 @ 7:04 pm
re: the gov with a sling
I don’t see why hypothetically ending the “nursing relationship” a bit early calls into question her prolife credentials- her position is clear on the pr-life extreme and backed up with the real world choice to birth her DS baby, when stats show that when it’s diagnosed prenatally a whopping 90% of DS babies get aborted.
and you say she’s not pro-family enough if she possibly weans him at 5 or 6 months old? goodness.
Comment by cchrissyy — August 29, 2008 @ 7:06 pm
“Um, correction, four *month* olds need to be nursed (heaven help me if I ever nurse a four year old)
Comment by Stephanie”
It’s not scary. My youngest nursed for five years. My La Leche leader’s daughter nursed till seven. It’s only unusual in the West.
Comment by Ruby — August 29, 2008 @ 7:07 pm
#150 I love that picture! What a woman!
Comment by Stephanie — August 29, 2008 @ 7:07 pm
oops.
photo link
times & seasons blog on keeping a DS baby
Comment by cchrissyy — August 29, 2008 @ 7:08 pm
Tim,
the point isn’t voting into law about what abortions can and cannot be done, the point is to vote for a woman’s choice to make the correct judgment. If there were no legal abortions, then nobody who was a victim of rape, incest, or whose life was endangered by pregnancy would have access. Thus, church policy is one of choice. A LIMITED choice, yes, but still a choice. The church would expect the woman to counsel with priesthood leaders about it, I’m sure… but ultimately, the church wants the choice in the hands of the woman. Don’t you think??
Comment by sare — August 29, 2008 @ 7:08 pm
Stephanie,
I don’t mind you questioning my judgment… I do it all the time!
Seriously, for me, I guess it has more to do with how we value early infancy and childhood. I’m a feminist in most every sense of the conventional word, yes. I strongly believe women need to be in the highest offices in government and corporate America. But, we have to get them there while supporting the unique relationship between mother and infant, mother and child. We have to do that with more, better, and affordable childcare support and arrangements…. by offering more breastfeeding support… by having fathers step up in their role as an active caregiver.
In some ways, the Palin family is admirable in this respect. To watch their family rally around mom so she can stand up for her political beliefs (many, if not most of which I disagree with) is admirable. But watching Palin traipse around telling women they should sacrifice their lives rather than make a choice about a baby while she sacrifices her babes’ very early childhood makes me uncomfortable. And makes me question her judgment.
Yes, I’m writing a dissertation. Yes, I leave my toddler with my husband at this point for 25-30 hours a week. Yes, I probably pay a price for it somewhere (more harried husband, extra year on the dissertation, a babe who has to wait an extra hour to nurse on occasion). But, I feel like (and others are free to disagree or say its not for them) that I’ve found a good balance.
So, what kind of message is Palin going on the campaign trail of 20 hour days with a 4 month old really sending to women about motherhood and work? Maybe Palin’s life is balanced. But, if we are going to hold her up as an example of motherhood, especially as a working mother, then I have a right to question her judgment in that arena. And I have to say, I have some serious doubts.
And with that, I need to go nurse my toddler and eat dinner with my family.
Comment by Cole — August 29, 2008 @ 7:13 pm
Also wanted to add (and then I’ll stop jacking this thread)…
I personally cannot imagine having an abortion myself. I cannot imagine it. It would be a heart-wrenching thing. I know that there are reasons, but… it’s a big thing. A sad thing. I personally know someone who had to do it… their baby was not going to survive post birth, and the pregnancy was endangering her health. She really grieved over it.
It doesn’t help to treat it so cavalierly. Seriously, we’re all human. None of us really wants to kill babies. So quit.
Comment by sare — August 29, 2008 @ 7:15 pm
#149 - Yep, women can be sexist, too.
#150 - GREAT picture. How can anyone knock her for the way she appears to be taking care of her children?
Comment by Ray — August 29, 2008 @ 7:15 pm
Cole, there is NO evidence so far that she has neglected her baby or her kids in any way. Are we to vote against her because she might stop being what appears to be an excellent mother?
Comment by Ray — August 29, 2008 @ 7:17 pm
#141 Obviously some have thought her breasts are somehow relevant to her candidacy. I figure if someone is going to accuse her of neglecting her children by not providing them the best possible nourishment, that idea should be squelched if it is categorically untrue. I also would suppose if you were running for political office and folks were attacking you then it’s guaranteed you’d be Googled as well and be privy to all that might be discovered there. Welcome to the age of the information age.
Comment by Moxie — August 29, 2008 @ 7:24 pm
Ha. “Welcome to the age of information age.” A typo of course, and I obviously must work for the Redundancy Department of Redundancy!
Comment by Moxie — August 29, 2008 @ 7:25 pm
#158 - In theory, I agree with you. No, she hasn’t yet. It is true that every indication is that she is breastfeeding and taking her babe to work a great deal of the time. And if she slings and breastfeeds her baby through the election, I’ll eat my words.
But, come on… have you every tried to be on the run with a 4 month old all day long? Now try 9 weeks of it. I just don’t see it ending well.
Comment by Cole — August 29, 2008 @ 7:37 pm
Cole, so would it keep you from voting for her if you approved of her politics if she didn’t continue to breastfeed and schlep the baby around with her?
Comment by Ray — August 29, 2008 @ 7:54 pm
Cole,
Wow! I was the first person to bring up the motherhood/VP issue on this post and I wasn’t nearly as articulate as you are in getting the point across that you can’t be all things to all people and that in sacrificing your baby’s infancy to chase after VP, it makes me doubt a woman’s judgement.
I agree with your wholeheartedly! Keep posting!
Comment by Molly — August 29, 2008 @ 7:59 pm
Holy. Cow.
cole, and molly, I do not understand how anyone could be that judgmental. You do not know her situation. You are not her. You do not have her family, you weren’t in on all the family discussions and planning, etc…
I’m really glad I wasn’t in either of your wards when I was a full-time working, full-time schooling, single parent! You don’t know the why of what goes on in other peoples’ lives. It’s best just not to judge.
Comment by sare — August 29, 2008 @ 8:04 pm
No, I won’t vote for her because I don’t agree with the rest of her politics (or McCain’s for that matter).
That said, I’m excited as any feminist for a woman to be on the ticket. What I don’t appreciate, is a token woman on the ticket… one who’s experience is pretty thin. Furthermore, I don’t appreciate that she was, presuambly, tapped to be a pro-life, pro-religious, pro-family token… and still when we question her parenting/mothering, people jump down our throats like it should be irrelevent.
So, yes, if she stopped breastfeeding in order to keep up a campaign schedule, it would be a hard sell for me if I were (and this is completely not the case) drawn to the rest of her politics. I feel that strongly about breastfeeding and early infancy bonding and I feel it says something about her priorities. If Obama was a terrible father, or even an absentee father, I wouldn’t vote for him. But all indications is that they have been pretty thoughtful as to how to care for their girls and family life while in public life.
And if you want an example of prioritizing family and public life, you need look no further than Biden. Bless him, he took the train home every night as a single parent to make sure he was an active father without uprooting his (already traumatized by the death of their mother) boys.
Comment by Cole — August 29, 2008 @ 8:08 pm
Sare - I’m sorry it comes across that way. But, you should trust me when I say that I cut single parents and working class parents a lot of slack. In general, I actually am not nearly this judgmental.
But you must realize, when you throw your hat into the political ring, you are asking people to evaluate your judgment. So, I don’t see why I’m out of line for questioning a women’s choice (and it is a choice, she could have said no) to go out on an awfully strenuous campaign with a 4 month old.
Comment by Cole — August 29, 2008 @ 8:14 pm
Bringing the discussion back to Obama and his speech. The thing that keeps driving me crazy is that most people I talk to/read about don’t seem to have a real problem with his politics, but they don’t seem to believe that what he proposes is possible. Now, I think they may have a point. There is no way that Obama, alone, is going to accomplish anything. But that’s what has persuaded me about him. He gets people passionate, he gets people interested, and he gets me believing that I, and he, and the country can do something better than sit in our houses and fear the future.
Comment by Charity — August 29, 2008 @ 8:19 pm
This is a long thread!
But, I really do like Obama. I’m a Poli Sci major, and a West Wing nut (if I could elect Jed Bartlet to the White House, I would!)
Here’s a cool video about how the West Wing predicted the 2008 election.
Comment by jessawhy — August 29, 2008 @ 8:22 pm
Thanks, Cole. I understand our different opinions now.
Comment by Ray — August 29, 2008 @ 8:30 pm
Errrr… 170 comments and nobody bothers to mention the glaring typo in the title of this post? (”speach”?)
Comment by Geoff J — August 29, 2008 @ 8:45 pm
hey, none of that now… mfranti’s already been dogged about her casual writing style this week…
I personally scorn blog post spell checkers.
I’m like mfranti: anti-snobby like that…
Comment by sare — August 29, 2008 @ 8:53 pm
Barack Obama will be a good president. He makes some big promises in his speech, and I hope he keeps at least most of them. All plans look good on paper. The two most important reasons I am voting for Obama are
1. He will end the war in Iraq.
2. He will end torture.
As for the rest, I don’t have a settled opinion. I’m neither here nor there. But I like the way he inspires us to be better than we are.
Comment by Dan — August 29, 2008 @ 9:13 pm
I think if we are going to ridicule or judge a women running for a political office because she is 1) nursing 2) a mother of 5 3) has a DS baby etc. then we also need to do the same to every teacher, secretary, housekeeper etc that happens to be a mother and working out of the home. I realize that VP of the U.S. is a demanding job, but I can easily see her hiring a follow me around nanny that holds my baby off in the wings while the work gets done.
Palin is a pioneer. How many women crossed the plains with babies tied to them? We hear of their heroics, this world could use a few more heroines.
Comment by big mama — August 29, 2008 @ 9:23 pm
I wonder when McCain made the final decision to add Palin to the ticket. Is there any word out there in cyber land that anyone has heard (read)? Was McCain waiting to hear of Obama’s VP choice? Did he want to try picking up the “feminist vote” when Hilary didn’t get on the Dem. ticket? Just some random thoughts.
Comment by big mama — August 29, 2008 @ 9:30 pm
Big Mamma,
The word on the internet is that McCain didn’t like the options he had with Pawlenty and Romney. His preferred choice was, apparently, Joe Lieberman (who will most likely be his Secretary of State or Defense in his administration), but Karl Rove pressed hard against McCain to not make that choice. So he went with a total unknown and untested candidate.
Palin, once the excitement and euphoria wears off, will be a millstone around McCain’s neck. She is his Harriet Miers. I’m sure she is a nice lady and a good person, but she brings baggage and little expertise for such a position. Conservatives are already turning on McCain for this choice.
Comment by Dan — August 29, 2008 @ 9:35 pm
Thanks Dan. I have to admit, I really thought Lieberman was the one he would chose.
Comment by big mama — August 29, 2008 @ 9:37 pm
stephanie, you give me waaaayyy too much credit there. nope. that’s a typo of the worse kind.
i whipped that nonsense up in 10 minutes while working. dreadful, i know but i just had to know why you guys hate mr. obama so much.
sorry folks. i’m learning how much of an idiot i am-daily it seems.
Comment by mfranti — August 29, 2008 @ 9:40 pm
Amen, big mama
I disagree with Palin’s positions down the line, but I cannot stand this immediate reaction to oppose her candidacy over motherhood. Let her work out private solutions for erh idnividual family just like lower-profile working moms do, just like men everywhere do, but it strikes me as so backwards to be discussing breastmilk and business travel and if a good mom can have a nanny. How revealing that here on day 1 of her campaign we see her judged on assumptions about her children’s needs and not exclusively on her job skills.
Comment by cchrissyy — August 29, 2008 @ 9:41 pm
i fixed it. i’m totally embarrassed right now folks. mortified. it’s one thing to misspell in a post but the title?
would y’all prefer i quit this gig and leave it to my brainy fMh sisters who have massive amounts of education and experience with spell-check?
who wants my spot? 20 bucks and it’s yours.
[hangs head in shame]
Comment by mfranti — August 29, 2008 @ 9:53 pm
Don’t worry about it, mfranti. At least you don’t eat children.
(or nurse four year olds)
Comment by Stephanie — August 29, 2008 @ 9:57 pm
Um, I am supposedly a writer/editor — for a living — and I didn’t even notice it. Probably because I was too keyed up all day about politics. Makes me wonder what mistakes I let slide in the newsletter I copy edited today.
Chin up, chica.
Comment by Ana — August 29, 2008 @ 10:08 pm
Gee Mfranti. I am not sure what your little mistake says about me. I am the educated English Major and I missed the mistake. We are all amoung friends here. Hold your head high Girl!!! You are human
Comment by big mama — August 29, 2008 @ 10:11 pm
Oh Stephanie- I thought of you at the convention. I was playing one of Noodle’s favorite game’s: Mama-devours-my-hand-while-I-squeal, just as a Fox news camera was sweeping over me. Great, I thought, Democrat Eats Child, tonight at eight.
