Yeah, not a big politico (not even American here), but it's clear that the US President effects more than just the policies of his own country, many Asian countries depend on the economic policies of the new government, sometimes more so than even their own countries economic policies (which are primarily effected by international trade -- e.g the struggling dollar vs. the unreal expansion of the Euro). I guess it's all to do with the price of oil (but doesn't everything revolve around that now?)

Now, the Democrats have the Obama-Biden ticket, but this is not about them (yet). This is about the Republicans picking Sarah Palin to be John McCain's running mate. (reminds me of the movie 'The Contender' starring Joan Allen -- excellent excellent film, you have to watch it. Seriously).

I like her personality. She's an excellent sound bite. She actually gives McCain an edge (not advantage, but a edge, a sharp point like the corner edge of a table) in the run-in. And she can clearly embrace the role of attacking Obama on his lack of experience, on his supposed 'angry man' vibe (interestingly, it's older Caucasians who pick up on this -- I guess leaving out 'black' from 'angry man' makes it all better don't it?), on the idealism of his ideology. I like her personality. But...

I don't like how unfair the attack angle Palin can take is going to be. Plain and simply fact: she can attack with all the vigor and vitriol she has in her arsenal because no man, and I mean specifically Obama and Biden, no 'man' (does this also include Hillary?) can launch an attack of equal strength to hers without being branded a sexist monster. It's a fine line of course, but Obama has built a mystique that he's not going to campaign dirty politics. Sarah Palin will definitely push the buttons to make him start slinging mud himself.

Secondly, I think it's kinda shameless that the GOP thinks that Sarah Palin is going to help them win former Hillary supporters. All this 'I am woman, hear me roar' rhetoric is not what being a woman in today's world is all about. The issues, not just to women in particular, but overall, will win votes -- not (and I can see this card being played) "Oh, I feel your pain, let's cry on Oprah" PR bullshit. Women aren't just the primary caregivers in a lot of families, they are also the primary breadwinners. Don't gloss over the issues, just to make it sound appealing to women. That's sexist.

Thirdly, sure it sounds good in a campaign, but how much influence does Sarah Palin have as potential VP of the USA? Her policies, her opinions -- take this, she is a new governor of Alaska (20 months in term), and while she can assure the public / press that she is the sign of change, that she is going to Washington to serve the people of [the] country, the reality is, she's not going to have her way, because she is not President. Sure, she can help McCain win, but just like how Dan Quayle was, how much of her is just for show, because the more experienced politicians would definitely handle Palin on so many issues, she'll be compromising more policies than she would be winning -- meaning, less change than promised. The country will still be run by the same old men who've always run it -- the oil & gun companies. Oh, and big business.

That's not to say that Obama will have more joy against those heavyweights, but as POTUS, he bloody well has more power than VP.

I'm not attacking Sarah Palin here, I mean, I'm a fan of the speech she gave, and I love strong-willed women. I love women who can take care of themselves, even in a fight. This is just my cynical mind working. I can't help it if I'm cynical. I'm a child of my time.

The teen pregnancy thing with her daughter Bristol, and her red-neck fiance... If I was writing a Hollywood film, this is rich fodder for a feature film. Imagine this, teenage daughter of a Pro-Life governor of a small town, discovers she is pregnant. Boy who got her pregnant is local sports star, who is forced to give up fraternity life because of who she and her parents are. Pro-life governor is named VP candidate. Boy & girl's life is thrown into spotlight, every move watched eagerly because at 17 or 18, you know you're going to screw up. Boy is going to start resenting girl, because this is not the life he envisioned for himself, not the kid, not the politics, and definitely, not giving up his future. But he can't walk out, because you know the girl's parents aren't going to let him. Girl begins to question if baby is member of the family, or just a political tool (after one parent asks if the baby will be born in time for sweeps, so that the cameras can capture this well-rehearsed spontaneous family moment).

