Normally I don't like to be a "sore winner", but after the Obama/Biden victory, I would love to see a "national wink day" to just rub it in.

Just to show we progressives can also be shallow at times.

I agree wholeheartedly, but this fall began when we started the televised debates in 1960.

Watching the Kennedy/Nixon debate, most perceived Kennedy of winning because he was young, handsome and wasn't sweating like a stuck hog as Nixon was.

Hearing it on the radio, most perceived Nixon as winning because all they had was the audio and no moment-by-moment picture with which to add as additional criteria to judge.

Have you ever group interviewed with a better looking individual who did worse than you, but got the job? I have and I completely understand why.

Like it or not, we are visual creatures and sometimes the visual is so overwhelming that it overrides the rational.

Palin has supermodel looks. The supermodel looks alone present a dimension to the debate that give the individual with the supermodel looks a pass that the opposing debater would have to answer every question ingeniously to compete with.

I believe that Biden did an ingenious job in answering the questions point-for-point on policy. What Biden and every other politician in the US lacks are the congenital looks that Palin was born with and still has.

Palin will give McCain the vote of sexually unsatisfied males and females who want to be and look like her. I expect that to be a couple percentage points at the most.

Geez TA. What was the "best and brightest" about JFK?

We're about the same age, so it's weird we have different recollections.

JFK's dad bought him every political office he held by handing out bribes with money he made as a bootlegger.

JFK went along with the CIA's misbegotten plan (formulated under Eisenhower) for the Bay of Pigs Invasion. That invasion was responsible not only for the subsequent Cuban missile crisis, but also the decades of nonsensical frosty relations with Cuba.

He managed to get us through October of '62 without being incinerated through a combination of dumb luck and Khruschev's life experience of having seen total war.

He had a doctor "feel good" that shot him up with more drugs than I can even name, and he was an unabashed womanizer, and totally unfaithful to his wife.

He dragged his feet on civil rights legislation. Only after his assasination was LBJ able to move it forward.

Best and brightest? I just don't see it.

The sad fact of the matter is, most Presidents, not some, are not the best and the brightest. The founders, fortunately, framed a system where they knew they wouldn't have to be. And the Republic will survive, despite all the Hoover's, Grants, Andrew Johnson's, John F. Kennedy's, Richard Nixon's, Jimmy Carter's and G.W. Bush's that the electorate throws at it.

I would hope that a huge Obama-O'Biden (wink wink) victory in November would have one result: We stop lowering our expectations of who we think is worthy of the presidency and once again demand that the office be reserved for the best of us — not merely the most adequate.

Obama and (O')Biden will do little to elevate the quality of administration in the White House. They are merely the lesser evils in the current race. If, as appears likely, they will win in November it would be naive to expect them to relinquish any of the encroachments of power Bush and Cheney have amassed. Having received over $25 million from Wall Street, Obama can be counted on to sell out to that cesspool of avarice if the occasion should again so demand - as it very likely will. At the AIPAC conference Obama let Israel's right wing know business would continue as usual even if it means that cancer continues to metastasize throughout the Middle East just as it has under Bush/Cheney/Rice. Biden will be a willing helpmate in this project.

I was going to reply to Mr. Bodden but then figured, WTF, talk about unsatisfying for both of us.

And Mr. Lister misses the point entirely. Of course JFK had major flaws, although methinks you seriously overstate the case. THAT IS NOT THE POINT. The point that TA Barnhart made is that the body politic seems not only to be comfortable with, but in part at least to DEMAND mediocrity.

The fact is, in nearly all endeavors, we WANT elitism. We WANT excellence.

We want the Olympic athlete to be the BEST in his event, not some doofus who just wandered in off the street. We do NOT want him to be a guy who's "just like us", who would be fun to have a drink with.

We reward our children for their acheivements in school. We expect their teachers to be the BEST, and complain loudly if they're not. We want those teachers to have credentials from good universities, to have advanced degrees, to satisfying continuing-education requirements. Show me a parent whose main requirement for his child's teacher is that the teacher be fun to share a beer with. Show me the parent who's just as happy with a teacher with a mail-order degree as with a teacher who graduated Phi Beta Kappa from the Ivy League. And show me the parent who would NOT be happy if his child were admitted to an "elite" university.

We want our airline pilots to be the BEST. We want them highly trained, in top physical condition, and well rested. Show me the passenger who wants to fly with a guy who passed flight school with a C after flunking a couple of times.

We want our doctors to be the BEST. We want them to go to the best medical schools, do their residencies under the best people in the fields, and have the best equipment. Show me the patient who cares whether his surgeon would be a fun drinking buddy.

So what is it about politics that makes the BEST undesirable and MEDIOCRITY a prized commodity? I don't claim to have any glib answers, but I will maintain this: the Republican Party has been INTENTIONALLY dumbing down our politics for at least the last 30 years, since the ascendancy of Ronald Reagan. The GOP has consistently pandered to people's resentments, prejudices and worst impulses, and attacked achievement and excellence as bad. They've turned our political culture into one where mediocrity is rewarded, where the candidate who demonstrates his aptitude is scorned. And why? Because it advances their ends. Put some dingbat like Dubya in the Oval Office, grinning and joking, while the actual elites in the GOP fleece the nation.

I WANT elitism in our politics. I want a smart guy who graduated from Harvard Law School, not a drinking buddy who would have flunked out of the Naval Academy if his well-connected father hadn't been pulling strings.

Jack, give me the one month of preparation that Palin had, and I think I could do as well or better. I'm sure you could do as well or better. Anyone of average intelligence and communication skills could.

I couldn't have the depth of knowledge and understanding that Biden displayed, however.

Jenni, run for governor of Oregon, get an 80% approval rating two years into your term and then after 5 weeks of being away from the state and being lied about by the DailyKos obtain a 68% approval rating in your home state before you throw stones in a glass house.

Oh, another thing. Alaska's annual budget is nearly twice that of Oregon's.

http://www.oregon.gov/DAS/BAM/docs/Publications/GRB0709/03_AF_Chart.pdf

http://gov.state.ak.us/omb/09_omb/budget/bills/Budget_Press_Release_5-23-08.pdf

What's the largest budget Obama or Biden has ever governed?

Yeah she's dumb alright. Dumb as rocks.... So much for the nail, wink wink.

And which of the BlueOregon readers are running for Vice-President of the United States, Jack?

However, I do believe with a full-time regiment of briefs and debate coaches prepping BlueOregon readers, most would easily outshine Palin. As Jenni so accurately pointed out above, we expect more from our local elected officials than Sarah Palin is offering the country.

Jack, at a minimum, I'm pretty certain I could recite, on national TV, what my daily sources of news are. And no, I don't read "all of them."

If Sarah Palin were a neurosurgeon that displayed the competence of the person running for VP, would you let her cut your head open?

RE: Palin's approval rating

Alaska is a state where no one pays taxes. In fact this year, the state of Alaska would have paid you $2000 plus to live there, and another $1200 plus oil royalties dividend. $3200 for every man, woman, and child.

Alaska lives off of high oil prices that you and I pay for. And it funds the most socialistic state govt. in the country where every child gets health care, where the state runs a railroad, an extensive ferry system, health clinics,school system, a university system that has the lowest tuition anywhere, and even nursing homes. It's hard to be an unpopular governor in Alaska, but when Palin's been running against a pile of crooks like Ted Stevens, Don Young, and Murkowski, it's even easier. It's tough being an executive there, dispensing all the goodies with no state taxes, but someone has to be Santa Claus. And if you tack on a few more taxes to the oil companies, it makes you even more popular.

I second DB. Might help to take the Tony Robbins seminar, too :-0 And in my case, talk to Jack Roberts about where to get coiffed so every hair's in place.

Also, question for Mr. Roberts: what makes one a "lightweight", or the opposite thereof, in the political business? Since I'm an unabashed fan of ELITISM in the public sphere, I'll say this: I'll put my breadth and depth of knowledge about public affairs up against Sarah Palin's any day, and my formal education is in a technical field, not economics, or political science, or law.

Gov. Palin has all the gestures down, all the winking and nodding, all the folksy stuff. She's one helluva lot more talented at that stuff than I could ever be. But I know the difference between rote recitation and actually THINKING on one's feet. I guess that makes me an unbearable elitist--the bad kind of elitist, that is; the one the GOP loves to hate.

Apparently an "elitist" is someone who reads and thinks analytically.

<hr/>

Some sample responses from a group of uncommitted women voters.

(Here's some info from a focus group of 40 uncommitted women. Most of them were not moved to commit to a candidate yet but they were not particularly impressed with Palin despite liking her stage persona. Issues still matter.)

http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/10/did_women_like_sarah.html

"By the time the debate was over, the voters had a better sense of who the candidates were. But they still didn't know what Palin thought on any major issue other than energy. Even women who found her personally likeable and confident complained that she seemed "coached" and stuck so closely to "talking points and sound bytes" that they weren't sure what kind of vice-president (or, for that matter, president) she would be.

...Overall, the women warmed up to both candidates throughout the evening—both Biden and Palin's favorability ratings rose 9 points from pre- to post-debate. They liked Palin's strength and confidence, and the married women particularly responded to her "folksiness" and "down-to-earth" personality. That personal regard, however, didn't necessarily mean they wanted to see her in the White House. "I'd like to have lunch with Sarah," said one married woman, "but have Joe running my country." Another agreed: "I think Sarah Palin is cute as a button and is good in sound bytes, but she just is not ready." Before the debate, only 10 of the women believed Palin was not ready to be vice-president or president; by the end of the evening more than half of them (21) shared that concern.

they were much more impressed by Biden's ability to talk about the economy and relate to the concerns of middle-class voters. Before the debate, 14 women preferred Biden over Palin on the economy, but that number climbed to 23 afterward. A similar shift took place on the question of which candidate they trusted to handle health care—9 women initially preferred Biden, but that number more than doubled to 20 over the course of the evening. Several noted that they would have liked to hear Palin offer any details about what a McCain/Palin health care plan would look like.

Biden may not have closed the deal for the majority of these undecided women, but he impressed and reassured them on the issues that they say will determine their votes in November. And while Palin presented herself as someone voters can relate to, her performance seems to have raised even more questions—at least for this small group of undecided women—about whether she is qualified to be on the Republican ticket."

Whoa! Jack.. are you serious? Who here is unable to cite their reading and information sources, magazine, periodicals, newspapers, etc.?

Who here is unable to cite Supreme Court decisions we might disagree with?

Does anyone here really not understand that the Right to Privacy is a foundation to the Roe v Wade decision?

Your candidate Palin doesn't read, doesn't care to read, has contempt for intellectual inquiry, and thinks governing is a popularity contest.

Re: We do want the best. The problem is that the majority of the American people are not prepared to contribute the essentials to achieve the best.

We want, for example, the best schools but can't come up with the funding that is required.

We want the best in home entertainment. Somehow some people who can't afford another $200 or $300 a year in taxes for better schools or other infrastructure can pay for a great deal on a $2,000 or $3,000 or $4,000 flat screen with all the goodies. That they load up in their gas guzzlers from the big box stores to their homes.

I never equate intelligence with formal education, and have no reason to believe Sarah Palin is stupid. I do have ample reason, however, to believe that she is as incurious and dogmatic as George W. Bush, and that scares the bejeesus out of me. And when she starts making the disgusting claims she did in both the debate and again today about Barack Obama slandering US troops in Afghanistan, I know that her integrity is zip, and that we're in for a very, very nasty last month to the campaign.

It is almost a crime to be smart these days. A intelligent, well-spoken, thoughtful and reasonable man like Barack Obama is labelled "elitist."

This has become a very tiresome whine that we hear all too often and which doesn't pass the smell test. I know a lot of people, including myself, who really are fed up with this kind of idiocy. Every working person I know --- Democrat and Republican --- has tremendous respect and a measure of admiration for people who are "intelligent, well-spoken, thoughtful, and reasonable".

