Republican National Convention Reportedly the Most Watched Per Day in History (Updated)
[Guest post by DRJ]
The Republican Convention averaged more viewers per day than the Democratic Convention:
“This week’s ratings, with an average of 34.5 million viewers watching the GOP convention over three days, proved people are becoming more interested in what the Republicans have to say. The Democrats had an average audience of 30.2 million over four days, Nielsen said.”
In addition, John McCain drew as many viewers as Barack Obama:
“As a television draw, John McCain was every bit the equal of Barack Obama.
The GOP presidential candidate attracted roughly the same number of viewers to his convention acceptance speech Thursday as Obama did before the Democrats last week, according to Nielsen Media Research.”
No one knows for sure what the exact ratings are because PBS reports estimates based on sampling, but reports suggest that
42.4 million viewers watched both Obama’s and McCain’s speeches Obama and McCain each had 42.4 million viewers. McCain’s speech was carried on 4 fewer commercial networks than Obama’s.
UPDATE: John McCain and Sarah Palin are drawing Obama-like crowds, the biggest crowds of his campaign:
“Beginning with her [Palin’s] announcement last Friday in Dayton, Ohio, McCain has drawn more enthusiasm and packed in more people to his events than at any time during his campaign.
The two events Friday both drew about 10,000 people, comparable numbers to what the newly-formed ticket saw last weekend.”
Some of this could be due to the fact that it’s the last 60 days and people are more focused on the election. It could be that … but I doubt it. The change in interest is too sudden and pronounced.
Nobody doesn’t love Sarah L. Nobody doesn’t like Sarah P.
You might want to change one the wording of a sentence, because I was confused until I read the article.
“42.4 million viewers watched both Obama’s and McCain’s speeches” suggests that many people saw two speeches. Something like “Obama and McCain each had 42.4 million viewers” is clearer.Aplomb (b6fba6) — 9/5/2008 @ 7:34 pm
Good idea. I’m borrowing your wording, and thank you.DRJ (7568a2) — 9/5/2008 @ 7:44 pm
Thanks to Palin. She can raise the dead.love2008 (1b037c) — 9/5/2008 @ 7:45 pm
Thanks to Palin. She can raise the dead.
Just like Mick Jagger sang: “She makes a dead man —-“Icy Truth (6e6d48) — 9/5/2008 @ 7:57 pm
PALIN/McCAIN 2008. The Only Hope for Victory.love2008 (0c8c2c) — 9/5/2008 @ 8:04 pm
Sounds like Lovey is giving up.Hazy (d671ab) — 9/5/2008 @ 8:09 pm
I read that the Cedarburg, Wisconsin event drew 30,000 — way beyond what the event organizer anticipated.cboldt (3d73dd) — 9/5/2008 @ 8:15 pm
The crowd booed the media too.
Yeah. I gave up on you guys long ago.love2008 (0c8c2c) — 9/5/2008 @ 8:17 pm
Crowds, schmowds. Democrats are getting free Obama tattoos!
Eat your heart out, McCain!Evil Pundit (843b74) — 9/5/2008 @ 8:20 pm
CLINTON/OBAMA 2008 – The Only Hope For The Next 16 YearsIcy Truth (6e6d48) — 9/5/2008 @ 8:21 pm
McCain/Palin in Cedarburg (AP Report): McCain and Palin were cheered and applauded by a crowd of 1,000 or morecboldt (3d73dd) — 9/5/2008 @ 8:29 pm
McCain, Palin campaign in Cedarburg (ABC): Police said 5,000 to 8,000 people were expected for the rally
WTMJ 4 Report Youtube … @1:25 listen “… but they got more like 20 to 30 thousand”
Way to go, Associated Press!! State troopers estimated 20 to 30 thousand. Talk of the local news. And AP reports (accurately, of course), “a crowd of 1,000 or more.” Let me guess, this is what the Democrats call “unbiased reporting.”
McCain: I was lost but now I am found. I was blind but now I can see. I was dead but now, I am ALIVE! Hoooooooo! Yeah baby! I am alive! ALIVE! Palin, you are a Campaign, I mean, Life Saver. A true goddess.
I love you so much, my Barrackcuda!love2008 (0c8c2c) — 9/5/2008 @ 8:33 pm
Palin/McCain 2008. The Real Change. (I mean really.)
Dude, lay off the sterno.SPQR (26be8b) — 9/5/2008 @ 8:35 pm
— Democrats are getting free Obama tattoos! —cboldt (3d73dd) — 9/5/2008 @ 8:35 pm
Only the REAL Democrats are getting the tatoos. The rest are going to vote for McCain/Palin.
McCain, Palin Speak In Cedarburg – WTMJ-TV and JSOnline.comcboldt (3d73dd) — 9/5/2008 @ 8:40 pm
She gave a great speech. Let’s hope she’s just as great in the next 2 months, including the debates.
“Nobody doesn’t like Sarah P.” already shows up in Google.Jim C. (33af9d) — 9/5/2008 @ 8:50 pm
[Oh, no! You’re right that it should be like, not love. Thanks for the correction. The L. was for her middle name, Louise, but it rhymes better with a P so I’ll change that, too. Other than the middle and the end, I got it right. — DRJ]
I love you so much, my Barrackcuda!
— That would almost be cute, if it weren’t for that extra “r”. And don’t be jealous of Palilicious™; it’s unbecoming. Stiff upper-lip and all, eh wot?Icy Truth (6e6d48) — 9/5/2008 @ 8:51 pm
love08 – Yeah. I gave up on you guys long ago.
You’re extremely dedicated for someone who doesn’t care.Apogee (366e8b) — 9/5/2008 @ 8:52 pm
#15love2008 (0c8c2c) — 9/5/2008 @ 8:54 pm
Wow! Double standard now has a Republican card. I mean suddenly you guys love the crowd? I thought the crowd was nothing. Obama has been known to single-handedly fill up large venues and auditoriums. His last speech during the convention was to a record-smashing 84,000 people on ground! That is apart from 200,000 that came to hear him in Berlin. Which has been used to portray him as “another celebrity”. Now someone is excited about, what, 30,000 coming to hear Palin/McCain?
Yeah, I forgot: If you don’t have it, attack those who do and when you have it, celebrate it. Ha!
I love (sic) how they try to put lipstick on a pig!Another Drew (faec8a) — 9/5/2008 @ 9:01 pm
Imagine the viewership if Palin held a national press conference or sat down for an interview for some network, even a sympathetic one like Fox. (Hell, Obama sat down with O’Reilly for nut’s sake, you’d think Palin could at least do the same with that same guy as Bill would be guaranteed to fawn over her.) More than 20,000 or 30,00 Wisconsinites I would bet would see that!
