2008 USP(G)ET pt. II: counting the days to 2012 primary thread 1

all the fuss over the Gibson interview! She was platitudinous and screechy, but her remark about Russia has been wildly overplayed: if Georgia joins NATO, and it's attacked, then NATO will respond (I didn't think Obama was that great with O'RLY). Most vice presidents are coached by their teams; the bar is set too low for them to show their mettle unless their running mate is lucky enough to die in office.

Maybe ABC will air the rest tomorrow, in which he'll concentrate on issues that really tell us about Palin: her term as governor.

"term"

obama did as well as anyone can w/ that kind of horseshit interviewing. no gaffes, which was basically the opposite of what oreilly was aiming for

I thought Obama pretty much won O'Reilly over. By the end he was deferring to him - calling certain anti-Obama positions bullshit, and flirting about playing basketball with him. He's gonna vote for Obama, I think.

but he's always liked Obama! He's taken gingerly steps around him since January.

yeah all week he's been saying how much he "respects" him since he realized that he was a "driven, determined" person, which he said he could only learn after meeting him face-to-face

i think he's gonna vote for him too

obama did as well as anyone can w/ that kind of horseshit interviewing

he did do well but more to the point was that it was great to see him debate someone without the pressures of being "graded" by clueless talking heads or making sure he doesn't offend another candidate or something

these have been some of o reilly's highest rated shows ever, and not only did he end up deferring to barack in the end but barack proved that he knew his shit (confidently) and he proved it without the chance of being verbose (or "eloquent" or whatever he gets slammed for being) (in that regard o reilly being an argumentative dick turned out to be an unintended positive for barack)

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/_palin_family_shockers_what_sarahs_really_hiding/celebrity/65407

you name your kid "track" of course he's going to shoot up

"Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?"

wtg charlie gibson

Could just ONE fucking TV pundit not equivocate or add caveats for these two dipshits and pretend they're talking about Clinton getting his dick sucked?

Virginia registration shenanigans:

http://thedailyvoice.com/voice/2008/09/while-the-media-sleeps-001128.php

it isn't just Virginia

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/08/voter-suppression-industry-gea.php

That reminds me, I meant to link to this great NY Review of Books article talking about the concerted efforts to exclude undesirable voters and their disproportionate racial impact:

Obama: The Price of Being Black

It also contains some scary figures about the so-called "Bradley effect".

The Obama campaign would do well to print signs to post prominently in all its offices: ALWAYS SUBTRACT SEVEN PERCENT!

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/08/persistent-myth-of-bradley-effect.html

that said i think the 'pollsters underrepresent people with cell phones' thing is just as much of a myth

What's the evidence?

Let's hope that Silver is right and the Bradley effect is a relic of the '80s and '90s. The other stuff about voter suppression is still pretty outrageous though.

i have none, it just seems 1. screamingly obvious, so pollsters would pick up on and adjust for it, and 2. i remember ppl saying it in 2004 and it turned out to be negligible compared to gwb's ground game.

New Obama ad attacking McCain for being email illiterate and a relic of the '80s:

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2008/09/obama-on-the-attack.html

Pros:
- Focuses on McCain rather than Palin
- Not overly partisan, crafted to appeal to independents

Cons:
- Might turn off some older voters (though they overwhelmingly support McCain anyway)

this is probably a fake ad that will run like twice, in one county - therefore oldies who don't use the internet will never see it

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/fact-check-pali.html

“Have you ever met a foreign head of state?” Gibson asked Palin Thursday.

“I have not,” Palin said, “and I think if you go back in history and if you ask that question of many vice presidents, they may have the same answer that I just gave you.”

However Palin, who obtained her first passport two years ago, would in fact be the first vice president in 32 years who hadn’t met a foreign head of state, if she were elected.

Palin is a throwback to an earlier, simpler age.

I cannot (this morning) fill in the zing that should come next.

Who had never met a foreign head of state, Dole or Mondale?

lolz @ McCain "I'm divorced from the day-to-day struggles" of Americans comment

Who had never met a foreign head of state, Dole or Mondale?

dunno, but if i had to guess, i'd say it's Dole, because 1) i'd guess that the info came from the campaign and that they're more wont to compare her to (and to have gotten the info from) Dole than Mondale, 2) Mondale had begun his Senate service a few years earlier than Dole, 3) Kansas is more insular than Minnesota, and 4) Dole is more hawkish than Mondale

Who had never met a foreign head of state, Dole or Mondale?

I think Rockefeller. Dole was never VP.

I find it hard to believe Rockefeller would never have met a head of state.

Yeah, I know, but the link points out that Mondale had met with foreign leaders in his 16 years in the Senate prior to becoming VP.

yeah, we all could have read the article. an Ass't Sec'y of State probably doesn't meet with foreign heads of State.

So you're saying you think the article is wrong.

what are you talking about?

Was your previous post not sarcastic?

it was not

gabbneb, you're off your game today.

i'm the one who's right about Rockefeller, bro

On WNYC this morning they said the last VP candidate who hadn't met a foreign head of state was Spiro Agnew, though he may actually have had meetings with some fairly high-level people from foreign governments. And going back to the beginning of the 20th Century, they couldn't name a VP who had less foreign policy experience than Agnew. Sarah Palin-level inexperience is pretty much unprecedented in modern times.

its okay, McCain predates modern times anyway

may actually have had meetings with some fairly high-level people from foreign governments.

probably applies to Palin wrt to Canadian pipecock

xp rimshot.wav

if it is Agnew, then the ABC article is incorrect that Palin would be the first in 32 years, as Agnew resigned in '73. If the article is correct, then it would seem to be Rockefeller, who left office precisely 32 years before she would take office, and who certainly had a foreign affairs record, but held positions that would not necessarily have involved meeting with foreign heads of state, as they seem too junior or advisory. this is also what the ABC article implies, by listing the meetings held by every VP subsequent to Rockefeller. if you want, you can read the article to imply that the last was Mondale by finding a distinction between the foreign "leaders" it says he met and foreign "heads of state," but that's reading it within an inch of its life.

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/09/12/historical_quote_of_the_day.html

awesome

It's not Rockefeller:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=2393

nice one, gabb

Unless, of course, those Latin American "leaders" that Rockefeller met with were not in fact heads of state.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3164/2545842739_f7f868d8ff.jpg

Latin American "leaders"

http://www.unafuente.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/pablo-escobar.jpg

everyone knows those "handmade" signs are campaign generated, right?

(it's most certainly true of O as well)