Zogby reports McCain with a two-point lead on Obama with polling after the Palin announcement. It's Zogby, so don't get too excited, but it certainly indicates that Obama did not achieve liftoff in Denver. But note this addendum:
The interactive survey shows that 22% of those voters who supported Democrat Hillary Clinton in their primary elections or caucus earlier this year are now supporting John McCain.
Now I keep hearing snorts of derision about Hillary supporters switching to McCain. And it's probably true that the most fervent Hillary supporters are on the Obama bandwagon. But what about moderate Republicans and independents who were drawn to the historic nature of her candidacy?
We heard a lot during the campaign from the Hillary supporters about the sexist nature of some of Obama's supporters. And it's not all crying wolf, as this amazing thread at JREF, a (usually) very intelligent forum demonstrates. Following Sarah Palin's announcement as the Republican VP, a commenter over there noted that she had her water break in Texas and flew back home to Alaska to deliver the (last). Further, it was discovered that Palin had gone back to work as governor three days later.
Well, the enlightened liberals were horrified. Ben Burch:
Some parents of course are more involved than that and the day care is what they need because the demands of such a child 24/7 are enough to exhaust anybody, but clearly Ms. Palin is not that sort of parent; She has left her child to others to go off and fight a hopeless political battle. She is about as unfit as they come, therefore.
So, you can take your smarmy self-righteousness away with you; I know what a parent's duties to a child are and this does not meet them.
Yes! He knows what a parent's duties to a child are. A woman's place is in the home!
Now Ben Burch is not just some schmuck on the internet; he runs a site called the White Rose Society, where liberal/progressive talk radio archives are found for many of the major lefty yakkers, like Thom Hartmann, Mike Malloy, etc. And he sounds like one of those "Iron My Shirts" guys:
Were it my child, and having had a close friend with a Downs baby who did not make it to her fourth year, I would have quit everything to be home to take care of that child and make its every living moment as good as it is possible to be under those conditions; Career be damned.
I think, even if it is her child, and I assume right now that it is, she needs to do the right thing and go take care of it.
Get thee to the nursery!
And Burch was even more dismissive of her reasons for flying back home (the contractions were still far enough apart that it wasn't an issue, and in fact when she got to Alaska the gynecologist had to induce labor). No, there was a better reason for her flying:
on the other hand, maybe she flew thinking she might lose the baby in a way that would bring no blame down upon her?
Wow. I assume that similar things are going on elsewhere. One can only hope that the feminists are watching and learning.
I suppose the charitable explanation is that he's trying to be folksy. But notice the exaggerated hand movements, the bit about "The most important per--Michelle Obama"; that definitely sounds like he's a little squiffy.
I don't know whether I'm helping to spread this crap, but I feel it needs to be confronted. Some posters over at Democratic Underground are spreading a ridiculous rumor that Sarah Palin's last child, the one with Down's Syndrome, is actually her grandchild and that her 16-year-old daughter is really the mother.
As evidence, the Palin "Truthers" offered an article published on Google Groups that noted Alaska reporters were caught by surprise by the announcement that Governor Palin was seven months' pregnant. Of course, anybody who knows about pregnancy knows that's about when it starts to show.
There are claims in one of the threads that David Sirota pushed this rumor on the Thom Hartmann show; I am working on that angle now. If so, this is more than just a few of the loonier left at DU, but a major blogger and a well-known talk radio show have been caught spreading rumors. Update: I listened to the show and Sirota is blameless in the matter. He was in the studio, but the conversation was between Hartmann and Kerry Kerrigan, a "progressive" talker in Alaska:
Hartmann: Kerry, I'm hearing some--now this falls into the category of rumor, Sarah Palin's 17-year-old daughter, Bristol, whom I know nothing about, is pregnant?
Kerrigan: I have heard that as well and I know people who go to her--this is a very small community, when people ask me what Alaska is like I describe as Mayberry where Andy Griffith lived, because Aunt Bea would cook a pie and Barney would smell it and come by for a slice. And that's kind of what we're hearing up here from some of the kids who've gone to school with her at her high school as well, saying the same thing.
Hartmann: So her daughter Bristol, the 17-year-old daughter is single? She's not married?
Kerrigan: That is correct.
No sleaze is apparently too low for Hartmann.
Of course, the idea that Governor Palin could get away with this is ridiculous; an army of people would have to have been paid off. And the point is not whether she "showed" at seven months; how about at eight and nine months?
The second day of the Alaska Republican Convention had some fireworks - a raging Don Young, a surprise announcement, and a more pregnant-looking Sarah Palin getting multiple standing ovations.