I wouldn’t let them take me without a fight- I’d loudly protest, “Stephanie does it too AND SHE’S CONSERVATIVE!”
Comment by CrazyWomanCreek — August 29, 2008 @ 10:14 pm
LOL CWC
Comment by Stephanie — August 29, 2008 @ 10:18 pm
Nice touch!
Comment by mfranti — August 29, 2008 @ 10:23 pm
Obama voted twice in the IL State Legislature against saving babies’ lives after they had survived an attempted abortion. There was no misunderstanding about the wording of the bill, about anything already existing in that state’s law about this matter. He was the only Democrat who voted against that bill. He is staunchly, unreasonably pro-choice, and I stand against him for that reason, for one thing. His lack of compassion and humanity for the most defenseless among us — infants — is saddening and angering.
Did you listen to the nurse from IL who held that dying Downs Syndrome baby in the laundry room during the 45 minutes he or she was alive, unable to receive medical care, because her hands were legally tied? Do you realize what she was saying about the morality and character of Barack Obama, whom she holds responsible for that situation?
Also, he advocates socialism for this country. I have lived in several socialist countries, and I am not a fan of the system of paying a huge percentage of your wages in taxes so that the government can control large sectors of the economy, such as health care. The tax increases he advocates and plans to propose are across the board and touch many areas of society — all of us would be affected in one way or another.
These are just two of the insurmountable problems Obama represents for me.
That being said, I hope I have the opportunity to someday vote for a black President or Vice President.
Just not this particular candidate.
Comment by Catherine — August 29, 2008 @ 10:31 pm
here’s a man who’s worked hard, served his community and country. he’s married to an educated, extremely bright woman who is home with their children. he’s perfected his speaking ability because he knew if he was going to be effective in making changes in his community, he’d need for people to look past his skin color and background.
he’s calling for change in washington. he’s not said that he can do it or the the government can do it alone, he’s asked the we help him do it by becoming more involved in the process. he’s asked us to step up to the plate and take responsibility for our own part. he’s asked us to be the change.
and you hate him for it. you mock him for it. you hate him for doing something that every immigrant seeks when the set foot in this country and that is to live the american dream.
Comment by mfranti — August 29, 2008 @ 10:40 pm
. . . or I just don’t really like his politics.
Comment by Stephanie — August 29, 2008 @ 10:44 pm
well, there are some that don’t care for his moderate politics (and if you buy into that bs that he’s a socialist/communist/fascist, you’ve got no concept of realty and you need to stop watching the fox news)
but if you don’t like his politics because you are the other direction-that’s totally fair and respectable.
Comment by mfranti — August 29, 2008 @ 10:47 pm
#137, voting for Republicans because you like small government is like voting for Republicans because you believe in a balanced budget. At least since Reagan, Republicans have expanded government (and increased the defecit) at a much greater rate than the Democrats.
If you’re voting for McCain for other reasons, well, of course it’s your right and your choice. But please don’t say it’s because you like small government. That is one promise no Republican candidate will ever keep (or, in McCain’s case, even make).
Comment by Quimby — August 29, 2008 @ 11:00 pm
I really liked the part of his speech you highlighted, mfranti. My problem with Obama is that he has never actually done any of that. He has no legislative accomplishments of that nature to back up the talk. He has voted the party line while in the Senate. He can’t point to a single time he tried to bring together two opposing views on a controversial topic and mediated a common solution. Maybe he could and maybe he will… but right now it’s all talk.
Comment by Bill Anderson — August 29, 2008 @ 11:04 pm
#175 - Catching up, but you said:
“Conservatives are already turning on McCain for this choice.”
Wow, we are hearing different people. Can you point us to a site that illustrates this?
Comment by Ray — August 29, 2008 @ 11:17 pm
Re: the “socialist” idea — I certainly don’t think Sen. Obama is a fascist or a communist. I worked in Bulgaria for a couple of years right after the fall of communism, and I saw first-hand what that system means. He’s not that, obviously.
But his ideas about health care amount to socialism, if you get right down to it. And the massive amount and variety of taxes he wants is staggering. I am firmly convinced of his socialist leanings. Talk about government expansion! I get my news from a variety of sources that run the gamut from NPR (I worked for years for an affiliate) to the BBC, on down the line.
Europeans seem to love him — I suppose they recognize one of their own!
Comment by Catherine — August 29, 2008 @ 11:23 pm
1. It’s already ending.
2. No he won’t. The issue will simply disappear.
Comment by Tim J — August 29, 2008 @ 11:31 pm
thank you, now tell that to the nut cases i have to deal with on a daily basis. you have no idea how often i hear, “he’s a communist with communist dealings”
are we back in 1952? my goodness!
Comment by mfranti — August 29, 2008 @ 11:32 pm
I don’t think you get it, Dan. This isn’t a choice that can be reversed like Miers. And the big problem with Miers wasn’t neccesarily her inexperience, but the cronyism involved. Remember, many (not just a few like this case) Republicans were upset with the choice.
Here’s the deal. Who do you think is the hottest name on every talk-show producer’s guest list? Biden? Not a chance. I would even say Palin, at this moment, would rival (not beat) Obama on that list.
People are going to want to get to know her. From Letterman to Leno to the Daily Show and Colbert, they’ll all be after her first and hopefully she’ll make herself available. I would also expect to see her on the covers of Time, Newsweek, etc. in the coming weeks. People are going to want to know who she is. And this is the brilliance of the pick.
Comment by Tim J — August 29, 2008 @ 11:37 pm
Catherine #186,
I’m not persuaded by abortion issues for some reason even though I am staunchly pro-life. But, yeah, his opposition to that bill is startling.
And as someone who is looking at starting a business in the next few months, complete with well-paid employees with health care and everything, his tax plan scares the hell out of me.
Comment by Tim J — August 29, 2008 @ 11:40 pm
Re: Obama and taxes - when you’re talking about a defecit of, what is it now, $50 trillion (I don’t even know how many zeroes that has after it) - sooner or later you’ve got to pay the piper. Taxes will rise no matter who is elected. At least Obama is being upfront about it; McCain keeps pretending he can be president of a country in huge, massive, incomprehensible levels of debt, without having to do anything to cut the debt load.
Having said that, Obama can’t deliver half of what he’s promised, precisely because of that debt load. So he’s not being completely honest either. The next president - probably the next few presidents - will be treading water in an ocean of debt.
Comment by Quimby — August 29, 2008 @ 11:44 pm
Obama will increase the deficit more than McCain, it’s been proven. And if McCain is elected the Bush Tax Cuts have a chance of becoming permanent, which I would seriously appreciate.
Comment by Tim J — August 29, 2008 @ 11:52 pm
Sorry, you can’t “prove” something like that. There is no way of knowing how McCain will act after he’s been elected. You are making the assumption that he’ll stick to his campaign promise of no new taxes. Hmmm, anyone else remember George Bush making the exact same promise back in 1988? And anyone else remember how that one turned out?
Comment by Quimby — August 29, 2008 @ 11:57 pm
I hate to rain on the “how can she breast feed and still be the VP candidate” parade, but there is a neat invention called a breast pump. My wife used it when she went back to work. My daughter had breast milk for as long as she wanted it –breastmilk in a bottle during the day and breastfeed at night, In fact, at one point we had frozen so much extra breastmilk, my wife could have gone on a three week vacation (read: diplomacy mission) without any issue.
I’m not sure if those discussing this issue are unaware of/have forgotten about the device or if they are ignoring it’s existence because it undercuts a (malicious) political attack.
/The more you know…
…
Comment by Ryan — August 30, 2008 @ 12:05 am
So what the hell do I go on?!?!
Quimby, fine. Based on the tax plans that have been presented, studies show that Obama’s is worse for the deficit than McCain’s.
How do I trust that Obama won’t raise taxes more than that which he promises to do. After all, he is proposing a LOT of expensive programs that will require a lot more than the tax plan he wants.
Comment by Tim J — August 30, 2008 @ 12:14 am
Studies by whom?
Cite them, please.
Comment by sare — August 30, 2008 @ 12:19 am
Hey, I’m not saying you *should* trust Obama. I don’t trust either one of them - at this stage, they’re both just making a lot of promises they can’t possibly keep. I’m just saying, taxes will go up, no matter who is president. Who will make them go up more? That’s anyone’s guess, and it’s something that we’ll never really know the answer to since only one of them can win the election.
Comment by Quimby — August 30, 2008 @ 12:25 am
Sare,
Quimby wasn’t questioning, otherwise I would have looked it up, it was on CNN but let me find out who they sourced.
Okay, it was just factcheck.org which doesn’t really declare either plan “worse” (I thought CNN did say Obama’s was worse but I’ll drop the claim since until I can source it) but that both are bad:
Comment by Tim J — August 30, 2008 @ 12:27 am
I agree. But there are many taxes one could raise and capital gains is not a good one.
Comment by Tim J — August 30, 2008 @ 12:31 am
Why do people think that McCain can single-handedly change things when they point out that that’s what’s wrong with Obama? I personally like Obama, and even more when others start attacking him. I also think it’s interesting that people find it particularly repulsive the kind of abortions Obama voted for, but how is one kind of abortion worse than another? Aren’t they all murder? But just like Obama said, we may not agree on abortion, but we agree on the bigger picture. I just hope some good changes can be made during the next presidency.
Comment by Michelle Glauser — August 30, 2008 @ 1:05 am
“Aren’t they all murder?”
Nope.
Comment by Ray — August 30, 2008 @ 1:10 am
+1
The president needs a complicit congress to make much of a difference.
Comment by Peter LLC — August 30, 2008 @ 4:07 am
#207 But just like Obama said, we may not agree on abortion, but we agree on the bigger picture.
The ol’ build-upon-common beliefs bit. Any missionary who labored before the changes remembers this. I was in Japan. I tried building on common beliefs. But I found out that it doesn’t take too long before you run out of common beliefs. Then what do you do? I never found out.
What is Obama going to do when he realizes that his flowery speaches that make everyone feel so good can’t do anything to really accomplish his “change,” that after the fairy dust settles, he is going to have to start facing a nation inhabited by people with not just common ideals, but serious differences about how those common ideals need to be practically instituted?
Yes, we may all believe that babies are special and we all want as few aborted as possible. So what? You can’t write legislation around such “feel good” beliefs. You write legislation around real practical issues. Legislation needs to be justly enforceable.
.
Comment by john — August 30, 2008 @ 5:42 am
I’ve actually been watching Obama for years, before he first came on the radar in nat’l politics, there was speculation that he might be able to go all the way to the Presidency. “Like” isn’t the operating word, since he definitely seems to be a likeable person, as well as personable, articulate (except when he’s asked off the cuff questions- then he seems lamentably elusive and incapable of stating his position), and well educated. I remember thinking at the time, that given more years on the nat’l level, gaining experience and shaking off some of the shady aspects of Chicago politics, that he would be a solid candidate. His racial background was incidental- to me, anyway, because it’s not how I choose my candidate.
There are some moves he’s made that betrays his lack of experience and political savvy:
1) Undercutting Hilary and making an enemy of the Clinton political machine- not wise, to say the least and it may yet be his undoing (I’m staying tuned). There was a reason that Mrs. Obama didn’t look so thrilled when Hilary spoke- there’s something happening behind the scenes that is unpleasant and Michele is not experienced enough to mask her internal struggle. I’ll give Obama one thing, horning in on Hilary’s election bid took kahunas, it remains to be seen if he’ll actually be forgiven for it- or the DNC for jumping ship on the Clintons.
2) His associations of long standing. He may not be as far left as his associates, yet, they factor into the public’s grasp on how Obama really views things. Bill Ayers- not a good connection/political dynamite (excuse the pun)…a political aspirant should have avoided the association. Rev. Wright- attending for 20 years and contributing money lends credence to endorsement of his views (even Oprah knew that Rev Wright was over the top and too polarizing an association for a nat’l figure). Tony Rezko- we round off the picture with unsavory financial entanglements regarding early fundraising and Obama’s home purchase.
An experienced politician knows which connnections to make and keep, how to best use them and the spin on the connection.
3) Economic conditions are not conducive to raising taxes and certainly not hospitable to begining tons of gov’t sponsored social programs. If anything, reducing the deficit will require strategic tax increases, accompanied by program cuts. Besides, time has shown that gov’t doesn’t run economically streamlined programs and wastes a lot of money on the beaurocratic administration. (I would have welcomed Romney’s business experience in this regard, but frankly, Washington is desperately afraid of businessmen-they have no experience running the country like a business, unfortunately).
