Liam

Silence from the conservatives? That says an awful lot to me.

So... let me get this right. Obama joined Wright's church at some point in the 90's, probably because all up and coming black Chicagoans were members of the congregation. In 2001, long after Obama was a member of the church, Wright began linking the September 11 attacks to America's foreign policy. Obama never said he agreed with those statements. In 2001, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson said the 9/11 attacks happened because God had damned America because of the ACLU, lesbians, abortionists and gay people and because of anti-American liberals. After those statement, John McCain sought out their help in his quest for the presidency. Somehow, Obama is a threat, yet McCain -- who sought out the endorsement of people who blamed FELLOW AMERICANS for the attacks of September 11th -- is somehow patriotic and immune from criticism. You have to have some serious looking glass sh*t going on if you believe this stuff.

Yes. Blue states have much lower divorce rates. Massachusetts, the only state (so far) with gay marriage, has one of the lowest divorce rates in the union. So much for red state family values.

The inability of McCain supporters to respond to the facts about Obama and Khalidi is a fairly damning conclusion that the Khalidi incident was little more than another product of the GOP shoot-first-aim-later slime machine. Case closed.

It's been long known that Republican-leaning states are welfare states. Redistribution outrage? Talk about hypocrisy.

Anti-Israel rally?

From the article: "It is not clear whether Mr Obama has been in touch with his African relatives living in the US, or even whether he is aware that they are on US soil." So, do you know that Obama knew they were in the US and, specifically, where he could find them if he wanted? Do you know that he didn't offer them help if he did know where they were? Do you also know that, if help was offered, whether or not it was accepted or denied? I'm not saying you don't raise valid questions about Obama, but you seem to have concluded without knowing any of the salient facts.

Palin-Plumber '12?

1. The LA Times got the tape and reported on it back in the spring, this story is not new. 2. The LA Times received the tape from its source on the condition that it not be released, but that the LA Times was free to report on it. 3. The tape allegedly shows a faculty going away party for Khalidi who was leaving the University of Chicago for Columbia. Allegedly the tape show Obama (as a fellow faculty member) saying a few kind words about Khalidi and expressing gratitude for challenging Obama's thinking on Middle Eastern issues (Obama does not say he convinced him, just that he challenged his thinking). 4. Who is Khalidi? Born in New York and a graduate of Yale University, he is a former journalist and former consultant at the Madrid Peace talks in 1991, he is one of the foremost experts on Middle East issues. He was never a member of the PLO. He disagrees with aspects of Israel's policies -- last time I checked, freedom of opinion has not been outlawed -- but has never been known to be an anti-semite or anti-Israel. Big. Deal.

I can't remember if I posted this link earlier (and am too lazy to check), but this is a pretty astute observation by David Brooks in the NY Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/10/opinion/10brooks.html I really think the GOP needs to decide if it's going to be a party of the future by giving greater power to the idea people, or be a party of the past by kowtowing to the ideologues. I wish it would choose the former.

There are certain fair use exceptions to US copyright law, but posting copyrighted material on YouTUbe, a for-profit enterprise, does not qualify.

First, I'm an American and second, I'm a lawyer who studied Constitutional law. So thanks for trying to lecture me like you do the Canadians. You are flat out wrong about the audio. Obama is espousing negative rights. He states in unequivocal terms that the Constitution sets up a system of negative rights: it doesn't tell the people what it can do, it tells the government what it cannot do. You are also flat wrong by saying Obama is espousing positive or active rights. Obama identified the great tragedy of the civil rights movement was its attempt to seek justice through the courts only. Per Obama, the great tragedy of the civil rights leaders was that they did not seek social justice through the legislative process. What a stunningly socialistic thing to say!! My god, call the Cato Institute!! Obama is actually in agreement with conservative Constitutionalists. Oh, and despite the links you provided, you sidestepped my question: if Obama and Reagan have nearly identical tax strategies (progressive tax with higher income people paying a higher rate, and the preservation of the Earned Income Tax Credit which directly transfers $ from the rich to the poor), and Obama earned the title of socialist solely because of a statement on tax treatment, how is one a socialist and one not?

