kimmy

NEW LIBERAL AD EXCITES DION SUPPORTERS & MERITS ALL CAPS ...but where are the exclamation points? I don't think people will be truly excited about the Green Shift until the ads merit exclamation points as well as all-caps. By what possible rationale can the CPC still be called a "regional party" in 2008? Only a dolt would make such a claim. -k

The Telegraph article didn't claim that they know voters are lying to pollsters. The Telegraph article claims that Democratic strategists are worried that people are lying to pollsters. I realize that your motto is "Listen What I Say", but perhaps you might want to sometimes try to "Read What the Article Says" or maybe even "Listen What Other People Say" some day. They might decide not to vote for Obama for any number of reasons, but the reason people might lie to pollsters about intending to vote for Obama would most likely be that they don't want to appear racially prejudiced. The wikipedia article JBG linked to earlier provides several historical examples to suggest that this is a real phenomenon. Time will tell. However, I suspect that the Democrat strategists know their business a lot better than you do. -k

Telegraph (UK): party insiders concerned "Party elders also believe the Obama camp is in denial about warnings from Democratic pollsters that his true standing is four to six points lower than that in published polls because of hidden racism from voters - something that would put him a long way behind Mr McCain." Maybe the Telegraph has an actual source, or maybe they're talking out of their asses, but it's certainly not the first time this has been pondered. -k

I'll take a piece of that action. That's got to be enough money to buy nearly half a tank of gas! -k

Over the past century or so, the United States has produced many of the most remarkable achievements in every field of human endeavor, from science and technology to arts and culture. Only a true imbecile would think that this Larry The Cable Guy type caricature is representative of even a small portion of Americans. -k

Were you the person who had a temper tantrum in the other thread when somebody referred to him as "Barry"? -k

He can say what he wants to. People will react the way they react, whether their reaction is justified or overly sensitive. The "lipstick" comment led off several American newscasts that I watched that day, and was probably seen by tens of millions of people. The rationalizations, justifications, and explanations that followed, they've been seen by a lot less people. It's simply not as interesting to the average viewer. And wasting a campaign day trying to explain to people that you weren't making a personal crack at an opponent, that's a foolish waste of time. So, go! Go, Barack! Don't be cowed! But be brave in a way that's not going to blow up in your face. I replied to a dumb criticism of McCain by flipping it on its head. Perhaps it was insulting to Obama, but whatever. I don't think many people would disagree that Michelle Obama is a good looking woman, and I think a lot of people are still skeptical that "community organizer" is a real job. I'm not fighting for any candidate to win. There's nothing to be gained by me arguing with Drea and Bubber about the merits of one candidate over the other. Nobody changes their mind, and neither me nor Drea nor Bubber even have votes anyway. I have my views, but there's nothing really to be gained by attempting to wage a US Presidential Election Campaign here on our little Canadian message board with just a few dozen regular members and only a handful of people who get to actually vote. What I'm primarily interested in during the US election is not the actual politics, but in the way the campaign is being fought. There are so many factors at work. (If you would like my views on the choices: I do not find the social conservatism of McCain/Palin appealing. With Obama I am worried about trade protectionism and enviroweenyism and what direction US foreign policy will take. Ultimately, I think my hope would be that McCain wins, and lives a long and healthy life. I have supported Canada's socially conservative party for quite a long time. And it's not because I'm a social conservative. It's just my views on a lot of other issues are closer to the Conservative party than the alternatives. And further, a social conservative government doesn't actually make much difference because a government has so little ability to actually promote social conservatism.) To repeat: I've never criticized anybody for providing legitimate criticism of her views or policies or record. I've taken issue when people crossed the line, and when people have repeated rumors that have already been debunked. I've challenged Rue to explain how killing moose and opposing abortion are contradictory, or to explain how she is a "Stepford Wife" (which you also found clever, as I recall.) You're a meathead. There's no shortage of people who feel the same about Obama, or even Hilary.I did the courtesy of laying my bias right there on the table. Not everybody is as forthright. I am thankful that Palin has had the impact that she has had. Win or lose. A woman who isn't some academic in a lime-green pantsuit. Hilary might be a great politician and a very qualified leader... but does anybody actually relate to her? Other career-women with closets full of oddly-colored pantsuits, perhaps. In Palin, you have somebody that people can relate to as being a lot like the women they know. I think in the long term it will change politics for the better. Hilary has been on the political scene since I was in elementary school... so I think it's about as far from a "snap judgment" as you can get. Snap judgments work both ways. Consider the firestorm directed at Palin in the first couple of days after she was announced, and tell me that the furious bloggers of Obama Nation didn't make snap judgments. I absolutely support discussion of real issues. If she's ultimately judged too inexperienced or too conservative or if it's found that her track record in office is out of sync with what she promises to bring to Washington, that is completely fine with me. I will continue to point out when people cross the line, or apply a different standard. -k

