***What about the undecided?!?! (Political topic)***

I've held off making negative comments about Sarah Palin, with the exception of her support for Creationism, mainly because I dislike very much the sexism aimed at her by those who are Obama supporters, and who should know better.  I find sexism offensive no matter where it comes from and particularly when it's dished out by women against women.

But, after listening to her on Israel and Iran in the Couric interview, I am horrified that she might be our next vice president.  Her views are off the wall, even for a private citizen, but for a candidate for the vice presidency they are completely unacceptable and dangerous, very dangerous. Like Bill Clinton, I've always admired John McCain for what he did duirng Vietnam (and like Clinton I also was against that war), but McCain's pick of Palin as his running mate is a huge mistake.  I still plan to vote for Nader in New York as my vote won't keep Obama from getting the New York electoral votes (Dems always win here), but I hope if I influenced anyone in a swing state to vote for Nader, that you'll rethink your position.  If you need any convincing, I'd suggest you watch the Palin interview.  She's sooooo unqualified to be our president.  

Nicki--can you believe it?  I just can't.  How could he have picked her?  I've been asking myself that since the program ended. 

As an atheist I don't believe in the apocalypse but if I were a believer I'd be sure it's arrived!  Everything is topsy turvy.  I'm watching everything concerning this bailout, which I'm totally against unless and until the American public has a complete understanding of what it means to us and our futures, and those who are for it are men like Barney Frank, supposedly the most liberal Democratic member of the house, and Reid in the Senate, men with whom I would normally agree, and those against are Republicans, people I almost always disagree with, some times out of sheer perversity.  But not this time.  I'm grateful to them for putting a stop to this madness.  Why should any of us trust Paulson or Bernanke?  We wouldn't be here if they had been doing their jobs. And Bush!  I bet Laura doesn't even listen to him. .

Frank says McCain stopped it by suggesting that other plans should be reviewed; some one else says Obama stopped it by asking questions.  Shelby, head of Senate Republicans says Republicans stopped it because 200 of the best economists in the country are saying, don't do this, it won't work. Someone else said it's not going through because Bush won't agree with limiting executive compensation.  Apparently, he has no problem to give $1,500,000 a month to the CEO's of failed companies.   It's wild, and on top of that the vast majority of Americans who are writing and calling their representatives are totally against it, unless they learn more.

It's the perfect time for a third party candidate, but I doubt Nader would fit the bill.  I wonder if it's too late for Bloomberg to run!  Neither McCain or Obama are in the least qualified to deal with this issue.  Bill Clinton could, but he can't run again.

Now we hear that Washington Mutual is going down tomorrow, that it may be purchased by Morgan but may not.  And then I had the wild thought, what if the Chinese demanded their money tomorrow.  I just asked my husband if we could convert our savings into cash and hid it under the rug, but he nixed that.  Does anyone out there know anything about buying gold? 

I sure hope they don't have a debate tomorrow.  I want to know what's going to happen before we listen to a bunch of nonsense from either of the candidates. What are the rest of you thinking?  I'd love to hear some other views.

.

Americans need to be very suspicious of a Congress that wants to pass this bailout in a heartbeat.  If you don't agree with me, well that is your opinion.  You cannot fix in one day what took 20 years or more to build.  People this is SERIOUS. 

Beesie- Well said!

Lindia--I'm glad you think I'm open-minded.  I'm not always, but I do try, and with respect to that, I do see that the media treats McCain and Palin with distain, and it does annoy me even though I don't support their political positions. (Bill Clinton made an excellent point recently when he said that trouncing one's opponents instead of their positions has an opposite effect.  It just inflames the other side and it annoys those who are undecided and may even push them to vote for the other guy.)  That's why it took me so long to criticize Palin; I particularly hated the comments on this board about her mothering skills, which I thought highly sexist and totally unrelated to her qualifications to be vice president.  But I am very concerned about her lack of understanding of foreign policy and diplomacy (not her lack of experience as few politicians have that experience until after they are in office), and her comments on Israel and Iran were, for me, horrifying.  I was actually gasping while she was talking and I got really concerned, probably unnecessarily since I don't think anyone pays attention to my Nader thread, that I might have influenced someone to change her vote from Obama to Nader in a swing state. Someone has to win, so I do prefer that it be Obama.  Nonetheless, I like McCain better than Obama, mainly because I respect what he endured in Vietnam and also because he's not a fanatic and he does try to work across the aisle.  His reputed temper doesn't bother me in the least, probably because I like people of passion. (Like Anne when she hit Gilbert over the head with her slate.) Obama seems to have no passion at all, one of the reasons I don't trust him.

