2008 Primaries Thread 2: THE QUICKENING

deej goes negative on keenan!

I really have to stop googling everything I think of - thank god it's fake (right?) :-(

http://www.chickchatradio.com/ee/images/uploads/hillary_clinton_boobs_bill_cleavage.jpg

america is not ready to elect a buxom president

hillary is ok though cuz her rack is kinda small

you guys aren't really helping to disprove the "anti-Hillary people are sexist" meme

true - I'm not voting though (a foreigner is I)

kenan your posts in this thread are terrible

-- deej, Thursday, 21 February 2008 21:09 (37 minutes ago) Link

^this

That NYT "bombshell" on McCain is much ado about nothing. The affair is the story, and other than gossip/anxious fears by McCain's advisors, I see no evidence of it in the article. If the NYT has the goods, they should have disclosed them. If not, why publish the article?

You mean you don't love stuff like "Who would have guess that Barack Obama would stoop to using the phrase 'cum dumpster'?" and "I fear that Hillary would counter by wearing a Dallas Cowboy cheerleader outfit. *shudder*"? xp

they didn't want to get slapped with a libel charge? beats me.

and 'didnt nixon show up to the debate drunk and unshaven?'

where would be we without kenan's well-informed opinions on political history

ha, to think everyone thought the bombshell-in-waiting was about edwards.

on a side note, NYT DOWNLOADS ON MCCAIN is one of the more nonsensical drudge headlines

Article -> discussion/opinion/doubt = win
Correction -> too late, nevermind

(see that "Al Qaeda used female suicide bombers with Down syndrome!" -> worldwide headlines & shock. Anyone see the "they didn't have Down syndrome after all, says US army" article yesterday? Nope? Of course not, that's not headline news anymore.)

It's just like Drudge's story about John Kerry and his campaign staffer, except that it happened.

Nixon insisted on campaigning until just a few hours before the first debate started; he had not completely recovered from his hospital stay and thus looked haggard, sickly, underweight, and tired. He also refused makeup for the first debate, and as a result his beard stubble showed prominently on the era's black-and-white TV screens.

ok, not drunk. But not tanned, rested, and ready, either.

point to kenan

not

they didn't want to get slapped with a libel charge? beats me.

So don't run the story. Or do more investigative work before you run the story. Or defend yourself from a lawsuit based on McCain's status as a public figure, which normally makes defamation much harder to prove.

Here, the NYT says they stand by the story, and they waited to run it until they felt it was "ready," in a journalistic sense. But there's nothing to it. A few McCain staffers became worried that McCain was having an affair with a lobbyist he spent time with. That's . . . it?

so is wolf blitzer moderating tonight?

xxpost party on, garth.

I'm sorry for being disgusting and sexist this afternoon. Not on top of my game. Actually, I'm going to go home early.

I keep reading -- e.g., in Josh Marshall's TPM blog -- that there's likely more here and the NYT hasn't yet written the whole story.

But it isn't billed as the first part in a series. And if it's not the first in a series, why not put your cards on the table? If they're worried that they don't have enough to overcome a defamation lawsuit, maybe the NYT shouldn't publish it.

And I'm no McCain defender. Just seems wrong to me.

Hello pigfucking!

LOL. Yes, that would be a good story. Start the rumors now.

doodz what they reported wasnt nothing.

multiple former mccain staffers were worried he was having an affair w/a lobbyist whos clients gave him money and rides on their airplanes and for whom he wrote two letters to the fcc which the fcc commissioner deemed to be inappropriate. when mccain was confronted abt the relationship he admitted it needed to stop. all this was verified my multiple sources.

and this from john mccain whos main pitch is that hes the cleanliest guy in the biz.

the times then goes on detail many other shady mccain dealings w/lobbyists - putting the story in context.

you can take legitimate issue w/the use of anonymous sources. tho the times does claim to have two main informants and multiple corroborating witnesses.

the fact that they dont posses the bedsheets is a little beside the point. this is an article abt what total bullshit the virtuous mccain myth is. and i am personally v pleased to see anyone in the press question their mccain-crush.

nyone see the "they didn't have Down syndrome after all, says US army" article

yes I did read this. Al Qaeda only slightly less monstrous than thought! Still down with raping young boys, beheading innocents, and shooting corpses in the testicles though, last time I checked.

Iraq slightly less monstrous than having WMDs.

the fact that they dont posses the bedsheets is a little beside the point.

CAN THEY PRODUCE THE "STAINED BLOUSE" OF THIS SCANDAL, PLZ? WE'RE WAITING.

http://kxan.images.worldnow.com/images/209224_G.jpg

this is in tx, btw

hey that looks like Obama's logo

i'm surprised that graphic isn't a cowboy hat

btw in same poll paul gets 9% >_<

who's idea was it to glam up a pie chart by making it a glossy torus?

the fact that they dont posses the bedsheets is a little beside the point. this is an article abt what total bullshit the virtuous mccain myth is. and i am personally v pleased to see anyone in the press question their mccain-crush.

-- jhøshea, Thursday, February 21, 2008 4:27 PM (16 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

um dude mccain's supposedly pure record being a myth isn't news
the only twist in this is that in one specific instance, folks thought maybe he was also having a relationship w/ this person

rong

the only way this is a big deal is if the situation gabbneb mentioned is true - there's something they just couldn't publish

not wrong. mccain's occasional backsliding into paying attention to lobbyists is readily available information, its just that in the grand scope of things his 'violations' (all of which are totally legal) aren't really all that notable compared to the worst senators. Yes it contradicts his image, but the maverick image is more about his willingness to piss off fellow republicans by advocating reasonable immigration platforms and actually doing something about campaign finance reform.

None of this stuff is breaking news - except the fact that some of his employees suspected that there might be a relationship involved

(all of which are totally legal)

(in theory)

it SHOULD poke holes in his status as the clean, honest senator - but i don't think it will, unless there's some verifiable evidence otherwise

well i wouldnt be surprised if more came out - but saying just cause you were aware john mccain is a scumbag there for its not news is a little uh - they gathered up a list of transgressions (including new info) that directly contradicts the general wisdom on the republican nominee for president - thats most certainly a worthy news story

its a worthy news story but without follow-up it will be mostly forgotten by the gen. election

not saying there won't be follow-up though.

yeah deej i'm inclined to agree that for people that follow this shit, mccain's ethics record isn't news. for millions of people who aren't pol-junkies, though, any major story that gives the media an excuse to point out inconsistencies in mccain's Myth is News and Informative and Worth Knowing.

xp damn

it's in for at least one news cycle and yeah will hopefully spawn follow-ups and in Wildest Dreams maybe even birth a narrative that McCain is a Facade

it SHOULD poke holes in his status as the clean, honest senator - but i don't think it will, unless there's some verifiable evidence otherwise.

Indeed, unless there's more there -- and there might be -- I think the NYT story will help McCain (he's already positioning himself, in his new fundraising efforts, as a victim of the leftist MSM, based on the NYT story).

It was hard to imagine what would get Rush & Co. on McCain's side without either side losing face, but here it is.

now those dudes were totes ready to line up duh

hahaha the NYT hates mccain so much they endorsed him

and this shit is not going away - just think of the g.e. ads - john mccain says he hates lobbyists, john mccain luuuuuuvs lobbyists.

and i do think the media is ready to rethink their man-crush.