Why has nobody mentioned Palin's pathetic attempt to brand Obama a terrorist?

[rirv]

I thought it be straight up here in minutes.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7653132.stm

I don't know if you can watch the video on there if you are not in Britain, but it is quite funny. The way Palin says "according to the... (check this out I know the name of a newspaper) NEW YORK TIMES...".

Probably the most contrived and unsubstantial smear in the whole campaign yet.

[Randetica]

yeah, lame.

[QueenAdrock]

I think mostly because everyone sees through how pathetic it is. The RNC is just reeking of desperation now, trying to get any last thing they can get on Obama.

I read it and just chuckled and moved on. Palin isn't going to affect anyone with this bullshit.

[yeahwho]

The McCain campaign is seriously flawed, I guess the gist is everybody in America is joe six pack. We are not. The slogans and songs they use are outdated, fuck they have at least 4 major rock bands asking them to cease using their music at campaign stumps. And the songs sucked anyway.

Underestimating the target audience is all I can figure, John McCain should learn how to use this new-fangled thing called the internet. Those who grew up using it are now 18-22 years old. They comprise 6.6% of the US population, they influence a major portion of our population.

Where is Eugene McCarthy when you need him? Haul in every politician who's helped out at soup kitchens and start questioning their motives. The republican smear campaign is trying to paint this as if Obama and Ayers were attempting seceding Illinois from the United States. you know like the Palin's (http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/10/palins_attack_on_obamas_patrio.php).

[kaiser soze]

The mccain campaign is falling big time and rather than talk about the issues and inform the public of what they can do to help they are going to sling mud...wow what is new?

I honestly think palin is so far removed from herself and this campaign she will say or do whatever her handlers tell her to. She's the biggest tool in the shed, a venerable joe sixpack!

Now if I was Obama, I wouldn't retort with mud, I would put emphasis on how the mccain party is trying to instill fear once again into the American public....the same ol' shit bush's admin did.

I've seen many conservatives/republicans resort to name calling when they know they're losing a debate, argument, or battle. It seems to be some sort of shared trait. :confused:

mcsame, failin 08!

[Echewta]

It worked in 00 and 04. What makes you think that people wont get the subcon message that Obama is with the terrorist? I'm scared, vote for McCain. Have people forgotten all that was said in 04 and that Bush actually won again? Anything can happen...

[DroppinScience]

It worked in 00 and 04. What makes you think that people wont get the subcon message that Obama is with the terrorist? I'm scared, vote for McCain. Have people forgotten all that was said in 04 and that Bush actually won again? Anything can happen...

Sure it could happen again, but you're forgetting that right now is the time when Americans are the least susceptible to fears of a terrorist attack happening again since 9/11. If they were fearful in 2004, they're much more skeptical today.

[Burnout18]

If the GOP can link a terrorist and the guy named "Hussein Obama," don't you think that would play on people's assumption about the guy?

I mean, hey, i get it. Obama knows ayers as the education professor, not the nut from the 60's. I want to know what Ayers's students think of him, not just what Sean Hannity thinks of him.

[jennyb]

I like how she is dipping into the guilt by association pool. Ok, fine. Obama crossed paths with this Ayers character within the upscale intellectual, political community of Hyde Park. If you read about Ayers too, he's really turned his act around and seems to be really contributing to society. But let's talk association... as in your HUSBAND who wanted to secede from the United States?! My, how patriotic. U! S! A! U! S! A!

[DroppinScience]

I like how she is dipping into the guilt by association pool. Ok, fine. Obama crossed paths with this Ayers character within the upscale intellectual, political community of Hyde Park. If you read about Ayers too, he's really turned his act around and seems to be really contributing to society. But let's talk association... as in your HUSBAND who wanted to secede from the United States?! My, how patriotic. U! S! A! U! S! A!

Just as an aside, if any of you want to learn more about the Weathermen of the '60s and '70s, there's a really good documentary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Weather_Underground) made about the group.

They got violent and planned bombings (which they made pains not to have human casualties save for the time they accidentally blew up their own house of operations and killed a few of their own) out of a growing frustration that the non-violence of the civil rights and anti-war movement that SDS was a part of was taking much longer than they desired to bring about social change.

