McCain loses 3rd and final debate

[ET]

Drudge, by the way, is neither an unbiased nor an accurate source of information.

Oh, really? So does that mean that all those links to BBC news, USA Today, AP, Rueters, Yahoo news, MSNBC, CNN, NYT, Washington Post, LA Times and other news sources on Drudge's site are inaccurate and biased? If so, which ones? (We already know that Fox News is biased, even when they pick up the same story from the AP wire that's posted over at CNN. )

Sure are a lot of "inaccurate and biased" news sources over at Drudge:
ABCNEWS, ACCESS HOLLYWOOD,AD AGE DEADLINE,BBC,BBC AUDIO,BILLBOARD,BOSTON GLOBE,BOSTON HERALD,BREITBART,BROADCASTING & CABLE,CBS NEWS,C-SPAN,,CHICAGO TRIB,CHICAGO SUN-TIMES,CHRISTIAN SCIENCE,CNN,CNN POLITICAL TICKER,DAILY KOS,DAILY SWARM,DAILY VARIETY,E!,,ECONOMIST,EDITOR & PUBLISHER,
EMIRATES TODAY,ENT WEEKLY,FINANCIAL TIMES,FORBES,FOX NEWS,FREE REPUBLIC,GAWKER,HOT AIR,HELLO!,HILL,
H'WOOD REPORTER,HUFFINGTON POST,HUMAN EVENTS,IAFRICA,INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIB,INVEST BUS DAILY,JERUSALEM POST,JEWISH WORLD REVIEW,LA DAILY NEWS,LA TIMES,LUCIANNE.COM,MEDIA WEEK,MSNBC,MSNBC FIRST READ,NATION,NATIONAL ENQUIRER,NATIONAL REVIEW,NEW REPUBLIC,NEW YORK,NY DAILY NEWS,NY OBSERVER,NY POST,NY SUN,NY TIMES,NEW YORKER ,NEWSBUSTERS,NEWSBYTES,NEWSMAX,NEWSWEEK,N. KOREAN NEWS,PEOPLE,PHILLY INQUIRER,PHILLY ,DAILY NEWS,POLITICO,R & R,RADAR,REAL CLEAR POLITICS,REASON MAG,ROLL CALL,ROLLING STONE,SALON,SAN FRAN CHRON,SKY NEWS,SLATE,SMOKING GUN,SPLASH NEWS,STAR,SYDNEY MORNING HERALD,TALKING POINTS MEMO,TIME MAG,TMZ,[U.K.] DAILY MAIL,[U.K.] DAILY MIRROR,DAILY RECORD,[U.K.] EVENING STANDARD,[U.K.] EXPRESS,[U.K.] GUARDIAN,[U.K.] INDEPENDENT,[U.K.] LONDON PAPER,[U.K.] NEWS OF THE WORLD,[U.K.] SUN,[U.K.] TELEGRAPH,[U.K.] TIMES,US NEWS,USA TODAY,VANITY FAIR,VILLAGE VOICE,WASH POST,WASH TIMES,WEEKLY STANDARD,WORLDNETDAILY,X17

Just where do you get your "unbiased and accurate" news?

In light of the current economic crisis, whether Obama can keep that tax line on the top 5%, which is perfectly fair, considering the amount of money these people will still have left after their taxes are paid compared to how much I have after my taxes are paid, is somewhat of a question.

Does a "rich" man have more of his money left over compared to you after buying a gallon of milk? And a "poor" person has less money than you after buying a gallon of milk. Maybe we should all be charged different prices for goods based on the amount of money we make?

If a rich man should not have to pay more for a gallon of milk nor a poor man pay less than you do, why should everyone not pay equally (flat tax, no deductions) for the cost of government? Should a poor man get to pay less for that new car than you? Should a rich man pay more?

It has been shown, by the oil companies themselves, that more drilling would take more than a decade to develop, and by the time the expenses are factored in, will result in less than a 5% increase in production, and would result in no savings with regard to price, and no real change in our dependence on foreign oil. So why chase down that rabbit when the only people who would benefit would be oil companies who would still get a high price per barrel? Why not invest that money in alternative energy sources, where it might do some real good?