Apparently not in the cards any time soon because . . . I guess we aren’t allowed to ask candidates for national office questions anymore, if they feel unprepared or might be embarrassed by the exchange.
Has there ever been a VP candidate who didn’t give an interview or hold a press conference about accepting that position after it was offered? Or one who hadn’t had one scheduled in the immediate aftermath after being nominated?
Let’s just let the campaign define them, put all our questions aside, and attack the media for having the gall to have questions in the first place I suppose.
Look, Palin might be as awesome and wonderful as the GOP faithful believe and hope. But the fact that she is being held at arm’s length should raise some suspicions. If she’s as tough as portrayed, she shouldn’t have a problem dealing with the press — she should put them in their place for asking stupid questions like any potential President should be able to do. And if there are legitimate questions to be asked and illuminating answers to be given, why as voters shouldn’t we be hearing about them?
The McCain campaign is on record saying this campaign is about narrative, not issues. They may be right. But the media, and I think pretty soon the voters, won’t accept a narrative imposed upon them by the campaign without some opportunity to probe it. Her current popularity is based on a very enthusiastic reaction from the GOP base, which is good for McCain because some of that base was cold to him, and the initial impression from the undecided and independent who think she is novel, presentable and interesting based on her two speeches so far and the convention’s presentation.
But the swing voters are going to want to see her in the crucible of national scrutiny to see how she holds up. If she can’t face the press because they are biased, mean and hostile, I don’t think that will impress people wondering how she will hold up to the stresses of facing hostile foreign leaders, Congress, and adversity in general.
The McCain campaign needs to get her out there quick taking interviews and press conferences. If not, a lot of people are going to be wondering why she can’t weather the scrutiny every other candidate handles as a matter of course.Aplomb (b6fba6) — 9/5/2008 @ 9:14 pm
Aplomb, were you saying that when Obama went months without an interview? Why do I suspect not?SPQR (26be8b) — 9/5/2008 @ 9:15 pm
That is apart from 200,000 that came to hear him in Berlin.
— Have they all made it to the Windy City and received their Voter ID Cards with names obtained from tombstones yet?Icy Truth (6e6d48) — 9/5/2008 @ 9:18 pm
Aplomb – You’re correct when you write: The McCain campaign needs to get her out there quick taking interviews and press conferences. I think you’ll see that in the very near future.
You’re also correct about this: a lot of people are going to be wondering why she can’t weather the scrutiny every other candidate handles as a matter of course.
Of course, people are already wondering that about Obama, and for good reason. His interview on O’Reilly wasn’t the greatest, and was only granted after the sighting of the Palin death-star in the sky.Apogee (366e8b) — 9/5/2008 @ 9:19 pm
SPQR – it is racist to even suggest that.JD (5f0e11) — 9/5/2008 @ 9:22 pm
— Wow! Double standard now has a Republican card. —cboldt (3d73dd) — 9/5/2008 @ 9:23 pm
You mised the part where I was criticising the media for shoddy reporting. IOW,, my comment wasn’t “Oh My gawd! Looit the size of that crowd!” It was that AP reports :1,00 or more” when the number might well be 25,000. I think AP is as fucked up as YOU are.
She seems to be “weathering” scrutiny that no one would dare put upon any other politician.SPQR (26be8b) — 9/5/2008 @ 9:23 pm
Wow…the mark of The Beast.Steverino (1dda08) — 9/5/2008 @ 9:26 pm
#22love2008 (1b037c) — 9/5/2008 @ 9:28 pm
But he has had his own baptism of fire? We practically know almost all there is to know about him. If Palin is that authentic, why is she scared of meeting the press? What is she hiding? Why is the McCain campaign protecting her like one “golden child” that must not be touched by the evil world? It really looks suspicious.
love2008 – Palin was chosen one week ago today, gave a speech at the RNC convention 5 days later, has had every leftist and Obama?Biden hack attack her and her family, and you think it’s suspicious that she hasn’t been out more?
Is this more of you giving up?Apogee (366e8b) — 9/5/2008 @ 9:32 pm
The media are McCain’s enemies, and he’s a fighter. McCain’s campaign isn’t going to let the enemy dictate their tactics or their timing.
Palin will come out to the media when the time is right.Evil Pundit (843b74) — 9/5/2008 @ 9:37 pm
Gov. Palin will appear on one of the Sunday morning shows when the brain-trust at McCain/Palin thinks the time, and venue, are right.
Personally, I wouldn’t be surprised if she’s on FNS this Sunday, perhaps on a remote from her home in Wasilla, or from the Gov’s residence in Juneau.
As someone far more wise than I once said:Another Drew (faec8a) — 9/5/2008 @ 9:37 pm
Careful what you (lovey, Aplomp) wish for!
Love2008, in the first place, if Palin never gave an interview again, who could blame her? My god, even Palin’s uterus was under scrutiny, and demands of a DNA sample were made. You cannot compare what Obama has endured in a year to Palin in one week’s time. There was nothing obscenely discussed about Obama, there was no overstepping into the most intimate area of his life. And the difference, Love2008, for the 1,000th time, is Obama is running for President of the United States. Palin is not.
Aside from that, give the woman a chance to take a breath. She does not appear to be fearful of much. That she hasn’t fled back to Alaska after this week speaks directly to that. In fact, this week may have even fortified her. There is nothing suspicious about McCain’s behavior and nothing indicating fear or a hiding out on Palin’s part. You are projecting – again. Try to remember that everyone does not react to pressure like a Democrat would.Dana (084de8) — 9/5/2008 @ 9:45 pm
#32love2008 (1b037c) — 9/5/2008 @ 9:47 pm
Do you honestly believe she does not have a reason to avoid the press now? She loves to preach up a storm and attack, especially when no one can answer back. But can she really sit and take questions on some of the issues beclouding her rising profile?
SPQR @ #27…Another Drew (faec8a) — 9/5/2008 @ 9:47 pm
I was unaware that the Saracuda had met Mr. Ayers yet?
love2008, you do know that your little dense act got old months ago?SPQR (26be8b) — 9/5/2008 @ 9:50 pm
So far, love, the good Gov. has over-achieved on every level that has been asked of her. Her critics have constantly demanded “x”, and then complain when she serves up “x+”.
Again, see #32…Another Drew (faec8a) — 9/5/2008 @ 9:56 pm
“The McCain campaign needs to get her out there quick taking interviews and press conferences. If not, a lot of people are going to be wondering why she can’t weather the scrutiny every other candidate handles as a matter of course.”