Argh, are you really this dense or are you just pulling my leg? I didn't say he "shouldn't" have said it, I said it wasn't a smart thing to say. Obama can say anything he wants, and it doesn't matter whether Palin's feelings are hurt or not. It doesn't matter whether I personally like it or not. The only "should" and "shouldn't" are what helps him win. He "should" say things that help him win, and he "shouldn't" say things that hurt his chances of winning. It is smart for him to say things that help him win, and not smart for him to say thing things that hurt his chances of winning. The "lipstick" zinger wasn't smart, and it has nothing to do with whether it was "mean" to Sarah Palin. It wasn't smart because it left people wondering whether he called her a pig. It wasn't smart because it meant that they spend a whole day denying that he called her a pig. It wasn't smart because it distracts attention and news coverage from issues that help them win. Obama, and his campaign, and his supporters, can say anything they want. I've never said otherwise. However, when you're free to say whatever you want, you have the opportunity to lose votes as well as win them. I can almost guarantee you that Republican strategists are hoping that Obama keeps on saying things like that, and I can almost guarantee you that Democrat strategists are hoping that Obama stops saying things like that. I'll give you some Kimmy points if you can show me where I've criticized him unfairly. It's not necessarily "deep", but it's so fundamental to this whole process. And yet, the concept seems to be lost on a huge number of people. Think about the first few days after Palin was announced. All the Obama bloggers and media put all this stuff out there, but people formed their own opinions... and the opinions they formed were by and large very different from what the Obama bloggers had hoped. You can deliver the message, but you can't control the response. And as simple as that sounds, it seems lost on a lot of people. I honestly don't think the DailyKos types understand how much damage they've done to the Democrat campaign. And it's the same reason it's not smart to give people something like the "lipstick" thing. People might not interpret the way the way you hope. Maybe, but it honestly seems like you're not capable of grasping things beyond a "Obama good, Palin bad!/Palin good, Obama bad!" level. It seems like you can't process the concept that somebody might think Palin is a heck of a woman while not thinking she'd be a good President, or that somebody might criticize Obama without thinking badly of the man. -k

Yeah, sure. The part I like is how Tuesday it was your favorite quote and a clever zinger and shows how he is not afraid of the "Palin is a victim" crowd, but by Wednesday it was something completely different. It was only "courageous" up until he got into hot water for it... then he wasn't actually standing up to anybody, he was being misrepresented and smeared. I also have to point out the irony in the Obama crowd complaining that their opponents are playing the victim card. The only *fact* is the words he used. The *interpretation* of the words he used is highly subjective. The best proof of that is the way you and the audience reacted Tuesday night. "Zing! Yessss!! Hahaha, extreme burnage! He is not cowed by the Palin-as-victim crowd! rah-rah! w-w-w-wait, he was obviously just referencing a common metaphor! Trying to make it about Palin is obviously totally distorting what he said! I CALL DO-OVER!!! DO-OVER!!!" I provided my interpretation (which incidently is the same as the reaction of the Democrat supporters in the crowd, and was also the same as your *first* interpretation, which you posted Tuesday night before you'd received the party line on his comments.) I provided my analysis, which is that it wasn't smart (and the mere fact that this controversy exists demonstrates why it wasn't smart.) I provided the clip of Obama's comments so that people could decide for themselves. I don't think I've criticized him without hesitation, I don't think I'm "in overdrive", and when I've taken issue with people criticizing Palin it has been for specific issues or comments, not some kind of generalized victim reaction. If you feel otherwise, you have a right to your opinion. My opinion is that your attempt to paint me as such makes you look like the kind of person who just doesn't actually read very well and is only capable of viewing things in a simplistic "You're either with us or against us ™ " mentality. -k

