gadgetlady

It's interesting to compare the kid-glove treatment by the MSM of Obama and of Palin. Here's a list of questions from Charlie Gibson for Obama and for Palin. Notice a difference? Obama interview: How does it feel to break a glass ceiling? How does it feel to “win”? How does your family feel about your “winning” breaking a glass ceiling? Who will be your VP? Should you choose Hillary Clinton as VP? Will you accept public finance? What issues is your campaign about? Will you visit Iraq? Will you debate McCain at a town hall? What did you think of your competitor’s [Clinton] speech? Palin interview: Do you have enough qualifications for the job you’re seeking? Specifically have you visited foreign countries and met foreign leaders? Aren’t you conceited to be seeking this high level job? Questions about foreign policy -territorial integrity of Georgia -allowing Georgia and Ukraine to be members of NATO -NATO treaty -Iranian nuclear threat -what to do if Israel attacks Iran -Al Qaeda motivations -the Bush Doctrine -attacking terrorists harbored by Pakistan Is America fighting a holy war? [misquoted Palin] quoted from http://theanchoressonline.com/2008/09/12/side-by-side-gibson-questions-more/

The US Senate and Congress has lower support in the opinion polls than Bush, and they're controlled by the Dems. So those statistics can be taken a different way entirely.

Give me a break. I'm not allowed to comment on something someone said on a public post? Lord have mercy is right. And the numbers speak for themselves.

I flipped on the radio yesterday and found myself listening to a report on the candidate's tax return releases. I wish I had had a pen to jot the numbers down. I don't know if I tuned in late or they didn't say it, but Palin's numbers weren't included. Excuse me if these numbers aren't 100% correct, but they're close enough to get the point across. The Bidens donated an average of something like $339 in charitable donations each year over the past 10 years. They declared close to $400,000 (high $300's), which for the past year works out to something like 0.3% of their income. John McCain (filing alone) declared a little over $400,000 and donated $105,000 to charity (25% of his income). The Obamas -- this is the one where I get a little fuzzy on the income because it was so high -- they declared in the multiple millions in income and something like $250,000 in charitable donations. It worked out to under 10% of their income (I think it may have been 5% but honestly I can't remember exactly). But the comparison was dramatic -- with McCain giving 25% and everyone else under 10%, with the Bidens incredibly low. While looking for the numbers on the internet (unsuccessfully), I did find multiple websites indicating that the Obamas have had pitifully low charitable donations in the past 10 years, not just percentage-wise, but monetarily (when their income was not in the millions but in the hundred-thousands, charitable donations were in the mere thousands). Some years the amount was 1%.

Her hair is amazing. And I'm not sure I mean that in a good way. The jury's still out on that one.

It really pisses me off when people think I'm voting for the McCain/Palin ticket because she's a woman! Her gender is inconsequential. As is Obama's color, McCain's age, and Biden's . . . well, Biden's just plain inconsequential all by himself (for those of you about to get huffy, that was a JOKE)

:sad: Amen, Jack. The day she was nominated, I said to my dh (through tears), "It's a good day to be a woman in America." Sadly, since then, with the sexist attacks abounding, the tone is definitely different. In the early 1990's I was asked, by an organization I worked with, to run for US Congress. I quickly declined. While I would have love the opportunity to serve, I was very leary of the election process: I did not want my past sins and failures broadcast for all to see. It takes a very strong woman to do what she is doing. That is not meant to belittle men who do this, because they are indeed attacked, too. But the attacks on this woman are, IMO, distinctly worse than what they've said of most men. To photoshop pictures of her in a bikini holding a rifle, to diminish her choice not to abort her children (especially her special needs child), to attack her 17YO daughter, to make political statements about her uterus and breastfeeding, and all of the other things, is just sick. Challenge her on the issues -- fine! But debase her personally because you don't like her stand on the issues? That's another matter entirely.

I just watched a few clips of Palin's interview with Charlie Gibson. I think she did quite well. I know there are people here who were hoping she would fall on her face; I think you're going to be sorely disappointed with this interview (and future interviews as well), if that's your hope.

Again, I disagree. I watched it several times from start to finish. He was very methodical in trying to pull the analogy out of his head, after quoting the cartoon he quoted. And he was buoyed by the audience's chant, going into the fish analogy next. But none of us can get into his head and be sure about his intentions, can we? :sad:

I think there were some good questions in the interview, at least from what has been released already.

So you believe it was deliberate -- a bomb?

(emphasis mine) I read that as, "The people who said those things you say are unfair said them because or something she did or didn't do." In other words, if she had done something differently, answered questions that you say she hasn't answered, then they wouldn't have had to resort to those unfair attacks. In other words, the attacks are her fault, and, ergo, deserved. (Incidentally, you said specifically that I said they were not fair; you never said you also believe they were not fair.)