4) Not Obama’s fault,per se, but I do not like the fact that if you happen to be white and not support Obama’s candidacy, then automatically, you’re a racist. Piffle. My answer to that? Colin Powell for President- that’s the real deal, again, his race is incidental…but, sigh, his wife isn’t on board with being first lady (don’t blame her). But if you’re talking qualifications and experience- there were other potential candidates. Obama is not an agent of change, he only purports to be and of course his uplifting speeches are met with enthusiasm- Americans love a “can do” attitude…we loved Regan for the same reason. Obama tows the party line and has not facilitated any significant compromise on any hot issue, including the war. He would actually have to change his own ways to become an agent of change.
I won’t bore you with more…unless you ask me why I don’t like McCain…(but he will have my vote, nonetheless). At this point, all I ask is a congress dominated by the opposite party of whichever candidate wins, as I stated on another thread. It keeps the wacko elements at bay on both sides.
Comment by Kimberly — August 30, 2008 @ 7:13 am
Ray,
#192,
Here’s one. I quoted it over on Mormon Matters.
Comment by Dan — August 30, 2008 @ 8:04 am
Tim,
By whom? Evidence please.
Comment by Dan — August 30, 2008 @ 8:05 am
Am I the only one who finds it hilarious that a thread that’s supposed to be about Obama has been almost entirely about Palin?
Guess McCain’s tactic worked.
Comment by Rebekah — August 30, 2008 @ 8:07 am
Kimberly,
BIll Ayers is not an associate “of long standing.” Neither is Rezko. The only one on that list is Rev. Wright. The Republicans would like you to think they are, but they are not.
Comment by Dan — August 30, 2008 @ 8:07 am
Don’t you mean cojones?
Small point, but important.
Kahuna is the Hawaiian word for wise man or shaman. Cojones is the Spanish word for… you know… what it took to take on Hillary.
Comment by Jim Donaldson — August 30, 2008 @ 8:15 am
Rebekah,
I think most of us here are talking about Obama on this thread.
Comment by Dan — August 30, 2008 @ 8:32 am
#215. I do not rely on opposite party resources to learn about my candidates, that is an erroneous assumption on your part..although, by virtue of relentless investigation, it usually is the opposing party that finds the dirt on either side. I also deliberately call them “associations”, not friendships (although, Obama himself characterized Wright as a personal friend).
While his association with Wright was on a far more personal level, to the point of him naming Wright as his mentor, he met Rezko in 1990, 18 years ago.
In ‘95, 11 of Rezko’s 30 low income properties were located in the district that Obama was running to represent. He contributed money to his campaign and Obama won in ‘96, representing that district.
June 27, 2003, at Rezko’s Wilmette mansion, Rezko held a huge fundraiser for Obama’s U.S. Senate bid. He was a member of Obama’s campaign finance committee.
By Obama’s own admission, his home property entanglement, adjacent to the lot that the Rezkos bought, when he later purchased that strip of land from the Rezkos, was “boneheaded” and would look like a favor done to him by the Rezkos.
Then, the August ‘06 indictiment of Rezko- pertaining to kickbacks he extracted from companies who wanted gov’t contracts…Federal prosecutors determined that $10,000 of that dirty money was donated to Obama’s campaign, in turn causing Obama to donate that amount to charity (wisely, I might add…even if a little late).
As far back as 1995, Ayers helped launch Obama’s Illinois public career by hosting a party at his own house in Hyde Park, which was indeed attended by Obama.
They served together on the Woods Fund board for three years. I believe Obama that he doesn’t share or approve of the man’s methods or views, but IMO, as an early political contender, he should have been avoiding the likes of Bill Ayers and Tony Rezko…this is what I mean about him having to shake off the Chicago dirt. However worthy the cause of the Woods Fund, it is a reality of politcs is that he should have forgone the pleasure of serving anywhere with Ayers. Period.
Are the relationships skewed and distorted by the opposing faction? Certainly. No argument there. He needs to be more careful in his civic associations is the only thing I am stating- and I’m willing to bet that it’s being drilled into him by his handlers too.
Comment by Kimberly — August 30, 2008 @ 9:00 am
Kimberly,
I think the Ayers “association” is far overrated. The question is not about what Ayers is doing now. Ayers is a prominent member of the community. He is a professor at a university. He works on community projects. The question that Republicans want to tie Obama to is what Ayers did when Obama was 8 years old. And that’s just silly.
As far as Rezko is concerned, yes, it was “boneheaded.” No more needs to be said about that.
As far as Wright is concerned, he was very close to Obama for a long time. And it is sad that he had to sacrifice that relationship, but there it is. The price some have to pay.
Comment by Dan — August 30, 2008 @ 9:09 am
I agree that neither candidate will be doing much to cut taxes. That’s a whiplash that we will experience after what has happened for the past (not just eight. Let’s put the blame where it lies… it goes all the way back to reagan, and before, too…) But now we’re in an economic crunch, and so we’re going to be experiencing that. Bringing home the troops will help, but there’s still all the other problems: the failure of the housing market because of the speculation in mortgages, after bonds seemed to be failing…
Anyway, let’s not pin this on anyone person, let’s just say it’s a product of everything our government, wall street, big business AND consumers have done over the last long while.
As far as who has the best plan to balance the budget and cut taxes, Ron Paul, people. But you know why I won’t be voting for him? In the words of one of my blogging pals, he’s got a plan to get it done, but it would put us into the deepest, darkest depression we’ve seen. (I think, of course. I”m not Alan Greenspan. I can’t project.)
Comment by sare — August 30, 2008 @ 9:43 am
We could talk all day long about “executive experience” and “commander in chief” qualifications. Doesn’t quite look to me as though the Republicans have demonstrated that they are really good at those things…
Our current commander in chief has, it appears been an unmitigated disaster - practically breaking our armed services and national guard troops with 3 and even 4 deployments in Iraq, ABSOLUTELY SHAMEFUL sloppiness managing and making functional our Dept. of Veterans affairs to look after them. Bush and Chaney’s record as our (in effect) duel chief executive, has been rather appalling as our economy is in shatters, our bill of rights trampled upon,the gulf coast still not recovered from Katrina after 3 years, and in effect nothing done to develop the new infrastructure needed to move off a petroleum based economy.
I am very troubled by the State of the Union - from our economy, energy policy, standing in the world, future prospects for our children. I am aghast at the “perpetual campaign” methodology that has replaced civility in political discourse, and the blatant (K-Street) corruption in Washington.
Though I was furious with Bill Clinton for his personal behavior, that Democratic administration simply did a better job at managing the deficit (Budget Surplus), supporting family values (Family Leave policy), a strong and vibrant Stock market, and a respected and admired place on the world stage.
The bottom line for me is that I think Obama is an intelligent and honorable person, Joe Biden is the same.
They can’t do much worse than Bush/Chaney and they might do a whole lot better. I’m ready to give the Democrats a try at it.
Politics are so important, as well as being an entertaining distraction.
But I planted 50 feet of tomatoes this spring.
Every burner is cooking tomato sauce and the vines are still sagging under their weight. What was I thinking???
Comment by Betty Jo — August 30, 2008 @ 10:35 am
I think a lot of the success has to do with the Republican Congress, which, ironically, is also to blame for the current administration’s failings. It’s been said before, a single party ruling both branches is historically, not a good thing.
I think President’s generally get too much credit and too much blame.
Comment by Tim J. — August 30, 2008 @ 10:43 am
I think people’s opinions here would have been more enlightenging if they were prefaces with answers to some simple questions.
Did you vote for GW?
Do you live in Utah?
What is your party affiliation?
Who was your pick for Pres in the Primaries?
Then all answers could have been cross tabbed and looked at in light of everyone’s predisposition.
Comment by Red — August 30, 2008 @ 11:38 am
re: 222 . We are not Red States or Blue States. We are the United States.
Thinking inside such boxes as gotten us where we are.
Comment by Betty Jo — August 30, 2008 @ 11:43 am
I agree Betty Jo (223), I think church members, especially in Utah get so caught up in one true church/one true party. We look at things in such a black and white way that it’s hard to remember that we are so much better off when we have a balance of viewpoints to consider when making decisions.
I was thinking about this recently when I drove by the legacy highway. No matter what your view on it, I think having two sides presented has made it a much nicer looking roadway. (Of course it would have been nice if both sides could have just talked and reached an agreement instead of pushing the project through then being stalled by lawsuits.)
Comment by Alliegator — August 30, 2008 @ 11:48 am
Red: I voted for GW.
I live in utah.
I am an independent.
I liked Barack, Mitt, and Biden.
Comment by sare — August 30, 2008 @ 11:48 am
Red, I have voted for candidates of both parties for years.
I do not live in Utah.
I am an independent.
I liked Richardson (my first choice) and Tancredo. I would have liked Romney much more if he’d run as the moderate he was prior to the campaign. If I could pick one person to take over the presidency, it would be Colin Powell.
Comment by Ray — August 30, 2008 @ 12:18 pm
#216…thank you, Dan. I actually never used the word in written form before and should have looked it up! LOL- it wasn’t a small point, it was very important and I’m sure glad you pointed it out.
Comment by Kimberly — August 30, 2008 @ 12:24 pm
I have lately been fascinated by the wonderful historical tidbit about bishops standing at the podium after the manifesto and dividing their congregation in half, one side Democratic and one side Republican, in order to achieve Utah statehood.
My reform? Do that every ten years.
It would improve both parties.
//insert slightly mad smile//
Comment by Jim Donaldson — August 30, 2008 @ 12:25 pm
re:222 Daughter American Revolution and the Utah Pioneers. Thinks families are very important. Believes in individual responsibility and community service. Supports the right to bear arms. Feels obligation to honor God’s gifts of life and earth. Admits to having watched Fox news a time or two. Formerly Republican. Patently Conservative.
Thinking of starting a “Old white conservative farm wives” for Obama club. It’s time for a change.
Comment by Betty Jo — August 30, 2008 @ 12:44 pm
Red-
I’m a registered independent. Voted for Bush, Clinton, Bush. I vote across parties all the time. I have never lived in Utah- but I don’t know that I’d assume that a Utahn would vote a certain way based on a geographical area. I’m sorry Mitt’s out of the game- when I lived in MA, I voted for him for governor- I would have enjoyed a president who held everyone in D.C. accountable for the bankroll- the novelty of it would have entertained me for years.
Ray- yay! I would have loved to see Colin Powell in the top job.
Comment by Kimberly — August 30, 2008 @ 12:47 pm
#216 Jim D, not Dan. That will teach me to do three things at once, while trying to type out a reply. Jim- I continue to thank you for the usage and spelling correction.
Comment by Kimberly — August 30, 2008 @ 1:01 pm
I don’t like him because he wants to turn the country into a socialist country. I have lived in a socialist country for 5 1/2 years and I don’t like what happens in the country, to the people, and to the society. I’m specifically concerned about the direction the health care system will take under his leadership. I’m not happy with the current system either, but I prefer it over socialized medicine.
I also feel that he uses a lot of buzzwords and makes promises that he can’t possibly keep. He is very charismatic and is certainly eloquent.
Furthermore, I don’t see him as a great uniter. He paints himself as a diplomat, but I think his strageties are flawed in that arena.
I’m not thrilled with McCain either, so I’m in a quandry.
Comment by Tiffany — August 30, 2008 @ 1:14 pm
#230 Yay, Betty Jo! We may be too late for bumper stickers but I think we can still get the word out; Tomato Canners for Obama? Bottlers for Barack? Pro-Produce, Pro-Pint Jars, Pro-Obama?
Let me know!
Comment by CrazyWomanCreek — August 30, 2008 @ 1:37 pm
Colin Powell lost all credibility by being an enabler for Duh’s war on Iraq. You recall his UN speech showing the “proof” of WMDs?
Comment by C.Biden — August 30, 2008 @ 2:46 pm
Tim J. is right about Bill Clinton’s budget success- it was a result of divided government, checks and balances. A Democratic pres/congress combination would be just as destructive to the budget as the republicans were in Bush’s 1st term.
Kimberly (231),
If you want accountability, the McCain/Palin ticket is the way to go; McCain has pledged to veto any bills with earmarks, which are basically legalized bribery. I’m disappointed that Obama has made no similar pledge.
This kind of news is really sad:
The Obama/Biden ticket is serious about change, but not about reform, and both are equally important.
Comment by Dan Ellsworth — August 30, 2008 @ 3:29 pm
I’m not a huge fan, but Powell was set-up by the administration. His hands are clean as far as I’m concerned and his resignation speaks volumes.
Comment by Tim J — August 30, 2008 @ 3:50 pm
#234 Colin Powell himself calls that UN speech a “blot” on his record. It led to a permanent rift between him and the director of the CIA, George Tenet. Tenet called Sec’y of State Powell after the presentation had already been made and finally let him know that the information sources had been flagged as unreliable- information that may have been intentionally witheld. It did undermine Colin Powell’s previously unblemished record for integrity. He is a man of such personal integrity that I believe him and certainly didn’t blame him when he resigned after Bush’s first term- what else could he do? The damage was done.
