BlogHer - campaign - Comments

Perhaps it is wishful thinking..

lauriepark322 — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 07:53:41 -0500

Unless they (the McCain team) offers her a sweet deal that she cannot refuse.

Maybe they just didn't realize how hard it would be to get rid of her... haha

It will never happen

Mom101 — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 07:34:03 -0500

The problem with this theory is that it presumes she's ever made a decision that would benefit anyone besides herself. She seems to be desperately ambitious, and stepping down "for the kids" would mean the end of her career. History would tell the story of a woman who couldn't hack it. I can't imagine any circumstances she wouldn't fight that decision kicking and screaming. I mean, isn't she the woman who claims to have delivered a speech while in premature labor with a high-risk baby 12 hours from home because "it was an important speech?"

I think she'd sooner stick some rat poison in McCain's Metamucil and go for the whole enchillada herself.

So I'm going to go with Southerngirl: Will never happen. But boy, wouldn't it be some fun drama? There really hasn't been enough this year.

Mom-101

One can only hope

Southerngirl — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 07:12:58 -0500

To me this is pretty much wishful thinking as she is very happily ignorant. This woman is wired to win but she is so far out of her league that she has no idea what that is. Stepping down! She would have to be dying or dead to give up.

Michelle

I blog at http://www.mommycan.blogspot.com/

You Believe THAT??????? !!!!!

socrates — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 11:49:20 -0500

socrates

Good afternoon,

OK, you've stated your position: You think that a speaker MUST identify a person by name in order for us to know of whom they speak.

I've stated my position: Names aren't necessarily required.

In this particular Palin-lipstick remark, Obama's smirk at the time he uttered the phrase combined with the laughter of the crowd as soon as he said "lipstick" (and his obvious joy at drawing laughter) make it quite obvious who he was referring to. Add to that his sexist insults directed at Hillary and you know he was firing a chauvinist barb.

I regret that I do not have time to continue this bickering. And I refuse to engage in personal name-calling / insults.

If, however, you wish to learn more about national politics and international affairs, I welcome you to www.thenationalintelligence.com

Yes, I believe that:

miteegirl — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 15:18:47 -0500

Yes, I believe that:

unless you have credible evidence that Obama was talking about Palin instead of McCain's claim of "change" OR
you can prove to us that you are a mind reader,

then you are, excuse the phrase, blowing a lot of hot air.

I belive that in the speech, "An Iron Curtain Descending Across Europe", that Churchill said:

"From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic an iron curtain has descended across the Continent."

He was never intending to mention Stalin. He was refering to the Soviet Union in proximity to the rest of Europe and was actually giving the geographical description of that proximity.

In HIS speech, Obama said as follows:

We’ve been talking about change when
we were up in the polls and when we were down in the polls. The other side, suddenly, they’re saying ‘we’re for
change, too ’. Now think about it, these are the same folks that have
been in charge for the last eight years. You can put lipstick on a pig. It’s still a pig. You
can wrap up an old fish in a piece of paper and call it change. It’s
still going to stink after eight years. We’ve had enough.

The only way that you could say that Obama was talking about Palin in that speech is if he had been standing next to a life-size cutout of Palin with the word "CHANGE?" tattooed across her forehead. And even then? It would still be a stretch.

You want to debate their differences in addressing the US economy? Super! Their differences in addressing foreign relations issues? Bring it on!

But this lipstick kerfluffle? It's making you look like you have all of the credibility of an empty pail. Just a lot of clanking for nothing.

Lipstick on a Pig

socrates — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 13:04:26 -0500

socrates

Good morning!

Is it your position that we con't know whom a speaker i referring to unless he identifies him/her by name? Is that REALLY your position?

Do you believe that a newspaper doesn't commit libel unless it prints the name of the individual it accuses of heinous acts?

I think you might find an abundance of case law to the contrary.