T.A. I suggest you get a dictionary, take it to someone you respect, and have them work with you until you understand the definition of "elitism". To wit:

elitism: 1. practice of or belief in rule by an elite. 2. consciousness of or pride in belonging to a select or favored group.

elite: 1. (often used with a plural verb) the choice or best of anything considered collectively, as of a group or class of persons.

One can be an elite with being an elitist, and in fact all the best elite are. And as we regularly see on Blue Oregon, one can be an elitist without being even close to a genuinely "intelligent, well-spoken, thoughtful, and reasonable" elite.

Although I for one will be voting for Obama, he has too many times been more of an elitist than demonstrating leadership as an elite intellect or thinker. I still have little firm understanding of the specifics of what he actually hopes to accomplish, even after reading his website and giving my full attention to any media report of his speeches. The best reason to vote for him remains that McCain is deranged and a genuine threat to himself and others, and that he will cause change to happen despite himself. That is hardly what we should have had to settle for in this election in these times.

This abusive bailout is a fine case in point. He has quite haughtily sided with fear-mongering elitists without deigning to provide a credible, complete, and comprehensible explanation to the American public of what the issues and stakes really are. And he has done it in a way in which he clearly communicates a sense he believes most of us in the great unwashed masses wouldn't care or understand, and will simply be content with platitudes about "looking forward", just like the bimbo Palin.

"One can be an elite withOUT being an elitist, and in fact all the best elite are"

Jenni - Then move to Alaska and run against her in two years, if it's so easy to be a governor in Alaska.

JDW - Funny, citing the puff post. Do Obamacon really think that Obama would be better as President because he'd kill more terrorists than McCain? I'd bet Obamacons think he'd be a better Commander in Chief because he'd pull back the military and not be as aggressive, like Carter.

You have to admit, listening to the debate last night, the O'Biden ticket is running to the right of McCain on taxes, military, the middle east, and intervention into foreign affairs, and gay marriage.

I noticed that O'Biden touted the Violence Against Women's Act that is so popular at this site. Progressive like to say a vote against the act is supporting violence against women. Interesting that O'Biden's law is an unconstitutional power grab by Congress. Do you think he doesn't understand the constituion or is it he doesn't have a committment to a constitutional form of government?

Perhaps he still looking for Katie's restaurant. http://www.delawareonline.com/blogs/secondhelpings/2008/10/joe-gives-delaware-shout-outs.html

What a buffoon. I know, I'm suppose to say it's just Joe being Joe. But he's still a buffoon.

I hope this isn't a prelude of things to come in an Obamanation. It's already getting weird enough with the devotionals from Obamacons.

Taisaa

i have a dictionary. i also have a memory, and in it i cannot recall Obama ever calling himself elite. i did not call him elite. i objected to the use of the word "elite" as a perjorative. the McCain/neocon use of the word has little to do with the dictionary: for them, it means "he thinks he's better than you." and what is the evidence he thinks he's better -- that he's elite?

he's smart, he's erudite, he's thoughtful, he believes in reasoned approaches to problems, he understands multiple perspectives while holding true to his own beliefs.

when you call him an elitist, you provide no evidence for that charge, based either on the dictionary, McCain's lies or real life. in fact, he's anything but. he and his wife both work frikkin' hard and do their damnedest to still make a good family for their children and themselves (case in point: he suspended his campaign today so he & Michelle could celebrate their anniversary). they've never been rich (until he wrote a best seller, which i guess makes him something special, in one way at least). he's a college professor -- like my dad. i simply have no idea why you would attack me for talking about how he's accused of being an elitist and then call him one yourself.

but then, you do seem to like to throw around the e-word as much as the neocons. and you're voting for him? i'm sorry Mr Populism isn't in the contest anymore, of the Woman of the People. we're instead stuck with the elite team, or as i might put it, the person voters chose as their candidate.

ak. stop that "palin is hot" bs. her plastic surgeon is incompetent. she's one or two nosejobs (check a side shot) from keeping up with the michael jacksons. her jawline is rather flabby (again, seen easily in side shots), and her cheeks are poofy (almost any shot). and i've seen her 20's photos. she wasn't even sears sweater-ads quality. and she doesn't have the thin bones of a fashion model, so she also doesn't look like a "supermodel". you should just admit :-) that she's useless (except to the criminals who guide her politics).

'A[n] intelligent, well-spoken, thoughtful and reasonable man like Barack Obama is labelled "elitist."' sure. a physics instructor at a community college who's paid 60k/yr is an elitist and a failure in conservospeak, while a leeching moron like donald the dump is a "success" (and not elitist).

"Why aren't we holding the VP at a much higher standard than a city council candidate in Gresham?" I'm confident that the difference is the expectation of direct action from city government.

"We want those teachers to have credentials from good universities, to have advanced degrees, to satisfying continuing-education requirements." i don't give a poop whether a teacher has "advanced degrees". I just want them to teach well.

"I WANT elitism in our politics. I want a smart guy who graduated from Harvard Law School" ok yes, someone in the elected official's "human resources" needs to know legal code (precedent, etc), but the actual elected/appointed "leader" (manager) just needs to be smart on his/her "feet". Must be ethical... have better than average wisdom... have humane intentions (all 3 are glaringly absent in conservatism).

joel: "But I know the difference between rote recitation and actually THINKING on one's feet." exactly. if you are interested enough, you will know your stuff. So then, if your goals conform to reality (as you best know it), you should do well in a real debate. (not to be confused with these tv "debates")

Jack, what about this:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/10/03/palin_says_couric_interviews_c.html

"Palin says Couric interviews were colored by annoyance" is the headline. We used to have a quote I wrote down on our refrigerator. Many years ago a man said on TV that there was no such thing as the liberal media, because if that were true, Reagan would never have been elected. The name at the bottom of the paper was John McCain.

Are you saying that there is one set of rules for Palin and another set for Barbara Roberts, Norma Paulus, and every other woman who has ever run for office?

If so, GROW UP! I'm the grandchild of a politician (Republican elected statewide in Michigan before I was born. I was aware early that my grandfather was famous, and I inherited all his clippings after my grandmother died.) No one is forced to enter politics, but they should expect any and all questions from anyone when they do run for office.

I don't buy the media bias argument. "The media" have never been biased against people who give good soundbites, responsive answers, and otherwise show common sense.

If Palin had made a comment about Brown v. Board of Education, or West Virginia v. Barnette (if you don't know what that is, look up the connection it had to the 1988 election) or a Supreme Court case involving Alaska, that would have been fine. "All of them" or something like that in response to such questions make some people suspicious that the person can't think of a specific answer.

Some employers consider "what books have you read lately?" to be a valid interview question. But it is not acceptable for a VP candidate?

If the McCain camp had any sense, they'd have given Palin opportunities to go on friendly shows (local, or FOX or right wing talk radio or whatever) to gain confidence--she is after all supposedly a former broadcaster. That it took this long to allow her out in public is a reflection on the campaign, not on voters or reporters.

Did she really say "Bosnikis" for Bosnians? And does she know that Talabani is the Kurdish member of the Iraqi government but the Afghan group which controlled that country before 9/11 is the Taliban?

Republicans are not entitled to special treatment, any more than anyone else is. People vote for all kinds of reasons, and they have the right to do so. But manipulating candidates is not a good thing, no matter who does it. There have been cases where qualified candidates who let consultants remake them lost while people who remained genuinely themselves won. Regardless of party.

How could Sarah Palin have won the debate when she never actually answered any of the questions????

All her cutesy little words, folksy lingo and eye winks did nothing to help the debate either.

She never explained what her and McCain's plans were for Iraq, the economy, health insurance, social security etc.

Joe Biden won this debate hands down! He was knowledgable, informative and fully explained his view on the issues and the plans that he and Obama would implement after winning the election.

Here's what I want in a president - ~ Intelligence but not an intillectual snob ~ A strategist, the best we can find ~ A person who has seen the world from the bottom and the top, and hasn't forgotten either ~ Someone who knows when to flinch and when to stand firm ~ A person with an incredible ammount of self control ~ A person who has respect for the rights and privacy of others ~ A person who has a good educational grounding in the history of other cultures and regions of the world

I do not see enough of any of these qualities in any of the candidates, either for president or vice president to make me happy or even comfortable..... Actually, I can't think of any candidate who had all of these qualities in the past either.

Barak Obama has the potential to aquire these qualities eventually, but right now he's too young, too green, and judging by his book, The Audacity of Hope, too innocent. He needs to grow and mature. Unfortunately, that growth and maturation will have to be forced while he's in office.

From Gail Columns Op/Ed in the NY Times this morning: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/opinion/04collins.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

"This entire election season has been a long-running saga about the rise of women in American politics. On Thursday, it all went sour. The people boosting Palin’s triumph were not celebrating because she demonstrated that she is qualified to be president if something ever happened to John McCain. They were cheering her success in covering up her lack of knowledge about the things she would have to deal with if she wound up running the country."

@ Jack Roberts

Is this what the Republican party, the party of Tom McCall and Mark Hatfield, the party of William Buckley(founder of the National Review) and Everett Dirksen, is this what it is reduced to, some pathetic lusting guys, who get all excited when Sarah Palin winks at them? This from Rich Lowrey of the National Review:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDYzMGFiNjQ0MWRjNmI0ZTlkYjgwZTExMjA3MWNiZTk=

"A very wise TV executive once told me that the key to TV is projecting through the screen. It's one of the keys to the success of, say, a Bill O'Reilly, who comes through the screen and grabs you by the throat. Palin too projects through the screen like crazy. I'm sure I'm not the only male in America who, when Palin dropped her first wink, sat up a little straighter on the couch and said, "Hey, I think she just winked at me." And her smile. By the end, when she clearly knew she was doing well, it was so sparkling it was almost mesmerizing. It sent little starbursts through the screen and ricocheting around the living rooms of America "

Here's a good survey of the polling response to the Biden/Palin debate. Biden wins hands down. Despite all the spin about how Palin didn't melt down in her personal demeanor, the consensus is she didn't respond to questions and showed no particular command of the issues. She was a great cheer leader and loves to flirt and sexualize her self-presentation.

http://voices.kansascity.com/node/2299

Survey USA Biden 51% Palin 32% Undecided 17%

MediaCurves.com tracked independent voters, showing them breaking to Biden 67% to Palin 33%.

CNN/Opinion Research Biden 51 Palin 36 CBS Biden 46 Palin 21 Fox Biden 61 Palin 39

33% higher than Friday's top-of-the-ticket debate between John McCain and Barack Obama (52.4 million).

-- 61% higher than the 2004 vp debate between Dick Cheney and John Edwards (43.6 million).

-- 23% higher than the 1984 match up between George Bush and Geraldine Ferrarro (56.7 million), the former title-holder for the most-watched vp debate They all tuned in to see Joe Biden?

What causes the most angst at BlueOregon? Anything to do with Sara Palin. Count the responses when the subject is Sara. I for one am going to vote for Sara (not McCain) because she is a WOMAN. No other reason.

FINALLY we will discuss the sexualization issues. How many weeks have I been asking for a discussion? I guess it's only germane once it's in the news?

It was germane the moment she was chosen, it was germane the moment those men even THOUGHT about it, it was germane when the media ensured that they utterly DEsexualized Hillary Clinton, who is now restored to her fullness as a human/woman now that she is safely out of the way....

Thank you Bill R.

More of that sociological hobby horse stuff, dontcha know....

Dear Kit:

BO feeds on the media, although we want to think the media feeds upon BO. So what has the media been full of for some weeks? Thaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat's right Miss Kitty!!!

Palin.

And the angst is related, darling girl, to trying to imagine how on god's piece of planet anyone could put that woman in such an office. There is an utter lack of gravitas here. We have seen what the media and the machine will do to any woman who's got the canuches required to really DO the job. It's just flummoxing as to what is going on here.

