US Elections 2008

[Sassarai]

Guess America's love affair with Sarah Palin is over

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/poli...r_sarah_p.html


But then again the expectations for Palin are so low right now that if she even sounds coherent during the debate, she'll win em over.


http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/wash...couric-sn.html

[Epyon9283]

Hopefully the realization that she is completely unprepared to be VP will reflect poorly on McCain. Maybe people will realize she was chosen with the sole intent to grab would-be Hillary voters and that McCain didn't put "Country First" when making his decision.

[Sazelyt]

Originally Posted by Vexx

I find it difficult to believe his aides missed that in prepping, so I can only conclude in this case that McCain prefers his mythology to justify his position that Iran must meet preconditions before any talks. This is the same thing that tripped Palin up with Couric's interview.
Bad sign....

Kissinger made a phone call to CNN after the debate to make sure that he and McCain share similar views on this issue. I don't remember the exact words but in short he said McCain was correct.

I believe what happened here is what happened to Obama, when he first mentioned about communicating with the presidents of enemy states with no pre-condition, even though (let's just say this is what he says right now, I don't think that was the case before, considering his stance at the time) he was referring to doing that at the lower levels. Anyways, I think a person who will (close to) soon celebrate his century-long birthday can be excused for an unintentional slip (this argument cannot be used for someone who is his half-age, by the way, and that person's (sur)name is Obama).

(As a note, I just noticed that this is a post from long before, unfortunately, when I clicked the thread from the main page, that page was the first to come, and I didn't notice the page count, so someone might have already answered to that part.)

Originally Posted by Epyon9283

Hopefully the realization that she is completely unprepared to be VP will reflect poorly on McCain. Maybe people will realize she was chosen with the sole intent to grab would-be Hillary voters and that McCain didn't put "Country First" when making his decision.

If you consider the last debate, where in the second part, we had seen a lot of times the experienced-preacher Obama open mouth and thinking, (how can I not think of that? or how did he steal my lines?), the debate is open to many possibilities. And, in Palin's case, Biden needs to be careful. He may give birth to a habit of insulting the other side with his tone and words, which may receive more attention than the content of his words.

And, hadn't the last debate already shown that you can answer without actually answering and the public wouldn't feel like getting deceived?

[Abashi]

Originally Posted by Phantom-Takaya

Looks like it doesn't really matter what state you're in. It's pretty divided. Do you have anything for Alaska and Hawaii?

I don't have a county map for Alaska, but here is the results:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pag...lts/states/AK/

Oh, and here is a county map for Hawaii:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004//pa.../P/00/map.html

Hope that helps!

PS: Love your avatar, its haught!

[Edgewalker]

Getting rid of Palin at the last minute would be admitting that she was being used as a political tool and that the McCain camp has no idea what they are doing. I think they would lose a lot more votes from doing that then they would gain.

[Anh_Minh]

Yeah, they're pretty much stuck with her. Unless she dies. If she gets shot between now and the VP debate, we'll know who and why.

[Quarkboy]

Here's a thought experiment: What if Palin had to quit due to actual circumstances they can't control, like say she gets mauled by a moose at a photo op and is in a coma or something...
i.e. not a situation where Mccain drops her or she quits, but one where he is forced to pick a new running mate.

Who would mccain pick TODAY? Romney because of the economy? Would he go back and defy his party elites this time and pick Lieberman (or Ridge)?
Or would he try the same style of gambit and pick another random woman we've never heard of?

[james0246]

Originally Posted by Edgewalker

Getting rid of Palin at the last minute would be admitting that she was being used as a political tool and that the McCain camp has no idea what they are doing. I think they would lose a lot more votes from doing that then they would gain.

Actually, it would be suprisenly easy for her to pull out, or simply miss the debate. All she need say is that her family needs her, or that her youngest son (the baby) is sick, or a variety of other similar excuses that can not be argued about by either democrates or republicans (at least not on a "media" level, though individuals may talk).

[Archer]

Originally Posted by james0246

Actually, it would be suprisenly easy for her to pull out, or simply miss the debate. All she need say is that her family needs her, or that her youngest son (the baby) is sick, or a variety of other similar excuses that can not be argued about by either democrates or republicans (at least not on a "media" level, though individuals may talk).

She could miss the debate because she was preparing for the shotgun wedding for her daughter.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by Fipskuul

Kissinger made a phone call to CNN after the debate to make sure that he and McCain share similar views on this issue. I don't remember the exact words but in short he said McCain was correct.

I wouldn't be suprised to find out that was after a call to Kissinger from someone in the McCain campaign.

