Ol' Nasty McCrankypants

[Gail Simone]

You know, John McCain has a rep for being childish, mean and vindictive when he isn't given the things he thinks should rightfully be his.

But holy crap, what IS it with this guy now?

He acts like everyone who doesn't just bend over at his greatness is out to get him and he's showing his nasty, petulant side at the slighted provocation or no provocation at all. He kept mentioning his "steady hand at the tiller," yet for the last couple weeks in particular, he's been erratic and testy and downright nasty. If he can't handle one of the most gracious and polite and restrained US politicians in recent history, how is he going to deal with the UN, congress the press corps, our sometimes cantankerous allies, and those nations that are not exactly on the best of terms with the US, or any other party requiring diplomacy rather than Cheney-like sneering?

It's been a huge disappointment to see this guy flailing and going off the rails, I have to say.

[JTPencils]

He's been known to have a temper and a sense of entitlement even moreso then his "Maverick" persona (that he's pushing).

Maybe he feels because he has a record (and a frightful one at that)... he's just supposed to coast into 1600 Penn Ave.

Wrong!

I'm not fully endorsing the opponent either... but if the choice is those two... errrrrrr.

[Jolly Mon]

You have to remember though, that, if elected, he would be the oldest president in history (older even than Reagan). He's basically one step removed from yelling at those damn kids to get off the lawn. Not excusing it, just saying.

[Lester C.]

As an Obama supporter not old am I glad he's cranky but I'm going to ask him to step it up. Hell even our hardcore conservatives on this forum have been mum about it lately.

[Infra-Man]

He goes any further, I expect to see this in the papers after the third debate:
http://i373.photobucket.com/albums/oo172/hvigilla/news_198.jpg

[4thHorseman]

I have no problem seeing everything he has fall apart around him. I have no pity for this man, and he has done nothing but piss me off with his "you must praise me" mentality and lies he sprouts off every time he opens his mouth.

[thespianphryne]

John McCain: Freud to the Rescue (http://www.swans.com/library/art14/cmarow118.html)

[Buzz Dixon]

Watching the debate last night reminded me of an extended family getting together for the first time after a new son-in-law married into the family. At some point Grandpa, the family patriarch, and the new son-in-law have a discussion, not even an argument, not even about anything important, just a difference of opinion.

And for the first time everybody in the family realizes Grandpa is getting really old and, hey, the new son-in-law is no dummy.

[Buzz Dixon]

Johanna Draper Carlson delivers a kidney punch:

http://comicsworthreading.com/2008/10/07/political-ear-worm/

[Lester C.]

I do have empathy for McCain. The reason why he's forced to go to such desperate measures is because of the massive unpopularity of Bush. Then again he wouldn't have gotten the nomination if it wasn't for that massive unpopularity so I get it all washes out.

[Arrogantcur]

Apparently McCain has hated Obama for years now:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/07/politics/main1289745.shtml

EDIT TO ADD:

He kept mentioning his "steady hand at the tiller," yet for the last couple weeks in particular, he's been erratic and testy and downright nasty. If he can't handle one of the most gracious and polite and restrained US politicians in recent history, how is he going to deal with the UN, congress the press corps, our sometimes cantankerous allies, and those nations that are not exactly on the best of terms with the US, or any other party requiring diplomacy rather than Cheney-like sneering?

Agree on the tiller thing. As I said earlier on PAD's site, if you're John McCain, you don't want to be saying things like "we need a steady hand at the tiller." He might as well be saying "we need a President who's capable of doing a chin-up." In neither case is the man accurately describing himself.

Dude also keeps saying that he reaches across the aisle. As far as I can tell, most of the time he just reaches across the aisle to try and slap people on the other side. He droppped some names last night. The first name was Lieberman. :rolleyes:

Then he mentioned working with Feingold, and with Ted Kennedy. And yes, those are actual examples of him working with actual honest-to-god Democrats. But he hasn't done much of that lately. If he really wants any intelligent person to believe he's still capable of bipartisanship (and not coerced bipartisanship, which he seemed to be going for in that 2006 letter), he has to demonstrate that he can actually get along with the guy he's running against. But he can't.

[Buzz Dixon]

I do have empathy for McCain. The reason why he's forced to go to such desperate measures is because of the massive unpopularity of Bush. Then again he wouldn't have gotten the nomination if it wasn't for that massive unpopularity so I get it all washes out.Bush & Rove smeared McCain somethin' awful in the GOP primaries in 2000 (among other things, they said the McCains' adopted daughter from Bangladesh was really his African-American mistress). That this didn't prompt McCain to leave the party speaks volumes. That the GOP would support people who do this against their own speaks even more volumes.

[Stressfactor]

That McCain's camp would HIRE the same campaign people who smeared him speaks volumes too...

[Gail Simone]

The sad thing is he keeps bringing up Reagan, and both Ron and Nancy (and Ross Perot) lost every bit of respect they had for him over the way he left his wife, whom they all adored. They couldn't stand him, and Nancy's contempt for him seems to continue on to this day.

[Gail Simone]

You know, the one thing the Republicans charge that I think carries some weight is that, Obama DOES promise a lot, considering a rather undistinguished first term in office a senator.

If I were the Republicans, I'd be hitting that note over and over. Here's what he promised, here's what he accomplished, why would we think he's suddenly Superman when he's running for higher office?

But no, it's this Ayers horseshit and the vaguely racist nonsense that he's a Muslim.

[MacQuarrie]

You have to remember though, that, if elected, he would be the oldest president in history (older even than Reagan). He's basically one step removed from yelling at those damn kids to get off the lawn. Not excusing it, just saying.

Being old is no excuse. My late grandpa lived to 94 and kept a youthful outlook till the day he died. "Old" is not a description of how long something has existed, it's a description of condition. Nobody looks at a 1926 Dusenberg and says "look at that old car." It's a classic. A 1981 Datsun with dents all over is old. It's not about age, it's about attitude and outlook.

Satchel Paige, the oldest rookie in Major League baseball at the time, was asked about his age, and he replied "How old would you be if you didn't know how old you are?"

John McCain has been an old man for a long time, probably since before he was eligible for Social Security.

[MacQuarrie]

That McCain's camp would HIRE the same campaign people who smeared him speaks volumes too...

Is Rove working for McCain?

There goes any possibility that I would even consider voting for him.

[Doug Strange]

John McCain: Freud to the Rescue (http://www.swans.com/library/art14/cmarow118.html)
Ah, so that would explain this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYFm5kK4f1k&eurl=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/08/mccain-calls-americans-hi_n_133037.html).

[Doug Strange]

Is Rove working for McCain?

There goes any possibility that I would even consider voting for him.
Rove has been advising him unofficially, but he's had a weird role in this election...the last few weeks he's been actively criticizing the McCain campaign. Very strange. But McCain did actually hire some of the other fellas that did the hatchet job on him in 2000, which just baffled me.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

John McCain is one of those "I'll do anything to be President" types. He's wanted that Office since 2000. So he'll do anything possible to get it. If it means trying to pander to female voters , smearing Obama with horrible commercials and lying the whole way... he will. Because he could give a shit for feelings or anyone.

His ego is taking a hit. You can tell he's pissed that this young man is winning . All the campaign smears and shit...isn't working. Obama just opened a huge lead in Wisconsin , NC just became a battleground state and so has Indiania now ! McCain has never been a good loser...

[Buzz Dixon]

You know, the one thing the Republicans charge that I think carries some weight is that, Obama DOES promise a lot, considering a rather undistinguished first term in office a senator.

If I were the Republicans, I'd be hitting that note over and over. Here's what he promised, here's what he accomplished, why would we think he's suddenly Superman when he's running for higher office?

But no, it's this Ayers horseshit and the vaguely racist nonsense that he's a Muslim.This year the only promise Obama needs to deliver on is not being a Republican. :wink: :biggrin:

[Lester C.]

I also am sympathetic for Sarah Palin. Yes I think she's a total whack job but there is no way in hell she could have been prepared for the scrutiny her life has taken in recent weeks. So even though I don't like her I am sympathetic to her.

[Arrogantcur]

I'm a terrible pessimist, SUPERECWFAN1. Because of that, I can't totally shake the feeling that McCain might actually win somehow, or that the election might be stolen, or that there might be some huge October surprise that changes the entire picture, or something.

