I still cannot understand why so many people out there continue to compare a Vice Presidential candidate to a PRESIDENTIAL candidate.

In fairness to BOTH involved here, A Governor usually does NOT have much experience in foreign matters/ affairs.

Common sense would tell us that a Senator would and probably should have much more experience in foreign affairs.

Yet regardless, history has shown us that many more governors have gone on to become Presidents than Senators have.

Now in this case, in this election, I just do not understand the constant comaparisons that are being made between PRESIDENTIAL canididate Senator Obama and Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin. It's just mind boggling!

If one wants to compare, then they should be comparing BOTH PRESIDENTIAL candidate's respecitve credentials.

And in the case of comparing Foiriegn affairs experiences and services on Foreign relations, Homeland security and other foregin related committees, with all due respect....the record speaks for itself. Barack Obama doesn't even come close to Senator McCain in that category.

Truthfully I can't wait for this election to be over. I just cannot stand to listen to anymore of the media rhetoric, the constant accusations and the constant non-issue comparisons that are being made by BOTH parties.

People really need to focus on the REAL issues here... not the hair styles, the suits that are worn, the sex of the candidates, the hotels that they stay in, the foods that they eat, the religions or the color of their skin. That's all meaningless as far as I am concerned.

The fucking country is in financial turmoil. The world is one wrong decision away from a massive war.

Let's pay more attention to the plans that these respective candidates say that they have to put this country back on the right track, to handle foreign affairs, and vote accordingly on those issues and not on the meaningless bullshit that the fucking media keeps feeding us!

I agree DC, I agree.

The qualifications for President (I mentioned above, but we all know I'm sure) and, as I understand it, the "only" (main) job of the VP is to take over for the President should it become necessary.

That "necessity" has only happened once in my lifetime (LBJ sworn in after JKF was assassinated). Although, one would think that in the normal course of life and our history generally, it would be very unlikely and a safe bet that the VP would never have to step up.

However, considering the fact that it has happened in recent history, (and of course knowing youth doesn't necessarily keep you "safe" in terms of finishing your term) let's face it, with McCain being up there in years, who knows? I read and maybe others can confirm, (AND this is just a "for instance") that Reagan's alzheimers started while he was in office. Say something like that happened to any President??? You'd want someone capable to take over right?

I guess what I'm saying is, that although qualifications for VP and President actually, are in written words, "short", BUT we should all consider the possibility of that person running on the VP ticket being President if necessary.

TIS

And DC, I can't wait til this election is over too. I hate to think of how bad it'd be (with ads) if I lived in a battleground state. Not too bad in that respect here.

Republican fears of historic Obama landslide unleash civil war for the future of the party

Senior Republicans believe that John McCain is doomed to a landslide defeat which will hand Barack Obama more political power than any president in a generation.

Aides to George W.Bush, former Reagan White House staff and friends of John McCain have all told The Sunday Telegraph that they not only expect to lose on November 4, but also believe that Mr Obama is poised to win a crushing mandate.

They believe he will be powerful enough to remake the American political landscape with even more ease than Ronald Reagan did in 1980.

The prospect of an electoral rout has unleashed a bitter bout of recriminations both within the McCain campaign and the wider conservative movement, over who is to blame and what should be done to salvage the party's future.

Mr McCain is now facing calls for him to sacrifice his own dwindling White House hopes and focus on saving vulnerable Republican Senate seats which are up for grabs on the same day.

Their fear is that Democrat candidates riding on Mr Obama's popularity may win the nine extra seats they need in the Senate to give them unfettered power in Congress.

If the Democrat majority in the Senate is big enough - at least 60 seats to 40 - the Republicans will be unable to block legislation by use of a traditional filibuster - talking until legislation runs out of time. No president has had the support of such a majority since Jimmy Carter won the 1976 election. President Reagan achieved his political transformation partly through the power of his personality.

David Frum, a former Bush speechwriter, told The Sunday Telegraph that Republicans should now concentrate all their fire on "the need for balanced government".

"It's hard to see a turnaround in the White House race," he said. "This could look like an ideological as well as a party victory if we're not careful. It could be 1980 in reverse.