Incidentily:

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/09/...6971221579660/

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalra...ger-backs.html

And from one of the links in that second article:

"One should be prepared to negotiate, and I think we should be prepared to negotiate about Iran," Kissinger, who brokered the end of the 1973 Yom Kippur war and peace talks with the North Vietnamese, said in an interview with Bloomberg Television. Asked whether he meant the U.S. should hold direct talks, Kissinger, 84, responded: "Yes, I think we should."

I believe what happened here is what happened to Obama, when he first mentioned about communicating with the presidents of enemy states with no pre-condition, even though (let's just say this is what he says right now, I don't think that was the case before, considering his stance at the time) he was referring to doing that at the lower levels. Anyways, I think a person who will (close to) soon celebrate his century-long birthday can be excused for an unintentional slip (this argument cannot be used for someone who is his half-age, by the way, and that person's (sur)name is Obama).

Obama probably should have been more aggressive on this point. Something like saying, 'Of course there needs to be preperations, but setting pre-conditions, that is demands that Iran must meet before we sit down and talk is counterproductive. The entire point of talking is to find a way to work things out and get them to stop things such as uranium enrichment. Demanding that they condeed before we even talk is simply not going to work. We've seen that under the Bush administration. Maybe actually talking won't work either, but it's got a much better chance of success than not talking. '

Obama did hit some of those points, but I don't think he worded it clearly or forcefully enough.

[cors8]

Originally Posted by Archer

She could miss the debate because she was preparing for the shotgun wedding for her daughter.

I think Bill Maher said it best:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbLkfk682zU

For the text version:

http://freelevi.org/Real_Time_with_Bill_Maher.html

[Epyon9283]

Originally Posted by Quarkboy

Here's a thought experiment: What if Palin had to quit due to actual circumstances they can't control, like say she gets mauled by a moose at a photo op and is in a coma or something...
i.e. not a situation where Mccain drops her or she quits, but one where he is forced to pick a new running mate.

Who would mccain pick TODAY? Romney because of the economy? Would he go back and defy his party elites this time and pick Lieberman (or Ridge)?
Or would he try the same style of gambit and pick another random woman we've never heard of?

He'd lose the conservative vote if he picked Lieberman. Not sure he'd pick Romney after these comments:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY5Plqs5d98

Ridge would be the most likely choice IMO.

[solomon]

As I said, McCain is only so much a maverick. Him picking another Maverick is idiotic politically.


The NY Daily News maybe be a bit lurid as a source.

But I ask people again WHAT FORIEGN POLICY EXPERIENCE DO YOU NEED BEING THE GOVERNOR OF ONE STATE, ALASKA SPECIFICALLY, NONE, THAT'S WHAT. I can't believe people think she has some credentials with dealing with foriegn govts.

I mean other than that she seems like a regular politicians (just average as far as im concerned, not bad not good)

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

I wouldn't be suprised to find out that was after a call to Kissinger from someone in the McCain campaign.

Incidentily:

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/09/...6971221579660/

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalra...ger-backs.html

And from one of the links in that second article:

"One should be prepared to negotiate, and I think we should be prepared to negotiate about Iran," Kissinger, who brokered the end of the 1973 Yom Kippur war and peace talks with the North Vietnamese, said in an interview with Bloomberg Television. Asked whether he meant the U.S. should hold direct talks, Kissinger, 84, responded: "Yes, I think we should."

Aye, it doesn't really matter what Kissinger later *says* he said --- (nor anyone else recollecting what they said) - as said, positions can morph after a phone call or two. Especially if lockstep is needed to push soundbite memes.

What he *said* as recorded at the joint panel of former Secretary of States - I find more convincing as he was in his geopolitical element of deep considerations and peers rather than trying to be in-step with a domestic political campaign's soundbites.

[Aquillion]

Originally Posted by Archer

She could miss the debate because she was preparing for the shotgun wedding for her daughter.

Funny you should say that.

Inside John McCain’s campaign the expectation is growing that there will be a popularity boosting pre-election wedding in Alaska between Bristol Palin, 17, and Levi Johnston, 18, her schoolmate and father of her baby. “It would be fantastic,” said a McCain insider. “You would have every TV camera there. The entire country would be watching. It would shut down the race for a week.”

Ugh.

[Sassarai]

Originally Posted by solomon

As I said, McCain is only so much a maverick. Him picking another Maverick is idiotic politically.


The NY Daily News maybe be a bit lurid as a source.

But I ask people again WHAT FORIEGN POLICY EXPERIENCE DO YOU NEED BEING THE GOVERNOR OF ONE STATE, ALASKA SPECIFICALLY, NONE, THAT'S WHAT. I can't believe people think she has some credentials with dealing with foriegn govts.