About third parties, I don't agree with your analysis of the French system, although I can see how it might apply to Italy, which has 100 left-leaning parties and probably as many to the right, and a few in the center. More than 100 parties does create problems, but as you're half Italian you probably realize why this is so in Italy.  They all want to go their own way and do their own thing which makes it difficult to get and keep coalitions.  Actually Berlusconi, whom I detest, has done a better job than most keeping his coalition together, but then he's a very good politician, sort of an Italian Clinton--with the women as well. 

But having just two parties doesn't work in my view, and I think you were wise to vote for Perot if you thought he was offering what you wanted.  You can't manage an election to come out the way you want; you can only vote for those you believe in. Viable third parties can help to make government work better and they give people like me, very much to the left of center, a choice.  If I didn't have Nader to vote for this year, I wouldn't vote.  I voted for Clinton the first time out holding my nose and disliked myself for doing it, and still do.  I am very much against the death penalty and still find it hard to believe that he left the campaign trail when running in 92 to return to Arkansas to insure the death of a retarded youth.  He was an excellent president in terms of our economy, however, and I don't think you give him the credit he deserves.

A third party, like Nader's, can push the main party, the Democrats, to support third party programs, and it also keeps the main party honest.  Otherwise, it tends to move closer to the other party in the hope of picking up some more votes and then violates what it was all about in the first place.  When you only have two parties they tend to be very much like each other, not giving the voters an actual choice.  I know all you guys on the Republican thread think Obama is some wild-eyed liberal; I can assure you, he's not.  He's the total pragmatist and will do whatever it takes to get elected.  He was a liberal in Chicago because being in the center wouldn't have gotten him elected in his district.  He's moving more and more right in the nationals because he sees that doing so will get him elected.  He's dispensing with people like me, and so I dispense with him. 

Palin vs. Biden--hard to believe that Biden, in the Senate since he was 30, could have made that comment about FDR.  Any school child should know these facts, but it was not a philosophy he was putting forth, just mistakes in fact.  And anyone can do that, particularly if you're not the smartest kid on the block, and Biden was a C student and continues to be a C student, although likeable. 

Palin was putting forth a philosophy when speaking of Israel's right to do whatever it wants with respect to Iran, and whenever it wants, without U.S. intervention. And when she associated this right with the holocaust, which is a European-created horror, and had nothing whatsoever to do with the Middle East, I gasped.  It's not that her facts are wrong (although I'm sure they are from a U.S. foreign policy perspective, even a Republican perspective) that I'm objecting to, but that she might actually think this way.  We're talking countries with nuclear weapons.  Is she completely unaware of the dangers of nuclear war!  It seemed so. 

Beesie--I agree that the debates should be postponed a few weeks until this crisis is resolved, otherwise it's just an exercise in silliness as nothing either of them might say will have any basis in reality. To boot, neither of them understand the economy, and Obama, in particular, has absolutely no experience in this area, so whatever he says will be something he got from an adviser. Whatever plans they may have had will have to change, and drastically, because of this economic downturn so what's the point.  But for most people, it's just a gotcha opportunity and they really aren't listening, just cheering on their candidate and hoping the other messes up, which has nothing to do with truth.  But does any one really care about truth!  If I go by what I hear every day on TV, I don't think so.  

Im not undecided.  Im for Obama all the way.  But to my surprise last night my DH is.  Says he doesnt know who he is gonna vote for and probably wont know until he steps into the voting booth! 

Nicki

I have to say I like both candidates.  I believe they are both good people. More than two-thirds of debate watchers agreed that both McCain and Obama would be able to handle the job of president if elected, I agree.  I can fully understand how people remain undecided.  Gives us reason for debates in my own family as some are for Obama and some are for McCain.

I haven't been to the boards recently.  I needed to go hunting for this topic. 

N by N....Buon giorno,

My vote is in the mail…candidates researched before I cast my vote…paid 39.05 euros to mail it…to be certain.  The people at Posteitaliane were very curious to know how I cast my vote.  “Obama” I said.  “Ah si, si, Brave seniora!”, they said.  I received the best attention possible to ensure my vote makes it safe to the US.
 
Just before, I finished to watch the entire VP debate on the BBC web site (it was covered live here at 3 a.m. our time).  I noticed on their web site it was rated “most viewed”. Without doubt, the world is watching “Lo tsunami Americana” very closely, and yes, it matters.

