Phan In Phlorida wrote:Boy, kinda surprised no one has mentioned the "lipstick on a pig" thing yet.

community organizer = african american
lipstick on a pig = impossible to connect to sexism

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZd_Y_D-RaA[/youtube]

Here you go, Paul. Manufactured outrage at it's finest.

Phan In Phlorida wrote:Boy, kinda surprised no one has mentioned the "lipstick on a pig" thing yet.

i think a bigger deal is biden saying that voting for Palin would be a backward step for women on the whole. i guess he doesn't feel like waiting until the VP debate to make himself look bad.

he also made some confusing, unseemly remarks about the Palin family and their down syndrome child (they do in fact support stem cell research, as far as i can tell) as well as completely flubbing an introduction of a guy in a wheelchair.

i never thought biden was a good pick for obama, but it's fun watching this guy. he should be a character on The Office.

Obama is really getting whiny.

Lipstick on a pig? Seriously? That was directed at Palin? You're kidding right? Right?

My god this campaign makes me nauseous. I think I'm starting to hate both of these guys.

jeff2sf wrote:Lipstick on a pig? Seriously? That was directed at Palin? You're kidding right? Right?

My god this campaign makes me nauseous. I think I'm starting to hate both of these guys.

Yeah I mean, it's not like there's anything really important going on like financial institutions verging on collapse and bailout that we might want to hear the candidates address in some substantive way. Instead we get Lipstickgate and Meghan McCain's honest misstatements (but truly a poor choice of words) about her family's military experiences.

We get what we deserve.

WilliamC wrote:

Rococo4 wrote:

Phan In Phlorida wrote:Boy, kinda surprised no one has mentioned the "lipstick on a pig" thing yet.

i dont know how he meant it, but it wont end up helping him.

I agree but I think Obama is definitely smart enough to realize that there is no good that could come of him comparing Palin to a pig. I don't think it was intentionally directed at her though it might seem like it given her words at the convention.

It was a dumb choice of words though. It's a common phrase and I think he was referring to Republican viewpoints in general.

Yeah, he was talking about McCain dressing up Bush policies and trying to make them seem like "change."

That said, dumb choice of words.

And that said, really stupid that anyone cares about it.

Bakestar wrote:it's not like there's anything really important going on like financial institutions verging on collapse and bailout that we might want to hear the candidates address in some substantive way. Instead we get Lipstickgate and Meghan McCain's honest misstatements (but truly a poor choice of words) about her family's military experiences.

We get what we deserve.

Taking off my partisan hat for a moment, I'm now convinced that if this is the campaign we get from these two guys--who, as jeff quoted the Economist a few months back, really could be said to represent "the best America has to offer"--our country is just well and truly fucked, and we deserve to be.

I'm getting depressed too about this. I think the internet has made campaigning worse.

Let's not forget that we've seen goofy campaign bs every four years for a long time and somehow the country has been able to remain great (not perfect, but still great). The point being that the people of this country, past, present and future, make this country what it is, not Presidential candidates who come and go with the passage of time - some great, some decent - some mediocre.

This is why I never let myself get down or depressed about the goings on in American politics. Buck up!

Mountainphan wrote:Let's not forget that we've seen goofy campaign bs every four years for a long time and somehow the country has been able to remain great (not perfect, but still great). The point being that the people of this country, past, present and future, make this country what it is, not Presidential candidates who come and go with the passage of time - some great, some decent - some mediocre.

This is why I never let myself get down or depressed about the goings on in American politics. Buck up!

People make it great? I don't really know what that means. Of course, in a land of 300million there are many wonderful people, people who work hard, people who care about others, make sacrafice, come up with innovation. But the country is less great than its been. Our economy is weak, our imperialistic and militaristic chenaningans around the globe make us hated more and more, and are false-flag operations generally done to create hegemony, or to keep certain places in poverty and conflict so we can exploit cheap labor and resources. (nothing new there). The country is NOT about the people anymore, it's about corporate power and greed. Power and greed. Power and greed.

