The guy who we’re supposed to give ultimate trust in (based on his judgement no less) brought in a woman who thinks the earth is 5,000 years old, spends $150,000 on two months worth of clothes in the middle of the second worst financial crisis in American history, and then is here on video saying the Vice President is in charge of the Senate.

Forget Palin. She’s a tool. History already knows that.

The issue is McCain. What does it say about his judgement as a leader? Think of the risk he took–not just with his campaign (which is foolish enough) but with the country. He’s in his 70′s and in poor health, and he puts this batshit-stupid barbie doll two events away from the White House without even knowing the woman.

This one issue, by itself, is enough to label McCain a very poor leader, and thus require any rational-minded Republican to vote for Barr or Obama.

Would Obama even be noteworthy if he were white? Would McCain be in the race at all if he were a black 72-year-old who said, “Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran”?

Image from thecoolhunter.net

Probably not, on both accounts.

In Obama’s case I think he’s become something special in the last couple of months, and I think at this point he actually is a once in a generation leader. But the point is that he probably wouldn’t have even made it to the national level were he not black–not this early anyway.

(thanks to thecoolhunter.net for the image)

Oh, but that’s not the best part. He didn’t just say that about him in 2004–he also gave an astounding reason for why he wouldn’t want Cheney as his own vice president.

I don’t know if I would want him as vice president. He and I have the same strengths. But to serve in other capacities? Hell, yeah.

Guess when he said that. 2004? 2005? 2006?

Nope. 2007, in an interview with Stephen Hayes for his biography of Cheney.

Absolutely amazing. One year ago McCain thinks the best reason not to have Cheney as his vice president is that they have the same strengths.

And this asshat is seriously being considered for President?

Jesus.:

Consider sending this list to people you know who either are, or are considering, voting for McCain. Send the link with this simple question:

If these people and organizations listed below, many of which are life-long capitalists, entrepreneurs and/or conservatives, are voting for Obama, don’t you think you might want to at least find out why?

• Warren Buffet, perhaps the most respected entrepreneur in the world
• Colin Powell, Bush’s former Secretary of State
• The Financial Times, a centrist financial newspaper
• Scott McLellan, Bush’s former press secretary
• The Economist, a respected finance magazine
• Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google
• Paul O’Neill, former Secretary of the Treasury under Bush
• Robert Rubin, former Secretary of the Treasury
• Sarah Palin’s Hometown Newspaper
• Over 35 additional, conservative-leaning newspapers
• Ken Adelman, lifelong republican who campaigned for Goldwater and was hired by Rumsfeld under Nixon
• Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National Security Advisor
• Christopher Buckley, son of William F. Buckley (über-conservative)
• John Adams, Ret. Brigadier General, US Army
• Wayne Gilchrest, republican Congressman from Maryland
• Clifford Alexander, Jr., former Secretary of the Army
• Richard Danzig, former Secretary of the Navy
• Hugh robinson, Ret. Major General
• 2/3 of surveyed members of the American Economic Association
• 80% of the top economists, based on a survey by Economist Magazine
• Larry Pressler, former republican Senator from South Dakota
• Merrill McPeak, Ret. four star General, former Secretary of the Air Force
• F. Whitten Peters, former Secretary of the Air Force
• Jim Leach, former republican congressman from Iowa
• A massive list of Nobel Laureates
• Lincold Chafee, former republican US Senator from Rhode Island
• Marc Andreessen, Silicon Valley entrepreneur
• Michael Arrington, founder of TechCrunch
• George Soros, businessman and philanthropist

Here’s my favorite quote on the topic of conservatives voting for Obama. It succinctly captures what seems to be the prevailing sentiment among the legion of conservatives voting for Obama:

How could I support a candidate with a domestic policy platform that’s antithetical to almost everything I believe in?