Their motives were in the right place, but they strayed waaaaaaaaaaay too far from what they were supposed to be about that their fanaticism got them carried away. Some of the ex-Weathermen acknowledge this in the film.

The majority of them (save for the more senior members) were eventually cleared of charges because it was revealed that the FBI broke their own laws several times in order to apprehend the people involved.

There's interesting issues to think over in the film. While it doesn't justify what they did, they do point out a double-standard about violence in American society. While their actions are roundly condemned (and rightfully so), you don't hear the same thing when the U.S. military bombs civilians with napalm and such.

[Bob]

i have a theory

i think that in light of the current economic crisis, both of the candidates have decided that they no longer want to be president, and have decided to release the most disgusting commericials possible in order to make the public hate them so much that they'll vote for the other guy out of disgust (it worked for hillary, though she didn't do it on purpose)

just let nader have the country man, fuck it, he can give it a try if he wants

[Bob]

actually i have another theory

john mccain is such a maverick that he hates his own party so much that he actually wants obama to win, so he's been trying to be as sleazy as possible in order to sabotage his own campaign. it's like

"ok, i'll tell you what i'll do, i'll completely 180 from what i was in 2000, i'll completely kiss this horrible president's ass on everything he does, run on a campaign that promises to continue all of his policies for as long as i'm in office, and to really rub it in people's faces i'll continue to call myself a maverick, yes, surely people should...huh? people still want to vote for me?

hmm, ok, ok, i can fix this...i know, for my vice president, i'll make a totally transparent and sexist attempt to pander to disillusioned hillary supporters by hypocritically choosing an inexperienced woman who clearly is not ready to be in the oval office...but who...hey, here's someone who thinks the earth is 7,000 years old, is under investigation for corruption and apparently her husband is a secessionist, yes, this should probably...huh? people like me more? where's katie couric?

ok, debate's coming up, how can i play this...i know, i'll be a complete dick to him, i won't even make eye contact, and i'll tell lies about him right in front of the camera, that should really alienate some voters...a tie???? come on!

alright! big guns! get me advertising! yeah, hi! run the "obama is a terrorist" ad. yeah, i didn't think we'd have to either, but people still like me, can you believe it?"

what else can he do? drop the N bomb?

[King PSYZ]

come on Bob, spoiler alerts!

You just gave away tomorrow's debate...

[Documad]

Today's race baiting is even worse. Palin is simply a horrible human being. And I lost all respect for McCain some time ago.

[Dorothy Wood]

that video is crazy. she wasn't even making a coherent sentence before people started cheering when she said "new york times" and booing when she said "domestic terrorist". they didn't even know what she was going to say yet, they were reacting to terms. so weird. and once again her train of thought adds up to nothing. :rolleyes:

[kaiser soze]

Seriously, if they want to play games like this I am sure Obama has more than enough dirt of these two. Let's see

mccain's Burma connection
palin's husband has connections to the Alaska Independence Party

I am baffled that this guy is not in jail and more astounding that he's a professor after committing these crimes.

Let us not forget....Rumsfeld shook Saddam Hussein's hand

[RobMoney$]

I'd just like to take this opportunity to thank you all for being so unbiased and open-minded. It really does make this forum a joy to be a part of!

[rirv]

On the assumption that you were being sarcastic Rob I'd like to respond that I think we're all pretty open minded here. It's because of this that people don't like close-minded people like Sarah Palin. Creationism? Come on. It's one thing respecting people's beliefs and religious practices and letting them get on with this in the privacy of their own personal sphere, but when these beliefs (and I'm not just talking about creationism) could impact not only on the USA but a good portion of the world, that's when people react this way. Self preservation or something.

As for being unbiased: we're responding to things that Sarah Palin herself actually said. Not the opinion of a third party or a forwarded email. The actual words coming out of her mouth. Most criticism of Obama seems to be a reaction to something that a third party said or wrote. Most criticism of McCain/Palin appears to me a tleast to stem from what they said themselves in the first person.

