Obama '08?

Did you really believe that was a real ad for a real candidate, pom?
Evidently a lot of people did.
I think he was over acting in the portrayal of an illiterate redneck, though.
I, a once upon a time actor (really!) could have done better. But he did fool a lot of people, which is part of what acting is about, I guess.

What we have is a bad dream as an administration, a president that is clueless and making all kinds of mistakes, despises America, us, and the businesses we run, appointing Marxists, and Biden is as big a useful idiot as could be found for vp. We are currently living a bad dream.

He ran in 2002, according to the Nashville Post and pressed a suit to keep Democrats from saying The Pledge of Allegiance.

Better finish up your homework before you wander off on yet another tangent, Okie.

Why aren't you at all surprised that such a stupendous idiot like Palin, ... was she really the vp candidate, it was a joke right, McCain too. Who were the Repub candidates?

At least Palin understands a few basics that the Democratic Party and Obama have either never known or have forgotten.

palin has a talent for adding hair pieces -- rats, falls, extensions -- to her hair and for wearing shoes with 7 inch heels. What those things have to do with the Constitution is anyone's guess.

I doubt seriously that Sarah Palin ever thinks, much less asserts, that such adornments have anything to do with the constitution or anything else in that realm. She is a remarably attractive woman, and the devices she uses to enhance her looks are very modest compared to those employed by the ever-smiling, facially enhanced Nancy Pelosi.

Do you fault her for being physically attractive? If so, why?

Why do men stoop to that same old petty comment about women faulting or being jealous of women? Women adore beauty in other women. Why do you think magazines like Vogue have been around for so long. What women dislike is plain to ugly women who do the full on glam thing.

First of all, I do not find her attractive.

Second, while no one would think they were separated at birth, palin does resemble Tina Fey. palin entered beauty contests while Fey has talked about herself as "homely." What does that tell you?

Do you ever talk face to face with women? It seems not!

Do you fault her for hiding her enormous intellect and from addressing anything remotely connected to a serious issue? If not, why?



Is this what your latest issue of Vogue tells you, George?

What does "facially enhanced" mean?

Jonathan Cohn from TNR on Liberals:

Activists at last week’s Netroots Nation talked about disappointment and disillusionment. The polls show a slow, steady decline in support for the president among Democrats. Neither sample captures perfectly the state of the liberal mind this summer, but you’d have to be pretty oblivious not to see that President Obama, and the Democrats, are losing the love of their base.

It’s a somewhat predictable decline, given lofty expectations for the Obama presidency and the stubbornly slow recovery. It's also a relatively modest decline: After all, it’s not like anybody is talking about starting a third party. Still, the right is energized, the left is ambivalent, and that means Democrats are in big trouble this November.

If you read this blog, then you know I see things more or less the way my colleague Jonathan Chait and some of our friends in the blogosphere do: This seems totally nuts, purely on the merits. Obama and the Democrats passed a major stimulus that cut taxes for the middle class and invested heavily in public works. They saved the auto industry, created a new regulatory framework for the financial industry, and enacted comprehensive health care reform. Compromises watered down each of these initiatives, to say nothing of the ideas (climate change!) that aren’t going to pass. And still this was the most productive liberal presidency in a generation or maybe two.

But liberal ambivalence isn't just foolish substantively. It's also foolish strategically.

The fact is that voting for these measures, particularly health care and (in the House) climate change, was tough for many members of Congress. Liberals consider the Affordable Care Act a watered-down version of a watered-down of something resembling a true universal coverage system. But in Tennessee, Idaho, and a bunch of places in between, it's a government takeover of health care. Liberals think Waxman-Markey was a conservative half-solution to a planetary crisis. In more conservative districts--and, let's face it, plenty of liberal ones too--it's higher energy bills.

But consider what happened after the climate change vote in the House last year. When Democrats went back to their districts, conservatives pummeled them--in person and on the air--while liberals just shrugged. And consider what happened after the health care bill passed: Conservatives went into overdrive about socialized medicine, while liberals kept talking about what a lousy bill it was.