And what is the liberal proposal for more energy? To penalize what works and is a known quantity to pursue the theoretical and unknown. Oil, coal and gas are reliable and inexpensive forms of energy. Obama & Co. are going to penalize their success (just like they regularly do with any forms of success) in order to chase a mirage in the desert - wind, solar and biofuels.

So what if it takes 10 years? Ten years from now we'll have a reliable, proven source of energy online, free from interruptions from political unrest in other parts of the world or from nuts like Hugo Chavez. With wind and solar, the alternative energy worshippers will still be telling us how things are gonna be in their oil, coal and nuclear-free world of the future as they point to a few percentage points of wind and solar power they've built in those 10 years. Just how long do you think it's going to take to build up an infrastructure of solar panels and wind turbines to provide anything other than a few percentage points of total energy needs in this country? You gonna let them slap a solar panel on your butt to recharge your cell phone so you talk to your friends?

[Sandy]

5% is not a reliable source of oil to replace the more than 65% we now buy from foreign sources. Spending that money on alternative energy, rather than on drilling, would be a much better use of money. The oil that we have left that hasn't been tapped is the hardest to get, most expensive to drill for.

Sources don't matter. All media use the same sources. It's the spin that counts and Drudge puts his own spin on what they provide. The Gallup poll is a good example. The poll he quoted was the one interpreted by traditional polling methods which guess, based on previous elections, who the "likely" voters might be. The margin of error on that poll is more than 10%, as opposed to the 5% on the daily tracking poll which Drudge didn't quote because it shows Obama ahead by an average of 8 points for the week. The raw data, btw, according to Gallup, which is the actual result of the poll without any interpretations made, shows Obama scores 18% better than McCain, which is comparable to the Quinnipiac University polls that both campaigns are using and the Zogby poll of early voters, which shows that, of the people who are actually going to the polls and voting, Obama holds an 18% edge as well.

[William Thornton]

Like it or not, Sandy, the MSM watches Drudge closely. When he is onto something, they are sure to follow. (I recall reading one msm icon's lament that when he walked through a newsroom, he was aghast that so many reporters had Drudge as their home page.

[rickwright01]

Look guys, I feel your pain. Honestly. You've got this war veteran candidate with all these ideas you think are superior, running against somebody who looks to you like all hype and no substance and you can't figure out why in the world the America you know and love would possibly choose "that one" over your guy. It doesn't make any sense to you. You want to blame the media, your candidate's campaign, the shallowness of the American electorate...

I genuinely appreciated this post - the effort to understand where the other person is coming from. (Although William offers a very fair point in response - which is that we do more or less understand the support for Sen Obama.)

I think the media (mainstream primarily - not conservative-leaning cable or radio) is playing a role. How much do McCain supporters feel like the news is slanted against their guy and for the other? (A lot.) How much do Obama supporters feel like... ? I don't hear much on that score. Such anecdotal evidence proves... well not an whole lot by itself. But it suggests something. When I peruse magazines/newspapers in the airport (coming back from Atlanta and visiting with Joshua and family) it seemed covers/articles on Obama were positive. Covers/articles on McCain (more specifically Palin) found something to pick at. I honestly felt like the print media I saw (and see) were clearly choosing a side.

I would suggest (a) McCain supporters are partly correct - that the mainstream media does seem to be leaning toward Obama. But (b) perhaps we should not fuss too much because if our candidate were stronger or campaigned better... See William's point.

For the record - I appreciate russ and Sandy trying to take the edge off some of the more... enthusiastic pro-Obama/anti-McCain posts above. It seems McCain-Palin supporters are more willing to acknowledge weaknesses/problems on their side. Some of our fine brethren here it seems will not countenance any doubt about Obama and will not acknowledge anything positive (or at least not wrong) with McCain. Not mentioning any names *cough* TimB *cough*. So the willingness of Obama fans to say "whoa fellas back off just a bit" is appreciated.