And if you really want to be dark and cynical, the eldest Palin boy (19) is shipping off to Iraq. Two scenarios, one, he comes back and is lauded as a war veteran, or two, he is killed and is mourned as a war hero. Either scenario, carefully orchestrated (son returns in rain, mother dashes out from under her umbrella to embrace her son) on camera will win you an election. While America is told to vote with their head, America usually votes with their heart and gut. Pull on their heart, fill their gut, screw with their heads all you want.

There are things that I do disagree with Palin about, and that's some of her policies. She increased the budget for helicopter wolf hunting, for one. Hmm... a pro-lifer and a hunting enthusiast. It's OK to kill anything non-human. Hmm... isn't that what got the world in the eco-mess that it's in right now? Or does her being supportive of the Iraq War actually mean, "it's OK to kill anything that's not an American citizen?"

Also her solution to the U.S energy woes -- more drilling! Huh, drilling the Atlantic National Wildlife Refuge even (which according to many experts, probably has enough gas to keep your SUV running for the next 20 minutes). Again, screw the future of the planet, we're all just trying to survive. I guess when you come from the inhospitable cold of Alaska, survival is really of the fittest.

And that thought leaves me cold.

p/s: I can't talk about the Republican's economic policies and solutions. Mainly because they haven't talked about it and I don't know what they are. Do you?

I live in this country and I got no idea what the GOP said their stance on economics is.

I can assure you this much: no taxes for the rich, all the money from the poor goes to the government. Big business good and American; small business communist and not American.

Honestly, I would have favored Ron Paul, though given how American politics work, independent party votes are essentially wasted since nobody bothers to vote for them; following one of my favorite metaphors by voting for a giant douche or a turd sandwich.

Still though, trying to remain more objective here, McCain has political experience, but lacks vision. Being a POW no doubt screws with your mind. Also, if what you said about Asian countries relying on foreign economy is true, I say it would only be a matter of time until McCain has a flashback about vietnam and decides to do something to screw-up all of eastern Asia.

Politics isn't really my field though, I'm generally apathetic/anarchist. If we get stuck with somebody who's good, hooray, I benefit. If we get stuck with somebody who sucks, hooray, my fellow Americans suffer.

You should count yourselves lucky at the choices. Here in the UK we've got a snoozefest of epic proportions between Davy Cameron and Gordy Brown. One lacks any substance and the other might as well be mute for all anyone listens to him.

Plus has anyone even heard of, my personal choice, Nick Clegg?

The Two-Party system sure does suck.

lol

To quote the very recent Tina Fey - Amy Poehler SNL sketch (where Tina is Sarah Palin & Amy is Hillary Clinton) (possibly the best SNL sketch on politics I've seen)

Sarah Palin (Tina Fey): 20 months ago I was Governor of Alaska's crystal meth capital, and now... I'm one heartbeat away from being the President of the United States.

(that one heartbeat would be John McCain's 72 year old heart... skipping one).

The horrified realization from the audience who began to laugh, then realized that this one hits really close to the truth, stopped laughing, then laughed uncomfortably -- priceless.

Obama needs a strong, visible female surrogate who can come out swinging against Sarah Palin. Ideally, Hillary Clinton would step into this role, but she has her own agenda here; if Obama loses, she has a huge "told-you-so" coming in the 2012 election.

So who does that leave in the Democratic ranks with a vagina?

• Geraldine Ferraro (Democratic VP nominee) is too much of a loose cannon, and she's been very vocal in her distaste for Obama.
• Nancy Pelosi (Speaker of the House) has proved time and time again to be a spineless wimp, caving to the Republicans on war funding again and again.
• Kathleen Sebelius (Governer of Kansas) is certainly a rising star in the party (and was on the top of my wish list for Obama's VP pick), but she isn't well-known nationally, so lacks a certain gravitas. And as a governor, she would be an awkward pick for a surrogate.
• Barbara Boxer (Chief Deputy Whip in the Senate) is certainly a tough cookie, and certainly well known and liked, but she's going to be facing a VERY tough election in 2010 (potentially up against Arnold Schwarzenegger), and may opt to keep her head down.

