Barack Obama Elected President!

[Wales2004]

I think Casey should continue to post as well if that's what Casey wants to do.

I realize that it might be a bit frustrating for us all at times and I realize that we sometimes tend to see what's wrong with others but can't see the same fault(s) in ourselves and that can contribute to some tension.

I don't think Ryan is the only tolerant person posting on this board and I'm not trying to take anything away from Ryan. I think statements such as these come off as backhanded insults to others whether that is the intent or not and that certainly contributes to whatever tensions may arise. I'd be right there with you if you were talking about someone who innocently posted something and was attacked because of it but that's not the case.

Casey stated something to th effect of Obama supporters being sensitive and then persisted in asking the same question over and over again.......maybe because the response wasn't satisfactory. You shouldn't keep telling them Obama doesn't have a plan and when people respond and say he does and what it is continue to say he doesn't have a plan and throw in he doesn't have a way to make it work for good measure. I don't know how that's considered civil debate because it reeks of I don't like your answer so I'll ignore it and repeat the question. It might have been better to just to state a disagreement with the plan and move on to a new line of topic.

Why not say this is McCain's plan and see it's a better one.

It's the same as saying Palin is just as qualified as Obama instead of saying what it is that makes Palin so qualified. McCain is the candidate that made what he labels Obama's inexperience the theme of his negative campaign so he looks hypocritical picking hear as his running mate. I'd love to hear why she's the best choice for the job instead of how she levels the field with Obama unless by field leveling people mean she's a woman and he's black......which makes this whole thing even more ridiculous to me.

I am restricted from voting in primaries because California requires that you declare a party so I can only draw the conclusion that ultimately enough people in the Democratic party thought Obama was qualified to get their vote. Repuiblicans were not afforded that same opportunity with Palin since she was selected by McCain as Biden was selected by Obama and to me is a better choice. Voters have their chance in the general election to say whether they feel Obama is qualified or not despite all this back and forth about him.

I'd love to see more discussion on here about why McCain is such a magnificent candidate and why his running mate is magnificent (even if I don't agree) than the same tired knocks on Obama amd I'm not saying don't knock Obama but at least bring something fresh to the discussion once in awhile and help set a more positive tone. I know we can all disagree in a more civil way.

[UCLAN]

I am in total agreement with your post. That is exactly what happened today regarding these posts. I agree that it can be very aggravating when it appears ths someones is ignoring your answer and continues to ask the same qustion.

In terms of Obama's plan, it was very clearly outlined in his speech and on his website. He was very specific with how he would fund his plans.

McCain has a plan but we have not heard his specifics or how he plans to implement it

The tone and tenure of this campaign has not been on issues; its been very personalized. In my opinion, Obama has had to defend his life choices, his family, his positions throughout this entire campaign. In my opinion, the standards for him have been extremely high.

I live in California also, but I'm a life long democrat. My primary vote was a huge decision. I support Obama. I don't see him as far left as others do. I don't see his programs as socialized. I am against the "war"in Iraq just as vehemently as i was opposed to the war in Vietnam.

I will be watching the Republican convention, but I start work again , so I might not be able to catch it all. (Will watch on CSPAN)

I am pro-choice and I advocate religion and morality out of politics.

I enjoy coming here and readings others opinions. I respect what everyone brings to the table. Not everything is black and white or set in stone. If we keep an open mind, someone's ideas may spark a thought in us.

Keep it up everyone

[EricaKane70]

At least I know who Obama, McCain, and Joe Biden are, and I would trust them running the country. I'm not trusting someone who's name I've known for only 48 hrs. I think its foolish of McCain to pick a vp that is virtually unknown to most of the U.S., and he only has 60 plus days to make her well known.

[Roman]

Everyone has the right to post here.

Just back up the points in the political threads with some facts. It starts and raises tension when one side is taken, the people who take a opposing view are wrong, and there is no links to any articles or any news to back up said point.

If Obama supporters like him and believe in him, that really should be enough. Why should someone continue to explain why they back a particular candidate? For those who like John McCain, it's the very same thing. But, it seems as though if the majority sees things one way, they have to constantly defend why they see it that way, instead of the person questioning stating their view and agreeing to disagree with someone.