One last point. I think Sen McCain performed best in this third debate and scored some solid points. Do I think he "won"? (As in "looked best" or "persuaded people the most".) Probably not. I am on record as giving Obama credit for being so cool/calm and handling himself well. Although I am glad McCain showed some life/aggression - it may have been too much (as well as too late). And although I wish McCain would stop beating the Joe the Plumber schtick to death... it was a most revealing exchange.

[Stephen Fox]

If only our under-represented conservative brothers and sisters had access to some national media - maybe a magazine or two, a website, possibly...goodness, maybe even a cable news network, or (dare I dream?) the bully pulpit of the Presidency - then the conservative message could finally get out there for America to hear and all the bobbing heads would drift ever-so-slightly to the right, the stars and the stripes would align, and clarity would reign as Obama would be exposed for the fraud he is and McCain, McCain!, astride his white stallion Maverick with She, his Soul Mate, the Keeper of the Flame, Palin, Palin!, at his back could ride into Washington on the winds of Change - or Reform, or Experience or Something - and set right all that has been fordone lo these erstwhile Eight Years by the Evil Liberals, who used their Mystic Powers in Dark and Shadowy Backroom machinations, able to wield their malevolent will even though they didn't have the numbers to actually pass any legislation (MAJYK! IZ TEH EVUL!!!11!1!!)...if ONLY!

After Stephen finishes cleaning up after his most recent bout of cranial diarrhea (which is to say that the paragraph above and the horse action just below it were redundant), he might want to consider why it is that in this year, of all years, his chosen party (and their sainted messiah) is not running away with everything. It just might be that the center-right majority in the US are on to the media's game and it may be that they are actually listening to Obama's words rather than being blown away by his packaging.

The "Joe the Plumber" incident was one of those glimpses behind the curtain of the Obama facade. Obama, operating from his radical liberal template, seriously thinks that it is better for the government to take from Joe to "spread the wealth around" rather than for Joe to take those earnings and purchase another truck and expand his payroll headcount by 2 (to start). McCain's "Obama is eloquent but listen to his words" may be too little too late for this election but the wisdom is clear and timeless.

Obama says he will reduce income taxes on 95% of taxpayers, but since the bottom 50% of taxpayers pay less than 4% combined (or essentially no income taxes), what is he really saying? 95% of the folks who actually pay taxes? If someone is not paying income taxes, will they get a "refund" (i.e. wealth taken from Joe to spread around)?

Obama says that he will "look" into off shore oil drilling. Hmmm...not the same as actually favoring drilling, is it?

And we thought that Slick Willie was slick.

David Brooks of the NY Times in Oct 17 paper: (sorry, Jonathan, no slick Willie in Obama)

They say we are products of our environments, but Obama, the sojourner, seems to go through various situations without being overly touched by them. Over the past two years, he has been the subject of nearly unparalleled public worship, but far from getting drunk on it, he has become less grandiloquent as the campaign has gone along.

When Bill Clinton campaigned, he tried to seduce his audiences. But at Obama rallies, the candidate is the wooed not the wooer. He doesn’t seem to need the audience’s love. But they need his. The audiences hunger for his affection, while he is calm, appreciative and didactic.

He doesn’t have F.D.R.’s joyful nature or Reagan’s happy outlook, but he is analytical. That’s why this William Ayers business doesn’t stick. He may be liberal, but he is never wild. His family is bourgeois. His instinct is to flee the revolutionary gesture in favor of the six-point plan.

This was not evident back in the “fierce urgency of now” days, but it is now. And it is easy to sketch out a scenario in which he could be a great president. He would be untroubled by self-destructive demons or indiscipline. With that cool manner, he would see reality unfiltered. He could gather — already has gathered — some of the smartest minds in public policy, and, untroubled by intellectual insecurity, he could give them free rein. Though he is young, it is easy to imagine him at the cabinet table, leading a subtle discussion of some long-term problem.

Of course, it’s also easy to imagine a scenario in which he is not an island of rationality in a sea of tumult, but simply an island. New presidents are often amazed by how much they are disobeyed, by how often passive-aggressiveness frustrates their plans.

