which horse mcain or obama

[Anonymous]

.

 

[EMF]

:lol: Good video! But sadly, looks like this may be all we see. the Republicans have stooped to a new low by shunning the press when they get "too tough" on the Maverick. The campaign canceled out on the Larry King show because they said Campbell Brown was "too tough" on McMavericks spokesman. She wanted to hear one of Palins "executive decisions" she had made. They could not give one and were pissed off that they were asked about it.

Now, they say Sarah Palin will be off limits to reporters and shows like Meet the Press, unless they decide it is to their advantage for her to grant an interview. In addition, if you want good access to McCain, you have to "Prove yourself" as a "good reporter"! Folks, this campaign is starting to show what we could expect from an administration of the same people. Looks like McCain has sold his soul and now he is being handled by the puppetmasters and he has not even made it to office yet!

Imagine what the Republicans would say if a same attitude toward transparency was put forward to the press by the Obama campaign.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/05/mccain-campaign-plans-to-keep-palin-away-from-the-press/

Campaign strategist Rick Davis:

Davis insisted that “there are no strings attached” to media access to McCain. Yet just this week, McCain abruptly canceled an interview with Larry King as punishment for a tough CNN interview with one of his spokesmen. What’s more, top McCain aide Mark Salter said that “only the good reporters” would get the best seats in the new campaign plane. “You have to earn it,” he said.

WTF

 

[bquick]

I must say, the last week has demonstrated how solidly in Obama's corner the mainstream media is. Now that McCain is a threat, they are falling all over themselves to tear him and Palin down.

Both sides are in a contest. It only makes sense for each side to try to control how they appear in the media. If they think the media will be unhelpful, then they will avoid that media.

I think it's better to deny an interview than to take an interview, but limit the questions that can be asked. When Michelle Obama appeared on "The View", she showed up with a list of topics that couldn't be discussed. Is this the candor you are looking for?

- Brad

 

[EMF]

Yes, I am tired of this lack of spontaneity, that is for sure! I don't like it when things are "off limits" if it is pertinent to the campaign. I didn't watch the View, but if they torqued it down like that, then I didn't miss much and am very disappointed the Obama campaign would do something like that.

I'm looking for information from the press that indicates Sarah Palin is qualified to have her finger on the button, in the event that McDepends does not last a full term.

There are only 60 days until we vote and we have the right to know who is the best choice, to try and turn this mess around. Biden is no mystery, but Palin frankly, I don't know that much about so far, other than she is an extremist.

The campaign handlers keep saying she is qualified and ready to lead, but we need to try and get information that allows us to decide for ourselves. We need some candid interviews and the opportunity to ask questions.

The lack of access though, can also be a way to decide I suppose. If she is not ready to face the press, or if there is a danger to the success of the race if she does so, then surely this could cast doubt as to whether she is ready to face the leaders of foreign nations or tackle the problems that face the people of the United States. These type issues wont be scripted and the answers wont roll across a teleprompter.

I'd like to see how she reacts on her own two feet.

 

[paultrafalgar]

...

There are only 60 days until we vote and we have the right to know who is the best choice, to try and turn this mess around. Biden is no mystery, but Palin frankly, I don't know that much about so far, other than she is an extremist.

Surely, that's enough: if you know she's an extremist you know she's not fit to lead or to face foreign leaders.

...
The campaign handlers keep saying she is qualified and ready to lead, but we need to try and get information that allows us to decide for ourselves. We need some candid interviews and the opportunity to ask questions.

...

I'd like to see how she reacts on her own two feet

A politician is someone who never says what they truly believe, but always what their apparatchiks tell them the public wants to hear. So it follows, you should vote for them or not on the basis of what you discern is what they will do, not on the basis of what they say. If they're an extremist, you surely don't want to vote for them... Or am I missing something?

 

[TylerDurden]

Sarah Palin has yet to meet the press
Michael Calderone
Sat Sep 6, 6:21 PM ET

When political junkies flip through television stations on Sunday morning, they'll find policy-driven interviews with three of the four candidates on the presidential tickets — John McCain, Barack Obama and Joe Biden. They won’t, though, see Sarah Palin.

Less than two months before voters hit the polls, Palin has yet to sit down for or even schedule an issues-oriented interview with any newspaper, magazine or television network.

Meanwhile, the McCain campaign has significantly scaled back the access of the national press he used to jokingly refer to as his “base,” and several speakers, including Palin, took shots at the media in their speeches at last week's Republican convention.