We really should search our minds harder for the male analog to this so we might understand it.

I agree with T.A. 100%, but I think Palin "won" the debate, even though Biden was superior in performance. Here's why...

Palin dictated the subject matter of the debate. She attacked with utter BS, changing the debate from the VP candidates to the Presidential candidates. Every response was McCain this, Obama that. Biden took the bait and spent too much time refuting Palin. He should have just said, "You are either lying or misinformed, and I'd be happy to debate you again in another format where we can present the evidence, but let's stay on topic because the American people want to know what your qualifications are."

It's frustrating to watch people who should be superior at debate not recognize when to go for the kill. Obama and Biden have both missed opportunities to score a knockout.

TA: I think you kind of missed the mark. This is the state of the relationship of this nation to its girls and women. TA, the saddest thing is that this is how we regard 51%+ of our population. Once you rip off the covering of our correctitude, embarrassing self-revelations avail themselves to our view.

We have a lot of work to do viz social justice, but I've been watching even this crowd resolutely resist engaging in any discussion whatsover on a meaningful level of the continuing sexism in this campaign as now evidenced in the flip pulled off by McCain's gang.

Is it that you have no awareness of the existence of these issues, how they manifest, the importance of these issues?

I cannot believe that, particularly not with the women present on this board. I DO understand that the women might have to be "careful" about pressing for such discussion, as THEIR gravitas as politicos might suffer erosion. It's a fact - just as we are all recovering racists in one way or another, whether by dint of confronting racism fully, or simply identifying bias within our speech and thought, imbibed from the culture that suffuses us... we are also recovering sexists.

Recovery is never complete, it is always an exercise of checking yourself and checking the world around you. My mentors in Gender Soc and Psych of Marginalization (not white folks, if that matters to anyone reading my screed) told me this once they knew I was ready to understand that what I'd found inside me would never go completely away. It would be scar tissue that kicks up, it would be a vestigial organ sending signals I should always read.

I don't really understand why the discussion of the sexism and sexualization of this years' campaign has been so relentlessly ignored by this group. This bar lying on the ground for skirt-wearing Sarah to step over with a wink? That is sexism. It is also sexualisation of the debate process to have allowed it in the way it was accomplished.

I don't think folks are stupid or culturally illiterate, or coarse - I think you men are probably terrifically aware of your women's realities, and you women, well, what can I say -- good minds, every one. I fully believe that were I in a room or a cafe with ANY of you I would be in the joy-giving presence of a fully present human spirit with delicious essence to give and to receive, if you want my "Walt Whitman's Neice" fantasy of this crowd up here.

I believe every last one of you are able to see the significance of this, so it's a bit confusing as to why it has been so assiduously ignored. Are you thinking that it somehow will devolve the political conversation? How could it, in the light of so much else that is utterly PERSONAL that has been mauled over up here?

I am curious.

ps Kevin: beautiful. That troubling incuriousity -- that was a good moment in my day to read that comment.

"I know what would be fun: Someone should grab a video camera and offer BlueOregon readers a chance to answer the exact same questions Sarah Palin was asked, tape it live with no do-overs, and then post the results on-line."

Jack - you totally hit the ball out of the park with this one. I am sure a DVD of this would be a great fund raiser. The pseudo intellectuals that blog on this site are a complete laugh fest. Thanks for the entertainment BO!

when you call him an elitist, you provide no evidence for that charge, based either on the dictionary

Ah but I did, how you demonstrate you don't actually understand the meaning of the word:

This abusive bailout is a fine case in point. He has quite haughtily sided with fear-mongering elitists without deigning to provide a credible, complete, and comprehensible explanation to the American public of what the issues and stakes really are. And he has done it in a way in which he clearly communicates a sense he believes most of us in the great unwashed masses wouldn't care or understand, and will simply be content with platitudes about "looking forward", just like the bimbo Palin.

We have several Democratic Representatives (e.g. DeFazio, McDermott, Kucinich) and Senators (e.g. Feingold, Sanders, Dorgan) who did provide explanations of what is really going on in our credit system, and why there were far better ways to protect "main street" and the "real" economy. All Obama said is we need to trust him because when he's elected:

“If you – the American taxpayer – are not getting your money back, then we will change how this program is being managed. If need be, we will send new legislation to Congress to make sure that taxpayers are protected in line with the principles that I have put forward,"

In other words, he has little regard for the quite solid arguments of those who have criticized this bailout and doesn't feel he has to condescend to us interested average voters to explain why. That's elitism. McCain is worse, he has nothing but angry, mentally unbalanced contempt for us all and can barely disguise it even as it he sits there and lies.

Sorry, from what I've read it's going to be a very long time, if ever, before we get our money back because this is simply throwing good money after bad, while giving Paulson extreme power to do it.

And T.A. you exhibit your elitist-wannabe credentials with the kind of comment simultaneously demonstrate your disdains for those who can rebut your weak arguments and your willingness to throw nutty accusations because you don't have anything else:

but then, you do seem to like to throw around the e-word as much as the neocons. and you're voting for him? i'm sorry Mr Populism isn't in the contest anymore, of (sic) the Woman of the People. we're instead stuck with the elite team, or as i might put it, the person voters chose as their candidate.

I happen to agree with the founders that populism (and libertarianism) is as much a true danger to our genuine freedoms as elitism. And all evidence supports that the "Woman of the People" (voted for the bailout) is every bit the dishonest elitist whose concern for working people, like Merkley's (condoned attack ads slamming Novick for calling out Democrats for doing this kind of thing then shamelessly pivots on a dime and starts claiming he'll call out Democrats for doing this kind of thing), is purely a matter of electoral expediency. I called you out based solely on what you said, not by your tactic of pulling something out of your backside.

The fact is decent people call out the hypocrisy, corruptness, and grasping for power by those who claim to be on the same side because it is the right thing to do, and they consistently work to talk with the other side to achieve cooperation and progress. Elitists in these matters consistently rationalize for those they view to be one of theirs with platitudes and no matter what they do, while taking every opportunity to attack anyone who does not share their elitist world view and lust for control.

Today's paper reports Palin learns of McCain decision to suspend campaign in Michigan from news media. Her response was to offer to campaign in Michigan with Todd. Apparently she's out of the loop. What does this say about the level of respect accorded Palin by her own running mate? Seems like a token conservative woman whose selection was intended to attract other conservative soccer moms. I would be insulted were I she. I'm embarassed for the Repubs.

”Joe Biden displayed the intellect and depth of knowledge that is befitting a Senator with 36 years of excellent service”

In spite of all that it pays to remember how Joey B was passed over quickly during the primaries by voters who chose the young, good-looking, smooth-talking, charismatic newcomer whose resume is considerably thinner than Palin’s.

Voters from both parties have shown they like shiny and new over proven and experienced. That simplistic attitude bodes well for BHO next month.

Buckman: ... also a symptom of sexualisation of the political process.

I just had a showertime epiphany: this is not a political blog. This is a blog about politics in the media. Occassionally people post articles and commentary on events and experiences they actually engaged in. But mostly this is commentary on politics as presented in the United States media.

Duh. OK.... I might be a little more on-target now that I get it that mostly it's just about talking about what we see in the American media day to day, not very much discussion about realtime activities, things we witness and the constructs of government.

Could we at explore adding media views from other nations to salt the conversation? I have not really found good international media sources to watch (except the UK Guardian for one particular writer). Civiletti could vet them for bias and balance.

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man (or woman) in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation." - Herbert Spencer

Somebody should teach Herbert Spencer the grammatical difference between "which" and "that." They're not interchangeable, you know.

My respect for Jack Roberts drops in tandem with his ongoing defense of Sarah Palin.

Jack, you're smarter than this. I know you are.

i wish there was a way to actively demonstrate ignoring posts like Taisaa's second just to indicate how unworthy they are of response. simply ignoring them is too ambigous. also, pictures of me mooing that comment would be just too unsettling. o well.

Spoken just like Sarah Palin at the debate.

T.A. the very fact you can't ignore, and yet don't have a substantive rebuttal is the important point.

I always get a kind of mushy/happy feeling when I am not flamed for saying something contra here on the way to trying to engage a poster or a commentator. Thanks T. Hope I meet you eventually.

I did actually miss your intent to stay focused on that one, single, important issue. The "dumbing" of America as it has been called for some decades. Apologies!

I do not write these and edit. Anything you read here, long or short, I've written an 81 wpm flush and occasionally reviewed for egregious spelling in the moment... this may not be the most intelligent (certainly is the most emotive) way to do this - so just to let you know, I don't sit over a Word document, poring and parsing till I think I've managed some kinda "work product" to present... I might try to do this in a more thoughtful way.

Back to the point - TA, I get to say, "Duh" again. I see what you mean. I am often guilty of refusing to muse on a single, simple thing, plunging instead into a six-fathom extended-course when a simple thing will do beautifully. Your point about the far right tactic represented in Palin is an interesting one. I was flamed a month or so ago for pointing out that home schooling, multi-kid, fundamentalist moms are not going along with it like they were supposed to as evidenced by some key informant interviews (NPR, of course, but they did try for balance in selection of who they interviewed, it appeared) and polls at that time. The fact is that McCain's advisors seemed to have a solid disrespect for nearly every demographic they encapsulate in Palin. My biased view. And: that is politics. It's not about respect. You here who have run know that it is about winning, not truthfulnes or respect. Not while you are campaigning.

Apologizing for this wandering post! I guess I'm feeling frustrated that the sexualization of this campaign has been stolidly not-discussed here and everywhere else till just almost now. IT was time to discuss it months ago.... at least when Palin showed up, if not before, since most only recognize sexuality when it simmers saucily as she puts it out... they do not recognize the reversals of beauty that are also about our inveterately sexualizing culture.

I'll have to split this post into parts because typepad doesn't like the number of links I have in it.

Part 1:

I would hope that a huge Obama-O'Biden (wink wink) victory in November would have one result: We stop lowering our expectations of who we think is worthy of the presidency and once again demand that the office be reserved for the best of us — not merely the most adequate.

Let's get back to the original post. My first comment made it clear I didn't buy in to this sentiment that I considered wishful thinking.

I was going to reply to Mr. Bodden but then figured, WTF, talk about unsatisfying for both of us.

Joel: I believe it is safe to conclude you disagreed with me. I hope you prove to be right and I prove to be wrong, but the evidence doesn't make that likely. Consider the following: (I would set up links but typepad appears to have a limit on them.)

Alexander Cockburn, in his usual take-no-prisoners style, beats up on Obama and Biden: http://www.counterpunch.com/cockburn10032008.html

Part 2:

This review of Robert Kuttner's book on Obama suggests hopeful possibilities for an Obama presidency but also problems that will make mitigate against that: http://www.alternet.org/election08/101532/obama%27s_challenge%3A_does_he_match_up_to_truly_great_leaders/. In a similar vein on a couple of threads earlier this year I suggested that Obama, with his oratorical skills, had the potential to be a great or very good president by inspiring the people. But that meant ignoring how the system works. I also happen to be an admirer of Robert Kuttner's writing.

Robert Fisk on Israel and the U.S.: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/10/04-1

TA, I do have one argument with you. I assume you are referencing ANDREW Jackson, author and master of the genociding of the native people?

Please reconsider just WHICH people this man represented.

I won't state the rest of the obvious.

He does not belong on our currency.

Part 3:

The suggestion has been made that Obama might be like Carter and try to do the decent thing. If Obama knows the history of the Democratic party's betrayal of Jimmy Carter he certainly won't go that route. Obama is owned by a faction of the party oligarchy and his Wall Street campaign donors. (www.opensecrets.org has the numbers.) If Obama tries to buck them, then Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi will reprise the roles played by Robert Byrd and Tip O'Neill and make Obama another one-term president and that one term as miserable as can be. There are criticisms that can be leveled against Obama, but the man is no dummy. If you can get a copy of Walter Karp's essay "Jackson's Revenge" read it and get real. Check this link: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Walter_Karp/Reaction_Launched_LUS.html

Part 4:

And just so you don't have a nice day, check this video about another $600 billion Congress blew this week.