Biden is in a no-win position here. If he goes after Palin, she wins on pity. If he goes soft, he looks like a wimp (which did in the last two Dem tickets). Some analysts are even going as far as to say that a completely one-sided victory for Biden in the debate will still be a win for Palin if it looks like she "stuck it out" -- like Homer Simpson "winning" a boxing match by simply standing still and taking abuse until his opponent was worn out.

Suffice to say, I'm pretty disgusted with the state of American politics. Only Obama is actually talking about the issues, and he's only doing so as a political gimmick -- "Let's make the other guy look bad by saying we only care about the issues, not attack ads". At this point, the presidency might as well be decided by American Idol.

In the last week, I've heard about eyeglasses, lipstick, SNL skits, the American worker, attack ads, experience, and GOD DAMMIT if I haven't heard about change. I just haven't heard much about the economy, the war, foreign policy, women's rights, taxes, gun control, infrastructure repairs, counter-terrorism, domestic surveillance, copyright reform, network neutrality, energy policy, gay marriage, social security, health care, or the national debt.

I'd kind of like to hear about that stuff.

Hey, Status, good to hear from you.

The Presidential race is all just popularity, spin and show biz (yes, I'm stating the obvious -- and no, I've known this since forever). You have the media that's left wing, right wing, pro-Obama, pro-McCain... every news station has its own agenda, feeds the masses, propaganda (is this a rap song? did I get this from a rap song? I don't listen to rap). Unfortunately media is the pawn of big business -- if the main sponsor of my station is pro-Republican, guess whose agenda I'm pushing? Advertising determines media opinion which in turn determines popular opinion (because everyone gets their education from TV.)

The whole issue about the war has divided the American public, as evidence in the very (alarming) 'man-in-the-street' stance (overreaction) to everything -- if you're not for it, you're against it. It seems that merely questioning a policy, a politician, a law, heck even a freakin' anthem nowadays is "anti-American". Therefore, instead of debating the issues, there are so many people who are willing to blindly defend their side of the argument, while being ignorant of what the argument actually is. And I don't mean democrats questioning republicans, I mean democrats questioning democrats, republicans questioning republicans. (I wonder, does Sarah Palin question John McCain about anything? Does Biden question Obama about anything? Does anybody question anything anymore, or is that Larry King's job?)

It's a shame that the issues don't get centerstage, but when you have large demographics of people not really interested in hearing about the problems, just wanting to hear about the quick fix, both parties will thrive doing that whole spin thing, "Everything is going to be alright if you hand over control to me".

And I can understand, people are tired. Tired of worrying that hey, we're gonna wake up tomorrow, and everything's gone. no job, no house, no savings. And when you're tired, you are willing to hand over control and just say, "Hey, it's your problem now. Fix it. I'm missing Celebrity MILFs on Fox."

p/s: Everyone in the world is facing that same problem -- too many people want the quick fix without sacrificing anything to obtain a more permanent solution. Show me a candidate who sells the hard fix, and I'll show you the losing candidate.

p/p/s: Glib quotes wins the day again. If your policies can't fit on a T-Shirt, you won't win.

Oh, and if you're a Hockey Mom, there's more to you than just lipstick. For one, when was the last time a pitbull drove your kids to practice? And made them lunch. And dressed them... ok, whose pitbull has a maid called Inez who does all that? Exactly, don't sell yourself short. Lipstick. Pfftth. :P

My friend has been able to deduce one thing about the political race; who you should vote for comes down to one key factor. That factor is this: who should pay more taxes?

If you favor the rich paying a higher percentage, Obama is your choice. Otherwise, McCain.

