lol

This is true- and I would argue that explains why so many pundits are talking about whether Michele or McCain are "real Americans" based on juicy tidbits taken out of context (and while I think Obama would be a DISASTER and McCain is an acceptable alternative- this whole thread is funny since the basic argument pits a Presidential candidate against the spouse of another Presidential candidate.)

In the long term, the issue you raise jon- in my opinion anyway- is laziness. We live in a prosperous nation where the citizenry have priorities that are far afield of our basic needs and protections. Americans are not interested in preserving their ability to eat- they are interested in preserving their ability to go shopping at the weekend.

In such an environment, it is very easy for parties to sway votes based on issues like abortion which should not even enter into the realm of governmental interference and also to play the game of "who is a real patriot" (i.e. who is a "real American").

Many ignorant people will fall for that game, and such is the price smart people pay for having to be of the same species as the morons.

I lunched last week with a longtime friend who is an Obama supporter and can make a compelling intellectual argument for supporting him over Hillary or McCain.

Talking to him gave me some hope for the enduring survival of America (no matter who wins in November) since it was the first time I had run into someone who could make a good case for voting for Obama.

But in the meantime, those who hang on media reports will do what they will- and such is life.

Political games based on out-of-context soundbytes suck- but they are driven by demand and not supply. I think it is safe to say that in this era where the political divide in this country is so evenly matched, that meaningless nuances of who said what and when have far more meaning than they should. History bears this out. This is not the first time the nation has been so evenly divided philosophically. That is very comforting when considering that in the near term we might end up with a Commander in Chief who I think would fail miserably.

KSigKid-
As I said, I DO understand why Both of them said what they said and "how" they said it. MSNBC's piece covered it as did Mrs. Bush.
However, "talking-heads", pundits, and "political operatives" turn matters around.
And some seem to have the need to go after a candidate's wife just to "find" or have points to pick on.

I am already tired of the "whispered"/"rumors" campaign that already started.
http://news.aol.com/story/_a/nys-blo...20090409990005
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/21/ny...rssnyt&emc=rss

I understand being tired of the rumors, etc. However, in this thread, every time someone tries to say they understand the context of both of the statements, your response seems to be "Fine, but we should still criticize McCain because Michelle Obama was criticized."

We all understand that people in the other thread criticized Michelle Obama, and we all understand that members of the public and political correspondents did the same thing. If you want to criticize McCain, that's fine. If you want to "even things up," or whatever, to mirror the criticism directed at Michelle Obama, go right ahead. But you seem to be saying it's wrong for others to give context, or not have a problem with either of the statements.

Haha, When you put it like that, it sounds like I'm doing a motivational poster. Either that, or cheering someone on in a marathon.

In the end, Michelle Obama was attacked because she's a strong opinionated woman...something politics just doesn't like! I'm so sick of hearing about what a b*tch Michelle Obama is because she has a voice and isn't afraid to use it! The same thing happened to Teresa Heinz Kerry in the last election.

KSigKid;
While UPS does have a nickname of being the Harvard of the Northwest:D;), perhaps I just am not able to type just what I am feeling or thinking:(:o.
My observations, from the MSNBC clip, here in GC and other sources, seem that a group/section/segment of the population seem not to care about how dirty things get as long as just one side get exposed.
That group seems to find reasons/excuses if something happens to their side. Or just says that it is wrong.

To me, the whole thing is wrong.

And I think I posted the rather obvious choices that party has:
1) Ignore it.
2) Correct it.
3) Fight back.

And now goes beyond the parties and even the 527's. Now we have "bloggers" who can post just about what ever they want/wish to and have that "information" out on the web to be seen.

While the 527's can be controlled, to some extent, I do not see the same for the bloggers.