There is barely more than vestiges of democracy, the whole thing is so dis-ingenous and manipulated and when necessary -- the laws themselves are just ignored.

After this election, will life go on -- sure... it will go on. People will go to work, cars will still be on the freeway, planes will fly, sporting events will go on -- we haven't reached the brink of all-bets-off -- YET - but it's not like "whatever", we're heading in to uncharted waters -- and I see no foundation to put this nation back on track with a unified voice of the people who keep their eye on the prize. We are fractured at the core as people have deep deep divides on a handful of highly publicized issues and prejudice and dislike is more in play that community and tolerance.

Most people who self-identify as middle-class, think that more-or-less, "everything is ok", until it's their kid who gets stricken with bad vaccine or gets harmed by smoe corporation. There's still no critical mass. If the jobs could be exported, the bloated military tolerated, if corporate welfare can been masked while social welfare is debated in to a sound byte simplification... you can be sure that most people don't even really get what's up.

The people may make it what it is on some level, but the people are not in control of their own destiny. They don't make the laws and policies and don't even get to chime in. And the frustration with all these elections for me, is that both parties are corporate owned. And so, I see no sign of 'real change' without a change to the system itself, or at least a mobilization around 3rd parties. The truth is, I'm in a minority. I probably politically and socially represent like 7-12% of the populace. I believe that number could move to 50%+ if people were really educated properly, and not mis-informed, but it will never happen, not now the way information is disseminated and that people still act emotionally, more than rationally.

Just on a common sense level -- it isn't rational, that people who just go along with a system of governance and social reality, that puts 95% of the wealth, in the hands of 5%-7% of the population. It's as simple as that at the core. People don't have the same experience or access to resources and yet that 95% is not unified in any way. It's laughable to me that people vote against their own interests over n over n over. That's called propoganda and ignorance.

jerseyhoya wrote:
Yeah, he was talking about McCain dressing up Bush policies and trying to make them seem like "change."

That said, dumb choice of words.

And that said, really stupid that anyone cares about it.

I agree with you. And I agree with Obama that McCain's outrage at his comments is phony.

I only hope now the Democrats are smart not to tie themselves in knots trying to deal with this gaffe. It's not a huge issue, probably won't move a single voter out of the Obama column - and most importantly, the Obama campaign needs to get off the defensive and find some ways to get back on the offensive.

I may not like or agree with the Republicans, but I do admire their continuous ability to play the game hard and smart.

PTK, (somewhat) sincere question - do you live in the United States of America or somewhere else?

I read your screeds every now and then and I actually pity you for your uber-cynicism and paranoia-tainted views.

A certain amount of cynicsim isn't a bad thing, mind you, since the US of A is not perfect by any means. That said, can't we agree that this country has been a net positive in the world since its founding? And if so, why the uber-cynicism?

Philly the Kid wrote:People make it great? I don't really know what that means. Of course, in a land of 300million there are many wonderful people, people who work hard, people who care about others, make sacrafice, come up with innovation. But the country is less great than its been. Our economy is weak, our imperialistic and militaristic chenaningans around the globe make us hated more and more, and are false-flag operations generally done to create hegemony, or to keep certain places in poverty and conflict so we can exploit cheap labor and resources. (nothing new there). The country is NOT about the people anymore, it's about corporate power and greed. Power and greed. Power and greed. ........................

People were complaining about similar things in the late 70's. Japan had overtaken us, military was in shambles, 2nd to the Soviets,..... We snapped out of it. Cheer up

Mountainphan wrote:PTK, (somewhat) sincere question - do you live in the United States of America or somewhere else?

I read your screeds every now and then and I actually pity you for your uber-cynicism and paranoia-tainted views.

A certain amount of cynicsim isn't a bad thing, mind you, since the US of A is not perfect by any means. That said, can't we agree that this country has been a net positive in the world since its founding? And if so, why the uber-cynicism?

