The 2008 US Presidential Election Thread

[The_Noble_Cause]

Anyone that's focusing on Palin's wardrobe is a buffoon.

The fact of the matter is that a woman politician IS judged on appearance, just as much if not MORE than male counterparts. Why hasn't the press harped all over Obama's full wardrobe of 3000 dollar suits? or McCain's 600 dollar shoes? WTF?

Did either use campaign funds to pay for them?

[Arkansas]

Anyone that's focusing on Palin's wardrobe is a buffoon.

The fact of the matter is that a woman politician IS judged on appearance, just as much if not MORE than male counterparts. Why hasn't the press harped all over Obama's full wardrobe of 3000 dollar suits? or McCain's 600 dollar shoes? WTF?

Did either use campaign funds to pay for them?

Isn't wardrobe part of the campaign? Is campaigning limited to verbal expression, preaching, promising, salesmanship, etc? Or isn't campaigning all about total presentation?

I think the question could be, not how wardrobe was purchased, but if purchased for the campaign, then were the clothes worn for personal reasons or events. And if so, did Obama wear campaign-funded clothes when he went to see his Grandma?


later~

[The_Noble_Cause]

I'm going to say this one more time. The man is NOT going to get shot. If it was going to happen there would've been at least a legit attempt by now.

Though the circumstances remain murky, three men were arrested for precisely that.
It seems they were just gun-toting methheads tho.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/articl ... dible.html

To my knowledge, he did not have protection and that would've been deserved.

To the best of my knowledge, Tancredo could've requested secret service protection like Obama did - tho I can't imagine Tancredo wanting to be dependent on any form of gov't assistance.

[Tito]

I'm going to say this one more time. The man is NOT going to get shot. If it was going to happen there would've been at least a legit attempt by now.

Though the circumstances remain murky, three men were arrested for precisely that.
It seems they were just gun-toting methheads tho.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/articl ... dible.html

To my knowledge, he did not have protection and that would've been deserved.

To the best of my knowledge, Tancredo could've requested secret service protection like Obama did - tho I can't imagine Tancredo wanting to be dependent on any form of gov't assistance.

Those three guys were not a threat. The secret service said it was not a credible threat. Those morons would never got close to him even if they had tried.

[The_Noble_Cause]

This is no different than Liberals screaming about "freedom of speech" then clammering to bring back the fairness doctrine LOL.

Where's the "freedom of speech" in media monopolies buying up wholesale swaths of stations?
Where's the competitive market forces in Limbaugh being concurrently aired on every dial across the AM spectrum?
It's the public airwaves, the Doctrine merely gave the people a right of reply -that includes groups as diverse as the ACLU to the NRA.
If Limbaugh's blathering stood up to so much as the slightest bit of scrutiny he wouldn't fear an injection of sharp elbowed opposition, he would embrace it.
Reagan repealed the doctrine, because, as was the case with most of his Presidency, he put corporate profits ahead of public interest.
As his own FCC chairman said, TV is simply "a toaster with pictures."

[Tito]

This is no different than Liberals screaming about "freedom of speech" then clammering to bring back the fairness doctrine LOL.

Where's the "freedom of speech" in media monopolies buying up wholesale swaths of stations?
Where's the competitive market forces in Limbaugh being concurrently aired on every dial across the AM spectrum?
It's the public airwaves, the Doctrine merely gave the people a right of reply -that includes groups as diverse as the ACLU to the NRA.
If Limbaugh's blathering stood up to so much as the slightest bit of scrutiny he wouldn't fear an injection of sharp elbowed opposition, he would embrace it.
Reagan repealed the doctrine, because, as was the case with most of his Presidency, he put corporate profits ahead of public interest.
As his own FCC chairman said, TV is simply "a toaster with pictures."

Like the libs don't have their own outlets. Come on. Radio is outdated anyway.

[The_Noble_Cause]

I'm going to say this one more time. The man is NOT going to get shot. If it was going to happen there would've been at least a legit attempt by now.

