McCains Veep announcing this week

[zoosermom]

<p>

LOL, ZM, now I have another reason to root for Obama!

</p>

<p>I can understand liking, admiring and respecting Obama, but I just don’t see holding any of those views of Reid or Pelosi. I know many democrats, some elected to important offices, and I don’t think the dipso duo represents anything near the finest that the democratic party or its members bring to the nation.</p>

[zoosermom]

<p>

I’ve read some of your previous posts, zoosermom, and you seem to get angry quite quickly when someone has a view that is different from yours and you mis-interpret what they have to say.

</p>

<p>Being misrepresented makes me nuts, disagreement doesn’t bother me at all. If you’re going to hang out here, perhaps you should take a look at your prior posts and see if they presented your views in the manner that you intended.</p>

<p>

Making a generalization that I don’t know anything about republicans if I disagree with you does not help your argument, in my humble opinion.

</p>

<p>You were the one generalizing, I was responding to it, and I don’t think there is anything humble about your opinion.</p>

[Newjack88]

<p>bulletandpima:</p>

<p>

I would like to point out that you have called me a nut job, stupid and naive. That too is your right! I, however, will not resort to this level. I will just accept that my vote will cancel out yours, and if Obama wins I will not slander him and give him my utmost respect and trust. If he wins, he will be our President, our country is in his hands and I believe that is a burden I would never want or desire, thus I admire him and respect him for putting himself out there.

</p>

<p>Your vote won’t cancel mine out; I doubt we live in the same state. Anyway, sorry for suggesting you are those things; however, please don’t vote based on something stupid like Rev. Wright. Imagine if you were running for president and people tried to hold you accountable for your views and the views of your friends. You’re bound to know someone who would potentially make you look bad.</p>

<p>zoosermom:</p>

<p>

We learned from the Clinton years that associates matter very much. Your post to B&P was spectacularly rude, condescending and completely lacking in insight or information. I generally skip your posts, as well, because they provide nothing worth reading. Unlike many liberals on this site who are smart, articulate and darn interesting.

</p>

<p>Are you one of the people who believes the whole Peter Paul controversy or that the Clintons were involved in organized crime?</p>

<p>Also, aren’t you quite the hypocrite criticizing me for being rude in my post?</p>

<p>Anyway, whether you like it or not, issues like Rev. Wright and Rezko are eaten up by fanatics who can’t understand the real issues that are being debated in this election. Similarly, people who are voting against McCain simply because he called his wife a “c_nt” or because his wife did drugs or because his daughter is South East Asian and looks African American or something stupid like that also typically do not understand the more complex issues.</p>

<p>

We can’t complain about lack of experience if we put forth someone younger and less experienced to be a heartbeat from the presidency. That’s why Jindal won’t get picked. He takes our best argument off the table.

</p>

<p>Maybe you shouldn’t skip my posts. I made that point quite a long time ago in this thread. ;)</p>

[Hindoo]

<p>

Many of the 18-22 are hyped up in the primary, but in the end believe their vote doesn’t make a difference, which is why they don’t show up in droves.

</p>

<p>I wonder if it’s always been this way, or if young Americans are becoming more cynical? I recall how thrilled I was back in the '70s, when I turned 18 and voted for the first time. I’ve never missed an election since.</p>

[zoosermom]

<p>

Are you one of the people who believes the whole Peter Paul controversy or that the Clintons were involved in organized crime?

</p>

<p>Irrelevant. The issue at hand was Obama’s choice of associates, which is certainly worth noting. The question is whether a voter would view his associates as a negative or positive. I didn’t criticise his choice of associates, just mentioned that it was an issue worthy of consideration. I noticed that you muddied the waters, though, without addressing the issue at hand.</p>

<p>

Also, aren’t you quite the hypocrite criticizing me for being rude in my post?

Not at all. I had had enough seeing you attack another poster who had been courteous to you. Your posts really are out there and provide no information or insight. Don’t respond. I’m not interested in anything you have to say. If you want to call me a hypocrite, feel free, your opinion is meaningless.</p>

[Newjack88]

<p>

Irrelevant. The issue at hand was Obama’s choice of associates, which is certainly worth noting. The question is whether a voter would view his associates as a negative or positive. I didn’t criticise his choice of associates, just mentioned that it was an issue worthy of consideration. I noticed that you muddied the waters, though, without addressing the issue at hand.