Comment by Kimberly — August 30, 2008 @ 3:59 pm
Reply #1 bothers me quite a bit. Not that they do not deserve to have their opinion, but because it is so characteristic of virtually all religious people in America. Basically, as long as the Republicans ‘claim’ to be against gay-marriage and abortion, they will be able to continue destroying all hopes for middle and lower-class people.
I do have to ask:
While it is obviously bad to kill babies, is it any better to kill our children as soon as they are old-enough to hold a gun - and solely for the purpose of making the super-rich more so and and everyone else poor?
Besides, I seriously suspect that the neo-conservatives are not nearly as pro-life as they say. Bush’s former lap-dog Alberto Gonzales authorized many illegal abortions in Texas while in office.
While Clinton, Carter and other presidents from the democratic party were not perfect, they didn’t exactly destroy the world or space-time continuum. They helped more people to be prosperous and forced big-business to share the pie. WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT? If anything we ARE required by scripture to care for our fellow man. Why then should we get all bent out of shape when a political party simply wants to make it official?
As Warren Buffet has warned, if we do not make some major strides to bridging the wealth-gap in this country, within a generation, land ownership may be impossible for nearly everyone but the rich. How did the vassal states of the dark ages make the world a better place or promote spirituality?
Basically, Conservatism without God = Social Darwinism.
Comment by Adam — August 30, 2008 @ 4:47 pm
I don’t know about anyone else here, but this is definitely my stance. Nice!
Look, pro-choicers don’t want ideals forced upon them, that’s fine. I can somewhat understand that they want the choice to be theirs. So why is it that wealth distribution shouldn’t be a choice as well? Why must I be forced to care for a life that is more able to care themself than an unborn child? Why can’t I choose for myself who I can help financially through donations, etc?
Comment by Tim J — August 30, 2008 @ 5:30 pm
Here’s the score. Democrats 2 men Republicans 1 man. Two is more than one. Obama wins.
Comment by Ruby — August 30, 2008 @ 6:56 pm
Bill Ayers is a legitimate criticism.
Certainly, Obama cannot be held responsible for Ayers’ bombing activities during the Vietnam War.
True, Ayers and his group, the Weather Underground, set bombs off at the Pentagon, U.S. Capitol and New York City police headquarters.
But, why on earth would he have anything to do with this man today?
Obama launched his first campaign in Bill Ayers’ home. He served on a board for years with Ayers. And, together, they disbursed $100 million as part of a school improvement venture.
Those recent actions are suspect. Ayers is a man who tried to kill soldiers, policemen and women and the general public. Nothing he has done since can justify these egregious actions.
I doubt Obama supported Ayers’ bombings. But, Obama saw nothing wrong in working with the man who drove that repulsive effort.
It fits a pattern. Obama doesn’t mind associating with any left-winger — no matter how evil they are.
That is why he spent 20 years in church with Jeremiah Wright.
The only question is who else does he find acceptable??
Comment by Steve — August 30, 2008 @ 8:17 pm
I see Jeremiah Wright as a protestant preacher of the African American tradition of rhetoric, not as an evil left-winger. When all those stories came about about his statements, there were many people interviewed who tried to explain that: this is a common way of speaking in some black churches. It’s hard for those of us outside the phenomenon to understand.
Comment by sare — August 30, 2008 @ 8:34 pm
I think it went well beyond that, and there were plenty of reasons why Obama had to distance himself from him.
Comment by Tim J — August 30, 2008 @ 9:16 pm
I don’t think this is a “common way of speaking in some black churches.”
Comment by Tim J — August 30, 2008 @ 9:18 pm
And sare,
I think you owe black churches and specifically black pastors an apology for comparing him to this anti-American bigot.
And don’t try to justify or rationalize the things he’s said. You want to tell me Obama rarely attended his church? Fine, I’ll accept that. But DO NOT tell me that Jeremiah Wright is acceptable and the norm for black churches.
Comment by Tim J — August 30, 2008 @ 9:27 pm
You made me LOL there, mfranti (#195) — sorry about your “nut cases” — People come out with strange stuff sometimes. Hyperbole is one thing and then there’s just raging BS.
Comment by Catherine — August 30, 2008 @ 11:15 pm
All the world’s a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances,
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages.
As You Like It Act 2, scene 7, 139–143
This is my cynical side speaking. I do believe ALL politicians are actors/actresses.
I also expect that no matter who wins in November, people will moan and groan that they voted for the wrong person. I hope to be proven wrong.
Comment by Kalola — August 30, 2008 @ 11:59 pm
My last comment that “people will moan and groan that they voted for the wrong person” refers to four years from the election in November.
Comment by Kalola — August 31, 2008 @ 12:01 am
[…] Mormon Feminist Housewives have to say? Are they weeping for joy over this historical moment? (mfranti? […]
Pingback by What will the Intermountain West about Sarah Palin? « Heart Issues for LDS — August 31, 2008 @ 12:07 am
#243 I have attended many, many black churches- yes, the preaching is energetic and dynamic…but I never once heard the horrible victimizing, hatred-inspiring vitriol coming from the pulpit that I heard in reviewing Rev Wright’s “sermons”. The churches I attended when I lived in the South were strongly centered in Christ’s love and compassion, with a long tradition in reliance on Christ and God to overcome the challenges of daily living. I always left feeling lifted and inspired by the intensity of their conviction…not to mention welcomed and refreshed as a weary traveller longs for- and the recipient of some of the most loving hospitality I ever had the grace to receive.
Only the intensity and style of oration resembles what I experienced first hand-and most of the churches were dynamically involved in their local politics-so I heard plenty of honest discourse about the challenges of living in a patriarchal, white dominated country. Definitely never couched in the terms of Rev Wright…I experienced the pure love of Christ in all the services I attended and in the great majority of the good people I came to know and deeply respect at several different parishes.
I could not believe that the media attempted to cover up this Reverend’s agenda, cloaked in disgusting assumption that all blacks found his brand of religion normal and acceptable. It was a terrible lie and a disservice to strong Christians. Quite a number of my friends were horrified and I don’t blame them.
Comment by Kimberly — August 31, 2008 @ 4:29 am
I’m not the one saying it! It was all over NPR, and several members of JR’s church, and other black congregations pretty much corroborated the statement I just made. I know not every black church is the same just because the congregation is black. But there is a tradition of rhetoric (according to the articles I read, and the interviews I’ve heard. I admit, I personally have never attended a church with a largely black congregation, except for the Genesis group which I have to say hardly counts.)
I think you owe JW an apology for calling him a bigot. Sorry. Don’t think it’s that clear cut, that “black and white.”
Comment by sare — August 31, 2008 @ 8:21 am
here, from Senator Obama’s very lips.
Comment by sare — August 31, 2008 @ 8:25 am
IMHO
JW turned into an angry old man grown so comfortable in his victim of oppression role that he can no longer even imagine a different future. Such are the consequences of the politics of division. I am sorry for him.
Colin Powell is a man of honor who was cynically and callously misused by the Bush/Chaney administration. The shame goes to them for it. Powell is still who he ever was - a man of integrity.
Comment by Betty Jo — August 31, 2008 @ 8:51 am
Colin Powell is a full grown mature man who CHOSE to lie to this entire country and the United Nations. People trusted him. If he had said we didn’t need to attack a country that had done nothing to us it would have prevented all his fellow military members losing their lives as well as the thousands of innocent women and children in Iraq. He is another man who is good at projecting an image of being honorable. He’s living well off his 30 lbs. of silver.
Comment by Ruby — August 31, 2008 @ 11:20 am
I’m with Ruby in #255.
Comment by Dan — August 31, 2008 @ 11:47 am
Dan (257),
Shouldn’t you preface that with
Comment by Dan Ellsworth — August 31, 2008 @ 12:15 pm
Oops- I meant Dan (256). Maybe mfranti will change that for me.
Comment by Dan Ellsworth — August 31, 2008 @ 12:16 pm
I’ll call it as I see it. And because other churches do it, doesn’t make it right either. That’s a pretty immature reaction.
Comment by Tim J — August 31, 2008 @ 12:28 pm
Dan E.,
Haha, that’s funny seeing your name is Dan too.
Comment by Dan — August 31, 2008 @ 12:46 pm
Dan E.,
What’s wrong with being predictable. Isn’t a better word, consistent. I thought you conservatives argued that we libruls were flip-floppers…
Comment by Dan — August 31, 2008 @ 12:47 pm
re: 255 Ruby,
I do see your point that ok, he’s responsible for his own actions. I would like to think that he did not chose to lie, but was rather mislead. (Yea, he’s responsible for that too, ok.) But, could he have stopped it? not sure about that. As Mr Rumsfeld was reported to have said, there weren’t enough targets in Afganistan…, and, as Bush was reported to have said, Iraqis were them what tried to kill his Daddy…. I expect Powell was out gunned and out flanked by neo-cons. Cheney had his eye on Commander in Chief executive powers of a war president, and Bush wanted to do something bold and ballsy. “Shock and Awe” - he liked the sound of that. And hence it came to pass that 10 Billion a month goes to Iraq and tens of thousands of brave troopers and their families will never be the same.
Some folks have an accounting to do when then reach those pearly gates. No doubt about it. Time for a change.
Comment by Betty Jo — August 31, 2008 @ 12:55 pm
I need to stand up for Colin Powell. When he spoke to the U.N. Security Council, he used the best intelligence available. That intelligence showed that Iraq, which already had chemical weapons (and had used them against Iran and the Kurds), was moving towards effective biological weapons and seeking nuclear weaponry.
He didn’t lie or attempt to deceive. He used the same data that President Clinton had previously relied on and supported by a range of figures, including Sen. Biden.
To call him a liar is downright sleazy.
Now, what happened?
We know that the Iraqis had had chemical weaponry. Some of the warheads were found after the invasion.
Intelligence indicated biological weaponry. We did find at least one lab.
But, what is missing is most of the biological and nuclear components.
Did they never exist? Some think that.
But, an alternative explanation is that Saddam destroyed them (reasons unknown) or moved them elsewhere. The Israelis believe that Iraqi nuclear materials were sent to the North Korean-run facility in western Syria. Israel destroyed that awhile back.
Those who claim that there was no basis for the Iraqi weapon claims either distort the history or ignore the possibilities of what happened. Convenient but deceptive.
Comment by Steve — August 31, 2008 @ 1:08 pm
Steve,
I have to stand up against Colin Powell and the CIA. All evidence points to them actually knowing that the intelligence they gave Colin Powell was NOT the best intelligence. The CIA knew that their evidence was from a drunkard named Curveball and that they had nothing else to back up his accusations against Saddam.
It should also be noted that in February 2001 (a mere two years earlier) the same Colin Powell made the following conclusion about Iraq’s WMD:
So two years earlier he makes the claim that Saddam “has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction.” But then we are supposed to believe that a mere two years later everything changed. Which time was Colin Powell right? The first time or the second time. On looking back, it seems that the pre-9/11 thinking was correct.
Comment by Dan — August 31, 2008 @ 2:02 pm
I listened to the self-congratulating circus of the DNC on NPR just to get a good laugh and occasionally righteously indignant. I couldn´t care less about Obama. He gives good speeches (that are almost certainly written by someone else). He´s a good orator. But I don´t believe him or in him. I don´t like McCain; I completely disagree with almost everyone of his policies. I really hope he doesn´t win. But ultimately I think the system is 100% broken and unfixable. Since becoming the presumptive nominee Obama has shown himself to be a true politician and any meager flicker of hope has been extinguished. I will probably be voting third-party as I almost always do but I won’t assume that those people will ever be allowed to accomplish anything or that they would be any different if ever given an ounce of true power. There´s my little dash of hopeless cynicism to the convo.
Comment by Chandelle — August 31, 2008 @ 3:16 pm
I promised myself I was done, but flogging a good man because he was given warped intelligence is just wrong. Colin Powell resigned because he felt used and misled. He said what he said believing it was the best intelligence of the time. His first statement was what he believed the evidence showed; two years later he was given distorted intelligence that led him to make a different statement; after he learned it had been twisted and he had been used, he resigned.
Dan, you can’t find a way to say anything good about anyone connected in any way with the Bush Administration - even someone who resigned from that administration as an act of conscience. I abhor much of what this administration has done, but Colin Powell was not complicit in what they did. He was one of the good guys who opposed Rumsfeld regularly.
Ruby, you just compared a good, honorable, decent, dedicated man to Judas. Coin Powell PAID dearly for being misled; he didn’t gain ANYTHING by being used that way, and he certainly didn’t seek out an opportunity to betray anyone. Good grief, that is so far beyond reality that it’s hard to describe properly.
**Deep breath, Ray. Deep, slow, cleansing breath.**
Comment by Ray — August 31, 2008 @ 4:50 pm
Steve #263, as any number of weapons experts can tell you, chemical weaponry has a very short lifespan. The UN weapons inspectors (amongst many others) were adamant there weren’t any weapons. I’m not saying Powell lied; but there were plenty of people before the war who were questioning the intelligence, and to say it was ‘the best intelligence available’ is to do the UN weapons inspectors and many others a grave disservice.
