The 2008 Presidential Campaign (was Obama Phenomenon 2)

[Ellienor]

What's false, Halpm? Even the story you linked shows that she did indeed ask whether the librarian would be willing to ban books if she asked and that the librarian was asked to resign as part of a "loyalty purge."

The article also states that she has failed to follow up on her campaign pledges on creationism being taught in schools (because it was politically expedient--Alaskans don't like religion and government mixed up too much).

How is McCain a "change" from Washington, exactly? He's pretty thick with lobbyists (they have almost all of the major positions in his campaign). Obama has none in his campaign. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 31_pf.html

[halplm]

Lay off the "hate" crap, halplm. I wonder if you are EVER going to understand that pointing out a politician's flaws has nothing to do with "hate".

I, for one, automatically dismiss anything else you might have to say simply because it reveals a seemingly fundamental inability on your part to understand what "debate" means.

And you don't seem to understand the difference between "debate" and "attack"

there hasn't been any debate in this thread since Palin was announced.

There has only been attack and defend.

[Primula Baggins]

Hal, may I ask that you please stop accusing people who disagree with you of hatred? I very much resent being told that because I disagree with Palin's positions on almost every issue there is, think she's dangerously unqualified, and thus intend to vote for someone else, I "hate" her.

Hatred does not enter into it. My choice is a political, not an emotional one; also, I believe hate of any kind poisons the hater.

[N.E. Brigand]

What's false, halpalm? Even the story you linked shows that she did indeed ask whether the librarian would be willing to ban books if she asked and that the librarian was asked to resign as part of a "loyalty purge."

But immediately rehired. What was the point of that exercise?

[vison]

What's false, halpalm? Even the story you linked shows that she did indeed ask whether the librarian would be willing to ban books if she asked and that the librarian was asked to resign as part of a "loyalty purge."

But immediately rehired. What was the point of that exercise?

A demonstration of power, most likely. Saying, "I can fire you if I want but I am being generous and you can have your job."

It's a common ploy by politicians of all stripes. At one time ANY civil servant, regardless of how insignificant, would know the job was in jeopardy under a new administration.

This shows, among other things, that Mrs. Palin is a pretty hardnosed politician.

[sauronsfinger]

from Hal

Attackin Sara Palin will not work for Obama, for two reasons. First, everything they're attacking her on, is either easily explained, or issues that people have been complainging about Obama for to begin with! Second, it leaves McCain free and clear, and above it all.

Well Hal, so far, I have yet to see any explaination at all for

Presenting your self as the enemy of earmarks but getting twenty-seven million dollars in earmarks for your little town in Alaska.

Presenting yourself as the opponent of the Bridge to Nowhere but being an initial advocate for it and keeping the money after you supposedly said "no thanks".

Presenting yourself as the defender of liberty but trying to get the town librarian to ban books.

Presenting yourself as the defender of the Consititution but putting a gag order limiting the freedom of speech for town employees

Presenting your self as the champion of public safety and fighter of crime but in reality a cutter of both budgets once in office despite hundreds of millions in extra state revenues being available.

Presenting yourself as a fiscal conservative but having your hands out for per diem payments even when you stayed and ate in your own house.

Presenting your sefl as a fiscal conservative but taking your husband and kids on trips and billing the state for them.

If there are some nice and easy explainations I would be happy to read them.

The Dems need to take on a campaign of unvarnished truth regarding Palin and do it now since she is the new face on the block that is giving so much life and hope to the Rep. party. Then there will be six weeks to take on McCain.

[vison]

Lay off the "hate" crap, halplm. I wonder if you are EVER going to understand that pointing out a politician's flaws has nothing to do with "hate".

I, for one, automatically dismiss anything else you might have to say simply because it reveals a seemingly fundamental inability on your part to understand what "debate" means.

And you don't seem to understand the difference between "debate" and "attack"

there hasn't been any debate in this thread since Palin was announced.

There has only been attack and defend.

YOU are the one who brought the word "hate" into the thread, halplm. As far as I'm concerned, it's intolerable and ought to be removed. I'm not making a "formal request" to a moderator, I'm just saying what I think.

And, once again - although I have to wonder why I spend any time and energy on such a futile effort - ONCE AGAIN: pointing out a politician's flaws is not an attack. It is not an attack on the politician in question and it is not an attack on that politician's supporters. It is a perfectly acceptable tactic in debate.

Rather than whining about "hate" and "attacks", refute the statement or ignore it.

[halplm]

Prim, you and I disagree on what motivates to spread the lies and rumors about Palin, and what motivates people to believe them without evidence.

I believe many are looking for reasons to justify their dislike or yes, hatred.

If you only care about the fact you disagree on all the issues, then NONE of this other stuff matters, but most out there seem to think these smears are important to both believe and spread.

[halplm]

And, vison, I think it's important to remember that the root of many of these rumors and stories is not to discover truth, but hatred of the candidate... thus their tendency to ignore truth, and focus on things that can be twisted negative.

[Primula Baggins]

I want McCain/Palin to lose, Hal. Definitely, big time. That doesn't mean I hate either one of them.