"I did actually miss your intent to stay focused on that one, single, important issue. The 'dumbing' of America as it has been called for some decades. Apologies!"

rw - you actually seem to be one of the more intellectual commentators here, and although I personally don't find all your arguments on this thread to be equally solid (and a least one to be utter inanity), the fact you can make several valid arguments at the same time is hardly something to apologize for.

The important point about T.A.'s argument, and why it is an actual example of the "dumbing down" of America is this: T.A. is actively pushing the false meme that somehow being "intelligent, well-spoken, thoughtful and reasonable" is increasingly rendering someone susceptible to being derided as "elitist". I don't think he'll find much research supporting that, and I certainly don't find that in my anecdotal experience. I find nothing but an abiding genuine respect for "intelligent, well-spoken, thoughtful and reasonable" arguments when they are not accompanied by elitist behavior or attitudes.

There is a hypothesis though that I think many of us can support out of our anecdotal experience why some want to push that meme. Specifically, what they are after is building unreasoning belief in the falsehood that when they are criticized they for behaving or arguing in an elitist way, it is because they are " intelligent, well-spoken, thoughtful and reasonable" and their critics are not, when nothing could be further from the truth. In many cases they are simply being elitist and they are just ignorant, poorly-spoken, superficial or unreasonable.

Jack R: "nobody" here acknowledging mistatements or outright lies on the part of Democratic candidates? Not true.

There is one tsetse fly on the board perseverating on this point.

C'est mois.

Cheers.

I haven't been winked at like that since the time I was lost on 82nd Avenue!

Hey there, Miss SnowJob Squareglasses in the very short black skirt! How much?

$700,000,000,000? And Hank, that failed day trader from Goldman Sachs, wants to watch?

Hmmm... let me think about it.

Dear TA, I'm going to take a little bit of exception to a tone I perceive as emerging in your responses to me - now you characterize my commentary as mere "outrage". And seem to be developing a disrespectful intonation as conversation ensues "Not my point", over and over. I'm not a troll. And just because T is using me as Harry likes to as well... does not make me the tool they think I might be!!

As regards Jackson, you might visit my post on the Supreme Court thread, TA. I poked around on Cherokee-related law (o hell, we are probably related, you know? Which removal/wave did your family come across on? Thru what states and to where? We are most probably related) out of curiousity and discovered some brilliant moves on the part of Chief Ross during the Georgia Push to legislate land out from under the Tsalagi.

I am not an idiot, TA, and I understood some 25 years ago the "judge the person by their times" thing. I'm not ONLY an ideologue! However, I discovered as I researched some Sup.Ct. information on Indian Law that Jackson was NOT unopposedly the best man with all of his warts. There were a number in the courts and Congress who were not in accord with what he did to The People. I understand his brilliance in relation to money and markets, my CHEROKEE son and I watched an in-depth bio on him and laughed at how we respected him and hated that fact: but appreciated him deeply. I've not had the privilege of face time with you and the core people on this blog. You do not know my depth! Perhaps occasional perspicacity! And damnable complexity.

TA, talking about the threads embedded in your original premise is what good conversation is about! My Dinner With Andre and so forth. I will now get busy on MY version of The Bus. Final preparations of a newsletter to go out thru the US and internationally to (among other things) help raise funds to buy back a piece of the Black Hills and return that land to the hands of the direct descendants of Crazy Horse, whose land that was.

I did not miss your slap at me for commenting on the media-watching aspect of this board. :).... sokay. You will write us a good article on the wild and windy enjoyments of grassroots work on this wonderful day. And I will be happy in reading it.

And Taisaa: thank you for an acknowledgement that I might advance more than one thought at a time. My habit of posting realtime at a blistering pace actually works against my complexity - I am able to present fundamentally solid, interwoven thoughts IF I take a little time to simply slow down and WRITE it. My reactions tend to be complex in nature, and unlike some, I am too lazy to slow down and ensure that there are no tangles or circularities in the reasoning.

Also, as to inanities: I suppose I am like anyone else up here. At least ocassionally I'm going to be a public idiot. Hopefully not the Village Idiot.

Mr. Bodden, thanks for the various links, some of which are items by people familiar to me already.

I'd like to join the video kaffeeklatsch with the other pseudo-intellectuals. You get to see what a techno-nerd can say about the state of the Union.

Much of Taissa's argument boils down to this: I don't mind intelligent people whose knowledge in particular fields far exceeds mine; I just want them to PRETEND otherwise. An actual demonstration of special competence is "elitism". Interesting line of argument, that.

The just-plain-folks anti-elitism squad can keep sending their kids to private schools where the Bible serves double duty as biology textbook. They can go to the surgeon who just got disciplined by the state board, and who can't get malpractice coverage any more. They can fly in an airplane with the pilot who just had a few stiff drinks and who feels as if he needs to barf. They can get their car repaired by the mechanic who's just winging it because he's a functional illiterate and can't read the technical updates from the manufacturer. And they can vote for the guy who confuses his awful suffering in a POW camp with special qualifications for the world's most demanding job.

Jack, Kristin: it is also the fact that she winked over and over and over. Did Obama spasmodically utter, "Sweetie" till perhaps his own team was clutching in angst behind the scenes?

It was a one-trick ponyism on her part, and her limited expressive and gestural repertoire was disturbing, if we all stop enjoying it for a moment.

Once I was treated to the review of a large box of photos of a beautiful girl a friend got to be with. Every photograph contained the same expression, a faux-sultry moue. She clearly had spent much time before mirrors until, without a mirror, she could call up the body-memory of that pouty-lipped, tilted head posture with the f***-me gaze. It mattered not the setting, context, time of day. It was practiced, same and devoid of the true complexity of deep or complex/unique eroticism.

Palin, likewise, seems to have identified just a few tricks to utilize and ran through them on a loop: 1. inform the moderator of her absolute refusal to answer the question; 2. face the camera and stare into it, whilst calling up what she possesses for an effusion of heat - it was a visible exercise, observable; 3. wink spasmodically and grin; 4. occasionally roll out a cascade of homilies and okey-dokeyisms while simultaneously bracing Biden and smoothly spinning round towards the cameras for the finish (not the finesse, sadly).

It really was as rote as that.

I believe this might be what was notable about Palin's practiced facial tic. And her performance was rather disturbing overall.

Jack R: you may be quite right. Didn't think about the generic "denial of aggression/expression of agression" function of grimaces. I saw a great shot of Palin's Wink on (gulp) The Drudge page - and it was a grimace! Devoid of girlish sex appeal!

Back to primate research on that.

JR said: "I don't regard Palin's winking as a "stage, rehearsed attempt [at flirting]..."

Well, conservative scion and National Review Editor Rich Lowry would disagree wholeheartedly with you. He's smitten like a kitten in front of a bowl of warm milk.

JR said: "And on the subject of the role of the Vice President, while Democrats were mostly outraged at her answer, she at least got the Constitution right and Biden got it wrong."

This is what Palin actually had to say about the Vice President's role and the Constitution:

"Well, our founding fathers were very wise there in allowing through the Constitution much flexibility there in the office of the vice president. And we will do what is best for the American people in tapping into that position and ushering in an agenda that is supportive and cooperative with the president's agenda in that position. "Yeah, so I do agree with him that we have a lot of flexibility in there, and we'll do what we have to do to administer very appropriately the plans that are needed for this nation. And it is my executive experience that is partly to be attributed to my pick as V.P. with McCain, not only as a governor, but earlier on as a mayor, as an oil and gas regulator, as a business owner. It is those years of experience on an executive level that will be put to good use in the White House also."

Honestly Jack, once you finish trying to decipher any meaning at all from that gibberish, please tell me with a straight face that Sarah Palin has any idea on God's green Earth what the Constitution actually says about the VP office. She doesn't have a clue.

Trying to defend her only drags you down with her.

Well, it's clear you've done your homework. Maybe you should be running for vice president, Jack, because that was a nice exposition. Thank you.

Unfortunately, what Sarah Palin said was this:

"Well, our founding fathers were very wise there in allowing through the Constitution much flexibility there in the office of the vice president. And we will do what is best for the American people in tapping into that position and ushering in an agenda that is supportive and cooperative with the president's agenda in that position. "Yeah, so I do agree with him that we have a lot of flexibility in there, and we'll do what we have to do to administer very appropriately the plans that are needed for this nation. And it is my executive experience that is partly to be attributed to my pick as V.P. with McCain, not only as a governor, but earlier on as a mayor, as an oil and gas regulator, as a business owner. It is those years of experience on an executive level that will be put to good use in the White House also."

The only thing "clear" about that statement is the empty space between the ears of the person saying it.

pat: delicious. Jack, you needed to be clear about the fact that you were ONLY attacking Biden's apparent [?] misstatement and NOT supporting the notion of a substantive answer on Palin's part?

I'm perfectly happy to read Jack Roberts' review of the US Constitution and what it says, or doesn't, about the vice presidency. He has his facts down. But his recitation of the factual record is, I would say, rather selective. And I'm hoping that Mr. Roberts will disagree with that well-known line from Ronald Reagan: "Facts are stupid things."

Question for Mr. Roberts: You note, correctly, that the role of the VP as presiding officer of the Senate is mentioned in the part of the Constitution dealing with the legislature. So: how many times, except when there was an issue of a potentially tie breaking vote, did Dick Cheney ever preside over the Senate? And similarly for past vice presidents? There's something called the president pro tempore, right? And how frequently is the role of presiding officer just handed off for the day?

You're right, the VP's duties have evolved over time and are primarily unwritten. But I hope to god you are not trying to maintain that the VP's constitutional designation as presiding officer of the Senate somehow makes him fundamentally a legislator.

We all know why this matters: Dick Cheney is trying to spin matters once again. When he wants to claim executive privilege, he says he's part of the executive. When that's inconvenient and he can better obfuscate matters by saying he's part of the legislative branch, he claims that.

ARE YOU SHILLING FOR DICK CHENEY, MR. ROBERTS?

I'm quite happy to hear Joe Biden characterize Dick Cheney as the most dangerous VP in history.

Taisaa: Well argued. Obviously, elitists will experience cognitive dissonance if they admit the truth about their heroes. However, the fact that Obama is less insane than McCain should not determine our vote. Only if we show the elites that they can lose our vote will they care what we want.

By the way, if the president is going to be a war-mongering, elitist, corporatist, I prefer him or her to be ineffectual.

Bill, that Cockburn article was great.

Rebecca, I found your rant against Palin very creepy. Women really get vicious in their hate of other women. You assume all sorts of things which, are merely assumptions based on your own prejudice. The long ranting about appearance and the photos of some female you hate because she is attractive is not progressive.

Alexander Cockburn again:

http://www.counterpunch.com/cockburn10032008.html

At this point my question is who is in the pocket of who more? Obama does not do well in this regard. Lesser of evils? Might not be so in regards to the economy and taking on big $.

inbf: Actually, the entire question of gender and sexuality was first creepily engaged when the media turned on Hillary with powerfully desexualized images, sound bites that selected away from softer tones and selected towards rasping intonations on her part. Not a peep up here, to speak of. I spoke of that aspect of the sexualization of the campaign, and the core issues of gender and power at that time as well. Very little interest.

After Clinton was safely out of the way, we began to see full-spectrum and less-contorted images of her in the media. Expressiveness was returned to her features and her voice.

You did not notice this?

As to your diagnosis of my love or hate of women: get over it. I felt awfully bad for that lady whose pictures were frozen in the glare of women's own acceptance of the softcore femme ideal. It was an instructive moment for me to review my own struggles with it as a woman who does not only love men. It seems acceptable to discuss skin whiteners and self-hate in terms of colour, but not to open the subject of how misogyny threads through all of us, perhaps most especially with those of us women who use our attributes covertly to manipulate as our only means to power that cannot be taken from us.