Soem believe in universal health care. Some do not. Why should it be termed "socialized medicine" if some believe all Amercians should have the same health care benifits as those in Congress?

Some believe in Big Business. Others feel Big Business should protect Amercian interests and the American Worker, instead of shipping jobs overseas gaining record profits while American workers are without a job.

Like who you like, and follow who you follow......but please don't try to make someone feel stupid for backing someone you don't.

Maybe then we can have a civil discussion.

PS: For those who like to use buzzwords to term people's stances......there are those who do like and admire John MCain, and honestly would say so.......if they notthen get blasted for being a hypocrite.

[Roman]

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/08/30/s...alin-vp-choice/

[EricaKane70]

Pallin was booed for mentioning hillary clinton, damn McCain your plan is working so well.

Pallin booed

[Roman]

Ok. So I wasn't hearing things.

CNN described her debut as tepid. I wouldn't say that at all. I think people were just taken aback a bit.

[Roman]

Obama Has Post-Convention Lead in Gallup Poll; Palin an Unknown

By Bob Drummond and Nicholas Johnston

Aug. 31 (Bloomberg) -- Barack Obama jumped to his biggest lead since late July in public opinion polls, after his Aug. 28 speech to more than 75,000 people in a Denver football stadium when he accepted the Democratic Party's presidential nomination.

How long Obama holds the lead is open to question, as voters react to John McCain's surprise selection of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin for his running mate and Republicans begin their nominating convention tomorrow in St. Paul, Minnesota.

Obama leads McCain 49-41 percent in the most recent Gallup Poll daily tracking survey, which measured voter sentiment during a three-day period ending Aug. 28. The presidential contenders had been tied at 45 percent in the last Gallup tracking results before the Democrats started their Colorado convention.

The 8 percentage-point lead almost matches Obama's biggest margin of the campaign, a 9-point bulge in tracking polls conducted July 24-26, Gallup said.

Obama's Denver speech on Aug. 28 attracted 38.4 million television viewers, 57 percent more than the audience in 2004, when Massachusetts Senator John Kerry accepted the party's presidential nomination, according to Nielsen Co.

Qualified for White House

In a separate USA Today/Gallup poll conducted Aug. 29, about 40 percent of respondents said they consider Palin, a 44- year-old first-term governor, qualified to be president -- the lowest level since President George H.W. Bush picked Indiana Senator Dan Quayle as his running mate in 1988. One-third of the people surveyed don't think Palin is qualified, and the rest had no opinion.

By comparison, 57 percent of Americans considered Democratic vice presidential nominee Joe Biden qualified to take the top office if necessary, with 18 percent doubting his qualifications.

Palin may not attract large numbers of disillusioned supporters of Hillary Clinton. Only 9 percent of Democratic women said Palin makes them more likely to support the Republican ticket; 15 percent were less likely to back McCain. Among all women, 20 percent said Palin's selection made them more likely to vote for McCain and 11 percent were less likely.

Half of those polled had never heard of Palin before her selection, the Gallup/USA Today poll found.

Women and Palin

In a Rasmussen Reportstracking poll, 35 percent of those surveyed said Palin's selection made them more likely to vote for McCain, while 33 percent said they were less likely to back the veteran Arizona senator.

Most voters questioned in the Rasmussen poll had a good impression of Palin, who beat out more experienced contenders to join McCain's ticket.

Obama, a senator from Illinois, jumped to a 47-43 percent advantage over McCain in Rasmussen tracking results through Aug. 29, the biggest margin in that poll since late July, after Obama's speech to 200,000 people in Berlin. Including undecided voters who say they're leaning toward one candidate or another, Obama leads 49-45 percent, Rasmussen said.

Gallup's tracking poll interviews at least 1,000 U.S. adults each day, and reflects combined data from the most recent three days of polling, and has an error margin of plus or minus 2 percentage points.

Rasmussen surveys 1,000 likely voters each night, and combines three days of polling in each tracking result. Its poll also has a plus or minus 2 percentage point error margin.

To contact the reporters on this story: Bob Drummond in St. Paul, Minnesota, at [email protected], or Nicholas Johnston in Denver at [email protected]

[KristianFan4Ever]

Just thought I would stop in and randomly post that Obama and Biden have my vote come November.