"With this huge new role for federal government in the economy, the possibility for mischief making is very, very great. One man should not have a monopoly of political and financial power. That's very dangerous."

In North Carolina, where Senator Elizabeth Dole seems set to loose, Republicans are running adverts that appear to take an Obama victory for granted, warning that the Democrat will have a "blank cheque" if her rival Kay Hagen wins. "These liberals want complete control of government in a time of crisis," the narrator says. "All branches of Government. No checks and balances."

Democrats lead in eight of the 12 competitive Senate races and need just nine gains to reach their target of 60. Even Mitch McConnell, the leader of Senate Republicans, is at risk in Kentucky, normally a rock solid red state.

A private memo on the likely result of the congressional elections, leaked to Politico, has the Republicans losing 37 seats.

Ed Rollins, who masterminded Ronald Reagan's second victory in 1984, said the election is already over and predicted: "This is going to turn into a landslide."

A former White House official who still advises President Bush told The Sunday Telegraph: "McCain hasn't won independents, nor has he inspired the base. It's the worst of all worlds. He is dragging everyone else down with him. He needs to deploy people and money to salvage what we can in Congress."

The prospect of defeat has unleashed what insiders describe as an "every man for himself" culture within the McCain campaign, with aides in a "circular firing squad" as blame is assigned.

More profoundly, it sparked the first salvoes in a Republican civil war with echoes of Tory infighting during their years in the political wilderness.

One wing believes the party has to emulate David Cameron, by adapting the issues to fight on and the positions they hold, while the other believes that a back to basics approach will reconnect with heartland voters and ensure success. Modernisers fear that would leave Republicans marginalised, like the Tories were during the Iain Duncan Smith years, condemning them to opposition for a decade.

Mr Frum argues that just as America is changing, so the Republican Party must adapt its economic message and find more to say about healthcare and the environment if it is to survive.

He said: "I don't know that there's a lot of realism in the Republican Party. We have an economic message that is largely irrelevant to most people.

"Cutting personal tax rates is not the answer to everything. The Bush years were largely prosperous but while national income was up the numbers for most individuals were not. Republicans find that a hard fact to process."

Other Republicans have jumped ship completely. Ken Adelman, a Pentagon adviser on the Iraq war, Matthew Dowd, who was Mr Bush's chief re-election strategist, and Scott McClellan, Mr Bush's former press secretary, have all endorsed Mr Obama.

But the real bile has been saved for those conservatives who have balked at the selection of Sarah Palin.

In addition to Mr Frum, who thinks her not ready to be president, Peggy Noonan, Ronald Reagan's greatest speechwriter and a columnist with the Wall Street Journal, condemned Mr McCain's running mate as a "symptom and expression of a new vulgarisation of American politics." Conservative columnist David Brooks called her a "fatal cancer to the Republican Party".

The backlash that ensued last week revealed the fault lines of the coming civil war.

Rush Limbaugh, the doyen of right wing talk radio hosts, denounced Noonan, Brooks and Frum. Neconservative writer Charles Krauthammer condemned "the rush of wet-fingered conservatives leaping to Barack Obama", while fellow columnist Tony Blankley said that instead of collaborating in heralding Mr Obama's arrival they should be fighting "in a struggle to the political death for the soul of the country".

During the primaries the Democratic Party was bitterly divided between Barack Obama's "latte liberals" and Hillary Clinton's heartland supporters, but now the same cultural division threatens to tear the Republican Party apart.

Jim Nuzzo, a White House aide to the first President Bush, dismissed Mrs Palin's critics as "cocktail party conservatives" who "give aid and comfort to the enemy".

He told The Sunday Telegraph: "There's going to be a bloodbath. A lot of people are going to be excommunicated. David Brooks and David Frum and Peggy Noonan are dead people in the Republican Party. The litmus test will be: where did you stand on Palin?"

Mr Frum thinks that Mrs Palin's brand of cultural conservatism appeals only to a dwindling number of voters.

He said: "She emerges from this election as the probable frontrunner for the 2012 nomination. Her supporters vastly outnumber her critics. But it will be extremely difficult for her to win the presidency."