David Gergen on CNN did nothing to calm my nerves last night when he said that this is the first time we've had a black Presidential candidate and we'll have to see how people vote, that the polls might not be as accurate as we think. James Carville and Jeffrey Toobin both thought that the polls could be trusted and that the American people were ready for a black President, but I'm still nervous.

Which brings me to what I want to say: McCain might be a bad loser, but if he somehow manages to win, can you IMAGINE how insufferable he's going to be? He'll spend most of his acceptance speech gloating and crowing about how everybody was counting him out and he showed them and isn't everybody in the media an idiot, etc.

EDIT:

I also am sympathetic for Sarah Palin. Yes I think she's a total whack job but there is no way in hell she could have been prepared for the scrutiny her life has taken in recent weeks. So even though I don't like her I am sympathetic to her.

I only feel sorry for her when she isn't attacking Obama. Since she attacks him every single chance she gets, I rarely feel sorry for her these days.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

I'm a terrible pessimist, SUPERECWFAN1. Because of that, I can't totally shake the feeling that McCain might actually win somehow, or that the election might be stolen, or that there might be some huge October surprise that changes the entire picture, or something.

David Gergen on CNN did nothing to calm my nerves last night when he said that this is the first time we've had a black Presidential candidate and we'll have to see how people vote, that the polls might not be as accurate as we think. James Carville and Jeffrey Toobin both thought that the polls could be trusted and that the American people were ready for a black President, but I'm still nervous.

Which brings me to what I want to say: McCain might be a bad loser, but if he somehow manages to win, can you IMAGINE how insufferable he's going to be? He'll spend most of his acceptance speech gloating and crowing about how everybody was counting him out and he showed them and isn't everybody in the media an idiot, etc.


If he wins who knows how bad it will get. It will be the worst possible Presidency and a VP who knows nothing of her job. Its not gonna be pretty.

[Jolly Mon]

Being old is no excuse.
That's why I said "Not excusing it, just saying." Because I say again, it's not an excuse, but it is a fact that many people McCain's age get quite cranky, especially with young upstarts.
My late grandpa lived to 94 and kept a youthful outlook till the day he died. "Old" is not a description of how long something has existed, it's a description of condition. Nobody looks at a 1926 Dusenberg and says "look at that old car." It's a classic. A 1981 Datsun with dents all over is old. It's not about age, it's about attitude and outlook..
And, to quote Indiana Jones, sometimes it's not the years, it's the mileage.
Satchel Paige, the oldest rookie in Major League baseball at the time, was asked about his age, and he replied "How old would you be if you didn't know how old you are?"

John McCain has been an old man for a long time, probably since before he was eligible for Social Security.

I can agree with this, but I would suggest that it applies equally to many other members of his party as well.

[Arrogantcur]

If he wins who knows how bad it will get. It will be the worst possible Presidency and a VP who knows nothing of her job. Its not gonna be pretty.

Oh yes, I'm sure that he'll do a terrible job and very well might start another war. The last thing I want to see is a McCain presidency.

But remember when Dubya won his second term? The way he was talking about how he now had political capital to spend, and he would spend it because that was his style? About how he had a mandate? Infuriating stuff, right?

I'm sure that McCain's acceptance speech would be even more infuriating than Bush's.

[Paul McEnery]

Apparently McCain has hated Obama for years now:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/07/politics/main1289745.shtml

.

Yikes!

I've seen that kind of petty self-serving bullshit in message board politics, but that's hecka childish for a Senator.

[Jolly Mon]

I also am sympathetic for Sarah Palin. Yes I think she's a total whack job but there is no way in hell she could have been prepared for the scrutiny her life has taken in recent weeks. So even though I don't like her I am sympathetic to her.

I have no sympathy for her, none. If she accepts the offer to run for the Vice-Presidency, then she has to expect that she would come under harsh scrutiny, just as any other candidate would. Just because she's a woman doesn't grant her the right to kid glove treatment. And the fact that she was pulled out of left field meant that no one had a chance to investigate her background before she became the nominee, making the attention even more intense. Again the fault of the GOP for trying to pull off a grandstand play, not the people reporting on the process.

[Corrina]

Read the letter.

Wow. McCain and Lieberman really need to get a room.

[Stressfactor]

You know, the one thing the Republicans charge that I think carries some weight is that, Obama DOES promise a lot, considering a rather undistinguished first term in office a senator.

If I were the Republicans, I'd be hitting that note over and over. Here's what he promised, here's what he accomplished, why would we think he's suddenly Superman when he's running for higher office?

But no, it's this Ayers horseshit and the vaguely racist nonsense that he's a Muslim.

I don't care if Obama promises the moon in a platinum ring setting... I just want him to TRY. Chances are if someone honestly TRIES to do something to turn things around then at least a little bit of stuff will get better... and that's enough for me. After four years I want to be able to see some evidence of improvement in SOMETHING... economy, health care, the military... ANYTHING!

I'm willing to give him four years to try. He gets four years... that's it. At the end of those four years if there are signs of improvement THEN I'll consider giving him another four years. I don't expect things to change overnight -- all I'm asking is that SOME aspect of America four years from now be at least a little bit better than it is now.

Really, that's how low my standards are at the moment.

[petriacce]

You know, the one thing the Republicans charge that I think carries some weight is that, Obama DOES promise a lot, considering a rather undistinguished first term in office a senator.

If I were the Republicans, I'd be hitting that note over and over. Here's what he promised, here's what he accomplished, why would we think he's suddenly Superman when he's running for higher office?

I have brought this point up with several people who are Obama supporters because I genuinely want a good answer. I have not gotten one. I hear rhetoric of "change" and "he gets it" but no real plan of action. If he can demand a timeline for troop withdrawl from Iraq then why can't he come up with a timeline for the next four years?

I hate promises without action. I have had ENOUGH of that from "elected" officials.

I'm glad he is promising the laundry list of items; however, I would like to hear a top three list. If he would admit it is all too much to accomplish in four years, although he wants us to know these issues are on his mind, and tell us the top three things he is going to work on. I want a reasonable laundry list to check off in 2012.

I say most of this because I know that I am not alone in my frustration with both major parties and the political process in general. I got so straight up pissed off and disgusted at the people for whom I voted that I changed my registration to Independent.

I have a month to decide and so far I am still writing an unknown's name on the ballot.

I just read my post and it sounds angry. I am not angry at Obama at all. I am angry at the condition of my country and just concerned. I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it anymore!

[edit: just read Stressfactor's post too. I'm not alone!!!]

[Bob Violence]

I watched the debate last night, and I think McCain needs to chill. His utter contempt for Obama is so evident it makes him extremely unlikable. Obama has more of an 'I Am President' attitude, whereas McCain is more like 'That one? you've gotta be kidding me!' McCain is Mr Wilson to Obama's Dennis the Menace.

I can see where he's coming from, having been beaten by someone he sees as unworthy (Bush), then had to carry water for Bush for eight years, and now he's being beaten by someone even less worthy, Obama.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

Yikes!

I've seen that kind of petty self-serving bullshit in message board politics, but that's hecka childish for a Senator.

Read the letter.

Wow. McCain and Lieberman really need to get a room.

Are we shocked at the actions of McCain in these debates. To be childish and not seem to treat Obama as someone on his level ?

I have brought this point up with several people who are Obama supporters because I genuinely want a good answer. I have not gotten one. I hear rhetoric of "change" and "he gets it" but no real plan of action. If he can demand a timeline for troop withdrawl from Iraq then why can't he come up with a timeline for the next four years?

I hate promises without action. I have had ENOUGH of that from "elected" officials.

I don't think anyone can honestly sit down and go ... "Ok 1st year ...I take care of the Economy ...2nd year...I take care of Healthcare , then...."


I think if you listened to his healthcare and tax packages they make a lot of sense. That was a big part of his debate last night. He discussed the issues he has and what he plans to do. As far as Iraq goes , from whats been said he wants to start Troop withdrawls in levels. And having the Iraq police/secuirty force take over more and more. I read somewhere it was 16-18 month plan.

He also wants to get Afganistan worked out as he wants to take care of Iraq so we can finish in Afganistan and fix the problems there and stop the Taliban from getting a hold back in the country.

I'm glad he is promising the laundry list of items; however, I would like to hear a top three list. If he would admit it is all too much to accomplish in four years, although he wants us to know these issues are on his mind, and tell us the top three things he is going to work on. I want a reasonable laundry list to check off in 2012.

