Brace yourself for next week

[Unknown User]

Posted: 8/28/08 at 10:52am

This Democratic National convention has been very exciting and powerful. We've had one great speech after another and heard some very exciting plans for the future. I think we have absolutely first rate candidates and a wonderful platform.

But I want to warn you- I've seen some posters say things like 'What in the world will the Republicans find to talk about next week?" Brace yourself: They will have plenty of horrible things to say.

Four years ago, the Democrats held a similar convention; upbeat, positive and filled with exciting plans. The Republicans met and with absolutely not a single accomplishment to point to as a reason to re-elect the worst president to hold office in my lifetime, they instead fell on the democratic nominee with everything they had. Suddenly, he was a spoiled millionaire who had done the minimum to fulfill his commitment to his country and lied about his past- and they did it without a trace of shame- or recognition that those charges actually fit their own candidate, not Kerry.

And with the active and open support of the conservative media in this country, they smeared Kerry relentlessly and won reelection for their own failed president.

So be prepared- they will have four nights of attacks and will say anything to hang on to power.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 8/28/08 at 10:58am

At least we're all united against them now, right, Joe? Together, united, we cannot be defeated.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 8/28/08 at 11:06am

Absolutely. But they will not stop trying to drive a wedge. Look at the conservative media today, still flipping over rocks to find angry PUMAs to interview. Look at Fox's coverage of the Clintons' speeches, parsing each word to find anti-Obama undertones. I guarantee the Republicans will have a speaker who claims to be a Hillary supporter who has flipped to McCain.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 8/28/08 at 11:08am

Agreed. The October surprise is a quaint concept. Look for a September 1st socko to the left jaw of the Democratic candidate(s). I suspect everything and anything will be pulled out of the bag -- the kitchen sink strategy.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 8/28/08 at 11:12am

And- no offense to Papa and other Republican friends- it doesn't need to be remotely true.

[joe5]

Posted: 8/28/08 at 11:19am

I agree with Auggie, I'm ready for them to pull Osama Bin Laden. Out of GB'S ass around October, right before the election.

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 8/28/08 at 11:20am

Oh, of course not!

But do I kind of get the feeling that possibly--possibly--the majority of America is taking their media propaganda blowhards with a bigger grain of salt than they were 4-8 years ago?

[Unknown User]

Posted: 8/28/08 at 11:21am

Your mouth to god's ears, Borstal.

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 8/28/08 at 11:22am

I'm talking to more and more people who are eschewing the major news networks for CSPAN.

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 8/28/08 at 11:44am

Mind you, some 12 percent of Americans cling to the belief that Obama is Muslim (not that that should preclude him from being president, but . . . ). Just as an example.

I hate being cynical, but it's difficult not be discouraged by the public's willingness to believe stupid things.

[xxnewgirlxx]

Posted: 8/28/08 at 11:49am

And, to further your point, Reg, these same people make the assumption that all Muslims are terrorists. The fact that people (like the PUMAs) imply that being "registered as a Muslim" is the same as "registered as a terrorist" is what infuriates me the most.

Oh and I know that PUMA refers to the zealot Clinton supporters, but what does the acronym stand for?

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 8/28/08 at 11:50am

Party Unity My Ass. Cute.

Why are these women--and they are mostly women, right?--getting so much attention. They're like the Fred Phelps Church of the election.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 8/28/08 at 11:56am

Honestly, I think they're as marginal as Fred Phelps and are given disproportionate attention by the conflict-addicted media.

I'm not going to trouble my beautiful mind, as Barbara Bush once put it, with thoughts of any Pumas other than this one:



and these:

[Auggie27]

Posted: 8/28/08 at 12:15pm

And now there's a bizarre idea out there that Kay B. Hutchinson may be in the VP mix, to woo the Clinton supporters. (Bizarre all right -- she and McCain loathe one another, or well, he loathes her, to be sure). Without opening a can of worms, or can of PUMAs, it's deeply insulting to core feminist ideals to assume any woman on any ticket will appeal to a faction who revere a very specific woman. When's the last time you saw a rally behind Elizabeth Dole? Or heard Susan Faludi sing the praises of Margaret Thatcher?