The mention of Coulter is interesting for 2 reasons. First off, because the fact of giving people like Coulter a platform is one of the main reasons left-leaning people dismiss Fox News as a legitimate news source. Giving people like Coulter a platform is one of the reasons left-leaning people often raised when discussing whether the CRTC should let Fox News into Canada. Secondly, this piece is decidedly Coulter-like. In fact, it's so Coulter-like that Coulter wrote a similar piece in 2004 regarding the Democrat National Convention. As I recall, the tone was remarkably similar, right down to labelling the men of the party as sexually inadequate. Coulter had been asked by a newspaper (the Boston Herald, maybe?) to write them a column from the convention, as part of a "point-counterpoint" type feature, where they'd planned to have a righty and lefty both write about the convention. Coulter's column, as it turned out, was deemed by the paper to be so utterly stupid that they didn't even publish it. Coulter went on to rant about how she'd been "censored" by the left-wing media, and published the article elsewhere (on her own website? on a right-wing news website? I can't recall.) But anyway, the point is that Coulter wrote a similar column for a newspaper, and the newspaper thought it was such a piece of shit that they didn't run it. They said "this is inflammatory and has no redeeming value," and that was the end of it as far as they were concerned. Heather Mallick can write whatever she wants. If this is honestly what's in her heart and mind, I think she's got some serious problems, but that's not for me to say. What I question here is not that she wrote it, but that the CBC decided to put it on their website. Seems to me like there's a role for an editor to say "you know, no thanks." -k

So, the Democrat supporters he was speaking to who thought it was hilarious burnage, they're also hoping for him to slip up? American Woman, one of the biggest Obama supporters here, thought it was a great zinger at Palin's expense. Did she just say that because she's hoping for him to slip up? -k

Well, that cuts both ways. I've got a strong hunch that the people who are busily arguing that there was no intention of referring to Palin, are the same people who cry racism when righty bloggers insist on using Obama's middle name or when Congressman Joe Bagadonutz (R-Anthill Idaho) uses the word "uppity" instead of "high-fallutin'". Is it a deliberate misrepresentation? He was speaking to Obama supporters, wasn't he? They thought it was a hilarious line... were they just mistaken? If he wasn't zinging Palin, the misconception on that is obviously bi-partisan. -k

So yesterday, it was your favorite quote of the campaign so far because it showed he was not afraid to fire some zingers at Palin, "not cowed by the Palin is a victim crowd", as you put it. And today, you're trying to argue that he was just using a common metaphor, that it wasn't actually a zinger at all, that any resemblance to Palin is purely in the mind of the listener. So, is it still your favorite quote of the campaign so far? Or have you decided that using a common metaphor wasn't actually courageous and witty of him after all? The thing is, regardless how hard you, or Obama bloggers, or the Democrat campaign try to shape the perception of the comment, people will form their own opinions. They'll either think it was a deliberate crack at Palin, or they won't. They'll either decide it was a big deal, a minor deal, or nothing at all. Maybe they'll think it reflected poorly on him, or maybe they'll think it was just some harmless fun. Every listener is different, and their feelings will probably depend a lot on how they already felt about Obama and/or Palin. My opinion, and it is just my opinion, which I emphasize is mine and mine alone and not representative of any opinions other than those held by me: -he knew people would connect the dots to Palin -it was pretty funny -it wasn't sexist -it was a personal crack but hardly one worth getting agitated over. -it wasn't a big deal. -it wasn't a smart move politically because it takes attention away from issues that actually help them -it wasn't a smart move because he's been having trouble with women voters over the past week, and giving people reason to talk about whether he actually just called Palin a pig can't help. And to emphasize, I don't think it was a big deal. But at a time when polls indicate he's already having a hard time hanging onto women voters, it was just a bad idea to give people reason to talk about this. -k