Aplomb – The media has already tried to define the candidate in a negative way. The media does not have a sacred, constitutional, god given or any other right to interview the candidate if the campaign does not want to allow it. If people develop suspicions, as they have rightly done with Obama the appropriate response might be not to vote for her. The campaign should define its own media strategy and not kow tow to the Obamedia who have already demonstreated their bias against her.daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 9/5/2008 @ 10:05 pm
I remember at this point Russell Crowe, in the character as Maximus, the Gladiator, scraping the “SPQR” sign from off his shoulder. It gave me an idea of what to do where ever I see that sign. Wipe it off!love2008 (1b037c) — 9/5/2008 @ 10:07 pm
“… McCain campaign needs to get her out there…”
No, what the McCain campaign needs to do is WIN the election.Another Drew (faec8a) — 9/5/2008 @ 10:09 pm
Everything they do has to be focused on that goal.
Playing to the media, especially when it is not in their interest to do so, is anti-thetical to accomplishing that goal.
I’m so grateful for all the good advice on what Palin needs to do that’s coming from opponents of Palin.Evil Pundit (843b74) — 9/5/2008 @ 10:14 pm
AD – I agree. Following the advice of an already hostile media is not necessarily the best course of action for them. It was like listening to commentators already in the bag for Obama talking about the republican convention – this is what they need to do…..
No, they don’t want the advice of Obama spokespeople and sometime newpeople like you.daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 9/5/2008 @ 10:14 pm
Commentors have said over and over that people tune in after Labor Day, and as we get closer. That could account for more interest.
What constitutes watching? I turned on the tv and saw that McCain wasn’t done yet, and then turned stations. So I watched him for about a minute. How do you determine the numbers?Patricia (0fbad4) — 9/5/2008 @ 10:18 pm
#40love2008 (1b037c) — 9/5/2008 @ 10:19 pm
Great! Winning at all cost. Even if it means protecting your VP from real media scrutiny and vetting. The cracks are beginning to show. Winning is the name of the game. Right? Right.
If she has nothing to be afraid of, seeing she is Sarah the “Barracuda”, bring her out. We want to know her!
Palin said one of the most scariest things i have heard from any of the canidates. No one has said anything about this.jhancockof georgia (676878) — 9/5/2008 @ 10:25 pm
As a former solider that spent all of 2003 in Iraq, were alot of my friends didnt come back. Even when 2 of our soliders were kidnapped, stripped, and bodies were left on the river. We did not torture or treat any captives inhumanly. In Palins speach she refrenced “The Democrats were worried about the terrorist rights not being read to them.” What I took back from the war was a renewed appreciation of life and human rights. With a statement like that are you okay with any type profiling? Will you think it is okay if i get pulled over and locked up on the fact that i look like or you suspect that I am a terrorist. Even in combat we have rules of engagement and humanitrian rules we call the Geniva convention. These are the rules we operate under and expect the world to operate under. If someone is so willing to over look these basics rights all humans have, what does that say about the person.
“Even if it means protecting your VP from real media scrutiny and vetting.”
#44, let’s try again… I repeat from above,
“…even Palin’s uterus was under scrutiny, and demands of a DNA sample were made.”
“There is nothing… indicating fear or a hiding out on Palin’s part. You are projecting – again. Try to remember that everyone does not react to pressure like a Democrat would”.Dana (084de8) — 9/5/2008 @ 10:26 pm
The Nielsen ratings have 2 methods of determining viewers that I’m familiar with:
1. Detailed viewing journals kept by volunteer households for 7-14-21 day periods.
2. Direct connections that automatically record household viewing.
It may also use telephone surveys but, if so, I’ve never done one.
The second method is the most reliable method. It would show that someone only watched a program for 5 minutes and I doubt that would count as someone “watching” the Convention.
I’ve participated in the first method three times in the last 20 years. Nielsen uses an elaborate journal that should make it easy to weed out people who try to game the system, although it could be done. If anything, people would be more likely to omit mentioning they watched a program for 5 minutes, as opposed to going to the trouble of writing it down in the detail required by the journal.DRJ (7568a2) — 9/5/2008 @ 10:37 pm
#45 – Even in combat we have rules of engagement and humanitrian rules we call the Geniva convention.
Which give you the right to shoot on site any enemy you encounter not wearing a uniform and/or not part of an organized military structure.
You should know that, as it renders your argument moot. Also, you are purposefully mischaracterizing her words. Palin was referring to the attitudes of many on the left regarding treating a wartime situation as a police action. It was not pro-torture. You’ll have a hard time talking about a McCain campaign that’s pro-torture.
That may explain why no one has commented on this ‘scary’ thing.Apogee (366e8b) — 9/5/2008 @ 10:43 pm
Honestly, if you believe that the media is hostile to Palin, so hostile that they will never give her a fair hearing, would you be comfortable voting for her or anyone else who hasn’t gone through the media wringer?
I don’t believe there is a general liberal media bias like I suppose many of you do (although I do believe in a specific bias for certain outlets, like MSNBC v. Fox). But even if there were, the American people seem to be able to work through it.
Press scrutiny didn’t stop Reagan or either Bush. GW Bush won in 2004 with a majority, and the press hated Bush. It doesn’t stop McCain either, McCain has been one of the most visible GOP figures of the decade and perhaps one of the most accessible politicians in the Senate. I read somewhere he was the one person who had the highest number of Sunday talk show appearances of any single individual since the year 2000, and all that Straight Talk Express stuff and chumming with the press is part of his story and in large part why he is the nominee of the GOP.
I’m not a McCain supporter, but at least I think I know where he is coming from. The questions have been asked, and while I don’t always like the answers I don’t think there is that much left unaddressed with him.
With Palin, I don’t think I really know what is going on with her. And, as much as you like her and support her, I don’t think you really know what is going on with her. Hockey mom/reformer/conservative/moose skinner is a great profile to introduce her and get people in the base excited about her.
But she could be President very quick if elected. Why can’t we hear her answer questions about earmarks, energy, deficits, Iraq, budgets, health care, jobs, taxes and everything else that haven’t been scripted by the McCain campaign? She might disagree dramatically with what the McCain campaign might say about that. And despite the McCain campaign she might be President very soon after McCain gets elected. Just ask William Henry Harrison, who lasted a month after getting elected President.
You might be so partisan that you believe that anyone at all the GOP nominates as VP must be golden so she should be protected from any press scrutiny that might screw that up. But I don’t think that will work with most of the American people. It will work with the hard 30% of the conservative electorate, as it would with the hard 30% of the liberal electorate if the shoe were on the other foot, but I really don’t think it will work with the important folks in the middle.