Comment by Quimby — August 31, 2008 @ 4:55 pm
“Coin Powell” - That is simply hilarious as a typo, given the context. **Bows his head in shame, while simultaneously laughing hysterically at himself**
Comment by Ray — August 31, 2008 @ 5:02 pm
Ray,
The people that stood up to the administration within the administration. Like Richard Clarke. Paul O’Neil. I have lots of good things to say about them. I am truly saddened that Colin Powell did not resign earlier, but waited until Bush was REELECTED to resign. Nothing honorable about that.
Comment by Dan — August 31, 2008 @ 5:05 pm
I knew I should have just stayed out of it. Bye, again.
Comment by Ray — August 31, 2008 @ 5:48 pm
Powell was asked to resign. He didn’t jump he was pushed.
Comment by c.biden — August 31, 2008 @ 7:09 pm
Dan,
You’re right. Just because other churches do it, doesn’t make it right. So how about all the things Brigham Young said about slaves, and all the things he did involving limiting the priesthoods that minority members could hold?
And what about Bruce R. McConkie and the doctrine he preached?
I’m sorry, but no church, no culture is free of it. And Good men go a little far sometimes in their preaching. Bruce R. McConkie, for example, rescinded all his statements about the “doctrine of cain” after the 1987 revelation. And he later lamented that the things he regretted most saying were those he “said without the spirit.” And yet, one of the hymns in our hymnbook is set to a poem that he wrote. Are we bad people then, that we just don’t toss him out the window, get rid of all that we have that is associated with him? Our university is named after Brigham Young.
I’m sorry you find my reaction immature. I think that we all need to see the imperfections in our own cultures, before we go lambasting those in others.
Comment by sare — August 31, 2008 @ 8:54 pm
mfranti wrote -
**at first, i wasn’t too impressed, it followed the standard political speech format and those “buzz” words annoyed me but when he got to this:
We may not agree on abortion, but surely we can agree on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country. The reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than for those plagued by gang-violence in Cleveland, but don’t tell me we can’t uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals. I know there are differences on same-sex marriage, but surely we can agree that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters deserve to visit the person they love in the hospital and to live lives free of discrimination. Passions fly on immigration, but I don’t know anyone who benefits when a mother is separated from her infant child or an employer undercuts American wages by hiring illegal workers. This too is part of America’s promise - the promise of a democracy where we can find the strength and grace to bridge divides and unite in common effort.
i was reminded why i will cast my vote for him.**
Those very comments reminded me why I will NOT cast my vote for him. It’s full of the same buzz words.
Item 1: the fact is we do NOT agree on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies. He wants to do it by handing out free condoms to high school students.
Item 2: No gun control law will ever keep any gun out of the hands of any criminal because criminals don’t obey laws.
Item 3: Our gay and lesbians friends can already visit anyone they want any time in any hospital.
Item 4: if a mother and child are separated because of illegal immigration, our laws are not to blame. The blame is on those who choose by their own will to break them. It happens by their choice, not by any so-called unfair imposition of our laws.
It’s the same old political rhetoric from the same old liberal playbook that I’ve heard from the likes of Joe Biden and his ilk for years. With Obama I see no hope of any good change.
Comment by gatwoi — September 1, 2008 @ 7:13 am
gatwoi - #3 is incorrect- it’s only true for routine hospitalizations when there is a conscious patient to direct his/her wishes and care. Those cases aren’t the problem. It’s the most dramatic ones that are the issue.
I’m a critical care nurse- in a very busy mainstream city ICU. As it stands, only immediate family and those they approve may visit a patient. HIPPA laws have made it even tighter. If a patient is conscious and capable, he/she certainly can approve of any visitor but that is not usually the case in the ICU- they are too sick. If a family does not approve of a partnership of any kind, they can exclude the visitor, even in cases where the patient chose the partner over family and hasn’t seen the family in years.
It’s the worst case scenario in my unit, and it’s the one that matters the most. People are approximately 50% likely to die because of how sick they are. If they don’t come in with a legal health care proxy form that delegates their partner as the person who is authorized to make medical decisions and determine who visits, then potentially, a partner of 20 years who is not legally married to the patient will not be there at the most crucial time of his/her partner’s life. Also, a patient admitted for a more routine procedure could take a turn for the worse, bringing family members who weren’t originally involved onto the scene, who fight with the partner about the interventions and demand their legal right to impose their own treatment plan without even knowing the patient’s wishes. They have every legal right to do so and we do our best to facilitate an agreement and discourage the infighting…but we are legally liable and ultimately must do what is legal required in each state, even if we’re puking while we do it.
Tragically, it’s happened plenty of times. Healthy people don’t walk around expecting an ICU event and don’t usually fill out health care proxies unless directed by staff to do so before surgery or an expected impending event. I cannot emphasize enough how much heartache this causes and how deeply this affects our staff as we do our best to advocate for our patients-but we are bound by the law and its definitions of spouse and family. So, please remove #3 from your argument. You are misinformed.
Comment by Kimberly — September 1, 2008 @ 8:11 am
re:274 Kimberly provides an excellent reminder that we all need to get our living will/healthcare proxy forms filled out and on file with our Drs., children and spouses. We need to make sure our spouses know where they are and what they say. (Also, make sure your spouse knows what meds you may be on, (put a card in your wallet with them listed). When you take your sweetie to the emergency room, they will need to know about that high blood pressure or other medication…. Discuss with family any wishes you have relating to what care you want and don’t want if or when you can’t speak for yourself. Make it easy on your family, avoid conflicts about intervention in such stressful times, by discussing such issues ahead of time. This is important for everyone to do. If you wait til it is needed, then it may be too late…
Comment by Betty Jo — September 1, 2008 @ 12:05 pm
Thank God for this website. I come here for a breath of sanity. Obama needs all of us to come together. Of course, he can’t do this alone and, if half of the country digs in their heels and dares him to succeed, it won’t be nearly the change we could make together. I am a mid-left, relatively independent, working mother and I want to leave my children a country where we have belief in the future. Why would we have faith in God if we cannot believe that miracles are possible? Our minds are tiny - and it’s time, in my lifetime, in our lifetime, that we stopped looking at each other through stereotypes and committed to the common good. I love this website.
Comment by Maggie — September 1, 2008 @ 1:35 pm
Kimberly - thank you for the clarification. I stand corrected on item #3. I also echo Betty Jo and encourage everyone to fill out the proxy form.
See… there are solutions for these issues without putting Mr. Obama in the white house. That was my point.
Comment by gatwoi — September 1, 2008 @ 1:56 pm
gatwoi’s #2 is definitely misleading, to put it mildly. Decrease the overall number of guns available and you also decrease the overall number of guns available to criminals. Gun control = less gun violence. Every legitimate statistic and study in the world bares it out.
(And gatwoi, if you want to fight this, I’m really not in the mood. Any statistic you can trod out that shows otherwise is just flat-out wrong - generally made up - and I won’t be listening to any of them.)
Comment by Quimby — September 1, 2008 @ 2:40 pm
Quimby - . Kimberly gave me an honest, intelligent response to my 3rd item. I accepted her argument, thanked her for it, and reconsidered my position. I thought that perhaps I had finally discovered a blog with contributors open to intelligent, honest debate. (Thanks again Kimberly.)
However, your response to my 2nd item, Quimby, is neither intelligent nor honest. It’s based on assumptions you have made about what I actually said. And you have made the fatal mistake of assuming I would trot out statistics to back up an argument I never even made. Your argument is the one that requires statistics. (Statistics you didn’t provide by the way.)
My argument is that criminals do not obey the law. I don’t need statistics to back that up. By definition, criminals break the law. Otherwise they wouldn’t be criminals. So, I say don’t control the guns - control the criminals. You see Quimby, that’s not a statistical argument. That’s an intellectual position. I invite your intellectual response.
Comment by gatwoi — September 1, 2008 @ 6:51 pm
Nice. Try to bait me into an argument by calling me dumb and dishonest, and then pretend you’re taking the high road? Just google “gun control efficacy” and read any multitude of studies/statistics/arguments from around the world that show that gun control works. Take Australia as an example - one massacre, tough gun laws, no massacres since then. Contrast that with the US example - lots of massacres, no real effort at gun control, lots of massacres continue. Again, fewer guns overall means fewer guns for criminals. It’s hardly rocket science.
Comment by Quimby — September 1, 2008 @ 6:56 pm
Thank you for the response. I didn’t say you were dumb.
OK i took your advice and googled “gun control efficacy” and this was the first article that came up:
http://www.colorado.edu/cspv/publications/factsheets/positions/PS-002.html
It hardly supports your argument.
Comment by gatwoi — September 1, 2008 @ 7:05 pm
So, you’re looking at a 10 year old paper, which only looks at studies conducted in the US, to determine that gun control won’t work?
Huh. Way to ignore research and experience from some other 200+ nations around the world, many of which have strict gun control laws, and almost all of which have much lower rates of gun violence than the US.
Comment by Quimby — September 1, 2008 @ 7:09 pm
Cole (#109)–my bad. Thanks for pointing it out. (Yes I am getting back to this thread laaaaate.)
However, same principle applies to being the non-stay-at-home spouse of a US senator. Not AS time-consuming as President, perhaps, but up there.
Not saying that SAHParenthood is the ideal, just that the logic runs both ways.
Comment by Leah — September 1, 2008 @ 7:12 pm
“However, same principle applies to being the non-stay-at-home spouse of a US senator” (which Michele Obama did–forgot that part!)
Comment by Leah — September 1, 2008 @ 7:13 pm
I’m not ignoring anything. you said a google search would prove your point. None of the articles from the first ten search returns does that. I’m still looking. Give me a link or something.
Comment by gatwoi — September 1, 2008 @ 7:18 pm
The main problem I have with Obama is the people he chooses to associate with – the concept of birds of a feather flock together. The most problematic person with who Obama associates is Saul Alinsky – the father of Community Organizers. He was Obama’s mentor and was credited with introducing him to community organizing. In his book “Rules for Radicals” Alinsky openly endorses, encourages and promotes the accomplishment of Lucifer. Yes, that’s correct, Lucifer. Please Google this to see for yourself.
The second most problematic person with whom Obama associates is William Ayers. It was Ayers who helped Obama start his political career in 1995 in Chicago by hosting various fundraisers at his home for Obama. Bill Ayers describes himself as “a radical, leftist communist” (Please Google him so you know I am not misrepresenting Ayers. On most sites, including Wikipedia, the correlation is made between Ayers and Obama). Ayers was also a leader of a guerrilla movement with a famous statement by Ayers “We are communist women and men underground in the United States”. He openly makes positive statements about Karl Marx.
Obama is also heavily associated with Jeremiah Wright, the famous “Minister” who defames the United States suggesting we deserved what happened on 911. He was Obama’s minister for 20 years and married and baptized his children.
Last, but not least, is his connection with Louis Farrakhan, the leader of the Nation of Islam. A radical “Minister” who, like Wright, openly bashes the United States.
I don’t think it is good to have a man this close to the presidency with ties to Lucifer, Communists and those who openly defame the US.
Comment by LonleyGirl — September 1, 2008 @ 7:38 pm
Well, McSame is “heavily” associated with Duhbya Bush. I don’t know about “Lucifer, Communists and those who openly defame the US.” Does that list also include fluoride?
Comment by C.Biden — September 1, 2008 @ 8:54 pm
I can’t stand Barack Obama. Not ‘in love’ with McCain, exactly, but I’m voting for McCain on the premise of ANYONE but Obama.
Why?
1) He wants to raise taxes. When I’m struggling to buy food for my family, and pay off student loans, I don’t know why I have to pay for OTHERS to go to college.
2) Universal health care makes me sick. Talk to anyone else from any other country with universal health care (i.e. Canadians) and ask how it’s going for them.
3) His plan for Iraq is flawed. I don’t want to be there, either, but his plan will have terrorists cheering in the streets.
4) He has no experience. He uses “happy” words to excite people with no premise behind them.
Oh, I could go on and on.
ANYONE but Obama. Please!
Comment by Andrea — September 2, 2008 @ 12:01 am
Ah, what a nice, charitable attitude! Never mind that those same people will be paying YOUR retirement some day. But, really, why should they have to do that? Screw social security, let retirees starve on the street, and let babies starve too. (But don’t kill them before they’re born! That’s horrible!)
Quite well, thank you.
Source? It will probably have average Iraqis cheering on the streets, but perhaps you’re confusing the two?
Much better to elect a man with a weak heart whose #2 was only governor for 2 years. We really want her one heart-beat away!
Comment by Quimby — September 2, 2008 @ 12:17 am
BTW, are you the same Andrea who doesn’t know the difference between revenue and production?
