The 2008 US Election thread

[DrinkingHarp]

Did he accept a campaign donation - if someone donates online how is he to know that this person is an illegal immigrant? Just interested if you are asserting that a person approached Obama directly, with a fiver in their hand and told him he/she was an illegal immigrant?

You could do likewise from Fox Mr. Bolger

2 issues-(1) she's on welfare (2) she made a contribution to his campaign-both of which are illegal for an illegal to do. His campaign gave the money back. 

(By every account she's a lovely lady whos seen some really tough times and should be left alone BUT if a republican had similar skeletons in the closet I can only imagine the $hit storm that would have been on the front page of every paper in the country) McCains not getting a fair shake and thats whats pi$$ing me off.

McCain has Fox News and every talk radio host in the country shouting for him. Throw in popular conservative newspapers like the NY Post or the Washington Times as well. Then the negative ads, the robocalls, the emails, the literature inundating the country on Obama too. Are you sure you're just not pissed off that people aren't responding to them?

Per Wikipedia-so I cant vouch for its accuracy

During the 2008 United States presidential election, newspapers, magazines, and other publications made general election endorsements. As of November 3, 2008, Barack Obama had received close to three times as many publication endorsements as John McCain; in terms of circulation, the ratio was close to 4 to 1, according to the detailed tables below. In summary:

Summary of Endorsements (with circulation) as of November 1, 2008  
Obama   McCain
pubs. circ.   pubs. circ.
Daily Newspapers[1] 315 30,630,489   145 10,552,019
Magazines, weekly papers, and other publications 143 8,958,480   26 445,992
Total 458 39,588,969   171 10,998,011
Party Switches 62     9  

According to Editor & Publisher magazine, as of October 31, was 240 newspapers to 114. By comparison, the magazine reported that before election day in 2004, John Kerry received 213 endorsements compared to 205 for George W. Bush.[2]

The 'free" media (eg NPR) is overwhelmingly in favor of Obama-you have to pay to watch Fox. Fox only appeals to those who hold right wing views to begin with, and probably people who have access to many other sources of information. The "free" media is (imho) probably the main source of information for many low income voters and radion stations like NPR are heavily subsidized by taxpayer money.

There is 2 sides to every story....and the truth lies somewhere in the middle!!!!!

This newspaper has NEVER endorsed a Democratic nominee




Tribune endorsement: Barack Obama for president
2:33 PM CDT, October 17, 2008

Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama campaigns in Roanoke, Va. today. (Getty photo by Joe Raedle / October 17, 2008)



1 2 next However this election turns out, it will dramatically advance America's slow progress toward equality and inclusion. It took Abraham Lincoln's extraordinary courage in the Civil War to get us here. It took an epic battle to secure women the right to vote. It took the perseverance of the civil rights movement. Now we have an election in which we will choose the first African-American president . . . or the first female vice president.

In recent weeks it has been easy to lose sight of this history in the making. Americans are focused on the greatest threat to the world economic system in 80 years. They feel a personal vulnerability the likes of which they haven't experienced since Sept. 11, 2001. It's a different kind of vulnerability. Unlike Sept. 11, the economic threat hasn't forged a common bond in this nation. It has fed anger, fear and mistrust.

On Nov. 4 we're going to elect a president to lead us through a perilous time and restore in us a common sense of national purpose.

The strongest candidate to do that is Sen. Barack Obama. The Tribune is proud to endorse him today for president of the United States.





On Dec. 6, 2006, this page encouraged Obama to join the presidential campaign. We wrote that he would celebrate our common values instead of exaggerate our differences. We said he would raise the tone of the campaign. We said his intellectual depth would sharpen the policy debate. In the ensuing 22 months he has done just that.

Many Americans say they're uneasy about Obama. He's pretty new to them.

We can provide some assurance. We have known Obama since he entered politics a dozen years ago. We have watched him, worked with him, argued with him as he rose from an effective state senator to an inspiring U.S. senator to the Democratic Party's nominee for president.

We have tremendous confidence in his intellectual rigor, his moral compass and his ability to make sound, thoughtful, careful decisions. He is ready.

The change that Obama talks about so much is not simply a change in this policy or that one. It is not fundamentally about lobbyists or Washington insiders. Obama envisions a change in the way we deal with one another in politics and government. His opponents may say this is empty, abstract rhetoric. In fact, it is hard to imagine how we are going to deal with the grave domestic and foreign crises we face without an end to the savagery and a return to civility in politics.