[Roman]

From The Brad Blog:

16,632 Votes Reportedly 'Unaccounted For' in Palm Beach County Primary Election 'Recount'

Just 18 Votes Separate Candidates in Circuit Judge Race Where Votes Are Said Lost in Re-tally on Sequoia Optical-Scan Voting Systems

'Severe Repercussions, Dire Consequences for November Election and All Elections,' Says Broward County Election Supervisor Candidate...

-- Brad Friedman, from Denver, CO...

16,632 votes are unaccounted for in a Palm Beach County election recount following last Tuesday's state primary, according to Ellen H. Brodsky, non-partisan candidate for Supervisor of Elections in Broward County and a long-time Election Integrity advocate.

The machine recount was completed early Saturday morning in the Circuit Court race between Judge Richard Wennet and challenger William Abramson, Brodsky reports via email. The machine recount was completed at 4:30am, in the race in which Wennet and Abramson were separated by just 18 votes in the initial machine tally. Palm Beach County recently changed voting systems again, moving from faulty touch-screen voting systems to --- apparently --- faulty optical-scan paper-ballot systems made by Sequoia Voting Systems, Inc. [PDF].

The still-unexplained "disappearance" of votes in the machine recount "has severe repercussions," Brodsky wrote in an email alert this afternoon describing the re-scan of some 90,000 ballots.

"With 16,632 less votes on summary report," she writes, it "portends dire consequences for the November election and all elections."

The question remains as to how many votes were lost in other races on the same ballot which were not included in last night's re-tally. Florida state law disallows hand-counting of paper ballots which have already been counted by machine, other than in special circumstances. We'll see if this ends up being one of those circumstances. Theoretically, a hand-count would determine the correct totals for the race, where the machine-count has misreported totals. [uPDATE: Palm Beach Post reports the machine recount was close enough to allow for a hand-count of over votes and undervotes. See more in the update at end of this article.]

Sequoia's voting machines have seen notorious failures of late, including lost votes and other problems, around the country...

Most recently, their touch-screen systems misreported vote totals on Super Tuesday in New Jersey. That, after some of their machines refused to start up at all that day, causing embarrassment when Gov. John Corzine's attempt to vote was delayed while the machines were down for trouble-shooting.

Vote-counting problems have become notorious across the Sunshine State since 2000 and continuing through last Tuesday's state primary. Earlier this week, news broke of thousands of ballots not counted by the Diebold voting systems in Sarasota County, which has also recently switched to paper ballots following the still-unexplained loss of some 18,000 votes on ES&S touch-screen voting systems in a 2006 Congressional race that was ultimately decided by just 369 votes. Some 10,000 ballots were counted by hand this week in Sarasota, following this most recent failure. Major problems on Diebold systems were also seen in Hillsborough and Brevard counties this week as well.

Last week, Diebold finally admitted that all of their voting systems, used in 34 states across the nation, lose votes during upload to the tabulator, even though no warning message is given for the loss to system administrators.

Ohio's Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner announced last month that she is suing Diebold over the problem voting systems. [NOTE: We sat down with Brunner for an exclusive in-depth interview with her in Denver. We'll have that interview posted at The BRAD BLOG next week.]

In 2000, Volusia County Florida reported negative 16,022 votes for Presidential Candidate Al Gore, as tabulated on voting systems made by the company which would become Diebold Election Systems. The unusual negative vote tally was never explained, but the discovery of the odd reported total led to Gore's rescission of his earlier concession to George W. Bush on Election Night. That race in Florida led to 36 protracted days of political fighting, in which Republicans were eventually successful in their bid to see the U.S. Supreme Court order the state's ballots from being counted at all.

A post-election tally [PDF] by a media and academic consortium found that had all of the state's ballots been counted, by any conceivable counting standard, Al Gore would have been named the winner in Florida, and thus, would have become the President of the United States.

[Note: We're on the road back from Denver, and may not be able to update this item until later tonight, at best, with any additional details.]

UPDATE 9:50pm PT: Palm Beach Post reports varying numbers of note in the recount, including that "the candidates had lost 4,700 votes" on the "larger counting machines" said to be "more sensitive". Their report also says that 16,500 of the 90,000 ballots in the contest, which had been reported by the machines as either overvotes (too many selections in the race) or undervotes (no selections in the race), were reviewed by hand:

After the machine recount, the candidates had lost nearly 4,700 votes. But Cohen said there was no controversy because all of those ballots were to be reviewed by hand and counted.

