juppiter

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.

Republicans do not want a national system. It would take the ability to manipulate and suppress the vote of a segment of the population in specific states out of their hands. This is why they keep trotting out the few instances where voter fraud occurs, to try to bolster their lie that it is widespread when the evidence indicates otherwise.

Right. Voter fraud is not a problem -- but it theoretically could be, and that should be prevented. A national ID system like several European countries would solve it. What won't solve it is these state-by-state laws in an election year that are beng implemented to suppress likely Democratic voters.

When you think about it tho that hug had to have been pre-planned otherwise the Secret Service would've intervened.

And I know the lettuce thing sounds ridiculous but I am giving a practical example -- Republicans since 2008 have been grandstanding on broad issues and ideals, not specifics. It's so facile to say that illegal immigrants take jobs from Americans. But who wants a job picking produce that earns money not hourly but based on what is picked? Potentially $2 for an entire day's work? Not an American citizen.

Example of grandstanding--

"We need to cut spending."

"OK. Cut what?"

"Just cut everything. Cuts from every department."

OK, well that is now happening in January 2013 -- sequestration, due to Congressional Republican action. And every economist agrees it threatens us with almost certain return to recession.

Though I see your point that not every illegal immigrant is the stereotypical farm worker. We do have a skills gap compared to other developed countries and allowing educated illegals to stay should be a no-brainer.

The lettuce picking was unintentionally funny but there's are sector of illegal immigrants who do more than tend to produce. Romney's idea of "self deportation" has go to be one of the craziest, most inhumane goal when many of these immigrants have American children here. They have no problem ripping these immigrants away from their families, and what will become of the millions of kids who are underaged and their parents are deported? Of course Republicans don't care about that little tidbit which will be another burden on tax payers. And illegal immigration doesn't soley affect Hispanics but people from other countries inlcuding Europe but it's never adressed because those immigrants are White. I wont even get into the whole speil of protecting our boarders when anyone with half a brain realizes that jumping the fence isn't the predominant reason there are illegal immigrants in this country but those who came legitmately on a vistor's visa and simply overstayed. I applaud Obama for finally making an attempt to do right by these people.

It's another thing where they have taken a position so extreme and refused to compromise -- like privatizing social security or voucherizing medicare -- that the problem won't get fixed.

If Romney wins, there's no way in hell 20 million people get deported. It's impossible. But they've promised it to the base and can't renege so it just won't get dealt with again. Obviously allowing some to become citizens so they pay taxes and can contribute to society is the only solution at this point.

If theres one thing I will never understand is the belief from the right that Obama is some far left liberal, or yet has governed as one. I'm quite the liberal myself and I've got to say I've been quite disappointed in the past four years, barely any so called ar left policies have been implemented.

Agreed. I would like Brian to be more specific here. We all know that in England or France or Germany, the Democrats would be the conservative party.

Input from you nice posters... Help me understand why the national average shows Obama with a slight lead... yet in almost every poll taken, some 62% of those responding say the country is on the wrong track, while only 30% say we're doing fine.

??

Are these alarming numbers for Obama? Should he be comfortable with these numbers? Do people like the president but disagree with the path he has chosen?

Of course, one could take these polls with a grain of salt... very few are ever consistently right. I like to get the feedback from our more liberal friends here who are supporting Obama.

Someone raised the issue of Romney - why support him? At this point, I am voting based on policy. I'm not a liberal and I disagree with many of Obama's more liberal policies. Honestly, Republicans weren't given much to choose from in the primaries... As one who leans right, I recognize how unelectable more conservatives candidates were. I also recognize the danger of a more moderate candidate like Romney for folks like me who lean more right.

Because I so disagree with Obama's politics, I have no place else to go but Romney. McCain was a bitter pill to swallow... sort of hold your nose and vote for him (no offense against the guy, he just wasn't a good candidate). I resented that the Republican establishment all but forced Romney on us... But I don't think my feelings for him are as negative as they were toward McCain as a candidate. I think Ryan was the best choice for VP, however. He calms the more conservative in the party...