Barack Obama's campaign is blasting John McCain for putting "the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency."
Of course, what is the Obama campaign attempting to do? Putting a former state senator from Illinois with zero foreign policy experience in the presidency. Not a heartbeat away.
Excellent pick. I'm thrilled with the selection; she's a wonderful pick strategically as she takes the wind right out of Obama's sails. She gives the women who supported Hillary a good reason to take another look at the GOP.
She also neutralizes Obama's advantage on the basketball court, as she played point guard on the state championship girls' team. Nickname: Sarah Barracuda.
As I have pointed out in the past, the dynamics of this race have changed dramatically over the summer. Obama seems on the defensive, while McCain is taking charge of the campaign. To continue the basketball meme, Obama's trying the four corners offense against Al Maguire. Didn't work for Dean Smith, won't work now.
12:45 pm- I am still in the afterglow, and thought I would go for another trounce. Screw the foreplay, here is Pat Buchanan being positively effervescent about the speech:
Heheh, Pat Buchanan joins the Obamaniacs and they celebrate it.
The only thing that could make this better is if Jerome Corsi decides to endorse Obama tomorrow.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, Obama's lost a point at InTrade. I think he gave the red meat to the liberal wing of the party and lost the center. The attacks on McCain seem especially tacky given this:
Obama's No. 1 ranking is akin to being declared the major-league batting champion. The honor goes to the player with the highest batting average, regardless of whether he has the most hits. In Obama's case, voting the liberal position 65 out of 66 times earned him the title, as opposed to a senator who might have voted the liberal position 80 times out of 90.
Today's new McCain ad -- "Tiny," which you can watch HERE -- crosses a new line into dishonesty, however, beyond whether or not it's actually airing anywhere.
Alright, cool, a new line being crossed in dishonesty, this sounds interesting:
The script reads; "Iran. Radical Islamic government. Known sponsors of terrorism. Developing nuclear capabilities to 'generate power' but threatening to eliminate Israel.
"Obama says Iran is a 'tiny' country, 'doesn't pose a serious threat,'" the ad continues. "Terrorism, destroying Israel, those aren't 'serious threats'? Obama -- dangerously unprepared to be president."
Okay, so what did Obama actually say?
I mean think about it. Iran, Cuba, Venezuela -- these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union.
Oh, so he only meant tiny compared to the Soviet Union, not tiny compared to the United States of America? Got it.
And the second part:
They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us.
Okay, so they don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviets posed a serious threat to us. They pose some sort of comical, Three Stooges kind of threat? Some sort of semi-serious threat that's serious without being quite Soviet serious?
I have to enjoy this discussion of the "police state" underway:
With riot police on every downtown corner, security helicopters whomping overhead, news that police had secretly converted a northeast Denver warehouse into a detention centre enraged protesters and civil libertarians here yesterday who hoped for a different message with Barack Obama's Democrats in town.
"It's outrageous. All of this – it's designed to intimidate us," said Adam Jung, 28, a Missouri university student who led 2,000 demonstrators in a mostly peaceful anti-war march through downtown Denver.
A 28-year old student? Well, there's 10 years of college down the drain.
One of the best, most moving, intimate, rousing, humble, and beautiful speeches I've heard from a convention platform. Maybe she should be running for president.
Meanwhile reports are surfacing that a bunch of pretty dumb skinheads were planning to assassinate Obama:
The story began emerging Sunday morning when Aurora police arrested 28-year-old Tharin Gartrell. He was driving a rented pickup truck in an erratic manner according to sources.
Sources told CBS4 police found two high-powered, scoped rifles in the car along with camouflage clothing, walkie-talkies, a bulletproof vest, a spotting scope, licenses in the names of other people and methamphetamine. One of the rifles is listed as stolen from Kansas.
Allie Reynolds, Joe Gordon and Vern Stephens are among 10 players whose careers began before 1943 who will be considered by the Hall of Fame's constituted Veterans Committee when it meets on Dec. 7.
Bill Dahlen, Wes Ferrell, Sherry Magee, Carl Mays, Mickey Vernon, Bucky Walters and Deacon White also will be on the ballot, the Hall said Monday. The 10 finalists were selected by a committee of the Baseball Writers' Association of America that considered pre-1943 players. A 12-member committee of Hall of Famers, media and historians will vote.
My thoughts:
Reynolds: Should go; a 7-2 record in World Series starts is good enough for me.