If the GOP really wants to take a “screw the hostile liberal press, we already told you who she was and any questions after that is unfair or sexist” strategy, it’s going to backfire, is all I am saying. That will work for a lot of people, but I think most people still want to know who they are voting for and what that person might do when it comes to the office of Presidency, or the VP who might be elevated to that office. A majority will never simply accept the image asserted by a campaign without scrutiny and accept that as truth.Aplomb (b6fba6) — 9/5/2008 @ 10:48 pm
Aplomb #49 – I don’t believe there is a general liberal media bias
Hockey mom/reformer/conservative/moose skinner
You left something out, didn’t you? Hmmm. Hmm.
What was it?
Bake sale wunderkind? Nope. That’s under Hockey Mom.
Crack Shot? Nope. That’s a must for a mooose skinner.
Wasn’t she at an election or something in 2006? Was it a beauty pageant? Can’t seem to remember.
Here’s something else that’s suspicious about Sarah Palin – How’d she get to move into the Governor’s mansion? Huh? Answer that one.
Aplomb, please tell us about the lack of bias, and the backfiring again?Apogee (366e8b) — 9/5/2008 @ 10:55 pm
georgia jack-off wrote: These are the rules we operate under and expect the world to operate under. If someone is so willing to over look these basics rights all humans have, what does that say about the person.
— Thank you for your service, but when and where did Governor Palin EVER say that the US should ignore the Geneva Conventions?
That’s right. She never has.Icy Truth (6e6d48) — 9/5/2008 @ 10:57 pm
Ok Apogee you got me. Governor/hockey mom/reformer/conservative/moose skinner.
You’re right, I see, with that correction. The press should never be allowed to address her and all of us, Democrats and GOP alike, should assume the campaign is not presenting her in the best possible light but is giving us the full picture.
You know, if I were GOP and a McCain supporter, I’d at least want to know how her views differed from McCain’s. I don’t think everyone in the GOP agrees on all the important issues. You will never hear about these differences from the campaign of course, their message will be as much as possible she backs him 100%. She might have different ideas from McCain that are dealkillers, the same dealkillers that sunk some of his opponents in the primary.
Just kills me how everyone in the GOP is so enthusiastic about this candidate for national office, and so strongly afraid that if we actually find out what she thinks about stuff, and how she responds to neutral or hostile questions about her ideas and experience, it’ll all go poof and the pleasant tale spun by the McCain campaign will disappear.
Hell, she’s your candidate, I would think you’d want to know all about her and how she holds up to scrutiny. I’ve had plenty of time to get myself used to Obama, and Biden has been on my radar for decades, so I don’t feel like I am being a blind cheerleader supporting either. I can understand being enthusiastic about Palin based on her initial introduction by the campaign, and even angry by what you see as press excess in the initial response to her, but I don’t see why you would be adverse to having objective or even subjective and hostile parties asking her about issues. How can you in good conscience tell yourself you fully support her before you hear her answer questions?Aplomb (b6fba6) — 9/5/2008 @ 11:16 pm
If the GOP really wants to take a “screw the hostile liberal press, we already told you who she was and any questions after that is unfair or sexist” strategy, it’s going to backfire, is all I am saying.
— He says in the first sentence of the EIGHTH PARAGRAPH in his well-worded but long-winded post that in the final analysis does nothing more than parrot the talking point of the day: How come she hasn’t done a press conference yet? What are they trying to hide?
Along with that oldie but goody (didn’t they tell you that this is sooo ‘Monday’?) about McCain croaking before Spring.Icy Truth (6e6d48) — 9/5/2008 @ 11:18 pm
Obama, and Biden has been on my radar for decades, so I don’t feel like I am being a blind cheerleader supporting either.
— Fair enough. Call it “Eyes Wide Shut” then.
How can you in good conscience tell yourself you fully support her before you hear her answer questions?
— Ya know, we have a list of ‘conscience’ questions that we would love to have someone — anyone — in the media ask Senator Obama.Icy Truth (6e6d48) — 9/5/2008 @ 11:33 pm
Having seen several mothers who had sons (and one a daughter) shipping out … angry mother polar bear and cub might be an apt description. Stay out of her way until he’s gone, give her a day or three to get a phone call or two, get calmed down, dry her eyes, put on her lipstick. Sensitive doesn’t begin to describe the emotional state.htom (412a17) — 9/5/2008 @ 11:38 pm
Palin has provided a boost to the Republicans because of the “flavor of the month” strategy. Basically, you pick some unique and/or charming person before the public and they are naturally picked up and given their 15 minutes of fame, or even more.
I have even devised a strategy for taking advantage of this phenomenon. The idea is, find some pretext that allows you not to pick a VP candidate till a couple of weeks before the election. That would be the hard part.
But if you could do that and suddenly announce your choice, a couple of weeks might be soon enough that you would get a permanent bounce of 15-30 points that might put you over for the election.
Fortunately for the Democrats, we will be tired of Palin-flavor before voting day gets here. I predict that her image will deflate like a week-old campaign balloon.Gene Venable (86f20c) — 9/5/2008 @ 11:42 pm
Aplomb #52 – The press should never be allowed to address her and all of us, Democrats and GOP alike, should assume the campaign is not presenting her in the best possible light but is giving us the full picture.
Didn’t say that. You have it backwards. What I’m objecting to has nothing to do with finding out what Palin is about. It isn’t about questioning her or challenging her at all, and that’s the point. It’s the antithesis of all that to which I object.
It’s about a group of biased people deliberately trying to obscure what she’s about and who she really is, all for the reason that they wish to deny to me and anyone else the full and accurate picture of Sarah Palin. They wish this because they have proven, not just generally, but specifically in this last week alone, that they are not interested in challenging political opponents, but are in reality interested only in silencing them from delivering their message so that they can push their own personal political agendas.
I am not scared of finding out who Sarah Palin is. What you describe as ‘press excess’ is actually a manifestation of real fear in what little guts the press still possess.
They are printing outright lies, not questions, regarding Palin, and there has been no attempt at digging for information at all. We have anchors and columnists quoting rumors from the dkos website without any fact-checking. How you can equate this type of behavior with a search for the truth is telling.
It is this vaunted press that is frightened out of its shorts. It is trembling that its obscene hucksterism for Barack Obama and his dearth of experience and plans could be exposed for the empty vessel that it is. Palin must fail – their credibility increasingly depends on it.