First of all, just for the record, I'm as red-blooded an American as anyone here. I'm not first generation or foreign. I grew up in the city of Philadelphia went to public school from K through high school. I've lived in Philly, NY, DC, Seattle, LA and now SF for quite some time. I'd say I'm hardly myopic guy living in some gated community. My parents were working class when I was a kid, and then improved their lot to become middle class and now comfortable middle-class. There have been many benefits growing up in this age, and this country.

But now that I'm older and more educated, I don't see things in simplistic terms of nationalism. I see how the world works, and who is in control.

On a gut-level, it just seems to make sense that the entire world was more egalitarian. That the extremes between haves and have-nots are not necessary. That there is more than enough technology, science, wisdom and compassion to teach, educate and feed everyone. For people to be more healthy than not healthy.

Do I think the existence of the USA as a historical feature has been beneficial to the world? That's a bizarre question that has no real simple yes or no answer. Many people have lived and worked and contributed as "Americans" but ask the native peopeles who suffered extreme genocide after centuries of existence if it was good for them? A reasonable cost? Why? Ask the slaves who build much of the economy?

I'm cynical because our system has put the good of the dollar and the corporate and other greedy power-brokers over the good of people. Over common sense. Corporations have the rights of animate people. (see the movie "The Corporation" to get some quick impressions)

I don't like that people stand on platitudes when there is little consistency or even following our own laws. Power corrupts and I see much of the history of this land, not merely as great ideas from the Frankins, Paines and Jeffersons, or innovations from the Wright Bros to the Cotton gin or whatever -- or the hard work to build cities but of robber barons, and powerful forces running the world and manipulating and causing a lot of cruelty. There is reason to be cynical.

I'm grateful for the benefits afforded me by being an American in this era, the opportunities, the safety, the education -- but that doesn't mean I cannot see even in my own lifetime the hypocrisy, and that my world and personal view has evolved to where I know we can do better. We need to make big changes and this non-sense of electing a president has nothing to do with any of that. I am older than many on this list and I can tell you that the entire playing field has moved over. In 1972 Bill Clinton would have been a republican.

I don't really see the world in terms of nation states so much anymore, other than cultural idiosyncrasies, it's a global playing field and mostof us are just pawns, as Dee says in the Wire, ".... these here, these are the pawns, they out da game quick..."

Does Joe Biden really think he knows what's best for women? Set aside that women have different views and that there are valid reasons for women to vote for McCain or Obama, what women, on either side, wants Joe Biden telling women what a step forward is for them. I know the question was phrased in about "a step forward" but he doesn't have to say "a backward step for women." Barack, don't let Biden talk about what's best for women. Get Hillary to do it. You don't need to alienate them more.

Meghan: No one knows what war is like other than my family.

Oops. I hope she meant, "My family understands what war is like as well as anyone and we don't take it lightly."

ptk, surely you see the arrogance in the idea that you know people's interests better than they do and that half of America would agree with you if they were just educated properly. Do you really believe that you know what's best for everyone else better than they do? Really?

Laexile wrote:Does Joe Biden really think he knows what's best for women?

I think all the candidates do. It's why they run for office

Turning back to some of the education talk from earlier in this thread, the NY Times has an article each on the campaigns platforms.

Obama

McCain

McCain's thing is competition, which he's said rather bluntly on several occasions. Terse, yes, but that's part of it. Obama I think benefits from his Chicago background in this case, since the city and Mayor Daley are recognized as having devoted great effort to affecting change within a terribly disfunctional system. He's also hard to read on the issue because he's been highly critical of NCLB, in mostly a nod to the teachers' unions, but he can't be too critical because, well, Ted Kennedy wrote it. So, it looks like he's going to fund the hell out of a diffrent version of it instead.

However, half the Obama article is again about Obama the person and less about the policies. Not sure how much I care that he "won his colleagues' repect" at a board meeting one time, but whatever. I long for a day when the media can finally separate the two, inspiring figure and policy, although i'm not holding my breath.

The Dude wrote:

Laexile wrote:Does Joe Biden really think he knows what's best for women?

I think all the candidates do. It's why they run for office

And they think women are going to find that sexist?