Comment by Quimby — September 2, 2008 @ 12:22 am
Andrea,
look at his tax proposals. his proposed tax raises are geared toward the ultra-wealthy, with relief for middle-income families, including limiting capital gains taxes for startup companies and small businesses. I can understand an objection on the basis of “we shouldn’t tax the wealthy to pay for relief of the poor, that’s a robin hood mentality” (I don’t agree, but I understand it). I don’t understand when middle-class people complain they’re gonna be taxed more under Obama. According to his current claim (OK, rhetoric, because we don’t know what’s going to happen when he gets in the whitehouse no matter who we elect), you would be taxed less, not more. Unless you’re ultra rich. But somehow I doubt that.
Comment by sare — September 2, 2008 @ 9:21 am
So, I didn’t do enough research about Obama’s tax plan. I didn’t realize it was more for the wealthy, and would actually help me out. I shouldn’t have said that without researching, and I apologize.
However, I have read quite a bit about his health plan, and I think that it’s one of the main reasons I don’t want him for President. I’m glad that things have worked well for you, Quimby, but my Canadian relatives have said differently. They’ve actually come to the U.S. for surgery before, because it’s just so much better here (or, it is right now, anyways).
We used to have a government-sponsored health plan, kind of like Medicaid, while we were in college and too poor for a private plan. I can’t complain too much, because it was better than nothing. However, I had some bad experiences with it. I had a lump in my breast, and went to my OBGYN. She referred me to a specialist. 2 months later it was approved, and it took 6 weeks to actually SEE the specialist (who, I was later told, only would see one patient a week with my health plan, because it paid so little). After much begging and paperwork and denials and fighting, 5 months later the lump was removed. Benign, thank goodness, or I can’t imagine how it would have spread.
What scares me, is that such a small percentage of people in my state were on this health plan, and it was so hard to get approvals and see doctors. What’s going to happen when the whole country is on one? It makes me sick to think about. And it’s going to be less expensive, because the government won’t pay the doctors as much. Right? Who’s going to want to stick out all of the years of medical school for THAT? Scary.
I won’t say that the Iraqis wouldn’t be happy with us gone, because I’d want us gone, too, and I know many of them feel that way. However, I also feel it’s really responsible to say that we’re going to be out of there by this-date not matter what. I don’t think you can say that. You just don’t know what’s going to happen.
Comment by Andrea — September 2, 2008 @ 1:30 pm
Er, or it’s not responsible to put a time frame on when we’re leaving. Oops.
Oh, and I’m NOT the same “Andrea.”
Comment by Andrea — September 2, 2008 @ 1:31 pm
Andrea, let’s be realistic. he can’t convert our messy healthcare system to a universal system. he can’t change the system anymore than mccain could (if he wanted to)
Comment by mfranti — September 2, 2008 @ 1:43 pm
who said obama is for killing babies?
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html
Comment by mfranti — September 2, 2008 @ 2:40 pm
Comments about Obama. I can’t imagine who can clean up the mess
that we are in. So I have to go with the one who has the WILL to do it.
I was going to vote for Hillary as a write in until I heard the Speech. It was
the most moving speech I have ever heard. It spoke more about wants
than specifics to be sure, but that is wise. The one thing that nailed it
for me was - I am my brother’s keeper. This has been my motto since
I was in college 40 years ago and it remains so today. Whatever else
happens or whatever else seems to work, if we are a people who
believe that it is every man for himself, that the “lowlifes” deserve their
plight, that we play no part in the ills of the world, then this is a society
that is not worth preserving. I am my brother’s keeper.
I know several people who live under universal health care plans - in
Canada, in the Netherlands, in France, and in Japan. Not one complains
about wishing they had American style health care. They do sometimes
complain about having to wait. But I have been there and done that
myself. And one of my best friend’s husband died waiting for a heart
transplant. There will be never be a perfect system, but why settle for
one of the worst in the industrialized world?
Comment by Lisa — September 2, 2008 @ 2:46 pm
to bettynobaby: Comment #4. You said that you are aware that Obama
gained some of his political seats in a very underhanded way. I am
from Illinois too, and this has passed me by. Since he has had only two that
I am aware of, it must be either his National Seat or the State one. The
only “scandal” I have heard about is that someone decided to vacate a
seat so he went for it. Then she decided she wanted it back and he decided
that he wanted to keep it. Is this the “underhanded” you are talking about?
I think we have two different opinions about that. I also find that your
choice of where to go (to our beleaguered governor) is a very curious
alternative.
Comment by Lisa — September 2, 2008 @ 2:56 pm
http://www.factcheck.org/just-the-facts/rezko_reed_reality.html
one more
Comment by mfranti — September 2, 2008 @ 3:05 pm
This was supposed to be in the comment above. Here it is in text for those who can’t view the video:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/rezko_reality.html
Comment by mfranti — September 2, 2008 @ 3:10 pm
I am in a hurry - have to go grocery shopping - so perhaps I haven’t looked
carefully enough but I find a curious lack of conversation about Palin after
the Labor Day debacle.
I listened to a very noisy Larry King Live shortly after I heard the news and
I had to laugh at how desparately the two right-wing gals tried to defend her.
The left-wingers were very noisy too, but political stances aside, they were
right.
Maybe today will shed a little more light on the subject, but from what I
think I know, either Palin did some serious hiding of important facts or
McCain did some serious lack of investigation before picking her or he
was desparate.
The problem, of course, is not that the girl is pregnant. This happens in
the best of families, even those that think that pubic sex education is
an evil to be avoided. It is the coverup. And if you look at the pictures of
the day she was picked, it truly was a coverup in more than one way.
Said pregnant daughter was standing there with a baby covering the
belly with the other baby in it. So yes, it is a shame that the girl has
to be dragged through the mud like this. Maybe she didn’t have enough
education to know that what she was doing could cause pregnancy! !
But blame her mother for that. I cannot believe that the mother Palin
has a lick of sense or else is so power hungery she didn’t use her
better judgment on this. It really does boggle the mind. I don’t think
that a VP candidate ever helps a President win an election, but I am
beginning to think that a VP candidate can cause him to lose one.
On Saturday, the Republicans were euphoric. Boy, was that short-
lived.
Comment by Lisa — September 2, 2008 @ 3:13 pm
#296- I live in Australia with a Universal healthcare system and I hate it. I have been meaning to write a post on it because I PREFER the US system, but haven’t had time. There are a few pluses, but many minuses that I don’t think most people recognise.
As for the friend who’s husband died waiting for a heart transplant- that has NOTHING to do with Universal healthcare- it has to do with organ donation. There have been some stirs here about making organ donation an opt-OUT thing- rather than opt-IN, but that hasn’t come to light yet. Don’t blame heathcare for that- blame people who don’t choose to sign on for organ donation (or celebrate that the live in a country where you can choose to donate organs or not, its your call).
And I still prefer M/P to O/B, even with the agnst of teen pregnancy. When my teenage sister was knocked up at 16, I wasn’t printing the news on any t-shirt to wear around BYU, so I don’t judge Palin for keeping it as low key for as long as she could.
Comment by spunky — September 2, 2008 @ 4:21 pm
I can honestly say that Spunky is the only person I have ever met in my 12 years in Australia who does not like the Australian system. Spunky has some very legitimate reasons for not liking it; and I certainly don’t blame her for feeling the way she does; but her experiences are not wide-spread. I have worked in health care for the past 4 1/2 years. In that timeI have worked directly and indirectly with (low-ball estimate here) about 12,000 people. None of them have had her experiences and most of them praise the system.
93% of Australians are satisfied with the Medicare system. Australia’s death rate is 16% lower than in the US, and life expectancy is 2.1 years more than in the US. The US spends 2.3 times as much per capita on health care, or 67% more as a percentage of GDP, and still has 40 million uninsured Americans. The American system is neither cost-effective nor adequate.
Comment by Quimby — September 2, 2008 @ 5:16 pm
Hmm, I wouldn’t call something a “cover-up” when it’s revealed within a couple of days like this was. No matter what you think of the GOP or Palin, surely we can all agree that announcing her daughter’s pregnancy during a nomination acceptance speech would have smacked of the inappropriate. I can only guess that the girl encouraged her mom to accept the nomination regardless of her condition at that the family agonized about how and when to reveal the pregnancy. It can’t have been easy. While fathoming a willful exposure of a pregnant teen to this sort of public scrutiny eludes me, understanding a few days’ wait does not.
I feel for that girl, though. I hope the family is as close-knit and supportive as press reports indicated.
Comment by Janet — September 2, 2008 @ 5:47 pm
Lisa — On the other thread, Ray noted that Palin’s family openly discussed the pregnancy, the current scandal, and a couple of other troublesome issues w/the McCain campaign during vetting. Maybe you’re right about the desperate part!
Comment by Janet — September 2, 2008 @ 5:48 pm
Andrea (288) — I’m quite happy to hear from those who dislike Obama, but your remarks lack evidence and analysis. Could you provide a fuller explication of your reasoning? (And I’m assuming the student loans of which you speak weren’t, um, federally funded?)
Comment by Janet — September 2, 2008 @ 5:51 pm
#302- Quimby, you know I am a rebel! LOL! I have met a number of people who were less than satisfied with the Universal healthcare in Australia- but the I think they are familiar with the struggles I have had here, so open up to me and/or simply move out of the country to get better heath care. From what I understand, the systems in Canada and France are much better than the one in Australia. The study you mention is a single government study completed before the last election which resulted in -at least- NSW and QLD in losing significant state funding therefore closing of a number of heath care clinics, so I am not too quick to jump on the 93% happy bandwagon.
My main concern -(not complaint)- concern is that it seems to judgemental little ol’ me, that the average pro- Universal-Healthcare-American seems to be under the impression that ALL medicine will be instantly free or ridiculously affordable, regardless of the simplicity or complexity of your need. I suspect that most people don’t take into account dental (the jokes about English teeth aren’t because Universal Healthcare is so darn good for that), state regulations (States under the AU system can limit or forbid treatment based on what the state legislates- including abortion, cancer treatment or even brain surgery), out of pocket expenses, and lack (in many cases, end) of funding for federal research to cure cancer, diabetes, etc.etc. I think it is also wise to understand that –similar to a typical US HMO, Universal healthcare (i.e. the government) can decide what medicine they think is best for you- so- just like an HMO, a doctor isn’t always in charge of making your heath choices– a government accountant is in charge of your allowed treatment.
I believe that the US does need to have a universal healthcare system; I just also think that people need to go in with both eyes wide open and understand that universal healthcare does not make medicine free, nor does it make it extremely affordable for everyone. Not to mention that it is still best to supplement Universal healthcare with a private insurance so you can avoid average waiting periods of 2 years for chemotherapy or to visit a paediatrician.
It isn’t that I am blatantly against it- I simply do not enjoy the Australian system and have found it to be more expensive very limited (and often scary) compared to when I was living on the private system in the US. And just because there is universal heathcare still doesn’t mean more people sign up to be on transplant lists.
Comment by spunky — September 2, 2008 @ 8:03 pm
I think the Palin pregnancy is going to work in her favor. Certainly it´s not a great promotion of the efficacy of abstinence education, but that the girl is marrying the father and keeping the baby speaks positively to the belief system Palin espouses, in addition to her refusing termination for a Down´s baby.
EVERYTHING IS POLITICAL. This is all strategy, every bit of it. McCain´s camp certainly knew of the pregnancy and is working to angle it in its favor.
Comment by Chandelle — September 2, 2008 @ 8:10 pm
I believe that the US does need to have a universal healthcare system; I just also think that people need to go in with both eyes wide open and understand that universal healthcare does not make medicine free, nor does it make it extremely affordable for everyone. Not to mention that it is still best to supplement Universal healthcare with a private insurance so you can avoid average waiting periods of 2 years for chemotherapy or to visit a paediatrician.
I agree, Spunky. It´s just that, for some of us, having universal healthcare means that even if we have to wait six months, we´ll be seen, whereas in the current system, we won´t be seen AT ALL. Whenever I hear people nitpicking about specificities of care, I just think about what a luxury it is to do so, compared to those of us who aren´t seen AT ALL, who would take underpaid, harried doctors, long waits, and struggles obtaining specific care over NOTHING AT ALL.
Comment by Chandelle — September 2, 2008 @ 8:15 pm
Chandelle,
I hope you can get the help you need soon- it is scary when you can’t get the medication or medical attention you need, I live with it here, too, so can relate to your frusteration. Where are you that you “won’t” be seen at all? Even if it user-pay at the county hospital, I am shocked that you “won’t” be seen ever. Have you contacted your county for medical assitance?
I personally have been on a waiting list for 5 years for a pap smear/Obgyn visit- so sometimes, its a little longer than 6 months (any minute now…). And my FIL, rather than waiting the 2-3 years for chemo on universal system, opted to pay the $$$$$$ out of pocket and have the chemo within 2 months, so having a significant savings for heath care is still a good thing for those who can afford to put it aside (I am not one of those people who has a spare $250k lying around for chemo- thank goodness I don’t need it right now!)