[JohnBoy2]

Posted: 8/28/08 at 12:34pm

They really need to go back to the way it used to be, when the next biggest vote-getter was automatically the V.P. candidate. It's the will of the people, not just somebody else's choice.
Updated On: 8/28/08 at 12:34 PM

[cubanpab]

Posted: 8/28/08 at 12:44pm

what about latin hearthrob "El Puma"?

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 8/28/08 at 12:50pm

Yeah, I got this feeling McCain might pick Hutchinson last week. I thought it was a crazy idea and now it's the talk. Who knows?

Next week will be more vile and disgusting than 04. One can hope that it will unify us even more, but it's clear the GOP are desperate to keep the Clinton/Obama divide going as long as they can, so I agree that there will be at least one PUMA speaker. There will be so much mud, you'll think it's a tractor pull. (Granted, from just seeing the delegates, you'd think it was a tractor pull as well).

[mejusthavingfun]

Posted: 8/28/08 at 12:54pm

McCain's new talking point is "I put the country first." I think it's good but his record doesn't reflect it. It's certainly going to start getting pretty rocky, but McCain doesn't have the money or support to evenly compete with Obama.

Obama fought hard against a very strong Clinton campaign and came out on top. Of course the Republicans are going to go nasty, but we've seen this in the primary. I just don't think it plays when eggs are $2.89 a dozen, gas is $4.00 a gallon and the cost of everything is hitting people that haven't seen increase in their incomes.

I think if McCain wants to beat Obama, he should not go negative and pick Huckabee. Oh yea and run far and wide from Bush. Instead it seems he's going to pick another nut-job and attack Obama's "questionable" background and sing the praises of the worst US president in history.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 8/28/08 at 12:59pm

"They really need to go back to the way it used to be, when the next biggest vote-getter in the primary was automatically the V.P. candidate. It's the will of the people, not just somebody else's choice."

What? What are you talking about? That has NEVER been the method for selecting a VP nominee.

[mejusthavingfun]

Posted: 8/28/08 at 1:06pm

I do think that's how it should be (in our party) and it's not just because I prefer Clinton to Biden. (Though his son is HOT)

It just doesn't seem very democratic to let anyONE choose this person. Especially when it can break the party. Choices like Lieberman and Edwards were disastrous and rather self-indulgent. Our nominee should not be a king maker and that’s what we let pass.

It’s just not right. One person one vote.

[JohnBoy2]

Posted: 8/28/08 at 1:10pm

I gues Joe wasn't paying attention during his American History classes!

That's how the Constitution spelled out the process, and it is how the Vice President was chosen, until it was changed due to the party system that developed. We actually had a President and Vice President from both parties, because of the vote count. But, today, it could be applied to each party. It's the way it should be. The will of the people.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 8/28/08 at 1:11pm

MeJust that's a totally different matter- and not necessarily a stand I agree with, either, but to say that this is how it was done at any point in history is flat out wrong and reflects a shocking lack of knowledge in the process.
Updated On: 8/28/08 at 01:11 PM

[Calvin]

Posted: 8/28/08 at 1:12pm

It will not be Hutchison.

1) She's already scheduled to speak at the convention on energy policy, and I doubt they'd have her speak and then have to turn around and give an acceptance speech.
2) She wants to be governor of Texas.
3) She's more closely tied to Bush than even Condoleeza Rice would have been.
4) She's an idiot incapable of independent thought. (well, lol, I guess that wouldn't disqualify her from that spot)

Pawlenty. Bank on it. Updated On: 8/28/08 at 01:12 PM

[Unknown User]

Posted: 8/28/08 at 1:15pm

Oh no, I'll put my History grades up against yours ANY time. The VP was indeed chosen that way before 1804- in the ELECTORAL COLLEGE. The nominee has always been chosen by the party, and since Roosevelt, by the Presidential nominee himself.

So if this election was held by those rules- Each party would put up their nominee for President (Obama and McCain) and then when the electoral college voted, Obama would be elected President and McCain VP. It made for some very strange bedfellows every single time and that is why they changed the process to have the EC vote for a President/VP Package.

The nomination of VP has NEVER been a "second highest vote getter" process.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 8/28/08 at 1:19pm

Here, you can bone up before the quiz. I don't usually cite Wikipedia, but in this one case they seem to be fairly accurate how the process works. I guess no one wants to vandalize the VP page.
Wikipedia