I mean other than that she seems like a regular politicians (just average as far as im concerned, not bad not good)

The source seems fine to me. You're going to have to find some Fox type dirt on them to make me think otherwise.

No one thought she had any type of foreign policy experience except blind republicans that just want to support her because she's one of them. Hurray for small town values! Democrats have been saying all along she wasn't qualify but was told they are SEXIST.

[Solace]

Originally Posted by Aquillion

Funny you should say that.


Ugh.

Remember when Republicans used to preach about good family values? I wonder if a wedding between an underage pregnant woman and boyfriend is really something you want to be set as an iconic moment in your campaign.

In some states, the boyfriend would be in trouble for statutory rape, right?

In addition, Alaska statutory rape laws declare that anyone who is 18 years old or older who has sex with a person who is 16 or 17, or who is at least three years younger than the offender, can be charged with sexual abuse in the third degree. This is also a felony.

From: http://blog.laborlawtalk.com/2006/10...ory-rape-laws/

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Solace

Remember when Republicans used to preach about good family values? I wonder if a wedding between an underage pregnant woman and boyfriend is really something you want to be set as an iconic moment in your campaign.

She turns 18 on the 18th. She'll technically be legal. Given how the majority seem to think about numbers alone and not the idea that people don't magically change once they hit a new age, I'm sure everyone will be completely OK with everything.

In some states, the boyfriend would be in trouble for statutory rape, right?

Yes. If he were African American or Hispanic and if they weren't associated with McCain, or if Palin either were not the governor and/or didn't like him, there might be charges going on. Gotta love double standards.

[solomon]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

She turns 18 on the 18th. She'll technically be legal. Given how the majority seem to think about numbers alone and not the idea that people don't magically change once they hit a new age, I'm sure everyone will be completely OK with everything.


Yes. If he were African American or Hispanic and if they weren't associated with McCain, or if Palin either were not the governor and/or didn't like him, there might be charges going on. Gotta love double standards.

Damn, I am black and hadn't even thought of that! Oh well, doesn't really matter to me.

[Sazelyt]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

I wouldn't be suprised to find out that was after a call to Kissinger from someone in the McCain campaign.

Incidentily:

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/09/...6971221579660/

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalra...ger-backs.html

And from one of the links in that second article:

"One should be prepared to negotiate, and I think we should be prepared to negotiate about Iran," Kissinger, who brokered the end of the 1973 Yom Kippur war and peace talks with the North Vietnamese, said in an interview with Bloomberg Television. Asked whether he meant the U.S. should hold direct talks, Kissinger, 84, responded: "Yes, I think we should."

I found the extended version. I think they are from the same panel.

“It is absolutely critical that we engage in direct dialogue, without preconditions. Talking and negotiating with unfriendly nations and letting them know exactly where we stand is an important element of diplomacy. It is not the same as making broad concessions without getting anything in return. In fact Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton all engaged in at least one round of serious dialogue with Iran and none required preconditions. We must also tone down the “cowboy diplomacy” and regime change rhetoric with the expectation that Iranian counterparts would respond in kind. Moving away from the harshest rhetoric would signal to the Iranians that we are serious about improving relations.” As Henry Kissinger explained “‘One should be prepared to negotiate, and I think we should be prepared to negotiate about Iran’…Asked whether he meant the US should hold direct talks, Kissinger responded: `Yes, I think we should.’”

Probably, he thought that his views may differ depending on the seriousness of the situation. But, at the time, he was mentioning what Obama was mentioning. But even Obama corrected himself and set his point at a further away location. Yet, I am sure Obama wouldn't mind sitting down across Ahmedinejad the second day of his Presidency, even though the political balance within the country may not let him do that.

Obama probably should have been more aggressive on this point. Something like saying, 'Of course there needs to be preperations, but setting pre-conditions, that is demands that Iran must meet before we sit down and talk is counterproductive. The entire point of talking is to find a way to work things out and get them to stop things such as uranium enrichment. Demanding that they condeed before we even talk is simply not going to work. We've seen that under the Bush administration. Maybe actually talking won't work either, but it's got a much better chance of success than not talking. '

Obama did hit some of those points, but I don't think he worded it clearly or forcefully enough.

I think the stances are not perfectly clear. I see Bush as hostile-offensive, meaning forcing the conditions, McCain almost neuter (but on the hostile-offensive side), waiting till the conditions are satisfied, Obama as gentle-offensive, approaching positively even though the other side is hostile. For me none is good. There needs to be a balance among all those three, and McCain being closer to the middle might be considered as a better than the other two.