I didn't read this whole thread but my guess is that McCain's people are trying to keep Palin off of the debate stage. She's great for photoshooters but that's about it. John McCain used to have my respect but he's quickly losing it. His line, "I know how to win wars...I was in one!" is wearing thin with me too. Dude, you were captured!
I think when the time comes, when McCain and Obama actually do debate, McCain will not only win, (big time) but will demonstrate to the world what an unqualified person Obama really is.
Quoted for continued lolz. I think McCain is gonna get pissed off and say something stupid... I do give you though, that debates and town hall meetings are a better venue for McCain because they are basically gauged by applause lines. McCain can give all the wrong answers he wants so long as he says it firmly and grits his teeth when he says it. Obama's weakness is that he actually trys to give rational thoughtful answers to questions. But the American attention span wants no parts of that. Hence the past 2 Bush elections. People just weren't paying attention..... and it scares me.
While Obama cannot speak well, his opponent McCain has decades of political experience. A debate without "q_cards" may go badly for Obama.
Wait which is it..... He "cannot speak well" or he is a great political orator with no experience as the McCain campaign tried to paint him for a year before they picked their own inexperienced candidate? I seem to recall after every 60,000+ crowd where Obama was up there speaking (without teleprompters) all the republicans goin on-air saying yeah he gives a great speech but he's inexpereienced. Make sense please......
I believe his performance withOUT Q-cards demonstrates Obama's incompetence. Many have pointed this out previously.
Is it not possible for him to speak without bringing his war record up?! he was captured in a war that America lost... hardly inspiring stuff for the current conflicts...
lol you're talking about incomptence with McCain on the ticket following 8 years of Bush. I don't understand which performances without cue cards you speak of. Do you have any examples or are you running out of things to say -- hence the repetition? Fact (for you my uninformed friend): Democrats have a history of electing extremely competent individuals to the white house. Bill Clinton was the most intelligent president in the past 20 years and arguably of all time. He earned academic scholarships in highschool and attend Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. He won a Rhodes Scholarship to Oxford University in England. and graduated with a law degree from Yale University. After law school Bill became a law professor at the University of Arkansas-Fayettville. By some accounts, Bill Clinton is a genius. Barack Obama is a Harvard educated lawyer who chose public service over millions as a lawyer. What do the republicans offer? Yet another dumbass, McCain who graduated 3rd from the bottom of his class at the naval academy. Following Bush who no one would argue is a rocket scientist. McCain has plainly admitted the economy isn't his strong suit which was one of the last truthful public statements he made before he realized he might actually win this thing after selecting Palin. That's when he got stars in his eyes and stopped being the McCain we all liked and respected and became the man you see today. Do you really want to continue this discussion about competence?
Yes, I for one was inspired when in Bidens interview with Katie Couric he expounded on the importance of learning from history... then competently told us when the market collapsed in '29 President Roosevelt appeared on TV and communicated with the American public so well. Notwithstanding that Roosevelt wasnt elected yet and TV hadnt been invented... the competence of the guy they brought in to cover Obamas experience shortcomings is overwhelming.
Well considering McCain gets caught in lies almost every day of current items I hardly see how a slip up from history during a discussion that isn't that big of a deal 'the supposed slip up itself, I have not read where/how it happened' IMHO is anything to jump onto.
Ahh dodging talking about Bill and Barack (because you know I'm right) and going for the vice president? How sad... You do realize that doesn't make my statement about the democrats having a history of electing competent individuals to the white house any less true right? But if you'd like to talk about funny, folksy, Moose lady being competent I'd be happy to She can see Russia from her house ya'know eh?
I see I'm not the only one discussing VPs George. I'll agree with you that ignoring the top of the ticket and concentrating on the VP is totally goofy. Thats why I'm using the same silliness the other side is using, go after the VP. Fun isnt it? LOL Guess it depends on what channel you watch... it was a televised interview with Katie Couric. Does it surprise me it didnt get serious airtime on most news channels? Naah. OTOH if Palin made a point about the value of history while saying Roosevelt was President when the market crashed in '29 and that he'd calmed America using a medium that didnt exist... you can be sure you'd have seen the clip. It'd get its own comedy skit on every late night show. Apparently it isnt even news that Biden makes points about US history while being dumber than a 5th grader on the topic. It's just "a slip".
My point is McCain and others fuxx up RECENT history all the time, outright lies. Mistakes happen, especially one history that is old during a discussion. I find it more likely to fuck up something from that long ago by mistake, compared to that of say. http://rawstory.com/news/2008/McCain_blunders_on_Iraq_again_Confuses_0406.html Which one is worse? A mistake on something that happened years ago, or something being repeated on recent events? Which one is more fresh in ones mind and which one is more likely to be an honest mistake?
LOL no the fun part is knowing that you are trying to change the subject, but the hilarious irony is that you still lose Palin was a political ploy that though effective at first, is starting to wear off. We all knew her folksy charm would only get her so far before people started realizing it wasn't just charm but stupidity What was that she said to katie kouric? ""I'll find out and get back to ya"? SupremeLOLz
Ummm... thats Katie Couric, but I'd already figured out you are kinda new to politics. Nice try junior.
C'mon, Rob, whether he got Couric's name right or not, the point is valid. Palin couldn't even deal with her running mate's history on deregulation, and that is appalling. Palin: He's also known as The Maverick, takin' shots from his own party certainly takin' shots from the other party tryin' to get people to understand what he's been talkin' about the need to reform government the... Couric: (Dagger smile). I am just going to ask you one more time, not to belabor the point. Specific examples in his 26 years of pushing for more regulation. Palin: (Deer in the headlights - a la Charlie Gibson): IIII'lllll try to find ya' some and I'll bring 'em to ya.' Coupled with the complete media blackout on Palin by McCain's campaign, the quarterback sneak attempted by the ticket is truly wearing thin.
Northpoint - One side points out perceived weakness in Palin and they think it is laughable, I pointed out that the VP on the other side makes points about history while he quite obviously is clueless on what he's talking about. My point was the incredible intellectual dishonesty of those that dismiss any of the gaffes by Biden (there have been many) as mere "slips" while embracing every flaw they perceive in Palin large or small. She also has strengths, just as does every other candidate, but partisan blindness leads some to portray her as a drooling ignorant hillbilly with a Miss Alaska sash. I'll call 'em on it occasionally if it's all the same to you (or even if it isnt).
Rob, that wasn't what I said, and it isn't what you said. You said: And in doing so, you dismissed George's point because he apparently got Couric's name wrong, saying nothing to the point George was making itself: Palin's gross negligence, I'd say, given that she is McCain's running mate, after all. I guess if you're doing this because you're angry George, or others, isn't saying about Biden, your call, but that doesn't change the fact his point was valid.
Err... I typed that from my iphone. It's called auto-correct. Now that we've established that's all you have to say I'll move on. "junior" hahaha thanks man.