for some, the issue is that obama is black. it may be as simple as that. as much as we have progressed, i feel there may be some people who think "the audacity of this black man and his black wife". i have had convos with friends and they are uncomfortable with how he got to this point and who he has backing him. they believe he is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

the family values angle is being pushed here. i think that the republicans have made it very evident what their angle is going to be. even with pallin's baby momma drama, it will be spun in as positive a light as possible. if this were obama and one of their daughter's was prego at 17, they would want his head on a platter.

the fact that pallin is a woman with 5 children, not the atypical politician and therefore does not 'slick' talk like all lawyers do :rolleyes:, this will appeal to a lot of blue collar folks and a lot of moms.

I did..

end sidebar.

Who knows what their dysfunction is? Fearful of how much change is he saying or meaning? Whether or not the man is Black or other, some Democrats are worried that his thoughts about his future policies will not propel the country to the heights that "they" think it needs to be...

We have terrorists, no oil, failing infrastructure, managing disasters with minimal resources, etc. and in the meanwhile we fall behind other industrialized countries when we were at the heightened peak... Surely, Obama could not have the "end all be all" to solve our US problems... Surely... :rolleyes: ;)

Besides, this is a page outta Dr. Frances Cress Welsing's "Isis Papers"...

As I indicated in an earlier post, PROVE (ie show evidence) that BARACK OBAMA or HIS campaign was sexist toward Hillary or otherwise treated her poorly. I know of plenty of third parties (other Dems, media, folx on the street, Repugs, etc.) that were sexist but I cannot think of one incidence (neither could Ferraro when asked) of OBAMA's sexist behavior.

Frankly, I believe that Hillary brought a lot of it on herself. She chose poor advisors, allowed her husband to exercise his ego and carried an air of inevitability far into the process.

Just an FYI - there was an almost identical issue in 2000 after the primary fight between Bush and McCain. At the time of the Republican Convention, something like 40% of McCain backers said they would not back Bush during the general election. That number shrunk considerably by the time of the general election, and, I would guess, the same thing will happen with Obama.

While I have no doubt that race plays some part, it could just be old-fashioned bitterness after a tough primary season. I also should point out that largely, I believe with you, in that I question those who switched parties because their candidate of choice didn't get the nomination.

Exactly. Some Hillary supporters have no doubt convinced themselves that Obama and his campaign were sexist toward Hillary which couldn't be further from the truth. If there was any sexism going on, it came from the Media and others, not Obama and his camp. I think the thing that these die-hard Hillary supporters; the "I can't vote for Obama" women refuse to admit to themselves is that Hillary's camp made several mistakes because they underestimated Obama's ability to win. The Clintons thought that Hillary would win by a landslide because afterall, they are "The Clintons" and Obama was an unknown. But like the saying goes..."Never underestimate your opponent."

It's ironic that you wrote this because now McCain's camp is saying the same thing about Palin:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080902/...palin_politics

I really think they are mad because the media and the people are questioning his decision and that we are not rolling over and accepting his decision.

"Mr. Obama, can I ask your thoughts on..." female reporter
"Not now 'sweetie'..." As he rushed out of the facility to go to another with secret service telling him where he needs to be...

Or when Obama said, "I look forward to working with you in the Whitehouse..." as Hillary rolled her eyes during one of the primary debates...

That's what "they" are talking about... That is "extremely offensive" to them... LOL... Kind of like "you people" at the NAACP in 1992...

While I fully agree with Barack on the fact that family, especially children, should be left out of politics, it is becomming increasingly hard to ingnore Palin's family troubles.
My growing list of problems with Palin:
1. Her daughter is pregnant
2. Her daughter is also apparently a drinker. http://www.bossip.com/25563/booze-and-babies/
3. Her husband was (and might still be) a drinker who had a DUI.
4. She has a infant with a disability
5. Said infant appeared out of nowhere because Nobody saw Palin preggers. I dont even think Mr. Palin remembers a pregnancy
6. She has NO experience! (Her PTA experience is equal to my Dorm Council experience and student government experience in H/S. Shoot, I even did Model UN and was actually a delegate to a real UN Summit on Sustainable Development. Since I'm both black and female McCain should have picked me for VP. He could've killed two birds with one stone.)
7. She clearly cannot control her children and as such I highly doubt she can control our nation.
8. She governs Alaska! As Diddy so eloquently put it "I don't even think there's crackheads in Alaska"

Side note: I really think McCain begged C.Rice to be his VP. I'm sure she gave him a mean side-eye and a resounding NO! (and then told him she's voting for Obama) lol.