There are more poor people than rich people in the US -- does this mean Obama's coasting to victory? It's not happening. Here's a graphic on the proposed tax policies of both candidates:

[img]http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2008/06/12/GR2008061200193.gif[/img]
Source: Washington Post
Full Article

America's politics over the last eight years has boiled down to one primary basic need. Basic needs (I'm talking stuff that all creatures -- not just humans need) are food, shelter and safety. (Money is food, because most people think, how am I gonna feed my family? when it comes to money -- and rich people don't worry about that). Shelter is the homelessness / healthcare issue, which is hardly an issue this election. The number one concern now, is safety.

Safety (Security), and I don't mean from terrorists or aggressive foreign powers. I'm talking about environment, I'm talking about stability of the economy, of the housing market, of jobs (and crime), long term concerns. For the first time, I think middle-class Americans are deeply aware that they are living without a safety net -- and that's scary. They're going to vote for whomever can catch them when they fall. Tax cuts don't mean squat if you ain't got no job, no house, no food on the table.

America's in bad shape because too few people are getting rich, and too many people are paying the price.

Take for instance the AIG bail out. That was done to protect the millions of Americans who would lose all their coverage if AIG folded. Which is another case of the government using tax payers money to save a failed big business. Yet, the people who caused this failure, are the ones who walk away with a severance package worth tens of millions -- and they'll support whomever doesn't take them to court over it.

I'm not one who thinks socialism works, I think capitalism is the only way free markets thrive -- but isn't it time to punish those who 'cheat' the system, and I mean to the severest degree? Take away their ill-gotten gains, go after everyone who helped caused the failure of a major corporation, fine them for 50% of their net worth (you know, the stock inflated net worth ;) ), and pump that money back into the Fed, slow inflation, reverse inflation even.

However politicians are in bed with the cheaters (mostly because the politicians are getting rich themselves on the backs of the American public) -- that's why they're taking Barry Bonds & Roger Clemens to court (for cheating & lying) -- but leaving the Kenneth Ley's (Enron) of the world free to rob the American public blind. (Maybe congress is just mad about sports stars cheating & lying -- after all, congress is supposed to have a monopoly on that, right?)

First of, its great to be able to reply and post in OB again.Second, its also great to see some of my amigos online(elf,aaron,status etc.) still kickin' it around, yo :D

On American politics.....I regret to say that neither the Democrats or the Republicans are offering much change compared to the Bush administration. (IMHO) I would like to say things'll get better if the Democrats won BUT.....I'd be lying to myself if I said that. (Iraq would still be occupied,Iran would still be under the firing scopes, Russia would still need to be confronted with as well as China, etc.)


I love Ron Paul and his message of change for a better America, namely on the economy and of course its foreign policy with other nations. It pisses me to no end how little time the press covered him compared to other Republican candidates and it pisses me even more how his 'non-interventional foreign' policy is being labeled an 'isolationist foreign policy' by his so called 'peers'.(there's a big difference ya know?)


At least Obama got this right.Its better to have lesser rich people if you can get more middle-incomers in the demograph.China and Russia is doing things right with their economy for the past 5 years by helping its poor break away from the poverty line rather than helping its rich become richer by showering them with tax-reliefs and such.


Yes it does.My country's going along the lines of this way as well.*sigh* I dun wanna vote for the lesser of two evils darnit.

I remember a line from the Jimmy Kimmel show a few days ago regarding on Sarah Palin.

"Sarah palin is like Matt Damon from the Bourne Identity. She appears out of nowhere one day and starts killing people." (or something like that *lolz*)

If there's anything's good I can say about Palin is this....
1)she's the thing McCain needs to win
2)she's f*cking hot.....even when posing beside a dead moose

If it's really down to that, I say we elect Jill Biden! :D

http://www.vicepresidents.com/files/u41/biden2.jpg

Now there's a pretty lady with class!