Mr Nuzzo, who believes this election is not a re-run of the 1980 Reagan revolution but of 1976, when an ageing Gerald Ford lost a close contest and then ceded the leadership of the Republican Party to Mr Reagan.

He said: "Win or lose, there is a ready made conservative candidate waiting in the wings. Sarah Palin is not the new Iain Duncan Smith, she is the new Ronald Reagan." On the accuracy of that judgment, perhaps, rests the future of the Republican Party.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopi...-the-party.html

From the Drudge Report:

DAMASCUS, Syria (AP) - Syria's state-run television and witnesses say U.S. military helicopters have attacked an area along the country's border with Iraq, causing casualties.

The report quoted unnamed Syrian officials and said the area is near the Syrian border town of Abu Kamal. It gave no other details on Sunday's attack.

Local residents told The Associated Press by telephone that two helicopters carrying U.S. soldiers raided the village of Hwijeh, 10 miles inside Syria's border, killing seven people and wounding five.

The U.S. military in Baghdad had no immediate comment

Having spent my career in Government and teaching Government now, I love this stuff. However, as I take it all in, I put it all in perspective. That's the key. All the information about candidates that is provided by the candidates or which is reported and discussed by the media are parts that, together, constitute the whole. There is a relevance hierarchy of information and it is up to each of us to design our own hierarchy. From that perspective we should be able to divine a cogent whole on which we can base an election decision.

You gotta love the New York Post:

PIT BULL TURNS ON MCMAVERICK
NOW PALIN'S BUCKING HER OWN TICKET

Sarah Palin is the rogue elephant in the GOP war room.

The maverick mom is distancing herself from John McCain and blowing off the advice of senior Republican aides, convinced they're damaging her reputation and ruining the campaign.

Things have gotten so tense between Palin and her traveling staff, an insider said, that she's overruling their advice - which was evident last week when she ignored GOP aides piling into waiting cars at a Colorado event and strolled over to the press corps for an impromptu talk.

MORE: Palin Has Future Even If McCain Loses

In speeches, Palin has contradicted her running mate's positions on issues, telling a Christian news outlet last week that she would support a constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage, which McCain opposes.

Though McCain once said he considered Obama's relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright to be an old issue, this month Palin said, "I don't know why that association isn't discussed more."

Palin also publicly stated that she thought it was a mistake for the campaign to give up on Michigan, and that she thought voters were annoyed by robocalls - which McCain uses extensively.

The last straw for the vice-presidential candidate was the raft of criticism from the $150,000 worth of high-end clothes the Republican National Committee bought her, a campaign source said.

Palin showed how much that gaffe got under her skin yesterday at a rally in Sioux City, Iowa, telling the crowd she'd stepped off the plane and donned a warm, cream-colored jacket.

"And it's my own jacket," she said.

A McCain insider told The Post that relations between Palin and some of the campaign aides with her have soured. "She's lost faith with the staff. She knows the $150,000- wardrobe story damaged her," the insider said.

But the novice vice-presidential candidate is partly to blame, the campaign official sniped. "She's an adult. She didn't ask questions about where the clothes came from?" the source said.

"She's now positioning herself for her own future. Of course, this is bad for John. It looks like no one is in charge."

Palin is not likely to roll over and let herself be scapegoated if things don't go well on Nov. 4.

"She's a lot savvier, politically speaking, than people give her credit for," said a GOP strategist.

"Everyone is trying to distance themselves from responsibility for the campaign going south. Why wouldn't she do the same?"

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10262008/news/politics/pit_bull_turns_on_mcmaverick_135366.htm

I'm reading an awful lot of stories regarding Palin "turning" on or not "following" advice. While, I'm also hearing that this is common. It is??? Some are calling her a Diva. More likely, and the more I see of her, I agree that most likely she is trying to "make her mark" or "position hersel" for 2012. Ya think???????



TIS

Police estimate over 100000 people turn out in Denver for Obama - perhaps his largest crowd ever.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/new...ahoo_headlines

RR,

That's unbelieveable! However I get an error message "Can't find file 404" when open the link.

Anyway, I don't know what the highest number was, but didn't h attract over 100,000 when he was in Europe?