I’m retired and a three-year, breast cancer survivor.  My pension is in a money market in the US.  The last two weeks were almost as much shock as the diagnosis of cancer.  With the help of friends States side, the Internet and DHL delivery service, I sent a little cash here and the rest into a Bank IRA CD, FDIC insured.  It was exhausting!

One reference on the economy is my subscription to a newsletter by Richard Russell “Dow Theory Letters” (http://ww1.dowtheoryletters.com/dtlol.nsf).  This was one of his comments on 30 Sept.

“I was going to vote for Ron Paul. But now I'm going to vote for Obama. Why? It's simply a vote AGAINST the McCain-Palin ticket. McCain knows absolutely nothing about economics, and Palin has turned into a cartoon, the ultimate arrogant know-nothing. Can you imagine Palin as US President? It would be symbolic of the decline of the US.”

Indeed.  This is what many outside the US are saying too.

The financial sector are not parsing words anymore.  Mr. Russell is not alone in his far from off the cuff or "folksy" evaluation.  

Time is UP.  

I thought this article was interesting....

VP Debate: Those Pesky Facts

By Tommy Christopher
Oct 3rd 2008 10:44AM

Filed Under:eBreaking News, Joe Biden, Debates, 2008 President, Sarah Palin

Ah, the morning after. You had a reckless blast last night, doing or saying whatever felt good in that moment. Now, it's time to wake up and face facts. You're not really a movie-producing fireman-cop, and she isn't really on the pill.

FactCheck.org is the political equivalent of that buzzkill friend who cluelessly salts your game whenever you bring him or her out with you.

They have already analyzed last night's Vice Presidential Debate, and although both candidates practiced elasticity of veracity, the winner of the FactCheck Derby was clearly Joe Biden. Just on volume, Biden had fewer miscues, but when you weight them for the seriousness of the error, the contrast is stark. You can check out their full report, but here's my rundown.

Palin: Falsely claimed that we are now at pre-surge troop levels. Even with scheduled withdrawals through February, 2009, we will still be 6,000 troops north of the pre-surge force size.

Biden: Said McCain voted "the exact same way" as Obama on troop funding. In reality, although McCain opposed a funding bill that included timelines for withdrawal, and urged the eventual veto, he didn't actually show up to vote on it.

I'd give Biden only half a point off, since what he said is true in spirit, if not to the letter. Palin gets a full point off, even though you could argue for more based on the grossness of the error, and its greater political significance.

Palin: Repeated again a false claim that Obama voted to raise taxes on families making only $42,000 a year, one that FactCheck has debunked twice. The lie is willful, since the McCain had already been forced to change their lying estimate once by FactCheck.

Biden: Again, inaccurately claimed that McCain had voted the "exact same way," when he had, again, skipped the vote.

In an abundance of fairness, I'll deduct a full point for each, even though Palin's lie is much more egregious, and the defense to Biden's mistake isn't really helpful to McCain. Palin:-2 Biden:-1.5

Palin: Falsely claimed McCain's health care plan would be "budget neutral." Independent estimates put the plan's cost, including revenue offsets from taxing employer-based plans, at $14-163 billion for just the year 2013. Palin:-3 Biden:-1.5

Palin: Falsely claimed that Obama's plan calls for healthcare to be "taken over by the feds," and that it would be "government run." This is a popular fallacy by the right, but it isn't true. Obama's plan calls for more choices in publicly funded health care. Palin:-4 Biden:-1.5

Biden: Said that McCain said he wouldn't even sit down with the government of Spain. FactCheck's defense of McCain is that he didn't say he wouldn't, just that he wouldn't commit to doing it. They also said that McCain probably didn't understand the question. This should actually be a point in Biden's favor, but I will generously call it a push. Palin:-4 Biden:-1.5

Palin: Said "But when you talk about Barack's plan to tax increase affecting only those making $250,000 a year or more, you're forgetting millions of small businesses that are going to fit into that category." However, independent estimates show that several hundred thousand small businesses, at most, would pay more under Obama's plan. Palin:-5 Biden:-1.5

Palin: Disagreed with Biden's assertion that the current U.S. commander in Afghanistan said that "surge principles" would not work there. The general did say that, and she got his name wrong. This could easily be two points or more, but I will only knock off one. Palin:-6 Biden:-1.5

