juppiter

To me the election is down to three states -- WI, NH, and VA. I'm confident that IA, NV, and OH are for Obama and that NC, CO, and FL are for Romney. And I never thought there were other swing states besides those 9.

I think you misunderstand Max. It's not that Obama hasn't governed from the center, since he has (if he is sooo socialist where is the minimum wage increase and protectionism and collective farms and vast expansion of social security and nationalization of healthcare and oil and etc.) That article is simply stating that Romney positioned himself as a centrist in the DEBATE better than Obama did.

I think Romney is to the left of the mainstream Republican party and I would not consider his presidency such a potential disaster if it weren't for the far-right Republicans in the House whose voices I fear would win out in a Romney presidency.

Also reading the past page or so I love the liberal circle jerk that is SON. My other politics msg board is city-data.com and it's mostly conservative... it is fun being the minority but only to a point.

I'm glad we're getting them too except I fear for their safety. We already have election officials threatening them.

http://www.forbes.co...their-distance/

These people are now moving into full-blown fascism.

Pure hypocrisy. We criticize Putin for rigging the vote in Russia but try to avoid the same level of scrutiny to avoid having that happen here.

I actually agree with your list Max, maybe switch WI and NH.

Obama was so ~on~ tonight it makes me wonder if he threw the first debate on purpose.

It almost makes me wonder why Republicans do not endorse gay marriage as that is the only demographic that is increasingly getting married lmao.

The whole marriage rant by Romney was a severe blunder. There was a time a conservative could say that and come off well -- and that time was not so long ago. But now we have reached the point where it is not just minority babies born out of wedlock... it has become increasingly common among white babies as well. In this day and age, that was a far-right rant for a candidate who has been trying to re-position himself as a moderate.

Otherwise good performance by both but I gotta say Obama did better as he had no serious gaffes like Romney's marriage rant.

I wish I felt the same way, but I feel that he will still win even if he flubs all the debates (which I highly doubt will happen). That's because Obama is getting all the breaks in Ohio, and he is still ahead there even as he falters in the popular vote and in several other swing states. While it is possible for Romney to win without carrying Ohio, it is an extraordinarily difficult task, as he would have to win North Carolina (which I am pretty confident he will win), Florida, Virginia, and just about every small swing state in order to get to 270.

Agreed Max, I don't think any of the debates matter as far as election day goes, but Obama IS killing it tonight.

How are all these things proof of racism? You are intepreting the words and actions of others and insinuating race into their motives; complete and utter crap. Has anyone stood up and said, "Don't vote for Barack Obama because he is black"? Who has said that? What has Joe Arpaio said to indicate that he dislikes black people? Bachmann wasn't referring to Obama's skin color in that statement... she was referring to Chicago-style politics - unless a history rewrite indicates Al Capone was black. I haven't seen a reference to Obama's middle name is ages! Who in the mainstream right refers to him as "Barack Huseein Obama"? But, wait, isn't that his middle name? We aren't allowed to say it... EVER?

More crap, Juppiter. Weak arguments. You are telling me that Obama could get a nonsensical health care bill passed... but nothing for the economy? That is a laugh riot. It should be noted that the Democratically-controlled Senate has not passed a budget in THREE YEARS. But they rammed through a health care bill... Your argument here is weak, dude. The stimulus was a spending bill... NOT A BUDGET. The government needed a budget, not a spending bill. As far as the notion that Obama should have abstained from all non-budget related legislation... nobody ever said that. Indeed, the government can multi-task. There are two chambers of Congress and the Presidency... three separate entities that CAN work on three different things, bare minimum. Priorities, however, are important. With the economy in shambles following that warmonger, George W., I would have thought that some facet of the Obama Administration could have found time to hammer out a budget... find a way to control spending rather than figure out additional ways to blow the wad. Budget first, Obamacare second. I don't know how things work in other people's houses... but I pay my bills and cover necessities before doing other things.