Though the circumstances remain murky, three men were arrested for precisely that.
It seems they were just gun-toting methheads tho.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/articl ... dible.html

To my knowledge, he did not have protection and that would've been deserved.

To the best of my knowledge, Tancredo could've requested secret service protection like Obama did - tho I can't imagine Tancredo wanting to be dependent on any form of gov't assistance.

Those three guys were not a threat. The secret service said it was not a credible threat. Those morons would never got close to him even if they had tried.

Who cares?
They had guns and one said he was "going to shoot Obama from a high vantage point using a ... rifle … sighted at 750 yards."
I don't know about you, but I don't begrudge any person taking precautions against their own life - or is survival only a liberal instinct?

[Rhiannon]

or is survival only a liberal instinct?

Sure... that would explain why conservatives like guns.

[S2M]

Speaking of campaign costs....how dare candidates spend that amount of cash on shit like that when this country is this kind of financial state....

I knew before the campaign even started that I wasn't voting for either one....and I'm sure most people knew relatively early....what a waste of money.

[peridactyl]

is it REALLY that important how much she spent on clothes, hair, make up, etc? is that a reason not to vote for the mccain ticket?

No. The fact that she is intellectually bankrupt and fucking clueless is THE REASON not to allow that jackass anywhere near The White House! She can keep spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on her hair and makeup. She can also keep charging the taxpayers of Alaska to fly her children around the country on "official business" (shouldn't these children be in school?). None of it will matter, because I firmly believe that the 4 nutbags on here who think Palin is competent to lead our country are not a representative sample of how most of the country feels, and more importantly, how they will vote!


John from Boston

John, you are a trip! Thanks for keeping the voice of sanity alive on this Board!!

[strangegrey]

Anyone that's focusing on Palin's wardrobe is a buffoon.

The fact of the matter is that a woman politician IS judged on appearance, just as much if not MORE than male counterparts. Why hasn't the press harped all over Obama's full wardrobe of 3000 dollar suits? or McCain's 600 dollar shoes? WTF?

Did either use campaign funds to pay for them?

What would it matter? If it were tax payer dollars, I can see people getting pissy. But if the McCain people think that spending money out of their campaign piggy bank on her appearance has a measurable effect in the end, then it's their perogative. If you want to play that logic, then Obama's massive overspending on media should be called into play as well....because the goals are 100% the same. I personally don't think *either* belongs in play....

Also....In the end, 150 boxes of ziti isn't going to make the difference. So if McCain loses, the argument that they might have spent 100 of those boxes elsewhere is flawed. Just take a look at what it costs to get a 30 second spot on national or regional tv, and you'll see where I'm coming from.


Like I said...attack Palin's issues, her interviews, her background, her experience...it's not only in the ballpark, there's enough to pick on from here until next year. By the left focusing on something that exposes their hypocracy, not only waters down their position but it weakens their ability to call out *real* matters.

If the left is really, truly the party for women...then act like it!

[peridactyl]

This isn't costing the taxpayers one cent.

This may not be, but you conveniently forgot to mention that she's costing the taxpayers of Alaska all kinds of money, by flying her gaggle of kids around on "official business". I'm quite sure that her 17 year old, knocked up daughter, would be better served attending parenting classes, than costing the taxpayers of Alaska money, for her travels!

John from Boston

I do not condone the travel expense at all. But in context, she's not the only one and most likely most if not all do it. Grant it, it does NOT make it right. Our governor refuses to live in the governor's mansion in Springfield and flys everyday from Chicago to Springfield and back to Chicago. I believe the amount is $9,000 everyday. So her $21k, although not right, pales in comparassion to the waste of my governor. It also pales in comparassion to Obama's expenses to the taxpayers and his own campaign expenses.

She would make a great V.P.

