Obama vs. McCain

[el badman]

Good points benji, I'm at work right now and it'd take me a while to reply to this, but I'll get to it tonight.

[benji]

Am I the only one getting Johm McCain google ads on this page?

Anyway, I'm posting again because I was looking at the German Constitution. The fourth line past the preamble is:

Everyone has the right to the free development of his personality insofar as he does not violate the rights of others or offend against the constitutional order or the moral code.

The American Constitution would never have a line like this because it is implied that you have that (despite whether or not you offend the constitutional order or the moral code) as a result of being a human being.

A common error people (either unfamiliar with the US Constitution, wanting to impose their beliefs and thus being willfully ignorant, or used to this European style) fall into is ignoring the Ninth Amendment and thinking the rights listed are the only ones protected, when infact all rights are protected. The ones listed in the first eight amendments are merely ones that were considered so absolutely important that they had to be specifically emphasized as beyond the reach of the state.

This German Constitution as is common of the style (which is actually the more common form of constitutions in the world, the American one is an outcast in the world of constitutions) and emphasized in this line, has the state granting and recognizing rights while in many cases reserving the power to take them away. (Note 1: I actually haven't read all of the German Constitution but I am going to violate the NLSC rules and assume the State is granted authority to decide the constitutional order and moral code.) (Note 2: Also note how the rights are listed in the German one, the right is listed and then restricted by listing how the state can restrict/limit/withhold/etc. them. In the US Constitution, all rights are listed in the context of how the state can't do anything to them.)

The American Constitution and ideology takes the position that rights are inherent in being human (or granted from a Creator) and the state can never take them away (outside of due process after committing a crime (i.e. infringing on the rights of others)...although this is originally structured as the citizens, through a jury, doing so and the State merely providing the jails/courts to facilitate the process) or it has become corrupt and is no longer legitimate.

Hopefully, that makes things more clear than my original explanation above.

[BigKaboom2]

I'm not surprised it would come down to a good ol' "either you agree a zillion percent with ALL of it or you disrespect the Constitution" with you joining this discussion...

It more or less does come down to that...it's the SUPREME law of the land. If you disagree with it, your positions have no legal merit in the ideal world it applies to. In the actual world, you can do pretty much anything you want due to judicial review and the informal agreement to ignore the Constitution among the majority of politicians.

You can't go saying that the Constitution doesn't apply to the modern world without giving at least an example. I've seen many people pull this one out of their bag of tricks and they never come up with anything substantial - it's basically "but it's so old and lots of things have changed!" However, the Constitution has nothing to do with the things that have changed.

[Lamrock]

Slightly off-topic: I don't understand why Obama will be giving his speech at that huge coliseum. Is he asking to get assassinated or what?

[BigKaboom2]

Yes.

[el badman]

Hmmm, those "Obama Finished?" Google ads are quite strange...

As you said, we do not see eye to eye regarding the Iraq topic, but I just wanted to address a couple of things:

The Bush administration was wrong about serious active stockpiles of WMDs, as was the rest of the world's leaders and intelligence agencies.

I agree that the US were not the only ones to be mistaken. But it certainly looks like they are the ones who initiated the whole thing and the rest of the world basically didn't really have a choice, being back to the wall. I mean, it's not Spain or the UK who came up with an ultimatum, even though the preliminary searches from the UN didn't reveal any WMDs.

but the anti-invasion people were also in on the lie when they claimed Saddam could use his weapons against the troops) that is part of the case for ending the war in Iraq.

I think most people who were against this conflict from the get go knew that the "war" itself would probably be swift and quite unilateral. After the initial phase which showed that there was no WMD, and no significant means of mass defense (it had been quite a few years since foreign cameras had a chance to inspect the country's military system, and we really saw during those UN inspections how run down it had become), I think most people were expecting the Iraqi army to be crushed, which is what happened, but also knew that the aftermath (the possibility of an all out civil war for several years) would be the real issue.

-Saddam did have ties to terrorist groups, paid suicide bombers families, had a few in his country on state salaries, etc.

That may be true, but contrary to the rhetoric that was then used to make sure that the American people would support the decision, there was absolutely NO proof linking him or Iraq to the 9/11 attacks. That argument was underlying during all that time and brandished as another good reason to go invade this country. There was no sign of immediate threat to the US territory or the US interests either, so based on that the US might as well invade any country that is known to harbor terrorist cells. Starting with the UK, Saudi Arabia, Morocco,......