Gordon: Solid player and perennial All Star and MVP candidate; like many of his era he's hurt by missing two years to WWII. Was traded for Reynolds straight up after the 1946 season; it's safe to say the Yankees got the better end of that deal. Marginal pick due to a short career.
Stephens: Great hitter for a shortstop; led the American League in RBI three times and finished second once. Career has more bulk to it than Gordon's but he's not missing the war years, which accounts for much of the difference in their career stats. Not quite a Hall of Fame career to me.
Bill Dahlen: Old-timer. Had a long and productive career, but only once led his league in any statistic (RBI in 1904, with 80). He only appeared in one World Series, and his showing there was pathetic; 0-15 with three walks. Pass.
Wes Ferrell. Five 20-win seasons and a .601 career winning percentage are the good points, but Ferrell was a workhorse, not a showhorse. Most of his league-leading totals were for negative things like his allowed, HRs allowed, earned runs allowed, etc. Only selected to two All-Star games and did not pitch in either of those. Nope.
Magee: Good hitter in the deadball era, borderline candidate.
Mays: Out because of the Chapman beaning and accusations of throwing the World Series (never proven) in 1921. Marginal candidate.
Vernon: Solid, long-term player, borderline candidate. I'd vote for him.
Bucky Walters: Tough case. Walters was as good as anybody in baseball from 1939-1944, and his two best years (1939 and 1940) deserve mention on anybody's short list of the greatest seasons by a pitcher ever. In 1939, Walters led the National League in wins, strikeouts, ERA, innings pitched, and just about everything else you can name. He also contributed in the batter's box, hitting .325 with eight doubles, a triple and a homer. He was named the league's MVP. However, he was disappointing in the World Series, losing two to the Yankees In 1940, he went out and did most of it again, and although he did not perform as well with the wood in his hand, he managed to win two WS games and even contributed a home run to the Reds' first non-tainted World Championship.
But aside from those spectacular seasons, the rest of his career is made up of 15-15, 14-15, and 15-14 type years. He only finished 38 wins above .500, which would be very low for a starting pitcher, and well below the other pitchers on this list.
Deacon White: A player from the 1870s, so his statistical record may not tell us much. Most baseball historians consider him an important early figure in the game.
It's more like "Recreate the Days of Rage", the 1969 protest by Billy Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn:
Lt. Ron Saunier, a Denver Police Department spokesman, said the number of protesters that actually showed up was nowhere near what groups had told city officials to expect.
Recreate 68 had projected that as many as 25,000 or even 50,000 people would participate in activities this week. Instead, a group estimated by police at 1,000 to 1,200 participated in a Recreate 68 anti-war march Sunday morning, with a much smaller group parading up Colfax Avenue later in the day.
What if they decided to give a revolution and nobody came?
The speakers included Cindy Sheehan (lately famous for running against Nancy Pelosi because she's too conservative); Ron Kovic (a wounded Viet Nam war vet, and perennial protestor, who had the audacity to announce through a thousand watt public address system that he could not speak his mind in America); and the indefatigable ignoramus Ward Churchill. Professor Churchill, you might recall, claimed that the people slaughtered on 9/11 had "provoked" the attacks.
Update II: They might get more participants if some of them showered monthly:
Sheesh, looks like those bandannas might have a double purpose. More photos here.
Leaving aside all the necessary gaming of how this affects the election, what does the selection of Biden tell us about Obama's potential decision-making as president? This is the second big decision of the national campaign (the first was opting out of public financing). I'd say it suggests a serious, adult attitude toward the enormous burden that the next presidency will be, especially in foreign policy.
From there it's into the de rigeur bashing of Dick Cheney, blah blah blah.
What with the Bush legacy of reckless war and economic mismanagement, 2008 is a year that favors the generic Democratic candidate over the generic Republican one. Yet Barack Obama, with every natural and structural advantage in the presidential race, is running only neck-and-neck against John McCain, a sub-par Republican nominee with a list of liabilities longer than a Joe Biden monologue. Obama has built a crack political operation, raised record sums, and inspired millions with his eloquence and vision. McCain has struggled with a fractious campaign team, lacks clarity and discipline, and remains a stranger to charisma. Yet at the moment, the two of them appear to be tied. What gives?
Yawn. And the only reason I think Jacob Weisberg is a moron is because I'm an anti-Semite, I suppose. And the only reason Hillary lost? Clearly those misogynistic Democrats who couldn't handle a powerful woman.