The existence of this website, among many others, is part of the proof that the consumers realize that the media gatekeepers, like the corrupt members of Congress, are not worth consulting. Their message is so corrupted by personal desire that parsing reality out of it becomes a waste of time.
I do want to know what Palin is about, but (especially after this last week) I simply don’t believe in the press to deliver that message with any appreciable accuracy.
At this point they are simply getting in the way of my obtaining ‘the full picture’.Apogee (366e8b) — 9/5/2008 @ 11:45 pm
You’re projecting, Gene Venable.
It’s Obama who was flavour-of-the-month up until about a month ago. Now his image is deflating, because there was never any substance behind the Obama bubble.
Sarah Palin is the real thing. Her genuineness is her strength, and will carry her through Election Day and beyond.Evil Pundit (843b74) — 9/5/2008 @ 11:47 pm
GV – I predict that her image will deflate like a week-old campaign balloon.
Why would anyone listen to the predictions of a partisan hack?Apogee (366e8b) — 9/5/2008 @ 11:47 pm
Apogee — when I want to find out what Sarah Palin stands for, I’ll read a blog.
The MSM is irrelevant.Evil Pundit (843b74) — 9/5/2008 @ 11:49 pm
Icy 54, if Bill O’Reilly didn’t ask the questions we (you) want asked, blame him, not Obama. Obama showed up at least.
Let’s see if Palin goes on Olbermann’s show anytime soon.Aplomb (b6fba6) — 9/5/2008 @ 11:52 pm
I’m not a partisan hack.Gene Venable (86f20c) — 9/5/2008 @ 11:53 pm
More like a partisan whack job.Icy Truth (6e6d48) — 9/6/2008 @ 12:06 am
Well, maybe on the whack job. The reason I don’t consider myself a partisan hack is that I am quite prepared to admit stuff that a partisan hack would not admit. For example, the surge worked — I thought that almost immediately after the surge occurred, whereas real partisan hacks are just starting to admit it, if they are at all. Or the appeal of McCain’s speech — I thought it was a great speech and I like McCain. These are not typical partisan hack sentiments.Gene Venable (86f20c) — 9/6/2008 @ 12:19 am
if Bill O’Reilly didn’t ask the questions we (you) want asked, blame him, not Obama. Obama showed up at least.
— 1) Who said that Bill didn’t (or won’t, since the interview is spaced over 4 nights) ask Obama some of those questions? Not me. 2) Obama was there; whether or not he ‘showed up’ is debatable (or ‘town hall-able’ if you want a more accurate pun).
Let’s see if Palin goes on Olbermann’s show anytime soon.Icy Truth (6e6d48) — 9/6/2008 @ 12:28 am
— She might not go. I’ve heard that her one weakness is a fear of circus clowns.
We’ve spent months getting to know – to the extent possible – the Presidential candidates. We’ll spend the next weeks getting to know the Vice Presidential candidates. We’ll listen to all of them on cable interviews and the Sunday talk shows, and we’ll read about their speeches in local newspapers and watch them on the news. Then, finally, we’ll see and hear them debate.
This election isn’t a movie that wraps up all the loose ends in 3 hours but, if it were, we’ve just passed the halfway or maybe the 3/4 mark. Many have already decided who they support but that doesn’t mean the process should be abbreviated to suit some partisan desire for closure.DRJ (7568a2) — 9/6/2008 @ 12:28 am
EP #60 – That’s half of it. My point was that the MSM are getting in the way of the facts, not digging for them.
Aplomb – You cannot compare O’Reilly and Olbermann. O’Reilly’s an opinionated blowhard who happens to be right every so often. Olbermann hasn’t been right yet.
As to my earlier comment, perhaps some other people can convince you of my point? Here’s a list. Feel free to give ’em a call.Apogee (366e8b) — 9/6/2008 @ 12:32 am
Boy Scout Neil Armstrong
Skipper John F. Kennedy
Pentathlete George Patton
Cattle Rancher Teddy Roosevelt
Drug Salesman Linus Pauling
Assistant Clerk Albert Einstein
Navigator Edmund Hillary
real partisan hacks are just starting to admit it, if they are at all.
— Like Obama did last night on O’Reilly.
Fortunately for the Democrats, we will be tired of Palin-flavor before voting day gets here.Icy Truth (6e6d48) — 9/6/2008 @ 12:32 am
— Not us! She’s Palilicious™.
Legend tells of Davy Crockett, who killed himself a bear when he was only three.
Legend will tell of Sarah Palin, who in 2008 flayed a horse’s ass in debate, and who slayed a donkey on Election Day.Icy Truth (6e6d48) — 9/6/2008 @ 12:40 am
Maybe you Paliniphiles will love her forever, but the American people are fickle, fortunately.
Obama did finally admit that the surge worked, and then Woodward started saying that some within the Bush administration say it wasn’t the surge that made things start turning the corder.
It’s hard to know when the Bush administration is known to have withheld crucial information before, when I trusted it — what is really true now?Gene Venable (86f20c) — 9/6/2008 @ 12:41 am
Jeez! It reads better as “and then slayed a donkey”.Icy Truth (6e6d48) — 9/6/2008 @ 12:43 am
The Arctic Fox has gotten more vetting in four days than the Messiah has gotten in 19 mos.
SarahP’s too much woman for Olbermann — besides, it’d be only her, Keefums, and all 20 of MSNBC’s (“America’s Least-watched Network”) audience. She’d punk Keefums the way she punk’d B.O. in her speech, but who would be there to see it?furious (56af6d) — 9/6/2008 @ 12:50 am
#70 – Gene Venable
Maybe you Paliniphiles will love her forever,
— We love her long-time.
but the American people are fickle, fortunately.
— Faithless bitches!
some within the Bush administration say it wasn’t the surge that made things start turning the [corner].
— Which, true or not, does not negate the fact that the surge was successful.
It’s hard to know when the Bush administration is known to have withheld crucial information beforeIcy Truth (6e6d48) — 9/6/2008 @ 12:57 am
— Never to late to go back and pick up those missing credits.
Jeez! Speaking of “missing credits”, should have been “Never too late”.Icy Truth (6e6d48) — 9/6/2008 @ 1:00 am
Speaking of wars, I see that we are said to need more troops in Afghanistan, but unfortunately we need them in Iraq.
The problem with the Bush/McCain strategy is that it commits more troops than we have, so we get to choose which war to skimp on. That means that the favorite word of the GOP, “victory,” is harder to achieve.Gene Venable (86f20c) — 9/6/2008 @ 1:03 am
Icy, come on . . .