It could be that Obama will be an observer, not a leader. Rather than throwing himself passionately into his causes, he will stand back. Congressional leaders, put off by his supposed intellectual superiority, will just go their own way. Lost in his own nuance, he will be passive and ineffectual. Lack of passion will produce lack of courage. The Obama greatness will give way to the Obama anti-climax.

We can each guess how the story ends. But over the past two years, Obama has clearly worn well with voters. Far from a celebrity fad, he is self-contained, self-controlled and maybe even a little dull.

[russ]

To Rick and William,

I probably didn't hit the nail right on the head with my "feel your pain" post, but I thought I had a pretty good idea in 2000 and 2004 why people went with Bush, too. Didn't really alleviate the raw emotions, though.

All I'm saying is I get how you're feeling, and this really could be the best thing for conservatism. For instance, I could be considering a vote for Kerry's second term or Lieberman's first right now.

I'm much happier where I am.

Now, if Obama does win, which way are you guys gonna go next? Toward Will, Noonan, Brooks, Buckley, et al...or toward Palin?

I'll be rooting for you.

[rickwright01]

Now, if Obama does win, which way are you guys gonna go next? Toward Will, Noonan, Brooks, Buckley, et al...or toward Palin?

I'll be rooting for you.

George Will speaks directly for God.

(You did mean George Will - right?)

[Sandy]

The Chicago Tribune,which is not only not a part of the "liberal" biased media, but has been known for most of its existence as a Republican-leaning newspaper, particularly in its editorial department, today endorsed Barack Obama. It was a historic endorsement in that the newspaper has never before endorsed a Democrat for the White House. I listened to the discussion with the editor on a talk radio program this afternoon on the way back to the hotel. Apparently, this has been an ongoing discussion for some time, and the editorial board, which is I gather is well over 75% Republican in its voting habits, came to a firm consensus. It's not simply a case of "hometown boy does well," which wouldn't matter to the Tribune. It's a matter of confidence in Obama to handle the office and the belief that McCain, as the editor said this afternoon, "is no longer the Maverick."

Since I happen to be in Chicago, I did go ahead and pick up a print copy of the Tribune. Could be that it might become quite a collector's item.

[Timothy Bonney]

I genuinely appreciated this post - the effort to understand where the other person is coming from. (Although William offers a very fair point in response - which is that we do more or less understand the support for Sen Obama.)

For the record - I appreciate russ and Sandy trying to take the edge off some of the more... enthusiastic pro-Obama/anti-McCain posts above. It seems McCain-Palin supporters are more willing to acknowledge weaknesses/problems on their side. Some of our fine brethren here it seems will not countenance any doubt about Obama and will not acknowledge anything positive (or at least not wrong) with McCain. Not mentioning any names *cough* TimB *cough*. So the willingness of Obama fans to say "whoa fellas back off just a bit" is appreciated.

Rick, I'm sorry I've not seemed sympathetic to the plight of conservatives in this election cycle. But, I can't say I've ever received much in the way of sympathy for the plight of progressives when the Republicans have been on a roll.

I've not honestly seen much in the way of Republicans willing to admit weakness in the McCain-Palin ticket. And, in fact, the willingness to hold Palin up as some paragon of virtue by so many conservatives has left me more than a bit incredulous. Rather than Republicans admitting weakness with the ticket many conservatives are denying they ever thought McCain wasn't the very best choice for the party and conveniently forget their shock at the choice of Palin as a running mate.

Even our even handed William started a thread after her choice for VP in which he considered her choice a disaster and then in the weeks to come seemed to back off from that assessment, though I think his first gut instincts were right.

I know at one time both parties have picked stinkers. But, I've not seen much willingness in most Republicans to admit they would have rather had Romney, or Huckabee, or most anyone else other than the ticket they now have. It is just human nature to want to support your own party. Even if you deep down don't think your party made the best choice.

I've not critiqued Barack because the more I hear from him read his policies, and see his character the more I honestly believe he will make a good President. With Palin running around accusing him of hanging out with terrorists, people making fun of the ethnicity of his name or claiming he is a Muslim or an Arab, he hardly needs any critique from his own supporters while his opponents earnestly try to swift-boat his character.

