ChooChooCharlie

Are you really this fucking thick?

No seriously man -- calm down....

Democrats have used that to point out how dirty Republicans are in running election campaigns, but this stinks just as bad to me...

Bush's people orchestrating the distributing of flyers reading that McCain fathered a black baby out of wedlock the day before a primary election, and then denying doing that, is far worse than liberal blogs unconnected to Obama and this site speculating about Palin's pregnancy (2 months before the election), when there was some very compelling evidence.

What should I do??

I would show him how tenuous the Ayers connection is to illustrate his paranoia. On second thought, that may not be best for the friendship........

On the other hand, do we want to vote for politicians based, at least partly, on the decisions of their offspring/spouses? It'd be nice to say "no" but the reality is that a lot of people do factor that in.

Exactly. "A lot of people" like Republicans never hesitating to spout off self-righteous indignation at Clinton or Edward's affairs. They argue its important because it reflects their judgment. Although not a perfect analogy, they are both private issues made public because they reflect the judgment of public officials. I don't think either example (Dem's affairs or Palin's odd birth circumstances) is determinative on the judgment issue, but they both should factor.

Just out of curiosity, who do you think he should've nominated? Given McCain's positions on the issues, is there a running mate he could've picked that you wouldn't be slinging mud at?

Personally? No.

But, McCain did invite this level of attention with an historic, unknown candidate (I hate Romney, but you know what you're getting, he's more experienced, offers much needed economic credibility, and helps w/Michigan -- as an Obama supporter, I'm glad he didn't pick Romney). And, although I'm not sure, I think Republicans have slung some mud in their days as well -- I'll have to check around. I'll start in Carolina in 2000.....

There are other issues:

yeah, i guess..........but none quite as gratuitous!

I heard that Obama made a left turn without signaling. Do we really want someone like that running our country?

now there's an apples to apples comparison.

'the clintons had 100 people killed'

I thought they only killed Vince Foster......

Then what were the risks? Why did the doctor okay the flight home?

you don't honestly believe there were no risks in an 8 hour flight home w/o a doctor, hours after her water broke? i haven't read anything about any dr. signing off, but even if that happened, her judgment will be in question for me unless more facts come out.

Unless you know her medical history and the details of that pregnancy, I don't think anyone can claim it was reckless, and the fact that everything ended up perfect proves that it wasn't.

There have been multiple reasons that people have questioned her judgment in regard to this pregancy. The fact that "everything ended up perfect FAR from proves it wasn't reckless. If I speed, while driving drunk, w/o a seatbelt, in the wrong lane -- and arrive at my destination w/o incident -- does that prove my actions weren't reckless? Some serious fallacies in your logic.

Once again, just to be clear, we are debating the circumstances under which Palin gave birth in evaluating her qualification to be VP? Wow...just...wow.

Yeah, we are. They were extreme circumstances that say a lot about her judgment. Her judgment is highly relevant; maybe the most important thing to evaluate for someone so close to the presidency. Below, and other posts, have elaborated as to why this is a valid discussion point.

Most of the debate has concentrated on what potentially reckless decisions she made before and while giving birth say about her judgment. Few, if anyone, is saying she isn't qualified for that one reason -- but that judgment is certainly one of many important elements in debating her qualifications.

It seems presumptuous to assume that this was a highly reckless decision. First child, maybe. Fifth child and doctor you trust, not so much.

No one presumed it was "highly reckless." People have been debating whether or not it was reckless, and if so, how that effects our perception of her judgment. That "doctor she trusts" was not on that 8 hour flight. She has been quoted as saying she took the flight to ensure her child was "Alaskan born." It appears she endangered her child for political reasons. Her judgment is in question in my book.

I'm a pro-life Obama supporter too! Nice to see another one out there!

Haha -- yeah, we're probably a rare demographic. We should start a group that doesn't vote soley based on their abortion beliefs (whether pro-choice or pro-life).

I do not think this is terribly important, but for the purpose of throwing another log on the political discussion fire, this just in:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

We are just getting to know the Palin's. I'm starting to love this choice by McCain -- I'm a bit ashamed to say it is extraordinarily entertaining.......I can't wait for SNL.

So she believes that the mother's life is more valuable than the baby's? If that's a human life with full rights, then it's still murder to have an abortion whether or not the mother's life is in danger. Talk about hypocrisy.

i guess it would be akin to self-defense.

Kwall -- I'm actually with ya on this one. I'm a pro-life Obama supporter -- and like the vast majority of those pro-life, I support an exception when the mother's life is in danger. I don't see this as hypocritical. Only one life will survive in this situation, supporting an abortion here, merely decides which one. That choice will always be my wife.

Does anyone realize that we are debating whether a VP candidate is qualified for the job based on how she chose to give birth?

Most of the debate has concentrated on what potentially reckless decisions she made before and while giving birth say about her judgment. Few, if anyone, is saying she isn't qualified for that one reason -- but that judgment is certainly one of many important elements in debating her qualifications.

i already said, that based on the limited facts as presented, it sounds like she took somewhat of a risk. i don't know how much of a risk. the story isn't complete enough to make that determination. i would like to hear her side of the story. as of now, i don't see how it disqualifies her.