When Churchill gave his famous "Iron Curtain Descending upon Europe Speech", did he identify Stalin by name? Did he even refer to the USSR by name? When JFK announced the Cuban Embargo in response to the missile crisis, did he refer to Khrushchev?

Check it out.

I really didn't mean to offend you. If you do not wish to talk with me, that's OK.

You won't hurt my feelings. If, however. you wish to read thoughtful, reasoned, and well-research material on this and other topics, feel free to visit www.thenationalintelligence.com

Socrates

No research?

miteegirl — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 17:40:12 -0500

For someone who purports to offer "intelligence", you seem to have a very weak grasp of the facts.

That means he voted a straight party line all or almost all the time

Yes, except for the legislation he co-sponsored with (surprise!) Republicans:

The American Fuels Act to Reduce US Dependence on Foreign Oil
Lugar-Obama Nonproliferation Legislation designed to keep troops and nation safe.
Feingold-Obama Lobbying and Ethics Reform Act

Oh, and the willingness to go against teacher's unions in support of merit pay. And bucking the Left to vote for the Class Action Fairness Act.

He's also been praised by traditional Republicans like Chuck Hagel, Bill Bennett, Jim Leach and others. Palin even praised his energy plan. Quite a few Republicans like Obama and appreciate his bipartisan efforts.

After I get dinner on the table, I'll address the rest of the statements. Ta!

The Future: WHO Offers Real Hope?

socrates — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 16:19:09 -0500

socrates

I SO agree with you. Our votes must go to the leader who can not only promise but DELIVER the kind of change we really need!

We all want someone who can end---or at least diminish--- the partisan bickering. Our Congressional leaders need to find ways of compromising on policy issues rather than trying to sabotage the other side to prevent their getting credit for a new program or approach.

The question is: Who can do that best?

We have John McCain who is known as a maverick. Who has crossed the party aisle to work with Democrats on major issues. Remember the McCain-Feinstein Bill? How about the McCain-Kennedy bill? Did you know that Gary Hart (Dem.) was Best Man at McCain's wedding?

We also have Obama. Identfied as "the most liberal member of the US Senate". That means he voted a straight party line all or almost all the time. No crossing the aisle for him!!!

We also need a leader whose loyalty to this nation at a time of crisis (dare I say war on terror?) is beyond question and whose knowledge and experience in foreign affairs is well-established. I say it that way because it is impossible for anyone other than the Almighty to know whether Obama's goofs and gaffes in the international arena reflect on his naivete or his "hidden agenda".

When he assisted Oginga Odinga's political campaign for Kenyan presidency- - -trying to oust a strong US ally--- was he trying to install a radical pro-Islamist regime? Or was he just too naive to realize the potential consequences of his actions?

When Obama told the Jewish leaders of Miami that he was committed to "an undivided Jerusalem" as the capital of Israel yet on the same day told Arab leaders that the future status of Jerusalem was a negotiable item, was he just stuck on stupid?

And when he reacted to the Russian invasion of Georgia with a "well, we just need to sit down and get everyone to talk it over" position (Of course, about 72 hours later he realized the lack of wisdom of that statement), he revealed how very little understanding of international politics he possesses.

Barack Obama is simply not competent to be the leader of the free world.

Now, let's talk about the economy and soaring gasoline prices. The two are tied inextricably together. The major drag on the economy is the cost of energy. We must find a way- - - AND FAST!!!- - - to gain energy independence. That will entail multiple avenues: wind and solar energy, natural gas, oil shale, clean coal, nuclear plants, biofuels. and more oil and gas.

McCain advocates ALL of those approaches. Obama has now decided he favors more nuclear facilities, but the Democrats have done precious little to solve or even ameliorate the energy crisis. They have continued to oppose offshore drilling. Democratic leadership in Congress (and, remember, Obama is a straightline Democratic partisan) even adjourned Congress abruptly in August rather than allow a vote on a proposal to authorize offshore drilling for oil and gas.

So, when it comes to the Energy Crisis, we just have to pin the tail on the donkey!