He basically said what his top 3 things was last night....during the debate. You may wanna go to Cnn.com and watch the entire debate online. But Obama laid out his 3 issues...

I say most of this because I know that I am not alone in my frustration with both major parties and the political process in general. I got so straight up pissed off and disgusted at the people for whom I voted that I changed my registration to Independent.

I have a month to decide and so far I am still writing an unknown's name on the ballot.

I just read my post and it sounds angry. I am not angry at Obama at all. I am angry at the condition of my country and just concerned. I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it anymore!

[edit: just read Stressfactor's post too. I'm not alone!!!]

I think beyond really huge things about the economy (Obama's campaign claims he's working on a package for it now...) I believe Obama went down what his policies mean , how his tax and healthcare plans will work. It was pretty good.

[Kevinroc]

Are we shocked at the actions of McCain in these debates. To be childish and not seem to treat Obama as someone on his level ?

It's not surprising McCain doesn't see Obama as someone on his level. He (and the Republicans) REALLY wanted to fight Hillary Clinton. That's the fight they had been preparing for years.

I don't think anyone can honestly sit down and go ... "Ok 1st year ...I take care of the Economy ...2nd year...I take care of Healthcare , then...."


I think if you listened to his healthcare and tax packages they make a lot of sense. That was a big part of his debate last night. He discussed the issues he has and what he plans to do. As far as Iraq goes , from whats been said he wants to start Troop withdrawls in levels. And having the Iraq police/secuirty force take over more and more. I read somewhere it was 16-18 month plan.

He also wants to get Afganistan worked out as he wants to take care of Iraq so we can finish in Afganistan and fix the problems there and stop the Taliban from getting a hold back in the country.

Obama has explained what he wants to do and how he will accomplish these tasks. They are also up on his website. The fact that he isn't speaking down to Americans gets him a lot of points in my view.

Will everything go as he described? That's hard to say. Would be nice, though.

He basically said what his top 3 things was last night....during the debate. You may wanna go to Cnn.com and watch the entire debate online. But Obama laid out his 3 issues...

You can also check his website.

I think beyond really huge things about the economy (Obama's campaign claims he's working on a package for it now...) I believe Obama went down what his policies mean , how his tax and healthcare plans will work. It was pretty good.

Really, it's not hard to see why Democrats fell in love with him at first sight. He's young, charismatic and extremely intelligent. Nobody had really ever heard of him until his speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention.

His star power in politics rose quickly. Unlike Palin, who fell as quickly as she rose, Obama's star power has remained. This is where the "extremely intelligent" assessment comes into the equation. There's some actual substance behind his charisma. You don't beat Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Nomination by being a dummy (yes, Hillary ran a terrible campaign where she expected her name to get her the nomination and didn't realize until too late that she was in trouble but she still had far greater name recognition).

[TomStillwell]

I hear rhetoric of "change" and "he gets it" but no real plan of action.

Then you haven't really been listening.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

[Buzz Dixon]

I have brought this point up with several people who are Obama supporters because I genuinely want a good answer. I have not gotten one. I hear rhetoric of "change" and "he gets it" but no real plan of action. If he can demand a timeline for troop withdrawl from Iraq then why can't he come up with a timeline for the next four years?I believe he's stated he's in favor of a 2010 final withdrawal date, which is what both the Iraqi government and the Bush administration have said is a reasonable but timely withdrawal rate.

As for the rest...here are all your answers:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

[petriacce]

Then you haven't really been listening.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
I can read. I want to hear information from people supporting Obama. What has he addressed for them? I have not gotten a lot of detail from the supporters I have asked. That is what I am looking for - the personal level. The shiny PDF doesn't do as much for me.

I don't think anyone can honestly sit down and go ... "Ok 1st year ...I take care of the Economy ...2nd year...I take care of Healthcare , then...."

He basically said what his top 3 things was last night....during the debate. You may wanna go to Cnn.com and watch the entire debate online. But Obama laid out his 3 issues...
No, but they can prioritize. The "Blueprint for Change" on his website has 24 major points and those cannot be addressed in one term of office.

From the full debates I have not perceived a true three priorities. Three is just a number. I could even handle five. It just seems like I am hearing a priority/importance placed on all subjects and nothing being voiced as being on a back burner.

He may have priorities outlined in more detail but I have not read or heard those. I'm not being snarky and I don't want snarky back. If someone has found a list of identified priorities that are said to be handled above all else I would like to hear/read it.

Thank you.

[AllisterH]

His star power in politics rose quickly. Unlike Palin, who fell as quickly as she rose, Obama's star power has remained. This is where the "extremely intelligent" assessment comes into the equation. There's some actual substance behind his charisma. You don't beat Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Nomination by being a dummy (yes, Hillary ran a terrible campaign where she expected her name to get her the nomination and didn't realize until too late that she was in trouble but she still had far greater name recognition).

Um, not to put too fine a point on it, but he ran up his numbers via the caucus system in the primaries. If for example, Super Tuesday hadn't been all 12 caucus states going at it but instead, 6 primaries and 6 caucus, he wouldn't do as well.

Make no mistake about it, Obama is an accomplished speaker, but he also knows how to play the game and he isn't "I'm the agent of positive change", but uses his inspirational speech to get volunteers who will organize like craxy for him.

For example, take how he became an Illinois STATE senator in the first place.
He runs unopposed against the INCUMBENT (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/29/obamas.first.campaign/index.html) because of being able to work the system

Then there's his actual run for the Senate. He got the backing of highly popular democratic backers in Paul Simon's daughter so which allowed his run as the democratic ticket.

This contest was looking to be a fight since the Republican candidate was well known and was popular. Unfortunately, Jack Ryan's divorce from Jeri Ryan (yeah, "Seven of Nine, Jeri Ryan) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Ryan_(2004_U.S._Senate_candidate)#Campaign_de mise) was shall we say, made public and well, that was that as parachuting in Alan Keyes was laughable.

Then we come to the Democratic primaries. Hillary runs a horrible campaign which allows for Obama's strength (organizing) to make the contest not even a contest. Kevinroc mentions that Hillary's name should have provided votes, but look at the actual caucus results. For example, California's primary which Hillary won decisively was erased by only 2 caucus state votes. Obama rode the caucus system (http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/5/27/92144/7994) to victory.

I fully admit that Obama ran a better campaign (in many of the early caucus states, Obama had like 10 precinct captains to Clinton's 1) but I don't think anyone really thought beforehand the caucus system could be so heavily favour one candidate. Notice that as the primary season drew to a close, Hillary cut down the gap significantly in the actual caucuses she lost.

I don't think McCain is racist against Obama as some people believe. I think McCain just can't believe he's in a race (and losing) to the white house to a guy who has spent only 4 years, 2 of them running for president.

If you were McCain and read Obama's rise to the top, I think you would be shaking your head in disbelief that such a newbie thinks he could be president. I'm positive McCain would be just as dismissive with a white candidate since the idea that spent only 8 years as a local senator and 4 as a state senator actually could win the presidency would be considered the height of lunancy only 1 year ago.....

When people kid about Obama messianiac appeal, I used to laugh, but looking at his elected history? Dude, this guy knows how to work the system....

[OzBat!]

I can read. I want to hear information from people supporting Obama. What has he addressed for them? I have not gotten a lot of detail from the supporters I have asked. That is what I am looking for - the personal level. The shiny PDF doesn't do as much for me.That... doesn't make much sense, to me. If you're looking to be pursuaded that the Candidate is the best option (or even just not the worst option), shouldn't the candidate's own words and information be more relevant? These are the things Obama has said he's interested in, after all. And presumably the things he'll act on, regardless if nobody you've spoken to realises it. From that perspective, your vote is much more importantly informed from the source, not the sympathetic soundbytes.

[Kevinroc]

Um, not to put too fine a point on it, but he ran up his numbers via the caucus system in the primaries. If for example, Super Tuesday hadn't been all 12 caucus states going at it but instead, 6 primaries and 6 caucus, he wouldn't do as well.

Make no mistake about it, Obama is an accomplished speaker, but he also knows how to play the game and he isn't "I'm the agent of positive change", but uses his inspirational speech to get volunteers who will organize like craxy for him.

For example, take how he became an Illinois STATE senator in the first place.
He runs unopposed against the INCUMBENT (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/29/obamas.first.campaign/index.html) because of being able to work the system

Then there's his actual run for the Senate. He got the backing of highly popular democratic backers in Paul Simon's daughter so which allowed his run as the democratic ticket.