[Bob]

I'd just like to take this opportunity to thank you all for being so unbiased and open-minded. It really does make this forum a joy to be a part of!

will you stop that already? you play that game too, stop acting like you're above it

[RobMoney$]

Yeah, all the Obama supporters are so fair and honest and all the McCain supporters are such liars.

I mean how dare Palin bring up a story that was on the cover of the New York Times for two days about yet another radical figure that Obama is associated with. She's way out of line man.

[ms.peachy]

I mean how dare Palin bring up a story that was on the cover of the New York Times for two days about yet another radical figure that Obama is associated with.

Erm, I do believe the New York Times article she was referring to stated that the conclusion of their investigation into Obama's relationship to Ayers was that they weren't, like, "palling around".

[NoFenders]

I think mostly because everyone sees through how pathetic it is. The RNC is just reeking of desperation now, trying to get any last thing they can get on Obama.

I read it and just chuckled and moved on. Palin isn't going to affect anyone with this bullshit.

First of all, McCain's only a couple points behind Obama, and we still have a month to go. Secondly, Palin didn't say anything about Obama that wasn't true.

:cool:

[NoFenders]

I like how she is dipping into the guilt by association pool. Ok, fine. Obama crossed paths with this Ayers character within the upscale intellectual, political community of Hyde Park. If you read about Ayers too, he's really turned his act around and seems to be really contributing to society. But let's talk association... as in your HUSBAND who wanted to secede from the United States?! My, how patriotic. U! S! A! U! S! A!

The truth is, Obama's chief campaign strategist, David Axelrod has ADMITTED the two were "certainly friendly". William Ayers founded the Chicago Annenberg Challenge and appointed Barack Obama its first chairman in 1995. The two also served on a separate board, The Woods Fund, from '99-2002, together.

:cool:

[NoFenders]

Just as an aside, if any of you want to learn more about the Weathermen of the '60s and '70s, there's a really good documentary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Weather_Underground) made about the group.

They got violent and planned bombings (which they made pains not to have human casualties save for the time they accidentally blew up their own house of operations and killed a few of their own) out of a growing frustration that the non-violence of the civil rights and anti-war movement that SDS was a part of was taking much longer than they desired to bring about social change.

Their motives were in the right place, but they strayed waaaaaaaaaaay too far from what they were supposed to be about that their fanaticism got them carried away. Some of the ex-Weathermen acknowledge this in the film.

The majority of them (save for the more senior members) were eventually cleared of charges because it was revealed that the FBI broke their own laws several times in order to apprehend the people involved.

There's interesting issues to think over in the film. While it doesn't justify what they did, they do point out a double-standard about violence in American society. While their actions are roundly condemned (and rightfully so), you don't hear the same thing when the U.S. military bombs civilians with napalm and such.

Ayers said: ''I don't regret setting bombs, I feel we didn't do enough.'' While they served on the CAC board together, ayers said in an interview, "I'm a radical, leftist, small 'c' communist."

:cool:

[RobMoney$]

Ayres is just another questionable character in a long line of questionable characters who Obama has chosen to associate with.

I mean so what, Tony Rezko, Father Pfleger (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJyLX7X3PzU), Rev. Jeremiah Wright, William Ayres, Khalid Al-Mansour (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8npeYfKI_ns), Rashid Khalidi (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a40-dFf7tM)
Michelle Obama and her senior thesis, and being proud of America for the first time in her adult life (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGjR81pFJI4)...this all means nothing. Just because Obama chooses to follow people who hate America doesn't mean Obama should be held responsible for any of that.

I'm gonna start calling Obama "The Teflon Don" because he's not responsible for anything.

[NoFenders]

Erm, I do believe the New York Times article she was referring to stated that the conclusion of their investigation into Obama's relationship to Ayers was that they weren't, like, "palling around".


Read above.

And also, if he's just a guy who lived in the neighborhood. Let me ask you something, if YOU were going to run for the Senate, where would YOU announce? At just "some guy in the neighborhood's house", or somebody's house you're friendly with?

:cool:

[DroppinScience]

Ayers said: ''I don't regret setting bombs, I feel we didn't do enough.'' While they served on the CAC board together, ayers said in an interview, "I'm a radical, leftist, small 'c' communist."

:cool:

Ayers' views are his own. I missed the part where Obama said: "Ayers is absolutely right!"

