jerseyhoya wrote:Was Obama right to opt out of public financing?

Interesting take. I, for one, am pleasantly surprised at how financially competitive McCain has been able to remain with Obama. Combined with the relatively unchanged nature of the map, this is one big reason why I'm more optimistic about McCain's chances than I was a couple of months ago.

Thanks for reminding me to send some dough to Obama.

Joe Ferriero, Bergen County Dem boss, who was instrumental in the Democrats near complete takeover of Bergen (the largest county in the state) over the last decade and the formation of one of the most formidible political machines in the state, was indicted today on fraud and conspiracy charges.

TenuredVulture wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Was Obama right to opt out of public financing?

Interesting take. I, for one, am pleasantly surprised at how financially competitive McCain has been able to remain with Obama. Combined with the relatively unchanged nature of the map, this is one big reason why I'm more optimistic about McCain's chances than I was a couple of months ago.

Thanks for reminding me to send some dough to Obama.

Throwing good money after bad.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVLQhRiEXZs[/youtube]

Throwin' bombs, son.

jerseyhoya wrote:[youtube]McCain approves video disinfo about Obama & education[/youtube]

Throwin' bombs, son.

Bombs indeed.

Please assure us you would never take pride in authorship of such stuff, from whichever 'side' it crawls out from under.

Unreason credits none of us, including your preferred candidate.

I looked at this:

Obama's Plan for Lifetime Success Through Education

& found no sex in it, for anyone, of any age.

wtf

It even sounds like the Obama Campaign

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfWSk_PxYMc&feature=related[/youtube]

NO SEX ON THE JUNGLE GYM

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:[youtube]McCain approves video disinfo about Obama & education[/youtube]

Throwin' bombs, son.

Bombs indeed.

Please assure us you would never take pride in authorship of such stuff, from whichever 'side' it crawls out from under.

Unreason credits none of us, including your preferred candidate.

I looked at this:

Obama's Plan for Lifetime Success Through Education

& found no sex in it, for anyone, of any age.

I'd be perfectly happy taking pride in making that ad. What's wrong with it?

uh, perhaps that 'sex education' was about teaching them about inproper touching?

sick ad, shame

jerseyhoya wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:[youtube]McCain approves video disinfo about Obama & education[/youtube]

Throwin' bombs, son.

Bombs indeed.

Please assure us you would never take pride in authorship of such stuff, from whichever 'side' it crawls out from under.

Unreason credits none of us, including your preferred candidate.

I looked at this:

Obama's Plan for Lifetime Success Through Education

& found no sex in it, for anyone, of any age.

I'd be perfectly happy taking pride in making that ad. What's wrong with it?

Well, it's dishonest and inflammatory.

According to the McCain campaign's own email, the sex ed claim is based on Obama's support for a bill, in the Illinois state legislature, that said:

"Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades K through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV."

As you can see, the McCain ad says that Obama was the one who pushed the "comprehensive sex education" measure. The Obama campaign has pointed out that the bill would simply add instruction on disease prevention to already existing Illinois sex-ed standards. But the McCain campaign cheerfully turned this into Obama's support for "learning about sex before learning to read."

Ok, I'm back to hating politics.

If we teach dumbasses about sex, then we'll have to import all our low wage workers from Mexico.

jerseyhoya wrote:
I'd be perfectly happy taking pride in making that ad. What's wrong with it?

I'm guessing you mean other than having nothing to do with anything Obama actually intends to do vis a vis education.

And please drop the "I'm in earnest about this" guise. It's painfully transparent. I won't be baited by pikers.

Ambinder on the ad:

Basically, the ad links Barack Obama with sex-ed for kindergartners. It implies that Obama favors teaching these kids dirrrty, explicity, sexual things. The bill in question -- never passed, by the way -- was intended to sanction the teaching of basic boundary lessons to young children, as in: if someone touches you or makes you uncomfortable, tell an adult. Those who oppose this believe that parents ought to be the ones imparting those lessons, so it's not entirely a non-issue.

But the gap between the implication (Obama has liberal, radical views about sexuality) and the reality in this ad is pretty big and fairly consequential.

The question now is whether cable news outlets will help the McCain campaign by running the ad -- or, if the ad crosses the line of taste, help Obama by running the ad.

Emphasis mine.

I will grant two things...

1) It stretches the truth, or rather, it implies something that to be true that isn't all that true. There is an ABC News bit from last year.

Honestly, could he have used any more negatives in this explanation? What does this mean: "does not support teaching explicit sex education to children in kindergarten. . . The legislation in question was a state Senate measure last year that aimed to update Illinois' sex education standards with 'medically accurate' information . . . 'Nobody's suggesting that kindergartners are going to be getting information about sex in the way that we think about it,' Obama said. 'If they ask a teacher 'where do babies come from,' that providing information that the fact is that it's not a stork is probably not an unhealthy thing. Although again, that's going to be determined on a case by case basis by local communities and local school boards.'" Are we telling them babies come from sexual intercourse? Sorta how I'm reading that. Is that a bit more than warning about touching? Uh-huh.

2) It is, perhaps, distracting from the issues that truly matter in the campaign and to the country, like the implications of Palin once asking a librarian if she could remove books from the library.

jerseyhoya wrote:I will grant two things...

1) It stretches the truth, or rather, it implies something that to be true that isn't all that true. There is an ABC News bit from last year.

Honestly, could he have used any more negatives in this explanation? What does this mean: "does not support teaching explicit sex education to children in kindergarten. . . The legislation in question was a state Senate measure last year that aimed to update Illinois' sex education standards with 'medically accurate' information . . . 'Nobody's suggesting that kindergartners are going to be getting information about sex in the way that we think about it,' Obama said. 'If they ask a teacher 'where do babies come from,' that providing information that the fact is that it's not a stork is probably not an unhealthy thing. Although again, that's going to be determined on a case by case basis by local communities and local school boards.'" Are we telling them babies come from sexual intercourse? Sorta how I'm reading that. Is that a bit more than warning about touching? Uh-huh.

2) It is, perhaps, distracting from the issues that truly matter in the campaign and to the country, like the implications of Palin once asking a librarian if she could remove books from the library.

I started to respond to this, but my browser crashed after I shut off mlb.tv in disgust.

So I'll just say that, one, "local communities and local school boards" setting standards used to be the sort of thing that Republicans honored; and two, I think you'd be better off with this one just admitting that it's Rovian slime--not that I'd expect anything else from McCain at this point--and that you hope it works anyway.

If it helps, I think the way they're characterizing this ad on Daily Kos ("pro-pedophile") is as viciously stupid as the ad itself.

The ad is, more or less, full of crap. I still like it.

dajafi wrote:Ambinder on the ad:

Basically, the ad links Barack Obama with sex-ed for kindergartners. It implies that Obama favors teaching these kids dirrrty, explicity, sexual things. The bill in question -- never passed, by the way -- was intended to sanction the teaching of basic boundary lessons to young children, as in: if someone touches you or makes you uncomfortable, tell an adult. Those who oppose this believe that parents ought to be the ones imparting those lessons, so it's not entirely a non-issue.

Emphasis mine.

Well, now we know why the partyof Mark Foley is against this bill.

dajafi, you should have seen the thing I had written while Kendrick was still in responding to your post. Holy crap, it probably would have made your brain explode, how snide and self justifying it was. Posting in the politics thread while angry is bad. I made the right choice to close that window and go get a refill.