Comment by spunky — September 2, 2008 @ 8:34 pm
Many of the people I deal with are cancer patients who are using the public system. None of them have ever had to wait for treatment. One of my active cancer patients at the moment had a 2-day turn-around from GP visit to first treatment, using the public system. Now, how can you say that’s too long to wait? You are the only person I have ever met who has had to wait for a pap test. (Worst case scenario, if your local community health centre isn’t having a well women’s clinic - where you get them for free - go to your GP, they can do pap tests too. You can’t tell me you have to wait 2 to 3 years to see a GP.) Yes, there are out of pocket expenses for some services, but I’m willing to put my out of pocket expenses against any American’s on private insurance any time.
I found a breast lump. Went to the GP, got an ultrasound, saw a specialist, had a biopsy, had follow-up appointments with the specialist every 6 months for 3 years. Total out of pocket cost, around $200 - over the 3 years - and that was because I wanted to see a certain specialist who would only take me through the private system. Total turn-around from first GP visit to ultrasound/specialist visit/biopsy, around 10 days.
My daughter was born with hip displacia. Three ultrasounds, two GP visits, six visits to the ortheopedic specialist, three visits to the pediatrician. Total out of pocket cost, $60. Total turn-around from first ultrasound to first ortheopedic consultation, 4 days.
In both cases we could’ve avoided all out of pocket expenses by using the public system. In fact in the end, with the hip displacia, we ended up doing exactly that because the private ortheopedic specialist and the private pediatrician we were seeing (because we thought we’d get in quicker that way) both called up the public hospital and got us in quicker than they were able to treat us.
It is misleading to say that the government decides on treatment. If that’s what your doctor is telling you, find another doctor. I work with doctors on a daily basis. Different doctors certainly have different ways of treating their clients. It’s not government-mandated.
I know your experiences have sucked - but they are unique - again, I’m pitting the experiences of some 12,000 people against yours; again, I deal on a daily basis with people who are chemo patients, cardiac patients, ortheopedic patients, etc. etc., almost all of whom use the public system.
Comment by Quimby — September 2, 2008 @ 9:27 pm
The problem with universal health care is that it doesn’t reform healthcare, which is what we need. It’s simply the proverbial band-aid on a bullet hole. I’ve heard varying opinions about the whole “waiting list” issue. I would be concerned that in inner-cities where universal healthcare would affect more people, would there be enough doctors, right now, to treat them all? And if it’s simply drive-thru health care, is that going to really help that much. Will potential doctors choose a different field to avoid this situation?
What we need lower prescription drug prices, affordable premiums, etc. We need affordable health care.
Comment by Tim J — September 2, 2008 @ 10:21 pm
Well spoken, Tim. I very much agree- American insurance subsidizes the medicine for the rest of the world- there are a number of medications available in the US that do not become available in Australia until Americans and American insurances have paid the debt to develop the medication, thereby reducing the cost of the drug to be affordable- therefore allowed to be distributed. (again, my experience is also that some socilazed countries gets the meds quicker than others- it depends on the government department responsible for allowing the tax payers money to be spent on medications for only certain percetages of the population). It is further my opinion that while I do think there needs to be some sort of universal healthcare system in the US, there is a stronger need for global reform in the health care industry.
In addition, my socialzed med experiences to date have been inner-city and in a state diffrent to Quimby’s. The states I have lived in do not have the reputation for dealing with cancer. Word of the street here is that if you are diagnosed with cancer, if at all possible, you SHOULD move the the state where Quimby lives in order to get treatment. And again, being inner-city. I have waited 2 weeks to see a GP where I was charged $60 to say hi and get for a refferral to get on another waiting list. For those in rural locations- there is additional funding, significantly less waiting periods and the system seems to work a bit more like affordable clockwork.
Little things that people should keep in mind when considering a “universal” system.
Comment by spunky — September 3, 2008 @ 4:59 pm
You are from Sydney. One-quarter of the nation’s population lives in Sydney. If things were as bad as you say they are, the national approval rate would not be 93%.
Comment by Quimby — September 3, 2008 @ 7:42 pm
You may want to check out this document which is a survey of NSW cancer patients. More than 97% of cancer patients in New South Wales rated their treatment as excellent, very good, or good.
I would also urge you to check the website dedicated to the PBS scheme, which gives Australians access to prescription medicine at a subsidised rate. To be blunt, Spunky’s information (that a medication is only listed once it’s been paid for by the US) is just plain wrong. The PBS website is www.pbs.gov.au. It is up to the pharmaceutical companies to submit their drugs for the scheme; many if not most are listed long before their (much inflated) R&D costs are recovered.
The Australian health scheme is very transparent. Just about everything Spunky has said is inaccurate; that can be quickly verified with a Google search or by looking at the website of the relevant health organisation. (For instance, www.medicareaustralia.gov.au; www.health.gov.au; www.health.nsw.gov.au; etc.) In Australia, there are about 2.5 doctors per 1000 people; this compares to a rate in the US of 2.6 doctors per 1000 people; these stats (and many others regarding health care access) are readily available through WHO and/or the UNDP websites.
Comment by Quimby — September 3, 2008 @ 8:19 pm
are you insane? that is how I got just about every job I ever had in my life…
here here! I will be sad if Palin is the first woman with executive power in the white house. I cant help but see her as a shill v@gina. (sorry yall)
ok I take serious umbrage with this comment. Mr. Palin took a short time off when Sarah was elected as governor to avoid any “conflict of interest” due to his work in the oil industry. However; during his hiatus he attended all open and closed meetings Ms. Palin was required to attend commenting directly on policy almost as if he were a “shadow governor” (yes that is language that is deliberately inflammatory but whatever…) He returned to his job just a few short months later. I would also like to point out that painting this couple as blue collar is just silly. They own 3 houses. One where they live and 2 recreational homes. You know many blue collar union workers that live like that? Not me… sorry… the dude is an oil man.. just like the guys in the white house now. Only younger, and more ambitious…
I have so much I could say about this, but please do not tell me that you are naive enough to believe that mccain chose palin in the name of change… He chose Palin because Obama gave one heck of a speech the night before that ALOT of people felt was historical and deeply moving (imho I cried through the whole thing and Im not even on my period) It was political posturing all the way. A true” hey look we have a historical campain too” plea for attention check this out.
sums it up nicely…
well the truth is I seldom post here any longer… but I was curious how fmhers I know and love took to this whole palin thing…
If you are any kind of feminist (and this is gonna piss off a few) how could you vote for this woman? Do you really think McCain chose her because she was the best person for the job? I applaud ol Hill… she worked her ass off for a chance to be president and pert near did it, and then this inexperienced political puppet ( oh yes she is… I guarantee it whether she knows it or not, that is what she is duh) says she is breaking through a glass ceiling! No WAY!!! She is the tool of some old white dude and the old white dudes he works with. she is being used by them the same way women have been used for centuries. She will be taken out and shown to the world like a pretty little doll. The problem is McCain is old and has a history CANCER (my 20 yo cousin died of the same form) And a viable VP is VERY important.
wow this was way long winded of me and highly opinionated and bound to annoy many… but hey whatever. I havent gotten thru all the comments because crap there are soooo many but I agree… what happened to fmh and Im not talking about the whole boo working mom thing but buying into this crap reall? (oh and one more thing Palin accepted the money for the bridge to nowhere in the first place then nixed the idea but kept the funding ummmm really? wow that really is going “against the system ehhhm…)
Comment by ...just cal me cassandra. — September 3, 2008 @ 9:12 pm
well poop how embarrassing a link to nowhere…
Comment by ...just cal me cassandra. — September 3, 2008 @ 9:34 pm
One VERY long thread! Will it go on for 9 more weeks? So much to still say…
Comment by big mama — September 3, 2008 @ 9:45 pm
223
no
no
dem
it was tough but I chose obama in February
Comment by ...just cal me cassandra. — September 3, 2008 @ 9:47 pm
I now realize why Palin is unacceptable to me. It’s like making the choice of president equivalent to a blind date. GI Joe and Superwoman are fantasy figures. There are too many big issues to trust someone we don’t know at all or base in on our affection for things we played with as kids. Obama and Biden are the most vetted team - what you see is what you get. That’s just one reason I will vote for Obama if, God willing, I am able. Thanks for keeping this blog alive. You do an incredible job.
Comment by Carolyn — September 5, 2008 @ 9:24 pm
Obama isn’t a blind date, as well? McCain and Biden are the only known entities in this race.
Comment by Ray — September 5, 2008 @ 10:47 pm
#315 Comment by …just cal me cassandra
Pissed off feminists are the best kind. We get more for women that way. Maybe very young feminists can get thru to the men above the glass ceilings with their ‘lets be nice’ approach. I don’t see it happening and I read a lot of complaints of sexism on this site. Perhaps the younger men will have a different outlook when they get there. Don’t count on it.
Interestingly enough no one has yet commented on Palin’s anger. She is royally pissed off. No woman who would self describes herself as a pitbull is a serene happy camper.
Comment by Ruby — September 6, 2008 @ 9:19 am
Oh brother, Ruby. The pitbull comment was funny and charming. I heard that there were teleprompter problems throughout her speech (it kept scrolling through the applause), and that she did some ad-libbing - the pitbull/hockey mom line was one such improvisation.
Comment by Patti — September 6, 2008 @ 10:50 am
One other comment about Palin’s “anger.” I’ve heard that community organizers are up in arms about her line that “being a small town mayor is sort of like being a community organizer, except you have actual responsibilities.”
Let us remember that the first thing Obama’s spokesman said when Palin was selected was, “McCain has placed a former mayor of a town of 9,000 within a heartbeat of the presidency.”
What the Obama camp said of her mayoral experience was condescending and elitist. I’m glad she fired back.
Comment by Patti — September 6, 2008 @ 11:01 am
v@gina.
Whoa. I TOTALLY want that email address.
Carry on.
Comment by Chandelle — September 6, 2008 @ 12:31 pm
I want to thank the people on this blog for helping me figure out my position on this.
The fatal flaw with Palin is that the country doesn’t know her. The fact that John McCain would bring anyone into the race at this late date who has not been vetted and known by the American people is reckless at best and potentially dangerous at worst. It has nothing to do with her being a woman, it has to do with the blatant disrespect this shows for the American people. I can only imagine this is the way he brought Cindy home, too. Cindy worked out - we don’t know about Sarah and, in this day and under these circumstances, this demonstrates McCain and his group do not understand the seriousness of this election. GI Joe and Superwoman are fantasy figures. We don’t elect blind dates to be VP of the USA. Hopefully, 8 weeks is enough for the swing voters to see how this choice, because there won’t be time for America to really know this person, puts our country at risk.
Anyone who wants “anyone but Obama” - that is really an irresponsible position for our country. There is not enough room - but, to paraphrase Jay Leno - the confetti at the RNC was made from our Constitution.
Comment by Carolyn — September 6, 2008 @ 1:10 pm
There were no telepromter failures at Palin’s speech (RNC). Patti, check your sources. There are a lot of mistruths going around on all sides.
There was an Evangelical minister who went to the DNC (invited by the DNC). Apparently he had a real come-to-Jesus, realizing that the Democrats actually meant the Christianity that many profess. I thought that was heartening. Patti, do you really consider being mayor of a town of 9,000 even good preparation for being major of Washington, DC? Really? He wasn’t disparaging mayors, he was questioning the significance of that experience for the job. What she said of community organizers was that they had no responsibility - which, in my experience, flies in the face of truth. In fact, there were at least 4 clearly wrong if not mis-truthful statements in her speech. The bottom line is that we don’t really know this woman. We can’t assume that all NRA, pro-life, pro-evolution people are good - there is no group of people that has the handle on righteousness - we are all human. So, given the fact there is not time to really know this person, it is really irresponsible and reckless of McCain to nominate her and provides clear evidence for his poor judgement at this stage in his live. Yes, I know that 40 years ago he was a war hero and I know that 10 years ago he was a maverick, but I don’t know what he is today.
Comment by Carolyn — September 6, 2008 @ 1:19 pm
carolyn, those were some excellent comments in 325!
Comment by mfranti — September 6, 2008 @ 1:23 pm
from The daily show: “he’s a “reformed maverick”
Comment by mfranti — September 6, 2008 @ 1:29 pm
Carolyn, I have no problem with the bulk of your last comment, but Obama is a blind date, as well. He is a terrific orator, but he really hasn’t authored one bit of substantive legislation, and he has no executive experience whatsoever. Remember, I don’t like much of Palin’s politics, and I despise what McCain did to his first wife (and think he is a grumpy old man too much of the time), but it’s naive at best to think that we know much of anything about what Obama will do in the Oval Office. We have absolutely no experience by which to judge him in that regard, and we do with Palin.