Here's the NY Times article in question where it reveals the two have hardly been close.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/us/politics/04ayers.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Obama%20Ayers&st=cse&oref=slogin

[NoFenders]

That sure is how the NY Times tried to dismiss the relationship.

Anyway, whatever. I'm tired of this crap. It wont make one difference who gets in. They're all liars and cheats.




:cool:

[RobMoney$]

Ayers' views are his own. I missed the part where Obama said: "Ayers is absolutely right!"

Here's the NY Times article in question where it reveals the two have hardly been close.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/us/politics/04ayers.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Obama%20Ayers&st=cse&oref=slogin


If Ayres views are his own and have nothing to do with Obama, then this is a non-story, correct?

Then how do you explain the fact that the Times choose to give it the front page for not one, but two days?

[NoFenders]

It's that giant broom they have. If it's in the NYTimes then it's gospel,, no? Especially if it's headline news two days in a row.

:cool:

[Dorothy Wood]

I used to wait for the bus by a spot where the Weatherman started a huge riot years ago.

I don't agree with what that group did, but I understand why they were angry. as far as I can tell, after the violence that happened back then, Ayers has dedicated his life to education and trying to change things in a peaceful manner.

they were domestic terrorists, that much is true, but they were targeting the government and there were uprisings everywhere because of the vietnam war. also, people did a lot of drugs back then.

I'm sure Ayers is a cool guy. he's been living peacefully in chicago all these years without anybody calling for his head. even the mayor said this: “This is 2008,” Mr. Daley said. “People make mistakes. You judge a person by his whole life.”


I'm quite positive that a lot of people did shit 40 years ago that they regret today. and before anyone comes at me with the quote of him saying he didn't regret it and should've done more. it's already been noted that the quotes were mischaracterized and taken out of context. he was saying he wished they could've done more to stop the vietnam war. also, the quote was from a 2001 article in the new york times. People also like to forget that members of the Weatherman including Ayers have written apology letters to the people they affected.

[yeahwho]

Read above.

And also, if he's just a guy who lived in the neighborhood. Let me ask you something, if YOU were going to run for the Senate, where would YOU announce? At just "some guy in the neighborhood's house", or somebody's house you're friendly with?

:cool:

So what is the point your trying to make? Do you actually believe they pal around? This is a big story today because of the accusations being leveled, not because they actually pal around. The accusation is Barack Obama shares the same political ideology of William Ayers, that they see each other on a social basis.

Are you saying Barack Obama is a radical who supports the weatherman movement of the late 60's?

Plus not only has the NYTimes had this as their front page story, so has every major media outlet since Monday. All of them have made reference to the NYTimes including the republican VP candidate.

The NYTimes gets painted liberal if they actually expose a story about the Ayers/Obama relationship? How does this become so slanted that now the ones who bring the pot to a boil are accused of misrepresentation of facts?

I doubt I'll get a legitimate answer and I understand your frustration. Rather than take the high road the Republican's decided to run with this red herring. They could of said it's bullshit and minimized all of this, just like Bush before him, McCain will not answer the charges with any dignity that Palin brings up.

It's bullshit, total bullshit when the whole fucking planet is about to commit economic hari kari due to total distrust. Somebody must show enough wisdom to lead.

[Dorothy Wood]

also, I think I should mention that the bombs they set off weren't intended to kill anyone. and they didn't. there was one explosion in feb. 1970 in san francisco at a police department that killed one person, and it wasn't even conclusively attributed to the Weatherman.

[RobMoney$]

Well, only one person being killed isn't so bad.
I mean thousands were dying in Vietnam so it was totally worth it.


Long Live Teflon Don Obama

[Bob]

I'm gonna start calling Obama "The Teflon Don" because he's not responsible for anything.

but it's ok, because you're non-biased

[RobMoney$]

I'm less biased than you are bro.

[Bob]

i'm really not sure about that

but it doesn't matter because "less biased" is still biased and it's getting really annoying watching you complain about how horrible and biased everyone on this board is when really you are pretty damn biased man

[RobMoney$]

I didn't claim I was without bias. Nobody is.
Just the sheer fact that I recognize that makes me less biased than a lot of the people who posted in this thread who think they're "centrists" but are about as left as you can get.

