finknottle

Even you would have to admit that being branded a 'racist' is far more damaging than an 'elitist.' Gee, out of what camp have I been hearing that charge bandied about? Elitist is damaging. Racist is career-ending. Even 'sexist' is worse than elitist. But facts don't get in the way of the Washington Post spinning things up when it comes to covering the One.

Being rich is not at all the same thing as being elitist. I can't believe you don't know that.

The Obama campaign, who had strong incentive to get it right in their attack ad, came up with only 7. That tells you it is not an obvious question. Most of the properties were purchased by his wife, from her considerable fortune, and some are controlled by a family trust. I'm willing to bet McCain knows *exactly* how many he paid for himself. One condo was bought by Cindy for their daughter for when she finishes college. A second condo was bought in the same building. Another condo was bought in California for use by the kids. Considering that he's probably never even been to some of these properties, let alone was involved in picking them out and purchasing them, it's no surprise that that they don't immediately register. Tell me this: do you know how many suits you own? Does that include outfits your wife bought for own use? They are still joint property.

On Meet The Press, should Tim Russert have been more even-handed on Super Bowl sundays?

Because no candidate ever matchers your views exactly (unless you get them from the candidate), so ultimately you have to decide what is the most important issue facing the country and select your candidate accordingly. Some will pick abortion (or choice) over terrorism, the economy, global warming, immigration, etc, as the gravest problem we face. Fine. It is their priorities that are wacko.

I don't understand the link - I thought it was well known that there were many regional leagues after the turn of the century, despite NFL claims. I believe the following link lists box scores that have turned up in old newspapers - http://www.profootballarchives.com/ They are very incomplete - for example, scores are there for the Rochester Jeffersons 1912 4-1-1 season in which they played 6 area opponents, but no further scores are known for the other teams. It seems very unlikely that they were not playing in a league. Maybe it boils down to the question of what we mean by league exactly.

Chelsea Clinton. How's that for rockin' the vote?

If a short white guy spoke as slowly, ponderously, and unemotionally, people would ignore him and think him slow-witted. He would be viewed like Dukakis, who was pretty articulate but certainly isn't thought of in that light. Come to think of it, Obama sounds most like Al Gore, but with smoother delivery.

Is he on the list because he married into the Kennedy clan?

Subtle point - had the Bush administration publically committed itself to a timetable ala Obama, the negotiations over immunity would be dead in the water right now. It's Negotiation 101.

How about a Tancredo-Richardson ticket, running as independents? Cover all your bases!

I think it will be Jesus. It makes a lot of sense. It's an opportunity for Jesus to be part of something really big, the whole inspirational Obama movement. And it provides Obama an opportunity to make inroads into the Republican evangelical base. Unfortunately, I think the move will ultimately disappoint. When push comes to shove, evangelicals aren't actually all that keen on his teachings.

I think you are wrong, the slip sounds pretty much as the poster described. Let's go to the tape - http://hotair.com/archives/2008/08/16/nuan...ience-to-serve/ It's funny that you flat-out said he was wrong, when it is at least ambiguous (perhaps he was going to say "I don't think that he was an excellent..."?). Did you look at a written transcript and respond without listening to the answer?

New Russian excursion into Poti, and seizure of US equipment: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1219131183...s_us_whats_news And now Ukraine ups the anti to the west, asking in on the US missile defense program: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...ope-and-US.html Old Europe dithers while New Europe worries: http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0818/p01s01-woeu.html "Europe can be proud of this success" - French President Nicolas Sarkozy

Go for the real long shot: McCain-Hillary.

Not to defend flip-flopping, but it is reasonable when circumstances change. McCain reversed his opposition to offshore drilling in response to the dramatic uptick in oil prices. Obama reversed the cuts he was proposing for NASA to compete in Florida - err, scratch that. Give him the benefit of the doubt for a minute. One of the consequences of his proposed cuts was that it would delay the shuttles replacement by an extra 5 years, to 2019. This leaves a 10 year gap in which we would have to rely on Russia to sell us passage. As many countries who get their energy from Russia have learned, that's not a good situation. Perhaps Obama has re-evaluated the issue in light of events in Georgia. So now he wants to restore funding and extend flying the shuttle by a year - IMO prudent, as far as it goes. But does it go far enough? It still leaves a gap from 2010-2014 in which we have no way to get a man in orbit. Is that good enough? (Not that I have a magic solution.)

He has announced he is stepping down - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1219044196...p_us_whats_news Interestingly, he will be stepping down despite the fact that there is no agreement to give him immunity. Sharif continues to press for treason charges (punishable by death). This is of course ironic since the new government gave themselves immunity on all outstanding charges and convictions...

You do realize that those companies are owned by shareholders like you? That tax break ultimately flows to the shareholders. Wouldn't it be better all around if people just bought stock in the companies they are lambasting for their profits? You can invest in Exxon, you know. The way some people are talking about it, you would think that it is a can't-miss investment worth mortgaging the house over.

This is why I will never support Obama. Hindsight is oh so easy. The intelligence may have been wrong, slanted, whatever. Fine. But when the DOS say's there is compelling evidence, the DOD say's there is compelling evidence, the IC say's there is compelling evidence, and your allies say there is compelling evidence, you had better accept it. I want a President who will defer to the career experts when there is a broad consensus, whether it be about terrorism, the environment, or global warming. We've had a selective listener for 8 years now - Obama will be more of the same. Just another guy who thinks he knows better. If my congressman is faced with a similar situaton where the testimony of the goivernment experts is fairly unaminous, then he had better authorize the use of force. Ironically, what shifted my support to Clinton was the backbone she showed in refusing to apologize for her vote during the debates, despite being badgered by Obama and Edwards over it and the unpopularity of the position within the party. I only wish Obama had such a pair, if not actual principals.

