Want to help support Obscanity.com? Use my Shopping Portal to make your holiday purchases! It won't cost you an extra cent, but it'll help support this site. Doing all your shopping at Amazon.com? Go there now!
This was first apparent when Palin extolled a “small town” vice president as a hero in her convention speech — and cited not one of the many Republican vice presidents who fit that bill but, bizarrely, Harry Truman, a Democrat who succeeded a president who died in office. A few weeks later came Charlie Gibson’s question about whether she thought she was “experienced enough” and “ready” when McCain invited her to join his ticket. Palin replied that she didn’t “hesitate” and didn’t “even blink” — a response that seemed jarring for its lack of any human modesty, even false modesty.
. . .
But the debate’s most telling passage arrived when Biden welled up in recounting his days as a single father after his first wife and one of his children were killed in a car crash. Palin’s perky response — she immediately started selling McCain as a “consummate maverick” again — was as emotionally disconnected as Michael Dukakis’s notoriously cerebral answer to the hypothetical 1988 debate question about his wife being “raped and murdered.” If, as some feel, Obama is cool, Palin is ice cold. She didn’t even acknowledge Biden’s devastating personal history.
Is this really what you want as your next Vice President? Doesn’t the White House deserve more respect and seriousness? Honestly. This was around the same time (1984) that Barack Obama was working for the New York Public Interest Research Group and then doing some of his “community organizing” in Chicago – in clothes, not in swimming trunks.
The gist of this interview with McCain: “Hey LGBT Americans! Vote against your interests: McCain Palin ’08! p.s. we still hate you, but we’ll never admit it – at least not before the election! State’s rights, state’s rights, state’s rights.”
My favorite:
McCain: As a Republican, I am a strong advocate for federalism. States should be able to decide as many issues as possible. That’s certainly the case on the definition of marriage. My home state of Arizona shouldn’t be compelled to recognize a marriage from California or Massachusetts. Those states can decide that issue by themselves.
Hey McTwoface: Are you also in favor of the CONSTITUTION? For example, the part where states have to give FULL FAITH AND CREDIT to the “public acts, records, and judicial rulings” of another state? THAT INCLUDES MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE.
I laughed SO HARD when I watched the SNL sketch, largely because once Tina-Sarah started talking, I recognized that a HUGE portion of what she was saying was a nearly-verbatim recreation of Palin’s actual interview answers, especially once they got into the substance of it.
So what do we know about the readiness of the two men most likely to end up taking that call? Well, Barack Obama seems well informed and sensible about matters economic and financial. John McCain, on the other hand, scares me. (Read more)
Despite my railing on Palin, I’m still not ruling out the possibility that this is all just a finely-crafted facade intended to drastically lower expectations for Sarah Palin’s performance at Thursday’s debate:
Despite some ominous signs, some analysts say the the negative comments may actually help her.
“The expectations for Sarah Palin, I think, are pretty low. So I think she can exceed expectations. I’m not sure she can disappoint them,” Alex Burns, a reporter for Politico, said.
Don’t get me wrong – I’m not saying Palin is a closet Mensa member or anything. But I wouldn’t underestimate her ability to make herself look even dumber so that when she finally starts talking, people say, “Oh, gee, that was coherent. Maybe she can be VP.” In fact I’m pretty sure McCain and Co. are banking on it.
Did John McCain call Barack Obama’s argument horseshit on national television? My friend sent me this video and although I didn’t notice it during the actual debate, now that I listen again, it sure sounds like it!
What on earth is this?!!? Papa Bear McCain babysits Little Pitbull Palin so she doesn’t say anything stupid? Wow. She can’t even be left on her own anymore – he has to be there to hold her hand! Figuratively, of course. I doubt Cindy McCain would approve of anything more.
Seriously, though. It’s like they’re not even bothering to pretend she scares the hell out of them every time she opens her mouth. It’s just so bloody obvious.
And by the way… WHY ARE THEY STILL TALKING ABOUT REAGAN? Does John McCain REALLY want to draw comparisons to Reagan right now, with everybody so concerned about his age? Is that really the connection he wants to draw? Even putting age aside, Reagan is part of the reason we’re in this mess in the first place – if the wealthy were taxed at legitimately progressive rates instead of getting spoiled by the principles of Reaganomics, our middle class might not be an endangered species right now.
Abstinence-only education is great in theory, but it is not practical. For every emergency drill I went through to protect myself from an intruder or bomb threat, I think of the condom wrapped in foil and how unprotected I could have been. (Read more)
I felt compelled to re-link to this blog entry after the recent comment on my entry about Google’s taking an official stance against Proposition 8, the constitutional amendment which would literally dissolve thousands of legal marriages across the state of California (and they say LGBT Californians are trying to destroy marriage?).