Can I ask what evidence you have that he's a socialist? Aside from how you are subjectively defining the term and subjectively interpreting Obama's statement to (not) Joe the (not real) Plumber? Seriously, other than his casual statement on the rope line about, "you, know, to redistribute the wealth", can you provide substance to support your claim that he is in fact a socialist? We already have a progressive tax system in this country whereby richer people pay a higher percentage of income taxes than the poorer folks. This scheme has been reinforced by every president for decades, so by continuing the system, Obama is no more a socialist than Eisenhower or Reagan. My understanding is that the richest percentiles of taxpayers would pay no more under Obama than they did under Reagan. How is that socialist, or are you also calling Reagan a socialist? Ike? Nixon? Bush I? All have supported a progressive tax system and all have used government to "spread the wealth" to their own pet groups. So, are they, by your definition, also socialists? I am serious when I ask because I think too many people on the right make these claims in a knee jerk way.

Actually, SNL skits are routinely yanked from YouTube and only shown on the NBC website. It all started with the "Lazy Sunday" rap song a couple of years ago. Someone posted it on YouTube and it became a viral hit. NBC was caught completely off-guard with respect to the power of viral videos. They got YouTube to pull "Lazy Sunday" so they could host the video on their own site and have done so with just about every skit ever posted to YouTube since then. This particular SNL skit (the housing bubble one) was not pulled from YouTube for content, but for intellectual property reasons. NBC later temporarily pulled the skit from its own site to remove what some viewed as potential violence-inducing language aimed at real people involved in the housing crisis. As far as I know, the video was amended to remove the reference to shooting certain people and has been reposted to the NBC website. It was never removed from either site for political reasons, contrary to the inferences of earlier posters.

Yes, but tax cuts for the richest 1% is a sacred and sensible god-a'mighty pro-American tax policy.

Just one additional point about the whole "redistribution" issue, if Obama is a Marxist, then so was Reagan, so was Ford, Bush I and II, and Clinton... ever hear of the Earned Income Tax Credit? It is one of the most direct transfers of wealth (redistribution, if you will) from those with money to those without and it is enshrined in the US tax code with very wide bipartisan support. First enacted under Ford (socialist!), it was expanded under Reagan (Marxist!), Bush I (Leninist!), Clinton (Chavist!) and Bush II (Maoist!). (Note, since its inception only Jimmy Carter, that raving commie, did not expand it.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_income_tax_credit I'd say Obama's tax plan, which is very close to the beloved Reagan's, puts him in fairly good company.

Didn't see the skit in question, but it appears SNL removed the skit from its site NOT because it blamed Dems, but because it included the line "People who should be shot" in reference to real people involved in the housing crisis. According to US News & World Report (certainly no ally of Obama's), the skit should be back online without the offensive/violent language: http://www.usnews.com/blogs/the-home-front...it-mystery.html Yeah, real Dem conspiracy.

You somehow know the content of a videotape that no one has seen? Interesting. Care to share next week's winning Lotto numbers? Believe me, if any such video exists (like the Michelle Obama "whitey" video), someone in the GOP would have paid millions of dollars for it by now.

This is another one of those V-8 moments, when I slap my forehead in disbelief at what people take away from these things. McCain is preying on peoples' intellectual laziness and capitalizing on our soundbite culture. In this audio, Obama IS NOT advocating the use of the courts to redistribute wealth. Obama is actually taking a very CONSERVATIVE position on the Supreme Court in the audio from 2001. What Obama said: 1. The Warren Court (Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren) was not as socially radical as people think, it never went so far as to use its power to decide cases of wealth redistribution. 2. The great tragedy of the civil rights movement is that it's leaders only sought social justice through the court system; the more effective approach for the civil rights movement would have been community activism and persuading legislators to enact the social programs they wanted. In sum: Obama is saying it was wrong for civil rights leaders to seek the help of "activist" judges (who turned them away, anyhow); they should have fought their battles in the court of public opinion and among federal and state legislatures. His position is the exact same as that of most conservative legal minds = get your social justice through legislative means, not by seeking help from the courts.