Also has anyone else ever noticed that when some pigmantly impaired newspeople do not like someone they mispronounce the person's name? Like O-Bama (as in Alabama) instead of Obama or "mistaking" Obama for Osama. Even O-Sam-Ah instead of Osama or Ben Loudin instead of Bin Laden. Sa-Damn instead of Sadam. So many people (the last two I have no bit of fondness for) that they don't like get their names mispronounced.

^^^^
*applause* My mom said yesterday the ones who claim they have family values don't have them. They wouldn't know them if they bought it at Wal-Mart. :) :p

And our current president says Is-slam instead of Is-lam (Islam) so that doesn't surprise me at all.

This was NOT said or directed at Clinton. My mom (54 years old) calls anyone whose name she can't remember 'sweetie'. So no sexism here.

I don't see the sexist bent on this. Is it the same as Hillary/Bill/others specualting that Obama could be HER VP? If so, she was being 'sexist' to him.





So far, no proof of Obama's sexism towards Hillary.

Its funny that the Obama's have the model family life and Biden has overcome a great tragedy (he actually didn't remarry until after 'death did them part') and raised beautiful, successful children (one of his son's is the Delaware State Attorney General) for several years as a single father.

On the other hand, you have an admitted adulterer (possibly a polygamist) married to a recovering drug addict, a drunk and an (alleged) abuser of political power who are parents of a pregnant teenage daughter.......Family values???

Believe me, I KNOW what you are saying, but "these people" feel threatened in the slightest and although you or me may not see it, a euphemistically benign term as "sweetie" to a woman trying to do her job is a "sexist" term to belittle women used by males insecure in their manhood... :rolleyes: Yes, it's a stretch--I didn't say it wasn't... But I am telling you from these kind of people, they cling on to everything said...

Now switch it around--if Hillary called a Black woman reporter, "girl" like "gwirrrlll" or a Black male reporter, "boy", some kneegrows would lose they dayum minds.

It's the same thing as saying "nappy headed hoes"... Now, to me, I'd probably think it is a dumb thing to say by a man like Imus and wonder how does Imus know anything about "nappy headed" or "hoes"... Nevertheless, he meant to demean women, especially Black women, intentionally.

Whereas, Obama has to get the sexist label... :rolleyes: Because like I said, read the "Isis Papers" and it will explain it fully. PM me if you want to know more, because I am unable to say it here...

Something like that was brought up in the news thread about that. And major cosign on this! :)

The problem with HRC supporters is that they have a problem with letting go. Its the equivalent to a pouting child who cannot have the candy they want so badly. If we are adults and you are for the good of the country then prove it. What is so hot about HRC platform? She was saying the stuff that would help her win the nomination, and some of her positions were conservative in my opinion. If the only advantage that she has was that she is a woman, then those supporters need to review whether this is a popularity contest or presidential campaign.

Basically there's no crying in baseball.

i <3 this thread

Not that I'm being biased, but...
 

...Gulliani's keynote address was HORRIBLE! He was so busy bashing Obama and the Democratic party, that he couldn't even make his points. So scattered and disconnected.

*one*
*T-t-two---nope false alarm*

^^^^^^^ This is me counting the number of people of color in the crowd at the Republican National Convention.
^^^^^^^ This is also me counting the number of people UNDER the age of I dont know, lets say about...ANCIENT in the crowd. (Okay, so that was a little harsh, but there was not a single person in there under the age of 35)


Did Palin and the Republicans have to Steal all of the Democrats ideas? The wack Palin signs remind me vaguely of those Michelle signs.

I will give you guys a recap of Palin's address in just a little while. It wont take me long to do it either because she really is not saying very much.

Is it just me or does her speech sound like: "You should vote for me as Governer of Alaska because..."

I cannot take you seriously as a candidate for VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA when any part of your speech includes the following:
1. "I love those hockey moms! The only difference between a hockey mom and a pittbul is lipstick." Really? That is such a feminist statement. GAL, youse shole is heppin' whimin!
2. The word VICTORY when talking about any war after World War II. Victory in Iraq is a figment of Republican's imaginations.
3. Basically the rest of her speech.

IMHO
 

I don't believe most of these so called Hillary supporters exist. I think they are Republicans masquerading as PUMA/Hillary supporters to stir up discontent and trouble. Half the Hillary supporters I've talked to say they're upset but they're voting for Obama.