If you don’t like her political views and/or actions as Governor, fine. To dismiss her as a “blind date”, however, is silly - given that Obama is the presidential candidate on the other ticket. In any other election I can recall, such a characterization would be legitimate; it is not in this one.
Comment by Ray — September 6, 2008 @ 1:34 pm
re: 325
I’m afraid the selection of Palin was not a fatal flaw, but rather a very shrewd calculation on the part of the McCain campaign. The base of the Republican party is apathetic about McCain. Given the fact that his luster to independents has dimmed somewhat, his candidacy was completely hopeless without that base. For example, most typical Utah Mormons were rather disheartened after the primary. Their crush (Mittens) had lost his bid, and McCain seemed to them a Democrat in sheeps clothing. Turnout among traditional Republicans here was likely to be low, and conservative alternatives (Ron Paul, Bob Barr, the Constitutionalist Party candidate) would likely have gotten a lot more votes.
All that changes now for the base. There is nothing which will light their fires more than this cute, perky, Eagle Forum dream. People like the traditional Utah majority will fall all over themselves to support her. She has already proven that she will be more than capable in the traditional VP candidate role of attack-dog, which the base will also love. That will leave McCain free to (try to) play to the independents.
I still think Obama is most likely to win, but the road just got a bit tougher with Palin (and here in Utah, where I thought Obama had a shot to ride the youth/independent/apathetic-conservative wave to a long-shot victory, I think that shot has now evaporated). You may not like her politics or style (I certainly don’t), but it would be a mistake not to recognize this as a saavy political move.
Comment by Derek — September 6, 2008 @ 1:35 pm
Sorry, I meant “last comments” - plural.
Comment by Ray — September 6, 2008 @ 1:35 pm
re: 323
Was it also condescending when Rove claimed Tim Caine, Gov of Virginia and major of a city 30 times the size of Palin’s, did not have the executive experience necessary?
Lets be honest, a large city is much more complex to manage than a small city. And while I’m not a believer that government experience–executive or otherwise–is the most important predictor of one’s ability to govern(Lincoln had extremely little experience), I say if you’re going to make experience an issue, you’d better be ready to face those questions.
Comment by Derek — September 6, 2008 @ 1:42 pm
The call comes into the White House at 3AM.
George (still) answers it.
“Oh hey John, how’re ya doin?”
“That bad huh? Well sure ya can!”
“You know how it goes - Fool ‘em once shame on them
fool ‘em twice shame on them, fool ‘em three times… wait! How does that go? Hey Karl? How does that “fool ‘em” game go? Oh right!”
“John! You still there? For the third fool ‘em, Karl says you just need to add a distraction. Kindly, honorable and brave old warrior with a sharp tongued sassy gal on a loose leash pullin’ to the right.” We used “Heartland” as our key word, you might try “Small Town Values” as yours. That oughta do it…”
“Sure, yer welcome. Glad to help.”
Comment by Betty Jo — September 6, 2008 @ 3:08 pm
Betty Jo, I don’t know whether to laugh or cry…
Comment by Derek — September 6, 2008 @ 3:22 pm
Carolyn,- Palin wasn’t just a mayor, she is also Governor with a pretty impressive record of accomplishment in Alaska - whether you agree with her policies or not. If she’s not qualified, then Barack Obama certainly isn’t.
What exactly of significance has Barack Obama done. I found it completely laughable that he says his “experience” in managing his campaign qualifies him. What experience did he have before he decided he was fit to be president?
Comment by Patti — September 6, 2008 @ 3:55 pm
Betty Jo, I’m just laughing. If only the Republicans ran the country as well as they run elections.
Comment by Quimby — September 6, 2008 @ 4:03 pm
Funny, Obama claims running a campaign is basically the same thing.
Comment by Tim J — September 6, 2008 @ 4:36 pm
Betty Jo, the problem with the “experience” question for Democrats is simple:
1) Biden is WAY more experienced in Washington than Palin, but Obama is running on a campaign of change, so that congressional experience isn’t a huge plus.
2) Palin in WAY less experienced in Washington than Biden, but that’s not a negative in a race that is dominated by calls for change.
3) Palin has more experience than Obama and Biden (and McCain) in executive government, and that is what the Pres. and VP are - executives.
Even more critically, Palin is on the ticket as the VP - “one step away” from the Presidency. Obama, however, is on the ticket as the Pres. - “no steps away” from the Presidency. Therefore, everything the Democrats say about Palin’s lack of experience as a VP candidate looks like idiotic hypocrisy, since it can be applied directly to their own Presidential candidate.
I honestly don’t think McCain gives a skinny rats hindquarters about how liberals react to Palin. She guarantees solid support from the conservative base, which he desperately needs to have any chance to win. He is gambling that he can neutralize the “change” message by picking her, as well. That leaves him to go after the moderates and independents, by running against the Republican legacy of the last 8 years.
That’s what he did in his acceptance speech. He positioned himself as having a record of opposing bad decisions - even in his own party. He positioned himself as an independent, without ever using that word. So, his ticket consists of a moderate independent and a conservative running against two liberals. That’s the presentation, at least, and it’s brilliant. It might not win the election, but it’s brilliant.
Comment by Ray — September 6, 2008 @ 4:53 pm
just watch the democrats make this hail mary pass (the palin pick) into the game clinching TD.
advice for Obama supporters, which should be obvious: keep her family out of it, drop the “experience” criticisms (they reinforce an underdog, “one of us” story), and respect her faith and values (even if you don’t share them)….
hit her HARD and FAST on issues–her positions and record on issues. make fair and constant attacks on issues. and yes, keep focusing on mccain, but don’t disrespect her by ignoring her.
Comment by Amy S. — September 6, 2008 @ 5:37 pm
Amy S. is right. The more they try to make this an Obama-Palin race, the more likely they are to fail.
Comment by Tim J — September 6, 2008 @ 6:10 pm
I’m in agreement. The constant attention to her personal life is going to backfire. It will end up looking like there is nothing of real substance to debate. On the experience issue, former President Clinton just recently recalled the whole country to the fact that the same was said of his own lack of experience.
Comment by Kimberly — September 6, 2008 @ 6:25 pm
#341 - and he was the governor of a small, politically unimportant state. Oh, the irony!
Comment by Ray — September 6, 2008 @ 7:22 pm
re: 341
I don’t think Obama, or the Democrats in general, or even liberals in general, are making the election about her personal life. Yes, the media is exploring her personal life, just as they did Obama. But Obama and his supporters aren’t saying “look, she has a pregnant daughter, so she isn’t fit to run the nation!” The Republicans are pretending that is the Democratic/liberal narrative, because they know that it plays on the persecution complex of their base. But it is only that: hypocritical pretense.
Her experience, which isn’t about her personal life, is being made part of the campaign, and I absolutely agree that talking experience is a dead end argument. But then, it was just as dead end when the conservatives were (are) using it against Obama.
Comment by Derek — September 6, 2008 @ 7:42 pm
The absolute hypocrisy of the right-wing pundits is just astounding. After the way they treated Hillary Clinton - after all the sexist crap they threw at her - all the time mocking her for saying gender played any role at all - and now, when someone dares question whether a mayor of a town of 9000 is qualified to run the country, it’s sexist? I’m sure there’s a special place in hell reserved for Bill O’Reilly.
Comment by Quimby — September 6, 2008 @ 7:57 pm
The beauty of being an independent is that I am sitting back and watching the hypocrisy from both sides…I have no vested interest in either party. I don’t take any of it personally because I know that an election is nothing but political strategy. The exposure of the blatant hypocrisy on both sides is good. The last weeks of a campaign are trial by fire and I’m interested in how the young senator holds up in debate. Even if Obama loses, we haven’t seen the last of him…unless Hilary decides to finish him off politically once and for all for having the nerve to hijack her presidential bid.
What I like is that people are energized instead of apathetic. They are talking about the candidates- even if a lot of people are only swapping gossip. Hopefully, this will get the young crowd voting.
I know who I’m supporting and I know why…I’ve learned enough about both candidates to have made up my mind.
My true hope is that the two party system will weaken and we will see the opportunity for greater selection in the future. New ideas, new faces, viable multiple parties.
Comment by Kimberly — September 6, 2008 @ 9:14 pm
They’re not?
Comment by Tim J — September 6, 2008 @ 9:18 pm
#343 Every honest person on this blog and anywhere else in America understands what is being said about Palin.
There isn’t a lower place to hit a woman…once you’ve called her a bad mother, she’s already been called the worst thing possible. For a woman with a family, to call her a bad mother is to impugn her character on the deepest level and that is ingrained in the psyche of both men and women alike.
The Republicans are being hit with their monumental hypocrisy about family values because they have nominated a bad mother by the supposed conservative definition. (Even if her daughter is doing exactly what conservatives support when “mistakes” happen…keeping the baby and marrying the father.)
The Dems are equally hypocritical in the fact that if Palin shared their platform, she’d be their poster child…working mom/juggling powerful career and family/taking on corrupt establishment/rising through the ranks/househusband…we could go on. The woman that does it all and does her best when dealt a difficult hand (special needs child, pregnant teen- who among us doesn’t know that a 17 year old really can decide to have sex even if the parents raised her to wait until marriage? It even happens in good Mormon families where mommy was home every day…)
Eventually, women are going to get annoyed by the focus on Palin’ s family issues. If she loses, I bet most women prefer her to lose honestly instead of being taken down by the bad mother label.
Really, if they don’t switch to hitting her strictly on her executive decisions, the tide will turn the other way. It will be viewed as mud-slinging and seen as an indication that her executive decisions must have been so good that they can only hit her with a smear campaign.
Comment by Kimberly — September 6, 2008 @ 9:54 pm
I was really hoping for a BLoomberg-Hagel ticket for this reason. I think especially now, it could have done some real damage this election.
Comment by Tim J — September 6, 2008 @ 9:55 pm
re: 346
I stand corrected. There are some who will stoop so low. But I doubt it will be the norm. The norm will be the issues.
Perfect example: Here Obama is, swinging back at Palin, and it isn’t about the Republican convention decor, or her husband, or her kids, or her religion. Its about her political record and her deception about that record.
Kimberly, I agree about the multiple parties (parties, M!). I haven’t made an absolute decision yet, because there is still so much to be revealed about Obama. But I’m very likely to vote for a third-party candidate myself.
Comment by Derek — September 6, 2008 @ 10:12 pm
re: 348
Oh, and I might very well have been persuaded to vote for a ticket involving Hagel.
Comment by Derek — September 6, 2008 @ 10:12 pm
Just for the record, as soon as I read #16, and like most of these “letters” I snoped it and found it to be utterly FALSE.
It’s not that hard to find out the truth, or at least some more facts with this here internet thing.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/afghanistan.asp
(a must read for any who have gotten such garbage in their mail)
Anyway, his speech was GREAT! I watched it no less than 5 times and was moved to tears every time. Probably pretty funny to see this 300lb scary ex-infantry soldier crying like a baby at the utter patriotism, and more than that Love for my country that this man brought to the surface after a VERY long time.
Thanks Barack,
You definitely have my vote.
Comment by Lester — September 6, 2008 @ 11:30 pm
348/350 - Come on, we all know you mean Katherine Heigl, not Chuck Hagel!
Comment by Quimby — September 6, 2008 @ 11:36 pm
Ha! Well then I could vote for a Mormon that isn’t Romney!
Comment by Tim J — September 7, 2008 @ 12:17 am
First go to my blog for a LONG list of factual and researched data on why I do not like Obama
www.lipstickandfeminism.blogspot.com
1) deceit about his own religious past and current convictions
2) extremist abortion stance—voted FOR partial-birth abortions and for the act that denies saving the life of an aborted baby
3)lack of executive experience or any real concrete political experience
4) wants to disarm,defund military and current missile systems and leave us very vulnerable and funnel saved money into false ‘green jobs’ pharoah created jobs, governments can create jobs, but it doesn’t mean anything…..
5)inexperience in dealing with real threats to US from Chavez, Putin, Iran, Cuba (wants to meet and talk and have lunch…hmm…)
6)socialist/marxist views not good for america
list can go on and on
7)the Farrahkan, Wright TEST–he fails.
8)the real ‘women’ issues he has–see my blog
9)Read The Case Against Barack Obama–a very thorough researched book and worth reading even if proObama
10)as a convert I was asked specific questions before I could be baptized–abortion, homosexuality (my answers no ones business) so why would I now vote contrary to what my answers needed to be then? what does our own belief system tell us about the REAL big issues of the sanctity of life…..remember the devaluing of life was the beginning of Nazi Germany and the Holocaust–do the research—the original camps began with the infirm, mentally ill, diseased, aged and progressed to anyone unworthy of life–who determines this? Society did at that time and no one intervened…….
Comment by Carrie — September 13, 2008 @ 9:47 pm