It is racist to vote for a man based on skin color, PERIOD. Ruling out all other options... not considering domestic or foreign policy... ignoring a person's qualities, skills or abilities and selecting that person based solely on skin color IS, indeed, RACIST. In true liberal fashion, you've made the notion of racism a moving target... it IS racism when you need to be, but it isn't racism when you wish it not to be. That, in and of itself, is the worst kind of racism. It is that notion or idea that fuels affirmative action-style policies and that is why well-meaning affirmative action has evolved into an utter failure that has hurt minorities more than helped them.

Joe Arpaio keeps saying the birth certificate is a forgery. And obviously it is not overt racism; it is a vast right-wing conspiracy to make Barack Obama "different" from all previous presidents. Which he is different, but it's riding the line so as not to overtly imply that it's because he's black. Instead elected Republican officials and the Republican part of the mainstream media have created the Islam thing and the birther thing as ways to say black without saying black. Dunno, if you watch South Park, but there is an episode where Oprah, Will Smith, etc. move to town. The townspeople say they want the "richers" out, and succeed in getting them out without talking about race the entire episode; at the end Mr. Garrison proclaims, "At least we got rid of those nig--" and it cuts out. It's exactly like that. Of course you're allowed to say his middle name but I don't see people saying "George Walker Bush" or "William Jefferson Clinton" because it sounds weird. Why else would people constantly say Barack Hussein Obama if not to remind people of what his middle name is?

I think it's selective memory on your part to say the health care law was rammed through. It was extremely difficult to get it passed and they ended up having to do a budget maneuver in order to even get the House and Senate to pass the same bills. It's not like they passed Obamacare on day 1 and then ignored the economy for two years. In fact at the time conservatives were even saying the maneuver used to pass Obamacare was illegal -- it was that hard to get ANYTHING passed thru congress at that time. Between the Repugs voting no on everything and filibustering routine bills, it was not an easy time to get bills passed at that time so the "2 years of complete control" is just not true. It had also been 20 years since health care reform was even attempted and it went down in shambles the first time. It was now or never to get any kind of health care legislation enacted and Barack Obama had learned (some of) his lesson from the Hillarycare debacle.

When you say "find a way to control spending rather than figure out additional ways to blow the wad" you're failing to be objective. You have to realize, liberals see increased government spending as a way out of recession. You think the government needs to contain itself even during recession. So there's a fundamental disconnect there. The stimulus was our fiscal policy to contain the recession and achieve recovery. So really, it's not that you don't think Obama did enough for the economy, it's that you think what he did was not the correct solution and made our problems worse.

I'm not making racism a moving target at all. Black people wanting to be represented by one of their own is as valid a reason as any, and causes no harm to the prospects of any white man becoming president. The first black president being railroaded by elected, mainstream Republicans because he "must be a muslim foreigner" is thinly-veiled racism that actively seeks to unite white voters against a foreign entity holding power over them, actively preventing blacks from pursuing further glass ceiling shatterings.

From day one the mainstream right has made his race an issue -- John McCain, to his credit, did not. But you had the Kansas Secretary of State, an elected Republican thus very much in the mainstream, trying to keep Obama off the ballot in Kansas. You have Joe Arpaio on his racist crusade in Arizona against not only anyone who looks Mexican but against Obama as well. You had the infamous "Obama invites Hip Hop stars to chill at the White House" article on Fox Nation. And also this lol : http://mediamatters.org/video/2010/04/14/fox-amp-friends-sees-muslim-image-in-logo-for-n/163159 . Michele Bachmann stated that the first black president was running a "Gangster Government." Choice words from her. Not to mention the way the mainstream right constantly refers to him as "Barack Hussein Obama." Why is his middle name important if you are not bringing race into the conversation?

And I'm tired of hearing about the "two full years" of government control, when really you cannot do anything in the Senate without 60 votes these days and the Republican minority filibustered him every chance they got. I also object to this argument that just because we were in a Recession, he should have abstained from any legislation not relating to the economy. Then they would just be campaigning against him from "breaking his promise" on health care reform. Also, if you are going to state that he spent two years not doing enough for the economy, it is intellectually inconsistent to then state that the "gigantic, wasteful" trillion dollar stimulus was some awful thing. If that was not a massive-scale solution, whether you consider it good/successful or not, then it was just a drop of spit in the ocean. You can't have it both ways where you say he didn't do enough and then consider the stimulus a gigantic behemoth monster.