Interesting pick; certainly not the "Change" pick. Power Line runs down many of the known problems and goofball statements he's made. This one certainly raised an eyebrow:
Crowley's TNR profile concludes with a striking example of Biden's foreign policy sophistication. In the wake of 9/11, in a meeting with his staff, Biden experienced an epiphany:
Biden launches into a stream-of-consciousness monologue about what his [Senate Foreign Relations] committee should be doing, before he finally admits the obvious: "I'm groping here." Then he hits on an idea: America needs to show the Arab world that we're not bent on its destruction. "Seems to me this would be a good time to send, no strings attached, a check for $200 million to Iran," Biden declares. He surveys the table with raised eyebrows, a How do ya like that? look on his face.
One obvious criticism of the pick is that it leaves the women dangling. Their historic moment didn't come, and they didn't even get the Miss Congeniality award.
Incidentally, Watchmen is currently the #7 book at Amazon. Jerry Corsi's Obama Nation is at 11, and dropping. (List is dynamic and will change hourly).
It's Zogby, so take it with a shaker of salt, but I think he's got the direction right:
UTICA, New York – As Russian tanks rolled into the Republic of Georgia and the presidential candidates met over the weekend in the first joint issues forum of the fall campaign, the latest polling includes drama almost as compelling - Republican John McCain has taken a five-point lead over Democrat Barack Obama in the race for President, the latest Reuters/Zogby telephone survey shows.
McCain leads Obama by a 46% to 41% margin.
The result is especially staggering because Zogby had Obama up by seven in July, which was also an outlier. But other polls have shown similar moves in direction if not magnitude. Look at the decline among subgroups. Obama lost nine points among Democrats, eight points among women, 11 among Catholics and 11 among city dwellers.
Nice to see everybody's catching up with where I've been for a year and a half now. Jon Henke says let's kick him out of the tent:
The continued tolerance and prominence of Jerome Corsi - his books, columns and appearances - is just embarrassing. It is embarrassing for the Right, embarrassing for Republicans, embarrassing for conservatives and libertarians, embarrassing for all of us.
It's not just that he's frequently, remarkably wrong - something pretty well documented and acknowledged by both the Left and (while less enthusiastically) the Right. (and the Obama campaign (PDF), of course) Both the Obama campaign and Hugh Hewitt acknowledge that Jerome Corsi is "fringe".
I'm not big on ritual denunciations: I'd rather argue with people than read them out of the conversation, as a general rule, and I hope my distaste for certain styles of political discourse is clear enough without my having to publicly denounce Ann Coulter every time she pulls an offensive, sales-goosing stunt on live TV. But along with Jon Henke and Pete Wehner, I think it's worth making an exception in the case of Jerome Corsi's anti-Obama book, whose Amazon page won't be linked here. It isn't just that Corsi himself is a conspiracy theorist and a crank, or that his best-selling farrago of innuendo and outright smears exemplifies everything that's wrong with a certain sort of right-wing publishing, or that David Freddoso's The Case Against Barack Obama demonstrates that it's perfectly possible to write an anti-Obama book without descending into the fever swamps.
Conservatism has been an intellectual home to people like Burke and Buckley. The GOP is the party that gave us Lincoln and Reagan. It seems to me that its leaders ought to make it clear that they find what Dr. Corsi is doing to be both wrong and repellent. To have their movement and their party associated with such a figure would be a terrible thing and it will only help the cause of those who hold both the GOP and the conservative movement in contempt.
Let me specify here that this is not about the bad blood between myself and Dr. Corsi. I make no bones about the fact that I dislike him, but that's not the issue. His conspiracy theorizing, first about the North American Union and later about 9-11 are.
"That the Obama campaign has chosen to portray me as a 9/11 Truther just shows how sloppy and inaccurate the research going into their rebuttal was," said Corsi, a senior staff writer for WND. "Let me make clear that I fully accept and endorse the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission that the Islamic hijackers who flew the airplanes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were the sole cause of the attack."
This is probably going to make no sense to most of you, but that is a non-denial denial. There are Truthers who accept the hijackers and the planes, they just think the government "made things worse" via controlled demolition.
"As I explained on the radio, I am typically interested in scientific evidence that lies outside the explanation of conventional hypotheses," he continued. "Science advances by rejecting hypotheses, not by establishing hypotheses. In other words, should somebody find convincing scientific evidence that challenges some aspect of any official report, that evidence will not automatically confirm the truth of an alternative hypothesis."
