[SwitcherX]

Quote:
notty said:

Quote:
gOOber said:
I think the Washingion Post said it pretty well:

Quote:
Mr. Obama's temperament is unlike anything we've seen on the national stage in many years. He is deliberate but not indecisive; eloquent but a master of substance and detail; preternaturally confident but eager to hear opposing points of view. He has inspired millions of voters of diverse ages and races, no small thing in our often divided and cynical country. We think he is the right man for a perilous moment, and he gives us lots and lots of orgasms.

and Notty is speechless.......

[TheZookie007]

Quote:
SwitcherX said:

Quote:
TheZookie007 said:
Short of a rig of 2000 proportions, Obama will win. Maybe not by a landslide but even a 1 point victory is still a victory. The final debate was the final reason why.

I wonder how much of a factor the "Bradley effect" will play.

Iowa pretty much cured me of a fear of a Bradley effect this time around. Like I said, Obama is no John Kerry. Any funny business of that nature and he and his team will be all over it like white on rice.

And of all the amazing stories I have heard from this election, this one really takes the cake:

Quote:
FiveThirtyEight.com: "On the Road: Western Pennsylvania"

So a canvasser goes to a woman's door in Washington, Pennsylvania. Knocks. Woman answers. Knocker asks who she's planning to vote for. She isn't sure, has to ask her husband who she's voting for. Husband is off in another room watching some game. Canvasser hears him yell back, "We're votin' for the n***er!"

Woman turns back to canvasser, and says brightly and matter of factly: "We're voting for the n***er."

In this economy, racism is officially a luxury. How is John McCain going to win if he can't win those voters? John Murtha's "racist" western Pennsylvania district, where this story takes place, is some of the roughest turf in the nation. But Barack Obama is on the ground and making inroads due to unusually strong organizing leadership....

[TheZookie007]

Quote:
LA Times Editorial: "Barack Obama for President"

It is inherent in the American character to aspire to greatness, so it can be disorienting when the nation stumbles or loses confidence in bedrock principles or institutions. That's where the United States is as it prepares to select a new president: We have seen the government take a stake in venerable private financial houses; we have witnessed eight years of executive branch power grabs and erosion of civil liberties; we are still recovering from a murderous attack by terrorists on our own soil and still struggling with how best to prevent a recurrence.

We need a leader who demonstrates thoughtful calm and grace under pressure, one not prone to volatile gesture or capricious pronouncement. We need a leader well-grounded in the intellectual and legal foundations of American freedom. Yet we ask that the same person also possess the spark and passion to inspire the best within us: creativity, generosity and a fierce defense of justice and liberty.

The Times without hesitation endorses Barack Obama for president....

He is no lone rider. He is a consensus-builder, a leader. As a constitutional scholar, he has articulated a respect for the rule of law and the limited power of the executive that make him the best hope of restoring balance and process to the Justice Department. He is a Democrat, leaning further left than right, and that should be reflected in his nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court. This is a good thing; the court operates best when it is ideologically balanced. With its present alignment at seven justices named by Republicans and two by Democrats, it is due for a tug from the left....

We may one day look back on this presidential campaign in wonder. We may marvel that Obama's critics called him an elitist, as if an Ivy League education were a source of embarrassment, and belittled his eloquence, as if a gift with words were suddenly a defect. In fact, Obama is educated and eloquent, sober and exciting, steady and mature. He represents the nation as it is, and as it aspires to be.

Three of the most conservative newspapers in the country -- the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, and the Chicago Tribune -- all endorse Obama (a little late in the game, but, well). Now all we need to do is wait for Colin Powell to speak up

[TheZookie007]

LA Times Video: "Controversial Obama cartoon called racist"

[onionwriter]

It's almost three in the morning. We have eight political threads on a boob site, with fresh posts all the time. We're burning it up with comment.

What a f#cking meltdown. My home newspaper is talking about bank closures.

[DruulEmpire]

Maybe we could use less threads, but we're three weeks from -- no hype -- a genuinely historic election, and during the middle of the biggest financial convulsion since the Depression, while continuing to fight two long drawn-out wars.  What's more, a lot of the posting isn't even throwing gasoline on the fire (which would be awfully expensive anyway), it's people standing up to charges.

One thing I happen to appreciate about this site is that from time to time we get to do a little more than go "Oooh ... boobies ...   "  That may seem counterproductive to some, but think about it -- some girls out there like a little conversation with their flirtation.  It's more impressive this way (well, except to notty).

[AZWolf]

We're more on-topic.  Absolutely.  But not without our dirt.
 

[notty]

Quote:
DruulEmpire said:
It's more impressive this way (well, except to notty).

You are right.  If my date brought up Obama and/or the election, I would walk.

[ChrisR1]

Quote:
MasterDragonfly said:In the USA, it seems as though "the south" (and this is something I've never quite been able to define in terms of border, unlike Quebec) is equally unhappy with the political future.  So what would happen if "the south" were to split off from the rest of the USA?

If the south were to split from the US, South Florida would split from the South...

[TheZookie007]

Quote:
DruulEmpire:
Maybe we could use less threads, but we're three weeks from -- no hype -- a genuinely historic election, and during the middle of the biggest financial convulsion since the Depression, while continuing to fight two long drawn-out wars.  What's more, a lot of the posting isn't even throwing gasoline on the fire (which would be awfully expensive anyway), it's people standing up to charges.

The most surprising thing about this is, not one of those threads is devoted to the Republican candidate for the presidency.