It is racist to not vote for Obama because of his skin color. It means you don't believe a black man can lead the country -- that there is something un-American about being black. On the other hand, it is not racist to vote for Obama BECAUSE he is black. That is not discriminating against whites or saying you will never vote for a white president. We have had 43 white presidents already. Of course once a black option was available the vast majority of black people would vote for him to see one of their own in the Oval Office. There is nothing discriminatory or racist about that in the least.

The problem is that instead of condemning or ignoring the racism that the psychos fling at Obama, the mainstream right embraces it. For example Mitt Romney stating that he's never been asked for his birth certificate. And then elected Republicans trying to bar Obama from the ballot if he does not produce it. Never before we had a black president were birth certificates such an issue.

The mainstream Republican Party flipping on ideas it once embraced and ignoring its own recent deficit spending is politicking. It has nothing to do with his race and they would've done the same [!@#$%^&*] if Hillary had been chosen. But all too often the mainstream right, which could ignore the whole birther thing, promotes and encourages it and does make things racial.

Scalia assures everyone that he already has his mind made up on any cases on matters such as "homosexual sodomy." I guess we'll see if anyone asks him to recuse himself from cases that he clearly isn't going to be unbiased on.

http://www.google.co...8497c59d9839527

Although she was a "conservative", and I hate to use that term for a Supreme Court judge, I have the deepest respect for Sandra Day O'Connor. She fought to the death, in vain, to make the American public understand that the SCOTUS was not a political body. Her decisions were always based on her understanding of the Constitution and not the politics of the day. Judges like Scalia and Thomas constantly bring politics into the court and it just disgusts me and degrades what should be the most impartial apolitical institution we have.

I gotta say, history has written Quayle as a buffoon during the 1988 debate, but he is coming across as hopeful and proud of his country. I see none of the hatred that is the key ideal of today's Republican party.

Watching the 1988 Vice Presidential debate on C-SPAN. Dan Quayle just said he and Bush wanted to get rid of PACs... WOW. lol.

LOL! I like Al Gore a lot, notwithstanding the harassment allegations, but when he spun that tale I just wanted to slap him.

The one positive thing I can say about G. W. Bush is that when it was clear what a liability he was to the Republican Party he receded into obscurity. Kerry and Gore just. won't. die.

Marceline... ya'll are right. Numbers are great and Americans are back to work! I've just come to realize that everything is totally awesome with the economy and all these low-paying part-time jobs the "adjusted" unemployment rate reflects are just what the doctor ordered. Silly me... you've proven me wrong again.

Of course the numbers were wholly reliable when they were above 8% and now they are fudged.

The fact is these numbers mean nothing anyway -- name one month that wasn't revised upwards or downwards after the fact. They are basically an educated guess by the BLS and both sides using them for politicking is just spin.

At the end of the day it matters not at all. I refuse to believe there are actually undecided voters left. There are Obama voters, Romney voters, a lot of people who will not vote, people who think they are undecided when really they are not but just don't want to be grouped with a party, and then maybe .005% of the population that is undecided and will actually vote.

So does it matter that Obama failed miserably to call out Romney's gleeful lies? Not in the least.

Not on MSNBC. Besides OTT Chris Matthews in panic mode, the 4 p.m. Eastern and after crew are probably either reminding the viewers of who they think Mitt Romney is or how Barack Obama is better for them.

Honestly, I was more interested in watching baseball than the debate but I got a phone call at debate start time and I ended up muting the t.v. and watching that smirk on Mitt Romney's face and Barack Obama looking down. I wasn't keen on hearing the hot air that was coming out of their mouths but I heard enough to remain unimpressed. I hate to vote yet again on the lesser of two unappealing candidates.

On another note.....in California the solution to any money related problem seems to be increasing the sales tax. There's yet another proposition to raise sales taxes. Depending on which county you shop in, you could pay well over 11% in sales taxes.

It's always between a douche and a turd -- South Park.