The answer is simple: Unjustified war and unconstitutional abridgment of individual rights vs. ill-conceived tax and economic policies – this is the difference between venial and mortal sins. — Conservative Activist Larry Hunter

Links

[ Republicans for Obama | republicansforobama.org ]
[ Running List of Obama Endorsements | wikipedia.org ]
[ Science-Sense List of Obama Endorsements | blogspot.com ]
[ Economists for Obama | econ4obama.blogspot.com ]
[ Obama's List of Economic Advisors | econ4obama.blogspot.com ]
[ Top Economists Prefer Obama by 80% | economist.com ]

For donations of $200 or more, 859 military donors gave $335,536 to Obama, while McCain received $280,513 from 558 military donors. Among soldiers serving overseas, 134 donors gave $60,642 to Obama while 26 gave $10,665 to McCain.

So, the way I see it the McCain-anites have two options here, and both of them suck:

1. Claim these donors are just voting for the guy that who will end the war–which basically equates to calling them cowards. Or…
2. Admit that the military isn’t as fiercely pro-McCain as they’d like you to believe, and/or that they see something in Obama that they like.

Either way it’s not good for the GOP.:

That’s it. That’s what McCain has at this point–calling Obama a socialist based on his support for the rich “paying a little more”. McCain’s campaign knows they don’t have anything else, so they’re hoping to ride this all the way to the election.

Well, the video I’m about to show you, if effectively circulated, equates to the end of McCain’s campaign. Quite simply, McCain was asked at a town hall meeting in 2000 if it was fair for the rich to pay more in taxes. Here’s what he said:

When you reach a certain level of comfort, there’s nothing wrong with paying somewhat more.

Zug zug? There’s nothing wrong with paying somewhat more? Did John McCain just make Obama’s argument as he presented it to Joe the Plumber? Yes. Yes he did.

He follows it up by saying it shouldn’t be “totally out of proportion”, but that’s consistent with Obama’s plan as well (Obama’s talking about a very small percentage increase on the rich), so he gets absolutely no points there. The bottom line is that the woman in this video accused the concept of a progressive tax policy of being socialist, and John McCain openly refuted it–on video. He essentially made, while being recorded, the exact argument of the Obama campaign.

Please pass this along so we can expose McCain for the flip-flopping career politician he really is. He clearly doesn’t feel as strongly against Obama’s plan as he’s claiming, otherwise he wouldn’t have espoused the same exact view in 2000. And if enough people see this it will cut the final thread of deception-based hope their campaign has.

Dear Obama campaign, please do an official campaign video on this. “John McCain wants you to believe he’s against the rich paying a little more in taxes. Unfortunately he must not have realized he was being recorded in 2000 when he said this: (video quote). Can you trust someone who takes a hard stance against a policy that he himself was supporting just a short while ago? We’ve had enough of this type of politics in Washington.” I implore you to do something like this.

[ Edit: Re-posted (with edits) for Monday circulation. This message just has to get out. ]

Dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth at the same time. — Sarah Palin

He then asked her about fossil evidence, to which she replied that she’s seen human footprints in those fossils. Nice. Oh, and before you call bullshit keep in mind that this has been widely reported. If she didn’t believe it she would have corrected us by now.

So let me clear here: I think anyone holding these types of views should be laughed out of town. They should be ridiculed at the supermarket. Their kids should be made fun of. They should pay the price, socially, for espousing such idiotic, uneducated beliefs.

Don’t pass laws against them. Don’t prosecute them. And never do anything to them physically. Just ridicule them. Embarrass them. Say to them, as a society, “we embrace science and logic, and we require that you do as well if you want to lead us.”

Quite simply: she’s a joke. A physically attractive, self-centered, sailor-winking joke, with the intellectual capacity of a thimble that’s been run over by a car. It’s time we started treated her as such instead of responding to her appearance.

Ask yourself if Hilary Clinton would have been tolerated if she were that fucking stupid. Hell no. Hilary, as much as I dislike her sometimes, is an intelligent person first–then a woman.

Palin is trying to win on attractiveness alone, because that’s all she has.

Links

[ Fundamentalist Palin | latimes.com ]

You know it’s bad for the Republicans when George Bush’s former Press Secretary goes for Obama. I’m hesitant to be too optimistic, but it’s starting to get pretty close to “gg” at this point.

That’s it. That’s what McCain has at this point. And he’s been trying to ride it all the way to election day.