Look, we registered Republicans all know what Romney is - a moderate. A moderate conservative is still better than a liberal, in my opinion... or a moderate liberal if you feel Obama isn't left-wing enough. I think Obama as president has been far more liberal than Obama as a candidate in 2008.

Anyway... those are my thoughts on why Romney over Obama question.

Thanks for your time... and best wishes from me to you.

I do think Obama has been a centrist thusfar. He has not raised anyone's taxes, his healthcare reform will increase business and profits for private insurance companies, and as for his stimulus and bailouts... we already had stimulus and bailouts under Bush! It was accepted fiscal policy until the Republican Party realized it was about to go the way of the Whigs and decided they need to oppose Obama on everything (including their own tax policy from Bush years, further tax cuts under Obama, their own health plan from the Clinton years, and their own stimulus and bailouts from the Bush years.)

I also think Mitt Romney is probably a moderate -- we do not know because he has flipped on so many issues. But I also think he doesn't care on most things and just really wants to be President. So even if he is more moderate than Obama, he will be forced to defer to the extremist conservatives in congress. We have seen extremist conservatives calling Obama a Socialist Muslim born in Kenya, implying that rape cannot lead to pregnancy, and almost leading our country to default on its debt even when Obama tried to compromise by offering them $10 in spending cuts for each $1 increase in taxes. They have refused any compromise or moderation, and I believe either man will likely be accompanied by a Republican House and Senate. Under Obama, most of their insane ideas get vetoed. Under Romney, they become the law of the land.

To me Obama has had more common sense solutions -- fix our massive debt by raising taxes on the wealthy, allow some illegal immigrants a path to citizenship. The Republican plans have been insane -- fix our massive debt by not only not ending the Bush tax cuts that created our debt in the first place but actually create more tax cuts? And then fill the hole by privatizing social security and voucherizing Medicare? Another insane plan -- deport all 20 million illegal immigrants (which will no doubt increase federal spending as it will take hiring many many ICE officers to turn the Southwest into a police state so we can track them all down and send them away and have lettuce prices skyrocket as nobody is left to pick it.) It seems to me that Obama's plan to lessen the debt -- to return tax rates for the wealthy to Clinton-era levels when the economy was booming, places less of a burden on the middle class. The Republican plan -- cut taxes to historic lows and fill the gap by cutting entitlements the middle class depends on -- helps the wealthy and penalizes the middle class. And don't forget that any attempt to touch Social Security and Medicare always fails. Bush tried and voters got pissed. So they will likely cut taxes first, ATTEMPT to reform Social Security and Medicare, feel the wrath of angry old people, and then their proposal will fail. So now we've got cut taxes and cut government revenue and no spending cuts. More debt. And as we saw with the Bush tax cuts, they do not pay for themselves, though Republicans will again insist they do.

And that is where Republicans have plans at all. I get a lot of what they say they'd do has no chance of happening -- they really do not want a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, and they really do not want to reverse Roe V. Wade. But then, those are the things they are concrete about. Then there are the vague areas -- Repeal and Replace Obamacare. Replace with what? I agree Obamacare is a bad law but repeal is not the solution. It is the first step toward the true solution to our sadly broken healthcare system.

As I've said, the next Congress is almost certain to be Republican. People forget that 1994-1996 was a lot like 2010-2012. Clinton and the Republicans agreed on nothing because the Republicans were fixated on winning in 1996. After that, a lot of really great compromise legislation took place in Clinton's second term. I would much rather see Obama and the Republicans repeat that and compromise in his second term than a weak leader Romney kow-towing to wingnuts in Congress.

