Embar Angylwrath wrote:She may not matter to YOU.. but its obvious she still has play with a large segment of America. As long as she has play, she can affect the outcome of the election. Do you disagree with that statement?
No - wasn't referring to me (I have no personal stake in it anyway). I meant to the average American, at least as far as I can tell. Americans seem far more concerned now about who will do the best with a failing economy than they are about who will be VP. The general spotlight is again on Obama vs. McCain and Palin's simply failing to garner any real positive or negative points for the GOP.
Like I've said, her role was to move the media spotlight from Obama to her. She succeeded. What wasn't anticipated was the economic meltdown resetting the media.
I certainly agree with the last part about the economy.
It will be interesting to see how the candidates flesh out their responses. McCain will absolutely have to temper his de-regulation stance, and Obama is going to have eliminate or postpone may of his programs.
Which, ironically, makes both of them just about the same now.
Correction Mr. President, I DID build this, and please give Lurker a hug, we wouldn't want to damage his self-esteem.
Embar wrote:It will be interesting to see how the candidates flesh out their responses. McCain will absolutely have to temper his de-regulation stance, and Obama is going to have eliminate or postpone may of his programs.
Which, ironically, makes both of them just about the same now.
Oh for christs sake. Their responses to this crisis have been as different as night and day with McCain floundering around, especially with his gimmick today about suspending his campaign.
As for Obama's spending proposals... his response on that was given days ago and shows just what an honest thoughtful person he is. He freely admitted that some of his spending would have to wait if the economy worsens. The middle class tax cut will happen because it is paid for with other increases and is vital to economic recovery, but other spending is probably not going to happen. Compare that to McCain who says he still plans to have all his tax cuts and still insists he's going to balance the budget in his first term. How is that possible when his proposals blew a 5.5 trillion hole in the budget to Obama's 3.3 trillion?
McCain is in fantasyland. To you, somehow, they are the same. Or have you not been paying attention to that either?
After he realized this problem was too big for the "our economic fundamentals are strong" line washing, he knee-jerked right into a diatribe of who should be fired and who should be decapitated. He's a reactionary blowhard trying yet for another publicity stunt since the Palin one has not only petered out, but is has hurt his personal credibility, even with conservatives.
His recent publicity stunt isn't going to accomplish shit other than disrupt and further politicize a serious process taking place and also cost the Univ $5,000,000 for jack squat. Not to mention all the people, security and planning that go into that. He's a ridiculous, drama queen flailing around trying to recover from the massive number of bungles he's made. He's attacking any and everything like a child. No, I take that back, like a senile, bitter old fart.
He actually said that if an agreement isn't signed by then, he's not coming. Not as in he will NEVER debate, but that he won't debate Friday.
It was on CNN
CNN's Dana Bash reports that McCain officials are "trying to negotiate with the Obama campaign and the presidential debate commission" to change next Thursday's planned vice presidential debate into a McCain-Obama affair. The VP debate would be postponed to another date.
"That is what they are proposing," Bash reported. "[McCain officials] understand very well that both the Obama campaign and the debate commission have no intention of delaying Friday's debate, but...if there is no bailout deal by Friday, McCain has no plan to go to debate."
Couric's questions are straightforward and responsible. Palin is mediocre, again, regurgitating talking points mechanically, not thinking. Palin's just babbling. She makes George W. Bush sound like Cicero.
McCain will have us on tenterhooks on a daily basis wondering whether he will call for impeaching the Supreme Court or bombing Uruguay and he will denounce anyone who questions his proposal as a selfish and corrupt villain, and while Obama might adopt equally awful views he will do so more slowly and allow the rest of us time to organize opposition and rational counterarguments that might actually prevail.
Andrew Sullivan's comment on this
Yes: one of them is deliberative and sane; the other one is impulsive and, in the evidence of the last month, borderline. My worry about Obama is that he may be too cautious. But then I look at his campaign and see one of the most daring, yet unfailingly professional and careful operation. And I feel reassured.
The most interesting thing about this guy is wondering how long the fly will stay stuck th his head. But anyway, he say's it's illegal to have a debate with only one candidate, under both IRS and Federal Election Commision regs. It's considered an illegal doantion to the attending candidate's campaign.
Correction Mr. President, I DID build this, and please give Lurker a hug, we wouldn't want to damage his self-esteem.
Ddrak wrote:Good grief - that Couric interview was a complete disaster. She wasn't even given hard questions and still managed to run completely off the rails.
Dd
Yeah. Pretty painful to watch.
Correction Mr. President, I DID build this, and please give Lurker a hug, we wouldn't want to damage his self-esteem.
In her interview with Katie Couric Sarah Palin essentially called Henry Kissinger naive and also proved that she just hasn't done her homework.
Couric: You met yesterday with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who is for direct diplomacy with both Iran and Syria. Do you believe the U.S. should negotiate with leaders like President Assad and Ahmadinejad?