In my article, Five Myths About Same-Sex Marriage, I discuss some of the common arguments folks will make against same-gender marriage in California. One of the key arguments put forth by most Prop 8 supporters is the “overwhelming” passage of Prop 22 in March of 2000. Do not believe them. Prop 22 did pass, and at first glance it passed with a hefty majority – but once you look at the numbers more closely, you’ll see that it definitely didn’t pass with the level of support claimed by proponents of Proposition 8.
This shouldn’t surprise you, though – these are the same people who brought you Proposition 22 in the first place, and if they were willing to lie about the motives and goals of Prop 22 in order to confuse voters into supporting it (it was supposed to be about marriages from other states), then they’re certainly not going to balk at lying about its outcome and its passage rates.
If people start throwing Prop 22 in your face, I encourage you to either direct them to the article or show them the numbers so they see the truth about Prop 22. Odds are they will refuse to see the truth, but if even one mind is changed, then that is better than nothing.
As for the “bride and groom” issue raised by the commenter in the Google entry, here is the response I sent:
It’s not “illegal” for you to marry as bride and groom. You are still a bride and groom regardless of what title the form gives you. If you are a woman, you are a bride. If you are a man, you are a groom. That doesn’t change. It wouldn’t make sense for a same-gender couple to have to decide which is the bride and which is the groom – contrary to popular jokes and beliefs, there isn’t that kind of gender dichotomy in a same-gender relationship.
It’s the same as with parents; a child’s parents are still mother and father (or mother and mother, or father and father), even if the birth certificate says parent 1 and parent 2. Listing them as the first and second parent of the child doesn’t change the fact that they are a mother or a father. It’s not like the child is going to run around saying, “Hey Parent 1, Parent 2 said to ask you if I can go outside and play with my friends!” It’s not like Hallmark is going to start putting out “Parent 1’s Day” cards. A man is a father, and a woman is a mother. Reality is reality, and a form is just a form, for bureaucratic purposes and nothing else.
If you have a church wedding, I am quite certain your clergyman will be more than happy to refer to you as bride and groom. As for me, my rabbi referred to us as kallah v’kallah (bride and bride), and that’s exactly how we wanted it. We didn’t need to strong-arm the government into giving us a special form that says “bride and bride.” We wouldn’t want it. The state license simply does not discriminate, and that is the whole point. There is no reason for a state form to impose or mandate specific gender permutations, because the gendered titles are pretty self-explanatory by themselves. If you need a form to tell you whether you are a bride or a groom, or a mother or a father, then you have bigger problems than I am trained to address.
I was watching that last video and after seeing the montage of “Charlie” this and “Charlie” that, I thought it would be hilarious if somebody made some sort of parody using the Charlie the Unicorn cartoon. Well, apparently somebody beat me to it – take a look!
“I can see right into the headquarters of Chase Bank from my office, so on the Sarah Palin scale, that makes me Alan Greenspan…”
“Gibson asked, ‘Have you ever given any kind of command decision to the Alaskan National Guard?’ Palin answered, ‘We have called up National Guardsmen to help in other states who have gone in emergency status. We have assisted there.’ False. Governor Palin has never issued an order to the Alaskan National Guard. Know what else she has not done to our knowledge? Properly pronounced the word ‘nuclear.'”
OH DEAR GOD. She’s a “nukular” girl! Bloody hell. I hadn’t realized until watching this video. This is pure treasure, I swear. You need to watch it.
YouTube – Jack Cafferty slams Sarah Palin!. Visit Cafferty’s blog entry for a transcript. Spend a couple of minutes reading people’s comments on this entry – thankfully most of them are intelligent comments, but there are a few that are just completely off the wall.
But bear in mind… she may just be working hard to lower expectations before the debate, so that if she just gets through without fucking up, people will say she won.
Toward the very end of tonight's debate—which was quite a good one, I believe—John McCain laid out his rationale in this election in just a few words: Senator Obama, he said, lacks the "knowledge and experience to be President." The presidency will turn on whether the American people agree with McCain on that—but on this night, Obama emerged as a candidate who was at least as knowledgeable, judicious and unflappable as McCain on foreign policy … and more knowledgeable, and better suited to deal with the economic crisis and domestic problems the country faces.
On a completely catty note, is it just me, or was there something reptilian about McCain’s appearance tonight? During the debate his face was stretched so tightly I thought he might actually have clothespins behind his ears to pinch back the wrinkles. Or maybe he just had a LOT of makeup on. Possibly more than a drag-queen, if you discount for color choices. Of course, maybe he just sucked it up and got a facelift. Who knows. All I know is, the guy is an expert at not showing his true face. Why should he be any more honest in literal terms?
Ultimately, I think declaration of victory will pretty much fall on straight party lines. I have to say, though, that my favorite “Laugh Out Loud” moment of the night came just after Joe Biden weighed in on the debates.
Apparently, Palin had been asked for her input, but she declined to show her face, since she’s doing some last-minute cramming for her Vice Prez final, since she didn’t study or attend class all semester. Or like, for the past 40-some-odd years of her life. (She’s pretty much trying to lower expectations so that if she even speaks in the English language, her supporters will quickly praise her fluency and declare her the debate winner.)