Really? Because that's not how I read it: The way I read it is you're saying the people who commented about her breastfeeding, about her only qualification for being VP is that she hasn't had an abortion, about her being Pilate to Obama's Jesus, and about her uterus, said those things because she won't answer questions. In other words, they said those things due to some fault of hers, not some mean streak of theirs. I don't see anywhere that you said they were horrible things to say. The comments I posted earlier weren't made by Republicans. If the people saying them want a fair discussion of the issues, perhaps they might discuss issues -- rather than throw bombs. But you know, when you throw a bomb, people tend to react. It's really quite a disingenuous feat to throw a bomb and then complain when people react.

I'll bet we could find something we agree on ! And I'm glad you read more. I believe healthy, honest, thoughtful, factual discussion is always valuable, even if you disagree. What annoys me is when people post things without being able to back them up, and then never return to the conversation to discuss or defend their position. It's like a drive-by shooting and they never revisit the scene :sad:

Of course crap has been said about Obama and Biden. And of course Palin is tough enough to take it. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't call crap, crap. That doesn't mean we should excuse it by saying, "It's her fault for not giving an interview", or "She brought it on herself". When someone posted a YouTube link about Obama and a limo, I couldn't even listen 10 seconds into it because it was clear it was a smear campaign. I didn't go around saying he brought it on himself. I called it for what it was. I am perfectly willing to denounce conservatives for saying unjustified things about Obama and Biden. I'm just asking for the same from liberals.

luluc, I really respect your approach to issues -- even though it appears I disagree with you on most of them -- you're very thoughtful and open to honest discussion. Thank you for that!

That's a load of crap. Saying the only qualification she has for VP is that she hasn't had an abortion is because she won't answer questions? Saying she's Pilate to Obama's Jesus is because she won't answer questions? Commenting on the fact that she's nursing her baby, which presumably disqualifies her for the position, is because she won't answer questions? Not by a long shot. Those comments were made to slam her, not in response to whether or not she's answered questions.

:sad: Love it! I spend a lot of my life laughing. I've laughed a lot over this thread, too.

I'll give you that. That's probably true. Just for the record, though, the reason I posted it earlier in this thread was to make a point about context, not to be passive-aggressive. And I think I made my point, because the response I got to the "non-issue" of Obama's middle name is the same response Obama got to the "non-issue" of lipstick on a pig. Passive-aggressive is a good description for that as well.

OK, back to the REAL issues. Here are a few quotes that have come out about Palin: “Barack Obama was a community organizer like Jesus. Pontius Pilate was a governor.” Rep. Steve Cohen “She’s never actually used the word Shiite in a sentence before. She’s never had to. She’s never given any thought whatsoever to nuclear proliferation. She’s never had to. She’s never thought about Israel, Russia, Korea, or Iran. She’s never even thought about Mexico. So, what HAS she thought about? I mean, what has she thought about that’s going to directly affect you and me if (yes, God forbid) she has to slip into the role of the most powerful leader on the face of the planet? Well, we know she’s given a lot of thought to your uterus. Hell, I think about your uterus all the time and nobody should ever elect me to any office. Michael Seitzman, Huffington Post [/url] “John McCain has chosen a running mate whose primary qualification seems to be that she hasn’t had an abortion.” South Carolina Democratic Chairwoman Carol Fowler If the red phone rings in the middle of the night and she’s breastfeeding, will she answer it?” Jane Smiley, Huffington Post Fair? I think not.

Those were cute. I liked the hurricane one. Oh, wait. Are we discussing the issues now? :sad:

What's interesting is that when Obama's middle name is used, it's not the Republicans who react -- it's the Democrats! So if the reason is "fear" and "biases", then it's coming from the left, not the right.

I think you'll be seeing a lot of interviews with her coming down the pike. She's been a little busy for the past two weeks, for Pete's sake! You know, come to think of it I can't remember an interview that Biden's been in since he was nominated. Correct me if I'm wrong. Yeah, yeah, I know, Biden's been interviewed before. But, hmmm, so had Palin.

The difference is McCain didn't say it shortly after Hillary had made a joke that had been repeated hundreds, if not thousands, of times on the national and local media and at the water coolers across America that directly referenced lipstick, with visuals of her pointing to her mouth (as she did in the speech). Again, it is all about context. Name me supporters of any political candidate in history who object to hearing their candidate's middle name. I don't think there exists one, except for Barack Hussein Obama. If I said "Franklin Delano Roosevelt", no one would cry "foul". But they do when I say "Barack Hussein Obama". It's all about the current political climate. The lipstick joke has to be addressed in context. Look at what Obama said immediately before that line. He quoted, almost word-for-word, a cartoon that had been printed about McCain days earlier. He spent time searching for the words to get that quote right. You can see him searching around in his head to make the words come out right. He rehearsed that, and he rehearsed the lipstick and fish jokes as well. He knew what he was saying. Did you go to the website I referenced earlier? I have a feeling your hair would turn white at some of the things that are discussed in public sex ed classes. And I have heard stories of explicit sex ed classes being presented to kindergartners. It does happen.

One other thing about teleprompters . . . you do know that Obama rarely speaks without one, that he turned down McCain's request to do a series of 10 "Town Hall" meetings, and that even when he speaks "off the cuff" (or what appears to be so) to a group, he still has bullet-pointed "talking points" on the teleprompters?