 

if this is the issue that you hope to defeat her with, i wish you good luck.

I don't hope to defeat anyone. Also, I don't think anyone on the left hopes to "defeat" her with any one issue, and certainly not this one (I never said it would "disqualify" her, as you suggest above -- I agree it wouldn't). However, it is relevant in regard to her judgment, and one piece of the puzzle. My last post merely attempted to illustrate why the analogy you made was not a fair one.

i disagree.

ok........care to offer an explination? This is a discussion board, so to plainly disagree isn't very productive. Its clear no logic will change your positions, but I would still hope you have a reason for disagreement. Again, I'm pro-life (just don't let abortion alone dictate who I vote for), but you wanted to debate "recklessness." Specifically, the recklessness of Palin's choice to fly home 8 hours after her water broke with a special needs child, and to go to a smaller, less-equipped hospital, vs. the recklessness of aborting that baby. If you fundamentally believe abortion doesn't end a life (as Palin likely would if she were pro-choice, as in your analogy), then recklessness plays no part in her hypothetical decision to abort her child. Her abortion stance would be debatable as always, but not reckless judgment. As it stands now, many will view the curious decisions she made prior to giving birth, while personal in nature, as reckless. Given her choice to enter the public arena, those choices are now fair game in a way that an abortion would not be.

The fact that she is a young earth creationist, in my opinion, makes her or anyone else who shares such a medieval, backwards, uneducated and/or just plain willfully ignorant view unfit to hold office. Honest to Christ, it is one step removed from believing the world is flat. Actually, it's worse - at least those who believed the world was flat did so based on a lack of evidence to the contrary. What's Palin's excuse?

 

Let's see, "global warming/climate change - nope, no way I'm going to believe that, but, the world is 6000 years old and all that implies, yep, I can't argue with that." I'm sorry, that is fucking retarded, and I'm not going to apologize for defining it as such.

Bill Maher posts on VC!!

these are reckless decisions worthy of ridicule, but a decision to kill the kid would've been an honorable and personal decision that no one has a right to comment on.

Kwall, I'm actually a pro-life liberal -- but the points in your post can be distinguished. Palin's "reckless" decisions while in labor with her special needs child reflect her judgment. As a candidate for arguably the 2nd most powerful position in the world, her judgment is relevant. If she were pro-choice and made a decision to abort the baby (as you analogize), this would reflect a political and moral fundamental belief -- not a reckless lapse of judgment. It would be fair to debate her pro-choice stance, but not "reckless" judgment.

to fight ridiculous Internet rumors, she should release pictures of herself in the hospital? That's incredibly invasive and it wouldn't do anything to quash the rumors.

 

The people putting this out know it doesn't matter if it's true. All that matters is it is out there now.

More invasive than manic speculation her son is her grandson? If it were me, I'd rather release a modest and happy picture -- I see nothing innappropriate with that.

I strongly disagree that "all that matters is it is out there now" and "it doesn't matter if it's true." Since its untrue, those rumors will now end and so will the questions about her judgment (in accepting the nomination), and the judgment of McCain in selecting her. If it were true, those would be relevant topics that would persist through the election. Now, the rumors of faked pregnancy will end with anyone not a partisan conspiracy theorist. Huge difference.

Wikipedia says it was 8 hours. I can think of a few reasons why a mother would do such a thing:

 

1) Woman get very comfortable with their doctor and want him/her to deliver the baby, not a stranger.

 

2) Her medical insurance might not have covered a delivery away from home.

 

3) She'd had 4 children already and knew she had plenty of time.

I read a story that Palin wanted her child to be "Alaskan born". It struck me as an insufficient reason to delay medical care (its not like her son wouldn't have been an American citizen if born in TX). But hey, its her child, her life.

her 17 year old daughter, Bristol, *IS* pregnant now however...

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idU...=22&sp=true

 

Yeah, this is on CNN too. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/ WTF?? Is this not the craziest story? Rumors about the fake pregnancy apparently not true.......but NOW she's pregnant? Wouldn't those many rumors about Bristol in the past, her religion, and her mother's job serve as an extraordinary deterent not to conceive a child? And if Palin is releasing this info no to refute the rumors about the former faked pregnancy (as reported), why wouldn't she just put out some pictures or other info (birth cirtificate) to put the rumors to rest (e.g. pics of her at hospital after birth with her child)?

Not that it matters if a VP canidate lies..but this is a pretty good point, or @ least something to think about-

 

If that were the "whole basis," but it was not. The basis also includes her very bizarre behavior while supposedly in labor, the fact that eyewitnesses who saw her the supposed day before she gave birth said she did not look pregnant (or they would not have let her fly), and the fact that she pulled her daughter out of school for several months, apparently longer than even a bad case of mono, and her decision not to tell even coworkers she was pregnant until the 7th month. The pictures were only supportive; the other evidence is far more convincing. And as I said, if I wanted to convince people I was pregnant and were appearing on statewide television and KNEW there were already rumors circulating that the child was not mine, I'd make damn sure I looked pregnant.