In the future, America's presidency will be fought, won and loss on television. That year is... 1988! But further in the future, we'll put them in a reality TV show where over a series of challenges (Foreign Aid, Diplomacy, Economic Reform) NBC / Mark Burnett / Donald Trump / America (in that order) decides. -- Presidential: Apprentice, coming next term.

Or we get Vince McMahon to organize, PPV: WWE Presidentialmania I: America Votes (Unless They Get It Wrong).
Jim Ross: And here comes Sarah Barracuda with a steel chair! Ooooh, right in the Obama-nhood!

Seriously, I so want to make WWE Presidentialmania an episode on Model Men.

Jim Ross: Oh, and The McPain looks to be setting up the killer blow: The Bible Belt! He's gonna use the Bible Belt!

I still prefer the hot MILF woman with the dead moose. *lolz*

On the US Presidential Race, seeing the state of the current economy I think its clear that the Dems are gonna win the race.Maybe I'm being shallow or even biased(pffft!!^^) but McCain's reaction to everything seems uhhh....how do I put this? Weak? Almost a month back, he claims that the economy's strong and such.....now well, its raining bailouts baby.And a few days back I saw something on Yahoo news that says that the unemployment rate is now 29%(any truth to this or is Yahoo spitting out useless poll result?)?If its true.....well, that's pretty bad.

It's interesting but my sister and I were discussing if we were American citizens, how would we vote?

She's a liberal (left-wing) Republican. I'm a conservative (right-wing) Democrat. :D But that of course is a generalization as neither of us are truly that right wing nor left wing. Our individual politics (issues) tend to veer from one extreme to the other. To quote Chris Rock: "No normal, decent person is one thing, okay? I've got some sh*t I'm conservative about, I've got some sh*t I'm liberal about. Crime, I'm conservative. Prostitution, I'm liberal!"

Full Quote

You would probably be considered a Reagan Democrat, elfboy, if you lived here in the US.

The US Presidential race has once again become a lesser of two evils race. Fortunately Obama made things a whole lot easier... anyone other than him. Where McCain could be considered a centrist, Obama is off in far left field no matter what impression he tries to give. There's just more minuses in Obama's column like lack of experience (seriously look it his Senate record at http://thomas.loc.gov and be amazed at his tenacity for a Rosa Parks postage stamp and National Summer Learning Day), poor choice of acquaintances (Wright, Ayres, Resco, et. al.) and advisors (his top economics advisors have close ties to the current Freddie-Mac and Fannie-Mae mess), and a list of other things I could go into. I don't like McCain for his stance on immigration and other things, but, as a gun owner, the choice of Palin at least gives me comfort that my Second Amendment rights at least have a chance of remaining intact.

The Conservative/(sometimes)Republican approach to economics is to give more buying power to the people with more money, who in turn put the money into the economy through purchases and investments, which will then benefit those with lesser income. If there is less money to spend because the government feels compelled to adopt a more of a socialist style system, the economy will stagnate. It's not class warfare as some have less than subtly implied. Do some research in the distribution of the tax burden in the USA.

Somebody brought up an interesting point today: it's not about who the president will be, it's about who the vice president will be.

If McCain is elected, he'll die of a heart attack in office. Else Obama will be shot and killed.

So it's about the vice presidents, really.

D:

D:

D:

My thoughts exactly, Status. This is why we can't have nice things.

So Sarah Palin just cleared herself of any wrongdoing in the Troopergate scandal. That was helpful of her.

How does that saying go? You can put lipstick on Richard Nixon, but...

Hands up how many people have caught Tina Fey's beyond sublime 'take' on Sarah Palin on Saturday Night Live? (if they counted internet viewership, I'd be one of the many new fans of the show...)

The Real Sarah Palin will be on SNL this weekend. Tina Fey might reprise her role as the 'fake' Sarah Palin. :D

Anyway, I just dropped in to say this -- based on some comments people on other news feeds have given about Sarah Palin -- "Finally a candidate who talks like a normal person."