</p>

<p>I just wanted to make sure you weren’t one of those people before asking you to explain what you meant by “[we] learned from the Clinton years that associates matter very much.”</p>

<p>

Not at all. I had had enough seeing you attack another poster who had been courteous to you. Your posts really are out there and provide no information or insight. Don’t respond. I’m not interested in anything you have to say. If you want to call me a hypocrite, feel free, your opinion is meaningless.

</p>

<p>If my posts provide no information or insight, why then are you making the same exact points I am making?</p>

[Newjack88]

<p>zoosermom:</p>

<p>

Anyone who says that mainstream conservatives don’t know Jindal, knows nothing of which he speaks. Jindal is the sweetheart of mainstream conservatives – NRO, Weekly Standard, Frontpage, etc. All of the mainstream. Conservatives know Jindal and have debated his record extensively. It’s just ludicrous for someone who isn’t a part of the conservative movement to think he knows what we discuss.

</p>

<p>Again, the average Republican and the average conservative do not pay attention to these things. Very few voters–on both sides–are following the vice-presidential speculation coverage.</p>

[ilsa_belter]

<p>I liked that #39, 2nd paragraph too. I think there’s a lot of truth in that description.</p>

<p>“I’m voting for Obama because he’s simply more intelligent that McCain is.”</p>

<p>I swear, if Obama’s cv didn’t include the names Harvard and Columbia, he wouldn’t in a million years have won his party’s nomination. I’m not seeing a man displaying much “intelligence” at all; mainly I see a man (and his wife) and a liberal media who love to talk about how intelligent he is.</p>

[zoosermom]

<p>^^ I’ve thought the same thing, Ilsa. Admission to top schools has long-lasting benefits, doesn’t it?</p>

[marite]

<p>

I’m not seeing a man displaying much “intelligence” at all;

</p>

<p>I’m seeing a man who’s run a terrific campaign, whereas the two “old pros” have made mistakes after mistakes. And one of the worst ones by MCain was to taunt Obama into making the trip abroad. Obama is making the most of it. And why not? I’d consider him a fool (naive, inexperienced) if he did not. That Maliki came out pretty much endorsing his timetable is gilding the lilly.</p>

[zoosermom]

<p>Marite, everything you’ve said in post 110 is absolutely true. I wonder what will happen when Obama does make a serious gaffe.</p>

[Newjack88]

<p>

I swear, if Obama’s cv didn’t include the names Harvard and Columbia, he wouldn’t in a million years have won his party’s nomination. I’m not seeing a man displaying much “intelligence” at all; mainly I see a man (and his wife) and a liberal media who love to talk about how intelligent he is.

</p>

<p>Obama is intelligent. You don’t become president of the Harvard Law Review if you are not intelligent… You just don’t.</p>

<p>And there is a case to make that Obama is more of an intellectual/more intelligent than John McCain is. By any standard or measure, John McCain was a rather poor student. He graduated 795th out of 800 students and admits he was a “D” student. Many of his peers are on recorded saying that McCain managed to graduate only because his father and grandfather were admirals in the Navy. Also, he lacks emotional intelligence–he loses his cool much too often. Lastly, one of his mentors said that McCain has difficulty understanding complex subjects–like economics.</p>

<p>When I factor these things in and look at McCain’s record, I find it pretty evident that though he has good character–aside from cheating on his first wife with Cindy when his first wife was paralyzed, not standing to George Bush and his surrogates who said that McCain’s adopted daughter was an illegitimate African-American child McCain fathered during the South Carolina primary in 2000, etc.–that it’s really his lack of intellectual prowess that holds him back during the decision making process.</p>

[Newjack88]

<p>

Marite, everything you’ve said in post 110 is absolutely true. I wonder what will happen when Obama does make a serious gaffe.

</p>

<p>We know what happened when McCain made one yesterday; no one cared.</p>

[Newjack88]

<p>

I’ve thought the same thing, Ilsa. Admission to top schools has long-lasting benefits, doesn’t it?

