Obama Supporters - Stop the Palin Drama - This is why

Damn I hate this, but let me say it again, I am voting for Obama, I just think he and his other supporters should use a different tactic to argue for him.

Obama should ignore Palin, entirely. He should focus on his strength which is his position that the troops in iraq could have helped to eliminate the Taliban and Al Queda forces in afganistan and pakistan. That his foresight on that issue and others is superior to McCain....etc etc etc.

We need to ignore her like VPs have been ignored in most of the past presidential elections. The problem is the media doesn't seem to be able to help themselves and may force the issue.

Obama should hammer away at the failures of the bush administration, especially the ones McCain voted for. He should stay on message, which is that he respects McCain and his service, he just thinks McCain's judgement is flawed. Hammer the point home that McCain is stuck in cold war thinking and that the current situation needs a broader more dynamic perspective.

Look @ McCain's positions like his focus on energy & say "if McCain is so effective why hasn't he authored and passed laws to enact these polices in his long career in the senate?"

McCain set the game with the Palin pick. She was chosen to bait the dems into a sucker punch fight. All those people who thought that clinton was mistreated because of a blow job, well what are they going to think about a gov who tries to get an abusive ex brother in law fired, Palin's getting heat that

Palin is a bait an switch.. "look at the monkey" McCain says holding a stuffed Palin monkey high in his left hand, then bang if you look up you get hit with a right upper cut.

As long as the press is looking at palin an ripping through her experience people will eventually start comparing her to obama, then blamo they compare obama to McCain and obama's experience/accomplishments

look very outmatched.

STAY ON CURRENT TARGET ISSUES, failures over the last 8 years, what McCain has done in that regard, etc

Palin was only put up to bait the left and the dems... case in point, the more her family is in the front the more questions like this will be asked.

"CNN’s John Roberts framed the issue Friday, saying: “Children with Down syndrome require an awful lot of attention. The role of vice president, it seems to me, would take up an awful lot of her time, and it raises the issue of, how much time will she have to dedicate to her newborn child?”"

The more that happens the more the republicans can woo pissed of hillary supporters by following it up with...

“These questions would not be asked if she was a man,”

and

“I haven’t heard a single thing about what (Barack) Obama would do with his kids,”

so I agree the republicans are putting them up on stage and using them to draw fire, but all the dems and the press have to do is not pull the trigger. I don't think the press can resist, but we Obama supporters HAVE to for the sake of our candidate.

Stop talking about Palin and help out the campaign (even if it's just for 30 minutes a day from your home) please go to http://www.mybarackobama.com to find out how.

What McCain's people think about us

If anything, these simple words show great insight into how Republicans think

Earlier today during an interview Rick Davis, John McCains campaign manager said the following about the current election and the issues that matter in our country. Davis insisted that the presidential race will be decided more over personalities than issues during an interview with Post editors this morning.

"This election is not about issues," said Davis. "This election is about a composite view of what people take away from these candidates."

Read Source 1 and Source 2 for the full story.

I have read a lot of things during this campaign, but no statements offended me as much as this one. These few simple words provide so much insight into what republicans and the McCain campaign think about the American people and how they attempt to manipulate us.

In reaction to Rick Davis' comments about the election not being about issues, Barack Obama campaign manager David Plouffe released the following statement: "We appreciate Senator McCain's campaign manager finally admitting that his campaign is not in fact about the issues the American people care about, which is exactly the kind of cynical old politics people are ready to change."

*********

UPDATE:

Obama hits Davis on 'issues'

Carrie Budoff Brown reports:

Barack Obama hit John McCain Wednesday over a comment from his campaign manager that the presidential race will be decided more over personalities than issues.

“Which probably explains why last night when they were speaking, all these speakers (at the Republican National Convention) came up, you didn’t hear a single word about the economy,” Obama said at an economic forum in New Philadelphia, Ohio. “Not once did people mention the hardships that people are going through.”

“I guess I don’t blame them,” Obama added, “because if you don’t have any issues to run on, you want it all to be about personality. If you have got George Bush’s track record and John McCain voting 90 percent of the time in agreement with George Bush, then you probably you don’t want to talk about issues either.”

McCain campaign manager Rick Davis told Washington Post editors Tuesday that issues will have an impact on undecided voters but will not be conclusive.

“This election is not about issues,” Davis said. “This election is about a composite view of what people take away from these candidates.”

The Obama campaign challenged the remarks Tuesday, and Obama added criticism of Davis’s remarks in his stump speech Wednesday, as part of an extended riff aimed at painting McCain as out of touch.

Women, don't get fooled. Sarah Palin is NO Hillary!