This is all very true. But the point is that the convincing scientific evidence does not exist to throw out the hypothesis that the heat from the burning office fires (not the jet fuel, that burned off fairly quickly) weakened the steel sufficiently that it could not hold up the weight of the building above it, and once that happened the building collapsed. Corsi made that leap to believing that Steven Jones was right, that hypothesis had been disproven. And it is not as if Steven Jones was not well-known; most of us had heard of the disgraced BYU physics professor who was forced to retire after his 9-11 nuttery got out. So why did Corsi endorse his work?
I don't have the answer, but I suspect that what Douthat and Dreher are attacking is Corsi himself, because if Corsi is credibly raising issues about Obama, as he previously did in the case of Kerry, then it's also entirely possible, if not downright probable, that he's credible with regards to the issues he's raised about the plans for the North American Union and what happened on 9/11. And that simply cannot be born; better an Obama presidency than the puncturing of their conventional political worldview.
How in the world did Matt "the USA would have been even awesomer if we had stayed a colony of England" Yglesias get a job blogging for the Atlantic?
Like everyone else in DC, I’m pondering the so-called “Veepstakes” — Evan Bayh? Joe Biden? Jack Reed? Sebelius? — except unlike a lot of people I’m having a hard time developing really strong opinions about it. Which reminds me of one pretty strongly-held opinion of mine: We should eliminate the office of the Vice Presidency.
Is there no end to the reformist impulse? Yglesias goes on to say that he thinks we should just change the order of succession, cutting the speaker of the house and the Senate President Pro Tem out of the mix, so that the next in line is Secretary of State.
Of course, as pointed out by numerous commenters, this would just make the Secretary of State even more of a political office than it already is. Plus, what happens, say, if the President-Elect dies before taking office? What happens if he dies after taking office but before his cabinet has been approved.
But it's the kind of "change for the sake of change" that would appeal to somebody like Matt.
MS. ANDREA MITCHELL: Oh, absolutely. And, you know, there was the crisp, immediate, forceful response by John McCain, clearly in a comfort zone because he was with his base. And Barack Obama, taking a risk in going there but seeing an opportunity. And a much more nuanced approach. The Obama people must feel that he didn't do quite as well as they might have wanted to in that context, because that -- what they're putting out privately is that McCain may not have been in the cone of silence and may have had some ability to overhear what the questions were to Obama.
Apparently the "cone of silence" bit refers to the fact that McCain was supposedly in another room when Obama was being questioned. To liberals, the idea that McCain could possibly have beaten Obama is impossible, so they invent reasons why it happened. Remember this whole bit of fruitcakery?
About six months later, they were back in the ironically named Hanoi Hilton, and Day, the senior officer, chose McCain as the group's chaplain. His first lesson — he doesn't like to call them sermons — recounted the biblical story of the man who asked Jesus whether he should pay taxes. Jesus replied, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and render unto God what is God's."
McCain's point was that the prisoners should not pray for freedom, nor for harm to come to their captors.
"What I was trying to tell my fellow prisoners is that we were doing Caesar's work when we got into prison, so we should ask for God's help to do the right thing and for us to get out of prison if it be God's will for us to do so," McCain said. "Not everybody agreed with that."
I was flipping through the August 4, 2008 Sports Illustrated today, which includes a long feature on the amazing play in the Super Bowl, where Eli Manning avoided the sack, heaved the ball downfield, and David Tyree caught the ball against his helmet. The play set up the Giants’ touchdown to win the ballgame, one of the great upsets in Super Bowl history.
I had the feeling, as soon as Manning broke free, that this was going to be a legendary moment in the history of the New York Giants. But of course, since New York is the center of the universe, I underestimated:
“It’s the greatest play in Super Bowl history, says Steve Sabol, the NFL films president who has been chronicling the league since his father, Ed, started the company in 1962. Considering the play’s stage and subplots, perhaps it’s fair to see Sabol’s claim and raise him: Call it the greatest play in NFL history.”
That is nonsense. It was a great play, no denying that. But there are two plays that I consider to be the greatest in NFL history, and both of them dwarf that one in terms of significance:
1. Franco Harris’ immaculate reception. This was the defining play of the 1970s, and it is arguable that without it, history would have been vastly different. First, it got the Pittsburgh Steelers their first postseason win ever. Up to that point, the Steelers, not the Cardinals, had been the laughingstock of the NFL. More important, it got them over the Raider hump; this was crucial because the Steelers would face the Raiders in the AFC Championship game during their first two Super Bowl-winning seasons. It also helped the undefeated Miami Dolphins complete their perfect season, as the Raiders regularly defeated the Dolphins back then, and the Dolphins staggered through the playoffs.
2. Dwight Clark’s The Catch. A play that started a dynasty, and announced that Joe Montana was going to be a force to reckon with.
