This is the Presidential Campaign Thread.

Barack Obama Vs. John McCain.

Edited November 6, 200817 yr by Toups

I bet the ratings for Thursday will beat it.

I bet it will too. I know these are serious times, but I'm going to pop a beer and enjoy the comedy. Biden can be, well a little long-winded. And Palin, Oh my goodness, who knows.

You know, this time Palin has taken it too far. The interview with Couric was on television. It's pretty damn obvious Couric was not being mean or playing gotcha.

I bet the ratings for Thursday will beat it.

How Democrats set Sarah Palin up to 'win' Thursday's VP debate

The upcoming downside for the Obama-Biden campaign is that its supporters became so flustered over Palin's surprisingly explosive popularity coming out of the GOP convention. They have so successfully mocked, derided and lowered expectations for Palin in Thursday night's VP debate that if she doesn't drool or speak in tongues, many millions still open to persuasion will be impressed.

Al Gore's campaign made the exact same mistake going into the 2000 debates. So all Texas Gov. George W. Bush had to do was not lose.

In that sense, Democrats may have played right into a PR cul-de-sac. Biden, for instance, described Palin as merely better-looking than him. A far better communications strategy would have been to insincerely portray Palin with superlatives as a superwoman, making it harder, not easier, for her to impress. Too late now.

Edited September 30, 200817 yr by Casey008

This is from the Wall Street Journal and pretty well sums up what may lie ahead.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1222733736...=googlenews_wsj

http://www.pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/archives2/025096.php

September 29, 2008

A READER AT A MAJOR NEWSROOM EMAILS: "Off the record, every suspicion you have about MSM being in the tank for O is true. We have a team of 4 people going thru dumpsters in Alaska and 4 in arizona. Not a single one looking into Acorn, Ayers or Freddiemae. Editor refuses to publish anything that would jeopardize election for O, and betting you dollars to donuts same is true at NYT, others. People cheer when CNN or NBC run another Palin-mocking but raising any reasonable inquiry into obama is derided or flat out ignored. The fix is in, and its working." I asked permission to reprint without attribution and it was granted.

UPDATE: The Anchoress hears similar things. And reader Eric Schubert: "The Edwards debacle was proof enough of where the heart of the MSM lies, and lack of curiousity of the press about Edwards probably cost Hillary the nomination. And that shameful episode offers a warning to the MSM. What if Obama does have a skeleton in his closet (such as a shady deal or outright bribe) that is revealed after he wins the election? While the chance of this scenario is remote, imagine the backlash against the MSM if it could be shown that a reasonable investigation by the MSM would have easily revealed this secret to the public prior to the election?"

ANOTHER UPDATE: Rand Simberg isn't so sure: "Where was the backlash against this about Bill Clinton in 1992? They just seem to continue to get away with it." Well, yes and no. Their reputation and readership/viewership keep falling. And layoffs keep happening. I think they're willing to pull out all the stops because they realize this is the last election where they have a chance at swinging things this way. No point saving your credibility for the future when you don't have a future, I guess . . . .

http://www.pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/archives2/025096.php

September 29, 2008

A READER AT A MAJOR NEWSROOM EMAILS: "Off the record, every suspicion you have about MSM being in the tank for O is true. We have a team of 4 people going thru dumpsters in Alaska and 4 in arizona. Not a single one looking into Acorn, Ayers or Freddiemae. Editor refuses to publish anything that would jeopardize election for O, and betting you dollars to donuts same is true at NYT, others. People cheer when CNN or NBC run another Palin-mocking but raising any reasonable inquiry into obama is derided or flat out ignored. The fix is in, and its working." I asked permission to reprint without attribution and it was granted.

UPDATE: The Anchoress hears similar things. And reader Eric Schubert: "The Edwards debacle was proof enough of where the heart of the MSM lies, and lack of curiousity of the press about Edwards probably cost Hillary the nomination. And that shameful episode offers a warning to the MSM. What if Obama does have a skeleton in his closet (such as a shady deal or outright bribe) that is revealed after he wins the election? While the chance of this scenario is remote, imagine the backlash against the MSM if it could be shown that a reasonable investigation by the MSM would have easily revealed this secret to the public prior to the election?"