This contest was looking to be a fight since the Republican candidate was well known and was popular. Unfortunately, Jack Ryan's divorce from Jeri Ryan (yeah, "Seven of Nine, Jeri Ryan) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Ryan_(2004_U.S._Senate_candidate)#Campaign_de mise) was shall we say, made public and well, that was that as parachuting in Alan Keyes was laughable.

Then we come to the Democratic primaries. Hillary runs a horrible campaign which allows for Obama's strength (organizing) to make the contest not even a contest. Kevinroc mentions that Hillary's name should have provided votes, but look at the actual caucus results. For example, California's primary which Hillary won decisively was erased by only 2 caucus state votes. Obama rode the caucus system (http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/5/27/92144/7994) to victory.

I fully admit that Obama ran a better campaign (in many of the early caucus states, Obama had like 10 precinct captains to Clinton's 1) but I don't think anyone really thought beforehand the caucus system could be so heavily favour one candidate. Notice that as the primary season drew to a close, Hillary cut down the gap significantly in the actual caucuses she lost.

I don't think McCain is racist against Obama as some people believe. I think McCain just can't believe he's in a race (and losing) to the white house to a guy who has spent only 4 years, 2 of them running for president.

If you were McCain and read Obama's rise to the top, I think you would be shaking your head in disbelief that such a newbie thinks he could be president. I'm positive McCain would be just as dismissive with a white candidate since the idea that spent only 8 years as a local senator and 4 as a state senator actually could win the presidency would be considered the height of lunancy only 1 year ago.....

When people kid about Obama messianiac appeal, I used to laugh, but looking at his elected history? Dude, this guy knows how to work the system....

Yes, Obama is very smart. Even with the way the Democratic nomination race went down, it is still important to note that Obama beat Clinton (who is no dummy).

Clinton did a few things that shocked and saddened me during that race. Despite her campaign, I know she's intelligent.

But to see McCain reaching for some of those same straws that Clinton failed to make much traction with makes me wonder about him. This Palin pick was an extremely cynical move but thankfully Americans seem to be too smart to fall for such a thing.

[AllisterH]

Another reason why McCain is "cranky" at Obama is because he might see Obama's lead not so much as a case of Obama running a better campaign but because he got deepsixed by Bush.

Remember, it was only a couple of weeks ago that the electoral college was practically a dead heat.

And basically, through neither McCain OR Obama's actions but BUSH, Obama has surged to a lead that looks like it will carry him to the white house...

I betcha McCain actually has MORE vitriol in him directed at BUSH than Obama. It was Bush's "the sky is falling" speech that pretty much sunk McCain.

This would make the 4th STRAIGHT time that Obama was elected not because of his own strengths/platform but because of either the opposition running a horrible campaign/not mounting a campaign (Clinton, Obama's illinois senate run) or being hamstrung (Keyes, McCain) by forces the opposition simply couldn't control.

[DavidAllred]

Bush & Rove smeared McCain somethin' awful in the GOP primaries in 2000 (among other things, they said the McCains' adopted daughter from Bangladesh was really his African-American mistress). That this didn't prompt McCain to leave the party speaks volumes. That the GOP would support people who do this against their own speaks even more volumes.

I pretty much agree. That he didn't check for VD before he jumped into bed with some of these guys doesn't equate "leadership" to me. The problem was real simple though, if he didn't play nice with them he was never going to win the nomination. So, you gotta wonder why anyone in their right minds would want to go into politics at all.

[DavidAllred]

I betcha McCain actually has MORE vitriol in him directed at BUSH than Obama. It was Bush's "the sky is falling" speech that pretty much sunk McCain.

It kind of makes you wonder if Bush himself doesn't want to see McCain humilated and out of the race.... The way he cuddled up to Pelosi for a $700 billion dollar bailout that really made no sense at the onset (and is currently making no sense in the markets) confirms my thoughts that this guy really is going down in the history books as the worst President in U.S. history.

[petriacce]

That... doesn't make much sense, to me. If you're looking to be pursuaded that the Candidate is the best option (or even just not the worst option), shouldn't the candidate's own words and information be more relevant? These are the things Obama has said he's interested in, after all. And presumably the things he'll act on, regardless if nobody you've spoken to realises it. From that perspective, your vote is much more importantly informed from the source, not the sympathetic soundbytes.
I would say both. I have listened to Obama and read about Obama. I have gone through his "Blueprint for Change" and I wish I could just snap my fingers and make most of it a reality today.

I am limited to my perception of the information and how it will affect me though. I want to hear from Obama's supporters more than just "he's all about change and I'm up for that" and various other blurbs. I want to discuss his points and how other people perceive how they will be affected. I'm voting for a president for them too and not just myself.

[Paul McEnery]

Another reason why McCain is "cranky" at Obama is because he might see Obama's lead not so much as a case of Obama running a better campaign but because he got deepsixed by Bush.

In the first place, if he hadn't taken Bush's cock so deeply in his cheeks for the last eight years, he'd have nothing to worry about.

In the second place, he was pulling the same economic and hawkish nonsense himself when the presidency wasn't even a twinkle in Bush's eye.

So no. The deepsixing is just as much his own work.

[Kevinroc]

In the first place, if he hadn't taken Bush's cock so deeply in his cheeks for the last eight years, he'd have nothing to worry about.

In the second place, he was pulling the same economic and hawkish nonsense himself when the presidency wasn't even a twinkle in Bush's eye.

So no. The deepsixing is just as much his own work.

People need to understand that the McCain they liked in 2000 was all a lie. He was never a "maverick" and yet this "reputation" that he is one is the only reason he's even the nominee for the Republican Party (and because Mitt Romney is a Mormon) even as those that liked him once seem genuinely heart broken by how he is acting now.

[DukeTogo]

Duke Togo says:

...

[Arrogantcur]

I can read. I want to hear information from people supporting Obama. What has he addressed for them? I have not gotten a lot of detail from the supporters I have asked. That is what I am looking for - the personal level. The shiny PDF doesn't do as much for me.

I've said before that I haven't agreed with everything Obama has done or said, particularly after he moved to the center on certain issues earlier this year such as FISA and offshore drilling. Plus, I don't think he made himself look very good by deciding not to accept public financing after previously stating he would do so.

I'm a big ol' lefty, so there's no way I'd vote for this version of John McCain (which might have been the real John McCain all along, I don't know). Obama couldn't do anything that would make me check McCain's name on my absentee ballot.

Now despite my disappointment, am I still planning to vote for Obama? Yes. Here are my reasons why:

--his opposition to the war in Iraq. Even if he did go along with other Democrats in Congress by giving Bush the funding he needed when they were deadlocked, he has still always been opposed to that. It's a stand I agree with.

--his willingness to engage in diplomacy. We need that.

--the fact that he wants to reverse the Bush tax cuts, which have done more harm than good.

--the fact that I do think he's more concerned about the environment than McCain is. I realize that McCain has been against drilling in ANWR, consistently even, and I grudgingly must give him credit for that. But he picked a running mate who probably creams herself whenever drilling in ANWR is mentioned.

--Obama has not run a negative campaign, and I respect that. He has fought back, but it was McCain and not Obama who turned this into a dirty fight.

I could probably think up other things I like about the man, but those are the main ones.

[Crowley]

I find it deeply disturbing that at the recent McCain and Palin rallies the words "Terrorist", "Kill Him!", and "Nigger!" have been shouted without McCain or Palin taking issue with those words.

It probably doesn't help that Palin has sunk so low to try and label Obama a terrorist by attempting (badly) to attach him Ayers.

[Arrogantcur]

I find it deeply disturbing that at the recent McCain and Palin rallies the words "Terrorist", "Kill Him!", and "Nigger!" have been shouted without McCain or Palin taking issue with those words.

That bothers me too.

I don't think McCain is racist against Obama as some people believe. I think McCain just can't believe he's in a race (and losing) to the white house to a guy who has spent only 4 years, 2 of them running for president.

I understand that if you keep on trying and losing, it can be frustrating.

Be that as it may, McCain is acting like he's entitled to this. That he's owed this. That just because he's been around a long time, it should be handed to him on a silver platter. That's not how it works.