**********

Okay I'm watching this Palin speech and she's got in some clever and catchy statements but I'm kind of distracted because she looks POSSESSED...her facial expressions: wide eyes, clenched jaws, scrunched nose etc. are all over the place...I'm waiting for her head to start spinning...

I caught the tail end and was NOT impressed. AT. ALL.

Both speeches were horrible. There were no stars in that camp. I'm sorry. This convention compared to last week's is polar opposite.

I'm sorry, Sarah doesn't have all her oars in the water... Just a little slow...

Oars? LOL. I gotta know where you got this one from becuase it describes her so perfectly. First the possesed comment now this. I will never look at this woman the same way again!


Didnt she say something like "my husband is 1/8th eskimo?" Im through!

Funny clip of CNN's Campbell Brown on Palin's Inexperience...
You can forward to 3:15 to get to the really good part.

http://www.clipsandcomment.com/2008/...ampbell-brown/

I think that she did well in terms of speech delivery - diction, eye contact, body language, etc. She did not make many of the mistakes that novice speakers make.

However, the substance of her speech as well as those of Juliani and Romney were weak. They were filled with innuendos, sarcasm, half-truths and outright lies. Wait until Politifact.com (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/) and FactCheck.org (http://www.factcheck.org/) get a hold of those speeches! The partisanship was clearly evident.

They could not keep Barack Obama's name out of their mouths! Every other sentence was about Obama. If they fired up their base, they also fired up Obama's base; last night immediately after her speech, I sat down and sent another donation to Barack Obama....

The same thing happened at the Dem Convention; even Obama's speech had a number of things to say about McCain.

As for Palin's speech - I thought it was good, but I'm unsure if that was because of my own low expectations going in. I really just wish he had chosen Hutchison if he was set on having a woman on the ticket.

I'd like to see, after all this is over, some explanation on how the McCain camp made its choices during this election season. I'm guessing it will make one heck of a book (like the one written on the 1988 Presidential election).

The Republican speeches definitely were heavy on partisanship, but the same can be said about the Democratic Convention. Neither party was immune.

I thought Palin's presentation was good (as a former tv journalist, she knows how to read from a teleprompter) and played well in the convention hall. How the speech played in the country, specifically in the mind of independents, is yet to be known.

This was her first introduction and those are lasting. Was the sarcasm, expected in a VP nominee's speech, too consistent for someone so unknown to the country? People take what you say when they know you, the existing relationship conferring a level of trust to your words. Nobody knows Palin yet, so who knows how her comments will come off, or what it will do to her campaign image?

I thought her speech needed to say something about economic solution ideas for sevearal reasons. One, that's not really been discussed much from the RNC podium to date (in the coverage I've seen), and two, the logistical fact that McCain is going up against NFL Football tonight (Redskins v. Giants) -- so I think the RNC convention, already effectively shortened a day by Hurricaine Gustav, has probably had the largest audience it's going to have.

Uhmm No...Look we all expect some level of partisanship at these things, no matter if its coming from Democrats or Republicans. But what Dems did at their convention was state verifiable truths. What I heard last night from Republicans were mostly verifiable lies.

Lie#1: Mike Huckabee "Gov. Sarah Palin got more votes running for mayor of Wasilla than Joe Biden got running for president."

Fact: Uhm No. Wasilla has something like 8,000 people max, even if she got votes from every live person in the town twice, she'd have less than the roughly 17,000 Biden got for President.

Lie#2: Rudy Guiliani: A few years later, he [Obama] ran for the U.S. Senate...No leadership or major legislation to speak of.

Fact: No Again. The Lugar-Obama Nonproliferation Legislation and Threat Reduction Initiative was signed into law in January of 2007.

Authored by U.S. Sens. Dick Lugar (R-IN) and Barack Obama (D-IL), this bill expands U.S. cooperation to destroy conventional weapons. It also expands the State Department's ability to detect and interdict weapons and materials of mass destruction.

(Weapons of Mass Destruction you know those things we supposedly went into Iraq for.)

Lie#3: Sarah Palin: He's [John McCain] a man....who refused to break faith with those troops in Iraq who have now brought victory within sight.

Fact: 3 Strikes, you're out! Not only has he voted against troop benefits countless times but he's been wrong so many times on the Iraq war it's hard to keep track. And by the way there is no victory in sight in Iraq. McCain said they can be there for 100 years.
************

Basically what they said at Dems convention was McCain votes with George Bush 90% of the time, which is verifiably true.