Since her debut in Dayton, Ohio, the McCain campaign has been receiving about 80-100 requests a day from news organizations around the world, according to spokesman Ben Porritt, who said interest in an interview was "through the roof" and that the campaign was going through them now.

"There's no doubt in my mind that the McCain campaign would like to run out on the clock on this," said David Chalian, political director for ABC News.

He expects the campaign will tightly manage access to Palin, but give some national interviews shortly before the Oct. 2 vice presidential debate with Biden, moderated by PBS' Gwen Ifill.

"They know they're not going to get through the next 60 days without doing interviews and being tested and prodded," Chalian said.

But even if Palin does submit to a few carefully selected interviews around the October debate, that means another month before the 37-million-plus viewers who tuned into Palin's speech and others get their first look at how the newcomer to the national stage performs outside of a campaign-controlled setting.

In the meantime, Fox News is rolling out a special (as are other networks): "Gov. Sarah Palin: An American Woman," a one-hour biography hosted by Greta Van Susteren that includes "exclusive video and photos" and "interviews with her family, friends and colleagues" — but not Palin herself.

Palin has already become a ubiquitous presence on newsstands. Presently, her face adorns the cover of traditional newsweeklies Time and Newsweek, Beltway favorites The New Republic and The Weekly Standard, and even celebrity glossies Us Weekly and Ok!.

While everyone from the New Yorker to CNBC has rushed to republish their older interviews with the Alaska governor, it's People magazine that has the only actual interview she’s done since joining to the ticket.

Larry Hackett, managing editor of People, said the McCain campaign offered the magazine an opportunity to photograph McCain and "Nominee TK" at the Aug. 29 event in Dayton.


In addition to a brief Q&A with both Republicans (as well as their spouses and McCain’s daughter Meghan) and an accompanying article that was mostly based on months-old reporting, the magazine also ran a lifestyle feature on Palin’s life as a working mother running a statehouse and her own house.

People has a long history of reporting on the personal side of candidates and their families, but Hackett acknowledges that "we have a different job" than overtly political titles.

"Are we going to ask about Pakistan?" Hackett said rhetorically, adding that it's not a focus for their readers.

That said, journalists are pushing hard to ask Palin about Pakistan — and Iraq, Iran, Russia, North Korea and Al Qaeda, not to mention a host of domestic issues, from the economy to health care.

Jay Carney, Time's Washington bureau chief, questioned McCain spokesperson Nicole Wallace about the lack of access on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" last Thursday, resulting in a heated exchange that quickly got passed around via YouTube.

"We know now that Sarah Palin can give one hell of a speech," Carney said. "She's a natural. And that's no mean feat. We don't know yet and we won't know until you guys allow her to take questions, you know, can she answer tough questions about domestic policy, foreign policy?"

"But I mean, like from who?” Wallace asked. "From you?”

When Carney answered "Yes," Wallace followed up with, "Who cares?

"I think the American people want to see her," Wallace continued. "Who cares if she can talk to Time magazine?"

Later that day, Carney — who last week had a much-buzzed about interview with McCain in which the candidate became testy, and refused to answer some questions — told Politico that the McCain campaign is acting "condescending and smug" toward the press.

"The national media," he added, "will be kept far away" from Palin.

They may be at once close and far away. Top newspaper reporters will be on the trail with her day after day, including The Washington Post's Juliet Eilperin. The New York Times will have a rotating cast, beginning with Monica Davey.

And each network will have an off-air producer, or embed, devoted to the Palin beat: Matt Berger (NBC/ National Journal), Shushannah Walshe (Fox), Imtiyaz Delawala (ABC), Scott Conroy (CBS), and Peter Hamby (CNN). The bigger-name, on-air correspondents will also be on the road with Palin from time to time.

Sam Feist, CNN's political director, said that since Palin has had to focus on regional issues as Alaska's governor, he expects she'll begin with media avails on the road and only offer wide-ranging interviews after getting thoroughly prepared for them by the campaign.

However, he said, "if a presidential candidate or a vice presidential candidate declines to do interviews, the news organizations will note that."

Even when Palin does begin taking interviews, it remains to be seen if she’ll grant them to outlets with which the campaign has had a hostile relationship — most notably the New York Times.

"There's no question that we've had less and less access to McCain himself," said Richard Stevenson, the paper's political editor. "Certainly the Times has had a strained relationship with that campaign for a while."

"Strained" might be putting it mildly.