Palin: Said that it is untrue that the U.S. is killing civilians in Afghanistan. According to an analysis by the AP, however, the US is killing more civilians than insurgents are. Palin: -7 Biden: -1.5

Biden: Said his "clean coal" line was taken out of context. In fact, his statement just didn't make sense, and his record shows clear support for clean coal. Palin: -7 Biden:- 2.5

Palin: Overstated the case that McCain "sounded the alarm" on Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae. I'd only take a half-point here. Palin: -7.5 Biden: -2.5

Palin: Misstated oil imports at $700 million, instead of true estimate of $493 million. Palin: -8.5 Biden:-2.5

Biden: Biden said McCain intends to deregulate health care. Fact Check got this wrong. I'll write a whole post about it later. Palin: -8.5 Biden: -2.5

Biden: repeated several times the Obama campaign's fair, but technically unclear, assertion that McCain's plan gives $4 billion a year to oil companies. It does, but as part of more massive giveaways to all corporations. This is a push. Palin: -8.5 Biden: -2.5

Palin: Criticized Obama for voting for the 2005 energy bill, saying "that's what gave those oil companies those big tax breaks." The bill did give breaks, but took away others, and the net effect was a tax increase for oil companies. Palin: -9.5 Biden: -2.5

Biden: Misstated Iraqi surplus as $80 million instead of $79 million. Push, he was rounding up. Palin: -9.5 Biden: -2.5

Biden: Misstated the number of times McCain voted against alternative energy. It was 11, not 20. Palin: -9.5 Biden: -3.5

Eventually, there may develop a "FactCheck Effect" that causes candidates to toe the line of accuracy more closely, to avoid these information hangovers. Maybe not, though. Everybody loves to brag about that great night, and nobody ever remembers the morning after.

Not such a great article.  That's called a "Fact Check"?  Biden gets the benefit of the doubt of every error and Palin gets the benefit of the doubt on none.  Give me a break! 

For example, Palin gets penalized for overstating a truth?  Huh?  (Palin: Overstated the case that McCain "sounded the alarm" on Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae. I'd only take a half-point here.) McCain did sound the alarm - we've seen the info on that in this thread.  And the fact is that Biden made exactly the same statement about Obama foreseeing the current problem, and he said it just as many times as Palin did.  So why is Palin penalized?

Then there's this:  "Palin: Said "But when you talk about Barack's plan to tax increase affecting only those making $250,000 a year or more, you're forgetting millions of small businesses that are going to fit into that category." However, independent estimates show that several hundred thousand small businesses, at most, would pay more under Obama's plan"  She loses a point for this?  The principle of what she was saying is absolutely correct; the only disagreement is the order of magnitude of the problem.

And this:  "Biden: Said that McCain said he wouldn't even sit down with the government of Spain. FactCheck's defense of McCain is that he didn't say he wouldn't, just that he wouldn't commit to doing it. They also said that McCain probably didn't understand the question. This should actually be a point in Biden's favor, but I will generously call it a push."  If it isn't what McCain said and if the McCain said whatever he did say in response to a question that he misunderstood, how in the world does Biden not get a negative point for this?  He's clearly trying to misrepresent McCain's position.

The net of it is that the score is probably pretty close between Biden and Palin on misstatements.  They both had them flying all over the place.  So don't take this to be a defense of Palin - I think that any misstatement by either candidate is a problem.   But fair is fair, and this analysis is not fair.

I've been hearing fact checks all day on Cable, mainly CNN, and depending on the person's bias, some lies were called mistatements and some mistatements were called lies.  On Campbell Brown, they went over just a few (there were many) and the verdict was a tie.

Isn't it more important, though, that this goes on all the time and yet nothing is done about it.   They spend a small fortune on these debates, so why don't they have a Jeopardy-like fact checker who gives the score during the debate.  They could have a break in between and the moderator would be handed all the "misstatements" and he/she can then ask the concerned candidate to respond.  They could do the same at the end of the debate.  I'm fairly sure if they did this in just one series of debates, the misstatements would stop: too embarrassing to be called out when you're in front of 69 million people! 

Did it bother anyone when Biden kept referring to McCain as his dear friend, whom he loves dearly, before proceeding to call him a liar.  That happened, as I remember, at least three times, perhaps more.  

Anneshirley

I enjoy reading your post, you seem to be a social liberal, with strong boundries, yet a fiscal conservative with common sense.  You also read stream of consciousness writers,  (Virginia Woofe)

Can't do the Nader thing, I once had a corvair and a pinto.