Again, care to explain that one? The rest I can understand, but what makes her a "Stepford Wife"? It seems like one of us has a serious misconception of what that term actually means. -k

Absolutely! Obama can say anything he likes! I never questioned his right to say it. I just question how smart it was. His audience knew what he was saying, and thought it was hilarious. The Democrat campaign, and the Obamarama blogosphere, probably also know what he was saying, but are frantically denying it. Everybody who actually watches the clip knows what he was getting at, but his campaign and the Obama bloggers are busily trying to explain otherwise. Why? Because they understand that the optics of calling a woman a "pig" is pretty bad. At least a couple of polls (NBC/WSJ and ABC/WaPo) are suggesting a big shift in support among women voters, or at least white women: "Before the Democratic National Convention in late August, Mr Obama held an eight point lead among white women voters, 50 per cent to 42 per cent, but after the Republican convention in early September, Mr McCain was ahead by 12 points among white women, 53 per cent to 41 per cent, the poll found." http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/...0919678213.html "In last month's NBC/WSJ poll, Obama was leading McCain by 14 points among female voters; now that lead is just four points. Moreover, Obama was up by 20 points in August among women ages 18-49; now McCain is ahead by three points. And last month, Obama held a one-point lead among white women; now McCain is up among them by 10 points." http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/200...10/1371831.aspx ...and I don't think calling her a pig is the kind of comment that'll win them back. To further illustrate the problem, also consider this: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/laland/200...palin-make.html Palin hands the Democrats a *legitimate* issue that they can press her on... and it's practically buried, because it's completely overshadowed by Obama's quip. -k

A view on the RNC by the CBC's Heather Mallick, a true Canadian piece of crap. -k

So you accused me of: "So you're rah-rah-ing a woman for the executive office because you love her, even though you hate her views." When to that point all I'd posted in this thread was: "I hate her views, but absolutely love the woman." ... uh, ok. I think I'm starting to see the problem here. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....amp;#entry35966 http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....mp;#entry294890 So, like I was saying, I was concerned about media treatment of female politicians when Hilary was campaigning for Democratic leadership, and I was concerned about media treatment of female politicians 4 years ago when Belinda Stronach was campaigning for leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada. So your attempt to characterize me as somebody who only discovered the issue last week was ill considered, to put it as politely as I can. I could say I'd expect better of you, but that just wouldn't be the truth. Of course. Yes, you've already established that you're not a very thorough reader. Let's not dwell on the point. I don't think I've criticized anybody for discussing the issues, even once. I've criticized people for ridiculous attacks, and I've criticized people for perpetuating myths that have already been debunked. If you've got any examples where you feel I've tried to impede a fair discussion of legitimate issues, please bring it to my attention and we can discuss it. Otherwise, feel free to go do a backflip into an empty pool. Sorry if I missed the memo on Chelsea. I'll make up for it by acting extra-outraged next time some neanderthal talkshow host says something stupid. Stuff like this doesn't exactly add to the impression that you're in it for thoughtful, issues-oriented discussion: I'm going to use that. Of course, when Rue posts something like that, I know that the next day he'll be sober again and have something intelligent to say. -k

