The 2008 Presidential Campaign: Part Three

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Thu Sep 11, 2008 1:13 am

At least some of those issues may well turn out to matter.

But I agree there is no need to list them repeatedly; it makes the forum feel cluttered and repetitive. New information will be welcome when there is some.

Post by **sauronsfinger** » Thu Sep 11, 2008 1:17 am

Yovargas and Hal

You ask why the list?

Because evidence was requested and asked for. I complied as requested.

from Hal

I'm not sayin anything should be covered up, vison, I just asked the question that if (well, I said when) the investigation turns up nothing, is that going to backlash against democrats who are actively promoting the investigation as evidence that Palin is "bad" or something.

So I have given you the evidence that Palin is "bad or something" as you put it. Not the trooper investigation - but a whole stack of other fact based information. That shows she is "bad or something" as you put it in your own words.

You asked. I complied. If it is fair for you to keep insisting that Palin did nothing wrong, then it is fair for anyone, myself included, to attempt to refute that with fact based information. What is fair for one is fair for all. What is right for you to continue to do day after day is also right for everyone else.

That is in keeping with the rules here.

Please do not ask for evidence and then criticize me for providing it. That seems hardly fair.

And I ask you - why is it fair for you to repeat the same message post after post, day after day, which is based almost solely upon your belief that Palin did nothing wrong, but it is somehow wrong for me to answer you with a fact based list to refute you?

Post by **halplm** » Thu Sep 11, 2008 1:34 am

SF, you're reading way more into what I say than I'm actually saying. I didn't ask for any evidence.

Post by **sauronsfinger** » Thu Sep 11, 2008 2:08 am

Well, thats okay Hal . No band width was killed in our posting.

I am done for the night so to all a good night and do not let the bed bugs bite.

Do people still say that?
btw - Hal - I also had back problems and made a post on the other site that I hope you may find helpful. Hope you are better.

Post by **sauronsfinger** » Thu Sep 11, 2008 3:03 pm

News on the Charles Gibson interviews with Sarah Palin and when they will be shown.

NEW YORK (AP) - Charles Gibson's interviews with Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin will form the basis of a special prime-time edition of "20/20" Friday, ABC said Wednesday.

Gibson is traveling to Fairbanks and Wasilla, Alaska, for the first TV interviews with Palin since she was selected as John McCain's running mate. The first excerpts of the talks will be shown on "World News" Thursday.

Gibson is having three separate interviews with Palin, ABC said. Parts of the interviews will be spread around other ABC news programs, including "Nightline" and "Good Morning America."

The prime-time special, at 10 p.m. EDT, will also include a bio of Palin by ABC's Kate Snow and a round-table discussion on the presidential race moderated by George Stephanopoulos.

The Alaska Republican has proven to be a ratings-grabber during her short time on the national political scene. Her speech to the GOP national convention last week was seen by more than 40 million people, according to Nielsen Media Research.

A Fox News Channel documentary, "Governor Palin: An American Woman" last Saturday was the highest-rated prime-time documentary in the network's history, with 2.7 million viewers.

CNN is also planning a Palin special this weekend.

The CNN special is Saturday evening.

ABC News had a story looking into the Wasilla Public Library controversy yesterday. It can be seen here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcdqcXZ1jqU

Post by **Ellienor** » Thu Sep 11, 2008 6:12 pm

Karl Rove says today that Obama attacking Palin will be a mistake

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1221089 ... lenews_wsj

I wonder what is up with this comment. Is it trying to keep the Democrats from "fighting back" against the Palin mythology to help the Republican ticket? Or is it truly objective?

The more time goes on the more I'm truly in awe of the Republicans. Suddenly it's all about earmarks--as if earmarks got the U.S. into the pickle it's in, at home and abroad.

Sure, get rid of earmarks--but they are window dressing for the true issues.