-----------------------


This endorsement makes some history for the Chicago Tribune. This is the first time the newspaper has endorsed the Democratic Party's nominee for president.

The Tribune in its earliest days took up the abolition of slavery and linked itself to a powerful force for that cause--the Republican Party. The Tribune's first great leader, Joseph Medill, was a founder of the GOP. The editorial page has been a proponent of conservative principles. It believes that government has to serve people honestly and efficiently.

With that in mind, in 1872 we endorsed Horace Greeley, who ran as an independent against the corrupt administration of Republican President Ulysses S. Grant. (Greeley was later endorsed by the Democrats.) In 1912 we endorsed Theodore Roosevelt, who ran as the Progressive Party candidate against Republican President William Howard Taft.

The Tribune's decisions then were driven by outrage at inept and corrupt business and political leaders.

We see parallels today.

The Republican Party, the party of limited government, has lost its way. The government ran a $237 billion surplus in 2000, the year before Bush took office -- and recorded a $455 billion deficit in 2008. The Republicans lost control of the U.S. House and Senate in 2006 because, as we said at the time, they gave the nation rampant spending and Capitol Hill corruption. They abandoned their principles. They paid the price.

We might have counted on John McCain to correct his party's course. We like McCain. We endorsed him in the Republican primary in Illinois. In part because of his persuasion and resolve, the U.S. stands to win an unconditional victory in Iraq.

It is, though, hard to figure John McCain these days. He argued that President Bush's tax cuts were fiscally irresponsible, but he now supports them. He promises a balanced budget by the end of his first term, but his tax cut plan would add an estimated $4.2 trillion in debt over 10 years. He has responded to the economic crisis with an angry, populist message and a misguided, $300 billion proposal to buy up bad mortgages.

McCain failed in his most important executive decision. Give him credit for choosing a female running mate--but he passed up any number of supremely qualified Republican women who could have served. Having called Obama not ready to lead, McCain chose Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. His campaign has tried to stage-manage Palin's exposure to the public. But it's clear she is not prepared to step in at a moment's notice and serve as president. McCain put his campaign before his country.

[Tyrones own]

Well, let's hope that whichever one of them wins accepts that he is subject to the laws of the country like all the rest of us, unlike Bush, Cheney, Rove etc.

Ah come on now, ye left Ted Kennedy amongst others off that list for some reason

[whitey]

its been nice arguing with you all but I have to go to bed.

Bottom line is the country is ready for change. McCain is actually a pretty decent guy and nowhere near as bad as he's being painted. Obama is actually a pretty decent guy too-a little slick for my liking but he's one smart cookie and I think he will do a decent job as long as he doesnt raise my taxes. Long term senators like McCain rarely get elected because they've got a track record that you can hammer them with. Obama really has no legislative track record, so all you have to hammer him about is the people he hangs around with. No-one really knows what his positions are on a variety of topics.

Its my first general election as a US citizen so should be interesting. I voted in the mid term elections 2 years ago and was right in line behind a guy who's son was killed in Iraq-19 years old. Talk about democracy in action!

Good night

[J70]

Well, let's hope that whichever one of them wins accepts that he is subject to the laws of the country like all the rest of us, unlike Bush, Cheney, Rove etc.

Ah come on now, ye left Ted Kennedy amongst others off that list for some reason

Wasn't thinking back that far, but yes, Ted Kennedy should have went to prison IMO and will forever have his name blackened by Chappaquidick, no matter how many good things he's tried to do since.

[DrinkingHarp]

I am just hoping with the price of gas (even though its lower) I won't have to shovel Stew's driveway 

[J70]

its been nice arguing with you all but I have to go to bed.

Bottom line is the country is ready for change. McCain is actually a pretty decent guy and nowhere near as bad as he's being painted. Obama is actually a pretty decent guy too-a little slick for my liking but he's one smart cookie and I think he will do a decent job as long as he doesnt raise my taxes. Long term senators like McCain rarely get elected because they've got a track record that you can hammer them with. Obama really has no legislative track record, so all you have to hammer him about is the people he hangs around with. No-one really knows what his positions are on a variety of topics.

Its my first general election as a US citizen so should be interesting. I voted in the mid term elections 2 years ago and was right in line behind a guy who's son was killed in Iraq-19 years old. Talk about democracy in action!