Using sports analogies is kind of cliched, but humour me here. Karl Malone was never on a team that won an NBA championship. He signed with the Lakers in the 2003-2004 season along with Gary Payton, who had also never won a championship, in the hopes that they could ride Shaq and Kobe's coat tails.

But the Lakers team that Karl Malone was on got beaten by the Detroit Pistons in the 2004 NBA Finals. The year after that, Malone retired because he was just getting too old to keep playing.

Now, I don't know how Malone took it. I don't know how it felt for him to get close to finally winning it all and getting beaten by a team full of younger and less experienced guys like Ben Wallace, Tayshaun Prince and Richard Hamilton. But how much sense would it make for him to throw a big tantrum in private and shout "It's not fair! I've been in the league for NINETEEN YEARS! I should get a championship ring! I deserve it more than Ben Wallace or Rip Hamilton! They don't deserve it! They haven't been around as long as I have! (Rant rant rant, multiple expletives deleted)"

The point being: it's about more than how long you've been around. It's about who's better. McCain doesn't seem to realize that. He may think it's unfair that Barack Obama has got a shot at being President when it took him, McCain, decades to get to the same opportunity. Well, that's because he was better, John. If you were as impressive as Barack Obama when you started out, maybe you could've gotten this opportunity a lot sooner. But you weren't, and you didn't. That's how it works out sometimes. Get over it. Be happy that you got as far as you did; being a U.S. Senator is nothing to sneeze at, after all.

John McCain should have run the respectful campaign he said he would, he should have given it his best effort without resorting to dirty campaigning (and I believe that if he had taken that approach, Obama wouldn't have gone negative against him either), and if he ultimately lost he should have done his best to take it like a grownup.

[AllisterH]

In the first place, if he hadn't taken Bush's cock so deeply in his cheeks for the last eight years, he'd have nothing to worry about..

Of course he wouldn't. He simply would never have gotten allowed to run by the Republican party. Remember, unlike the democratic primary season, the Republicans have theirs structured so that surprise candidates CAN"T win.

In the second place, he was pulling the same economic and hawkish nonsense himself when the presidency wasn't even a twinkle in Bush's eye.

So no. The deepsixing is just as much his own work.

And?

My point, which I think you missed, was that it wasn't until Bush's speech that the sky is falling and we're on the onset of the Great Depression that McCain's electoral votes disappeared. Pre-speech, it looked like it was going to be a damn close race...now though?

We all knew the economy was in trouble, but the fact that the speech couldn't wait until AFTER the elections? Furthermore, a bailout plan that Bush knew his own party would reject en masse but which also made the Republicans and by proxy, Mccain look bad?

Notice all the vitriol directed at Republicans for voting NAY on the 1st bailout plan even though at the time, the democrats themselves rejected it by a 40% margin....

[AllisterH]

around. McCain doesn't seem to realize that. He may think it's unfair that Barack Obama has got a shot at being President when it took him, McCain, decades to get to the same opportunity. Well, that's because he was better, John. If you were as impressive as Barack Obama when you started out, maybe you could've gotten this opportunity a lot sooner. But you weren't, and you didn't. That's how it works out sometimes. Get over it. Be happy that you got as far as you did; being a U.S. Senator is nothing to sneeze at, after all.

.

Perhaps you didn't actually READ my links...

How was Obama the better candidate when he ran unopposed for the Illinois senate by using tactics that even Rove would admire?

How was Obama the better candidate when in a tight race between him and Jack Ryan, his supporters get the custody case unsealed (not the divorce case mind you which would be bad in of itself but the custody case?)

How was Obama the better candidate when it is due to BUSH that MCCain pretty much lost the election....

Hell, even with his nomination win over Clinton, this was due more to Hillary running a terrible campaign in the early going (seriously, when your campaign strategist doesn't even know that Super Tuesday are caucses and not primaries, you KNOW your campaign is fucked...)

[Arrogantcur]

Perhaps you didn't actually READ my links...

How was Obama the better candidate when he ran unopposed for the Illinois senate by using tactics that even Rove would admire?

How was Obama the better candidate when in a tight race between him and Jack Ryan, his supporters get the custody case unsealed (not the divorce case mind you which would be bad in of itself but the custody case?)

How was Obama the better candidate when it is due to BUSH that MCCain pretty much lost the election....

Hell, even with his nomination win over Clinton, this was due more to Hillary running a terrible campaign in the early going (seriously, when your campaign strategist doesn't even know that Super Tuesday are caucses and not primaries, you KNOW your campaign is fucked...)

Nah, I didn't read them because I've heard most of it before.

You mentioned Jack Ryan having to drop out before, for instance. I don't need to read it again.

Also, I don't think it's fair to describe keeping somebody off the ballot--somebody who initially decided to step down, remember, and then changed her mind--as something Karl Rove would do. What Obama did here was working within the system to give himself an advantage, whereas Rove would not only do that but he would also engage in character assassination and push polls and such. Obama hasn't sunk that low, and I doubt he ever will.

As for Hillary, I'm gonna channel Chris Rock here: HILLARY LOST. He beat her straight up. Michigan and Florida can cry all they want, but at the end of the day they have only themselves to blame for moving their primaries up.

Allister, you seem to be saying "he got lucky one time, then he got lucky a second time, then he got lucky a third time, and now he's getting lucky a fourth time." No. One time is luck, maybe two. But you don't get as far as Obama has on luck alone.

He is better than McCain. He is a better speaker. His politics are more in synch with the electorate (most of whom are Democrats) than McCain's. He has been right about more things than McCain has been, and he's more stable than McCain.

I'll say it again: if he wins, it's because he is BETTER. That's all there is to it.

[DrewEdwards]

McCain has run a pretty bad campaign. Frankly, I'm surprised he's doing as well as he is.

[AllisterH]

Allister, you seem to be saying "he got lucky one time, then he got lucky a second time, then he got lucky a third time, and now he's getting lucky a fourth time." No. One time is luck, maybe two. But you don't get as far as Obama has on luck alone.

.

Really? You know what. I actually agree. It isn't luck. Obama is a brilliant POLITICIAN and is the guidebook that all politicians should run on.

I mean, when he ran unopposed in the Illinois senate race, he "worked" the system to his advantage. That's just good politicking (even though almost everyone here is crying FOUL that the Republicans are doing similar shenanigans in Michigan with voter registration)

When he stood up and said "I don't think the personal life of politicans should be fair game" but somehow Jack Ryan's CUSTODY record becomes unsealed, that's just good politicking (of course, again, we're crying foul that Palin et al are trying to tie him to Ayers. Something which I personally find weird - he was only six for crying out loud....).

When Hillary Clinton screwed up her campaign by employing a dumbass who didn't know the difference between a caucus and a primary, this reflects more poorly on Hillary than makes Obama look good (I fully admit though that Obama worked the system good. He made sure he had precinct captains all over the place and he WAS organized)

Two weeks ago, when the election was pretty much a dead heat, the fact that Bush basically blew McCain out of the water (does ANYONE doubt here that the fiscal calamity and Bush's speech is the reason why Obama surged ahead? - At first, I thought stamen was talking conspiracy theory that Bush purposely sabotaged John Mccain, but even Bush isn't that vindictive, right?)

So let's see. Four elections - 2 of which where a dead man could've won and the other 2 where the opposition basically kicked themselves in the balls and actually helped him to victory....

What am I getting wrong here?

[Charles RB]

Rove has been advising him unofficially, but he's had a weird role in this election...the last few weeks he's been actively criticizing the McCain campaign. Very strange. But McCain did actually hire some of the other fellas that did the hatchet job on him in 2000, which just baffled me.

Yeesh. I know you have to compromise and sometimes make peace with old enemies in politics, but that's just taking the mickey...

[Charles RB]

It probably doesn't help that Palin has sunk so low to try and label Obama a terrorist by attempting (badly) to attach him Ayers.

I want to know what she'll do if she does become VP and has a diplomatic meeting with the Northern Ireland Assembly.

[Infra-Man]

I find it deeply disturbing that at the recent McCain and Palin rallies the words "Terrorist", "Kill Him!", and "Nigger!" have been shouted without McCain or Palin taking issue with those words.

It probably doesn't help that Palin has sunk so low to try and label Obama a terrorist by attempting (badly) to attach him Ayers.

I didn't realize the n-bomb has been dropped already. When was this?