Based on what? The fact that she can see Russia from her porch? Or, is it the fact that she is so well read? Maybe it's her knowledge of The Supreme Court! I know...It must be because she is so well educated about the position she is seeking! Just come out and say it...You'd like to bend her over and have your way with her, so you think that makes her qualified to run our country! There certainly are no other facts that could possibly lead anyone to believe that this woman is remotely qualified. Hell, this is the first time in my life that I've heard so many people (from her own party) come out and publically say that this woman isn't qualified! The only people I see voting for McCain are those who love the fact that Puppet Palin is steadfastly against abortion and believes that guns are a good thing. If you announce that you're pro-life or pro-choice, you're certain to get a certain percentage of votes, just because there will always be some whose entire existence revolves around these issues!


John from Boston

All of the above and especially the guns part. I truly believe in a limited government so her (lack of) so called experience is not a concern to me. But, the point I am trying to make is, she is more qualified to be V.P. than Obama is to be President. If the question is are both them qualified for their positions overall, the answer is probably no. So, if you're going to slam her for being not qualified and that may be legit than Obama isn't qualified either. If you feel Obama is qualified, then she is for V.P.

Palin is so underqualified it is pathetic. Even after being fed answers she doesn't know the basics about government:

Here she is answering incorrectly about what preconditions means re negotiations:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bWZ70SCucc

Obama was a legal professor and has more brains in his little toe than she has in her entire well-coifed head!

People who vote for such poor leadership as McCain/Palin are the reason we've had 8 years of being led by a Duffus! Thanks a lot!

[Tito]

Anyone that's focusing on Palin's wardrobe is a buffoon.

The fact of the matter is that a woman politician IS judged on appearance, just as much if not MORE than male counterparts. Why hasn't the press harped all over Obama's full wardrobe of 3000 dollar suits? or McCain's 600 dollar shoes? WTF?

Did either use campaign funds to pay for them?

What would it matter? If it were tax payer dollars, I can see people getting pissy. But if the McCain people think that spending money out of their campaign piggy bank on her appearance has a measurable effect in the end, then it's their perogative. If you want to play that logic, then Obama's massive overspending on media should be called into play as well....because the goals are 100% the same. I personally don't think *either* belongs in play....

Also....In the end, 150 boxes of ziti isn't going to make the difference. So if McCain loses, the argument that they might have spent 100 of those boxes elsewhere is flawed. Just take a look at what it costs to get a 30 second spot on national or regional tv, and you'll see where I'm coming from.


Like I said...attack Palin's issues, her interviews, her background, her experience...it's not only in the ballpark, there's enough to pick on from here until next year. By the left focusing on something that exposes their hypocracy, not only waters down their position but it weakens their ability to call out *real* matters.

If the left is really, truly the party for women...then act like it!

There is nothing wrong with her issues (most of them). I don't care about the media interviews. Her background is not perfect but is near perfect relative to the other 3 people on the major party ticket and most politicans in general. Her (lack of) experience is fair game but by doing so they discredit their nominee who heads their ticket. So, I wouldn't touch that if I were them.

[Tito]

Obama was a legal professor

And that makes him qualified? Also, he wasn't a professor.

[strangegrey]

If Limbaugh's blathering stood up to so much as the slightest bit of scrutiny he wouldn't fear an injection of sharp elbowed opposition, he would embrace it.

But it DOES stand up to scrutiny. With the fairness doctrine out of play, you free the radio market, not constrict it. If Air America or any of the liberal radio initiatives actually sold advertising dollars.....they could have the same radio presence Limbaugh has.

You logic is flawed, because under the fairness doctrine, Limbaugh's show doesn't NEED to stand up to scrutiny. He would benefit from the same forced 50% of the airwaves as the liberals. Liberals and Democrats need to focus on putting GOOD people on the airwaves to combat people like Limbaugh. That's how you beat him...at his own game....not by trying to regulate him out of his chair.


The vast majority of the public, including democrats...don't agree with you.

[Andrew]

I understand your point. But they have to keep her pretty.

Yeah, that takes the focus of what she is saying

Go to bed.