Here's the clip... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPd4yk0x-eg He says it was not directed at Palin, of course, but watching the clip, it certainly looks to me as though he thinks he just delivered a zinger. People will make up their own minds... but if he's honestly surprised that people would think it was a dig at Palin, he just isn't as clever as people say he is. -k

It is John McCain, not Sarah Palin, who is running for president. If the Democrats want to argue the experience of the woman who'd be "one heartbeat away" against the experience of the man who'd be in the big chair on day one, that's their perogative, I suppose, but that comparison is not actually as compelling to most voters as Obama boosters think: "Forty-four percent (44%) of voters say Palin has the better experience while 48% say Obama has the edge. Among unaffiliated voters, 45% say Obama has better experience while 42% say Palin." And? Both of them have gone on to other things since. But again, the Democrats themselves were the ones who begged the comparison between Palin's experience as mayor (by dismissing it) and Obama's experience as a community organizer (by hyping it up for 4 days at their convention.) I am a little weary of the moaning that it was mean of Palin to compare her experience as mayor to Obama's experience as community organizer, when it was Obama's own spokesman who put it forward. -k

It wasn't just "some people", it was Bill Burton, Obama's chief spokesman (yes, I had to research that to figure out who it came from.) The Republicans did focus their attacks on the "community organizer" portion of his resume rather than his time as a law professor or a State Senator or part-term US Senator. Why did the Republicans focus their attention on that part of his resume? Because the Democrats focused on that part of his resume during their convention: (link) (Link) (Link) (Link) (etc) The morning after 4 straight days of the Democrats talking up Obama's experience as a community organizer, the campaign's chief spokesman dismissed Palin's experience as a mayor of a town of 9000. That absolutely begs people to make the comparison of "community organizer" to "mayor", and if the Democrats are unhappy that people took them up on it, they can only blame Bill Burton. Sorry. I read an interesting comment on this earlier. Statistically, there's about a 14.5% chance that a man John McCain's age will die between now and election day 2012. There's only about a 1.5% chance that a man Obama's age will die during that span. So if Americans elect John McCain, there's a 14.5% chance they'll have an underqualified president when the 2012 election arrives. If Americans elect Barack Obama, there's a 98.5% chance they'll have an underqualified president when the 2012 election arrives. -k

Easy for you to say. Re-read Stephen Best's first 3 posts in the "McCain picks woman..." thread. Do a quick round of Google searching for some blogs and mainstream media articles that look at this aspect of Palin's past, and tell me I'm getting worked up over nothing. A woman who was in a beauty pageant as a young adult wants to be Vice President. A man who was hooked on marijuana and cocaine as a young adult wants to be President. And which one does the media decide is hilarious comedy? From my limited time looking into that one, journalists (including the mighty CBC!) heard about a wild conspiracy theory posted at a belligerently left-wing website and decided it was too sexy not to report. (I especially love that CBC brought this hard-hitting news story to Canadians *after* it had been debunked.) And yet, a wide range of people from bloggers and to op-eds from major news outlets have pressed this argument with earnestness. Watch Bill Maher's comedy routine again, or reflect on Obama mentioning to an audience that he's been to 49 states, "but not Alaska... I guess I'll have to go there now," to uproarious laughs, and tell me again that this aspect isn't being ridiculed by her opponents. It wasn't? If Manning was so dumb, how come the Liberals lifted so many of their policies from him, including the Clarity Act as well as Paul Martin's blueprint for balancing the books? If Reform was such a collection of dimwits, remind me again who's been the Prime Minister for the past 33 months? We both know that Reform was ridiculed from day one as collection of hillbillies, and that this characterization only intensified when the party began to push beyond Alberta's borders. We both know that this characterization often crossed the line between the party itself and the region that launched it. We both know that it keeps popping up, especially at election time. "Those guys, from out there, they're not like us!" So, if you're done insulting both of our intelligences, let's move on. There is a great deal of differing opinion on the subject of whether a fetus is a human life. However, I don't think there's a lot of people arguing that a moose is a human life. Yet, strangely, this seems to be the argument Rue is making when he accuses Palin of hypocrisy for wanting to save a fetus while she kills her own food. -k