 

Finally, there's also the very odd fact that after being in labor many many hours, rather than give birth to a premature infant with Down's syndrome at a facility equipped to handle it, she drives 45 miles away to a small rinky dink hospital where a woman known to have supported her Wasilla mayoral campaign and received political appointments delivered the baby.

This just in. GOP Vice-Presidential candidate and gun-toting NRA member Sarah Palin can be seen on the Zapruder film firing shots from the grassy knoll on Nov. 22, 1963 -- Dallas, TX.

I think we can put this silly shit to bed...

 

 

http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/8/31/23...516/1017/581734

I think its pretty clear that picture was photoshopped by the vast right wing conspiracy.

There are enough legitimate arguments against Palin's candidacy that I couldn't care less if those highly unlikely rumors are true or not. Even if they are true (which again I highly doubt), it wouldn't disqualify her any more than her utter lack of knowledge about national and foreign policy issues already does.

I agree this story is likely untrue and operates on the lowest common denomonator. If it were true, it would say more about McCain's judgment in rushing the vetting process (and the fact that he only met her once), and Palin's judgment in accepting the nomination with this hanging over her head (arguably, if she did hide this, its an admirable thing she did for her daughter). But I agree that this highly unlikely story will more likely benefit Republicans than hurt -- and I feel horrible for that 17 year-old girl.

This bothers me expeonentially more about Palin: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/...ared-to-cheney/

"Shortly before being named John McCain's running mate, Palin told the conservative magazine Newsmax she does not believe climate change is man-made — a statement that puts her at odds with the preumptive GOP nominee and the 2008 Republican platform."

Frightening and insulting. Even McCain with his horrendous voting record on environmental issues knows that, and has said as much.

I'm in the YHF & AGiB > SBS or A.M. crowd, but any review that extensively references The Band, and contains this line: "[Cline's] guitar lines skedaddle and scamper across bridges and refrains, refraining from nothing" can't be the "worst music review ever." I disagreed here and there, but enjoyed the read.

Discussing Michael Moore is about as appealing to me as waking up with my head sewn to the floor. He's as polarizing as abortion, and not a politician, so an extended convo about him seems pointless and off-topic. I was hoping to get some of your input about the below post. I'm genuinely curious how this will play out....

One would hope. Obviously, the safety of Gulf residents is the first, and only serious concern. But since this is a thread about the ensuing election, it also interests me how this storm will affect that election. At first blush it would appear the timing couldn't be worse for Republicans -- taking media attention away from the convention, and reminding voters of a major Republican failure of the last 4 years in Katrina.

 

But now, Bush may not speak at the convention as planned -- in order to take some bullshit photos to pretend he really does care (this time) about minority hurricane victims who didn't vote form him. Dem's biggest attack is 'a vote for McCain is a vote for 4 more years of Bush policies -- McCain voted with Bush 90% of the time.....'. I was most interested to see how Bush's presence at the Rep. convention would play out -- the only reason McCain sold his soul and disingenuously embraced Bush was to get the far-right conservative vote who don't trust him AND for fundraising. If I were Obama's campaign manager, I would be cringing at the thought of the least popular president since the inception of modern polling, absent at my opponent's convention.

 

Ironically, this hurricane could politically benefit Republicans. Perfect excuse to pretend W doesn't exist.

There are now rumors on the internets that Sarah Palin faked her pregnancy because she didn't want people to know her young daughter was actually the one who was pregnant.

 

It would be nice if people focused on the issues, instead of trying to make stuff up.

Absolutely. Let's focus on the issues. I was so inspired, I clicked right on the link you provided about Sarah Palin faking her pregnancy.

They are evacuating New Orleans. The Government (at all levels) better get their shit together this time.

One would hope. Obviously, the safety of Gulf residents is the first, and only serious concern. But since this is a thread about the ensuing election, it also interests me how this storm will affect that election. At first blush it would appear the timing couldn't be worse for Republicans -- taking media attention away from the convention, and reminding voters of a major Republican failure of the last 4 years in Katrina.

But now, Bush may not speak at the convention as planned -- in order to take some bullshit photos to pretend he really does care (this time) about minority hurricane victims who didn't vote form him. Dem's biggest attack is 'a vote for McCain is a vote for 4 more years of Bush policies -- McCain voted with Bush 90% of the time.....'. I was most interested to see how Bush's presence at the Rep. convention would play out -- the only reason McCain sold his soul and disingenuously embraced Bush was to get the far-right conservative vote who don't trust him AND for fundraising. If I were Obama's campaign manager, I would be cringing at the thought of the least popular president since the inception of modern polling, absent at my opponent's convention.

Ironically, this hurricane could politically benefit Republicans. Perfect excuse to pretend W doesn't exist.