I like Biden - he know's the truth about Obama:

"denounced Barack Obama's poor foreign policy judgment and has strongly argued in his own words what Americans are quickly realizing - that Barack Obama is not ready to be president."

Very funny and clever chart, but it won't be so funny if McCain is elected president.

Gene, "I like" when you copy Biden's strategy for losing an election to Obama. Please continue.

Egregious "journalism".

From the transcript (CNN and NYT) of last night's debate:

  “And I may not answer the questions that either the moderator or you want to hear, but I'm going to talk straight to the American people and let them know my track record also.”

Real words:

"And I may not answer the questions THE WAY that either the moderator or you want to hear, but I'm..."

Those two words are meaningful. There are other "errors" as well.

Keep it classy.

Johnny

1. Did she only say that one time? Might be alternate renditions of her training to "explain" why she will not answer the questions she is unable to brace?

2. You forgot to source your own correction. Thanks for giving that.

I like Biden - he know's the truth about Obama:

The question now is, "Do you know the truth about McCain?"

Kari,

You forgot the accompanying picture of the hurdle so low that a slow, 8 year-old or a retard with an IQ below 40 could jump over.

The expectations were so low that all she had to do was show up and she did.

Joe was great, he only lied 14 times. Not bad for 30 years in Washington.

meg: can't decide whether to be nice or be trollish to you. Heh. You should visit the "Let's win this thing" thread if you promise to bust YOUR guys as well as "ours", which I've been doing. Instead of playing the game like all the rest, and only looking at the lies of others, look at and hold accountable your pick as well.

Sheesh, would it not be funny if two women, one bleeding liberal from the ears and one bleeding conservative from the ears tag-teamed the general category of "Politician"?

We could then travel to the Middle East and finish up what needs done there.

It gets worse: Palin Says She Will Seek Some Authority Over Legislative And Judicial Branches and One More for the Road

RW -

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/02/debate.transcript/

http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/debates/transcripts/vice-presidential-debate.html

Also, the F/F thing gets worse. Barney Frank's boyfriend was a F/F executive between 1991 to 1998 and he's still on the house banking committee? Do progressive think conflict of interest is an issue for all parties?

Oh - Wyden and Smith's wooden arrows is Oregon's bridge to nowhere. National laughingstock.

But the real kicker is the invasion of privacy written into law by the IRS. The political class is laughing at the electorate tonight.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10057618-38.html?tag=nl.e433

Prediction: In six months whomever wins the election will be back asking for another .5 billion for the States. See California. The bill passed today grants the next administration more power than the executive branch has ever had. It makes Cheney look like a mouseketeer.

What next? Vote in a President for life? If you think that'll never happen? FDR, Venezuela.

For those with a long view, I'd recommend a review of the 1992 VP debate. What struck me as I watched this earlier this week was the approach of VP Dan Quayle. Every progandistic trick employed by Sarah Palin last night, and well satirized in the chart from the Kos site, was to an uncanny extent present in Quayle's performance in 1992. Sticking to talking points, disregarding the moderator's questions, sloganering and appeals to emotion (particularly greed) were the standard offering in both debates. I'm pretty sure an analysis of the intervening quadrennial debates would show pretty much the same pattern.

My point? That the communications and psyops specialists inside the GOP are masters at understanding exactly what the public wants to hear, and they are perfectly willing to pander to this self-absorbed, anti-intellectual base.

<hr/>

As I watched Sarah Palin on Thursday evening with the sound turned down (as advised by Karl Rove in order to "see" the candidates as most Americans do) it struck me that this vivacious, self-assured and charismatic woman was incapable of blossoming from the timid little tongue-tied, star-struck interviewee that we all snickered about in the Katie Couric interviews. And then it struck me. Could it be that the actress Sarah Palin was deliberately attempting to create "low expectations" in the Couric interviews? Setting the stage for a two-fer, first arousing the interest of millions of Americans in seeing if Gov. Moose Stew was going to make a total fool of herself, and then "winning" the "debate" by simply putting on a charm offensive and capturing the hearts of audience? The transformation reminded me of Lily Tomlin's great quip: "No matter how cynical I get, it is hard to keep up."

<hr/>

For those who, like me, lament the fact that we no longer live in a country with anything vaguely resembling democracy, I suggest further reading about the 2008 Great Dysfunctional Debate Debacle here:

http://opendebates.org/

Kari - Palin's strategy was to talk at a higher level of audience than the DNC, by about two grade levels as the analysis indicates.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/03/debate.words/?iref=mpstoryview

Based on the reaction of Palin's debate and the lack of analysis into his flat out lies, it appears Palin's strategy worked and the DNC doesn't "get it".