Palin's speech rallied her Republican base. She had to quiet their doubts more than independents or so-called Hillary Republicans. Like others have said up thread, she delivered/presented the speech well. But, the McCain camp already knew she could because they had been watching her tapes. Now, for content, I wasn't impressed with the low blows she took at Obama especially when she said "being a small town mayor was like being a community organizer only with actual responsibilities." The republicans definitely got their attack dog (pitbull with lipstick).

I expected the Republicans to insult Obama & Biden's personal characters. That's what they do. Now the question is how will the Democrats respond. Palin has opened the door for Biden to completely aggressively take her head on without being labeled demeaning. Reading a speech is one thing, but going face to face without unprepared text is another.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...ing_obama.html

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...tion_spin.html

Misstatements were made on both sides. I'm not blaming Democrats (or anyone in either party, for that matter), because these convention speeches shouldn't be taken terribly seriously. But, no matter how you feel about Obama, Democrats can't take the moral high road on this one.

Thanks for the info...
 

^^
I was really speaking of last night's convention speech in contrast to when Michelle or Bill or Hillary spoke.

But, I gather your overall point is both sides lie. I agree. Both sides are imperfect, though one is moreso.

But a lie is still a lie. I will continue to call/blame etc. on any side who chooses to attempt to mislead me in any way.

Btw I checked the factcheck links you posted and they are wanting. The Republican Convention link doesn't cite any of the three lies I named on the Republican side. And the Dem link you sent me was not from other Dem convention speakers but from the Obama speech itself. Also two of the supposed lies analyzing the Obama speech were not lies at all but were what the website itself characterized as "Obama twisted McCain's words" or "Obama knew McCain was joking when he said that." Which means in other words McCain said it...But I Digress...

Yeah, the site is by no means perfect; they also don't analyze the Democratic Convention at all, and I'm sure not every speak was perfect. It was more for the general point that both sides are playing the game, which you acknowledge.

I guess all's fair in love and politics, or something like that...

I was watching Good Morning America this morning and Robin Roberts asked Biden what he thought of Gulliani's speech. Biden responded that he missed it due to traveling but asked Robin if he talked about 9/11 - because Guilliani's speeches are typically just a noun...a verb...and a reference to 9/11.

I LOL'd! :D

Per our discussion Mccoyred... ;)

The Daily Show explains it...

What I am saying is, Sarah Palin has too many bats in the belfry and the elevator does not go to the top of her stairs and not all her oars are in the water...

I got all of that from the good ole Southern tradition of hospitality: i.e. "getting more flies with sugar that you do with salt"...

I think that we have to come to terms with the fact that just b/c she's a woman and she bore the child, that doesn't mean that she shouldn't be able to just drop the baby and go off campaigning around the country. Sad as this is, really if we are saying that women are equal to men, they why should the age of the baby have anything to do with whether she can accept a nomination. If it was a man accepting a nomination, we wouldn't even *know* if he had a 4 month old child.

Now, besides the choice to accept the offer as candidate, her politics are just way too different from HRC's to get women - unless they were simply voting for HRC b/c she was a woman...politics aside. I mean come on, HRC is pro-choice. SP (sorry, I don't even know her middle name LOL) is so far to the right that she doesn't even believe in abortion in cases of rape or incest. My aunt, a woman who just retired from nursing after over 40 years, says that she remember women coming into the hospitals bleeding from trying to cause an abortion with foreign objects, with acid burns from sticking acid pills in their uterus, etc. back before roe v. wade. Ok, so SP thinks that this is not going to happen again if abortion is outlawed? Oh wait, the people trying to give themselves an abortion are sinners anyway in her mind probably so to h-ll with them anyway. (shrug)

Anyway, I digress. SP also thinks that the Iraq war and the pipeline in Alaska are both ordained by G-D. While I believe in G-D, it is scary to me to hear someone who is invoking G-D with regard to the Iraq war and the freaking pipeline in Alaska. The scary part is that it is impossible to reason with someone who thinks that the Iraq war is called upon by the Higher Authority. I believe that this is why we haven't been able to convince Bush of this...he also believes that it's ordained by G-D. You can't successfully argue with someone about that. You have no authority. I digress...again.

Again, she is so far to the right that the only HRC voters who will be swayed to her are those who only voted for HRC b/c she was a woman and cared NOTHING about her politics.