Quote:
One thing I happen to appreciate about this site is that from time to time we get to do a little more than go "Oooh ... boobies ...   "  That may seem counterproductive to some, but think about it -- some girls out there like a little conversation with their flirtation.  It's more impressive this way (well, except to notty).

And not only that, it just goes to show that we all are people who have other interests. Boobs are important, don't get me wrong, but they're not as important as (say) the state of the economy, local and national, the wars we are embroiled in, etc. etc. We are well-rounded here at the BEA Forum, and these threads reflect that.

-- TheZookie "and yeah, that pun about being well-rounded was unintentional" 007

[TheZookie007]

Quote:
NY Times Op-Ed: "Nov. 5, 2008"

It's over.

I’ve studied the polls and the electoral map for months, and I no longer believe that John McCain can win. Unless Barack Obama slips up, Jeremiah Wright shows up or a serious national security emergency flares up, Obama will become the 44th president of the United States.*

The wayward wizards of Wall Street delivered the election to Obama by pushing the economy to the verge of collapse, **77** leery voters to choose between their pocketbooks and their prejudices. McCain delivered it to Obama with his reckless pick of Sarah Palin. That stunt made everything that followed feel like a stunt, tarnishing McCain's reputation and damaging his credibility so that when he went negative it backfired. And, some radical rabble among McCain's supporters delivered it to Obama by mistaking his political rallies for lynch mobs.

This perfect storm of poor judgments has set the stage for an Obama victory. It's over. Fast forward to Nov. 5....

Obama would make history by simply assuming office. But then, the question of governance: could this gifted, 47-year-old, first-term senator with a razor-thin political résumé harness his enormous power to push through an agenda that would meet our daunting challenges and secure our future?

History will be the judge, but on Nov. 5, it's on.

*If I'm wrong, I'll take my crow with a six pack of Liquid-Plumr.

Personally, I don't trust the Rovians behind the McCain campaign any farther than I can spit. Until the month of October is over, there's always the chance they could pull an October surprise.

[TheZookie007]

Quote:
The Huffington Post: "Michele Bachmann Channels McCarthy: Obama "Very Anti-American," Congressional Witch Hunt Needed"

In a television appearance that outraged Democrats are already describing as Joseph McCarthy politics, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann claimed on Friday that Barack Obama and his wife Michelle held anti-American views and couldn't be trusted in the White House. She even called for the major newspapers of the country to investigate other members of Congress to "find out if they are pro-America or anti-America."

Appearing on MSNBC's Hardball, Bachmann went well off the reservation when it comes to leveling political charges against the Democratic nominee.

"If we look at the collection of friends that Barack Obama has had in his life," she said, "it calls into question what Barack Obama's true beliefs and values and thoughts are. His attitudes, values, and beliefs with Jeremiah Wright on his view of the United States...is negative; Bill Ayers, his negative view of the United States. We have seen one friend after another call into question his judgment -- but also, what it is that Barack Obama really believes?"

Goaded by a Chris Matthews to explain exactly what she was talking about (at one point Bachmann seemed to imply that liberalism was anti-Americanism), the congresswoman waded deeper into the mud.

"Remember it was Michele Obama who said she is only recently proud of her country and so these are very anti-American views," she said. "That's not the way that most Americans feel about our country. Most Americans are wild about America and they are very concerned to have a president who doesn't share those values."

Matthews later pressed her to name a single member of Congress other than Obama who she thought was anti-American. Bachmann, who initially wouldn't budge, called for a major "expose" into the matter.

"What I would say is that the news media should do a penetrating expose and take a look. I wish they would. I wish the American media would take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out if they are pro-America or anti-America," she said.

There were additional nuggets here and there. But the whole episode was a sight to behold. It is hard to imagine how this type of message actually helps the McCain campaign. For starters, there has been a relatively respected rule to leave candidate's wives out of campaign attacks. Moreover, there is already a deep resentment towards the severity of the political attacks McCain and his surrogates have launched against Barack Obama. Having a like-minded member of Congress essentially call for a witch hunt within Congress isn't the practical-minded message that the Arizona Republican wants out there....

Wow, what a looney tunes. It's like they allow anyone into the Congress these days...

[DruulEmpire]

Between Dearc sort of wondering "If only some clever intrepid reporter could give us the TRUTH about Ayers" over in the Joe the Plumber thread, and now this Bachmann woman, I'm finally beginning to discern the pattern:

Complaints about the "liberal elite media" are admissions that one wishes dire dirt on someone and vividly imagines secret evildoing to such an extent that the only interesting news anymore is anything suggesting or outright inventing such dirt.  All other news becomes irrelevant, and any failure to prove the suspicion true can only be due to bias, and not at all the occasional inconvenience of actual physical reality.

This has always been around, and many leftists have dug themselves deep down this same hole.  In a country where untold millions still believe Saddam's WMDs are lying around somewhere, however, this takes on a new dimension.

Criticism is fine, the kind PregNut makes is fair game.  But what are we supposed to do with "We just KNOW there must be something, why oh why can't the silly news just GIVE us what we just KNOW?"  This leads us into the same wilderness of mirrors as JFK assassination and UFO cover-up conspiracy theories.  A little more seriously, I also remember the "Satanic day-care centers" furor of the Eighties.

Oh, and the Clintons were murderers and drug smugglers.  Ahh, if only that story was not so suppressed ... *wistful sigh* ...

[onionwriter]

My grandfather went to high school with Joseph McCarthy.

My whole family knew Joseph McCarthy. Saw him all the time.

And yes, she is the same.

[notty]

Quote:
TheZookie007 said:
It's like they allow anyone into the Congress these days...

They?  You mean voters?  Yah, pretty much.