</p>

<p>These schools are considered top schools because they select the brightest of the brightest students.Why wouldn’t people assume you are intelligent if you attended one of these schools?</p>

[marite]

<p>Zmom:</p>

<p>I’ve wondered all along this campaign; but so far, he’s avoided not just gaffes but serious errors. I call gaffes the sort of misspeaking that anyone can make under pressure or when tired (“57 states” “Iraq Pakistan border”) and that are, to my mind inconsequential. I consider serious errors the lack of foresight on the Clinton campaign part that Obama would become a threat when there had been hints fairly early on.</p>

<p>The intense focus on Obama will likely magnify whatever faux-pas he does commit. I agree with Ben Smith below:</p>

<p>

In truth, and while there are other dynamics going on, the central issue is just sheer volume. There’s vastly more public interest in, and coverage of, Obama. His rise is a better, newer, story. That means that McCain’s message has been muted; but his missteps are too. He’s been able, in particular, to make it this far with a domestic policy agenda whose sheer vagueness wouldn’t have made it through the Democratic primary.</p>

<p>The same dynamic holds for Obama: The interest in him has allowed him to turn this week, for instance, into an extended television show about his travels. But his errors are also magnified. And so the stakes were far higher for today’s press conference – which he aced – than for any event of McCain’s.

</p>

<p>[Ben</a> Smith’s Blog: Obama love? - Politico.com](<a href=“Obama love? - POLITICO”>Obama love? - POLITICO)</p>

[vicariousparent]

<p>Obama is an intelligent man but if I had to vote on intelligence I would have voted for Hillary Clinton. I like Obama because of his wisdom. Ironic that he is the young and inexperienced candidate, but appears to be the wiser one.</p>

[Hindoo]

<p>

Obama is intelligent. You don’t become president of the Harvard Law Review if you are not intelligent… You just don’t.

</p>

<p>I couldn’t agree more! There are plenty of things, good, bad, and indifferent, that people can say about Barak Obama. But I’m absolutely floored when they start questioning his intelligence.</p>

[tega]

<p>Can anyone cite a single scholarly work that Obama has ever written? </p>

<p>I just want one. Thank you.</p>

<p>The argument that Obama is more intelligent than McCain has no empirical support, so please stop making this argument.</p>

[BedHead]

<p>

The argument that Obama is more intelligent than McCain has no empirical support, so please stop making this argument.

</p>

<p>Actually, there is certainly empirical information regarding Obama’s intelligence. It is true that there is no way a dullard would be made head of Law Review and for anyone silly enough to suggest (as I imagine some would) that this honor would be bestowed because he was black, trust me it doesn’t work that way. He’s got the goods.</p>

<p>The other aspect of this is demonstrated by speeches and press conferences he’s given. The man gives replies that are in eloquent complete sentences/paragraphs and uses words that cause people to grab for their dictionaries sometimes. He clearly articulates positions.</p>

<p>Why do you care about a scholarly work he may or may not have written? Are you going to suggest that this is a sign of intelligence? Where are McCain’s scholarly works? Maybe I missed something in the above posts.</p>

<p>McCain on the other hand looks addled repetitive and constantly misspeaks. Seriously, he is starting to look overwhelmed – physically by this campaign.</p>

<p>Did you see his interview with Meredith Viera on MSNBC? He confused Iraq and Afghanistan, he spoke over the interviewer, he didn’t handle the questions at all nimbly but just kept repeating a mantra that Obama’s supposedly being wrong on Iraq when, again, some of the conversation was about Afghanistan.</p>

<p>What will happen with McCain, I guarantee it, is that he’ll continue to sound mushy and tired a lot of the time or he’s going to blow up inappropriately at a reporter and it’ll make him look like he’s half-cocked 'cause he is. The guy’s got a lot of great attributes to be sure, but he’s just not presidential material. And he’s been committing the cardinal sin of a campaign; he’s submerged what it is that the people actually do (me included) like about him to follow a textbook Rovian campaign that is not flattering to his image and that clearly doesn’t sit well with his temperament.</p>

[ilsa_belter]

<p>Yes, I too would like to see something Obama has written–about any topic other than himself! His whole life trajectory has been focused on himself. I don’t for a minute buy that “community organizer turning down high-paying legal jobs because he cares so much about the poor and downtrodden” folklore. This was all part of his plan to attain political power and it’s worked. (Didn’t JFK write a book which helped catapult him to fame? I think he’s used JFK as his model and Jackie’s style for Michelle to great effect also). It that regard, he’s smart. Really understanding what makes this country tick and its place in the world? Not so much. Sorry if it sounds cynical and harsh: it’s just the way I see the man.</p>