And an equally terrific play was Kenny Stabler to Clarence Davis in 1973. Not finding a YouTube video of it, but on fourth down, with 8 seconds left on the clock, Stabler was being tackled from behind. He was almost to his knees when he hurled the ball towards Davis, who was surrounded by Miami Dolphins. Somehow, out of the sea of hands, Davis caught the ball and held onto it, ending the Dolphins reign as two-time defending champions of the NFL.
So, no, this is not the greatest play in the history of the NFL. It was a spectacular play, one of the finest ever in a Super Bowl. But the other plays were equally spectacular and historically important. If Eli Manning goes on to rack up some more titles and the Giants become a dynasty, then maybe we'll look back at this as the moment, and then maybe it will qualify for the short list. Until then, no.
Those of us who are old enough will probably never forget this terrific race from the 1972 Olympics in Munich:
I was a cross-country runner my freshman year of high school. The first couple of meets we had, I tried to keep up with the leaders at the beginning of the race, and found myself unable to contend late, dropping back as I became exhausted. The first couple of races I finished next to last, only beating one poor guy on our team who was hopeless.
So when we went to a bit meet in Iona, NY, with something like 500 runners, I decided not to wear myself out early. I was last or near last as we entered the woods, about 1/4 of the way into the race. But I was running easily and not fatigued like I had been in my earlier races. And I started passing people. Lots of people. When we came out of the woods and headed towards the finishing line, my coach was yelling at me to run harder. I still had a little bit of energy left, and passed a couple more people. At the finish line they had the runners were funneled into a rope-line. I looked ahead and was startled to see that there were maybe 20 boys ahead of me in the line.
So after that, I always took it easy in the beginning and made sure I had something left to give at the end. Unfortunately before the end of the season I pulled a muscle in my lower leg during a meet and was out for the season, so I didn't keep up my running. But I was thrilled at Wottle's victory because it confirmed that my strategy had been right.
Heheh, the creator of the O symbol still fantasizes that it's going to take the world by storm:
He also E-mailed me last night to say that the hits on the artwork have inspired him to push even harder to build a movement around the hand signal. Here's what he wrote: "Our symbol 'O' is about much more than Barack Obama. It's a symbol of unity, hope, solidarity, and an end to the divisiveness that has plagued this country for too long. It is the peace sign of our generation; a sign for those who are tired of the fear, the hatred, the greed, and the ignorance. There will be resistance, democracy requires it, but we believe that the good in the American people will persevere.
"Kids today have been given everything they want, and don't have to work for it. They have no respect for authority," said Rutherford, standing at the bar at the Elks lodge here. "They'll make remarks right to the face of the [mall] cops. I get to the point where I want to do something," he said, cocking a fist as if to threaten a punch. "But the police say we can't, that we just have to stand there." It makes him worry for the country. "I see it going the Roman way."
So old folks hating on punks is the reason Obama's going to lose? And this is just wrong:
Even as younger voters are showing signs of breaking with years of lackluster turnout to support him, Obama is facing singular resistance from voters over 65. That age group turns out at the highest rate on Election Day and is disproportionately represented in the swing states of Florida and Pennsylvania; Bill Clinton and Al Gore both relied on it in winning the Democrats' only popular-vote majorities of the past two decades.
In fact, neither Bill Clinton nor Al Gore had popular-vote majorities; Clinton in 1996 got 49.23% of the vote, while Gore in 2000 managed 48.38%.
A Wikipedia editor emailed Political Wire to point out some similarities between Sen. John McCain's speech today on the crisis in Georgia and the Wikipedia article on the country Georgia. Given the closeness of the words and sentence structure, most would consider parts of McCain's speech to be derived directly from Wikipedia.
Most? Most what? Most liberals with an axe to grind? Check out these purported instances:
one of the first countries in the world to adopt Christianity as an official religion (Wikipedia)
vs.
one of the world's first nations to adopt Christianity as an official religion (McCain)
And that's the best one. Now you can argue that maybe McCain's speechwriter culled the basic factoid from Wikipedia (or from a common source), but there are a limited number of ways to enunciate that fact once you have it.
Here's a real stretch:
After the Russian Revolution of 1917, Georgia had a brief period of independence as a Democratic Republic (1918-1921), which was terminated by the Red Army invasion of Georgia. Georgia became part of the Soviet Union in 1922 and regained its independence in 1991. Early post-Soviet years was marked by a civil unrest and economic crisis. (Wikipedia)
vs.