[Tobias March]

I want to know what she'll do if she does become VP and has a diplomatic meeting with the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Let me talk to you about Australian lawyers....:rolleyes:

[Charles RB]

Let me talk to you about Australian lawyers....:rolleyes:

Ah. Many "hilarious" terrorism jokes sent your way?

[SUPERECWFAN1]

McCain has run a pretty bad campaign. Frankly, I'm surprised he's doing as well as he is.

People sometimes wanna stick to their party lines. Some old people feel that since McCain came from their generation he is the safer pick than this Obama. And some are morons who believe Barack is a Muslim terrorist with a name like Hussien in his name.

[KevinTBrown]

Another reason why McCain is "cranky" at Obama is because he might see Obama's lead not so much as a case of Obama running a better campaign but because he got deepsixed by Bush.

Remember, it was only a couple of weeks ago that the electoral college was practically a dead heat.

And basically, through neither McCain OR Obama's actions but BUSH, Obama has surged to a lead that looks like it will carry him to the white house...

I betcha McCain actually has MORE vitriol in him directed at BUSH than Obama. It was Bush's "the sky is falling" speech that pretty much sunk McCain.

This would make the 4th STRAIGHT time that Obama was elected not because of his own strengths/platform but because of either the opposition running a horrible campaign/not mounting a campaign (Clinton, Obama's illinois senate run) or being hamstrung (Keyes, McCain) by forces the opposition simply couldn't control.

Uh, not quite.

Focusing in on his run for Senate against Jack Ryan, Obama was leading in the polls something like 60% to 35% over Ryan BEFORE the "sex scandal" was revealed. So even if it never came out, he would have won rather convincingly. (By the way, I have to say that the mere fact that Jack Ryan screwed up his marriage to Jeri was enough for me to not vote for him! What an idiot.)

Also, how one runs a campaign is how people tend to view how people lead. If the opposition is running a slipshod campaign, of course they're going to lose. Look what's happening with McCain currently. One might argue, and possibly rightfully so, that the current economic crisis is what's causing McCain's failure. BUT this is when a leader steps up and shows what they're made of. What McCain has showed is that he's a step behind and woefully out of touch. We need a leader who's calm under pressure.

This past month has not been good for McCain on many fronts.

[AllisterH]

You know, I always wondered about that....

Was Jack really forcing Jeri to sex clubs? Or was Jeri a willing participant and changed her mind later on?

[Stressfactor]

You know, I always wondered about that....

Was Jack really forcing Jeri to sex clubs? Or was Jeri a willing participant and changed her mind later on?

I wouldn't be surprised if he had been pushing her to go. I spoke with a friend about this a while back and he had a friend who was a psychologist and the way the psychologist explained it to him was that when someone has an addiction to some aspect of sex all they really care about is feeding that addiction. They could be married to the world's most beautiful woman or the world's most handsome man and it wouldn't matter.

Also to the best of my knowledge Ryan never publicly admitted to having any psychological problems associated with sex he more than likely did.

[MacQuarrie]

I want to know what she'll do if she does become VP and has a diplomatic meeting with the Northern Ireland Assembly.

That will be interesting. American opinion on Northern Ireland is pretty conflicted and woefully ignorant. Most of us think it's about religion.

[Jolly Mon]

That will be interesting. American opinion on Northern Ireland is pretty conflicted and woefully ignorant. Most of us think it's about religion.

You seem to be saying you have additional insight to the Northern Ireland situation. Care to expound on that a little? I always thought it was mostly England's seeming to think they owned Ireland (and Scotland, etc).

[Buzz Dixon]

Allister, you seem to be saying "he got lucky one time, then he got lucky a second time, then he got lucky a third time, and now he's getting lucky a fourth time." No. One time is luck, maybe two. But you don't get as far as Obama has on luck alone.It's better to be lucky than good.

[Buzz Dixon]

Two weeks ago, when the election was pretty much a dead heat, the fact that Bush basically blew McCain out of the water (does ANYONE doubt here that the fiscal calamity and Bush's speech is the reason why Obama surged ahead? - At first, I thought stamen was talking conspiracy theory that Bush purposely sabotaged John Mccain, but even Bush isn't that vindictive, right?)I doubt that the calamity is the sole reason for Obama's surge.

First off, he's the transitional candidate in a transitional election. This is 1820, 1860, 1932, 1960, and 1980. Each of those elections had only one viable transitional candidate; Obama is this generations transitional candidate.

Second, even before the calamity, the GOP had worn out its welcome in the executive branch and the legislature. The GOP has held the legislature from 1994 to 2006, the White House from 200 to the present. People may not know what they want, but they do know they sure don't want this.

Third, Obama just comes across as presidential timbre. There were a lot of credible candidates this year, but everyone else -- McCain first -- was someone voters would settle for; Obama is someone we want.

[Michael P]

You know, I always wondered about that....

Was Jack really forcing Jeri to sex clubs? Or was Jeri a willing participant and changed her mind later on?

Wow. You really are scum and a half.

[Buzz Dixon]

People sometimes wanna stick to their party lines. Some old people feel that since McCain came from their generation he is the safer pick than this Obama. And some are morons who believe Barack is a Muslim terrorist with a name like Hussien in his name.One reason that I can identify with Obama's POV is that his family experience (son of an immigrant) is one I can very easily relate to.

[Tetsuo_man]

He goes any further, I expect to see this in the papers after the third debate:
http://i373.photobucket.com/albums/oo172/hvigilla/news_198.jpg

Keith Olberman beat ya to that comparison several months ago. Still doens't mean that said comparison is as apt than it was before (it's probabbly more apt now) or that it's not as funny a comparison.

[Sarah Beach]

This morning, while I was in another room (so I did not SEE this commercial), a McCain commercial came on, trying to fry Obama in his response to things -- several instances of Obama saying "They're lying" (thought to what accusations, I don't know). Followed by the narrator saying "Not Presidential".

The thing is, the clips of Obama have him saying it in a very reasonable voice, as flat statements.

How, I ask you, is that "not Presidential"? He's certainly not raving about how a folksy phrase about the unchangability of sucky things is actually an attack on a Vice Presidential candidate simply because she happens to use one of the things mentioned in the folksy phrase. Now THAT was "not Presidential" -- the McCain reaction, I mean, not Obama using the phrase.

*sigh*

[Tobias March]

Ah. Many "hilarious" terrorism jokes sent your way?

No the opposite. I have unfortunately met an Irish Republican sympathizer.....who's a lawyer working for the British Crown.

It's not even ironic, just tragic.

Also Jolly Mon: the issue's twofold. You have members of both communities who like nothing better than to kill and maim others - the conflict just provides a good excuse. What's more the entire region is disenfranchised as the Republic doesn't want them (it would crash the economy) and neither does the UK (they have to pay for upkeep).

[Ogdred]

I find it deeply disturbing that at the recent McCain and Palin rallies the words "Terrorist", "Kill Him!", and "Nigger!" have been shouted without McCain or Palin taking issue with those words.

It probably doesn't help that Palin has sunk so low to try and label Obama a terrorist by attempting (badly) to attach him Ayers.

The big question for me is this: what happens to all this anger and hatred after November 4th? It's not just going to disappear. Right now, McCain is openly appealing to the murderous rage of the lunatic fringe. When it's all over, does he expect these people to just go home and behave themselves? Does he really want to hand over his party to the racists and the rapture-ready?

An unstable Republican party, which allows no room for moderates or fiscal conservative/social liberals (there's still a few out there), does not bode well for the future of the nation.

[AllisterH]

Wow. You really are scum and a half.

Hmm?

Why do you assume that Jeri Ryan couldn't have been into the sex clubs and then changed her mind later on?

It's not just guys that seem interested in sex clubs....

[SUPERECWFAN1]

Hmm?

Why do you assume that Jeri Ryan couldn't have been into the sex clubs and then changed her mind later on?

It's not just guys that seem interested in sex clubs....

She did wear a pretty skintight latex outfit on Voyager.....just sayin...:wink:

[Charles RB]

I always thought it was mostly England's seeming to think they owned Ireland (and Scotland, etc).

Proves Mac's point. A lot of Protestant Loyalists can be traced back to Scottish settlers, and the Orange Order has a presence in Scotland. And England is part of Britain, not the entirety of it.

And the current fuck-up - in a line of fuck-ups - in the Northern Ireland Assembly is not down to "England", it's down to Northern Irish politicians being unable to come to a deal on bringing policing and justice powers into the Assembly. Which Westminster would like them to do.