You at 54: “– Ya know, we have a list of ‘conscience’ questions that we would love to have someone — anyone — in the media ask Senator Obama.”
Me at 61: “if Bill O’Reilly didn’t ask the questions we (you) want asked, blame him, not Obama. Obama showed up at least.”
You at 65: “Who said that Bill didn’t (or won’t, since the interview is spaced over 4 nights) ask Obama some of those questions? Not me.”
Read over those posts again and tell me I’m wrong in thinking you were implying someone (anyone!) wouldn’t get around to asking Obama those questions, or that Obama wouldn’t make himself available (over four nights!) to answer them. At least you finally admit they will be asked (unless Bill fails to hit every item on your “list”) and we can see how Obama responds.
Obama goes on Bill O’Reilly. Palin refuses, so far, to answer any questions at all it seems, from even seemingly friendly or neutral interviewers.
And if you think it is unfair to compare Obama with Palin because he is running for POTUS and she VP, Joe Biden will agree to be interviewed by anyone, anywhere, friendly or not, and make them abjectly sorry three hours later when he wraps up his first comment. He is a chronic blowhard and will tell you much more than you asked or cared to know. But at least he does in fact take a question and answer it, leaving you to decide what to think about it.Aplomb (b6fba6) — 9/6/2008 @ 1:09 am
Gene Venable – the American people are fickle, fortunately.
Unfortunately for Obama.
Obama did finally admit that the surge worked, and then Woodward started saying . . .wasn’t the surge
And this reflects well on Obama?
As for loving Palin, I don’t (as Meathead Rob Reiner does) look around for a candidate ‘to fall in love with’.
Palin has impressed me with her actions, and with her attitude. If she becomes unimpressive and part of the system, like Obama, and ceases or never carries through reform, (as Obama cannot – it is his lifeblood) then the lack of positive action will cause me to re-evaluate my opinion of her.
Becoming emotional about politicians will cause you to misjudge them and overlook their corruption and mistakes. That is why they constantly try to appeal to those emotions. For two people, even a willing President and Vice President, to turn around our corrupt system, is quite a bit to ask of anyone. However, they have made that their platform, and I support them in that endeavor.Apogee (366e8b) — 9/6/2008 @ 1:10 am
[Biden] does in fact take a question and answer it, leaving you to wonder what it is you asked in the first place.
Classic political hypmotizing.Apogee (366e8b) — 9/6/2008 @ 1:13 am
Was Biden properly vetted?Perfect Sense (9d1b08) — 9/6/2008 @ 1:17 am
Is Biden mentally stable?
Biden claims that his first wife was killed by a drunk driver. Not only was the driver not drunk, it is likely his wife caused the accident.
Should a deranged fable teller be one heart beat from the Presidency?
“Obama did finally admit that the surge worked, and then Woodward started saying . . .wasn’t the surge
And this reflects well on Obama?”
It doesn’t reflect well or poorly on Obama. It’s hard to figure out what’s going on when you have a President you can’t trust. It is completely possible that the Bush administration is suppressing intelligence about what is causing the situation in Iraq to improve.
My gut feeling is still that the surge worked, or had a major impact. I lean toward that explanation anyway, becaues I (a) supported the invasion to begin with, and I (b) suggested that the Bush administration hadn’t committed enough troops from the first moment I started hearing about the insurgency — which was a good long time before the Bush administration even admitted there was an insurgency.
We know that the Bush administration thinks nothing of trying to suppress known facts by any means it feels like using, so we can’t know the truth for sure. If it is willing to edit scientific reports and choose prosecutors based on whether they are right on God, guns, and gays, etc., we know that it might be lying at any given time and we can’t be sure what is going on until we get rid of the liars in office.Gene Venable (86f20c) — 9/6/2008 @ 1:27 am
Perfect sense 79: dunno the answers, let’s see what Biden has to say about those questions. I’m confident he’d take them and answer them.
But if you are willing to ask Biden why a deranged fable teller should be one heard beat from the Presidency, I don’t know how Palin gets off avoiding the press altogether because the questions are mean or unfair.Aplomb (b6fba6) — 9/6/2008 @ 1:29 am
I don’t know how Palin gets off avoiding the press altogether because the questions are mean or unfair.
“Go peddle your papers”?nk (21731d) — 9/6/2008 @ 1:34 am
Gene Venable – My gut feeling is still that the surge worked, or had a major impact. I lean toward that explanation anyway, becaues I (a) supported the invasion to begin with, and I (b) suggested that the Bush administration hadn’t committed enough troops from the first moment I started hearing about the insurgency
I agree on both counts. What puzzles me is this:
The problem with the Bush/McCain strategy is that it commits more troops than we have, so we get to choose which war to skimp on.
The surge is the McCain strategy, and its been said that McCain had to drag Bush along with it.Apogee (366e8b) — 9/6/2008 @ 1:39 am
Given that you
a)supported the invasion
b)thought our troop levels were too low
c)supported the surge (supported committing more troops)
d)think it was successful
please explain to me what seems like a contradiction between your two statements.
The problem is that while we were improving things in Iraq, we were letting Afghanistan darned near get away from us. We may have been successful in Iraq, but we most definitely have not been successful in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is the war we chose to skimp on.
The Afghanistan/Pakistan situation is where the real action was all along. It’s where the real danger is now. The strategy of focusing on an unnecessary war and letting a dangerous war get out of control was wasteful at a minimum.
And when we put our attention where it really needs to be, in Afghanistan, what will happen in Iraq? There is no guarantee that things won’t fall apart as soon as we stop managing them.
Let alone the big change we made in the area, removing one of Iran’s dangerous enemies and thus propelling it into power it couldn’t have dreamed of before we took Iraq out of action…well, that is something to talk about in another post, on another day.Gene Venable (86f20c) — 9/6/2008 @ 1:57 am
Gene – I agree with your sentiments, just not the reasoning. If indeed our troops were stretched thin, then we had to make a choice. That choice was Iraq, as Afghanistan had already been dealt with to a certain extent. The feeling was exultation after the first routing of the Taliban, with the Afghani people clubbing straggling Tali to death in the streets.
The mistake was in allowing Bin Laden to escape, of course, but the run-up to the war was quick, and I’m not sure we could have mobilized that much force that quickly, especially given the strategic planning at all levels going on after 9/11. We had a large contingent of manpower engaged in protecting America itself at that point.
There’s no guarantee that any country won’t collapse in the future. There was no guarantee that Georgia wouldn’t attack Ossetia. We are, however, guaranteed tha Hussein will not be a problem any more. We are fairly certain that Quadaffi doesn’t have a current weapons program. We are also hopeful that the Sunni factions in Anbar, at least, will not accept AQ into their midst any time soon. They’ve learned a valuable lesson in liberty, as well. Something about dogs, sleeping and fleas.