... Define normal and person, because try as I might (and I haven't) I don't talk like that. But semantics aside, the biggest problem I have isn't her folksy 'ism's. The biggest problem I have is her now evident inability to work away from a script. Rallies & speeches, she can read script. "Ambushed" by questions from Americans (caveat: not 'real' Americans because 1) not named Joe-(something), 2) care about U.S-International relations, 3) asked Sarah Palin a question / name is Katie Couric) ... she can't even formulate a proper response, -- or if she does, it's at complete odds with John McCain's campaign!

Good, you feel that she speaks like a normal person. But she is also one of the people who represent you and your country, who will help run your government, economy, armed forces. You would think that you want a candidate who is BETTER than a normal person. You would think you would actually want a president (and vice prez) to be the best of the best.

In which case, in America Votes 2012, I fully endorse the Tina Fey/Amy Poehler ticket. And if that's a no-go... I say we go get Will Ferrell. The world needs more cowbell... I mean Will Ferrell. After all, they talk like normal people... and they sound good.

p/s: Also, "Joe-the-whatever"... if the guy was smart, he'd go patent that freakin' name, because the royalties alone... but he's probably worried that he'll earn more than $250,000 and will fall under Sen. Obama's "Socialist/Marxist (when are they gonna troop out Communist I wonder)" tax policy.

Oh, and what happened to that woman who stated she's afraid of Obama because he's Arab? Wow! Really? I thought he was an American. Good eye there granny. Good thing you didn't say... "I'm afraid of Obama, because he's black (or Jew... what if his name was Barack Lieberwitz?)." Wow! Nice work on not 'crossing the line'. :rage:

Nice to know that some old habits really do die hard.

It ridiculous how a lot of people are trying so hard to "dig up" dirt about how Obama isn't really born in the US, or that it's because of some conspiracy that he's able to run for president.

I think that if there was something wrong with him, the US government would have found it by now. I highly doubt that some conspiracy theorist is going to be able to do and prove what the US government hasn't been able to.

Is American politics like some kind of amusing spectator sport for people outside of the US? Or do we really have THAT much influence over the world?

Either way, I think my country needs to deal with their own problems before we dick around with other countries and their problems. Even then, we should only deal with other countries that, oh I don't know...maybe...want our help?

I for one welcome my new black overlords.

Yay... we can finally wave bye-bye to Bush 43!

Obama, the popular vote is the next president of the United States. Worldwide celebration commence.

The way I look at it, Obama's meteoric rise to being Prez, is like a 16 year old getting the keys to a Lamborghini Murcielago. (which I prefer over a 72 year old grandpa getting his hands on one). You just got your drivers license, you sound really responsible and you haven't really gotten into any trouble before, so here's the keys.

That kid's gonna be in wonderland, all the other hot popular kids are going to want to hang out with him, and everyone's gonna be his best friend until the first time he -- gets a fender bender, or gets pulled over by the cops, or gets caught with a dimebag and a dead hooker in the trunk. Then he's on his own.

Hopefully, that 'kid' will be smart enough to actually drive that car responsibly, and not wreck it (the way #43 did -- his way: drive drunk, then have Jesus take the wheel) and who knows, in 4 years, maybe the kid will be handed keys to another even better car -- just by proving to the world that he can actually drive well.

On a side note: The Apocalypse is coming. Palin 2012.

She's such a maverick she'll run in 2010.

A well put together analogy if I may say so, and thats really the key factor isn't it?

However, as we've constantly seen in this campaign, Obama is certainly no fool, and continues to show his humility and reaffirming that he's human too. It's not just him that will make change, its gotta be all Americans. One of the reasons I was very happy to leave the US was because when there's a problem the people blame the government or run to suckle on its teat.
Obama stresses that the government is the one who will give the direction and guidance, but the people have to not stop at casting their ballot and be willing to get their hands dirty. Americans are lazy and complacent on all fronts (though that can be said for society anywhere you go) and easy to just rely on/blame the government quickly.