These ads are what many people were thinking all along. I would have approved of an ad mocking Bush on those grounds too - I thought he brought nothing to the table but a folksy manner and a famous dad. My point is that many people are sick of our American Idol approach to politics, wherein smiling, looking good, and speaking in noncontroversial generalities is rewarded over substance and a track record which - by their very nature - will alienate some of the voters. As for the Moses angle, I don't understand why you see it as daffy. You have to be living under a rock not to see the cult-like adoration that has accompanied his campaign, particularly among the media, and the transcendant trappings his campaign has chosen to wrap itself in (we are the Change we've been waiting for, the seas are lifting, and all that). Why is satirizing that such a stretch? Is there something wrong with voters being troubled by what they see as a charismatic political movement?

For some of us, the gravitas of a candidate matters. Contrary to how Obama's media handlers portrayed it, there were a great many Democrats who opposed Obama for reasons other than being white trash racists or feminists with hurt feelings. It had everything to do with electing somebody whose chief qualifications seemed to be being tall, handsome, and articulate; with the added bonuses of being (suspiciously) lock step with the party base and an african-american to boot. The dream candidate... but where was his track record? How was he going to deliver on all the things he was promising, like transcending politics, uniting the country, and so forth. He may have policies on his web-site, but he is not a policy candidate. That was Hillary. His policies - whether on Health Care or Georgia - show up a week after everybody elses does, and looks like theirs but a little better triangulated. He comes off as the smooth-talking student that gets away with copying everybody elses assignment and handing it in late. Obama has no gravitas. One doesn't identify him with any strong beliefs, policies, or history, just lofty phrases. How can we tell what kind of president he will be under pressure? For me, the ads you find bizarre are completely on the mark. Obama is not a politician who has been tested in the crucibles of life and politics. He is the American Idol candidate: coming out of nowhere, and smiling his way through chanting crowds to the nomination. And like American Idol - and Britney and Paris - he has managed to do it without ever revealing any lasting talent or character.

I think it is pretty clear he will give up - he's been losing support in the party which backs him, and will not survive an impeachment vote. But your very question suggests you know little of Pakistan. The problem, which runs counter to our knee-jerk response towards military leadership, is that he has been a far better leader than the 'democratic' civilian leaders who run the country. [i call them leaders, but they are really party bosses - they are not popularly elected. The office of the President is popularly elected, but the Prime Minister is designated by a majority coalition of the National Assembly. Even within their parties, leadership is not elected, it is inherited.] Musharraf doesn't appear to be corrupt, and when he leaves in exile he won't be living lavishly [of course, I could turn out to be wrong here - only time will tell]. Contrast this with Bhutto and Sharif, who were each named Prime Minister twice and also removed by the then President for corruption twice. Bhutto and her husband had the gall to feather their nests by buying a large english estate *while still in office.* They faced numerous indictments by foreign countries on corruption and money laundering. Sharif was not much better, but Bhutto takes the cake. Her husband was known as 'Mr 10%' for the cut he was expected to receive on any foreign investment. So what have Bhutto's husband Zardari and Sharif been up to since they have taken political power in the National Assembly? The top agenda has been to grant themselves legal immunity, and to go after Musharraf. Let's not forget - Musharraf was not some dictator who ruled with no support. He was democratically elected - the controversy over his becoming president was based on the legal issue of whether we could run while in uniform, not over whether it was a fair election. And even in the most recent elections, the party that supported Musharraf finished second in the popular vote - Bhutto's and Sharif's finished 1st and 3rd. The impeachment of Musharraf is really based on political revenge, not on an obvious abuse of power. His fight with the Supreme Court (though a legitimate point of concern) was not that unusual. Neither Bhutto nor Zardari have clean hands in their manipulation of the courts. Musharraf did not rule by decree - elections were held, and politics went on as normal. He liberalized the press (unlike his predecessors), and pushed for women's rights (unlike Bhutto, who ran on that platform and delivered nothing). He worked hard to reign in military support for the Kashmir rebels and normalize relations with India, and was suprisingly successfull. Contrast this with Sharif, whose nationalist policies encouraged, funded and supported the violence in Kashmir. He made the country a nuclear state. He started the war with India in 1999; and it was that disaster which triggered the military coup. The sad truth is that Musharraf was probably the most responsible leader Pakistan has had in the last 50 years. But because he is a military general, we automatically assume Pakistan is some kind of dictatorship and throw our support to any corrupt demagouge who happens to be a civilian.

And vice versa. I just saw an Obama commercial which loops McCain saying the economy looks ok, interposed with people telling you how rough it is. Of course, they don't tell you what year the McCain statement is from. As for the racist diatribes, that's funny - the Obama campaign has a pretty consistent record of being the one to raise the issue whenever momemtum shifts against them, painting their opposition as racially motivated. Pretty much every attack (from calling his credentialess rise a fairy tale to comparing him to a vacuous celebrity) gets the charge, and as does every group (the elderly, poor whites, conservatives, etc) in which he runs poorly.

The administration has made an uncharacteristically deft move. The US and Poland have suddenly come to terms on the proposed missle defense basing agreement, which the Poles had previously indicated would await the next president. One of the concessions made to the Poles is that we give them a Patriot missile battery for defense against Russia. The subtle point: it is to be manned and operated by US soldiers. This mollify's one of Poland's concerns about the Europeans: would they really come to their aid militarily if attacked by Russia? Remember, NATO pointedly refuses to station troops in 'provocative' countries... With US troops embedded (as opposed to liason or advisors), an attack on the Polish military is also an attack on the US.

No, they've been trying to join. NATO has been pretty consistent going much slower than the former soviet states liked out of deference to Russia, disappointing Ukraine and - hold your hat! - Georgia during the last go round.