At this time, this, too is on parade in our campaign. Well before Palin, Clinton was being destroyed by imagery that robbed her of color and vibrance, texture and taste.

Rebecca, I'm sorry I missed your earlier posting about the subject. Am rather new here.

I do study media issues and became interested in visual sexism in the media early on in this election season. I actually went and saw and heard Hillary Clinton when she was in Portland because I wanted to see with my own eyes (and yes, I know I'm not free of bias). But the difference was remarkable.

The democratic party did everything it could to marginalize Hillary Clinton and participated in the sexism with relish. Now, that she has been defeated and not included on the ticket and the republicans have included a woman the democratic party and party loyalists are leveling their intense sexist hatred onto her - this time with relish and abandon. It is very revealing about the heart, soul and spirit of the party.

inbf: in the spirit of comradeship, I ask you to review why it is you aimed your censure at a woman poster. Is it because I digressed away from heavily rationalized language that can somewhat mask true content? This is a great personal insight opportunity for us both. Me, I will delve deeper in myself in respect to what you say. Cannot utterly discount it till I check on me again!

BTW: remember, Obama has that prettiness factor. And I've posted a lot on having to check myself responding to his basic magnetism... my son and I discuss this too.

Thank you for the dialog.

This is not exactly new, but look at the way this is covered on Paul Krugman's blog, especially the photo of The Great Prevaricator:

"Unbelievable. Sarah Palin finished her closing remarks by quoting Ronald Reagan:

'It was Ronald Reagan who said that freedom is always just one generation away from extinction. We don’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream; we have to fight for it and protect it, and then hand it to them so that they shall do the same, or we’re going to find ourselves spending our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children about a time in America, back in the day, when men and women were free.'

"When did he say this? It was on a recording he made for Operation Coffeecup — a campaign organized by the American Medical Association to block the passage of Medicare. Doctors’ wives were supposed to organize coffee klatches for patients, where they would play the Reagan recording, which declared that Medicare would lead us to totalitarianism."

Kershner on Taissa: Mr. Kershner would applaud anything that irritated Obama supporters. Guess what, Mr. Kershner? The folks you see commenting here are not "Obamabots" or "Kool-Aid drinkers". They think about stuff carefully and recognize their candidate is not the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. Yes, it's actually possible for someone to give thought to the state of the Union and NOT conclude that Saint Ralph is the Answer.

Jenni: yes.

Rebecca, ...fair question. It was probably because you WERE honest and said it so plainly in your referencing a personal experience with the photos of a woman. For one thing, photos are not an actual human being, so you were reacting to image. Also, when women attack other women it is done with an intensity that is startling. Maybe it is because women figure they cannot be accused of being sexist. I have great hope women will learn how to be team players and credit chapter 9 with doing much. Women in the military and on police forces will help too.

Jenni, the democratic party did push Hillary Clinton out and did everything possible to get her to quit, to not support her when she was unfairly attacked. That is at the very least. Many democrats were vicious. Have you read the blogs? Like Huffington and Kos? The hate shown her and the entire Clinton wing of the party was obvious.

And now it is the same old line: I want a woman, just not THAT woman.

One other thought. The issue with Palin is largely one of style. Most here are urbanites I assume. When joking around and wanting to sound stupid often urbanites fake a country accent. I'm guilty of this too. We associate 'being country' with stupid. That is elitist and is not true. That is one reason elites in both parties hated Bill Clinton - he was a hick governor of a hick state.

It used to be the democratic party was the party of the plain folks, the underdogs, those who had no voice in the republican party. Now, so many of the democratic voices are mocking, condescending and dismissive of working class people. You hear it all the time "if Obama loses then it is because people are stupid" and implying that is the rural and working class demographic. This is a very poor strategy for the party (unless they want to lose).

John McCain claims to be a straight talker. Most of those here are aware of how false that claim is, and Governor Palin provides further examples.

Her explanation for not naming newspapers or magazines that she reads? Someone somewhere would give her a hard time about it.

This says volumes about her:

1. Far from being a "straight talker", she's as calculating in what she says as any other politician, and probably more so than most.

2. She's a coward who's afraid of taking a little heat, no matter how easy it would be to deflect it. In typical right-wing fashion, she can dish it out, but she can't take it. That's also typical behavior of bullies.

3. She'll make any excuse, no matter how lame, to try to get herself out of a jam.

Jack Robert's faux challenge is absurd. Most, if not all, of the people who post here are not qualified to be Vice President of the U.S., yet most of the people, left or right, would give better answers to the questions asked by Katie Couric.

And remember, it wasn't her lame answers to the original questions that really made Governor Palin look bad, it was the her continuing to give vague answers after Couric used that pesky word "specifically".

I didn't like Palin in the Couric interview, but to be fair Couric was just trying to play "gottcha". She was annoyingly condescending. I would like to see Palin addressed on issues that she has acted on in her career, and how she acted on them. Style, whether she is a politician or not (yes, she like all of them, is a politician and they all lie, or fudge the truth into lies), her looks are not issues that fair democrats should focus on. Unless they LIKE to lose!

inbf: responding to only one point for now, your first. Could be a fair reaction on your part, but I left story pieces out. I know the woman in person, I know the woman in more than a single context. I've observed her incessant posturing of body and soul.

We have all seen women (and men!) frantically on show, most often observed in bars or in adolescent groupings. I observed it at Blitz after the watch party was over. I got out of there as soon as the debate was done, but noticed the anxious primate behaviour on my way out.

This individual was never at rest or at personal ease, but at all times moueing and positioning. I've observed patient tolerance as well as the VERY unkind reactions of other women in that group of friends, young and old. As well as the veteran soft shake of the head and the turn-away to a conversation that could bear some fruit.

They were not wholly unfair, as she was determined to land herself a doctor, and was insistently flagrant in her sexualization of herself. I felt embarrassment for her, and it was, unfortunately, impenetrable. I am not part of that unkind coterie of solidly yoked people. I passed through for a couple of years and so had the inside/outside observational place. This poor beauty landed in the ER with pathos-invoking terrors of becoming a bag lady. Much more to the story. It was a woman who did not have the core of Self within herSelf to not-be that softCore femme. This was and became her trade bead.

Another piece of the puzzle I did-not-state: in another post I told about how my male debate watch-compatriot kept an eye on the gender-scores while I simply felt along the lines of the manipulative visuals... he observed the male numbers move up anytime Palin spoke, and female numbers likewise in response to Biden. Weeks ago I raised questions about the media making mention of males who will never vote for her (they say) but nevertheless like her, respond warmly and grin at her mention.

Not a peep... of course. And the media also did not seem to dare to make more than a mention of this phenomenon. Now it's all over the place, and only I can be "attacked" despite the reams of commentary that have ensured since last Thursday?

Interesting. It's a powerful moment for personal insight work and observational learning. Whilst being utterly publicly exposed!

also, inbf: not picking a fight, really don't want to fight. But your insistence that if women do not go along with Sarah Palin, hold their tongues about what they observe about her, they are not Progressives? Ummmmm.

That if we overlook her flagrant sexualization of her quest for VP we are anti-woman and misogynistic? Ummmm.

The fact that you pick specifically on women as those least allowed to speak their minds viz the comport of a woman engaged in those behaviours we are all seeking relief from... well, gawrsh, this is in itself may not be progressive and could be anti-woman! :)... it kinda goes circular once you set such rules based on whatever -ism you elect to abort.

The black middle class have had a lot to say about such in the arena of race and politics for the past decade...

... That all of us here are urbanites and, so, condescend to the rurals? Ummmm... (I ran an HIV test site in rural OK, raised my child in the stompdance out in the blackjack oak of the sticks -- it tore my heart up to have to leave the dirt track I had for a life, but a battering ex and few options for me or my son to have full identity made it necessary; I carried hod and cleaned condos for a living in a mountain town in Nevada; etc. etc.).... as you attack other's perceived assumptions you, indeed may perhaps also be expressive of them!

I do not intend to use abrasive language - I simply tend toward the pungeant, the direct. I am not unkind.

Mr. Walls said, "Mr. Kershner would applaud anything that irritated Obama supporters."

Actually, the obverse is true. Obama supporters will attack any cogent analysis that concludes that their champion has feet of clay.

Cockburn says, "Obama’s designated role in these fraught times is to de-fuse, not inspire; to urge the angered crowd to remain calm, and disperse quietly, not to march upon the citadel, pitchforks upraised. But somehow Obama is not the focus of the liberals’ fury."

Why aren't you enraged at those who have betrayed you and your children? What will it take for you to join the uprising?

TAB's gonna be pissed when he gets back to his computer. His thread [AND HIS POINT] was subverted horrendously today.

Rebecca and rw, please excuse some of my assumptions. I'm in the soup too. I spoke in generalities about the urban/rural issue.

Yes, I know both men and women who posture. Men looking for huge wads of flesh in a woman's bra and women looking for huge wads of cash in a man's wallet. This is an old old story. Very old.

But I also know both women and men who are falsely seen as posturing that way simply because of their attributes, whatever they may be. I'm not completely sure of what you mean about "sexualizing". I'd like to hear more. But some people are simply more sexual. That's one interesting part of the Olympics, that it is an athlete's sex-fest. After all, lots of physical exercise raises testosterone levels in both genders thus libido. And people react, instinctively, to sexual appeal. I remember a little kid (like 5 years old) being asked in '92 who she would vote for. She replied "Bill Clinton" why? "Because he has lots of hair"

I don't mean to single out women for this discussion, its just that Rebecca went there and opened the issue and is open for discussion. Men are often more reluctant to venture into it that directly.

The only reason I like Palin (besides that she actually did stand up against big oil) is that she is not desexing herself to run. If she is naturally a sexy beauty then she is just being that. Women think they have to fit into a male mold to run for what has always been a man's position. This woman blatantly and obviously does not accept that premise. It was a mistake for HC. I see Palin's inclusion as a step forward for all the sexes.

At this point my question is who is in the pocket of who more? Obama does not do well in this regard. Lesser of evils? Might not be so in regards to the economy and taking on big $.

Obama certainly has taken more money from Wall Street but less than Hillary. He is most likely getting more than McCain because they perceive him as the inevitable winner. If we were just talking about Obama and McCain being bought that would be one thing, but as the past couple of weeks have shown a majority of Congress - Democrats and Republicans - has been purchased by the financial corporations. $800-plus billions for the bailout bill. Over $600 billions for the military industrial complex. To paraphrase Everett Dirksen, "A hundred billion here, a hundred billion there and pretty soon we will be talking about real money."

Now, hands up. Who believes the candidates when they say they are working for the people?

BB: .... a thunderous rustling noise and thousands of digits are dug deeply into pockets to hide; thrust beneath legs, couch cushions, pillows lest they be seen; sucked upon in toddler-like anxiety at the thought of being caught out actually BELIEVING-IN.

:)....

inbf: rw/rebecca are me/the same. I just get lazy betimes about typing that awfully long and difficult last name of mine. And again, thank you for dialog. TAB will be pissed at you and me both. And a lotsa others.

Now Get.Back.To.The.POINT. kids.

PYTHON!

Dan, re: song.... heh

This financial crisis is very complex and there are many here who understand it better than I. But from what I can tell it is the fault of BOTH parties. The neocons push to privatize oversight functions is huge.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/business/03sec.html?ei=5070&emc=eta1

But the democrats play a large part too. Probably neither party intended to destroy the system or to get into this mess, but a good time was being had by all. Voices from both parties have tried to object, but the party was on. Money money money.

Nader is not a kook, and he makes a lot of sense, as do many who are not blind party loyalists. Money poisons both parties, and blinds party loyalists. Both parties need to wake up to complicity. it is going to be tough going from here, and we all actually need to work together and not just a great pointing finger.

