ab posted that as the last comment in the other thread. That’s what my comment below was addressing.

i was thinking that the west interview is pretty much as bad as it can get in terms of bias questions and it still has some merit. I think an independent voter can hash through the agendas to figure out who is right and who is wrong. as long as the candidate gets to answer the question, i think it is fine.

at least, my thinking is that i would gladly subject joe biden to one of those if i could subject mccain or palin to one from the opposite side.

But, would you admit that what you saw was a clear case of conservative media bias, and if not, why not?

McCain, as it is, is not very compelling to the base.

the base would be “ok” with the lieberman pick?

to Evangelicals, eventually the middle may be worth more than the base.

he’s been living in a bubble so long he doesn’t really have any idea what most people’s lives are like on a day to day basis. Obama does, as does Palin. The longer you’ve been a national politician the longer it’s been since you’ve gone grocery shopping, waited in car pool with your kids, got your own dry cleaning…

… or been a community organizer where you’re working hand in hand with people who struggle to have enough to eat on a daily basis. McCain is out of touch, as are most politicians who have had a cadre of personal assistants for 20 years.

departments of insurance do it then? Or, more specifically, why aren’t they doing it now?

Open rebellion =\= votes for Obama, necessarily.

As I said, I think the cw (and the polls) are overstating Obama’s lead at this point. Specifically, I’m not ready to point at anything.

Reflecting on my personal biases, I wonder if I’d be anywhere nearly as interested in his site if I wasn’t a baseball fan. I think he’s as good as any poll compiler out there, but I wonder how I’d feel about him if I didn’t now anything about baseball or sabermetrics.

I read an article on Catholic.org doing this precise thing.

I think that these people allow themselves to be overtaken by fear and don’t want to educate themselves. Six months ago at work, I heard someone say that Obama was a Muslim (another co-worker corrected him). Recently, I had a former co-worker send out a mass e-mail that Obama wasn’t a US citizen (soon thereafter, he checked Snopes and found that it wasn’t true).

Ultimately, I think you’re both right — she’s probably a little racist given her upbringing and age, and worried because she doesn’t feel like she knows him.

that in the end more people vote AGAINST obama because hes black?

You took that a bit out of context buddy. You completely ignored the bit about people who aren’t voting for him because they think he’s an “arab, terrorist, a communist,etc.” You gave logical right-wing views about why people wouldn’t vote for him. He was talking abou the illogical views about why people wouldn’t vote for him or would vote against him.

that a top marginal rate of 39% is galloping socialism.

like “mother’s health” – with air quotes?

And I think you calling his tax plans socialist is ridiculous. Isn’t taking from the rich and giving to the poor some form of a Christian ideal? Didn’t Jesus preach this? I’m not too caught up on biblical teachings but I’m pretty sure he condemned the wealthy. Was Jesus a communist?

Who’s digging?

his posts on politics to be any more enlightening than those about baseball?

“I hope you didn’t hope to gain credibility with that pointless post”

ha! pointless posts and Josey go hand in hand.

You have absolutely no answer. Gotcha.

My thought is that he’s obviously really smart (unlike some people here, I’m pretty much in the camp that most of the people who rise to the top of their fields/parties are really smart) but I’m not convinced he’s a once-in-a-lifetime genius.

While I obviously don’t know for certain, remember that the Karl Rove is an Evil Genius storyline was generated by Democrats after losing both 2000 and 2004. Its

In reality, the Democrats lost in 2000 because Bill Clinton was not a particular popular president and not interested in using his popularity to get Al Gore elected. George Bush was an exciting, fresh, young face promising a “change” from the status quo and who appealed to broad demographics. (The parallels to Obama are eerie, but that is another fight for another day).

In 2004, the Democrats lost because they were stupid and picked an admitted pro-internationalism, anti-war candidate during a time when 9/11 was still relatively fresh on people’s minds. John Kerry was the absolute worst candidate the Dems could have picked then (well, Howard Dean would have been worse, but he never had a shot). Had Joe Lieberman been the nominee then, he’d be President right now (and McCain may probably already be Veep, ironically enough).

But rather than admit that Gore and Kerry were weak candidates and that their campaigns weren’t effective, it was easier to paint Rove as an “evil genius” who was able to cherry pick votes to Bush. And while there was some of that, I think that 2000 and 2004 were as much to do with the state of the Democratic party than anything Rove did.

or someone like black francis (wonder if BF has any stories re: rove?)