ANOTHER UPDATE: Rand Simberg isn't so sure: "Where was the backlash against this about Bill Clinton in 1992? They just seem to continue to get away with it." Well, yes and no. Their reputation and readership/viewership keep falling. And layoffs keep happening. I think they're willing to pull out all the stops because they realize this is the last election where they have a chance at swinging things this way. No point saving your credibility for the future when you don't have a future, I guess . . . .

I wonder if the media was in the tank for HRC?

Becuase it now seems that there are some HRC voters who are so pissed off that she lost, they are now blasting Obama instead of her for running a lousy campaign. Since some of them are voting fr McCain......I don't want to hear one damn word if he gets in there and [!@#$%^&*] everything up worse than GWB ever did.

Asa bad as the financial market is right now......I have to hear this silly BS?!

This is from the Wall Street Journal and pretty well sums up what may lie ahead.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1222733736...=googlenews_wsj

I think they made an error in referring to the plan as a bailout instead of an economic rescue plan or credit contraction. People are now so focused on the annoying idea of bailing out Wall Street execs that the concept of Main Street is probably lost on them. They should break it down in simpler terms. If something isn't done then credit lines will dry up and some businesses will not be able to get the money they need to make their payrolls and people will end up losing jobs.

http://www.pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/archives2/025096.php

September 29, 2008

A READER AT A MAJOR NEWSROOM EMAILS: "Off the record, every suspicion you have about MSM being in the tank for O is true. We have a team of 4 people going thru dumpsters in Alaska and 4 in arizona. Not a single one looking into Acorn, Ayers or Freddiemae. Editor refuses to publish anything that would jeopardize election for O, and betting you dollars to donuts same is true at NYT, others. People cheer when CNN or NBC run another Palin-mocking but raising any reasonable inquiry into obama is derided or flat out ignored. The fix is in, and its working." I asked permission to reprint without attribution and it was granted.

UPDATE: The Anchoress hears similar things. And reader Eric Schubert: "The Edwards debacle was proof enough of where the heart of the MSM lies, and lack of curiousity of the press about Edwards probably cost Hillary the nomination. And that shameful episode offers a warning to the MSM. What if Obama does have a skeleton in his closet (such as a shady deal or outright bribe) that is revealed after he wins the election? While the chance of this scenario is remote, imagine the backlash against the MSM if it could be shown that a reasonable investigation by the MSM would have easily revealed this secret to the public prior to the election?"

ANOTHER UPDATE: Rand Simberg isn't so sure: "Where was the backlash against this about Bill Clinton in 1992? They just seem to continue to get away with it." Well, yes and no. Their reputation and readership/viewership keep falling. And layoffs keep happening. I think they're willing to pull out all the stops because they realize this is the last election where they have a chance at swinging things this way. No point saving your credibility for the future when you don't have a future, I guess . . . .

And people wonder why internet blogs are such a joke. :lol: People digging in dumpsters, in the tank for "O" :lol: Thanks Brian I know you posted this as a joke and it is very funny. Welcome back from your honeymoon.

I think they made an error in referring to the plan as a bailout instead of an economic rescue plan or credit contraction. People are now so focused on the annoying idea of bailing out Wall Street execs that the concept of Main Street is probably lost on them. They should break it down in simpler terms. If something isn't done then credit lines will dry up and some businesses will not be able to get the money they need to make their payrolls and people will end up losing jobs.

You know that really is a good point.

You know that really is a good point.

I was sitting with someone who heard the whole Wall Street and Main Street rundown and asked me about Main Street (as in why are they even talking about Disneyland) and I said........

As an update to my comments about MSNBC--I noticed yesterday that their programming changed and their Doc Block seems to be gone and is replaced by another three hours of rebroadcasts of Olbernann, Matthews, and Maddow and one rebroadcast of David Gregory.