The bailout bill was a bipartisan bill - Paulson/Pelosi. No one was happy voting for it! I was very proud of OR dems voting against and proposing better solutions. I wish the D party elite leadership had listened to them!

The interesting thing is that the parties are changing. The republican party used to be fiscal conservatives and state's rights. Now it is hugely federal and the opposite of fiscal conservative. (another reason Palin is interesting in the political debate - very state's rights) Democrats find themselves arguing for state's rights and fiscal responsibility. But that is just the tip of the iceberg.

another quote:

Money makes the world go around, the world go around, the world go around, Money makes the world go around, it makes the world go round.

A mark, a yen, a buck or a pound, a buck or a pound, a buck or a pound, Is all that makes the world go around, that clinking clanking sound, Can make the world go round.

How about you? Can you acknowledge how few people you really speak for?

Unfortunately, apparently very few. We are outnumbered by the mob. Maybe we prefer quality to quantity. On the other hand we might be like Peter Finch in the movie "Network" and are not going to take the lies and deceit anymore. Perhaps we are descendants of the Goddess Cassandra who could foresee the future but was doomed to be ignored. Or we might be like Hans Christian Andersen's little boy who recognized the emperor was naked while the masses believed the bullshit put out by the emperor's campaign committee.

In other news, Sarah Palin is attacking Barack Obama for "palling around with terrorists".

To Harry K. I simply say that I found Alexander Cockburn irritatingly smug 25 years ago and have not found reason to change my mind. "March upon the citadel, pitchforks upraised." Good lord, talk about infantile sloganeering. Let's all sing the Internationale while we're at it.

Joel: I posted that some hours ago, late this afternoon...

I need some help, kids. I got an email from Kilkenny this morning. It is, of course, a distlist, constructed to get a word out to the doubtless thousands who flooded her hotmail account with questions, praises or to see if she's a lady or a bot.

I suspect that whoever really "runs it" up here will want that posted in article format instead of as a VERY long post dropped into this thread or that.

Will somebody please tell me who I can send it to who will notice it even if they do not know me personally?

My suspicion is that you all would like to see it in its real form, instead of in the evolved versions that will appear very soon in the media.

Or not. Let me know.

inbf: you just essentially established that you are ok with a PRESIDENT or VICE PRESIDENT of the United States flamboyantly sexing up during campaign and other duties.

inbf, in real people jobs, we get fired if we flaunt around like this while acquitting the tasks at hand. We get FIRED for running it while on the job. And we often don't even get a shot at it if we are too busy running the vibe and the juice when we are being observed to see if we are able to set aside the erotic/ego [or id-based] driven to function at higher levels; to concentrate all of that [inter]personal power and energy into the conceptual, the honestly connective moment that takes more than base self-interest into account.

I'm not a spinsteroo, inbf, I am an adventurer, believe me.

Yet, I am deeply alienated by those who manipulate it. One can inhabit ones' erotic beauty while doing the things of life, or one can objectify oneself and BE the red thread to the extinction of other endeavours.

I loved it when Oriana Fallaci flirted with despots on the way to getting interviews that B. Walters, Couric and EVERY damned other woman journo since can only dream of.... but she did not simper, dance or wink. She ran the true tigress stuff while her mind continued to work in sinewy power.

Sarah does not exhibit such class or adroit mastery thus far.

I do not believe that it's desexing oneself to set aside cheap erotic tricks to focus one's energy respectfully into a human dialog. I believe it's deeply humanizing to be brave enough to depend upon more than just your time-limited Bay Watch Imperative goods to get you there.

SO! inbf, do you REALLY believe Palin fought big oil? I and others posted fact-checked items on this on other threads, and you can double check that at Factcheck.org if you want to be sure you are putting your good heart and mind behind a principle that will not embarrass you later.

I applaud your progressive support for women's freedom to be sexual and open people. Believe me, believe me, I am the first woman to say we need you. However, your posts on this principle do not stand solidly enough on a supportable candidate for such respect. The attributes you describe are not, in my opinion, those that are being exhibited by Palin thus far. I hope you get the chance to elucidate your core principles in support of a sensual, intelligent, vibrant man or woman deserving of such support.

Let's all remember that Vice President Dick (Five deferments and counting) Cheney actually gave the Pentagon the order, on 9/11, to shoot down any and all commercial airliners heading for the Capitol.

FACT.

It was up to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, of all people, to ask Big Dick, "So, what if your darling daugher (the one with the butch haircut) is on one of those planes?"

Cheney froze, in fear. Unable to act, move or speak.

FACT.

It's all in the NY Times best-selling book, Angler, give it to a friend, next time they're in the hospital after you shot them in the face when you were drunk on company time!

It is truly amazing how the left disparages the decent Palin with pettiness while completely ignoring the very wide and very deep sleaze in Obama's wake.

All the outrage over the past years about voter fraud and rights, yet ACORN, the number one crimiinal racket doesn't get your attention?
Obama's connections to ACORN, Fannie May/Freddie Mac scoundrels and other scandals makes him the worst possible candidate. He's corrupt, pure and simple.

Yet becasue he's a far lefty blue it doesn't matter.

Rebecca, "inbf, in real people jobs, we get fired if we flaunt around like this while acquitting the tasks at hand. We get FIRED for running it while on the job. And we often don't even get a shot at it if we are too busy running the vibe and the juice when we are being observed to see if we are able to set aside the erotic/ego [or id-based] driven to function at higher levels;"

Nice sentence. Hope you are a writer or teacher.

Nevertheless it is not true for all "real" jobs! And when it is, the one firing a younger alpha (both female and male) are of the same gender (alphas display, its what they do). Some jobs are helped by someone being outrageous, unapologetically their alpha-selves, different, charismatic - even sometimes a bit risky.

I think it is fine that we have an openly biracial man running and an openly alpha woman. Someday, nationally, we could have a openly gay person.....(proud to be a Portlander!).

If the left is going to play "Oh, I'm so outraged all the time at the right's character and stupidity" then to be fair, character attacks from all sides are legit. Obama is not on solid ground here - see Herm's comment. Obama is very vulnerable. I'm originally from Chicago - Obama's district now, and Rezko is a complete slime - why did Obama have to associate so closely ($) with him? Was not necessary. His choice. Is Obama transparent and honest?

In fact the democratic elites including Pelosi ("Obama is the one that God has sent us") Dean Brazille and Reid did push Hillary out. The DLC is now marginalized as well, since it was a struggle for power and sexism was only one tool that was used. Passively aggressively used so one could claim cover. But there are many in the party that perceive this as true. The neo-dem party seems unable to recognize this as true which is too bad, because power struggles happen so what is the use of denying them? It will strengthen both the republican ticket-- and the Green and Independent parties - which could be a great silver lining.

If the moral superiority could be abandoned by all parties, then perhaps we could get something done. People who work in local positions know that truly - can the local be taken to the macro?

You are not a special spokesman for the "real" people of America, Bill. You are a Naderite kook, whose entire shtick is expressing juvenile alienation and pretending there's a huge nefarious conspiracy to keep "the people" from being exposed to (and then suddenly being converted to - hallelujah!) your fringe beliefs, even though, judging by the polls, only 1 to 2 percent have ever agreed with you, even after all your street marches.

How many people do you think agreed with and supported Pastor Dietrich Bonhöffer when he spoke up and against Germany's then-beloved Führer?

And, Stephen, I notice you have a tendency to resort to name-calling when you can't made a valid response. I hope you will pardon me if I don't get down in the gutter with you and respond in kind.

darrell, its not so simple. You need to research by looking into all biases, not just adopting one. There has been a power struggle in the structure of the democratic party and much of it has to do with....wait for it....you'll be suprised.....MONEY! How to raise money, where is goes etc. Now DNC is trying to use DLC methods of raising funds, all the while folks like you are parroting how bad the DNC's tactics were. Priceless. Also, you realize Brazille was Gore's campaign manager. I voted for Gore, but have to admit he (Brazille) ran a terrible campaign! It should have not been close, but was because of the new thinking of Brazille which was distance from anything Clinton.

And, all races are capable of racism, all genders are capable of sexism. Good example is of closeted gays elected to high office who actively work against gay rights. Brazille and Pelosi are not exempt because of their personal gender. Women can be as territorial as men.

Kari, That isn't talking about ACORN. It's covering it up.

This is the ACORN you deliberately avoid talking about. (Excuse the length)

THE ANTICS OF ACORN neal boortz http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html

A listener, William, sent us a compellation of various times when ACORN has resorted to voter fraud, just to get their Messiah, Barack Obama, elected. Here's a synopsis of some of the different cases against ACORN, just in this election season alone. Are you starting to understand what is going on here, folks? These are not isolated incidents. Now as you read of these incidents remember, please, that during Obama's days as a community organizer he was deeply involved with ACORN. That ought to set of some alarm bells with the media ... ought to, but it won't.

Washington July 26, 2007,Seattle Times Felony charges filed against 7 in state's biggest case of voter-registration fraud. The defendants, who were paid employees and supervisors of ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now

Michigan September 14, 2008, Detroit Free Press Several municipal clerks across the state are reporting fraudulent and duplicate voter registration applications, most of them from a nationwide community activist group working to help low- and moderate-income families.The majority of the problem applications are coming from the group ACORN, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now ...

Florida Oct. 13, 2007, PRNewswire A Florida state attorney is investigating thousands of potentially fraudulent voter registrations associated with the leading organizer of Florida's Amendment 5 ballot initiative. But this is just the tip of an iceberg of illegalities, fraud and contradictions connected to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) ... Former ACORN Miami-Dade field director Mac Stuart has declared an intent to sue ACORN and has made charges of rampant voter fraud operations. Stuart was employed and specifically tasked by ACORN to generate 103,000 new voter registrations from Dade County. He reports that ACORN threw out Republican registrations while paying for Democratic ones. Stuart also charges that ACORN targeted ex-cons and that he personally set up registration tables outside the Miami police department and Dade County jail.

New Mexico Sept. 18, 2008, Judicial Watch Blog This week officials in New Mexico's most populous county (Bernalillo) notified federal authorities that more than 1,000 fraudulent voter registration cards were submitted to the clerk's office. ACORN, which pays workers for each registration, is the prime suspect since it has handled thousands of new voter registrations in New Mexico since January. County workers subsequently discovered that at least 1,100 new registrations list Social Security numbers for people already in the county's database of registered voters, names of registered voters with different birth dates and addresses that don't exist.

Wisconsin Aug. 6, 2008, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Criminal investigations could be launched against at least six voter registration workers who tried to add dead, imprisoned or imaginary people to the voter rolls, according to the Milwaukee Election Commission and the organization that employed them. "One woman called us to complain because her husband has been dead for 10 years and a voter registration was submitted," Edman said. In about 12 cases, deputy registrars paid by ACORN were "making people up or registering people that were still in prison," said Carolyn Castore, ACORN's state political director. And in other cases, workers used the same address for numerous voters or used driver's license numbers that did not fit the voters' birth dates, Edman said. But most of the fraud involved submitting duplicate cards for voters who were already registered, and forging the voters' signatures, Castore said.

Ohio August 27, 2008, The Plain Dealer A national organization that conducts voter registration drives for low-income people has curtailed its push in Cuyahoga County after the Board of Elections accused its workers of submitting fraudulent registration cards. Board employees said ACORN workers often handed in the same name on a number of voter registration cards, but showing that person living at different addresses. Other times, cards had the same name listed, but a different date of birth. Still another sign of possible fraud showed a number of people living at an address that turned out to be a restaurant. ACORN has submitted about 75,000 voter registration cards to the Cuyahoga board this year.