It was never an option of choosing war or choosing peace, we had already chosen war in 1990.

Well, the actual war didn't last that long back then, so for 12 years it was sanctions, tension, embargo,...but not an actual war. So while I agree that it had to be stopped somehow, the fact that there was no immediate threat and that Saddam had accepted the UN inspections shows that diplomacy should have still be pursued. Unfortunately, there was now some history between both leading families...

Now about the second part...

There is a process for this, it is called amending the Constitution.

If it needs to be changed, amend it. Don't violate or ignore it, that is tyranny.

I am aware of that, that's what I was referring to, I'm not saying to pour gasoline on it, burn it down and never speak of it again.

It probably has some impact, although most American's do not understand this either.

I agree, it's really quite a foreign and somewhat strange concept for non-Americans, but as long as I've been here, it didn't seem to be that much of a deal for people I meet here either either, which is why it's very unusual for me to see how you and BigKaboom2 seem to be so passionate about it. Cultural discrepancies and different country history I guess.

Now to the 2nd part...

I think this quote by the journalist Daniel Lazare sums up very well how I (and apparently many more) feel about the Constitution:
Americans are prisoners in effect of one of the most subtle yet powerful systems of restraint in history, one in which it is possible to curse the president, hurl obscenities at Congress, and all but parade naked down Broadway, yet virtually impossible to alter the political structure in a fundamental way.
And also:
The constitution, far from embodying timeless wisdom, is a time bound answer to 18th century problems taken as a distillation of ideas out of Europe that is in effect immutable, it amounts to a terrible dictatorship by the past over the present.

I know BigKaboom2 asked, but I'm wondering, which parts?

Besides the 2nd one which will always remain for me a total absurdity and an incitation to be abused (we've already discussed that to death, so that's not needed here I think), I have concerns about the following:
- Amendment 14.2: "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. "
Since the term "by law" is what it is nowadays, I do think that some debts should very much be questioned. This is what led this country to be utterly crippled by public debt and deficits.
- Article 1: "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."
I know it was cleared up with amendments 13, 14 and 15 but that's still something that should definitely not be there anymore.
- like you said benji, the 3rd amendment seems to be quite confusing to say the least.
- to me, the entire electoral system should be revised in order to actually represent what the people chose and avoid confusion (the 2000 presidential elections, the controversial role of the "super delegates",...).

There's quite a few more examples I could mention, but I don't want to spend hours on this either.
Again, I never said that as a whole, it should be disregarded or ignored, as some parts remain, as you said, timeless, but I just think that a certain number of amendments should be added in order to clear up other parts that are simply confusing. Indeed, it is quite short document compared to other constitutions, which also means that some areas were left vague and can be subject to personal interpretations (which obviously shouldn't happen given the intended nature of this document). For me, the 2nd amendment is one of those gray areas that just has to be altered or clarified, but I understand that's the cherished part for many people.

I'm probably forgetting some things I wanted to mention but I'll add them later if they come back to me...

[benji]

Well, the actual war didn't last that long back then, so for 12 years it was sanctions, tension, embargo,...but not an actual war

The conflict was not ended with a peace treaty, but a cease fire. The cease fire was violated by both sides (quibbles about who did it first) within 60 days of its' signing.

there was absolutely NO proof linking him or Iraq to the 9/11 attacks

Well, a snarky person could say there's absolutely no proof showing he wasn't involved in them.

There was no sign of immediate threat to the US territory or the US interests either

And no one said there was, the argument was that it couldn't be allowed to be made an immediate threat.

I think most people who were against this conflict from the get go knew that the "war" itself would probably be swift

There is a significant portion of the so-called "anti-war" "movement" that will always go to the "there will be massive casaulties" card, they did it for the Gulf War's begin, for Grenada, for Afghanistan, etc. It was my fault for poorly wording to imply all of them.

it didn't seem to be that much of a deal for people I meet here either either

I blame the schools. Run by a government that has no desire to see it's power restricted.

Americans are prisoners in effect of one of the most subtle yet powerful systems of restraint in history, one in which it is possible to curse the president, hurl obscenities at Congress, and all but parade naked down Broadway, yet virtually impossible to alter the political structure in a fundamental way.