[William Thornton]

Even our even handed William started a thread after her choice for VP in which he considered her choice a disaster and then in the weeks to come seemed to back off from that assessment, though I think his first gut instincts were right.

McCain's choice was a strategic choice, above my pay grade, and probably a positive one overall. I expressed my initial views and was probably wrong that Palin lost the election for McCain. It looks like a wash at this stage. I doubt Romney would have moved the polls forward for McCain had he been the VP nominee. And please, let's not get too highminded about conservatives ignoring Palin's shortcomings unless you are willing to make some concessions about Obama's associations over the years, his lack of experience, and his lack of accomplishment. I do understand, however, that one might be rather hesitant to criticize The Anointed One.

[russ]

Just a thought: Pawlenty would've been as strong a choice for the base and would've risen head and shoulders above where Palin has ascended over the course of the short campaign. Pawlenty would've been tough. He would not have been nearly the distraction that Palin has become.

But he wouldn't have been mavericky.

[ET]

Rather than Republicans admitting weakness with the ticket many conservatives are denying they ever thought McCain wasn't the very best choice for the party...

Then I suggest you don't know enough conservatives. Plenty of us know he wasn't the best choice, but he's what we've got and we can't change it. The hatred and sexism that the left shows for Palin makes her a good choice. The hypocrisy of the left in demeaning her as coming from a small town shows their contempt for middle America while they proclaim to be their champion.

The one good thing that may come of Obama winning is that Dems will control all both executive and legislative branches of government and won't be able to blame stuff on "8 years of Bush policies" when they #$%^ things up, which they are bound to do. They've tried to blame "Wall Street" and "Bush politicies" for the global economic mess Democrats created with their meddling in the mortgage industry, but they won't have that opportunity with Pelosi, Reid and the rest of the inept bunch running things. I only fear the loss of freedom that will accompany anything they try to do in those two years.

Also, being the gutless wonders that they are, they will wipe out any progress made in Iraq and Afghanistan by essentially surrendering and withdrawing. To borrow from Ann Richards, "They can't hep it, they wuz born with a yeller streak down their back." Dems don't have the moral fortitude to follow through on anything that might upset their sensitive little stomachs.

Guess I may be buttering my biscuits with this stuff for at least a couple of years:

[rickwright01]

I've not honestly seen much in the way of Republicans willing to admit weakness in the McCain-Palin ticket. And, in fact, the willingness to hold Palin up as some paragon of virtue by so many conservatives has left me more than a bit incredulous. Rather than Republicans admitting weakness with the ticket many conservatives are denying they ever thought McCain wasn't the very best choice for the party and conveniently forget their shock at the choice of Palin as a running mate.

A fair response although... brother we must have difference sources of information. Heck - on this forum William, Jonathan, ET and I have all been quite open in our critiques of McCain. (You note that below - although you suggest "we" have been backing off of late. Maybe. But why?) My short list of pundits includes George Will and Charles Krauthammer (names you should know) and they have not been afraid to note the weaknesses in McCain's campaign (Will) and the choice of Palin as running-mate (Krauthammer).

Although you are correct that once the choice has been made... one has to play with those cards. I personally might wish "ah geez - Palin may hurt as much as help"... it is too late. (Although she is not as bad as some - including on this forum - aver.) One wonders if some Democrats after throwing back of couple Sam Adams would say "how the heck did we end up with Obama and this ring on our finger? drat you Vegas!" And - in fairness to you - this may help explain the apparent one-sided stridency of some Obama supporters. (But still... one "side" seems more one-sided than the other.)

I've not critiqued Barack because the more I hear from him read his policies, and see his character the more I honestly believe he will make a good President. With Palin running around accusing him of hanging out with terrorists, people making fun of the ethnicity of his name or claiming he is a Muslim or an Arab, he hardly needs any critique from his own supporters while his opponents earnestly try to swift-boat his character.