Let's put it this way, I'm closer to voting for Obama than you are to voting for McCain.
Think about it.

[Knuckles]

Palin is simply a horrible human being.

YES.

[Bob]

I didn't claim I was without bias. Nobody is.
Just the sheer fact that I recognize that makes me less biased than a lot of the people who posted in this thread who think they're "centrists" but are about as left as you can get.

Let's put it this way, I'm closer to voting for Obama than you are to voting for McCain.
Think about it.

i think you're confusing "biased" with "not a centrist"?

[DroppinScience]

If Ayres views are his own and have nothing to do with Obama, then this is a non-story, correct?

Then how do you explain the fact that the Times choose to give it the front page for not one, but two days?

Well, if there are erroneous claims being made about the Obama-Ayers association, doesn't someone like the Times deserve to set the record straight? Next thing you know, the smear campaign will try to tell us Obama planted the bombs in the '60s and '70s, even though he was 8 years old when they got started. :rolleyes:

[RobMoney$]

i think you're confusing "biased" with "not a centrist"?

Well, let me be clear then.

The NYTimes prints a story about Obama's association with William Ayres.
Palin references this story in a speech.
Everyone including you jumps on Palin for it, saying she's 'pathetic' for referencing the story.

You're looking at this issue from a completely Democratic point of view, not taking the other side into consideration at all.
That's biased.

[Documad]

Obama has had absolutely nothing to do with the Weathermen. It's sick and wrong to try to make people believe that he did. Obama has never done a god damned thing to encourage violence or treason. These are ridiculous accusations. The people making them know that they are lies and they know the affect the accusations will have on people who don't know the facts and who don't know their current events or history. It's beyond sleazy.

What we're talking about is not a matter of bias, it's a matter of fact.

[Bob]

Obama has had absolutely nothing to do with the Weathermen. It's sick and wrong to try to make people believe that he did. Obama has never done a god damned thing to encourage violence or treason. These are ridiculous accusations. The people making them know that they are lies and they know the affect the accusations will have on people who don't know the facts and who don't know their current events or history. It's beyond sleazy.

What we're talking about is not a matter of bias, it's a matter of fact.

you're not properly considering it from my point of view though, you see, i don't like obama

[Documad]

Let's put it this way, I'm closer to voting for Obama than you are to voting for McCain.


I am not speaking for Bob, but for me. If I was voting for or against a candidate because of skin color or religion, that would be a matter of bias. If, on the other hand, I picked my candidate because based upon objective criteria I think he is better qualified to further the policies I care about, that's just smart.

[Dorothy Wood]

yeah, facts is facts. Palin was being plainly manipulative. she didn't talk about the history of the Weathermen, she didn't talk about what time period they were active during. she used inflammatory language to evoke an emotional response. that is clear from the video and the timing of the vocal reactions from the crowd.

I'm not saying that liberal crowds don't do the same. I just don't see the obama campaign trying to make the same kind of outrageous disparaging claims against mccain.

[DroppinScience]

Obama has had absolutely nothing to do with the Weathermen. It's sick and wrong to try to make people believe that he did. Obama has never done a god damned thing to encourage violence or treason. These are ridiculous accusations. The people making them know that they are lies and they know the affect the accusations will have on people who don't know the facts and who don't know their current events or history. It's beyond sleazy.

What we're talking about is not a matter of bias, it's a matter of fact.

Well said. Plus it's very important to note that Ayers and Obama served on a board when Ayers was an educator, not a radical terrorist. Ayers wouldn't be allowed anywhere near this board for education reform if he was still a terrorist at that time. Moreover, you know who was behind the board? Walter Annenburg, who was a US ambassador to the UK during the NIXON ADMINISTRATION. So if you want to be irresponsible and connect Obama to the Weathermen, you may as well say the Nixon people funded domestic terrorism. Both claims are equally outrageous.

[rirv]

Palin used huge leaps of logic to conclude that Obama "palls" (wtf?) around with terrorists and thinks that America is "imperfect". I think that's the issue.

[rirv]

But at least she can now name a newspaper - even if it was printed on her prompt cards.