Lazare misses the point. The entire point of the Constitution is to limit the ability to alter the political structure itself, lots of emotionally based change is unfavorable. The change should be slow, deliberate. They probably would've throught 17 new amendments in 225 years to be "too fast of change" and certainly would've hated the Prohibition one. The political structure should stay in place, allowing the political process to change the laws and things as society changes instead of setting them in stone at the level of the Constitution.

The constitution, far from embodying timeless wisdom, is a time bound answer to 18th century problems taken as a distillation of ideas out of Europe that is in effect immutable, it amounts to a terrible dictatorship by the past over the present.

I like to know which parts he has a problem with. The checks and balances? The seperation of powers? The limitation of powers?

Besides the 2nd one which will always remain for me a total absurdity

It wouldn't if you lived at a time or in a place when the only recourse against the state is your gun.

Amendment 14.2: "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. "
Since the term "by law" is what it is nowadays, I do think that some debts should very much be questioned. This is what led this country to be utterly crippled by public debt and deficits.

Actually, that was added to repudiate the Confederate debt. It was added as a Constitutional amendment so there would be absolutely zero recourse for slave owners in non-Confederate states to get money from the US post-war. That clause actually hasn't been used since then as there hasn't been insurrection or rebellion.

Article 1: "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."
I know it was cleared up with amendments 13, 14 and 15 but that's still something that should definitely not be there anymore.

This is one of my favorites. People think it means the Constitution was being racist and the founders didn't consider them to be actual people. But in reality it was a political compromise based out of opposition to slavery. If the slave states were able to count their slaves completely as persons, then the slave states would've had greater representation.

like you said benji, the 3rd amendment seems to be quite confusing to say the least.

I actually don't think it is confusing at all. But I was noting it as an major issue of the time that was enshrined but seems the most outdated of the entire thing now.

- to me, the entire electoral system should be revised in order to actually represent what the people chose and avoid confusion (the 2000 presidential elections, the controversial role of the "super delegates",...).

First, the super delegates are part of the Democratic Party, which are not a part of the government and free to set their own rules. (And then dismiss them and change the vote totals as they did the other night at the Convention.)

Secondly, the electoral college is in place because the founders weren't interested in having the President "represent what the people chose" but instead what the states chose. (We are, after all a union of states.) The founders were very much opposed to mob rule. This is why the 17th amendment is also stupid. The states no longer have any representation at the federal level. Other countries do, but not the states.

The people are represented by their representatives (House), the States are represented by the senators (chosen by state legislatures, which are chosen by the people) and the President originally was not a very powerful position at all. More of an administrator, CEO to the Congress' board (guy who oversees the day to day tasks and carries out what he's told to do by the board, unless the board/Congress does something illegal/unconstitutional) or something like that. He was chosen by the electors, which were decided how to be chosen by the states, as they still are, and originally by their legislatures, then pretty much all the states, without any prodding from the federal government or an amendment, moved to popular vote decision. Although some states retain the "popular vote, seperated by congressional district" method, something a lot of people are interested in trying. With the other two electoral votes being decided by statewide popular vote.

can be subject to personal interpretations (which obviously shouldn't happen given the intended nature of this document)

Well, we have John Marshall to blame for that.

[Andrew]

Am I the only one getting Johm McCain google ads on this page?

I haven't seen any but they're probably customised depending on your location. A lot of the time I'm seeing an ad for gamesonmobile.com.au, which I'm guessing you wouldn't.

[cyanide]

Am I the only one getting Johm McCain google ads on this page?

I keep getting Obama, but now I see a Jesse Jackson.

[Indy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yTT_ZceRdU

Very basic but true information for any Obama supporter to realize. I in no way advocate voting for McCain. But American foreign policy has traditionally been disgusting and Obama will continue that tradition, as will McCain.

[shadowgrin]

Am I the only one getting Johm McCain google ads on this page?

"Obama Finished?" Google ads are quite strange...

As Andrew mentioned, it's Google ads' "targeting system" of the user or the thread it is in. As shown by these ads that were present as I posted..

Obama Wins Nomination
NYTimes.com has the latest news on the Democratic candidate

anti-McCain anti-War pro-Democracy pro-America pro-Obama Stickers!

Althought these other two seem a bit different, but the first one may still be in relation to this thread:

A Blog on Rumors & Myths
Examining rumors, false stories and widely believed conspiracy theories

"Naked" on the Screen
From Book to TV Show: Discussing the Process.

Obama: "I just want all of you to pray that I can be an instrument of God... We're going to keep on praising together. I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth."

AMEN to that.