Pennsylvania Sept. 18, 2008, The Bulletin: Philadelphia's Family Newspaper A community organization, with longstanding ties to Barack Obama, has, according to numerous reports, repeatedly run afoul of voter registration laws both locally and nationally. Philadelphia election officials recently accused ACORN, of filing multiple fraudulent voter registrations during the 2008 Pennsylvania primary. The case has been referred to the U.S. Attorney's office, according to Philadelphia Deputy Election Commissioner Fred Voight. Delaware County election officials have made similar allegations against the group, and criminal indictments are pending. This past July 24, Dauphin County detectives offered a $2,000 reward for information about the whereabouts of Luis R. Torres-Serrano, an ACORN worker, who was accused of submitting more than 100 fraudulent voter registrations.

Nevada July 7,2008, Las Vegas Review Journal ACORN, which stands for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, claims to have collected 60,000 new voter registrations in Clark County since February ... Lomax said while he supports the goal of getting more people registered to vote, he sees rampant fraud in the 2,000 to 3,000 registrations ACORN turns in every week.

SO WHAT DOES OBAMA HAVE TO DO WITH ACORN?

The answer is ... a lot. Stanley Kurtz has written another great piece about Barack Obama's days as a community organizer for ACORN. It is worth you taking the time to read. Unfortunately, I wouldn't expect any mainstream media outlets to mention this information, or put two and two together considering all of the stories just listed above

O'S DANGEROUS PALS BARACK'S 'ORGANIZER' BUDS PUSHED FOR BAD MORTGAGES

By STANLEY KURTZ

September 29, 2008

WHAT exactly does a "community organizer" do? Barack Obama's rise has left many Americans asking themselves that question. Here's a big part of the answer: Community organizers intimidate banks into making high-risk loans to customers with poor credit.

In the name of fairness to minorities, community organizers occupy private offices, chant inside bank lobbies, and confront executives at their homes - and thereby force financial institutions to direct hundreds of millions of dollars in mortgages to low-credit customers.

In other words, community organizers help to undermine the US economy by pushing the banking system into a sinkhole of bad loans. And Obama has spent years training and funding the organizers who do it.

THE seeds of today's financial meltdown lie in the Commu nity Reinvestment Act - a law passed in 1977 and made riskier by unwise amendments and regulatory rulings in later decades.

CRA was meant to encourage banks to make loans to high-risk borrowers, often minorities living in unstable neighborhoods. That has provided an opening to radical groups like ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) to abuse the law by forcing banks to make hundreds of millions of dollars in "subprime" loans to often uncreditworthy poor and minority customers.

Any bank that wants to expand or merge with another has to show it has complied with CRA - and approval can be held up by complaints filed by groups like ACORN.

In fact, intimidation tactics, public charges of racism and threats to use CRA to block business expansion have enabled ACORN to extract hundreds of millions of dollars in loans and contributions from America's financial institutions.

Banks already overexposed by these shaky loans were pushed still further in the wrong direction when government-sponsored Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac began buying up their bad loans and offering them for sale on world markets.

Fannie and Freddie acted in response to Clinton administration pressure to boost homeownership rates among minorities and the poor. However compassionate the motive, the result of this systematic disregard for normal credit standards has been financial disaster.

ONE key pioneer of ACORN's subprime-loan shakedown racket was Madeline Talbott - an activist with extensive ties to Barack Obama. She was also in on the ground floor of the disastrous turn in Fannie Mae's mortgage policies.

Long the director of Chicago ACORN, Talbott is a specialist in "direct action" - organizers' term for their militant tactics of intimidation and disruption. Perhaps her most famous stunt was leading a group of ACORN protesters breaking into a meeting of the Chicago City Council to push for a "living wage" law, shouting in defiance as she was arrested for mob action and disorderly conduct. But her real legacy may be her drive to push banks into making risky mortgage loans.

In February 1990, Illinois regulators held what was believed to be the first-ever state hearing to consider blocking a thrift merger for lack of compliance with CRA. The challenge was filed by ACORN, led by Talbott. Officials of Bell Federal Savings and Loan Association, her target, complained that ACORN pressure was undermining its ability to meet strict financial requirements it was obligated to uphold and protested being boxed into an "affirmative-action lending policy." The following years saw Talbott featured in dozens of news stories about pressuring banks into higher-risk minority loans.

IN April 1992, Talbott filed an other precedent-setting com plaint using the "community support requirements" of the 1989 savings-and-loan bailout, this time against Avondale Federal Bank for Savings. Within a month, Chicago ACORN had organized its first "bank fair" at Malcolm X College and found 16 Chicago-area financial institutions willing to participate.

Two months later, aided by ACORN organizer Sandra Maxwell, Talbott announced plans to conduct demonstrations in the lobbies of area banks that refused to attend an ACORN-sponsored national bank "summit" in New York. She insisted that banks show a commitment to minority lending by lowering their standards on downpayments and underwriting - for example, by overlooking bad credit histories.

By September 1992, The Chicago Tribune was describing Talbott's program as "affirma- tive-action lending" and ACORN was issuing fact sheets bragging about relaxations of credit standards that it had won on behalf of minorities.

And Talbott continued her effort to, as she put it, drag banks "kicking and screaming" into high-risk loans. A September 1993 story in The Chicago Sun-Times presents her as the leader of an initiative in which five area financial institutions (including two of her former targets, now plainly cowed - Bell Federal Savings and Avondale Federal Savings) were "participating in a $55 million national pilot program with affordable-housing group ACORN to make mortgages for low- and moderate-income people with troubled credit histories."

What made this program different from others, the paper added, was the participation of Fannie Mae - which had agreed to buy up the loans. "If this pilot program works," crowed Talbott, "it will send a message to the lending community that it's OK to make these kind of loans."

Well, the pilot program "worked," and Fannie Mae's message that risky loans to minorities were "OK" was sent. The rest is financial-meltdown history.

IT would be tough to find an "on the ground" community organizer more closely tied to the subprime-mortgage fiasco than Madeline Talbott. And no one has been more supportive of Madeline Talbott than Barack Obama.

When Obama was just a budding community organizer in Chicago, Talbott was so impressed that she asked him to train her personal staff.

He returned to Chicago in the early '90s, just as Talbott was starting her pressure campaign on local banks. Chicago ACORN sought out Obama's legal services for a "motor voter" case and partnered with him on his 1992 "Project VOTE" registration drive.

In those years, he also conducted leadership-training seminars for ACORN's up-and-coming organizers. That is, Obama was training the army of ACORN organizers who participated in Madeline Talbott's drive against Chicago's banks.

More than that, Obama was funding them. As he rose to a leadership role at Chicago's Woods Fund, he became the most powerful voice on the foundation's board for supporting ACORN and other community organizers. In 1995, the Woods Fund substantially expanded its funding of community organizers - and Obama chaired the committee that urged and managed the shift.

That committee's report on strategies for funding groups like ACORN features all the key names in Obama's organizer network. The report quotes Talbott more than any other figure; Sandra Maxwell, Talbott's ACORN ally in the bank battle, was also among the organizers consulted.

MORE, the Obama-supervised Woods Fund report ac knowledges the problem of getting donors and foundations to contribute to radical groups like ACORN - whose confrontational tactics often scare off even liberal donors and foundations.

Indeed, the report brags about pulling the wool over the public's eye. The Woods Fund's claim to be "nonideological," it says, has "enabled the Trustees to make grants to organizations that use confrontational tactics against the business and government 'establishments' without undue risk of being criticized for partisanship."

Hmm. Radicalism disguised by a claim to be postideological. Sound familiar?

The Woods Fund report makes it clear Obama was fully aware of the intimidation tactics used by ACORN's Madeline Talbott in her pioneering efforts to force banks to suspend their usual credit standards. Yet he supported Talbott in every conceivable way. He trained her personal staff and other aspiring ACORN leaders, he consulted with her extensively, and he arranged a major boost in foundation funding for her efforts.

And, as the leader of another charity, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Obama channeled more funding Talbott's way - ostensibly for education projects but surely supportive of ACORN's overall efforts.

In return, Talbott proudly announced her support of Obama's first campaign for state Senate, saying, "We accept and respect him as a kindred spirit, a fellow organizer."

IN short, to understand the roots of the subprime-mort gage crisis, look to ACORN's Madeline Talbott. And to see how Talbott was able to work her mischief, look to Barack Obama.

Then you'll truly know what community organizers do.

Stanley Kurtz is a senior fellow with the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, DC.

Now DNC is trying to use DLC methods of raising funds, all the while folks like you are parroting how bad the DNC's tactics were.

Oops, typo...sorry. the last "DNC should be "DLC"

Hern, a link would be better - the text dump is messing up mycomputer. Thanks

Bill B: We are not "outnumbered by the mob". We represent the center of American political thought on the issues and twerps like these right-of-center ideologues who pretend to speak for the majority are the outsiders. If they had any guts, they would seek to expand the debates to include those candidates who represent the will of the people.

Bush, McCain and Obama all favor bailouts, militarist foreign policy, and corporate hegemony. They do not represent the majority.

Barack Obama, in addition to his close ties to the urban terrorist William Ayers and the professional vote-fraudsters at ACORN, is alleged to work closely with gangs of Hasidic Jews who kidnap homeless teens and use their blood for preparing Passover matzos.

Joel, way to keep yourself blind and uninformed. But it is cute, and making me hungry!

Any reason the debates need to be restricted to the major $ owned parties?

We are not "outnumbered by the mob".

Harry: In terms of how people think you are probably right, but when it comes to doing things - such as supporting candidates and issues that are in the center - then those of us who support Nader and genuinely progressive organizations are, I fear, outnumbered. I was surprised at the number of people who took exception to the bailout and made the effort to let their senators and representatives in Congress know how they felt. That example would support your position, unfortunately, it seems to be more the exception than the rule. That point will be proved when the total votes for progressive candidates in the general election are counted.

inbf: you are preaching to the choir. I AM the flamboyant creative analytical at the office.

You are preaching to the creature you long to support.

Messrs. Bodden and Kershner: There are others of us who think that may so-called Naderite positions are, indeed, worthy, but consider that harnessing these positions to Ralph Nader as a substitute for a coherent political movement has not been astute. I've commented on this previously on Blue Oregon and you've taken umbrage, seemingly because you consider "political movement" to be a bit of nastiness to be avoided.

Oh, and back to Obama's unsavory connections. It can now be revealed that Barack Obama has outdone even the late Chicago mayor Richard Daley, who merely arranged for votes to be cast in the names of the dead. Obama has, through his close ties with the Chicago Haitian community, enlisted the aid of voodoo practitioners who literally raise the dead and bring them to the polls. But it's not enough to get votes from the dead: Obama has also established close ties with the Undead, as documented in the explosive investigative journalism of Ann Rice, who recently reopened some of the "cold cases" she discussed in Interview with the Vampire.

Rebecca,

Glad to hear it! I'll be your biggest fan!

Joel, it is not that some of Nader's ideas are 'being harnessed' to Nader, but no one else is really running with them. Also, the old divisions of right, left etc are breaking down. I consider Nader a centerist. He is practical. Focusing on 'follow the money' is truly revealing. Money is great, but is very corrupting and BOTH parties have dirty hands. Nader's voice is incredibly important at this point in time - much more so than before. If either the dem or repub party starts truly embracing some of Nader's reforms and positions that would be great.

Dance all you want and pretend Obama is clean.