We've had Reaganomics and a Conservative Supreme Court for 30 years and the Middle Class is dying because of it. It's not so much that I love Obama but that I'd like to move to the next phase that I must support him and hope that he can do ANYTHING to turn that around, because Romney clearly cannot... he is comfortable with the Age of Reagan that IMO has continued through the Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II presidencies just like the Age of Roosevelt before that continued through Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson.

There are more reasons I'm probably brainfarting on to be honest... I just can't get on board with anything the Republicans have done in the past four years. The way they allowed the first black President to be shown as something "un-American" and "different" from previous presidents is just a huge turn off to me.

Also I hear you on "having no place to go." I hated Bush but I really really disliked John Kerry even before he ran the worst campaign ever. 2004 was a tough one for me. 2008 I wanted Clinton but was more than happy to vote for Obama over McCain and 2012 I've never doubted Obama over anyone from the Republican primaries.

This has nothing to do with being liberal. The poles knew what was happening and were complicit in the goings on. Not all of them but enough to make the label "polish death camps" an apt description.

No, you're flat out wrong because Poland was an occupied country at the time. There was a powerless Polish government-in-exile in the UK, the actual country was ruled either directly by Germany or as a German Governorate. Maybe Polish people didn't mind Jews being sent to death camp but they did not actively collaborate and no official Polish government actively collaborated (to contrast with France which did have a government that collaborated.) The Nazi plan was to Germanize Poles with attractive genetic traits. The rest would either be exterminated or kept around for slave labor.

It'd be like calling South Africa's Apartheid-era bantustans "Black-Run Bantustans."

http://www.huffingto..._n_1868385.html

And guess who is now saying that he will keep parts of Obama's health care plan?

He was for it... before he was against it... before he is now for it again. Of course the Democrats utterly fail to capitalize on his flip flopping because as always they are trying to lose...

Poland..please. They were polish death camps and the poles knew what was going on there and were often willing accomplices.

Um? I am a liberal but this is not true at all... Obama made a blunder. Sure, Poland didn't have a great history with its Jews and many were happy to see them go, but Poland was defeated by then and the only responsibility for the death camps goes to the Nazis.

I agree that showing a photo i.d. should not be considered a burden. I've seen upper middle class white men get the business for not having i.d. on them, and you need one if you don't have a driver's license. You can't buy liquor, cigarettes, let alone cough medicine without an i.d. in this day and age. I can't walk into certain buildings in New York and D.C. without my i.d. And frankly, how does one even register to vote without photo i.d. in the first place?

You have to look at the intention of the law -- was voter fraud a huge problem? No. Who, statistically, is most likely to be effected by the law? Anecdotes aside?

Todd Akin's comment's were beyond offensive and reprehensible, and Romney has condemned them. Scott Brown has demanded Akin to withdraw from the race, and I hope other prominent Republicans will do the same:

Todd Akin phrased it in an offensive way but he is really just adequately describing the GOP platform for 2012. No exception for rape, incest, or even the life of the mother. Just a brutal platform. Now realistically, would Romney/Ryan be able to overturn Roe V. Wade? No. Do I think they actually even want to? No. But it's in their platform and it is fair game.

Was reading the article about Tom and Margo on the Greatest Soap Couples on WLS and I never knew John Dixon was Margo's dad, is he Craig's dad too? For some reason I always thought Margo and Craig were full siblings

http://www.welovesoa...orld-turns.html

Don't feel bad. Hogan Sheffer worked there for a year before he figured it out!

Kirk was still on the show - maybe they were going to go for a Sam/Kirk/Ellie triangle.

You're right about Passante and Goutman, I meant they cast Meg in 2005. I think bringing back Ellie would have made more sense.

I think they really meant to recast Rosanna, since Meg seemed to just continue Rosanna's storylines after Rosanna left.

I gotta disagree with "All My Shadows" about making The Lie a two-parter. I loved The Lie and I thought it was perfect as a stand-alone episode. To me The Lie was very theatrical and complete, and there is nothing more awkward or amateurish than television's two-parter trope. True, it is sometimes needed, but is there anything more irking to a viewer? Is there anything where you're really showing your fourth wall and taking the audience out of the story in a way theater and films usually don't? Films rarely have two-parters, Harry Potter being the most notable exception I can think of, and it really takes the "art" away to me.