Post by **Dave_LF** » Thu Sep 11, 2008 6:27 pm

Heck, I happen to agree with Karl on that one. It's what I suggested the moment I heard about the nomination (note that since I'm not running for office myself, I'm allowed a little more leeway

). The trouble is that Palin is not Hillary Clinton. People respect Clinton, but they don't identify with her. Palin's chief appeal is her familiarity. When Palin's supporters look at her, they see someone who reminds them of their mothers and wives. People don't like it when you attack their mothers and wives, even if they deserve it.

Post by **Ellienor** » Thu Sep 11, 2008 6:34 pm

So is that why the McCain campaign went on the offensive about the lipstick on a pig remark? Tick off people making them think that Obama is criticizing her?

Identity politics. Sigh. I can't really identify with a biracial man who went to Harvard and was a community organizer and a Senator--but that doesn't mean that I don't want him as my president. I loved and respected my mother but I wouldn't have ever wanted to see her in the White House.

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Thu Sep 11, 2008 6:38 pm

Obama needs to bring the fight to McCain, not Palin. Palin's worst enemy is her own record. If she loses her effectiveness, that will be why. It isn't even necessary to point out her lies on the stump; the media's starting to do a pretty good job of that.

Post by **sauronsfinger** » Thu Sep 11, 2008 6:46 pm

Question: Why would Carl Rove - and other Republicans both nationally and even on this site - go out of their way to give advice to Barack Obama as to what he should or should not do to help himself get elected?

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Thu Sep 11, 2008 6:59 pm

Because it helps frame him as incompetent and themselves as canny, knowledgeable, and wise.

Post by **sauronsfinger** » Thu Sep 11, 2008 7:02 pm

Yes Prim that is indeed part of it. I also think part of it goes back to the old folk tales of the South.

"Only please, Brer Fox, please don't throw me into the briar patch."

Brer Rabbit.

Post by **Ellienor** » Thu Sep 11, 2008 7:25 pm

Palin's worst enemy is her own record. If she loses her effectiveness, that will be why.

Well, some of the op-ed pieces I've read say that many who have swung her way just simply "like" her and don't care much either way about her "record." It took years and a lot of negative press for that particular "I like W." shine to wear off. I'm afraid it'll take quite a while (longer than 55 days) to wear off of Palin.

Post by **sauronsfinger** » Thu Sep 11, 2008 7:29 pm

I agree with Ellienor. Most marriages last at least 55 days - even if they end in murder later down the road.

Post by **halplm** » Thu Sep 11, 2008 7:37 pm

That, and I don't actually think there's anything to hurt her in her record... at least among those that like her.

Post by **Ellienor** » Thu Sep 11, 2008 7:47 pm

Yes, there are a remarkable number of voters who prove that they are untroubled by any facts.

Post by **sauronsfinger** » Thu Sep 11, 2008 7:50 pm

I believe P.T. Barnum had some words of wisdom to that effect. Something about never overestimating the intelligence of the American public. But I am sure times have changed since Mr. Barnum foisted his oddities upon the public and made riches from his efforts.

Or have they?

Post by **Padme** » Thu Sep 11, 2008 8:20 pm

Ellienor wrote:Karl Rove says today that Obama attacking Palin will be a mistake

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1221089 ... lenews_wsj

I wonder what is up with this comment. Is it trying to keep the Democrats from "fighting back" against the Palin mythology to help the Republican ticket? Or is it truly objective?

The more time goes on the more I'm truly in awe of the Republicans. Suddenly it's all about earmarks--as if earmarks got the U.S. into the pickle it's in, at home and abroad. Sure, get rid of earmarks--but they are window dressing for the true issues.

Kind of like Gay Marriage.

Post by **Cenedril_Gildinaur** » Thu Sep 11, 2008 8:56 pm

Ellienor wrote:Yes, there are a remarkable number of voters who prove that they are untroubled by any facts.

Well, that accounts for ... all the front runners, actually.

Post by **halplm** » Thu Sep 11, 2008 9:35 pm