[RobMoney$]

I am not speaking for Bob, but for me. If I was voting for or against a candidate because of skin color or religion, that would be a matter of bias. If, on the other hand, I picked my candidate because based upon objective criteria I think he is better qualified to further the policies I care about, that's just smart.


Nah. Maybe I'm still not getting my point across clearly,

How you come to support your candidate is not the issue. I'm not accusing Bob of supporting Obama for anything less than just reasons.
It's a matter of how deep Bob and the others who initially posted in this thread are dug into his their side. They don't have the ability to see issues from an even ground anymore.
The closer the election gets, the deeper their hole seems to get.
ABC News could come out tommorrow with a story about Obama being funded by Bin Laden himself and the liberal posters here would still find an excuse for it to explain it away. It's hilarious.

BIAS.

BTW, I don't think there's a better example of a non-biased person in this entire forum than Documad.
You clearly have the ability to support your candidate without becoming a radical about it. You don't need to say derogotory things about McCain in order to support Obama. That's just one of the reasons you're one of the most credible people here.

[Bob]

Nah. Maybe I'm still not getting my point across clearly,

How you come to support your candidate is not the issue. I'm not accusing Bob of supporting Obama for anything less than just reasons.
It's a matter of how deep Bob and the others who initially posted in this thread are dug into his their side. They don't have the ability to see issues from an even ground anymore.
The closer the election gets, the deeper their hole seems to get.
ABC News could come out tommorrow with a story about Obama being funded by Bin Laden himself and the liberal posters here would still find an excuse for it to explain it away. It's hilarious.

BIAS.

BTW, I don't think there's a better example of a non-biased person in this entire forum than Documad.
You clearly have the ability to support your candidate without becoming a radical about it. You don't need to say derogotory things about McCain in order to support Obama. That's just one of the reasons you're one of the most credible people here.

you really don't consider yourself to be the same way? really? maybe i missed something, and i could have, but i can't recall you ever saying a pleasant thing about obama except for when he's disavowing things that his supporters have done. you're quick on the trigger to post any little dubious criticism that comes through your inbox, you'll even post to a michelle malkin blog to do it (despite the availability of other sources, malkin was the one you liked). you've unironically called john mccain a maverick, you've referred to sarah palin lovingly as a real person, and you've defended the fact that she probably isn't competent to be vice president (which i think is the least you could ask of a vice president, but you don't even need that) by reassuring yourself that she'll surround herself with smart people, so it's ok. you really think you're being objective about any of this?

also i'm not a "radical," by the way.

[kaiser soze]

palin thinks all professors are terrorists and many who support her think educated people are a threat as well

gotcha with the you betcha!

[Jasonik]

McCain's terrorist friend (http://www.usvetdsp.com/oct08/mccain_kiet.htm)

Palin's palling around (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eniG9l_7its)

[King PSYZ]

Palin used huge leaps of logic to conclude that Obama "palls" (wtf?) around with terrorists and thinks that America is "imperfect". I think that's the issue.

I honestly can't decide which is worse... one that Palin eludes to Obama conspiring with terrorist to change the American way of life, or that she thinks America is "perfect" as is right now...

[RobMoney$]

you really don't consider yourself to be the same way? really? maybe i missed something, and i could have, but i can't recall you ever saying a pleasant thing about obama except for when he's disavowing things that his supporters have done. you're quick on the trigger to post any little dubious criticism that comes through your inbox, you'll even post to a michelle malkin blog to do it (despite the availability of other sources, malkin was the one you liked). you've unironically called john mccain a maverick, you've referred to sarah palin lovingly as a real person, and you've defended the fact that she probably isn't competent to be vice president (which i think is the least you could ask of a vice president, but you don't even need that) by reassuring yourself that she'll surround herself with smart people, so it's ok. you really think you're being objective about any of this?

also i'm not a "radical," by the way.

I posted ONE thing I recieved in an e-mail. ONE.
I don't know why I have to defend my posting an interesting and biting e-mail time and time again. It must have stung your candidate pretty bad for you to still be concerned about it this much. I thought it would provoke some interesting dialogue, and here we are weeks after I posted it and you're still referencing it.
That alone says it was worth posting.