Johnnie:

SIGH. They both told lies, slipped tongues and mis-contexted purposively.

BOTH did.

However, in a debate, one is to answer the question put to one so as to allow those listening to adjudge the answers of each against the other.

As a vetting device, this one had some limited utility. In the purest sense, there WAS no debate, frankly. For Sarah's winkie wormtrail ran the thing, thanks to the lack of moderation.

Here's the standard that conservative hack and NYT columnist David Brooks set for Palin:

"Was this woman capable of completing an extemporaneous paragraph — a collection of sentences with subjects, verbs, objects and, if possible, an actual meaning?

"By the end of her opening answers, it was clear she would meet the test."

The GOP is really setting high standards these days.

Pat - wake up - David Brooks is no conservative but he is a hack. If DB is conservative as much as I am a progressive.

If you want to read what a conservative says read this:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/10/do_facts_matter.html

If you want to read about Bidens lies read this

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10042008/postopinion/editorials/the_lies_biden_told_132104.htm

After the debate, here is the new, movin' on offensive (double entendre intended) from La Palin:

Besmirching Obama's character by referring to his association with an old Weather Undergrounder as "palling [sic] around with terrorists". A quote from the article, "Palin told a group of donors at a private airport, 'Our opponent ... is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect, imperfect enough, that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country." She also said,'This is not a man who sees America as you see America and as I see America.'"

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D93JSBFO0&show_article=1

Obama Cheerleaders (Journalists) are beyond the pale. CNN is citing the National Review as debunking the Ayers connection. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Questions journalist should ask Obama to clear up the story, but won't:

When did you first meet Bill Ayers?
When did you first meet Bernardine Dohrn?
When did you first learn that they were unrepentant terrorists?
Did you ever tell either of them that you condemned their terrorist activities?
Did you ever express reservations to anyone about serving on boards with Ayers?
About funding his radical educational initiatives?
About having him host a political reception for you? About accepting a campaign contribution from him?
How many times have you or your wife been in his home? How many times have he or Dohrn been in yours?
Did you meet with Ayers before becoming chair of the CAC board?
When did you last have any communication with Ayers or Dohrn?

Judging by the number of front page stories, the NY Times still thinks that Obamas ties to a terrorist bomber are only 1/3 as important as Bristol Palin's pregnancy.

Johnnie - while I agree with you that it is high time EVERYONE take their EYES off Mrs. Palin and get them back on the primary players, the candidates, I do have to ask you to follow the url I provided in the above post.

The facts you disparage the media as not having bothered to verify.... are mentioned in the story! The "terrorist" is in his sixties and Obama quite a bit younger. They were not close, are not close. They shared common civic duty memberships. Obama has specifically addressed that he views those acts, committed forty years ago when he was the ripe old age of eight as "detestable"... the story has already been sussed out.

MOVE ON. Move on from Palin's daughter, move on from Palin's terribly sexist behaviour, move on from this fakery about a terrorist connection. Move on.

John McCain has physically embraced George Bush, an unrepentant terrorist responsible for hundreds of thousands of unlawful deaths.

Republican cheerleaders (journalists) seem to care not at all about McCain's recent association with this war criminal.

A Primer of Responsive Political Fables: Teachings Divorced From Silly Season Polemics

... by America's Number 1 English Student!

Rebecca - Move on? Really...

"Is Obama corrupt, the way the caricature of Chicago-style corruption is often drawn, with some beefeater alderman reeking of gin, stuffing an envelope into his breast pocket? No, though he came close with Rezko in that smelly deal for the purchase of Obama's home.

But Obama looked the other way in order to prosper and assiduously avoided conflict with the machine to the point of embrace. In this, he offered Americans a glimpse at the real man inside that nice suit, the Chicago Way."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-kass-0510,0,7245642.column

Do you think he'll continue to look the other way when his administration is in charge of $700B, with lobbyists and the Chicago Political Machine coming around to

Regarding the $700B the Lobbyists are coming!...like flies to a crap sandwich. http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/with-bailout-passed-lobbyists-look-to-get-in-the-game-2008-10-04.html

The $700B "rescue package" will become the biggest boondoggle and present K-Street will ever get. Tommy Delay has to be scratching his head on how Pelosi and Ried are getting away with such corruption.