(We also stopped owning most of Ireland in the early 20s. We're fine with it, honest.)

No the opposite. I have unfortunately met an Irish Republican sympathizer.....who's a lawyer working for the British Crown.

How in the hell do he fit his ideology and his job together?

[Tobias March]

How in the hell do he fit his ideology and his job together?


Yeah...he's a worry.

edit: Oh wait, he quoted Freedom of Speech principles at me, forgetting that constantly sending emails about Republicanism actually counts as harrassment in the workplace, given that I've indicated I don't appreciate it.

Freedom of speech be damned.

[Charles RB]

edit: Oh wait, he quoted Freedom of Speech principles at me, forgetting that constantly sending emails about Republicanism actually counts as harrassment in the workplace, given that I've indicated I don't appreciate it.


How dare you not respect his right to be an annoying twat.

EDIT: Is he actually Irish himself? Cos if he's not, it's even more wtf to send emails about republicanism to someone from the Republic of Ireland. Did he think you wouldn't be familiar with the concept or what?

[Nick Soapdish]

I also am sympathetic for Sarah Palin. Yes I think she's a total whack job but there is no way in hell she could have been prepared for the scrutiny her life has taken in recent weeks. So even though I don't like her I am sympathetic to her.

I don't have a whole lot of sympathy. She seems overjoyed to be getting to be in the spotlight throwing mud. And if she had been reading newspapers or watching The O'Reilly Factor, she might've noticed what they did to Jamie Lynn Spears. I'm mentioning O'Reilly specifically because he blamed Jamie's parents for Jamie's pregnancy.

Perhaps you didn't actually READ my links...

How was Obama the better candidate when he ran unopposed for the Illinois senate by using tactics that even Rove would admire?

How was Obama the better candidate when in a tight race between him and Jack Ryan, his supporters get the custody case unsealed (not the divorce case mind you which would be bad in of itself but the custody case?)

How was Obama the better candidate when it is due to BUSH that MCCain pretty much lost the election....

Hell, even with his nomination win over Clinton, this was due more to Hillary running a terrible campaign in the early going (seriously, when your campaign strategist doesn't even know that Super Tuesday are caucses and not primaries, you KNOW your campaign is fucked...)

You're contradicting yourself a bit. A big part of being a better candidate is running a better campaign.

And I don't think that you're giving Obama nearly enough credit. Like Kevin said, he was already stomping Ryan.

And in the current campaign, McCain enjoyed a nice bump from the convention and it was boosted by the excitement of a new unknown. But then Palin became a bit more known and the shine wore off as she made more and more gaffes and we learned about some of the ... inconsistencies in her past. Lots of people began to think McCain was a bit inconsistent himself when his primary argument against Obama was inexperience and then picking a running mate even less experienced. Even lots of conservatives have been criticizing the decision now.

And as Buzz said, McCain has had a hard time pushing himself as the agent of change when that's what people want. And Obama's done a good job of keeping him tied to the Bush policies that he supported.

What's worse than Bush admitting that there's a crisis when Wall Street is already in free fall (and six major lending institutions up a creek) was McCain's lunatic response to simultaneously try to play politics and appear above it. If it was smoother or if there was another terrorist attack rather than Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, Lehman Brothers, Bear Sterns and Merrill Lynch all running into trouble, he might've been able to pull it off because it's going to his strength. But instead, it's an issue that he admitted in December that he knew little about which makes it tough for him to play the expert now.

I can see the argument that Obama is falling into success against McCain because he's running an idiotic campaign with that latest act of genius - abandoning Michigan.

I disagree, but people have already covered a lot of that.

I really have a hard time seeing the argument that Dubya just lost the campaign for McCain. If you want to talk about the tailspin that we've been in the last eight years and how it's Dubya's fault and that's why they don't want McCain, I can buy that. But McCain could've innoculated himself against that if he was a maverick. Instead, he worried about securing the Republican nomination.

[Tobias March]

How dare you not respect his right to be an annoying twat.

EDIT: Is he actually Irish himself? Cos if he's not, it's even more wtf to send emails about republicanism to someone from the Republic of Ireland. Did he think you wouldn't be familiar with the concept or what?

No he's an Aussie. And yes that's exactly why his conduct is absurd. He could carry on with his colleagues before I arrived as if being Irish was some sort of mobile phone 'skin', but I kinda put the cat amongst the pigeons by pouring cold water on his deluded notions.

[Charles RB]

I kinda put the cat amongst the pigeons by pouring cold water on his deluded notions.

You are a hero and an icon.

[Paul McEnery]

No he's an Aussie. And yes that's exactly why his conduct is absurd. He could carry on with his colleagues before I arrived as if being Irish was some sort of mobile phone 'skin', but I kinda put the cat amongst the pigeons by pouring cold water on his deluded notions.

You should start every conversation with him with "top of the mornin' to yiz".

Especially the ones in the afternoon. And the evening. And late at night.

[Buzz Dixon]

I kinda put the cat amongst the pigeons by pouring cold water on his deluded notions.When hot air gets on thin ice, cold water is usually the result. :wink:

[Lester C.]

The big question for me is this: what happens to all this anger and hatred after November 4th? It's not just going to disappear. Right now, McCain is openly appealing to the murderous rage of the lunatic fringe. When it's all over, does he expect these people to just go home and behave themselves? Does he really want to hand over his party to the racists and the rapture-ready?

An unstable Republican party, which allows no room for moderates or fiscal conservative/social liberals (there's still a few out there), does not bode well for the future of the nation.

Welcome back Oggy. You still hate that nickname right.:biggrin: Seriously welcome back man.

[Lester C.]

Another reason why McCain is "cranky" at Obama is because he might see Obama's lead not so much as a case of Obama running a better campaign but because he got deepsixed by Bush.

Remember, it was only a couple of weeks ago that the electoral college was practically a dead heat.

And basically, through neither McCain OR Obama's actions but BUSH, Obama has surged to a lead that looks like it will carry him to the white house...

I betcha McCain actually has MORE vitriol in him directed at BUSH than Obama. It was Bush's "the sky is falling" speech that pretty much sunk McCain.

This would make the 4th STRAIGHT time that Obama was elected not because of his own strengths/platform but because of either the opposition running a horrible campaign/not mounting a campaign (Clinton, Obama's illinois senate run) or being hamstrung (Keyes, McCain) by forces the opposition simply couldn't control.

That Bush hatred for McCain works both ways. Do you think McCain, who was in the Republican dog house before securing the nomination, would have been nominated had Bush been popular?

[Tages]

You seem to be saying you have additional insight to the Northern Ireland situation. Care to expound on that a little? I always thought it was mostly England's seeming to think they owned Ireland (and Scotland, etc).

Basically, the English conquered Ireland, and in subsequent ages burned Irish cities, starved them, encouraged the emigration of Protestants from Scotland to Ireland and then gave them most of the good land, the money and the political enfranchisement, but made sure that the Protestants that controlled the land and the money were plenty afraid of what might happen to that land and money if they were ever to leave them in an independent country where they were a minority.

Naturally, when the Brits left, this didn't end very well. Whodathunk?

But yes, most Americans seem to think that Irish Catholics and Protestants just naturally hate each other. They don't. The entirety of the Troubles is the result of centuries of long-simmering fear and resentment that was the intended effect of first English, then British, imperialist dickery (not that this in any way absolves the PIRA, UDA or any other extremist twat for the death and misery they've caused).

Charles, Paul and Mac, feel free to add your input. Just my interpretation of the Cliff Notes version.

[Charles RB]

No, that's a fair summary of everything from before Ireland got split.

The current starting-in-the-60s crisis though, we can blame a lot of that on parts of the Unionists. At that time, there were attempts to actually give the Catholics some more civil rights - and a lot of people revolted at the idea because then, gasp, there wouldn't be Unionist economic and political dominance to the same extent! Cue a huge amount of hate, with scum like Paisley giving it a religious justification.

Catholics went on civil rights marches throughout the 60s and faced "counter-marches" organised by people like the aforementioned Paisley. Civil rights and peaceful action fails, organised political violence like the IRA starts to become more popular (a 50s IRA campaign was a failure because of lack of support).

This eventually leads to a complete breakdown and the British army being initially sent in to restore order and protect the Catholic minority. Unfortunately, we cocked that up something royal (see: house searches, detentions, the more famous of the Bloody Sundays) and there are allegations that the government/army used the "Loyalist" terrorist groups as proxies.