Palin: I think, with Ahmadinejad, personally, he is not one to negotiate with. You can't just sit down with him with no preconditions being met. Barack Obama is so off-base in his proclamation that he would meet with some of these leaders around our world who would seek to destroy America and that, and without preconditions being met. That's beyond naïve. And it's beyond bad judgment.
Couric: Are you saying Henry Kissinger …
Palin: It's dangerous.
Couric: … is naïve for supporting that?
Palin: I've never heard Henry Kissinger say, "Yeah, I'll meet with these leaders without preconditions being met." Diplomacy is about doing a lot of background work first and shoring up allies and positions and figuring out what sanctions perhaps could be implemented if things weren't gonna go right. That's part of diplomacy.
Actually. That's exactly Henry Kissinger's position. And Couric even went ahead and confirmed it with Kissinger after the interview. Here is what Kissinger said just last week at a forum of five secretaries of state.
“I’m in favor of negotiating with Iran. And one – (unintelligible) – of negotiation is to put before Iran our vision of a Middle East – of a stable Middle East and our notion of nuclear proliferation at a high enough level so that they have to study it."
It's not only Kissinger's position. It is James Baker and Colin Powell's position as well. Here is what Powell said at the event.
Powell: “we should start to talk to them. Don’t wait for a letter coming from them. Start discussion. We’ve been talking to them up through 2003.” Asked whether we should “take the initiative?” Powell responded, “Yeah. We shouldn’t we? What are we afraid of? We did."
But who cares what Kissinger, Powell and Baker think. Sarah Palin is running the country now...
If BS were currency, Palin could bail out Wall Street herself.
If Palin were a man, we’d all be guffawing, just as we do every time Joe Biden tickles the back of his throat with his toes. But because she’s a woman — and the first ever on a Republican presidential ticket — we are reluctant to say what is painfully true.
What to do?
McCain can’t repudiate his choice for running mate. He not only risks the wrath of the GOP’s unforgiving base, but he invites others to second-guess his executive decision-making ability. Barack Obama faces the same problem with Biden.
Only Palin can save McCain, her party, and the country she loves. She can bow out for personal reasons, perhaps because she wants to spend more time with her newborn. No one would criticize a mother who puts her family first.
"I'm 65 and I've been covering politics for a long time. That is one of the most pathetic tapes I have ever seen from someone aspiring to one of the highest offices in this country. And that's all I have to say," - Jack Cafferty on the Couric-Palin interview.
In her interview with Katie Couric Sarah Palin essentially called Henry Kissinger naive and also proved that she just hasn't done her homework.
Couric: You met yesterday with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who is for direct diplomacy with both Iran and Syria. Do you believe the U.S. should negotiate with leaders like President Assad and Ahmadinejad?
Palin: I think, with Ahmadinejad, personally, he is not one to negotiate with. You can't just sit down with him with no preconditions being met. Barack Obama is so off-base in his proclamation that he would meet with some of these leaders around our world who would seek to destroy America and that, and without preconditions being met. That's beyond naïve. And it's beyond bad judgment.
Couric: Are you saying Henry Kissinger …
Palin: It's dangerous.
Couric: … is naïve for supporting that?
Palin: I've never heard Henry Kissinger say, "Yeah, I'll meet with these leaders without preconditions being met." Diplomacy is about doing a lot of background work first and shoring up allies and positions and figuring out what sanctions perhaps could be implemented if things weren't gonna go right. That's part of diplomacy.
Actually. That's exactly Henry Kissinger's position. And Couric even went ahead and confirmed it with Kissinger after the interview. Here is what Kissinger said just last week at a forum of five secretaries of state.
“I’m in favor of negotiating with Iran. And one – (unintelligible) – of negotiation is to put before Iran our vision of a Middle East – of a stable Middle East and our notion of nuclear proliferation at a high enough level so that they have to study it."
It's not only Kissinger's position. It is James Baker and Colin Powell's position as well. Here is what Powell said at the event.
Powell: “we should start to talk to them. Don’t wait for a letter coming from them. Start discussion. We’ve been talking to them up through 2003.” Asked whether we should “take the initiative?” Powell responded, “Yeah. We shouldn’t we? What are we afraid of? We did."
But who cares what Kissinger, Powell and Baker think. Sarah Palin is running the country now...
Well since Obama was harping about this in the debate tonight let's be clear. Kissinger believes we should negotiate with Iran without preconditions at a lower diplomatic level. He did not state anywhere that the heads of the two states should meet without preconditions......what he did state is that lower level diplomacy should always be open.
Couric was trying to rephrase Obama's original stance that he would be willing to meet with the heads of state without preconditions. She laid a little trap.....Palin didn't fall for it but it's being spun and spun hard.
Like Obama said - without preconditions meant without the threat of "we won't talk to you unless you do this first" not that they would set up a tea party with each other.
Even conservative sites are done with Palin, yet, you continue trying to spin the farce.
Right......but if you have fundamental differences which preclude any kind of peace......why meet at a head of state level?
Come on Harlowe I know you have a seeming bone to pick with McCain but you aren't stupid. You can read that interview and see it for what it is......rather than what you want it to be.