US strategy is worldwide, and not just Afghanistan. With a troop presence, it isn’t safe for jihadists to have permanent training camps for terror. Afghanistan was valuable to Al Queda because it was isolated and strategically unimportant for anyone except Pakistan, AQ’s partial partners. That is not the case anymore, despite the seeming chaos. Catching Bin Laden is important, but not enough to possibly start a nuclear conflict with a current ally.Apogee (366e8b) — 9/6/2008 @ 2:21 am
I just discovered that my basic argument about Afghanistan is echoed here:
The above is a quick (anti-McCain) commentary I think is worth reading.Gene Venable (86f20c) — 9/6/2008 @ 2:21 am
Read over those posts again and tell me I’m wrong in thinking you were implying someone (anyone!) wouldn’t get around to asking Obama those questions,
— Read over my posts in general and you will see that the tenor of my comments runs to one of three categories: sarcastic comedy, direct statements of facts, or blunt expressions of opinion. I don’t do ‘implication’; not intentionally, unless puns count.
There are some unanswered questions that I think will not be posed to Senator Obama by most interviewers; obviously, Bill will ask some of them. On his radio show today he said that the tougher questions are in the upcoming segments, and he stressed that he had to be insistent with some of them because Obama was trying to squirm out of giving direct answers.
or that Obama wouldn’t make himself available (over four nights!) to answer them.
— The interview was conducted in one day; the broadcast of it is spread over four nights.
Palin refuses, so far, to answer any questions at all it seems, from even seemingly friendly or neutral interviewers.
— That’s right. She’s going directly to the voters and is telling the 4th estate that she’ll get around to them when it’s convenient for her.
And if you think it is unfair to compare Obama with Palin because he is running for POTUS and she VP,
— Not “unfair” . . . more like an unprecedented desperation move.
Joe Biden will agree to be interviewed by anyone, anywhere, friendly or not, and make them abjectly sorry three hours later when he wraps up his first comment.
— Abjectly sorry? or blissfully comatose?
He is a chronic blowhard and will tell you much more than you asked or cared to know. But at least he does in fact take a question and answer it, leaving you to decide what to think about it.Icy Truth (6e6d48) — 9/6/2008 @ 2:27 am
— Leaving you to ask “I forgot; what was the question again?”
The real victory would have been in not having the Iraq war at all.
We are more or less “happy” to let North Korea have nukes and even “happier” to have Pakistan have nukes — I think that Saddam presented less of a risk than either.
The most likely enemy he might have used nukes against would have been Iran. I’m not saying that would have been a good thing, but we don’t get to choose our favorite outcomes in the world, and as it turns out there is no reason to believe that Saddam would have gotten nukes. And we could have bombed Iraq without taking it over. Saddam would have fallen eventually, as Franco, that ally of Adolph Hitler, did.
So the question is, what evidence is there that McCain knows when NOT to fight? He is proud of his fighting ability, but choosing a fight correctly is at least as important.Gene Venable (86f20c) — 9/6/2008 @ 2:31 am
Sarah Palin can’t weather scrutiny? That’s so stupid, it could be on CNN.
We get it, you guys want more ammo to use against Palin because every single conspiracy theory and smear you’ve desperately hurled out over the past week has blown up in your faces. Unfortunately for you, she’s not playing that game right now. She has nothing to gain from talking to a press that instantly greeted her with a seething blast of bad faith. Dunno if you’ve been paying attention to her poll numbers and crowd turnouts, but she doesn’t exactly need help generating publicity.
But if you want to know more about her, write to whichever news source you trust most and demand that they apologize to her.Jim Treacher (592cb4) — 9/6/2008 @ 3:04 am
And do I want to know more about her? Yes, I want to know true things about her. So far their track record sucks.Jim Treacher (592cb4) — 9/6/2008 @ 3:13 am
So the question is, what evidence is there that McCain knows when NOT to fight?
— The fact that after he is inaugurated he will not make kicking your ass his first official act.
That job will fall to the new head of the US Marshals — a former Texas Ranger with the initials C.N.Icy Truth (6e6d48) — 9/6/2008 @ 3:40 am
I am almost sorry that I missed Senor Venable.JD (5f0e11) — 9/6/2008 @ 5:08 am
I am almost sorry that I missed Senor Venable.
Comment by JD — 9/6/2008 @ 5:08 am
Was going to make some less than charitable crack. Instead will just ask: has Mr. Venable given any more thought to paying about $50, or even less, for a primary care doctor visit in his community in order to get a recheck and Rx refill, instead of making the taxpayers pay (by his own accounting–I don’t know how much it costs) abouyt $1000 to go to the emergency room, even when he admits he’s not urgently sick, for the same Rx-refill purpose?no one you know (1ebbb1) — 9/6/2008 @ 5:59 am
no one you know – Personal responsibility is not really his thing.JD (5f0e11) — 9/6/2008 @ 6:10 am
So the question is, what evidence is there that McCain knows when NOT to fight?
Off the top of my head – he was against sending troops to Lebanon in the 80s.
Given that Obama indicated he would invade Pakistan (a country with 6 times the population of Iraq (half the population of America), a much more radicalized population, numerous hiding places, and nuclear weapons) if their government didn’t fully cooperate with him – I also find his judgment in this area questionable.
Saddam would have fallen eventually, as Franco, that ally of Adolph Hitler, did.
That depends on how long a time line you’re willing to put on eventually. It also shows a lot less regard for the Iraqi people than the left showed for them in the 90s (we stop the problems among them without getting Hussein or lifting the embargo, and we going to be able to lift the embargo without making him powerful again). The other problem is that if we had tried to do anything in the Middle East, Hussein would have played the role (and to some extent was playing the role) that Iran played over the last few years.Anon (03ab2e) — 9/6/2008 @ 6:25 am
As an aside, this is the frail little woman you guys are expecting not to be able to handle the scrutiny and pressure of this campaign:
You realize you have to run for election to become Governor of Alaska right?
You even have to debate people and give speeches.
In fact, I’ve heard that obtaining an 86% approval rating after running the largest state in the Union for 2 years is somewhat difficult. Some say that defeating an incumbent governor and then your Democratic opponent takes a little bit scrutiny as well, but I’ll leave that for others to argue.Anon (03ab2e) — 9/6/2008 @ 6:39 am
What an odd coincidence, that the people who think she’s unqualified are the very same people who want her to lose.Jim Treacher (592cb4) — 9/6/2008 @ 7:53 am
“The Afghanistan/Pakistan situation is where the real action was all along.”