The McCainaanites did offer up a substitute – former NYC mayor Rudy Guiliani.
Seriously? No, like, seriously? Wow. They’re all about being Captain Obvious tonight.
I also thought it was hilarious when Giuliani tried to point to Obama’s “you’re right, John” politeness and claim that he was sort of thanking McCain for giving him little foreign policy lessons. Um, no.
In other news, C’s debate drinking game was completely shot by the clear instruction John McCain MUST have received from his campaign advisors to absolutely, under no circumstances, refer to his time as a prisoner during the Vietnam war – unless, of course, he’s about to have the last word in the debate, in which case, he must seize this perfect opportunity to utter the forbidden words and use the reference to absolve himself of anything he might have said or not said during the debate and hereby declare himself Winner by POW.
On the other hand, McCain definitely delivered the creepy grins and chuckles.
Wow. John McCain’s campaign has been putting out some pretty desperate ads, but this one just takes the cake.
This ad pretty much crystallizes one of the key differences between Republican and Democratic thinking, at least in the present climate of divisive politics. Democrats – or at least, the kind of Democrats who support Obama – recognize that for any given issue, there is a black, and there is a white, but there are also countless shades of gray, and typically the truth falls somewhere in that ambiguous area. Not always, of course, but when it comes to certain issues, you cannot simply boil it down to a Right and a Wrong. After all, as they say in “Wicked,” “There are precious few at ease with moral ambiguities, and so we act as though they don’t exist!”
On the other hand, for many Republicans, especially the knee-jerk Republicans we seem to see as mainstream candidates these days, there is only a Right and a Wrong, and a Yes and a No, and if you even pause to THINK about the complexity of the issue, or about the space between Yes and No, then you are part of the No. They don’t understand that you can be right AND wrong. They don’t understand that two people can agree about a problem and disagree about a solution.
For a Democrat like Obama, it would seem natural, in a debate, to acknowledge when the opponent is right about certain things, and follow up with an explanation of why their interpretation of those things is still not the best, why some of the details are wrong, why something has been mischaracterized, or why they disagree with the solution to fixing those things, if they’re broken. For Obama to say, “John is right, but…” or “John is right, and we agree on that issue…” seems perfectly natural to us.
For the kind of Republicans who patched this ad together, this is a sign of weakness. The willingness to recognize the skill or knowledge of your opponent makes you a bad leader, in their eyes. Cooperation is weakness. Diplomacy is weakness. Mediation is weakness. Politeness is weakness. To them, you have to be a pit bull in lipstick. You can’t work things out; you have to WIN, at any cost. To them, there is a right, and there is a wrong, and for every Good Guy, there is a Bad Guy. There can’t be two Good Guys who are just different. One of them has to be Bad. And it’s true that sometimes this is the case – but sometimes you’re just talking about two people who want to do good but disagree on the meaning of “good,” or two people who want to fix the same problem but have very different solutions.
This is setting aside the reality that every single one of Obama’s acknowledgments of McCain’s accuracy on a point was followed by a “but,” which was meticulously edited out by the commercial’s creators. Never mind that it mischaracterizes Obama’s opinion of McCain’s beliefs and strategies (and tactics) and completely ignores that he had a strong rebuttal for each point. As far as I’m concerned, that is the obvious problem with the ad, and I don’t think people will fall for it. Not most people, anyway. For me, more problematic is the implication of the ad itself – that to them, the very fact that he was willing to concede a single inch, or say something positive about McCain, even just acknowledge that McCain is at all informed or intelligent or, you know, a human being, makes him a failure and serves as proof of his inability to lead. For them, if Obama acknowledges that McCain is right about one thing, it necessarily follows that 1) McCain is right about all things, and 2) Obama is wrong about all things.
I think that says a lot about what kind of administration McCain would run. It’s pretty much the same administration Bush ran – you’re either with us, or you’re against us. You’re either Christian, or you’re going to hell. You want every zygote to turn into a human, or else you’re a raving baby-murderer. You either support the nuclear family, or you’re a child molester who wants to undermine society and demolish the institution of marriage or marry your pet goat. If you aren’t a conservative, then you’re a radical left winger. You can either put complete and utter faith in the free market, or you can fess up to being a rabid socialist. You’re a blind supporter of US policy, or you’re a terrorist. You’re either a Republican, or you hate your country. If you try to reach over to the other side… you are weak. Oh, and you hate your country.
This most recent ad proves that John McCain will bring more of the same. After all, he’s John McCain, and he approves of this message.
Noting that McCain wanted to postpone Friday’s first debate with Obama, Letterman said running mate Sarah Palin wanted to put off her debate with Democrat Joe Biden until after Election Day. Letterman said Palin’s meeting with world leaders at the United Nations was like “take-your-daughter-to-work day.”
Oh, glee! I love it when people see through transparency.
? 