What difference does it make if you quote an interesting blog or an interesting e-mail? If it sparks interesting dialogue then it's worth posting, right?



As far as my position on Palin, I never said she wasn't competent enough to serve as VP. I was asked if I would vote for Palin for President if McCain were to die before the election. What I said was that I didn't think she is ready to be President today, but I thought she had the potential to be President in 4 years when McCain's term would be over.
Even George Washington himself acknowledged that the President couldn't be an expert on everything, and that was when the world's problems were much less complex than they are today. That's why you have a cabinet, you have a state department and you have a treasury dept etc.
I don't really see why that would be such an outlandish opinion to have of Palin?
And again I will LOL @ an Obama supporter criticizing Palin's lack of experience.

You're kind of spinning what I say and taking my opinions out of context to use them against me here Bob.
Maybe you should run for President of the BBMB or something because with those type of skills you'd be a lock.

[DroppinScience]

Even George Washington himself acknowledged that the President couldn't be an expert on everything, and that was when the world's problems were much less complex than they are today. That's why you have a cabinet, you have a state department and you have a treasury dept etc.

Yes, a Cabinet and Chief of Staff and advisors and everything is as important as the President himself. BUT if you have someone clueless and they go on and appoint and surround themselves with people equally incompetent (or who are perfectly capable, but choose to act as "yesmen" and place personal loyalty to the President above doing your job and telling the truth), then you got a big fucking problem on your hands. Is there any reassurance that a Palin presidency would have the foresight to appoint capable experts and more importantly, ones who place their loyalty to their country first and before their President?

I've used the FDR example before of someone who is perceived as an intellectual lightweight, but had the common sense to surround him with the right people to keep him up to speed on all the pressing matters his presidency had to tackle. And believe me, there were quite a few things he had to confront. I wouldn't have the confidence of Palin to at least do that.

[Bob]

You're kind of spinning what I say and taking my opinions out of context to use them against me here Bob.
Maybe you should run for President of the BBMB or something because with those type of skills you'd be a lock.

i dunno, mccain looks like he might lose actually

[RobMoney$]

Well, you could rig the election then.

[King PSYZ]

that's already patented by the GOP

[RobMoney$]

Just Bush really.

Maybe he could get a bunch of homeless registered in time to stuff the boxes for him then.

[100% ILL]

I've used the FDR example before of someone who is perceived as an intellectual lightweight, but had the common sense to surround him with the right people to keep him up to speed on all the pressing matters his presidency had to tackle. And believe me, there were quite a few things he had to confront. I wouldn't have the confidence of Palin to at least do that.

I think an even better example is Harry Truman. He was completely out of the loop during the war up until FDR died.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/ht33.html

During his few weeks as Vice President, Harry S Truman scarcely saw President Roosevelt, and received no briefing on the development of the atomic bomb or the unfolding difficulties with Soviet Russia. Suddenly these and a host of other wartime problems became Truman's to solve when, on April 12, 1945, he became President. He told reporters, "I felt like the moon, the stars, and all the planets had fallen on me."

He instituted the Fair Deal, Kept the Korean war from escalating to global proportions and was instrumental in establishing NATO.

As far as untested vice-presidents go he was a prime example. Now I'm not saying Sarah Palin is just like Harry Truman, however she would not be the first VP in history to be inexperienced.

[DroppinScience]

I think an even better example is Harry Truman. He was completely out of the loop during the war up until FDR died.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/ht33.html



He instituted the Fair Deal, Kept the Korean war from escalating to global proportions and was instrumental in establishing NATO.

As far as untested vice-presidents go he was a prime example. Now I'm not saying Sarah Palin is just like Harry Truman, however she would not be the first VP in history to be inexperienced.

Yes, he was a very green untested President, especially for the end of WWII. But before his 60 or so days being VP, he had a good amount of years in the Senate and proved himself quite capable.

[kaiser soze]

This is quite concerning. Is it strictly to incite fear and hate and potential violence because it certainly doesn't sound anything but.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7v8HSI4-O-s&eurl

I think the mccain campaign knows they are lost...so why not create some chaos?

(n)(n)(n)