You could chalk it up as luck, but you might also be wrong. As it stands, McCain's own party initiated those two wars and avidly pursued policies of deregulation which didn't necessarily create, but certainly helped to contribute, to the financial mess. McCain's campaign has been a joke. From the moment he tossed his experience edge for a VP who is little more than a tent-in-the-pants of the likes of Bill Kristol, he showed himself to be nothing more than a calculating pol and a tactician, not a strategist. You are misreading what Obama is saying. He's not saying "We" like some monach who substitutes it for "I", he is saying "we, the people, are the ones who have to stop waiting and take ownership of the change we want." Bush didn't ever give a damn about anyone who wasn't going to vote for him. He ran a 50%+1 strategy in his elections and in the White House. He was not the humble man you portray him to be. He was (and is) as polarizing and divisive a figure in US politics as Nixon.

a pretty good read (and, IMO, more in tune with reality than the original "news" story at the top of this thread...) http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wi...-jonestown.html

My best guess is that Obama is about 90% likely to win. I watch the polls a lot and cannot recall a single poll for at least a month showing McCain with any kind of a lead. The situation is the same in the swing states (and even within swing districts within those states). It seems that the stars have aligned in Obama's favor. Now, I think there is a slim outside chance McCain could win, but those scenarios range from the lacking credulity (that ALL the polls have been wrong and the public has been waging a mass conspiracy in misleading pollsters and news organizations about their intent to vote a certain way), to the unfathomable (a new 9/11 in the week leading up to the election). Barring international catastrophe, I just don't see how McCain has a realistic chance of winning in eight days.

Not a bad prediction on the GOP side, didn't think of Jindal. One problem, though, is that Romney is going to need to do a lot of work at getting southern evangelicals to support him. If he can do that, he may have a shot at the nomination. Someone else reiterated the strength of Palin in 2012 -- I think that's something we need to see play out. There are four major problems facing a Palin 2012 nomination. First, I think Palin has a steep incline facing her in terms of reassuring the American public that she's a serious, substantive candidate. Fair or not, she has not been able to put forth all that much credibility in this election cycle and once public perception sets in, it can be like cement. I'm not saying she can't do it, but I don't see the public suddenly thinking, "hey, we were wrong about her". Second, the governorship of Alaska will not serve as tall enough a soap box from which she will be able to project her national credentials. Unless a US Senate seat for Alaska opens up, I don't see how Palin can go any higher or become a bigger, more national figure (unless she completely gets out of elective politics and strikes herself a major national figure on the talk circuit). Third, party regulars almost always shun prior election cycle losers. Kemp went nowhere after '96, Quayle went nowhere after '92. Edwards didn't make a comeback in '08, nor did Lieberman in '04. When there is a prior losing VP candidate, people put the emphasis on "losing" not on "VP candidate". Fouth, how the McCain campaign manages the post-election day period could be a major determinant in how Palin is perceived within the party power structure. Let's face it, if McCain goes down and the broad perception within the Beltway is that Palin played a role in that loss (again, fair ot not), I see it as very unlikely that the power structure of the party will rally 'round her in 4 years.

OK, reality check: you can't accuse lefties of running a scare campaign when all you do is run a scare campaign against the object of your scorn. Personally, no, I'm not scared. I'm not a lefty liberal and I'm not scared. I'm actually kind of optimistic about an Obama presidency and I actually think Obama will be a fairly reasonable president. His demeanor throughout the two years of running has shown me that he's a very level-headed and disciplined guy. He didn't let anyone get him off message, he didn't let the party insiders persuade him into changing campaign tactics. I think he knows what he's doing. Besides, how bad could things get? As a nation we're limping right now, but we mostly survived 8 years of some Texas village idiot's being the in the White House. I actually look forward to finally having a president who is smart. If people don't like him after 4 years, they can vote him out.

Not really. There's no evidence or even rumor that Michelle Obama had the DNC pay for her clothes. As far as I know, Cindy McCain paid for her own $300,000 outfit the first night of the GOP convention. There really isn't a huge gender double standard in this case. John Edwards was raked over the coals for spending $400 on a haircut. That was his own money, had he taken it from the DNC, I'm sure it would have been an even bigger outrage.