[el badman]

Well, a snarky person could say there's absolutely no proof showing he wasn't involved in them.

But you wouldn't be THAT snarky now, would you?

And no one said there was, the argument was that it couldn't be allowed to be made an immediate threat.

Right, but then it becomes the "because something may somehow happen somewhere, at some point in time" argument. You just can't make this type of decision in order to prevent something that might possibly happen, the diplomatic process should be allowed to prevail first, and it was never given a full chance in this case.

It wouldn't if you lived at a time or in a place when the only recourse against the state is your gun.

True, but since it's no longer the case, shouldn't this amendment be at least clarified to specify restrictions that apply to today's society (age limit, type of weapon, background check,...)?

But in reality it was a political compromise based out of opposition to slavery. If the slave states were able to count their slaves completely as persons, then the slave states would've had greater representation.

Thanks for claifying this.

I actually don't think it is confusing at all. But I was noting it as an major issue of the time that was enshrined but seems the most outdated of the entire thing now.

That's what I meant, there's just no practical application for that anymore.

Secondly, the electoral college is in place because the founders weren't interested in having the President "represent what the people chose" but instead what the states chose. (We are, after all a union of states.)

But I think that's where the contradiction lies. When it comes to electing a president who will represent the entire country, why should there be any kind of distinction between states, and why shouldn't the people's votes prevail?

What I forgot to add yesterday but was lingering in my head is this: I guess I'm only realizing now the overall level of mistrust that citizens supporting every word of the Constitution seem to have towards how their own government could potentially treat them, which is, once again, a very foreign concept for me. I understand there has to be limitations as to what the state is allowed to do and how it's able to rule over its people, but to me, it seems that some parts of the Constitution can be too easily abused, which can basically lead to paranoia vis-a-vis your own government.

EDIT:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080829/ap_ ... veepstakes
McCain picks Alaska female governor Sarah Palin as VP candidate.
He was obviously gonna do something to attract all the Hillary fans who felt letdown and could go both ways...

[cyanide]

Wow, so Sarah Palin is unknown, inexperienced, and this helps McCain how? Oh yeah, she's a woman.

[Lamrock]

Provides him with some young blood, helps win over the Hillary voters and gives his ticket a novelty as well.

[Patr1ck]

In a stunning move, (John McCain) tapped Alaska's first term governer, Sarah Palin.

Haha, he tapped that.

[BigKaboom2]

True, but since it's no longer the case, shouldn't this amendment be at least clarified to specify restrictions that apply to today's society (age limit, type of weapon, background check,...)?

All of those restrictions are unconstitutional, which I think is extremely obvious despite enormous amounts of people disagreeing.

[benji]

Fairness note: I've liked Palin for a while, and have said for months she should be the obvious pick. And yes, for both I'd flip the tickets.

And I really hate Johm McCain and his campaign so much right now.

Wow, so Sarah Palin is unknown

Not to Republicans she isn't. (Or politicos.) She's been a big deal since 2004.

inexperienced

I've never included this in my critique of Obama because there is no "experience" to being President, and no matter how much they want it to be, sitting in the Senate is not the same. (I would prefer my Presidents, if desiring experience, to have executive experience, such as say, Governor...and of the "big four" Palin...is the only one!) Judgment is easily tons more important that so-called "experience" is. (Is "experience" being wrong most of the time for 36 years a good thing for example?)

That said, I'm enjoying the media (and Obama supporters) trying to turn the McCain (and Biden's) Obama attack ("Ready to Lead?") around. They seem to fail to grasp that one of the "inexperienced" people would be President, and the other would...break ties in the Senate and wait for the President to die.

and this helps McCain how? Oh yeah, she's a woman.

Never underestimate the power of identity politics with Democrat voters!

Governor Murkowski appointed Palin Ethics Commissioner of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission,[9] where she served from 2003 to 2004 until resigning in protest over what she called the "lack of ethics" of fellow Alaskan Republican leaders, who ignored her whistleblowing complaints of legal violations and conflicts of interest.[10][3] After she resigned, she exposed the state Republican Party's chairman, Randy Ruedrich, one of her fellow Oil & Gas commissioners, who was accused of doing work for the party on public time, and supplying a lobbyist with a sensitive e-mail.[11] Palin filed formal complaints against both Ruedrich and former Alaska Attorney General Gregg Renkes, who both resigned; Ruedrich paid a record $12,000 fine.[3]

Palin's first veto was used to block legislation that would have barred the state from granting benefits to the partners of gay state employees. In effect, her veto granted State of Alaska benefits to same-sex couples. The veto occurred after Palin consulted with Alaska's attorney general on the constitutionality of the legislation.