Since February, when the McCain campaign talked about going to war with the paper over a front-page article that included allegations of an improper relationship with a female lobbyist, there have been several public disputes. This past Tuesday, a McCain spokesperson described Elisabeth Bumiller, one the reporters on the McCain beat, as a "fiction" writer.

"I know whether or not they cooperate with us, we will be very actively looking into who [Palin] is, what she's done, what her record is — as much as we can learn about her in as concentrated a time as we can," Stevenson said.

"One of the costs to them of not putting her out there," he added, "is the coverage is going to define her as much as the campaign."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080906/pl_politico/13208

 

[EMF]

...

There are only 60 days until we vote and we have the right to know who is the best choice, to try and turn this mess around. Biden is no mystery, but Palin frankly, I don't know that much about so far, other than she is an extremist.

Surely, that's enough: if you know she's an extremist you know she's not fit to lead or to face foreign leaders.

...
The campaign handlers keep saying she is qualified and ready to lead, but we need to try and get information that allows us to decide for ourselves. We need some candid interviews and the opportunity to ask questions.

...

I'd like to see how she reacts on her own two feet

A politician is someone who never says what they truly believe, but always what their apparatchiks tell them the public wants to hear. So it follows, you should vote for them or not on the basis of what you discern is what they will do, not on the basis of what they say. If they're an extremist, you surely don't want to vote for them... Or am I missing something?

When a candidate for the 2nd highest office is being withheld from the press, it sets a bad precedent. I think that when Americans are voting for new leaders, they are entitled to access in some way. What is worrisome especially in this case, is we know so little about this woman and there is so little time to learn more. All we have seen so far is a reading of a scripted speech from Karl Roves protege, that was created prior to her selection as VP.

The news media is bad enough as is. If we get to the point, as it seems to be heading towards, that you need to be granted an audience, similar to the Queen of England, we have even more problems. The citizens of the US should be outraged. It's bad enough our elected leaders don't do what we tell them to do, once they are in office. I don't want to see them being able to decide not to communicate with the press as a strategy to getting there. These people are public servants paid for by the taxpayer, not royalty.

This election has shown how close we are to becoming a police state, with the gassing of demonstrators, the lack of access to even the area of the convention, holding pens with razor wire etc. Now, we don't even get to hear from a prospective candidate as they are so afraid of "what might happen". I tell you what, it is really getting scary.

 

[jerryt]

EMF wrote:
Biden is no mystery, but Palin frankly, I don't know that much about so far, other than she is an extremist.

If you read blogs and newspapers and watch MSNBC or CNN you get a lot of info about Gov. Palin. For example,

• She is a bad mother who had too many children including a special needs child who she didn’t abort.
• She never really had a special needs child at all (she was covering for her white trash daughter).
• She doesn’t have any Washington exposure (Doh)
• She had an affair with her husband’s business partner that he denied and she denied and there was no evidence anyway.
• Her husband had a DUI (20 years ago; about the same time Obama admitted snorting coke).
• She has bad hair.
• She is an extremist (according to EMF).

Fact is She’s had more political crap in 3 or 4 days from the mainstream press and their crack-head allies than Obama has in the last 3 years.

 

[Anonymous]

.

 

[jerryt]

According to EMF? This woman said the iraq war is a "task that is from god" and asked students to pray for pipelines.

Thats not very extreme, I pray for pipelines all the time. Whats really extreme are the various Humam Rights Commissions across Canada which are limiting free speech (selectively of course).

From the American Thinker:

Two heated public debates are taking place north of the 49th parallel these days, and broadly speaking, both debates pit progressives against conservatives. The funny thing is that the progressives are illustrating how it is possible to believe two mutually contradictory things at the same time.

Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant, as well as the magazines they respectively wrote for and owned, were the targets of complaints filed with various Human Rights Commissions across Canada, accusing them of publishing material that was offensive to Muslims. The Human Rights Commissions, which were set up to protect the rights of minorities -- including it seems, the right never to be offended by something they read -- are not so zealous when it comes to protecting human rights such as the right to free speech and the right to freedom of conscience. Targets of the HRCs include a man who wrote a letter to the editor arguing the traditional Biblical strictures against homosexuality, and a restaurant owner who objected to a man smoking marijuana in the doorway of his establishment.

Journalist Joseph Brean notes, in an article which provides a good overview of the HRC controversy,

"f there is a pattern emerging in [these human rights] complaints, it seems to be that the complainants are frequently Muslims or progressives, and the respondents are frequently Christians or conservatives."