The larger counting machines are more sensitive, he said, and reject more ballots.

(Those "larger counting machines" would be the high-speed optical-scanners used to count mail-in absentee ballots at county headquarters, rather than the precinct-based op-scan machines. If they "are more sensitive" and lose more votes, that would seem to indicate that more absentee ballots are miscounted than those scanned at the polling places. As most counties around the country use a similar system --- high-speed op-scanners for mail-in absentees --- does this indicate absentee ballots are counted at a lesser (unequal) rate than those counted at the precinct?)

Two-person teams from the elections office, each watched by a supporter of one of the candidates, examined an estimated 16,500 ballots. Those were ballots on which a voter did not check either candidate - called an undervote - or the vote was not clear enough to be picked up by the machines.

Attorney Darren Shull, a Wennet supporter, said he saw ballots on which the vote appeared clearly, and wondered why the counting machines did not register them.

"Sometimes you're looking at it, going, 'Huh?' " Shull said. "You don't know why."

Are those 16,500 ballots the ones referred to by Brodsky? Or are the 4,700 that the Post reports as "lost" during the high-speed machine re-tally? We're trying to get more info from from Brodsky, but have yet to hear back on several follow-up questions. We'll do our best to continue to keep up even as we're on the road out here...

[Jess]

Hi Casey, McCain's character has been questioned. He was directly linked to a scandal called the Keating Five. He has been questioned since about doing favors for lobbyist. I also think, as far as a vice presidential choice, McCain's only standard seemed to be that the pick be a woman. He could have done much better. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, for example, meets that requirement and is also qualified for the job. LOL.

In my opinion, if Phalan had been a male, everyone would be dumbfounded by the choice.

BTW, keep posting. Jay and I have had far worse squabbles than you and he and we're still buddies. :lol:

[Southofnowhere]

1 good think for McCain is he has made his base very happy. The Pro-life , Pro-Gun peeps are floating on cloud 9. I guess NS and Defence is so important too them afterall.

[Wales2004]

It's kind of surreal to me to be living in a time where being a hockey mom s touted as qualifications for VP and being Alaska means one has foreign policy experience since it's the closest state to Russia. I don't suppose any of the people spitting this garbage out knows how very stupid it sounds. What does that say for soccer moms?

I think Obama and Biden shouldn't spend much time focusing on her and they should keep rolling out their plan and step it up a little on McCain. And I'm glad that Obama is seeking support for Gustav victims from his donors instead of rushing down there to get in the way for the sake of making a news cycle.

Here's a link to a Huffington Post article on the Sunday talk shows:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/31/t...n_n_122758.html

[Roman]

From Time Magazine:

For years, John McCain's marathon bull sessions with reporters were more than a means of delivering a message; they were the message. McCain proudly, flagrantly refused direction from handlers, rarely dodged tough questions and considered those who did wimps and frauds. The style told voters that he was unafraid, that he had nothing to hide and that what you see is what you get. "Anything you want to talk about," he promised reporters aboard the Straight Talk Express in Iowa back in March 2007. "One of the fundamental principles of the bus is that there is no such thing as a dumb question." When asked if he would keep the straight talk coming, McCain replied, "You think I could survive if I didn't? We'd never be forgiven ... I'd have to hire a food taster, somebody to start my car in the morning." Even after he won the GOP nomination, he demanded that his new campaign plane be configured to include a sofa up front so he could re-create the Straight Talk Express at 30,000 ft.

Podcast

Still Straight Talk?

TIME Washington Bureau Chief James Carney and political correspondent Michael Scherer sit down with Sen. John McCain on the eve of the GOP convention

Download | Subscribe at iTunes

Related Articles

Q

A: John McCain Talks With TIME

In an interview with TIME's James Carney and Michael Scherer, the GOP denies, at times testily, that his campaign has deviated from the old "straight talk express" days

Breaking News, Analysis, Opinions, Multimedia and Blogs

Search Archive Clinton Builds a Bridge to...