I also read that their Republican show host Joe Scarborough seems to have questioned Palin's readiness so I guess it's a truly liberal world over there now.

Shockingly enough.....Maureen O'Dowd has been banned from McCain's campaign plane.

I was sitting with someone who heard the whole Wall Street and Main Street rundown and asked me about Main Street (as in why are they even talking about Disneyland) and I said........

As an update to my comments about MSNBC--I noticed yesterday that their programming changed and their Doc Block seems to be gone and is replaced by another three hours of rebroadcasts of Olbernann, Matthews, and Maddow and one rebroadcast of David Gregory.

I also read that their Republican show host Joe Scarborough seems to have questioned Palin's readiness so I guess it's a truly liberal world over there now.

Shockingly enough.....Maureen O'Dowd has been banned from McCain's campaign plane.

Why has MDS been banned?

And JS?! Is this one of the people who kissed her ass when she was announced?!

I just think the latest bout of "gotcha" journalism totally lacks credibility. I mean it was on television, Couric asked a question about a response Palin gave to a citizen. Does Palin believe the citizen was planted by the media? Does anybody have any idea why McCain was sitting there? She's better liked than he is.

It seems like McCain and Palin just say things. It doesn't have to have a semblance of truth or be credible at all. :lol:

I think Palin will do better than people anticipate in the debate. She's not a stupid woman. Every decision by the McCain camp that has been made for her has been a poor one in my opinion. First, he should not have appointed her. Initially she said move forward with the Alaska investigation, she was all for it. When the McCannanites stepped in, it became a scandal and poor decisions were made about its handling. Burying her instead of letting her out on the campaign trail and allowing her to do interviews was a huge mistake. Do those interviews during the convention -- the honeymoon period -- and let her become comfortable. There isn't a national politicians who has not looked like a moron in an interview at some point. She could have survived the Katie Bomb had there been more credible interviews to fall back on. That one was just amazingly bad and there is nothing out there to say, well she had bad day. Now they just make it worse with the "gotcha journalism" charge and bringing her daddy to the next interview.

This is a politician who is incredibly likable -- not very skilled at the point but likable. McCain screwed up bringing her on the ticket at this point in her career and then squandered the advantages she brought. As a Democrat, I'm glad. As a woman, not so much.

Edited September 30, 200817 yr by Jess

No, she is not a stupid woman at all. But the way JM is handling this is making her look like a stupid woman.

Now, it's the person who asked the question's fault? Gotcha citizenry?

*** "Lord of the Flies" inside the GOP: So who runs the Republican Party? Apparently nobody. Perhaps the most startling political development was the amazing lack of leadership on the GOP side of the aisle. Let's run down the list of Republican leaders who attempted to persuade skeptical House Republicans: President Bush, John McCain, Dick Cheney, and John Boehner. (We'd add Newt Gingrich to this list, but no one is quite sure if his last-minute support was actually cover for his behind the scenes whipping against the bill.) Bush's leadership and trust issues within his party has been evidenced for quite some time, and the icing on the Bush legacy cake is that fact that he could only convince FOUR Texas House Republicans to support his bill. And then there's John McCain, who last week decided to insert himself into the process and then (before the bailout failed) took credit for getting wavering House Republicans on board. Perhaps he did get a few wayward House GOPers on board -- but it wasn’t enough. Now McCain gets a double stomach punch: He's stuck being seen as supportive of this bailout (which isn’t exactly popular with the conservative grassroots) and he gets to share in the blame for the defeat since he didn't have enough political capital to get this done (By the way, not a single member of the Arizona GOP delegation voted for this bill). Watching the McCain campaign deal with this yesterday, one could sense that they were fearful that they were going to look inept and take an even deeper political wound than they sustained last week.

No, she is not a stupid woman at all. But the way JM is handling this is making her look like a stupid woman.

Now, it's the person who asked the question's fault? Gotcha citizenry?