Defenders of the HRC counter that the Commissions uphold "human dignity." "Who ever said freedom of speech meant you could not be held accountable for what you say and how it might impact another person or group?" wrote the head of a provincial Human Rights Commission.

Another fan of the Commissions asks,

"Is a 19th-century English philosopher [John Stuart Mill] really the best arbiter of Canadian human rights standards in the 21st century? At the time Mill wrote [in favor of free speech], England was openly racist, sexist and anti-Semitic."


Okay. So apparently we are right to use the power of the state to repress speech deemed to be racist or sexist. Patrolling speech is something a civilized, modern, multi-cultural and tolerant nation should do.

Unless you happen to be a filmmaker facing the loss of federal tax credits which subsidize the film industry in Canada. The federal government is contemplating a new bill which will deny tax credits to a film "deemed offensive." The examples used are films that are pornographic or extremely violent. Please note: the government is not saying the film can't be made. They are saying the taxpayers won't have to subsidize it.

In this square-off between free-speech absolutists and the government, it's the progressives, like actress/director Sarah Polley, who declared:

"It's the job of artists to provoke and to challenge. Part of the responsibility of being an artist is to create work that will inspire dialogue, suggest that people examine their long-held positions and, yes, occasionally offend in order to do so."


The loss of these tax credits, she charges, has "a whiff of censorship."

Okay. Censorship bad. We are wrong to use the power of the state to repress speech deemed to be offensive. But surely pornography would be offensive to Muslims? If a Muslim is offended by a cartoon Mohammad, wouldn't he be offended by actresses writhing in simulated ecstasy who are not covered by burquas?

So what happens if the bold, transgressive Sarah Polley decides to make a film that provokes dialogue by portraying, say, a neo-Nazi in a sympathetic light? [Update: She did! hat tip: Kathy Shaidle and Five Feet of Fury]What about her right to "occasionally offend" then?

I'm kidding, of course, that will never happen. And I don't mean to suggest that she ever would or should make such a film.

We're fiercely anti-Nazi in Canada. The Human Rights Commissions are vigorously prosecuting "neo-Nazi losers in basements," as Steyn puts it, who run pathetic little websites.

On the other hand, Communism, responsible for the deaths of untold millions? No problem. The Canadian government not only won't suppress you, they will pay you to spread your message.

Canada's National Film Board promotes films like "They Chose China," the tale of the "courageous" American P.O.W.s who elected to stay in China after the Korean War.

Seriously. This "award-winning" documentary is about soldiers who were tortured and indoctrinated in Chinese prison camp, and argues that the brainwashed victims were American "dissidents."

Our national broadcaster, the CBC, recently ran Oliver Stone's documentary about Fidel Castro.

I am highly offended by these films. What are my chances of having a Human Rights Commission reining in the propagandistic efforts of our tax-payer subsidized film board and television broadcaster?

It's all clear once you understand the rules: Fascism: must be rooted out, condemned and suppressed. Communism: go right ahead, make your film. Bonus points if you can take a swipe against the United States in the process.

And of course the neo-Nazi losers in basements aren't asking for federal tax credits to underwrite their enterprise. The progressives are. (For the record, I am against tax credits for neo-Nazis.)

Lona Manning is a freelance writer living in Canada.

 

[Anonymous]

.

 

[lostcoyote]

This woman said the iraq war is a "task that is from god" and asked students to pray for pipelines.

nothing fails like prayer. too bad, i'd pray for an engine failure while she's aloft.

 

[Anonymous]

.

 

[jerryt]

I don't care if people believe in flying spaghetti monsters, but I have a problem with politicians using religion as an excuse to maim and kill people.

I agree with that. Would you agree that religious extremists shouldn't use religion to kill and maim?

nothing fails like prayer. too bad, i'd pray for an engine failure while she's aloft.

An example of a religious extremist.

 

[Anonymous]

.

 

[pwbset]

Just saw Joe Biden speak locally this afternoon. Don't typically do these sorts of things, but my better half insisted. I'm the biggest political skeptic there is, but it was very impressive talk... better be after 35+ years as a politician. :wink: He really talked about issues of local concern to us (mainly the complete shit economy), was very friendly and engaged the audience really well and also happened to be extremely funny with awesome stories relevant to whatever he was talking about. No matter your party affiliation if he comes to a town near you I highly recommend seeing him.