That is a fair reply. You have drawn different conclusions. I happen to think you are wrong on (1) policies and (2) character and wonder if you have not seen or will not deal with some of the available evidence on (1) but especially (2). I have corrected people who have made references to Obama as "Muslim" or "Arab" (so has Sen McCain - interestingly) and encouraged them to get some facts and not believe everything that shows up in their email. Have there been unfair attempts to turn people against Sen Obama? You betcha. (Although some attacks you regard as unfair I would argue are both true and germane.)

Can you (and a few others) admit that have been and are still ongoing attempts to defame McCain (and especially Palin - who is dang conservative but not as off the scale wacko conservative as some false rumors suggest) that are at least as unfair? I commend in particular Charles Krauthammer's latest column on "Obama's Betrayed Message" which ends with this:

Yet here was Obama firing a pre-emptive charge of racism against a man who had not indulged in it. An extraordinary rhetorical feat, and a dishonorable one.

What makes this all the more dismaying is that it comes from Barack Obama, who has consistently presented himself as a healer, a man of a new generation above and beyond race, the man who would turn the page on the guilt-tripping grievance politics of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

I once believed him.

Ouch.

Hey - people wanna vote Democrat this November? Groovy fine. Go for it. But let's be very clear indeed about the why's (the rational and the shallow), the what's (positive and negative), and the who's.

[Chris]

The Chicago Tribune,which is not only not a part of the "liberal" biased media, but has been known for most of its existence as a Republican-leaning newspaper, particularly in its editorial department,

I'm surprised to hear that. Around 1987, the Chicago Trib purchased my local newspaper, the Newport News Daily Press which had been a Republican-leaning paper for fifty years. Since 1987, our paper has definitely NOT been a Republican-leaning paper, and consistently gets letters-to-the-editor accusing it of being Liberal . That is a tribute to editor Ernie Gates who apparently does not tow the "company line:.

[russ]

You got a link to the Krauthammer piece, Rick? I remember a remark or two where Obama warned of racist attacks that would be coming at him (in a less than stellar rhetorical flourish), but I don't remember him preemptively accusing "a man" of using racism. Who was the man?

[rickwright01]

You got a link to the Krauthammer piece, Rick? I remember a remark or two where Obama warned of racist attacks that would be coming at him (in a less than stellar rhetorical flourish), but I don't remember him preemptively accusing "a man" of using racism. Who was the man?

A most reasonable request!

http://townhall.com/columnists/CharlesK ... ments=true

(John McCain - although one would want to confirm this with like hard video footage.)

[rickwright01]

The Chicago Tribune,which is not only not a part of the "liberal" biased media, but has been known for most of its existence as a Republican-leaning newspaper, particularly in its editorial department,

I'm surprised to hear that. Around 1987, the Chicago Trib purchased my local newspaper, the Newport News Daily Press which had been a Republican-leaning paper for fifty years. Since 1987, our paper has definitely NOT been a Republican-leaning paper, and consistently gets letters-to-the-editor accusing it of being Liberal . That is a tribute to editor Ernie Gates who apparently does not tow the "company line:.

I don't know which it is, but let me share a possible irrelevant anecdote.

Around here one sometimes sees letters to the editor of the Baton Rouge Advocate complaining about its liberal bias. Having lived in Ithaca, New York for 9 years... and being from Boston area... and my parents then lived in Minneapolis for 14 years... I just have to laugh at such comments. The local paper maybe is not super conservative but it absolutely is not liberal. I know what liberal newspapers look like. Lived with them for most of my adult life.

(The point being... maybe the Tribune is one or the other. But also it may depend on who is describing it.)

[russ]

Thanks. I found it at the WaPo in the meantime.

Here's the Obama line Krauthammer's talking about:

"Nobody really thinks that Bush or McCain have a real answer for the challenges we face, so what they're going to try to do is make you scared of me. You know, he's not patriotic enough. He's got a funny name. You know, he doesn't look like all those other presidents on those dollar bills, you know. He's risky."

The way I read that, and maybe I'm being indulgent, is that the "nobody" in the first sentence is the subject that connects to "they" in "what they're going to try to do..." I don't think Obama was ever trying to say that Bush or McCain would say the things he lists, but that some of their supporters would...and he was exactly right, sadly. I didn't like it when he said it, either, but you can't argue that he wasn't proved right.