It is really commendable how Obama chooses his words carefully on all fronts, even after winning. If you haven't seen his victory speech I highly recommend you do; ALSO check out McCain's concession speech in comparison. It's not just Palin we should have been worried about, he's still trying to be el Maverick and attempting to generate sympathy for himself. His band of redneck thugs that he chose to give his speech in front of really spit shined his image too.

And her running in 2012 will just generate too much laughter lest Obama really fscks up these four years and her image becomes spot on in that amount of time; its just not plausible.

Obama Victory Speech
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/us_ele...008/7710079.stm

McCain Concession Speech
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/us_ele...008/7710025.stm

She can roar all she wants, but I still don't like her. Can't really compare her to Hilary Clinton. XD

Can you imagine, if McCain croaks in the middle of his term...and she becomes President by default? I don't think there's a planet I can move to. You know how the US affects the world economy as well...

I think that's part of how Obama won in the first place. People talk about him no matter what -- bad press or good press. See, if somebody dug some dirt on McCain, then maybe he'd be popular enough to win, too. Hahahahaha!




I wonder if Hilary will run again. If Palin does, I hope Hilary does too.




McCain is old, so he can be forgiven for feeling sorry for himself. But gawd, he's 72. I'm glad he did not win because he had bad taste in running mates.

I think it'll be difficult for a woman to win the White House anytime soon, because as progressive thinking as the world has become, not everyone is going to embrace the idea of a woman being superior to a man (even if most of us know that it's true... and you would too if you want to get laid).

I'm not talking about just the Rednecks (who probably might balk at having a woman (other than their moms) tell them what to do) but I think we would be surprised in general by how many people might have issue with a woman president (How many senators in Congress today would vote for a woman while still holding on to their boys-club mentality?). In the privacy of a ballot booth, all prejudices run free.

Would I vote for a female candidate? Yes I would, but only if I'm not reminded that she's female. I have no problem with her gender, but a President (of anything) is a genderless role. It doesn't matter if you're a man or a woman, black, white, Asian, alien -- only that you're the best person for the job.

And Sky-chan, I think Obama will be on the Democrats reelection ticket in 2012 (unless something terrible happens), so Hillary might have to wait until 2016. And unless Palin proves to be a wily 'Washington insider' and handles the 'liberal gotcha media elite' with better results, I don't think the GOP will choose her as their choice to topple Obama.

Meanwhile, third parties are still a waste of votes in the US.

About that Palin, i heard about the debate between her and Obama's vice about "War in Iraq", she said something about war in Iraq is what US people want...Yeah right, NOT ALL THEM WANT! And that's what makes me lose trust in that kind of person...

Indeed. She's totally out of touch with the US. Everybody I know wants the war to end.

While I'm one of the few that still thinks we need to stay in Iraq, I'm not opposed to withdrawing since that would also help our economy.

War is bad for an economy.

Been meaning to put this up many weeks back, but you know, got lazy. This is a minuscule portion of one of Sarah Palin's Katie Couric interviews and the Saturday Night Live spoof (with Tina Fey as Sarah Palin) of said interview. Let's watch and for those playing at home...

Spot the difference. (bold text hint)

The Sarah Palin-Katie Couric Real Interview


Now the spoof.


Blue note: The real Sarah Palin actually did this earlier during this same interview in talking about Barack Obama's leadership.

When Sarah Palin joined the campaign, gave her first speech, I was thrilled, excited even. I also thought that it was a wise move by the Republicans because it gave the RNC a 'superstar' to take away from the Obamania. Look at my first post of this thread, I admitted as much (if not at all or in those exact words). However, I had misgivings about how the RNC was going to use her to best effect. And yes, I also had issue with some of her more... 'traditional' views and policies.