If Betsy took my position on Palin to be "rah-rah!" support for her electoral chances, it's because that's how you described my position. Betsy just returned after an extended absence, and I can understand why she hasn't read through the 1000-post thread on Palin to get my position first hand. You, on the other hand, have been in that 1000-post thread from the beginning, and I would have hoped you'd have a better grasp of where I stand. I have commented on sexism and Hilary's campaign several times. I have been vocal on this subject for years, going way back to Belinda Stronach's campaign for the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada in 2004. ("Parliament Hill Barbie".) If you're skeptical of my history on this topic, feel free to fire up the board's search function and prove me wrong. Furthermore, in my view, neither Stronach nor Hilary faced either the volume or viciousness that has been directed at Palin. First off, I object to the accusation of "selective outrage". I have a history on this topic that spans a longer time than you've been on this message board. I would say that the accusation says a lot more about *you* than it says about *me*. Secondly, why does it matter that my political views disagree with Palin's, when my focus has been not on her merits as a candidate, but on criticizing the smear campaign that's being directed at her? What, am I supposed to preface each post by saying "I don't support teaching creationism in schools, but..." ? And lastly: Politics? Politics is the whole problem here. If people wanted to talk about issues of substance, I would be absolutely fine with that, but this has nothing to do with issues and everything to do with politics. Only politics would make "progressives" earnestly argue that a woman should leave her job to spend more time with her baby. -k

-k {"The Cold Hands People." ™ }

I don't speak for Betsy, and she doesn't speak for me. In 3 years on this website together, we've never agreed on a damned thing before this week. As I said before, I hate her views, but love the woman. Betsy and I have almost nothing in common, aside from the fact that we're both disgusted by the way the media has treated Sarah Palin. Betsy is absolutely right about one thing though: the disgraceful tactics being used against Sarah Palin have won her a lot of sympathy from women like me. "But before everyone gets all smug and self-righteous about the Palin selection, remember where you live. You live in a nation of gun owners and hunters. You live in a country where one out of three girls get pregnant before they are 20. You live in a nation of C students. Knocking Bush for being a C student only endeared him to the nation of C students. Knock Palin for having kids, for having a kid who's having a baby, for anything that is part of her normalness -- a normalness that looks very familiar to so many millions of Americans -- well, you do this at your own peril." -Michael Moore. Phrased more cynically: "Please, nice leftist people, make more fun of Palin's church, her moose-hunting skills, her family and her small-townness. You'll really show those extremist nuts -- who really are only the tiniest fraction of the American populace -- and put them in their place! Pay no attention to this new Rasmussen poll showing that Palin is now likely the most popular politician in the nation." -Rod Dreher An interesting poll indicates the extent to which Obama-boosters may be shooting their guy in the foot with their over-the-top attacks on Palin: "Over half of U.S. voters (51%) think reporters are trying to hurt Sarah Palin with their news coverage, and 24% say those stories make them more likely to vote for Republican presidential candidate John McCain in November." -k

One spokesman for the Democrats certainly did mention Wasilla's size in casting doubt on Palin's credentials, and many Obama-supporting journalists and bloggers have ridiculed the size of the town. Obama has less than a full term in the US senate, and spent over a year of that time basically campaigning full-time to become President. People who never thought experience was an issue before are all over it now that Palin is on the ticket. The "do you really want someone this inexperienced one heartbeat away?" stuff rings kind of hollow coming from people who are firmly committed to having somebody that inexperienced in the big chair on day one. I disparage the insurance industry too. I think the insurance industry needs reform. If I was in position to do so, I'd try to initiate some kind of reform. But if my car gets crunched next week, I'm still filing an insurance claim. I don't see a contradiction between believing a system has problems and needs to be overhauled, while still participating in that system when it's one of the means available to you of addressing your immediate needs. -k