*** "Lord of the Flies" inside the GOP: So who runs the Republican Party? Apparently nobody. Perhaps the most startling political development was the amazing lack of leadership on the GOP side of the aisle. Let's run down the list of Republican leaders who attempted to persuade skeptical House Republicans: President Bush, John McCain, Dick Cheney, and John Boehner. (We'd add Newt Gingrich to this list, but no one is quite sure if his last-minute support was actually cover for his behind the scenes whipping against the bill.) Bush's leadership and trust issues within his party has been evidenced for quite some time, and the icing on the Bush legacy cake is that fact that he could only convince FOUR Texas House Republicans to support his bill. And then there's John McCain, who last week decided to insert himself into the process and then (before the bailout failed) took credit for getting wavering House Republicans on board. Perhaps he did get a few wayward House GOPers on board -- but it wasn’t enough. Now McCain gets a double stomach punch: He's stuck being seen as supportive of this bailout (which isn’t exactly popular with the conservative grassroots) and he gets to share in the blame for the defeat since he didn't have enough political capital to get this done (By the way, not a single member of the Arizona GOP delegation voted for this bill). Watching the McCain campaign deal with this yesterday, one could sense that they were fearful that they were going to look inept and take an even deeper political wound than they sustained last week.

McCain is on his back feet now and he does not do well in that posture :lol: The ol Democrat in me has to give one to the Senate Republicans, however, Sen. Gregg and even Sen. McConnell have been pretty responsible in all of this. I'm sure the Senate -- "the gentleman's club -- is getting a bi-partisan hee haw out of the mess the House is making.

I just find it laughable that 12 House Republicans changed their vote to spite NP.

I also heard one Republican say, when asked, "I didn't even hear the speech".

Edited September 30, 200817 yr by Roman

Why has MDS been banned?

And JS?! Is this one of the people who kissed her ass when she was announced?!

I don't know where Scarborough stood on her but I guess he was all giddy with the rest of the energized.

O'Dowd seems to have been banned for speaking her liberal mind. There's a new backlash against press who aren't embracing Palin power.

I just find it laughable that 12 House Republicans changed their vote to spite NP.

I also heard one Republican say, when asked, "I didn't even hear the speech".

Pelosi was just an easy excuse that makes them look childish. Here's what Sam Stein posted:

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich was working aggressively behind the scenes to defeat the Wall Street rescue plan minutes before he himself released a public statement in support of the package, NBC's Andrea Mitchell reported on Tuesday.

Gingrich was whipping up votes for the opposition, Mitchell said, apparently without the knowledge of the current GOP leader, John Boehner, who was responsible for recruiting enough support from his caucus to help ensure the bill's passage. Ultimately, the GOP was only able to rally roughly a third of its members.

"Newt Gingrich," she said on MSNBC, "I am told reliably by leading Republicans who are close to him, he was whipping against this up until the last minute, when he issued that face-saving statement. Newt Gingrich was telling people in the strongest possible language that this was a terrible deal, not only that it was a terrible deal, it was a disaster, it was the end of democracy as we know, it was socialism -- and then at the last minute [he] comes out with a statement when the vote is already in place."

Indeed, as Mitchell noted, shortly before the bill's failure, Gingrich "reluctantly" came out in favor of its passage: "Therefore, while I am discouraged at the final collapse of the Bush Administration, and frustrated by the Democrats' passion for the taxpayer's money, I would reluctantly and sadly vote for the bailout were I still in office."

The rest of the set of Morning Joe had some interesting takes on the news nugget. Joe Scarborough called Gingrich's backstabbing of John Boehner "undercutting his own."

Mike Barnicle offered his own bit of reportorial insight: "Andrea, I could hug you for saying that, because I was told last night by two or they members of Congress that this was the opening salvo of Newt Gingrich's presidential campaign four years hence."

And Mika Brzezinski summed it up succinctly: "Talk about a crap sandwich," a reference to how Boehner described the bailout bill.