John McCain recently announced his VP pick, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. Gov. Palin took office in December 2006 (which IMO really blows that whole "experience" argument..."Pot meet kettle").

He's 72. If he dies, we get a leader with NO national experience. NO diplomatic experience. NO foreign policy experience. NO experience dealing with issues that don't affect her own insular 3-electoral-vote state. We're supposed to believe that she's capable of facing down leaders of terrorist-supporting nations and working diplomatically on the world stage, but Barack Obama and Joe Biden aren't?"

Just before Obama announce his VP pick, I said, "If he is desperate and it looks like he doesn't have a change, he'll pick a woman VP."

McCain has picked woman that has endorsed Obama's energy plan, he is promising to "change" Washington, and he's endorsed a time table for Iraq. I wonder what the McCain/Palin ticket will think up next all by themselves.

So why'd he choose her then? My only guess is he thought he could sway those women voters who were disappointed that Hillary did not secure the nomination. So will it help him?

My guess is no, picking Sarah Palin will NOT help him. Reason why...SHE's NO HILLARY!!

She's everything Hillary is NOT. While she uses the "I've got 5 kids and I'm a Hockey-Mom" as an angle, remember, Hillary said she's not the "baking brownies" type of woman.

She's pro-life...and Hillary respects the woman's right to choose.

She wants religion in schools...Hillary wants to protect the rights of everyone and keep church and state separated.

So why'd they do it? Did they honestly think women were THAT stupid? Did they actually think we wouldn't notice their blatant attempt to choose a woman as a token?

I am even more disgusted with McCain after this lame attempt! I know this woman isn't fooled I certainly hope others aren't.

What is really important...Not just having a women on a ticket...but ensuring our rights AS WOMEN remain protected!!

McCain's real Faith Forum Fumble

Media Ignored McCain's Faith Forum Fumble

After watching the presidential forum at Rick Warren's Saddleback church on Saturday, I was amazed at how complimentary the media has been of John McCain's performance. I gave up on his portion of the event after 30 minutes, tired of watching McCain fumble through his stump speech talking points instead of answering the questions.

The media was so kind to McCain after the forum that they missed (or ignored) the biggest jaw-dropper of the night -- his answer to the question of which Supreme Court justices he would not have nominated.

Warren: ... which existing Supreme Court justices would you not have nominated?

McCain: With all due respect, Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, Justice Souter and Justice Stevens.

Warren: Why? Tell me why?

McCain: Well, I think that the president of the United States has incredible responsibility in nominating people to the United States Supreme Court. They are lifetime positions as well as the federal bench. There will be two maybe three vacancies. This nomination should be based on the criteria of proven record of strictly adhering to the Constitution of the United States and not legislating from the bench. Some of the worst damage has been done by legislating from the bench.

Warren did a better job asking questions than professional journalists have done in most of this year's debates, but that answer was crying out for a Tim Russert-style follow-up.

As Taegan Goddard points out today on Political Wire, McCain voted to confirm Breyer, Ginsburg and Souter. (Stevens was nominated before McCain was elected to the Senate back in 1946.)

McCain's answer may be the most glaring flip-flop of the general election campaign. He voted yes on most of the Supreme Court's liberal wing, yet he just said -- in a purpose-driven house of God, no less -- he wouldn't have nominated them.

Is Walmart against Obama?

The Straw That Broke the Camel's Back: Why Wal-Mart lost one more customer.

I have never been one of those people who is 100% against Wal-Mart. While I find myself at odds with many of their business practices, I understand that they serve a purpose. They provide service to some of the poorest individuals in our country who are not able to afford goods from more expensive retailers. And not being terribly wealthy myself, I have found myself shopping at Wal-Mart from time to time. However, this time they went too far.

This past Monday I went to Wal-Mart in order to purchase some contact lens solution and chap stick. As I walked by the medication aisle, I noticed the book and magazine stack were selling a slanderous book about Barack Obama. I looked all over the book aisle and noticed that no books promoting Obama, or books counter to the slanderous book, were being sold. Even Barack Obama's two books which are currently best sellers, were nowhere to be found.

The incident struck me as a bit unfair, considering Wal-Mart is the world's largest company, and thus has access to the world's largest customer base. So I spoke to an assistant manager who told me that individual stores have no control over what they can sell, but that I could file a complaint by calling 1-800-WALMART. I called and left a message, not thinking too much of the situation.

But then I heard a story on CNN about a secret taped recording of a meeting with Wal-Mart, which shows that many managers are being urged to tell WalMart employees to vote for John McCain. Things that make you go hmmmm... and the more I thought about, the more I began to connect the dots, and decided to post this story.