 

[Sheriff Jon]

I am an OBAMA supporter and have been since I just happened to stumble on to his famous Senate speach. I must admit that McCains speach the other night was pretty good, full of passion and was very inspiring. Palins speach may have also been inspiring to some but IMO lacked any real substance. She is a good looking gal, and if elected she may make a great VP, who knows. But the decision to pick her was IMO a little questionable, especially considering all of the other possible choices. It would be like going to Ace hardware to buy a hammer, and walking out with one of those cute little flower embossed hammers by the cash register. Kind of an impulse buy.

 

[Anonymous]

.

 

[jerryt]

He really talked about issues of local concern to us (mainly the complete shit economy), was very friendly and engaged the audience really well and also happened to be extremely funny with awesome stories relevant to whatever he was talking about. No matter your party affiliation if he comes to a town near you I highly recommend seeing him

Yes, and if McCain wants to get our attention, he better start talking about the economy too.

Wish I had seen Biden. I admire him for how he treated his wife's memory with respect and the way he raised his kids, I thought he took a bum rap for plagiarism. Heck, most of us are guilty of that.

re Palin:
It would be like going to Ace hardware to buy a hammer, and walking out with one of those cute little flower embossed hammers by the cash register. Kind of an impulse buy.

Not impulse; McCain's been watching her since Newt Gingrich mentioned her in February.

 

[Sheriff Jon]

Not impulse; McCain's been watching her since Newt Gingrich mentioned her in February.

Ok, I guess I should have said....."Seems kind of like an impules buy" :wink:

She is a realitive unknown to the American public, and can ya blame McCain for "watching her" she is a looker

 

[TPA]

Here's yet another ooopsie slip of the lip from Barry.

[youtube]XKGdkqfBICw[/youtube]

 

[EMF]

Yes, and if McCain wants to get our attention, he better start talking about the economy too.

He can't. McCain himself admits he is a dufus when it comes to economic matters, so he can't speak about it and his party is tickled with the economy anyway. To them, things have never been better!

It's his party that messed up the economy (in our eyes- not theirs) and if they could fix things, the machinery is in place and they have had 8 years to do it. the truth is, they think the economy is fine as it is. Actually, it is for those who are in the top 5% of wealth in the US. The already affluent have prospered mightily under the Bush regime.

McCains buddy Gramm, who used to be his economic guru, who is largely responsible for the sub prime crisis had to be dumped after he called us all "whiners" and that the issues of the economy was merely all in our head. This is something he believes and so do the elite bunch behind the McCain campaign.

The key thing to realise here is that those very high up in the McCain team, think the economy is "fundamentally strong" and there is not anything wrong at the moment. Gramm flat out said as much and kind of let the cat out of the bag.

Unemployment to a corporation is actually a good thing. It means more work is being done with less people! They love it! It means enhanced profit which causes their stocks to go higher. Plus, they are shedding "burden".

What gets my goat is how now McCain is talking about "change" all of a sudden, when he is voting with Bush 90% of the time and letting lobbyists run his campaign. I like what Obama says of his hypocrisy:

"Everywhere I go, we've been talking about change, that's been the theme of this campaign," Obama told supporters Saturday in Terre Haute, Indiana. "And we must be on to something, because I notice now everyone's talking about change now."

"Suddenly [McCain's] the change agent!" Obama laughed. "He says, 'I'm going to tell those lobbyists that their days of running Washington are over.' Who's he going to tell? Is he going to tell his campaign chairman, who's one of the biggest corporate lobbyists in Washington? Is he going to tell his campaign manager, who was one of the biggest corporate lobbyists in Washington? Is he going to tell all the folks who are running his campaign, who are the biggest corporate lobbyists in Washington?"

 

[Anonymous]

.

 

[jerryt]

What gets my goat is how now McCain is talking about "change" all of a sudden,

I tend to believe he's talking entrenched bureaucrats, earmarks and general slothfulness if not downright malfeasance.

Mc Cain has snatched “change” from the grasp of the Democrats and will now use it as his mantra. He has brilliantly stolen the phrase and shocked the Obamaites primarily by choosing a young, smart, popular woman as his running mate. Obama's campaign groupies and the intelligentsia are in a state of panic.

Her acceptance speech was clear, concise and amazing and down to earth for us commoners. Compare that to Obama who speaks like an elitist and says next to nothing at great length but tries very hard to make it sound deeply thoughtful when it is in fact nonsense.

Clintonians are also scrambling because they realize that regardless of the outcome of this race Hilary will have a hard row to hoe against Palin in 2012.

 

[Anonymous]

.