No one comes out of the Troubles looking particularly good. (Especially not the Real IRA, who carried out the Omagh Bombing after the signing of the Good Friday Agreement, a bombing that killed and injured, among hundreds of others, children from the Republic on a day trip)

This eventually leads to the most recent version of a new NI devolved parliament, where the two main parties are the political wing of the IRA and one founded by a violence-instigating religious demagogue, because they've ended up as the political mainstream over there.

Now they're having a tiff over devolving justice powers where neither wants to be the one who blinks and backs down to the other, so the Assembly's Executive has not met in months, even when Belfast got fucking flooded last month and with the economic apocalypse.


But yes, most Americans seem to think that Irish Catholics and Protestants just naturally hate each other. They don't.

Fun fact - the Irish flag is green, white and orange to represent peace between the two sides. (Songs call it "white and gold" either as a reference to a 19th century nationalist flag, to downplay the symbolism of harmony with the Orange, or because there's no rhyme for "and orange")

Another fun fact - in the 70s, the IRA had ties with similar insurgent groups like ETA and... the PLO. (http://www.doglegs.net/cclovett/_borders/IRA_and_PLO_Mural.jpg) They don't talk about the latter very much these days.

Third fact - one of my Uni tutors was from Northern Ireland, and once recounted who she faced prejudice against her... in the Republic. "We don't serve Northern scum here", is what she got told when trying to buy some ciggies.

[darkhanamaru]

Third fact - one of my Uni tutors was from Northern Ireland, and once recounted who she faced prejudice against her... in the Republic. "We don't serve Northern scum here", is what she got told when trying to buy some ciggies.

I recently saw that in an Irish bar in San Francisco. Some visiting Belfast boys were almost "escorted" out of the pub due to their loud politics. The consensus among the Irish there was they didn't want to hear it anymore.

[Tobias March]

I recently saw that in an Irish bar in San Francisco. Some visiting Belfast boys were almost "escorted" out of the pub due to their loud politics. The consensus among the Irish there was they didn't want to hear it anymore.

Yes that's quite common. 'Northies', get a hard time.

[Charles RB]

I recently saw that in an Irish bar in San Francisco. Some visiting Belfast boys were almost "escorted" out of the pub due to their loud politics. The consensus among the Irish there was they didn't want to hear it anymore.

Yeah, but in her case she just went in to buy some fags and had the wrong accent.

[Buzz Dixon]

Yes that's quite common. 'Northies', get a hard time.We called 'em "damn yankees".

[CutterMike]

We called 'em "damn yankees".Since when is that TWO words?

[MacQuarrie]

You seem to be saying you have additional insight to the Northern Ireland situation. Care to expound on that a little? I always thought it was mostly England's seeming to think they owned Ireland (and Scotland, etc).
I think I understand it a little more than the average American.

In the Us, the conflict in Northern Ireland is generally presented as a "Catholics Vs. Protestants" thing; this makes it easy for people to ignore it as "stupid religious people blowing each other up over nothing."

Now, I'm no expert, but I do understand that the religious divide is pretty much just a shorthand way of identifying the two sides, since it happens to fall pretty much along the same lines, and is a factor in the politics involved.

The real issue is loyalty to the British crown.

(Full disclosure: both of my paternal grandparents were from Ireland, Cork and Galway, and both families had some connection to the IRA prior to 1913; when Michael Collins got shot they got the hell out of there and came to the US)

Northern Ireland began as an attempt to "seed" the country. Great Britain convinced a lot of Scottish folks to move there in order to establish a loyalist population that they hoped would grow. It didn't really take, and tensions grew. The religious conflict mirrored the political one.

Today it's pretty complicated; reuniting Ireland would be a blow to their economy, dropping them to about equal with Mexico in standard of living. Then there's the fact that Sinn Fein, the political arm of the IRA, has pretty much a marxist philosophy, so people who might otherwise support Irish unification and independence are reluctant to do so because they don't want to endorse a basically communist party. On the other other hand, the draconian restrictions and inequities toward Catholics in Northern Ireland are pretty indefensible from a human rights standpoint. On the other other other hand, it's pretty hard to defend people who bomb innocent bystanders. Fortunately that particular habit seems to have abated. On the other other other other hand, the Bloody Sunday massacre has never really been redressed by Britain the way it ought to have been.

Lots of atrocities all around. Lots of injustice and abuse all around. Lots of intransigent people holding on to obsolete ideologies and talking past each other. And very little of it actually has much to do with religion. As I understand it, a lot of the progress toward peace in the area has come from Catholic and Protestant churches getting together and seeking dialogue and understanding.

[Charles RB]

On the other other hand, the draconian restrictions and inequities toward Catholics in Northern Ireland are pretty indefensible from a human rights standpoint.

The draconian restrictions and inequities towards Catholics were pretty indefensible. Much of it is no longer ongoing.

Which could have been done forty years ago, but giving Catholic citizens more civil rights didn't sit well with the arsehole vote.

Lots of intransigent people holding on to obsolete ideologies and talking past each other.

Like seemingly the bulk of the bloody Northern Ireland Assembly. The latest wheeze is the First Minister and DUP leader decrying how the deadlocked Assembly means they're not sorting economic issues and they look like prats to the world... and then blaming solely Sinn Fein for this when the DUP's refusing to budge itself.

It's a bit depressing, since all indications are that most of the people there, the people who the Assembly were voted in to represent, would like to move the fuck on.

As I understand it, a lot of the progress toward peace in the area has come from Catholic and Protestant churches getting together and seeking dialogue and understanding.

I don't know how much of it is down to that on its own, but inter-church dialogue has helped.

[MacQuarrie]

The draconian restrictions and inequities towards Catholics were pretty indefensible. Much of it is no longer ongoing.

Which could have been done forty years ago, but giving Catholic citizens more civil rights didn't sit well with the arsehole vote.



Like seemingly the bulk of the bloody Northern Ireland Assembly. The latest wheeze is the First Minister and DUP leader decrying how the deadlocked Assembly means they're not sorting economic issues and they look like prats to the world... and then blaming solely Sinn Fein for this when the DUP's refusing to budge itself.

It's a bit depressing, since all indications are that most of the people there, the people who the Assembly were voted in to represent, would like to move the fuck on.



I don't know how much of it is down to that on its own, but inter-church dialogue has helped.
Being 5000 miles away, I'm dependent on second-hand information., and we sure as hell don't get it from the "People Magazine" style "journalism" that dominates.

[Charles RB]

Being 5000 miles away, I'm dependent on second-hand information

Some of the Northern Irish papers have websites IIRC, and the BBC's got a specific Northern Ireland section (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/default.stm).

Just on Thursday a trial collapsed on the infamous 2004 Northern Bank robbery (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7661106.stm), which is believed by everyone to be done by IRA men: one of the victims was alleged to have been in on it but has been found not guilty (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7661017.stm), leading to questions about why the police keep failing to solve high profile crimes (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7663970.stm). Fun.

I wouldn't recommend looking up the articles on the current Assembly deadlock. You'll cry. I do.

[TCJohnson]

Back to McCain...

"I have to tell you. Sen. Obama is a decent person and a person you don’t have to be scared of as president of the United States," McCain told a supporter at a town hall meeting in Minnesota who said he was “scared” of the prospect of an Obama presidency and of who the Democrat would appoint to the Supreme Court.

“Come on, John!” one audience member yelled out as the Republicans crowd expressed their dismay at their nominee. Others yelled "liar," and "terrorist."

One woman, in the course of a question to McCain saud, “I’ve heard that Sen. Obama is an Arab terrorist.”

McCain, who had shared his wireless microphone with her, yanked it out of her hand.

"No, ma'am," the Arizona senator assured. "He's a decent family man and citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues and that's what this campaign's all about. He's not [an Arab terrorist]."

[Charles RB]

Between that and the judgement against Palin, he must be wondering if it's worth getting out of bed.

[TomStillwell]

But at the same time he's running an ad saying Obama has been friends with a terrorist for years...

[Tages]

WARNING: Thread drift ahoy!

On the other other other other hand, the Bloody Sunday massacre has never really been redressed by Britain the way it ought to have been.

The Troubles are the kind of thing that resists a dichotomous analysis of who was right and who was wrong.

(Also, Waco and Kent State were never made right either, so this fault is not particular to the UK)