The obvious tagline is: "Tough Reformer. Conservative. Fertile." (She has five kids.)

Anyway, to things not related to the hottest Governor in the US. (Have you seen the others? It's a low bar.)

True, but since it's no longer the case, shouldn't this amendment be at least clarified to specify restrictions that apply to today's society (age limit, type of weapon, background check,...)?

No, because those things can change over time. Which is why you don't set them in stone.

That's what I meant, there's just no practical application for that anymore.

I think you'll want it when Cheney assumes power after the Hadron Collider wrecks half the planet and he starts to quarter troops in your house.

But I think that's where the contradiction lies. When it comes to electing a president who will represent the entire country, why should there be any kind of distinction between states, and why shouldn't the people's votes prevail?

Well, you have to understand, we are not a democracy. We were a blatant union of independent states, and people were citizens of those states, and I've already screwed up trying to explain this.

People->States->Federal Government. Basically. We tell the states who we want for President, and they all get together and say "our people wanted this person" and the person who cracks 270 electoral votes gets to be it. Legally this process still goes on, but it is not really a big deal, so it's the "popular voting" that gets all the attention.

And I don't think it helps confusion when people say things like "Florida decided the election." When if Gore had won Tennessee, Florida wouldn't have "decided" anything. (Or my preferred scenario, Gore wins Florida, Bush wins New Mexico, Wisconsin and Iowa.)

I guess I'm only realizing now the overall level of mistrust that citizens supporting every word of the Constitution seem to have towards how their own government could potentially treat them, which is, once again, a very foreign concept for me.

But the most American of concepts when you consider the founding ideals.

The founders didn't trust government power and wanted to prevent too much power from gathering in one section of the government and in the federal government itself. They were also concerned about the "mob rule" aspect of democracy and wanted to avoid the tyranny of the majority.

Another aspect is that political issues come and go. If the government is limited these issues don't overpower the political system and there is no incentive to acquire power just to enact what you want. As we are well aware, the government does not follow this, so there is lots of importance placed in the political system. (Just look at the DNC, where plenty of speakers have implied electing Republicans would eliminate womens rights.) When everything is being decided by the political system, then there is reason to involve yourself, thus lobbyists and "career" politicans. Corporations don't want to waste money lobbying, but when the government takes over another area that affects them, they have to.

It is obvious but ignored, when the government is too powerful then controlling government becomes the most important goal. Look at that Obama cultists and Democrat hyperpartisans who believe electing McCain will be the end of the world and only Obama in power can save us from sure disaster. (And vice versa.) This is not healthy politics, and something that a government that doesn't have its hands in everything wouldn't have.

For a long period (after the founders died) the Presidency was not seen as an ideal office. It was seen as a career killer by many, thus why a lot of the "great men" did not run for the office, and why lots of parties nominated "dark horses" who would hopefully just sign laws Congress passed. Now the President is considered the political God, Congress follows him and election frenzy implies the entire future of the country hinges on which man gets into office.

Rarely now is it asked "should the government even be doing this?" Instead the questions are "how should the government do this?" or take the form of "the government shouldn't do this, it should do this!" It is just assumed the government should do and have its hands in everything. We rarely debate the scope of the government, only its allocation of power. Democrats want a government health insurance system, Republicans want "health savings accounts", both want the government involved.

I'll try some anecdotes.

I like tweaking people opposed to the Patriot Act with fervent desire (especially ones unaware that it is merely an extension of the big crime and drug bills passed during the Clinton years) who also want Government-run Health Care. They can only fathom abuse of the former, not the latter. They assume only good people would have the power of the State Health entity, whereas I always assume bad people will eventually gain power. I didn't really care about the Patriot Act in the current sense because it was hardly "new powers" and despite the endless fears the Bush Administration has rarely used the expanded scope laws. However, an Obama/Edwards/Clinton/McCain/Romney/etc. Administration could come along and use its powers against political opponents which is why it is bad law. (As they're already trying to do with the Justice Department.) (We're also ignoring Constitutionality here, just whether it's "good" law or "bad" law.)