I just love it when armchair Generals like Mr. Vegetable come on and proclaim present world conditions to be exactly as they predicted lo those many years ago, leading one to conclude that their expertise is desperately needed at the Pentagon, since those dunderheads obviously missed the entire storyline. If they had just listened to graduates of the War College like Vegetable, how much better we’d all be right now!
VeggieMatic, your peerless expertise with predictions made in hindsight is duly noted. When you finish playing your game of Stratego this morning, do please come back to share more of your fearless predictions based on events that have previously happened.Dmac (e639cc) — 9/6/2008 @ 8:23 am
The numbers mean that the public is interested and not entirely decided.
They don’t quite trust or know Obama, and that’s a good thing.Patricia (ee5c9d) — 9/6/2008 @ 8:42 am
Good. McCain’s been working hard for a long, long time. He deserves to be heard.
I don’t think talking about crowd sizes is a smart thing to do, though. Obama’s will be bigger.
Talk about him getting the message out. Change. Reform. More people getting interested is good.. direct comparison to Obama makes McCain look weaki like america (f4c1e0) — 9/6/2008 @ 9:14 am
How does direct comparisons between Bambi & McCain make McCain look weak?
Because McCain has made decisions that were unpopular to his party or his base, and Bambi is afraid to make tough decisions?
That’s a bad thing?
I don’t think that word means what you think it means.steve miller (3c2c90) — 9/6/2008 @ 9:49 am
Obama: gets huge crowds and has for months. 10k is a low attendance number for Obama
McCain: Getting 10k crowds this week. That’s good. But not as good as Obama. Not even in the same league.
Better to talk about how the message is getting out. Better to talk about how people are energized. Better to talk about how McCain is finally getting the attention he deserves. Better to talk about the million things McCain has going for him than to bring up this weaknessi like america (f4c1e0) — 9/6/2008 @ 10:07 am
i like america – Rock stars and celebrities such as Obama normally draw large crowds on their tours. Politicians such as McCain, not so much.daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 9/6/2008 @ 10:33 am
You need to lay off the acid, pal.
Two things: 1) I would find it odd that a Republican candidate draws as much of a crowd to start with, and 2) O!bama on TV telling me how he’s going to be “tougher” than McCain in prosecuting the war on terror is sheer puffery on his part.
All hat, no cattle.EW1(SG) (84e813) — 9/6/2008 @ 10:37 am
— Rock stars and celebrities such as Obama normally draw large crowds on their tours. —cboldt (3d73dd) — 9/6/2008 @ 10:39 am
Most of the events portrayed as “Obama drew such and so large crowd” are more accurately, “the musical act preceding Obama’s appearance drew such and so large crowd.” He’s well regarded and popular, but at the end of the day, he’s just a politician too and politicians aren’t entertaining to the masses.
Obama: gets huge crowds and has for months. 10k is a low attendance number for Obama
McCain: Getting 10k crowds this week. That’s good. But not as good as Obama. Not even in the same league.
The problem you guys are about to have is that we can split up.
McCain and Palin can go their separate ways and hold multiple events at the same time – If Palin shows up on her own, she’s going to draw a crowd. Who’s going to show up for Biden?Anon (03ab2e) — 9/6/2008 @ 10:45 am
Who’s going to show up for Biden?
The local rep from MBNA, and a couple union goons!Another Drew (e872c7) — 9/6/2008 @ 10:52 am
Looks like three hours of McCain/Palin media interviews are on the schedule today. That Palin bubble meme is going down the drain just as fast as all the other smears and memes it appears.daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 9/6/2008 @ 10:53 am
I am pretty sure it is racist to call Baracky O’Biden a rock star.JD (5f0e11) — 9/6/2008 @ 10:56 am
Biden?JAR (08f6d2) — 9/6/2008 @ 11:30 am
And it’s pretty good.
Gene Venable – you are a partisan hack. I’ve pointed out your contradictory statements, and you don’t give an answer. You put forth outright lies and you simply evade, then link to an extraordinarily weak NYT article that is pure fantasy.
JAR – Biden, pretty good. Oh yeah. Good enough to get a zero during the primaries.Apogee (366e8b) — 9/6/2008 @ 11:43 am
This is my point about McCain being weak – you don’t expect him to do well. You do know that Obama is a politician first, don’t you?
The implication here is clear: Palin is stronger because she draws larger crowds. And Biden doesn’t stand a chance.
Because Biden can’t draw as large of a crowd, Palin is stronger.
Obama draws larger crowds.i like america (f4c1e0) — 9/6/2008 @ 11:53 am
And it’s pretty good.
Comment by JAR — 9/6/2008 @ 11:30 am
JAR, that’s cool . . . I don’t see 10,000 people there . . . or a 1,000.Anon (03ab2e) — 9/6/2008 @ 12:41 pm
Because Biden can’t draw as large of a crowd, Palin is stronger.
Obama draws larger crowds.
True – but despite what it may seem the past few days, Obama’s not going up against Palin. What the numbers are when they’re separated compared to Obama – don’t know, he might still be larger – but my point is over the next two months it won’t be as simple as looking at the crowds for McCain.Anon (03ab2e) — 9/6/2008 @ 12:46 pm
#112 – i like america
This is my point about McCain being weak – you don’t expect him to do well.
— I do, especially in town halls; which is why, after all was said and done, Obama did not agree to do a single one . . . ZERO.
You do know that Obama is a politician first, don’t you?
— First, last, always and forever. Legislator? Only if voting “present” counts. Executive? Well, he does have all of that experience running for office; something which the noted columnist Clarence Page, without even the slightest bit of embarrassment in saying it, repeated on The McLaughlin Group last night.
The implication here is clear: Palin is stronger because she draws larger crowds. And Biden doesn’t stand a chance.
— Palin is stronger because she is a straight-talker, while Biden is a non-stop shit-talker.
Because Biden can’t draw as large of a crowd, Palin is stronger.
— Because Biden lulls people to sleep, Palin is stronger.
Obama draws larger crowds.Icy Truth (5b3d64) — 9/6/2008 @ 1:21 pm
— Such is the skill of false prophets; they are good at what they do.
@icy, please reconsider those earplugsi like america (f4c1e0) — 9/6/2008 @ 10:12 pm
That’s it? That’s all you’ve got? You couldn’t even acknowledge the song reference? That is weak.Icy Truth (9cedd0) — 9/7/2008 @ 1:49 am