I want to make one thing clear. Wal-Mart has a right to sell whatever it wants, but this store has now become very pro-Republican and very pro-John McCain. While they have a right to do that, I also have a right to decide not to spend my money there anymore. If this business chooses to alienate one group of their customers by throwing their hat so blatantly into the political arena, then that means that I am going to use my right to take my business elsewhere – I encourage others to do the same.

Wal-Mart shouldn't alienate an entire group of people based on their political ideology. I don't care if they want to sell a slanderous book, but they should at least sell books which show both side, by doing this it gives me (the consumer) a CHOICE. And isn't that what capitalism and the free market are supposed to be about? Freedom of choice?

McCain's Flip Flops

Senator McCain has changed his position on Bush tax cuts, on torture, on whether we should leave or stay in Afghanistan and Iraq. He suggested that he's in favor of equal pay for equal work for women, but his record shows that he's Voted against it every time

and here we have a new gem that came out today. McCain claims to know more about national security than the other candidates, but now it's come out that McCain Attended Zero Afghanistan Hearings In Last Two Years

crazy, I know

Here's some more great stuff that I found on another blog and checked out.

In 1999, McCain was in New Hampshire, campaigning for the GOP nomination as a moderate. He proclaimed himself a pro-life candidate, but told reporters that “in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade.” He explained that overturning Roe would force “women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.” Yesterday, campaigning for the GOP nomination as a conservative, McCain said the opposite.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me ask one question about abortion. Then I want to turn to Iraq. You’re for a constitutional amendment banning abortion, with some exceptions for life and rape and incest.

MCCAIN: Rape, incest and the life of the mother. Yes.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So is President Bush, yet that hasn’t advanced in the six years he’s been in office. What are you going to do to advance a constitutional amendment that President Bush hasn’t done?

MCCAIN: I don’t think a constitutional amendment is probably going to take place, but I do believe that it’s very likely or possible that the Supreme Court should — could overturn Roe v. Wade, which would then return these decisions to the states, which I support…. Just as I believe that the issue of gay marriage should be decided by the states, so do I believe that we would be better off by having Roe v. Wade return to the states.

The old McCain didn’t want an amendment and didn’t want Roe overturned. The new McCain completely disagrees with the old McCain.

It’s worth noting that politicians’ opinions on abortion can, and often do, “evolve” over time. Dick Gephardt and Al Gore, for example, both opposed abortion rights before eventually becoming pro-choice. With this in mind, McCain’s unexpected shift may simply reflect yet another pol whose thinking has changed over time.

Or, far more likely, McCain is once again abandoning any pretense of consistency and integrity, and is now willing to say literally anything to win.

Let’s return, once again, to McCain’s flourishing flip-flop list, which is now a Top 11 list.

* McCain criticized TV preacher Jerry Falwell as “an agent of intolerance” in 2002, but has since decided to cozy up to the man who said Americans “deserved” the 9/11 attacks. (Indeed, McCain has now hired Falwell’s debate coach.)

* McCain used to oppose Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy, but he reversed course in February.

* In 2000, McCain accused Texas businessmen Sam and Charles Wyly of being corrupt, spending “dirty money” to help finance Bush’s presidential campaign. McCain not only filed a complaint against the Wylys for allegedly violating campaign finance law, he also lashed out at them publicly. In April, McCain reached out to the Wylys for support.

* McCain supported a major campaign-finance reform measure that bore his name. In June, he abandoned his own legislation.

* McCain used to think that Grover Norquist was a crook and a corrupt shill for dictators. Then McCain got serious about running for president and began to reconcile with Norquist.

* McCain took a firm line in opposition to torture, and then caved to White House demands.

* McCain gave up on his signature policy issue, campaign-finance reform, and won’t back the same provision he sponsored just a couple of years ago.

* McCain was against presidential candidates campaigning at Bob Jones University before he was for it.

* McCain was anti-ethanol. Now he’s pro-ethanol.

* McCain was both for and against state promotion of the Confederate flag.

* And now he’s both for and against overturning Roe v. Wade.

It’s not exactly a newsflash that McCain is veering ridiculously to the right in a rather shameless attempt to reinvent himself, but Dems should take advantage of the situation and help establish the narrative now. Despite his rather embarrassing record of late, we still have major media figures telling the public that “no one would accuse McCain of equivocating on anything.”

Now is the time to begin characterizing McCain — accurately — as a man with no principle beliefs. Dems should not only criticize McCain’s constantly evolving opinions on nearly everything, they should openly mock him for it now, so that the storyline becomes second nature (like the GOP did with “serial exaggerator” Al Gore).

The nation is seeing McCain 2.0, and we like the old one better.