Still, win or lose I think this guy's appeal is amazing.


TIS

Well yeah. She's trying to not go down with the sinking ship. Hell, Lieberman, the Democratic Senator who endorsed McCain, is now saying that Obama is "experienced" enough to be President.

As for 2012 GOP Nomination, Palin/Romney/Huckabee seem likely runners, but the one new face outsider for '12 or '16 that could excite up the party would be Bobby Jindal, the Indian-American Governor Louisiana, who Newt Gingrinch has been pimping heavily lately.

yeah sorry about the link. It's 404 for me as well.

I think that Denver report regards for a domestic audience for Senator Obama, though St. Louis weeks back also reported a 100,000 crowd that was later believed to be only 90,000.

But STILL, ninety thousand people out for a rally speech. I mean Jesus, that's still just insanely incredible.

The appeal you spoke of TIS, its a factor of many things:

(1) He's "It." - McCain has whined about Obama's celebrity, but in every election there is always "The Guy/Gal" and the "other one." The Guy/Gal enters a room, and sucks up all the oxygen and attention, and the opposition becomes more of an anti-movement than a proactive candidate campaign.

With the polls so far, Obama is probably going to be our next President of the United States, and the masses want to see their new King.

(2) Kennedy/Reagan - My conservative friends always get pissed when I say this, but Obama right now with these crowds, he is my generation's Ronald Reagan or JFK, someone who only comes once an epoch.

Not in terms of ideology or policy necessarily, but that in his rhetoric and charisma, those people see him as reassuring, a figure that always promises a better America in a better tomorrow. If Kennedy influenced a whole generation of liberals, and Reagan with a generation of conservatives, Obama could possibly move a whole generation himself.

(3) #1 - I read an interesting piece in the last TIME issue where a black writer penned about how if Obama wins, the most famous black man in America won't be an over-paid primadonna athlete (Kobe Bryant) or a gangsta rapper in/was in prison (50 Cent) or old loud demagogues (Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton) or a rich celebrity who with his expensive lawyers used race and not the evidence to be acquited (O.J. Simpson).

(4) The Base - Unlike McCain, the Democratic Party base is full-fledged for Obama, and you see that enthusiasm and numbers at these rallies.

Thanks RR, I know I, for one, can surely relate to the comparisons you mention that's for sure.

Now, is it even possible that McCain could lose his home state??? The Dems evidently are not shy about circulating this artcle. According to this poll, McCain leads by only 4???


Democrats are circulating a poll showing Sen. John McCain losing ground in his home state of Arizona, an ominous sign for his beleaguered campaign as state after state turns blue.

Project New West, which aims to build the Democratic Party in the Intermountain West, says the Republican leads Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) in the Grand Canyon State, 48 percent to 44 percent.

The pollsters call that a “dramatic shift” from a survey they took in mid-September, which had McCain ahead by 14 points, 54 percent to 40 percent.

“Bad News for McCain: Presidential Contest in Arizona has Closed in Arizona And McCain Now Leads By Just 4 Points,” says a memo from pollsters Andrew Myers of Myers Research and Strategic Services and Lisa Grove of Grove Research.

The poll of 600 likely Arizona voters was taken Thursday and Friday, and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

McCain has represented Arizona in the House or Senate since 1982.

In 2000, President Bush won Arizona by 6 percentage points. In 2004, he widened that to 11 percentage points.

Most polling has showed McCain winning his home state easily. The Real Clear Politics average of Arizona polls gives McCain an 11.3-point advantage over Obama.

The McCain campaign did not respond to requests for comment.


TIS

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14942.html

The Anchorage (Alaska) Daily News endorsed Obama on Oct. 25, 2008:

Gov. Palin's nomination clearly alters the landscape for Alaskans as we survey this race for the presidency — but it does not overwhelm all other judgment. The election, after all is said and done, is not about Sarah Palin, and our sober view is that her running mate, Sen. John McCain, is the wrong choice for president at this critical time for our nation.

Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee, brings far more promise to the office. In a time of grave economic crisis, he displays thoughtful analysis, enlists wise counsel and operates with a cool, steady hand. The same cannot be said of Sen. McCain.