Q&A: John McCain Talks With TIME

TIME: What do you want voters to know coming out of the Republican convention about you, about your ...

John McCain’s Very Bad Day

Anytime John McCain declines to speak to the press, something horrible must be happening. Re...

Is McCain Overplaying the POW Card?

When he first ran for Congress in Arizona nearly three decades ago, John McCain had one clear liabil...

Sticking to the old formula seemed like a good idea. But with the press focused on Obama, McCain got attention only when he slipped up during one of his patented freewheeling encounters with reporters. And so in July, the campaign decided to clamp down on the candidate. Open-ended question time was reduced to almost nothing, and the famously unscripted McCain began heeding his talking points, even as his aides maintained he missed the old informality.

And so when TIME's James Carney and Michael Scherer were invited to the front of McCain's plane recently for an interview, they were ushered forward, past the curtain that now separates reporters from the candidate, past the sofa that was designed for his gabfests with the press and taken straight to the candidate's seat. McCain at first seemed happy enough to do the interview. But his mood quickly soured. The McCain on display in the 24-minute interview was prickly, at times abrasive, and determined not to stray off message. An excerpt:

What do you want voters to know coming out of the Republican Convention — about you, about your candidacy?

I'm prepared to be President of the United States, and I'll put my country first.

There's a theme that recurs in your books and your speeches, both about putting country first but also about honor. I wonder if you could define honor for us?

Read it in my books.

I've read your books.

No, I'm not going to define it.

But honor in politics?

I defined it in five books. Read my books.

[Your] campaign today is more disciplined, more traditional, more aggressive. From your point of view, why the change?

I will do as much as we possibly can do to provide as much access to the press as possible.

But beyond the press, sir, just in terms of ...

I think we're running a fine campaign, and this is where we are.

Do you miss the old way of doing it?

I don't know what you're talking about.

Really? Come on, Senator.

I'll provide as much access as possible ...

In 2000, after the primaries, you went back to South Carolina to talk about what you felt was a mistake you had made on the Confederate flag. Is there anything so far about this campaign that you wish you could take back or you might revisit when it's over?

[Does not answer.]

Do I know you? [says with a laugh.]

[Long pause.] I'm very happy with the way our campaign has been conducted, and I am very pleased and humbled to have the nomination of the Republican Party.

You do acknowledge there was a change in the campaign, in the way you had run the campaign?

[shakes his head.]

You don't acknowledge that? O.K., when your aides came to you and you decided, having been attacked by Barack Obama, to run some of those ads, was there a debate?

The campaign responded as planned.

Jumping around a bit: in your books, you've talked about what it was like to go through the Keating Five experience, and you've been quoted as saying it was one of the worst experiences of your life. Someone else quoted you as saying it was even worse than being a POW ...

That's another one of those statements made 17 or 18 years ago which was out of the context of the conversation I was having. Of course the worst, the toughest experience of my life was being imprisoned, so people can pluck phrases from 17 or 18 years ago ...

I wasn't suggesting it as a negative thing. I was just saying that ...

I'm just suggesting it was taken out of context. I understand how comments are taken out of context from time to time. But obviously, the toughest time of my life, physically and [in] every other way, would be the time that I almost died in prison camp. And I think most Americans understand that.

How different are you from President Bush? Are you in step with your party? Are you independent from your party?

My record shows that I have put my country first and I follow the philosophy and traditions of Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan. Sometimes that is not in keeping with the present Administration or my colleagues, but I've always put my country first, whether it's saying I didn't support the decision to go to Lebanon or my fighting against the corruption in Washington or out-of-control pork-barrel spending, which has led to members of Congress residing in federal prison. So I've always stood up for a set of principles and a philosophy that I think have been pretty consistent over the years.

Your tougher line on Russia, which predated [the Russian invasion of Georgia], now to many looks prescient. Others say it's indicative of a belligerent approach to foreign policy that would perhaps further exacerbate the tensions being created with our allies and others around the world under the Bush Administration. How do you respond to that critique?

Well, it reminds me of some of the arguments we went through when Ronald Reagan became President of the United States. I think Russian behavior has been very clear, and I've pointed it out for quite a period of time, and the chronicle of their actions has been well known since President [Vladimir] Putin came to power, and I believe that it's very important that Russia behave in a manner befitting a very strong nation. They're not doing so at this time, so therefore I will criticize and in some cases — in the case of the aggression against Georgia — condemn them.

