Palin On Biden Age Comment Video – CBSNews.com

more about "Palin On Biden Age Comment Video – CB…", posted with vodpod

You know, as a liberal atheist, I didn’t understand what she was talking about. But perhaps I didn’t get it because she was speaking in tongues?

More Political Humor

Oh my Goodness…

Iowa Electronic Markets

Market Quotes: Pres08_WTA
2008 Presidential Election Winner-Take-All Market.
Quotes current as of 11:00:03 CST, Tuesday, September 30, 2008.

Symbol	Bid	Ask
DEM08_WTA	0.693	0.700
REP08_WTA	0.301	0.305

In short, to get a contract that pays 100 dollars if Obama wins you need to spend 70 dollars. A McCain contract costs only 30.50 dollars.

The “election share” market is closer; this is the winner take all market for the Democratic Presidential ticket (based on popular vote)

Farwell to September 2008

Workout notes bad, energyless 3 mile run, yoga, tired 3 mile walk outside (great weather though). I have to face facts: I really drove myself hard last weekend and two weekends prior to that; I’ve enjoyed myself but now is the time to recharge.

Politics

Humor: Keith Olberman: names Barack Obama as one of the Worst Persons in the World! Really! Ok, BHO got no. 3. Number two was Sean Hannity for cutting off Dick Morris for saying that Obama won the debate, and Number one was Karl Rove for suggesting that Sarah Palin had “too much in her head” during the Curic interview. Watch the video here.

John McCain: John McCain and the Republican National Committee blame the bailout failure on Barack Obama!

(psst: Republicans: who was in charge when this whole mess got started? The D’s have had a tenuous grasp of Congress for about a year and a half…and these problems started long before then…but hey, the R’s will get you out of the mess that they have created…right? ..but I digress)

Gee, an overwhelming of majority of Republicans vote against the bill, and now it is Obama’s fault?

Phoning it in? Guess who did just that?

John McCain celebrated his own role in the final federal government bailout package Monday on stage in front of several hundred Ohioans gathered for a campaign rally.

“I believe that inaction was not an option,” the Republican presidential candidate said. “I put my campaign on hold for a couple of days last week.” To applause, he continued: “I know that many of you have noticed it’s not my style to simply phone it in.”

That sentiment — not “phoning it in” was the campaign line throughout the weekend. On Friday at the first presidential debate, close McCain confidante Sen. Lindsey Graham praised McCain’s return to Washington. “This is one you just can’t phone in,” he said.

A McCain spokeswoman on the plane ride to Mississippi expressed the same. “Meeting face-to-face with people is always more effective than phoning it in,” she said.

And yet, the Arizona senator spent a lot of time on the phone. At the end of last week and over the entire weekend in Washington, he made lots of phone calls, many from his Northern Virginia condo, across the Potomac River from Capitol Hill.

Let’s rewind the clock and start at the beginning. Last Thursday, McCain returned to Washington and headed straight for Capitol Hill. After a few meetings there, he went to one at the White House and then retired to his condo by 6:30 p.m. to make phone calls.

Friday morning, McCain traveled to Capitol Hill for less than two hours then flew to Mississippi for the first presidential debate. He rushed back to Northern Virginia after the debate, getting in well after midnight, but never went to Capitol Hill once during the weekend. Instead, he made phone calls from both his residence and his Arlington, Va., campaign headquarters.

On Saturday, McCain called a slew of top players, including President George W. Bush, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke. He also called three senators (Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Judd Gregg of New Hampshire and Jon Kyl or Arizona) and 10 Republican House members including Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio.

McCain was spotted several times making the less-than-one-minute drive between his headquarters and his residence — on his cellphone.

Asked why he wasn’t making the trek to the Hill, McCain senior adviser Mark Salter responded: “Because he can effectively do what he needs to do by phone,” and added, “He’s calling members on both sides, talking to people in the administration, helping out as he can.”

Sarah Palin: Republicans are pre-excusing her debate performance.

You see, asking her questions or questioning her consistency is “gotcha journalism”.

A Fair Attack Ad (hardball, but ok)

Of course, Obama supports clean coal.

Create Millions of New Green Jobs

• Ensure 10 percent of Our Electricity Comes from Renewable Sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025.
• Deploy the Cheapest, Cleanest, Fastest Energy Source – Energy Efficiency.
• Weatherize One Million Homes Annually.
• Develop and Deploy Clean Coal Technology.
• Prioritize the Construction of the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline.