Not that democrats are socialists, but what's so bad about socialism?

Nevermind that techinically America has been socialist since the 1930s, what with FDIC and social security and SEC and so on.

Oh and that McCain voted for that bailout too.

You know who also lacked foreign policy experience?

Ronald Reagan.

Yeah Governor for 8 years in California, but to say he had experience in foreign policy because his state borders Mexico, is as much of a stretch as Palin did because she bordered Canada.

Last I checked, Reagan did alright.

To add-on my JFK/Reagan/BHO analogy, someone told me that Obama has the highest polled-favorables ever for a presidential candidate. I don't know if that is accurate, and I haven't seen that alleged polling itself, BUT if its true...

Well JFK and Reagan both made some mistakes inbetween the good shit they did.

JFK had the Bay of Pigs fiasco in his first 100 days in office, ordered the coup de tats in South Vietnam that got its dictator assassinated, and a similar overthrow in Iraq that a young Saddam Hussein was involved as an enforcer for the new leader...his weakness at his Vienna summit with Kruschev in 1961 would lead onto the Cuban Missile Crisis (which his administration defused strongly without looking weak) and famously held off on any significant Civil Rights legislation until the Birmingham church bombing in 1963.

Reagan failed to decrease government (in fact, he increased it, with Department of Veterans' Affairs) and his supply-side economics provided for an economic boom, but a heavy deficit in the late 80s/90s that cost Bush Sr. his job. Reagan also had his nasty/insignificant involvements down in Central America (which could have snared us down like Vietnam) and maybe his administration should have been more assertive in publicly combating the AIDS epidemic, and oh yeah that whole Iran-Contra fuckup.

And yet both Presidents were liked by the American people in spite of all that. Despite Iran/Contra, Reagan left office with the then-highest approval ratings, and JFK's lowest mark was at 56%.

Look at Americans who refuse to let go of "Camelot," in spite of JFK's numerous affairs and (possibly) being connected in some way to Marylyn Monroe's death, and his outright bitchyness (like having the IRS audit Nixon yearly after the 1960 election.) When Reagan died, his state funeral was perhaps for Americans the most emotional since JFK's own in 1963.





I got one better TIS:

Arizona Daily Star poll:

McCain 43.5
Obama 41.5

http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/printDS/264209

How many Governors really have or did have extensive foreign experience?

If he wins, I sure hope that you are right and that he can.

My favorite Obama line of the campaign: "John McCain attacking George Bush is like Tonto attacking the Lone Ranger".

He was the best President that I ever voted for, if not my lifetime.

Oh, I better put in a disclaimer for the '60s hippie leftovers here . I was only 4 years old when JFK was killed.

I didn't say anything about foreign policy experience, just experience in general. Is 100 weeks in the senate really enough time to qualify a junior senator to run for president? And besides his political career, what life experiences have helped shape his character/judgment? Being a failed community organizer?

Care to explain how you came to this conclusion?

Technically, you can argue that being Governor of a state that borders a foreign country requires knowledge/skills in dealing with said nation regarding certain issues.

Palin could have argued intelligently how as Governor of Alaska, she has to deal with fishing/oil/wildlife rights and concerns, since a great wilderness lays where the Alaskan/Canadian border is. Nevermind the usual shit like extradiction, etc.

But instead, she argued that because she could see Russia from her house, that was her experience.

I didn't say anything about foreign policy experience, just experience in general. Is 100 weeks in the senate really enough time to qualify a junior senator to run for president? And besides his political career, what life experiences have helped shape his character/judgment? Being a failed community organizer?[/quote]

I'm with JL here...define "failed."

And just for the hell of it, throw in William Ayers too for the randomness of it.

He actually has been a US Senator for three years, not two (which is what you keep saying by repeating "100 weeks"). Before that, he was in the state senate for 8 years. And instead of grabbing a big money job when he finished law school, as the editor of the Harvard Law Review certainly could have, he decided to become a "community organizer" and devote his life to public service.

Obama announced his candidacy only 2 years after assuming office.

As for community organizing...
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=2e0a7836-b897-4155-864c-25e791ff0f50

Just face it, Obama has done nothing. He is the epitome of an empty suit.