This is the same reason government should not be the sole source of health care. People think Bush is so evil and such, but they have no problem giving a future Bush the power to control their access to health care? What's stopping future Bush from denying medical care to people who voted Democrat? I mean, you've already acknowledged the government has unlimited power. And if we assume the argument that Bush is a criminal and future Bush is as well, why would any law stand in his way? The response is generally "well, well, the government would never do that!" Or the more partisan "which is why we need to keep electing Democrats!" (Who would never, ever, round up political opponents, consider some people to not be human, restrict freedom of speech, decide which people are the "right" type, and throw people into camps based on their race!)

As we've become more democratic, it has become easy enough for the state to accrue power by managing how the "benefits" are targeted and ensuring political support. (FDR's New Deals were entirely based around providing relief to states he could tip to the Democrat side.) But now we've reached an absurd point where Obama himself is arguing that his election will save the planet, while Johm McCain's will destroy it.

[el badman]

Interesting read, thanks for that
While I still disagree on many parts, I see where you're coming from and I understand that what works in other countries may not necessarily improve how things work here given this very unique political system that the US have.

[mvpshaq32]

I was watching the news and it was talking about Obama picking Biden as his VP and they flashed this button for about a second.
Honestly thought it said Osama Bin Laden '08.

[benji]

Hillary has somehow become someone to respect and a class act:

“We should all be proud of Governor Sarah Palin's historic nomination, and I congratulate her and Senator McCain," Clinton, the first woman to win a presidential primary, said in the statement. "While their policies would take America in the wrong direction, Governor Palin will add an important new voice to the debate.”

Essentially the breakdown is:
-We should be proud of the first Republican woman to make a ticket.
-She is wrong on the issues, however, we should listen before dismissing her.

[OldReliable]

Is hillary (and billy boy) shutting up now? I am sick of her.

[ixcuincle]

[benji]

I love how a pretty unremarkable seventeen year old and a newborn baby have become weapons to beat a political candidate over the head with. (While the children of say, Biden or Gore should be off limits. (or John Edwards and Bill Clinton themselves) While Palin's family, including her husband are fair game (unlike Michelle Obama), and "scandals" that could "destroy" the McCain campaign.) (Second Note: I think the actions of all their children shouldn't have any bearing on the candidate. We aren't electing "best parents ever." And the wives are only fair game when they involve themselves politically in the campaign, something Michelle Obama has done endlessly. (Like Hillary before her.) While Teresa Heinz Kerry, Cindi McCain, Tipper Gore and Laura Bush have generally only dipped their toes in in from time to time.)

The line about Palin's support for abstinence (although at the same time she also supports teaching about contraception, something that is being overlooked) is also a pretty good one. Unlike most politicans, the Palin kids went to public school. And in even more interesting information, Bristol's school does not teach abstinence-only sex education, it teaches the standard type. (And Alaska does not receive funding from the federal government under Title V.)

Anyway, I'm basically loving how unhinged it's all become over Palin.

I've seen at least four "Democratic strategists" come close to arguing on CNN (and one on Faux) that Sarah Palin should stay home and raise her kids, instead of breaking ties in the Senate, getting some briefings and attending funerals, as that's the place of a mother. Something they won't argue about Obama, and never did about any other candidate in the past. I've seen the cultists saying that destroying a family is worth it to stop McCain. I also liked the New York Times running three front page stories on the daughter and husband. (And the silly claim about Palin being a member of AIP.)

The talking point in the post-speech media has been "someone helped write her speech" (and then shockingly, the Obama campaign picks up the same line of attack just ten minutes later) as if every modern major politican doesn't have speechwriters. I've also liked the "she was a mayor of a small town" line, ignoring what she's done since then, when Obama is touting his biggest achievement as being a "community organizer." If anything I like small town mayors and community organizers instead of decades in the Senate. (Of course, the difference would be that Palin embraces what she's done since being a mayor, while the Obama team seems to almost want to avoid talking about it, especially the State Senate.)

[Indy]

I'm about as left wing as you can get, but I actually like McCain's foreign policy more than Obama's. Barack wants to expand the 'war on terror' to other countries like Afghanistan and Pakistan while McCain wants to focus on Iraq, since we are already up to our necks in that mess.

Obama would be a disaster for middle east policy.

Oh and does it get any more disgusting than Guiliani making fun of community organizers? Pathetic.

[benji]

Oh and does it get any more disgusting than Guiliani making fun of community organizers?

Uh, yeah, very easily. It's not like even Obama thinks highly of Alinsky-descended methods.