Not surprisingly, members from more conservative parts of the country are pretty frustrated, particularly when they're getting attacked directly by the left. As one senior Democratic aide told me on Wednesday, expressing a sentiment I've heard many times on Capitol Hill,

Liberals have savaged these members and the lesson many will take is don’t stick your neck out because the left will kick your ass regardless.
To be clear, sometimes ass-kicking is good. Call Kent Conrad a hypocrite on the deficit. Blast Joe Lieberman for carrying water on behalf of the insurance industry. Hold Obama accountable for the bureaucratic neglect that enabled the Gulf disaster. Liberals won't get anywhere by meekly accepting every compromise that comes down the pike or looking the other way when Democrats screw up. Politics goes is a two-way street and liberals need their leaders to lead sometimes.

But if the left is going to demand action, it has to do more than sigh when action--even modest action--actually happens. The left has to show some enthusiasm, if not locally then at least nationally. (Truth be told, a Democratic member in a Republican district probably benefits more from higher Obama approval ratings than an ad buy from Moveon.org). Otherwise office-holders, even ones from relatively liberal districts, won't have much incentive to vote liberal next time around. As another congressional aide put it, via email:

I hear this stuff all the time, about climate change, health reform, financial reform--members complaining about having to vote for these things because they were forced to by party leadership with NO upside for them. ... They’re getting hit on all sides. ... these members need more than just the stick, you also have to give them the carrot every once in a while.
It'd be nice if we lived in a world where politicians voted exclusively based on the public interest. But we happen to live in a world where, to varying degrees, politicians vote based on their immediate electoral needs. If liberals don't embrace politicians who vote with them today, then liberals can't expect the same politicians, or their replacements, to vote with them tomorrow.

2 points -

1, I don't find her to be physically attractive in the slightest. Sure, she has some raw beauty, but nothing to write home about.

2, Pelosi is 70; Palin is 46. Pelosi looks pretty good for 70 - and you see her smiling all the time, because she has one of the best legislative histories ever as Speaker.

Cycloptichorn

Also,

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/29/AR2010072900004.html

Support for the recent Health Care bill continues to grow, and opposition continues to drop.

Cycloptichorn

I could not disagree more about Pelosi. She looks like an old sourpuss, and her record shows she is one dumb but sadly self absorbed politician.

Her record show more legislative successes, in a shorter amount of time, than pretty much any Republican Speaker. You can call her dumb all you want, but she's been kicking your side's ass for years now. What does that say for House Republicans?

Cycloptichorn

Yes, which is terrible for the country. It will take years to undo all the damage, if it will even be possible.

What damage? What has she done which is terrible for the country? Nothing at all. I guess you think equal rights and healthcare for all is a terrible thing, Okie.

At least you admit that my original proposition is true: that she is in fact a very effective Speaker of the House.

Cycloptichorn

Obamacare is but one example of a national disaster.

Oh yeah? My 62-year old aunt got healthcare thanks to the reform. She had been denied for years thanks to a surgery she had three decades ago which left some lasting problems. Now she can see the doctor and get prescriptions and such without going broke.

What about that screams 'national disaster,' Okie? You have nothing but vague criticisms, because the details never support your case on stuff like this.

Cycloptichorn

Cyclops, I do not think any of us know all of the effects yet that will be brought about by Obamacare. I do not expect good things because I know for sure that Obama's end game is single payer government health care, which I oppose on idealogical grounds alone. We could have made some changes to health care and accomplished that problem with your aunt. Besides, how come she did not already have health insurance prior to her surgery that would have carried over? Not that I wish to get into a debate over your aunt, I don't, but usually responsible personal choices could have avoided the problem she has had. Look, I don't deny there were problems with health care, but throwing the baby out with the bath water was not the best solution.

You oppose single-payer on ideological grounds, because there is no good logical argument against it whatsoever. And acceptance of something which doesn't rely on free-market competition, even if it works perfectly well and cheaper than our current system, is anathema to you.



The surgery was 30 years ago. She had insurance then, but was subsequently dropped by her insurer. Because of complications she can only work part-time and nobody offers health insurance for part-timers.



Dude, go **** yourself! You have no clue what she's been through and the bullshit she's had to put up with from the insurance companies. It has nothing to do with her personal choices at all. This is an infuriating comment that you have just made and I think it really encapsulates right-wing bullshit on this issue.



You don't have any solution at all and really don't care what happens, because you've got yours, and that's all that matters to you.

Cycloptichorn