After a brief period of independence following the Russian revolution, the Red Army forced Georgia to join the Soviet Union in 1922. As the Soviet Union crumbled at the end of the Cold War, Georgia regained its independence in 1991, but its early years were marked by instability, corruption, and economic crises. (McCain)
Again at worst, the McCain speechwriter has taken some fact from the Wikipedia entry, and reworked the writing. Hey, they should hire this guy as an editor; his prose reads much better than Wikipedia.
And the third one is completely ridiculous:
In 2003, Shevardnadze (who won reelection in 2000) was deposed by the Rose Revolution, after Georgian opposition and international monitors asserted that the 2 November parliamentary elections were marred by fraud. The revolution was led by Mikheil Saakashvili, Zurab Zhvania and Nino Burjanadze, former members and leaders of Shavarnadze's ruling party. Mikheil Saakashvili was elected as President of Georgia in 2004. Following the Rose Revolution, a series of reforms was launched to strengthen the country's military and economic capabilities. (Wikipedia)
vs.
Following fraudulent parliamentary elections in 2003, a peaceful, democratic revolution took place, led by the U.S.-educated lawyer Mikheil Saakashvili. The Rose Revolution changed things dramatically and, following his election, President Saakashvili embarked on a series of wide-ranging and successful reforms. (McCain)
What kind of idiot thinks he can use the unique phrase “the Soviet Union in 1922″ or the archaic term “economic crises” and, somehow, get away with it? If anything, he’s damn lucky that people didn’t call him out for stealing the term “Cold War” from Wikipedia, too.
What is most interesting is that McCain's chief foreign policy aide, Randy Scheunemann, has been advising/ lobbying for pro-western Georgia for the last four years.
Can't your just imagine what happened.
Randy lets it be known to the Georgian President that this would be a good time for Georgian troops to invade South Ossetia, which had been an autonomous territory for more than a decade. The Georgians didn't take much persuading, as they had been wanting to crack down with their troops for a long time.
And Fleetwood is not one of the airhead celeb bloggers; his bio notes:
Blake Fleetwood was formerly on the staff of The New York Times and has written for The New York Times Magazine, New York Magazine, The New York Daily News, the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, the Village Voice, Atlantic and the Washington Monthly on a number of issues.
Run, Cindy, run! Of course, it was a comedy of errors:
The collection of signatures by Sheehan's campaign was more exciting than usual. On Wednesday, the campaign was well short of the 10,198 signatures needed to get on the ballot after San Francisco elections officials found that more than 40 percent of the people who signed weren't registered in the city's Eighth Congressional District.
Forty percent. Wow. That seems like a pretty high rejection rate.
“Barack Obama is inspiring us like a desert lover, a Washington Valentino,” Lili Haydn wrote in the Huffington Post. “Couples all over America are making love again and shouting ‘Yes we can’ as they climax.”
I know he did an excellent job with Unfit for Command. But he's an awful person to put forward the anti-Obama case. This gives you just a hint as to why conservatives should be very wary about promoting him or his new book, Obama Nation (great title, by the way).
v. trans. take a damaging true story and preemptively leak it to a reporter with enough bogus details stirred in to discredit the reporter and the story itself.
How odd that both presidential candidates chose to incarnate in the month of August, though of different sign lineage? How odd is it that both candidates have planets at corresponding degrees in the sign of Virgo and right now both candidates reap the benefits/hazards of a megadose of Virgo planets above?
I honestly don't know what to make of the deal. Maybe it is time for Pennington to accept the demotion to backup; it worked out for Jim McMahon who went from constantly injured as a starter to a guy you could depend on to win games as a backup.
I was an early bandwagon guy for Favre; in 1993 I bought up every card of his that I could find. I even have several of his awful Atlanta cards, where he's just on a headset on the bench talking to coaches. Like everybody else I wonder whether he's going to be the Brett Favre of 2007 or the Brett Favre of 2006.
Great, great player who didn't quite put together the career anybody would have projected for him after that first Super Bowl. I'm amazed that he didn't win three or four. He became the Peyton Manning of the 1990s instead of the Tom Brady.
Where does he rank? I'd put him in the inner ranks of the Hall of Famers, but inevitably there comes a bar because of the championships. Are you really going to rank him ahead of Otto Graham or Johnny Unitas or Bart Starr or Joe Montana? On the other hand, he's clearly ahead of all the great passers who never quite won one: Dan Marino, Dan Fouts, Fran Tarkenton, Sonny Jurgensen, Kenny Anderson (who should be in the Hall, that's a ridiculous mistake).