And I found this story in my morning news briefs:
Ready to attack Obama, if some money arrives

Man behind 1988 Willie Horton ads has so far failed to raise much money

....."Mr. Brown is back to his trade of bludgeoning a Democratic candidate for president, producing an innuendo-laden advertisement that is being televised this week in Michigan, albeit sparsely on cable, questioning Mr. Obama’s religious background."............
........"Major donors are said to be uncertain of Mr. McCain’s chances as Republicans face a decidedly unfavorable climate in the fall. Lingering, as well, is the possibility that they may anger Mr. McCain, who has a record of campaign finance reform and has in the past been critical of such groups.
Perhaps in recognition of financial realities, the McCain campaign has softened its statements on such groups, repeatedly saying it cannot be expected to “referee” them.
Steve Schmidt, a senior adviser to Mr. McCain, said Friday that although Mr. McCain had made clear his objections to such groups, he also recognized that a number of them were poised to work on Mr. Obama’s behalf. Mr. Schmidt said Mr. McCain understood that “people who want to participate in the process because of what’s going on on the other side are going to participate in the process.”
“He’s not going to be a unilateral referee,” Mr. Schmidt added.
Frank J. Donatelli, deputy chairman of the Republican National Committee, predicted that Mr. Obama’s decision not to use public financing would energize Republicans.
“We are going to be ready,” Mr. Donatelli said.
Enter Mr. Brown, who says it is his calling to tread where the campaign is unwilling to tread in finding malicious gossip on a Democratic nominee.".....
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25294212/
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/21/us...rss&oref=login

I really wish people would accurately report what a person says as well as keep it in context....those are skills that seems to be lacking......

I agree when the whole story is not provided by way of links to original story and/or source. (Per TOS, copy write and fair use).
In some cases, one is damned if they do not provide any kind of introduction to article and dammed if they provide any at all.
And in violation of all of the above if they post the whole story/article:eek:;):D:)

In either case, it is then up to the reader to read the full article.

McCain could have a conflict brewing
 

Interesting news story from todays LA Times:

McCain could have a conflict brewing

His wife, Cindy McCain, owns a beer distribution company that has engaged in lobbying. As senator he's recused himself from alcohol issues, but as president he wouldn't be able to.
By Ralph Vartabedian, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
June 22, 2008
Hensley & Co., one of the nation's major beer wholesalers, has brought the family of Cindy McCain wealth, prestige and influence in Phoenix, but it could also create conflicts for her husband, Sen. John McCain, if he is elected president in November.

Hensley, founded by Cindy McCain's late father, holds federal and state licenses to distribute beer and lobbies regulatory agencies on alcohol issues that involve public health and safety.............
The company has opposed such groups as Mothers Against Drunk Driving in fighting proposed federal rules requiring alcohol content information on every package of beer, wine and liquor.

Its executives, including John McCain's son Andrew, have written at least 10 letters in recent years to the Treasury Department, have contributed tens of thousands of dollars to a beer industry political action committee, and hold a seat on the board of the politically powerful National Beer Wholesalers Assn.

Hensley has run afoul of health advocacy groups that have tried to rein in appeals to young drinkers. For example, the company distributes caffeinated alcoholic drinks that public health groups say put young and underage consumers at risk by disguising the effects of intoxication.....
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,1163725.story

Haha, for someone so worried about negative campaigning and the like, you don't seem to have any problems bringing things like this to the board's attention.

I wonder if any of Obama's old clients, when he was in practice, would present any potential conflicts. I think the hope and expectation is that, once you get to the presidency, you can put aside those conflicts. There have been many presidents who were presidents, captains of industry, etc. To think that a conflict of interest would come up doesn't seem so surprising.

Also - this post doesn't seem germane to the thread. Maybe a new thread should have been started?

No, we have plenty of threads of the sort. We might as well start one that says, here, totally smear the candidate you don't like and say whatever you want, but if someone disagrees, fuck them. Unless they support Obama, then youre cool.

No, the equivalence of McCain's statement and Michelle Obamas statement are like 3=2, it's ridiculous. McCain obviously had enough pride to want to defend his country in war. Everyone takes things for granted until they don't have it anymore. McCain is no different.

And, as far as the conflict of interest with beer companies, shut the hell up. The man and woman have to make a living doing something.

In the past, that has been the direction of threads around election time. You have the "I hate candidate x because of my political beliefs" posts, and the "I swear I'm a moderate but I really hate candidate x" posts. There can be some interesting debates, but the thing is, no one is going to change their views based on something they read on Greekchat, so you end up with a lot of "Yeah, well, your candidate is the worst" fights.

McCain Sucks.


There is no because...he just does.

I agree with all points made.

Can I vote for Wes Clark again?

That's weird - where did my post go? Did I accidentally delete it?

My original post was this:

And some people would say Obama or Bob Barr sucks.

Thank you for the illustration. And so it starts...