What I've posted about Palin is, to the best of my knowledge, true. I will retract anything I post about her in error, if I discover the error or someone points it out to me.

Until then, stop telling me I am a liar and stop telling me I am a hater.

[sauronsfinger]

Well Hal, then your task is an easy one. All you or Palin has to do is

1) show that her statements supporting the Bridge to Nowhere are false and never were uttered by here.

2) Show that the money the state was given for the bridge was returned in full to the US government.

3) Show that the city never accepted those earmarks and the city did not benefit at all from earmarks.

4) Reveal from her own finances the facts that she never took the per diems for sleeping and eating in her own house.

5) Bring the librarian in front of a microphone so they can tell the world that the whole banning books conversation never really took place.

6) Get those employess who told of the gag orders from the Mayor to confess their lies and slander.

7) Bring out the state budget to show that she really did back up her campaing promises with increased state efforts to fight crime and protect public safety as she promised to do before the election.

Telling the truth is easy.

[vison]

And, vison, I think it's important to remember that the root of many of these rumors and stories is not to discover truth, but hatred of the candidate... thus their tendency to ignore truth, and focus on things that can be twisted negative.

Horseshit.

And, like Primula, I am sick and tired of being accused of "hating" and "repeating lies". Quit it.

Mrs. Palin doesn't need to be defended by whining accusations and hysterical shrieking of "hate!" or "lies!" She will have to stand or fall on her record, and exposing her record is a legitimate and necessary and inevitably good and patriotic act for whoever does it.

[sauronsfinger]

There is a truly excellent opinion article on Real Clear Politics today that pretty much captures my own thoughts and feelings about the campaign right now.

Here is a small excerpt:

What Obama does not understand is that he is being Swift-boated. The term does not apply to a mere smear. It is bolder, more outrageous than that. It means going straight at your opponent's strength and maligning it. This is what was done in 2004 to John Kerry, who had commanded a Swift boat in Vietnam. Kerry had won three Purple Hearts, a Silver Star and a Bronze Star and had emerged from the war a certified hero. It was that record his opponents attacked, a tactic Kerry thought so ludicrous that he at first ignored it. The record shows that he lost the election.

The article is TOO COOL TO FIGHT by Richard Cohen

it may be found in its entirety here

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... o_put.html'

[Ellienor]

The whole thing about "the media is attacking Palin" is a tactic, in my opinion, to persuade voters to ignore what the media says.

The media is what brought you Ayers and Jeremiah Wright. It's what brought you John Edwards' affair. "Lies!" is what John Edwards said. He had reason to fear the media. He was covering something up that didn't jibe with his public persona of devoted husband!!

There's nothing to attack the media about unless you are afraid of the court of public opinion.

[vison]

This could be it: "Maybe he's worried about how America would receive an angry black man."

But then, maybe not.

I think he's gotta get going, though. He must be tough, so let's see some tough.

It is fundamentally a battle between 2 cultures. The divide could be bridged, but only if there is good will on both sides. There is no good will on McCain's side, because they think they are going to win.

Mr. Obama may think - I don't know - that the time for good will is before the election. I think he's gotta win first.

[halplm]

And, vison, I think it's important to remember that the root of many of these rumors and stories is not to discover truth, but hatred of the candidate... thus their tendency to ignore truth, and focus on things that can be twisted negative.

Horseshit.

And, like Primula, I am sick and tired of being accused of "hating" and "repeating lies". Quit it.

Mrs. Palin doesn't need to be defended by whining accusations and hysterical shrieking of "hate!" or "lies!" She will have to stand or fall on her record, and exposing her record is a legitimate and necessary and inevitably good and patriotic act for whoever does it.

But people are not exposing her record, they are exposing a distorted and twisted version of her record, that supports their point of view.

I don't believe it is fair at all to claim I have used "whining accusations" or "hysterical shieking of hate! or lies!" at all. That is a complete mischaracteriziation of my posting about Palin. I have linked to factcheck, and other articles exposing the distortions, and then commented on why I think the distortions persist, and are being perpetuated to this day on this board by some.

[halplm]

Obama has been getting angry, and has been attacking Palin and McCain. I was going to post about it last night but didn't feel like stirring it up. He is sounding almost shrill in his denouncement of them and their positions, which he is distorting of course.

http://news.yahoo.com/story//afp/200809 ... 0908234500

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch ... he-ne.html

[Primula Baggins]

You've said people who post negative things about Palin's record are liars.

The ball is in your court, Hal. sauronsfinger gave you a convenient list. Work your way down it and prove that the allegations are wrong. Links will do.

Or, please apologize.

[halplm]

I don't acknowledge his premise that those issues need explaining, or that they haven't been exlained already.

I'm not doing the work of pointing out the obvious distortions and incorrect statements being spread. The fact that SF is ignoring they have been resolved is proof he's willin to spread lies.

[Primula Baggins]

Link to the explanations, please. I haven't seen any and I read quite a bit of news. If you're going to accuse people of lying, back up your statements or back down.