If you care to learn more about the energy crisis, rising costs of gasoline, and a myriad of issues involving international affairs, please visit www.thenationalintelligence.com. )

More lobbyists than that...

miteegirl — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 15:39:25 -0500

McCain has at least 133 lobbyists on his campaign staff (as of May 2008):

List of lobbyist names, campaign position and who they lobby for here.

That's a hell of a lot of lobbyists.

I believe that insightful,

miteegirl — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 15:34:56 -0500

I believe that insightful, intelligent commentary requires research.

Which means that you probably need to watch the video of Obama's speech or read the transcript.

Where he was using "lipstick on a pig" to refer to McCain's claim of standing for change.

And never mentioned Sarah Palin once.

Go do that now. Then come back with your quotes from the transcript where you believe he mentions Sarah Palin. Then we'll talk.

Let's focus on substance

Soccer Swim Mom — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 15:21:51 -0500

Thanks Southern Girl.

Let's focus on issues that will affect all of us, all of our kids and our planet.

Who out there is happy to see the price of gasoline skyrocket over the last 8 years?

Who out there likes to see the value of their home shrivel?

Who out there thinks that our children's education is going to be just fine with the same old non-commitment?

Who out there thinks that John McCain is going to change anything? He accepted over a million dollars from lobbyists.

He has 6 high powered lobbyists on his campaign staff.

I don't believe that Sarah and John care about average Americans, they seem to care about staying in power.

Are you going to bankrupt your future and your kids future because she seems fresh and likable?

I don't know many people who can afford to see the price of gas go up to $7.50 a gallon. Because guess what, it will and the oil companies will make their profits and pay their CEO's million dollar bonuses and you and I will pay every time we fill up.

socrates LOTS of speakers

socrates — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 15:03:23 -0500

socrates

LOTS of speakers have used the phrase, including myself. It succinctly captures an abstract idea in a very few words.

Yes, McCain too spoke the phrase, but he spoke in a context that CLEARLY referred to a policy, an issue, a proposal.

McCain did NOT target a person, an individual, with his reference to "lipstick on a pig". That's the difference.

I don't know that Obama's use of the quip makes him a bad person, but it sure as hell makes him a sexist.

(For further intelligent, insightful commentary and news, visit www.thenationalintelligence.com. )

lipstick on a pig

socrates — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 10:31:42 -0500

socrates

As I acknowledged at the start, it is an oft-used exprssion that says succinctly 'no matter how much you try to beautify something with cosmetics, it remains the same in substance'.

Fine, when you are speaking of a project, an idea, an issue.

When you are talking about a person, however, the expression takes on a new character. It is demeaning and mean-spirited. It even goes beyond Obama's remark that Hillary was "likeable enough". Or his brushing his shoulder off in resonse to a Hillary statement.

Clearly he knew who - - -not what - - -the target was. So did the crowd. It was an intentional personal, misogynistic attack.

Please see www.thenationalintelligence.com for social / political news and other insightful commentaries.

Did you mis Gov. Palin at the convention?

Southerngirl — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 10:44:44 -0500

I can tell you they had a laughing good time at Obama's and many a community orginizer's expense. But this is silly as crap. We have a collapsing economy, schools in shambles, two wars and you are worried about a remark you think is arrogant? Be for real! This has been beaten to death. Was it arrogant for her to tell Charlie Gibson that she never thought twice about her readiness to be VP. My goodness the impact you can have and you think go for it!

Michelle

I blog at http://www.mommycan.blogspot.com/

Well...

Janers0217 — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 10:28:56 -0500

Maybe the crowd thought it was funny because they thought when they first heard it that he was referring to her, but they could have deducted upon listening to it with an open mind that he was actually referring to the policies and not a person. Besides, McCain has used the phrase, too. Is he a bad person as well?

Janet + http://fuzzypinkslippers.com = love

http://urban-sunrise.net - a blog for 18-35 year olds