ACORN: The Poisonous NUT That Ended Democracy in America http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/5365

By Christy Adkins Saturday, October 4, 2008

ACORN = Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. ACORN policy proposals are widely considered to be in line with the far left wing of the Democratic Party. ACORN is the most virulent, organized crime group in this decade...and it is funded by YOU. ACORN is ripping off the taxpayer through Congressional hand outs. ACORN was recently due to receive nearly $700 million of the $700 billion dollar bailout bill until Republicans in the Senate redlined it $700 million from the US for an organized crime group. ACORN has been receiving Obama campaign funding, but what’s worse is that ACORN leaders are actively extorting money from banks, mortgage brokers and Congress. ACORN is costing Americans millions to investigate all of its criminal activities across America. ACORN is behind much of the rampant voter fraud. ACORN has been involved with fraudulent voter registrations for years. ACORN has been involved in fraudulent voter registration since early in the 2007 launch of the Obama campaign. Obama’s community organizational skills are synonymous with totalitarian tactics as its leaders use violence, intimidation, threats, racial baiting and direct physical attacks on property, persons and the legal establishment. ACORN is corrupt and without any upside. The disturbing reason more ACORN activities go un-prosecuted is because the FEC as well as the FBI have refused to open investigations out of fear of rocking the Obama campaign. The MOST disturbing fact you need to k now about ACORN is that its organizers have terrorized the Federal justice and law enforcement system into NON-action. How can one group get away with so much? Because ACORN has many Democratic backers in Congress who work tirelessly for its perpetuation and the head ACORN nut is Senator Obama. Senator Obama is so entwined in ACORN it has become a career and campaign double helix in his DNA. What does Obama have to do with ACORN? Obama has served ACORN as its attorney, has been its direct action trainer, its mentor, its contractor, and its PRIMARY illegal campaign funder. ACORN is part of the ‘Community Organizing’ experience his evil empire would like to bring into the White House.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/5365

How is it that Obama is supposedly running on being "postpartisan" and seems to attract the most blind party loyalists like ta? Its just the saddest thing.

I don't know much about ACORN but I can tell you that following that money, I was not happy about the ACORN 700 MILLION $ earmark in the "bailout" bill.

WTF is that all about?

But if that is all OK with you then please stick your fingers in your ears and hum because you are a loyal democrat who does not question Obama.

Yes, best not to debate, that is a great idea for democracy. It is so intelligent - and you are good at name calling, so there's another point for your intelligence and progressive thinking.

There are others of us who think that may (sic) so-called Naderite positions are, indeed, worthy, but consider that harnessing these positions to Ralph Nader as a substitute for a coherent political movement has not been astute.

That brings up a question that we would do well to discuss. We agree that "many so-called Naderite positions are, indeed, worthy" so how do we incorporate them into our political system? Facing facts, those of us who feel strongly about getting them into the system must concede that not enough people will rally behind Ralph Nader. Similarly, there is no more of a chance of success with either of the corporate parties; that is, the Democratic and the Republican. We are therefor dependent on a leader emerging who can inspire others to form a new party or reform one of the old. With his skilled oratory Obama had that potential, but he was already owned by some faction in the party oligarchy.

It seems to me while we wait for the leader we need the only viable option for those of us who would try to achieve some degree of success for Nader's ideas is to advocate and educate, which sometimes means contradicting conventional wisdom emanating from Democrats and Republicans who are often neither democrats nor republicans. There may be another option for progressives locked into membership in the Democratic party and that is to try to convert the party from within, but that so far has not had much more success than organizing a third party.

I was told some time ago of a member of the Progressive Democrats being seen sporting a Hillary button. Nevertheless, it appears that gatherings of Democrats claiming to be progressives (such as Blue Oregon) might offer some fertile ground from which to attempt a harvest that would meet with Nader's approval.

Bill so Talbot never asked Obama to train his ACORN staff?

Court record show as a lawyer, he represented ACORN staff member on a motor voter registration charge.

ACORN is a significant part of his wining elections in Illinos and now he has to distance himself from an organization he represented.

Nothing my eye. Imagine the outrage at BlueOregon if McCain worked with, for, and around Sizemore.

The more formal description of people like you is "net.kook". To quote:

To repeat: I have no intention of getting down in the gutter with you.

Posted by: carla axtman On the ACORN gobbledegook: "There is no direct link between Barack Obama and ACORN."

ta and Carla, I don't want to debate you about ACORN.

I'd rather debate you on your nerve calling Palin ignorant while making statements such as Carla did.

Carla, Palin has never made a more ignorant statement.
If you think Obama has no connection to ACORN.

But by your attempt to distance Obama from ACORN are you aknowledging ACORN's racket?

Bottom line is ACORN is a criminal organization, facing multiple indictments, the reports are readily available all over the place and Obama is absolutely connected. Your lack of concern and attempt to hush this growing story makes you beyond hyocritical. I can't help but think you have or would join ACORN's activities. Sorry for trolling up your blue but this is a real story. Unlike baby-gate and trooper-gate.

Folks, why are we feeding the bear? Why are we responding to Herm? Egad... And why allow him to drag folks into regurg of a discussion that has been handled thoroughly on other threads at other times? This thread was insistenly hijacked to reiterate discussions / clarifications that, had posters done a review of the talk of the past two weeks, would not have been necessary. Say, if you are engaging a certain blogger, take the trouble to check their commentary over a brief lookback and you may find that you are dragging the board into circularity. Then decide if that's what you want to do.

Herm, I'm getting dizzy - could you maybe switch directions and spin the other way for a while?

Blogs like this should be a place where folks of a generally similar perspective can deal with differences. The democratic party is not monolithic and it is NOT exempt from corruption and deviation. If there had been more dissent allowed in the republican party we would not have had to live under neoconservatives, who are very different in philosophy and practice than traditional republicans. But it was party line this and party line that.

Now I see that same thing happening to the democrats. Dissent is disallowed, debate is ignored, all voices are expected to be a cheering squad for the party. Let's hope it does not work as well as or for as long as the republican party.

<hr/>

Darrel, I can agree with you about SOME of the DLC's political positions (also with the DNC's). But, following the money, Dean introduced a very different view of raising funds. Now the DNC wants to have both, while at the same time marginalizing DLC. In my experience asking monied people and organizations for large $ amounts, while at the same time marginalizing them is not a great way to proceed. It may work, sort of, for a while. Not long term. Again, sorry for my typo earlier.

I am really fed up. Let's get away from this nonsense about ACORN and get back to important stuff, like Monica Lewinsky.

I am really fed up. Let's get away from this nonsense about ACORN and get back to important stuff, like Monica Lewinsky.

Unlike Bill B, I don't mind getting down in the gutter. Guys like Maurer are right-of-center DP nutcases who never saw a militarist they didn't like. If it's true that, "the kook trademark is paranoia and grandiosity", it applies most certainly to Maurer, who has consistently and bizarrely misrepresented his enemies' positions on BO.

I have admired ACORN and its direct action tactics for some time. That Democrats feel the need to distance themselves from this well-intentioned, civic-minded group is one more reason to distance oneself from the DP.

inbf: I agree with you about many things, but you should attend to what darrelplant has to say. Obama is the latest incarnation of the DLC-based, Clintons-nurtured cabal that has moved the DP so far to the right that people like Maurer consider themselves to be "progressive".

Darrel, I agree with you with much of what you criticize about the DLC's policies. But, that said, they were able to grow the economy and I think their goal that giving folks a stable economy is progressive. Just my POV, that's all. But really, the ball got dropped in early 2000s. Interesting NYT article, I linked to earlier. Seems deregulation became unhinged by the neocons drunken sailor spending and LACK OF OVERSIGHT. Oversight and regulation are not the same things. Bush administration's worse fault has been INCOMPETENCE. No oversight is a symptom of incompetence.

Unfortunately a good time was being had by all and the dems did nothing to provide regulations or oversight. Even worked against it. So it was a sort of perfect storm, no one is clean.

It was Brazille who was also at fault for the dem's losing in 2000. BC had a great approval rating but was being slammed in the media and she decided the dem party needed to actively avoid having BC campaign for Gore. Plus she and Gore ran bad campaigns - overconfident, as usual for dems. Everything DLC and Clinton wing was 'bad' and it all came out in the primary. Now, the DNC is begging DLC donors for money. Ironic. Since the party is supposedly being reformed to be primarily the party of youth yuppies and AAs the DNC simply assumes it keeps the old base of the above (minus the yuppies who used to go both ways) plus seniors, working class whites, all minorities, women, GLBTs. This seems risky and arrogant.

And, Harry, not sure of your point since I really cannot get what Obama is actually for and willing to follow thru on. He says stuff and does other stuff.

I'm not sure about ACORN, lots of spin, but I can tell you I don't much like the Ayres connections. He reminds me of Timothy McVeigh and even if you are comfortable with far leftist violence and bombing (which I am not) it would seem a bad POLITICAL move of Obama to have ANY campaign fundraiser at his house let alone the other connections. Most lefties simply do not care. I like Big Brother too......

And thanking you in advance for pointing out all my typos!

torrid, Yes, charges were dropped - a technicality. He admitted guilt. I like Big Brother just as much as you do.....

BC had a great approval rating but was being slammed in the media...

Bill Clinton was also slammed by many people who saw what a phony he was. If I could pass a law it would require anyone who praises Slick Willie to watch a replay of him for 24 hours straight saying, "I never had sex with that woman."

Unlike Bill B, I don't mind getting down in the gutter.

Give 'em hell, Harry.

T.A.: You are, of course, right is describing the several and varied components under the Democratic umbrella, but there are instances where they are one, or more or less one. Last week's bailout scam made that clear with party leaders herding enough votes in both houses in Congress to screw the American people. It's a good bet that some hesitant representatives were told to toe the party line - or else.

So what is so 'progressive' about DNC? Its wholesale support of the Bush/Pelosi bailout bill? Being sued by GLBTs for discrimination? Attempting to narrow the old dem demographics in favor of new voters? Pressuring delegates at the convention?

So what is so 'progressive' about DNC? Its wholesale support of the Bush/Pelosi bailout bill?

And, what's so 'progressive' about Blue Oregon with most of its lead contributors and more prolific commentators supporting Obama and Hillary while studiously ignoring Dennis Kucinich?

inbf: Re: Bill Ayers - To my knowledge, the only people who were killed as a result of his group's work were three members of the group itself.

They did blow up buildings, and in our society property often is considered to be equal to people, so I can see why the Reich might equate Ayers with McVeigh. However, a WU member always issued warnings to evacuate the buildings ahead of time via phone, unlike McVeigh.

You don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing, even now.

Harry, maybe the McVeigh comparison was too extreme, as McVeigh actually did blow up lots of people and Ayers only blew up some of his "own" people. Maybe it is more like those on the flip side of the political coin who oppose abortion and blow up clinics, publish names, addresses and other personal info on providers, then get away with it (hey, they never actually DID kill too many people....) and hold "meet and greet" parties at their homes for righty political candidates. I would be howling about that, but do not like it either when it is the lefties. Surprising that most lefties are simply AOK with that. Yup, you betcha. The left needs to clean house - from within. FROM WITHIN, if it wants to have its soul survive. (unlike the repubs who have refused to clean house from within and lost their soul to the neocons)

Bill, agreed about Kucinich (and Nader).

I did not mean economic perfection, which it seems you do. But the 90's had much more stability than we will be facing the latter part of the 00's. The economy is going to get bad. Possibly incredibly bad. You'll look back on the high tech bubble bursting with fondness. That is the post DLC dem party- so it certainly goes around.

This election, which should be a cake walk for dems and the DNC is fully in charge is turning into a nightmare.

Both major corporate parties have been working into a sort of perfect storm scenario. Dems encouraging lending and fighting regulation, repubs fighting OVERSIGHT and being incredibly INCONPETENT (doin a heckofa job) and we citizens who are addicted to the good life.

You have proven you are capable of calling names, congrats.

If you think that this instability was instantly created in 2000 then you might want to thank Gore and Brazille for that. And you are dating yourself, you must have to go back to LBJ or FDR to find good democratic leadership. Oh.... you want the $dem party to have ALL the power. All congress and All executive and All judicial. Flip side of Rove - so just about the same.

But now that we have the DNC (we refuse to impeach or provide any checks and balances and any oversight, go FISA) in charge we are going to get DNC style stability. And I'll love to be proven wrong - in 5-6 years look back and say that was a stable successful time. Thanks $DNC.

But in 5-6 years if the $DNC succeeds in couping ALL branches of government and turns it into an elected dictatorship then you might look back and say "I BELIEVED too much" - not a fault of the heart.