You were a very enthusiastic supporter of the invasion of Iraq and, in the early stages, of the Bush Administration's handling of the war. Are those judgments you'd like to revisit?

Well, my record is clear. I believe that the world is better off without Saddam Hussein. I believe it's clear that he had every intention to acquire and use weapons of mass destruction. I can only imagine what Saddam Hussein would be doing with the wealth he would acquire with oil at $110 and $120 a barrel. I was one of the first to point out the failure of strategy in Iraq under [former Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld. I was criticized for being disloyal to the Republicans and the President. I was the first to say I would lose a campaign rather than lose a war. I supported the surge. No observer over the last two years would say the surge hasn't succeeded. I believe we did the right thing.

A lot of people know about your service from your books, but most people don't know that you have two sons currently in the military. Can you describe what it means to have Jack and Jimmy in uniform?

We don't discuss our sons.

[Roman]

Was Pawlenty McCain’s First Choice?

by

Zack Stephenson

Published on August 31, 2008 at 8:29 am

, filed in General

.

John McCain’s announcement on Friday morning that Alaska Governor Sarah Palin would be his running mate left much of the Minnesota political community in a state of shock. Most, if not all, Minnesota politicos expected that McCain was set to tap our very own Tim Pawlenty to be his running mate. In fact, there was ample evidence that Pawlenty was on the cusp of veepdom. Most striking was the fact that he had canceled his public schedule for Friday and Saturday, returned to Minnesota from Denver earlier than planned and had booked an “exclusive” interview on Meet the Press Sunday morning. Multiple sources I spoke to indicated that Pawlenty was not acting unilaterally - he was instructed to take these steps. Behind the scenes there were more signs. Republicans sources I spoke to indicated that Pawlenty loyalists and family members were on their way to Minnesota and that Pawlenty’s inner circle was gearing up for a major announcement. One person I spoke to reported that Charlie Weaver, a key member of Pawlenty’s inner circle, was seen at MSP on Thursday waiting for a flight to Ohio. I’ve even heard rumors that a Secret Service detail was assigned to Pawlenty before being reassigned late Thursday (though I have found very limited evidence supporting this particular rumor).

So what happened?

Some people believe that Pawlenty was used as a decoy by the McCain campaign in an effort to distract attention away from their favored candidate, Sarah Palin. This theory has led to widespread anger in the uper echelons of Minnesota Republican circles. Many, many Republicans I spoke to were irate with the McCain campaign today. In fact, an item in the Washington Post on Friday indicated that Pawlenty himself “felt manipulated” by the McCain campaign. I can confirm from my own discussions with a Republican source that Pawlenty is very irritated at the McCain campaign right now.

A second possibility is that McCain had planned to pick Pawlenty until changing his mind late in the week. This theory is supported by published reports indicating that McCain only met with Palin on Thurday morning (their only previous meeting was in February). If Palin was a serious contender all along, one would expect that McCain would have met with her some time before the last minute (Obama met with Biden on August 6 - more than two weeks before announcing his selection).

But why would McCain change his mind?

Coming into the convention, McCain probably felt pretty good about his political position. He was tied or ahead in many national polls and he was coming off a good month. To add to his confidence, the opening of the DNC was dominated by questions about the Clintons and party unity. McCain probably thought he didn’t need to take a risk by selecting a political unknown like Palin. Pawlenty was the safe choice and there was no need to rock the boat. Hillary Clinton’s homerun performance on Tuesday night, followed by Bill Clinton’s on Wednesday, however, changed the political landscape. Looking at the prospect of an epic speech from Obama on Thursday night, perhaps McCain thought he needed a gamechanging pick. Perhaps in that very late hour, he pulled back from the edge and went a different way.

If true, it tells us a lot about John McCain and Sarah Palin. If McCain had wanted to pick Pawlenty but decided against it at the last minute, it casts even more questions on Palin’s qualifications (she wasn’t even McCain’s first choice!) Either way, I can tell you that John McCain shouldn’t expect many favors from Pawlenty loyalists in the coming weeks. Whether that affects his ability to win Minnesota is yet to be seen.