Little did I actually realize that she'd be as vilified and ridiculed as she was during the campaign. I might have expected it from the Democrats, somewhat by the media, but not by her own party... and definitely not by John McCain's own campaign. The turning point for me, I grew scared of her taking the White House when the realization hit home... she is only one 72-year-old heartbeat away from being President of the United States.

Hasn't she heard? They invented video games so we keep our wars inside our TV sets. LOL. :D

America lost the war ever since our journalists went over there. They generally reported the bad side since bad news sells papers and gets ratings.(This was also the case with my high school)

One of the best ways to cripple an army is to make the civilian half of that country lose support in that army.

There were other factors too, of course, but...as I said before, I supported the war so I kind of tuned those things out... X3

The thing about wars isn't just the result that matters, but the PR that goes along with it. To garner support at home, you need outstanding PR, and let's face it the campaign against Afghanistan and Iraq was poorly managed from the beginning, starting from the very top -- Bush 43 stating "Mission Accomplished" so damn often, and then pouring in more troops. (PR nightmare.) (and he didn't smoke out the one guy he started the wars for -- Laden, Osama bin Laden. Double-O-Bedouin).

Take for instance Desert Storm -- that was the US Military's PR machine working at its best, giving us catchy catchphrases, minimal reports of bombing the wrong structures (though once in a while that happened), 'cool' shots of Baghdad's anti-aircraft fire lighting up the night, CNN coverage that made Christiane Amanpour the world famous correspondent she is today, Stormin' Norman, 15 day "mission accomplished" before years of (non-publicized) mop-up work.

Now I'm not saying that war works because of PR, but it's all a matter of perception, of propaganda. WWII worked because of propaganda. We hear so much about the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor to start US involvement in the war, but how is what the Japanese did worse than the firebombings of Tokyo where over the course of several months in 1945, nearly all of Tokyo is destroyed, with one bombing run in particular killing over 100,000 civilians? (Civilians structures were targeted.) And let's not talk about the bomb that was aimed at the Imperial Palace (and missed... yes, the US wanted to destroy historical buildings of governance too, sort of like if the Japanese bombed the White House, no?)

The reason why stuff like this was suppressed by the media was because in 1940+, it was considered unpatriotic to write negative things about the US Military. Today, that's not true, and that's why so many people believe the liberal media to be unpatriotic, to be writing about the US's transgressions, whereas it's just one of the many necessary things in a military operation (like torture).

That's why it's so important to make sure that all the US Military's actions appear clandestine (like Ronald Reagan cold war era) without actually handicapping the military's actions. Good PR goes a very long way... and it helps to have a popular president, because yes, the liberal media, like conservative media, is biased.

I'll be honest, war is something I'm ambivalent on. It's messy, and if we're going to do it the mess can't be avoided and complaining really isn't going to make it much better.(not without reducing military effectiveness) It's precisely because of the bad sides to war that I'm opposed to it.

But if you have to do it, don't complain about the bad sides. Just shut up and let it be done.

In short, "I don't care for it, but if it happens, I don't care about it." Understandable.

Part of me misses the Cold War, simply because the world was on that knife's edge -- a push too far, and boom, game over, so much so everyone was too scared to go too far. Fear was a very effective deterrent, but now it seems to have gone to the other end of the spectrum; fear as a very effective motivator.

I'm not sure if nuclear rearmament will be an effective deterrent anymore. It's almost as if the world is too confident that no nuclear nation on Earth would willingly press that button. So the terrorists run rampant confident that their individual actions will not result in the ultimate retaliation against their families.

I'm waiting for North Korea to nuclear strike a terrorist cell aimed at the U.S. Wonder what the political ramifications will be? Kim Jong Il -- Time Man Of The Year?

I certainly think the world would praise him for having the nerve to do what America wouldn't. However, if America did it, I'm certain the would depict us as monsters, cold-blooded killers and the like.

America does have a pretty violent history. It's not as violent as other countries' histories, i'm certain, but our entire history is a violent one.