And it’s also why the following quote, if effectively communicated, equates to the end of McCain’s campaign. Quite simply, McCain was asked at a townhall meeting if it was fair for the rich to pay more in taxes. Here’s was his answer:

When you reach a certain level of comfort, there’s nothing wrong with paying somewhat more.

Outlandish propaganda, right?. Nope. Here’s the video:

He follows it up by saying it shouldn’t be an outrageous difference (it shouldn’t be totally out of proportion), but that’s consistent with Obama’s plan, so he gets absolutely no points there. The bottom line is that the woman accused the concept of a progressive tax policy of being socialist, and John McCain openly refuted it–on video. He essentially made, while being recorded, the exact argument of the Obama campaign.

Oh, and remember when he said he’s never flip-flopped on an issue? Well, this is just about as blatant as it gets. Pass this along so we can expose McCain for the flip-flopping career politician he really is. If enough people see this it will cut the final thread of deception-based hope their campaign has.

Note to the Obama campaign: Do an actual, professional campaign video on this. And encourage the viral spreading of said video. If you get this message out, it’s game over.

Give it to all your McCain-supporting friends, and ask them why they’re voting for the guy who they (and all their friends) will pay more taxes under.

http://taxcut.barackobama.com/

Image from barackobama.com

Why?

My understanding of the electoral colleges is that electors are strongly encouraged to vote for the winner of the popular vote in their state. So are all these electoral college calculations based on projected wins in the popular vote, followed by the expected, non-surprising electoral votes?

That would make sense, but it doesn’t mesh the other breakdowns on their site that show granular percentages, among electors, for each candidate.

How are they getting those numbers within states if the electors have to wait until the popular vote takes place before they can make their decision? I understand that some states have laws that say you must vote along party lines, so perhaps that’s the answer.

I admit ignorance here, and I’m looking to get this sorted out. It just seems like there’s too much existing knowledge about the electoral voting direction when it’s well known that their decisions hinge on the popular vote for their state.

Can anyone shed light on where fivethirtyeight.com is getting this granular projection information on the electoral college, and why they think it’s so important given the fact that the popular vote is what determins how they vote anyway? I assume they know what they’re doing, so what am I missing?

Oh goodness. This is too rich.

Sarah Palin, the self-proclaimed championess of cutting waste, has spent over $150,000 on hair, makeup, and clothes in recent months. Hell, $13,000 was spent just on their personal makeup artist…

…just last month.

Palin’s high-paid traveling make-up artist is Amy Strozzi, who was nominated for an Emmy Award for her work as head of makeup on “So You Think You Can Dance.” Strozzi was paid $13,200 by the McCain-Palin campaign last month alone, according to the campaign’s latest financial disclosure report filed this week. — Washington Post

Keep in mind. The source of this information is the McCain/Palin campaign itself. It’s from their official campaign records.

And Palin’s responsible spending included:

• Two trips to Saks Fifth Avenue for $49,00
• A single trip to Neiman Marcus for $75,000

Let me be clear here. If you still think that McCain and Palin are the plain, honest and fiscally responsible people they’re trying to portray themselves as, after reviewing this information from their own campaign records, then you’re a fucking idiot–and you deserve what you’ll get if they are able to somehow steal the election.

This is no longer funny. It’s now officially a fucking joke. The idea that Palin with her cute little sailor winks could waste this kind of money on her appearance and try to get voted in as a fiscal conservative is absolutely hilarious–in a dead puppy kind of way.

Their supporters, at this point, should officially be ashamed of themselves.:

There’s a graph that Obama supporters are sending around, showing the differences between the Republican and Democrat tax cut proposals. It shows that Obama is not in fact planning to raise taxes – he’s planning to cut them for all but the very, very rich. I couldn’t help but notice though – the graph is still massively weighted towards the interests of the super-rich.

[snip]

So let’s make this a bit more accurate – let’s keep all the brackets, but draw it to scale.

[ Click to see a full-scale version of the image ]

Image from Viveka Weiley

[ Original Link ]

They are legion.

She’s just one of the more talkative ones. I live among thousands of these people every…single…day.

‘