Further, women who are THAT feminist are going to be the same women that don't want some crazy super anti-abortion woman in the VP (and possibly the POTUS) seat. He just doesn't understand women or the demographic that he's trying to appeal to. The two just don't go together. Tsk tsk. Clearly, McCain's logic and deduction skills need sharpening.

HRC is not down with the NRA, while SP is a life member of the NRA. Total opposites almost, it seems to me. Has anyone taken HRC's temperature on this?

Again, SP really doesn't buy McCain much. Not a very bright decision. Not surprising however, as his aides apparently did not know that he was considering her. They could have helped him figure out that she wasn't going to grab any huge portion of the HRC demographic. She's way too far to the right.

In fact, SP is so far to the right that her politics don't even align with the way that McCain *wants* us to believe that he is. Forget the fact that he voted with Bush most of the time, if we go for the dupe like he wants us to and believe that he is so different from Bush, well, the fact of the matter is that SP may be more to the right than Bush! Ok, so who is McCain, really?

And SP is so christian-like, huh? That's why she was ripping Obama the way that she was, right? That's why she secured $27 million from a lobbyist that she paid to get funding for her 9,000 person town, right?

And SP is for special needs kids, huh? Is that now that she has one as of 4 months ago? B/c prior to that she cut funding for special needs kids. Hmm. So christianlike, so wonderful. Sounds just like someone who has authority to speak about what G-D has ordained. (sigh)

The whole debacle is hilarious to me. I can't wait for the next few weeks to unfold. I am sure that we will find out the real reason that she was picked. It can't be what we're being told. Come on. None of this makes sense. One thing we do know - John McCain has a thing for young dittys (sp)...even while he's married. lol. we've seen that one before from him with his first wife and cindy.

SC

[QUOTE=nikki1920;1708711]

VP or not, I don't know if I could leave my 4 month old child to campaign. I'd have to discuss that with my family and do what's best for them.
[QUOTE]

Kay Bailey Hutchinson of Texas?? She is as about as exciting as dishwater! Can you imagine Hutchinson and McCain on stage at the same time? SNOOZE CITY :cool:

No, I don't think that her personal life should be off limits. Obama's personal life (including his church choice and his wife's comments) was not off limits. Michelle Obama was critiqued for her comments and Palin should also be critiqued based on what she has publicly disclosed.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. As a woman, I can say that she does not need her hand held nor does she need protection. She is not a delicate flower like people like to think of her, just b/c she is a woman. We are tough. We can take it. She should be critiqued and vetted just like everyone else that has ever run for office. Do you think for a minute that John Edwards would have not been critiqued if his out of wedlock child would have come out during his run for president? Not for a minute do I believe that it would not be.

Everybody's personal life is fair game in any election.

*Besides, answer me this. Why is it ok for us to talk about two of her kids (the one in the service and the baby with down syndrome) but not the other one (the unmarried pregnant one)? SHE - yes, SP herself, is the one who keeps invoking her family but only when it gets her chips. SHE - yes, SP herself is the one who has made public statements about her 17 year old daughter.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If Obama and his family can be critique, so can Palin and her family. She.is.not.a.delicate.flower. We need to stop treating women as if we are some sort of delicate toy that will break at the first harsh or critical comment.

SC




At every instance

I agree with you. I think that the nomination was HRC's to lose and ... well, she lost it. Point blank. Her underhanded schemes, off color comments about Obama (which was, at one time, borderline racist) and the lies about dodging bullets, not having a good campaign manager, all that stuff backfired on her.

Really, Obama never talked against HRC when they were running. He moreso focused on the current government status quo and what needed to change. HRC lost it for herself. I think that this is truly the reason that it took her so long to give up. When you shoot yourself in the foot, and you're finally honest with yourself (if not your supporters) about it, well, let's face it - it's a tough pill to swallow.

I think that hardcore HRC fans that will not vote for Obama may do so for several reasons that one could view as legitimate. While I do not agree, they may really believe that Obama is not experienced enough or simply disagree with his politics. The hardcore feminist HRC voters may be so upset and disappointed that a woman got so close and did not win the nomination. Further, they may be channeling their disappointment against Obama b/c, let's face it, he IS a man. They may see him as a representative of the old boys network. Now, as ludicrous as that obviously is as he is not privy to the old boys network, the fact of the matter is that he carried a large percentage of the male Democratic vote. Was that b/c of his politics or b/c men cannot see a woman as president? Who knows. However, hardcore feminist HRC supporters may be angry with Obama for being a man and beating HRC - a woman. It may be as simple as that if it's not the aforementioned political thing.

SC