The ad did indeed quote Joe Biden accurately; he was trying to BS someone on the rope line and “meant to say” that clean coal is a lower priority than wind, solar and other more green energy sources.

Walking, Bailouts, The Election, and Sarah Palin’s Stunning Ignorance and Lack of Curiosity

(rereleased)

Walking: the photos from the Quad Cities Marathon/Half Marathon are now up. My form doesn’t look so hot but I’ll probably buy one of these photos anyway. But I am still sore and a bit tired.

The Bailout The proposed Bailout failed in the House 228-205. The D’s voted for it 140-95 and the R’s against it 65-133. The Illinois delegation was 9-9-1

Yes: Gutierrez (D-4), Emanuel (D-5), Davis (D-7), Bean (D-8), Schakowsky (D-9), Kirk (R-10), Foster (D-14), Hare (D-17), LaHood (R-18)

No: Rush (D-1), Jackson (D-2), Lipinski (D-3), Roskam (R-6), Costello (D-12), Biggert (R-13), Johnson (R-15), Mazullo (R-16), Shimkus (R-19)

Illinois D’s: 7-4 yes, Illinois R’s: 2-5. Weller didn’t vote.

What do I think? I honestly don’t know; frankly, though I am a bit down that the market dropped as badly as it did, I still don’t know. I haven’t read the 100 page bill, nor do I have the understanding of law and economics to know whether or not this is what we needed.

So I’ll turn to those who know more:

First, an amusing refresher on how we got here to begin with (Google Document).

Robert Reich:

[...]Conservatives don’t want government to take over the free market. Liberals don’t want Wall Street fat-cats to get a free ride. And the more the public focuses on the bill, the angrier they become. (Polls show about a third of Americans in favor, a third opposed, and a third undecided; the percent in favor is growing slightly, but the percent against is growing even faster.)

Wild card on the other side: The Dow is dropping precipitously. Roughly half of all American families have some retirement money in the stock market. And even if they don’t own shares of stock, an increasing number are feeling the pinch of an economy gradually grinding to a halt. (This week’s employment report will not be very encouraging.)

Don’t expect easier sailing in the Senate. Fewer than a third of the Senate is up for reelection on November 4, but they’re all hearing from angry constituents.

Prediction: A scaled-down bill will be enacted by the end of the week. It will provide the Treasury with a first installment of $150 billion. Treasury can use it to back Wall Street’s bad debts with lend no-interest loans of up to two years, until the housing market rebounds. Or to invest in Wall Street houses directly, in exchange for stocks and stock warrants. There will be strict oversight. [...]

Representative Tom Udall tells the Daily Kos why he voted no:

“The Administration’s proposal, as it has been presented to Congress, needs significant changes. First, any plan that puts taxpayer money at risk must ensure that taxpayers get paid back before shareholders, bondholders or executives—so that corporate CEOs do not get a golden parachute while taxpayers are left to pay the bill.

“Additionally, Congress should act further to keep Americans in their homes by addressing the crisis in the mortgage industry as well as the one in the financial sector. Any economic package that allows tens of thousands of Americans to lose their homes is simply inadequate.

“Finally, there must be accountability. If we invest taxpayer dollars to protect our financial markets, we should make sure that money is spent effectively and efficiently, with proper oversight and accountability. No administration should be given unlimited authority over the spending of $700 billion or more of taxpayers’ dollars. Any bailout plan needs to ensure that those managing the bailout are responsible to Congress and the American people.”

Tom has carefully considered the current version of the bailout bill, and has decided that it falls short. It does not meet the principles he laid out at the time this bailout was proposed, and does not address those who are hurt the most by this crisis. Tom Udall knows that we can do better.

Here is one liberal’s opinion on why this should have passed:

RenaRF argued that the banking industry is akin to the heart of a system; the system can survive the failures of some appendages but not the loss of the heart:

It is fundamentally different with the financial services industry. Because you can’t cut out a heart without death of the remainder of the body that it supports.

Blood that flows to and from the heart is comparable to money that flows through the market. The availability of money to leave the heart and travel to other areas of the body – market sectors – is what drives the overall economy. It touches EVERY area of the economy.