He's in the UK, dork! It's like dinnertime over there.

Oh. Then, Andrew mind your own business. This isn't your country.

US decisions affect the rest of the world (unfortunately...and especially when they are dumb ones...) and I don't want that woman influencing my world.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Anyone that's focusing on Palin's wardrobe is a buffoon.

The fact of the matter is that a woman politician IS judged on appearance, just as much if not MORE than male counterparts. Why hasn't the press harped all over Obama's full wardrobe of 3000 dollar suits? or McCain's 600 dollar shoes? WTF?

Did either use campaign funds to pay for them?

What would it matter? If it were tax payer dollars, I can see people getting pissy. But if the McCain people think that spending money out of their campaign piggy bank on her appearance has a measurable effect in the end, then it's their perogative. If you want to play that logic, then Obama's massive overspending on media should be called into play as well....because the goals are 100% the same. I personally don't think *either* belongs in play....

Also....In the end, 150 boxes of ziti isn't going to make the difference. So if McCain loses, the argument that they might have spent 100 of those boxes elsewhere is flawed. Just take a look at what it costs to get a 30 second spot on national or regional tv, and you'll see where I'm coming from.


Like I said...attack Palin's issues, her interviews, her background, her experience...it's not only in the ballpark, there's enough to pick on from here until next year. By the left focusing on something that exposes their hypocracy, not only waters down their position but it weakens their ability to call out *real* matters.

If the left is really, truly the party for women...then act like it!

From Kerry's tan to Edward's haircut to Hillary's cleavage to Bill's air force one haircut to Gore's earthtone clothes, when has liberal vanity NOT been fair game to the right and the lapdog media?
I am rather enjoying this.

[strangegrey]

There is nothing wrong with her issues (most of them).

That's not the point here. Who cares what you, I or TNC thinks about her....

The point I'm making is that the left has a damn good case against her already.....by focusing on things that really don't belong on the playing field, they're giving up their chance to have at her out with a legitimate argument.

By attacking her via sexist inroads, you're going to turn away moderate woman...fast. The republicans learned this the hard way with Rick Lazzio v. Hillary Clinton in NY.


Attack her intelligence, attack her issues, attack whatever it is that the left feels are issues-based reasons to not vote for McCain/Palin. The clothing thing makes them look like hypocrites....

[Saint John]

I don't want that woman influencing my world.

What...you afraid she's gonna steal Eden's Curse and Rick Springfield away from you?

[strangegrey]

From Kerry's tan to Edward's haircut to Hillary's cleavage to Bill's air force one haircut to Gore's earthtone clothes, when has liberal vanity NOT been fair game to the right and the lapdog media?
I am rather enjoying this.

Whatever...I'll submit that there are far more cases of bullshit attacks from the left than the right.....and I never saw the right try to quantify any of the above issues with campaign dollars! idiotic.

...the democrat party is going to turn away women votes with this effort...there's plenty of good meaty topicality to attack on Palin's bones...leave the fucking clothes out of it....you look like hypocrites when you do.

[Tito]

The vast majority of the public, including democrats...don't agree with you.

We hope.

I agree with your overall analysis in regards to McCain losing being a good thing. As long as the republicans don't screw up (again and this is the big IF) they should be set for tremendous gains in two years. A far left wing agenda, probably still poor economic conditions (it will still be the republicans fault), etc. = republican comeback like '66 and '94. But, we could still screw it up. I asked a few republican friends and family members this week, wouldn't it have been right now if Kerry had been elected. 4 years of him with the same economic conditions and 2 years of democrat controlled congress would have the republicans in the driver seat big time right now. Then again, the stupid party probably would've still elected McCain.

[Tito]

I understand your point. But they have to keep her pretty.

Yeah, that takes the focus of what she is saying

Go to bed.

He's in the UK, dork! It's like dinnertime over there.

Oh. Then, Andrew mind your own business. This isn't your country.

US decisions affect the rest of the world (unfortunately...and especially when they are dumb ones...) and I don't want that woman influencing my world.