I think Krauthammer's going a small step too far in trying to claim Obama said that about McCain himself.

And isn't it a little odd that a couple weeks after Krauthammer takes heat from the right for saying Obama has a "first-class intellect and temperament," he then discovers a twistable quote that Obama delivered two-and-a-half months ago to turn into a new column of indignation? Little convenient, ain't it?

And now, after Rick's second mention of Sam Adams in just a few days, I'm gonna have to splurge on some Oktoberfest...or maybe Cherry Wheat...mmmmmm...cherries....

[Timothy Bonney]

McCain's choice was a strategic choice, above my pay grade, and probably a positive one overall. I expressed my initial views and was probably wrong that Palin lost the election for McCain. It looks like a wash at this stage. I doubt Romney would have moved the polls forward for McCain had he been the VP nominee. And please, let's not get too highminded about conservatives ignoring Palin's shortcomings unless you are willing to make some concessions about Obama's associations over the years, his lack of experience, and his lack of accomplishment. I do understand, however, that one might be rather hesitant to criticize The Anointed One.

Don't you mean "that one"

I'm sorry William but, Obama's experience level and Palin's just don't compare and make McCain's previous critique of Obama's experience level really laughable.
Its inexperience versus inexperience extremus.

As to "assocations," surely you aren't bringing up Ayers again? When sitting on a committee with someone makes you a "pall" we've got a real problem in this country. Frankly, the more McCain harps in on this the more states turn from red to blue.

[rickwright01]

"Nobody really thinks that Bush or McCain have a real answer for the challenges we face, so what they're going to try to do is make you scared of me. You know, he's not patriotic enough. He's got a funny name. You know, he doesn't look like all those other presidents on those dollar bills, you know. He's risky."

...

I think Krauthammer's going a small step too far in trying to claim Obama said that about McCain himself.

That is a generous (but probably correct) interpretation of what Obama said - and I think you are correct that Krauthammer may have read too much into this. It it not a clear preemptive accusation against Bush or McCain. Thanks for double checking this one.

And isn't it a little odd that a couple weeks after Krauthammer takes heat from the right for saying Obama has a "first-class intellect and temperament," he then discovers a twistable quote that Obama delivered two-and-a-half months ago to turn into a new column of indignation? Little convenient, ain't it?

Not sure I follow you here. I can look you in the eye and say Obama has intellect and temperament. (But that is not why I find him lacking.) How is Krauthammer's latest "convenient"? Is he beholden somehow to Republican interests? I don't buy that.

I believe I sampled the Oktoberfest at a restaurant in Atlanta two weeks ago. Rather good. But so is anything from those Bostonian rascals.

[Chris]

I was counting the times McCain said "My Friend(s)" last night. He said it only once. Someone must have told him how stupid that sounded after he said it 25+ times in the last debate.

He's doing it again!. Over half the McCain soundbites I've heard in the past 24 hours, start with "My Friends....."

It's as stale as Lyndon Johnson's "Mah fello Amurikuns...."

[Jonathan]

I was counting the times McCain said "My Friend(s)" last night. He said it only once. Someone must have told him how stupid that sounded after he said it 25+ times in the last debate.

He's doing it again!. Over half the McCain soundbites I've heard in the past 24 hours, start with "My Friends....."

It's as stale as Lyndon Johnson's "Mah fello Amurikuns...."

Almost as irritating as Obama's habit of starting sentences with "Look,.."

[Chris]

Almost as irritating as Obama's habit of starting sentences with "Look,.."

Thanks for pointing that out.

Another of my favorites (?) is when Charles Stanley will say, *"So somebody asks....." and proceeds with a question he wishes someone would ask so he can proceed with his point. Since he shares the stage with no one, he has to ask the question to himself! There must be another way to continue with his sermon without pretending to be asked a question from a person who isn't really there.

* a variation is in the second person, i.e. "So you ask....."

After hearing about 5 Charles Stanley sermons, I think I've heard everything he has to say (and ask).