Let’s say you own a successful dry cleaners in your town. You’re profitable, you manage your expenses well, and you’ve provided some number of jobs back to the community. All of your financial fundamental are in place for expansion. You’ve scoped out an area where competition will be minimized and where your proven business model is likely to thrive. You don’t personally, however, have the money to take a lease on space and hire enough people to run your second location with all of its equipment requirements and the like. You need to borrow that. In a functioning economy, a lender would be happy to lend you the money to expand. You’re a great risk – you have a business model that has proven to be successful. But you can’t get the money. And you can’t get the money because there IS no money to lend.

Another example. Let’s say you work for a large, multi-national IT company. Let’s say further that the market has been kind to you. Your profit projections have consistently been spot-on quarter over quarter. All of your underlying financials are strong. You are in the top one or two in your market segment, and you certainly don’t have your personal business invested in mortgage-backed securities.

Only in many ways, you DO have your business invested in mortgage-backed securities, at least tangentially. Because you do what many business of your size do on a daily and weekly basis. You borrow money to keep your daily operating costs covered. That means payroll, benefits, etc., are covered in the short term with full knowledge that, at the end of, say, a quarter, you will fully pay those short term loans back. But the business bank who underwrites your short-term operating line of credit IS a member of the financial services industry. And because that industry is tainted by bad debt, and because THAT has caused credit of any kind to tighten, you now cannot take a 7-day loan to cover payroll. You and your 280,000 employees now are not able to meet your payroll obligations.

A final example. Your car blows up. You don’t live in an area where public transportation is readily available. You have a good job and a good credit history. You need a loan to get a new car so you can keep going t work and keep working. Only you can’t get that loan. It has nothing to do with your personal credit-worthiness – it has to do with the fact that money simply isn’t available to lend to you for buying a car.

The politics of it the McCain camp is screaming bloody murder, and of course, blaming Obama.

John McCain (perhaps seeking to avoid his own share of the blame) joined in. Economic adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin said:

“From the minute John McCain suspended his campaign and arrived in Washington to address this crisis, he was attacked by the Democratic leadership: Senators Obama and Reid, Speaker Pelosi and others. Their partisan attacks were an effort to gain political advantage during a national economic crisis. By doing so, they put at risk the homes, livelihoods and savings of millions of American families.

“Barack Obama failed to lead, phoned it in, attacked John McCain, and refused to even say if he supported the final bill.

“Just before the vote, when the outcome was still in doubt, Speaker Pelosi gave a strongly worded partisan speech and poisoned the outcome.

“This bill failed because Barack Obama and the Democrats put politics ahead of country.

Hmmm, the bill, which was proposed by a Republican President goes down among the R’s by 65-133, and it is Obama’s fault?

Oh, the Republicans are blaming Pelosi too; they said that her speech was “too partisan”. You can read the text of Pelosi’s speech here and decide for yourself.

Again, I am not saying that the House Republicans (and the 95 Democrats) were wrong; it is better to take this slow and get it right than to pass a fatally flawed bill. But the politics of the bill’s defeat amuse me.

Obama’s ad:

More on the election:

Current state: Intrade election futures have it Obama 338-McCain 200. My MSNBC prediction is 360-178 as I have BHO winning Indiana and Missouri too, whereas the consensus at MSNBC gives McCain Indiana, Missouri, Virginia and Florida.

Sarah Palin: The “average hockey mom” can’t name a single Supreme Court Decision other than Roe vs. Wade. No, not Grizwald, Plessey vs. Ferguson, Dred Scott, Brown vs. Board of Education, Miranda, nothing. You’d think that she’d at least remember the 2000 election decision.

Of concern to McCain’s campaign, however, is a remaining and still-undisclosed clip from Palin’s interview with Couric last week that has the political world buzzing.

The Palin aide, after first noting how “infuriating” it was for CBS to purportedly leak word about the gaffe, revealed that it came in response to a question about Supreme Court decisions.

After noting Roe vs. Wade, Palin was apparently unable to discuss any major court cases.

There was no verbal fumbling with this particular question as there was with some others, the aide said, but rather silence.

I wonder if she remembers Survivor episodes?

Then again, when it comes to intellectual curiosity and knowledge she probably represents the average Republican voter rather well.

Video