It's the other guys, who did win championships who it will be tough to slot Favre against. Troy Aikman? Terry Bradshaw?
Tools? Greatest arm I ever saw. And I saw Sonny Jurgensen throwing spirals behind his back for 40 yards. Favre was the only guy who could complete that run left throw right pass and put authority on the ball. Unfortunately, as everybody saw, he trusted his arm sometimes too much, getting a ridiculous number of interceptions in the low-int era.
He must be considered about average as a runner--way above the slug Marino of course, and well below Elway. I don't think anybody would classify him as a particularly heady player. Alert, certainly.
And, invincible. That is the #1 thing I would associate with Favre. The guy is just the proverbial immovable object, and this was something that was very much remarked on him even in college. He was famously almost killed in an automobile accident in August of his senior year; in early September he led Southern Miss to an upset win over Alabama. He has never missed a game since he first started for the Packers almost 16 years ago.
I didn't get more than a sentence or two into this post before the laughter overcame me:
I'm not sure this will work but it's worth a try. During the primaries, it felt as if the voters were often controlling the campaign. Especially with Obama and Ron Paul, the pampered professionals were out-messaged, out-Youtubed and out-organized by legions of amateurs.
Andrew is still telling himself that Ron Paul had voters? Look, I can imagine how that was defensible in January, with the Ronulans winning every internet poll in sight, but there comes a point where you realize it was all an illusion.
What I'm thinking of is a Dish Youtube contest to come up with the least fair, most effective negative ads for both sides. The technology is widely available for making your own 30-second negative spots, and it's good therapy. So let's flood the zone. I know it sounds cynical, but in fact, it's the opposite. If we can put out the most damning attacks on Obama and McCain we can, it could help dilute the nasty noise from the party establishments, expose the mechanisms of smears and take the wind out of the sails of the pros.
Errr, can't we sort of rely on MoveOn and the Republican 527s to furnish those sorts of ads?
In the two months since Barack Obama captured the Democratic nomination, he has hit a ceiling in public opinion, proving unable to make significant gains with any segment of the national electorate.
While Obama still leads in most matchups with John McCain, the Illinois senator’s apparent stall in the polls is a sobering reminder to Democrats intoxicated with his campaign’s promises to expand the electoral map beyond the boundaries that have constrained other recent party nominees.
There is a word for candidates who say they're going to bring lots of new voters to the polls: Losers.
Really though, the issue here is quite plain. Obama can't close the deal. He's foolishly been trying to run out the clock with three months left before the election. The whole bit with him refusing to the townhall-type meetings and insisting that three debates would be plenty is a classic tactic of the candidate with an unassailable lead.
But Obama doesn't have that. Indeed, his numbers at InTrade have slipped quite substantially over the last couple of weeks as folks over there have finally accepted that he's not going to pull away and win this thing easily.
McCain's still got some work to do himself. But the good news is that Obamania, like all fads, is starting to wear thin.
Former Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry told donors at a Boston fundraiser for Barack Obama Monday night that John McCain is "dangerous" for the direction of the country.
Kerry listed Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and North Korea as examples of foreign policy issues that he believes Obama has had more foresight on than McCain. He also noted that even the Bush administration has fallen in sync with Obama on several positions recently.
We're told that Obama is "post-racial," but he invokes his own race whenever convenient (e.g., to suggest his opponents are racists, to win support of people who want to vote for him on account of his race). Indeed, the very idea that Obama is post-racial is postmodern claptrap, since only a black candidate can be post-racial, right? No one would say John McCain transcends race. If being post-racial is something only a (liberal) black politician can do, what is "post" about it? Post-racial is just another convenient term used to advance a left-wing agenda under the guise of some highfalutin buzzwords.
They really played the arugula card? For all McCain's personal qualities, we're learning that the machine behind the GOP simply re-makes the campaign in its own Coulterite image. Instead of actually fighting on the core questions - how do we get out of Iraq with the least damage?
Translation: I thought they were going to make my guy look really neat and hip to the latest trends in arugula. Little did I know they were going to make him look like George Michael outside the local fruitatorium.
Talking about Obama's playing of the race card, they manage to make it seem like it was McCain who played it.
With his rejoinder about playing “the race card,” Mr. Davis effectively assured that race would once again become an unavoidable issue as voters face an election in which, for the first time, one of the major parties’ nominees is African-American.
And with its criticism, the McCain campaign was ensuring that Mr. Obama’s race — he is the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas — would again be a factor in coverage of the presidential race. On Thursday, it took the spotlight from Mr. Obama when he had sought to attack Mr. McCain on energy issues.