Sexist.

[Tito]

Bill's air force one haircut

This one is totally fair game.

[The_Noble_Cause]

The vast majority of the public, including democrats...don't agree with you.

Maybe that's because most, like yourself, have the mistaken impression that the Doctrine mandated 50/50 equal time.
It never did.
And last I checked, nearly half of Americans do favor it.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php? ... geId=72369

[Rhiannon]

Hillary's cleavage

I just puked a little.

[strangegrey]

The vast majority of the public, including democrats...don't agree with you.

We hope.

CNN ran a poll last night. nearly 70% of americans think the fairness doctrine is putrid. Unfortunately, that never stopped congress from doing something an overwhelming majority of the public disagrees with. Oct 7 of this past year should be proof of that...

I agree with your overall analysis in regards to McCain losing being a good thing. As long as the republicans don't screw up (again and this is the big IF) they should be set for tremendous gains in two years. A far left wing agenda, probably still poor economic conditions (it will still be the republicans fault), etc. = republican comeback like '66 and '94. But, we could still screw it up. I asked a few republican friends and family members this week, wouldn't it have been right now if Kerry had been elected. 4 years of him with the same economic conditions and 2 years of democrat controlled congress would have the republicans in the driver seat big time right now. Then again, the stupid party probably would've still elected McCain.

That's only part of it Tito....I can't vote McCain because he's not going to be a good president and the republican party needs to be sent a clear msg that they're not getting any more of my votes until they put up a candidate that isn't a mental abortion.

I can only hope that McCain's loss will cement the republican party in a direction that takes them away from crazy spending and left-pandering.



I also think that Obama has proven that he's got a far more level head than McCain...although if his party continues this petty attack on Palin's wardrobe (knowing full well that Obama likely spends just as much if not more)....then he wont get my fucking vote either....and I'll write in Stu.

[RedWingFan]

Hillary's cleavage

I just puked a little.

I have my ipod on shuffle and your song came on. Just thought I'd let you know.

[strangegrey]

The vast majority of the public, including democrats...don't agree with you.

Maybe that's because most, like yourself, have the mistaken impression that the Doctrine mandated 50/50 equal time.
It never did.
And last I checked, nearly half of Americans do favor it.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php? ... geId=72369

Check CNN's poll. 70%/30% dude.....50% is a pipe dream

[Rhiannon]

Hillary's cleavage

I just puked a little.

I have my ipod on shuffle and your song came on. Just thought I'd let you know.

[Tito]

The vast majority of the public, including democrats...don't agree with you.

We hope.

CNN ran a poll last night. nearly 70% of americans think the fairness doctrine is putrid. Unfortunately, that never stopped congress from doing something an overwhelming majority of the public disagrees with. Oct 7 of this past year should be proof of that...

I agree with your overall analysis in regards to McCain losing being a good thing. As long as the republicans don't screw up (again and this is the big IF) they should be set for tremendous gains in two years. A far left wing agenda, probably still poor economic conditions (it will still be the republicans fault), etc. = republican comeback like '66 and '94. But, we could still screw it up. I asked a few republican friends and family members this week, wouldn't it have been right now if Kerry had been elected. 4 years of him with the same economic conditions and 2 years of democrat controlled congress would have the republicans in the driver seat big time right now. Then again, the stupid party probably would've still elected McCain.

That's only part of it Tito....I can't vote McCain because he's not going to be a good president and the republican party needs to be sent a clear msg that they're not getting any more of my votes until they put up a candidate that isn't a mental abortion.

I can only hope that McCain's loss will cement the republican party in a direction that takes them away from crazy spending and left-pandering.



I also think that Obama has proven that he's got a far more level head than McCain...although if his party continues this petty attack on Palin's wardrobe (knowing full well that Obama likely spends just as much if not more)....then he wont get my fucking vote either....and I'll write in Stu.

Obama is an act. Don't be fooled. Vote for Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin instead.