I do think the ending of Laura getting her cigarette lit is just lovely. She's still longing and Knots understates that, just as Laura herself is quietly screaming throughout the whole first season. It's a really gorgeous shot and I think it'd have been ugly and cheapened with "To Be Continued" plastered over it as Dynasty would have done lol.

I remember watching this episode and thinking, "Yea, they finally blew her up!" only to be tortured by HR's horrlble Lily recast!

The Hughes family scene is almost a parady of Marland....everyone sitting around drinking tea(including John of all people) out of those pristine cups (which I remember) Bob, in his bad sweater, Kim, decked out in her 80's garb, jacket and clunky jewelry and all and her line "Well, in Julie's favor she DID pay back 47,000 of the 50,000" after they mentioned that Lucinda brought her to town to break up Duke and that she was preggers with another guys baby and had an abortion....and classic Nancy Hughes...giving the town's bad girl a benefit of the doubt for being "vivacious and full of life," and , actually clutching her pearls when she mentioned that "Well I realize that she and Duke, had,uh, a RELATIONSHIP, (aka Nancy Hughes speak for screwing) and then giving a look of horror when finding out how bad Julie was, and then a pissed off look that she was actually working for Lisa (apparently Lisa had to run all her hires through Nancy...) As I said, it was almost a parody...but I still love it!

Off topic...but I started watching the GL 4th episode and I forgot what a weak d*ck Ed could be. They really needed to bring Mike back to head up the family...I never really liked PS' Ed and never understood it until watching this episode.

This post deserves some appreciation. I was lmao the entire time I read it.

You're welcome!

And now this is totally unrelated but I feel like bidding farewell to The Dylan Ratigan Show. I hardly knew ye but I shall miss the rare occasion when I would turn on MSNBC and see someone not talking about the same things as everyone else.

I cannot understand why that sycophant Toure is part of the replacement show.

Didn't know this was ending. Shame. I always had a huge crush on him. Really smart guy too. And hot. lol.

There were a few extraneous characters (like the Lombard inner circle, which could have been one character), but I thought most of them had a place. My only real complaint was that the news woman Tonio hired, who was clearly supposed to be witty, passionate, vibrant, was a dullard. But, as Mitch has said before, this was a recurring issue on ATWT at this time (remember that boring doctor, Taylor, who made a play for Tom a few years earlier?).

I don't. It was a long time ago and I was a kid then. Seeing as how I didn't remember Emily's son and that was like 5 years ago it doesn't surprise me that I don't remember what you describe as a dud though. Do you know of any clips of Heather Rattray after they made Lily less of a cold fish?

A big part of Lily's story at this time was that she was cold and hard. Later they made her more like the old Lily.

One of the parts of ATWT I missed most in later years was when we stopped seeing everyone find out about the key details. Someone clearly decided this was boring, but what the hell else are you going to do with 45 minutes of airtime 5 days a week?

There were some boring parts in that episode -- there are WAY too many minor characters who could be cut or combined. But to me everyone gossiping about every single minute detail is awesome, not boring, even though Marland relied on this trope excessively.

Wow, that episode is not half-assed at all. It is meticulously plotted, even to the point of being annoying and obsessive compulsive. One of the things I miss is the way Marland made great use of the Greek Chorus. I love how gossipy and bitchy everyone is when Brock's father shows up at the restaurant. And people talking about things that have nothing to do with the plot of this episode makes everything so much more real.

Nowadays too many people find things out off screen and the writers lose track of who knows what; I think a lot is lost not focusing on the slow dissemination of information throughout town.

I know people have said positive things about this Lily but she is WAY too cold with none of Martha Byrne's wounded vulnerability.