So have I but one of Obama's strong suits is that he's very good at the long game. I guarantee that he's looking at ALL of the debates together. Not each individually.

Everything - and I do mean EVERYTHING - Obama does from here on out is about independents and moderates. He knows that he doesn't have to worry about voters like me. We've got his back. (In fact I voted this morning.) Romney has to keep shuttling between the GOTeaP base and moderates/independents and I can almost promise you that he will do something before the next debate to piss off one of those groups.

Would I like to see Obama smack Romney down like Omar from The Wire? Sure but I'm not his audience.

You are good at seeing the big picture. Perhaps I should return my Political Science degree. LOL.

I disagree Carl; Obama is a lawyer and should have won that. Heads better be rolling in the Obama campaign tonight. He never ever should have allowed himself to be put on the defensive. Where was the 47% reference? Sabato is theorizing that somebody thought it was "not presidential" to go on the attack mode. But it's what he needed to do. Romney's arguments were like swiss cheese and Obama missed chance after chance.

Chris Matthews tends to freak out when the weather changes. He's definitely not my favorite MSNBC commentator. He's like that coked-up guy at a party who backs you into a corner while he tells you his theory of how to communicate with other planets.

Obama played it safe. Overly so IMO but since he's in the lead he has more to lose and Mitt has more to prove. There's still two more debates to go and the next one is in a town hall format. That's going to be a vastly different dynamic and one that doesn't favor Romney. I'm rather enjoying the hysteria about Obama's performance in this one. The people freaking are playing checkers. This is chess.

LOVE IT. But I am freaking. I have seen Democrats/Obama [!@#$%^&*] up too many times in my life.

I think Romney won by a little -- both got some good zingers in. Disappointed that Obama did not call out more of Mitt's BS, though his "Is he keeping his plan a secret because it's so good?" line was good. He needed to crystallize his thesis more though and be more on the offensive.

Mitt was better -- coming up with a brand new tax plan just in time for the debate was genius. And I wish I had realized that cutting Big Bird while cutting taxes and increasing military spending would make the deficit disappear. It was BS, but kudos to Mitt for getting away with it cause Obama didn't call it out enough.

Always a good sign to see President Obama with some fantastic endorsements... the one from President Francois Hollande of the French Socialist party is fantastic, but to receive an endorsement from the likes of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is a real coup.

Makes one wonder what all these leaders might have in common...

Why is this spectacular when Benjamin "Apartheid" Netanyahu's shelling for Mittens is not? Yawn.

I can't imagine Mitt not getting annihilated in the debates. He has campaigned on generalities -- all Obama has to do is force him into specifics and then he will make a buffoon of himself, no matter what.

I expect Obama to have to play SOME defense in the debates, but it's nothing he can't handle. His defense can be "Mitt would make it worse" on literally every subject. Don't like the deficit? Mitt enacting even more tax cuts will make it worse. Don't like my broken Dream Act promise? Mitt would make that worse as well. Don't like Obamacare? Mitt invented Obamacare.

I expect Obama to Q.E.D. in the debates. If Mitt were allowed to be himself, and nobody knows what that is but I think it's a moderate, he'd have a shot. But he is like the Viki Buchanan of American politics and is forced to have a million personalities and just cannot maintain that whatsoever. Ronald Reagan could.

Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann were the worst thing that could have happened to Coulter. Aside from the usual media sycophants and attention whores like Bill Maher, no one cares about her. She is a wig on a stick who lives in a very liberal part of Florida, making big money acting as Andy Kaufman.

Agreed! Glad I'm not the only one who noticed. Coulter's star has definitely dimmed in the last couple of years. But honestly part of it is just that she can't seem as outrageous as she used to -- she was this superstar who said outrageous things, and now that is the party line for the Republicans. If anything she seems to be to the left of the current Republican party. I do think that if Obama is re-elected the Republicans will move to the center and then maybe Coulter can have a comeback.

She drove me nuts for years but I gotta say I kinda miss Ann. Just like many people in East Germany now miss being oppressed by Communism, I miss Ann's crazy ridiculous interviews.