Good night

My late father, who hated Bush, was a big fan of McCain. I am not sure if he would have stayed with him after the selection of Palin though. I would have given him a serious look myself if he had gone with a more moderate VP pick like Lieberman, but I suppose it was inevitable that he would have to try to win over the right wing base and thus go with someone like Palin. McCain seems reasonably moderate to me, his rightward shift in this campaign notwithstanding, but I just cannot find enough common ground with Palin and those who would support her. There is too much about the religious right that seriously pisses me off! I do not think she is dumb - in fact she appears to be a fairly formidable politician to me, and I will not be surprised to see her win the GOP nomination next time its up for grabs. She will likely never get my vote however. There are things I find troubling about the Democrats, but they basically piss me off much less than the Republicans. Obama appears to be a very intelligent guy to me, and I agree with a lot of his aims. He is untested in terms of a position of this magnitude, but he appears to have the temperament and discipline to make a success of it, to me anyway. Of course, like any president, whichever man wins will be, to some extent, a victim of circumstances. The opportunity is there to make a big mark though - the greatest presidents have been those who have succeeded in very difficult circumstances.

[Tyrones own]

I'm not quite sure i grasp the strong views here that Fox is sooo right wing and unbalanced, I was listening to Lou Dobbs
the other day talking about a recent report released from the Center for Journalistic excellence regarding the bias in the media
towards the election, MSNBC was disgraceful, I know what a shocker, something like 73% negatively towards McCain and 19%
negative towards Mr. Obama  NBC weren't a whole lot better but shockingly and contrary to popular belief, FOX
news had reported exactly 40% negatively towards both candidates, I was genuinely surprised when i heard it.
Maybe some of ye can help me understand the unbalanced belief

[Tyrones own]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/03/palin.investigation/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

Yet another unfounded attack on her Character put to sleep

[J70]

I'm not quite sure i grasp the strong views here that Fox is sooo right wing and unbalanced, I was listening to Lou Dobbs
the other day talking about a recent report released from the Center for Journalistic excellence regarding the bias in the media
towards the election, MSNBC was disgraceful, I know what a shocker, something like 73% negatively towards McCain and 19%
negative towards Mr. Obama  NBC weren't a whole lot better but shockingly and contrary to popular belief, FOX
news had reported exactly 40% negatively towards both candidates, I was genuinely surprised when i heard it.
Maybe some of ye can help me understand the unbalanced belief

That is surprising to me. Is the negativity graded? Hannity's "expose" of Obama was pretty far out there in terms of negativity! I accept that Mike Wallace and Brit Hume would be more round-table, balanced programmes - I enjoy Hume's "all-star" bit, although it is right-leaning IMO. Hannity and Colmes is a joke of a programme though - do people not get tired of watching Holmes getting hammered night after night in a programme whose agenda is so obviously right-wing and set by Hannity and geared towards him and his point of view? O'Reilly tries to put on an air of objectivity and can be quite good, but there is no mistaking that he is right-wing. I can't stand Greta Van Susteren, especially given her Palin obsession over the past two months. The daytime and morning people are definitely right-leaning though. You always feel like they're sneering at Obama and the Democrats. I would ask though, where are the exposes of McCain to match the Obama one?

I have started watching a bit of MSNBC of late since noting your disgust at them ( ), and actually find their coverage quite good. Olberman and Maddow are liberal, no question, but they don't pretend otherwise. Matthews seems objective enough to me, but is liberal-leaning in probably the same way O'Reilly is conservative-leaning.

I guess a lot of it is in the eye of the beholder.

[J70]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/03/palin.investigation/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

Yet another unfounded attack on her Character put to sleep

So she and her husband didn't pull strings and exert pressure to get her former brother-in-law sacked then?

[Tyrones own]

Nope...sure CNN said so

[magpie seanie]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/03/palin.investigation/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

Yet another unfounded attack on her Character put to sleep

Irony is alive and kicking! Happy election day folks.

McCain is actually a pretty decent guy and nowhere near as bad as he's being painted.

Whitey - I don't think many would say otherwise and in fact I don't think he is painted in a bad light. I would have huge respect for him on his own. His running mate and elements of his party though....

[bennydorano]

America to choose between a black man and a catholic, who'd have thought thought it? I like McCain, Palin is an absolute clown, watching the VP debate was arseclenchingly excruiating.  I have  listened to a few of Obama's speeches, with which you cant help but be impressed, but I reckon there's less to him than meets the eye.  Smooth talking can only take you so far, is there substance behind it?

[orangeman]

Mc Cain would have done better without Palin - she looks well, sounds good but doesn't know very much about politics etc etc.

Obama to win very, very comfortably.

[Billys Boots]

Smooth talking can only take you so far, is there substance behind it?

The sad thing is, the electorate only appear to vote for the former.