What exactly are they afraid of?

[packinpatland]

In 42 days we will vote..........and they are still shielding Palin from the public and from the press.
She has not held a press conference since being chosen by McCain four weeks ago, and has not done the traditional local interviews when traveling into media markets.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/23/1436401.aspx

[texaspackerbacker]

3 weeks by my calendar is October 7. Oh. 3 weeks became 42 days. Isn't that "edit" function wonderful.

What are you planning on voting on then, packinpatland?

If you meant 2 months, that's a major difference--plenty of time. Palin will be debating Biden on national TV--leftists should be scared shitless about that. She has had two major televised interviews--one with Fox News, one with an unabashed leftist shill from ABC TV--and she did an excellent job.

The supposed gains in the polls over the last several weeks for Obama correlate with Palin NOT having much access for voters to hear her. Perhaps you should check with your leftist leaders and ask them if they want Palin to be articulating her positions in front of more people.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I've already posted this several times, but the dumbest thing the Dems can do is draw attention to Palin. It just invites comparison to Obama, who is equally unqualified to be President, and he is at the top of the ticket.

You don't hear that many attacks on Biden by the Republicans, they are smarter. The VP really doesn't matter.

[packinpatland]

3 weeks by my calendar is October 7. Oh. 3 weeks became 42 days. Isn't that "edit" function wonderful.

What are you planning on voting on then, packinpatland?

If you meant 2 months, that's a major difference--plenty of time. Palin will be debating Biden on national TV--leftists should be scared shitless about that. She has had two major televised interviews--one with Fox News, one with an unabashed leftist shill from ABC TV--and she did an excellent job.

The supposed gains in the polls over the last several weeks for Obama correlate with Palin NOT having much access for voters to hear her. Perhaps you should check with your leftist leaders and ask them if they want Palin to be articulating her positions in front of more people.

Good Lord......talk about 'senior moments'.........sure got me on that one tex ......
On everything else you have to say.............

[HowardRoark]

Still waiting for the hour long Charlie Gibson interview of Joe Biden. What time do Joe's press conferences come on T.V.?

[MadtownPacker]

Maybe they are worried about a wardrobe malfunction?

[MJZiggy]

Ok, that was funny...

[MadScientist]

I've already posted this several times, but the dumbest thing the Dems can do is draw attention to Palin. It just invites comparison to Obama, who is equally unqualified to be President, and he is at the top of the ticket.

You don't hear that many attacks on Biden by the Republicans, they are smarter. The VP really doesn't matter.

The flip side of your argument is that the republicans can't claim that Palin is unqualified and unready to lead, or that experience is all that critical so their attacks on Obama are undermined. With those eliminated, you are left with judgment and temperament, giving Obama the advantage.

I would however agree with you that the Democrats should not focus on Palin. The vice presidency isn't worth a warm bucket of spit. The Democrats should only acknowledge the existence of 2 republicans, Bush and McCain.

[texaspackerbacker]

I've already posted this several times, but the dumbest thing the Dems can do is draw attention to Palin. It just invites comparison to Obama, who is equally unqualified to be President, and he is at the top of the ticket.

You don't hear that many attacks on Biden by the Republicans, they are smarter. The VP really doesn't matter.

The ONLY thing I would change in your post would be to take the "un" off of "unqualified".

Obviously, Palin is well qualified to be president--only leftists who HATE her positions on the issues would think otherwise. And as for experience, she has a helluva lot more than Obama.

However, I would NOT oppose Obama on the grounds that he is UNQUALIFIED to be president. Advisors, etc. can more than mitigate the lack of experience. The reason it is so unthinkable for Obama to be president is HIS POSITIONS ON THE ISSUES--the strong probability he would NOT prevent repeats of 9/11--since he opposes literally EVERYTHING that has worked so successfully so far. Obama also would tax and spend the country into oblivion, and he would inflict a bunch of leftist programs on the American people which would result in severe curtailment of freedom. And last, but certainly not least, he would appoint leftist activist judges and justices who would tear down whatever remains of traditional values and morality after the havoc reaked by earlier leftist courts. THOSE are the reason an Obama presidency would be horrendous for America.

His lack of experience has very little to do with it. An equally inexperienced person who has decent views on the issues would do just fine.

[mraynrand]

I've already posted this several times, but the dumbest thing the Dems can do is draw attention to Palin. It just invites comparison to Obama, who is equally unqualified to be President, and he is at the top of the ticket.

You don't hear that many attacks on Biden by the Republicans, they are smarter. The VP really doesn't matter.

The flip side of your argument is that the republicans can't claim that Palin is unqualified and unready to lead, or that experience is all that critical so their attacks on Obama are undermined. With those eliminated, you are left with judgment and temperament, giving Obama the advantage.

I would however agree with you that the Democrats should not focus on Palin. The vice presidency isn't worth a warm bucket of spit. The Democrats should only acknowledge the existence of 2 republicans, Bush and McCain.

What do you think best defines Obama's advantage in judgment? If you want to say position on the war, you will have to acknowledge that at the time his position was inconsequential and that he also supported Bush's handling of Iraq at least in 2004. What other judgment is there to convince anyone that Obama is a good leader? The asbestos he didn't really get removed as community organizer? The 50 million Annenberg dollars he blew with (by their own admission) no tangible results on student performance in Chicago schools, but with likely left-wing politicalization of classrooms? Voting present in the State Senate? Latching on to a couple of bills in Congress before running for president? Supporting partial birth abortion? What judgment?

[HowardRoark]

The flip side of your argument is that the republicans can't claim that Palin is unqualified and unready to lead, or that experience is all that critical so their attacks on Obama are undermined. With those eliminated, you are left with judgment and temperament, giving Obama the advantage.

I would however agree with you that the Democrats should not focus on Palin. The vice presidency isn't worth a warm bucket of spit. The Democrats should only acknowledge the existence of 2 republicans, Bush and McCain.

Ayers
Rezko
Pfleger
Powers
Jim Johnson

And the crème de la crème……”I was against the invasion of Iraq, therefore; we should leave now…..no matter what is going on there at this time”(or something)..... obvious lack of judgement (to say nothing of the lack of logic). Even though he was obviously pandering to the MoveOn.org types during the primaries.

The guy is unbelievably malleable.

Didn't the "post-partisan" candidate tell his minions the other day to "get in people's faces?" Nice temperament.

As far as th Bush/McCain thing....you must be on the email talking points list.

[oregonpackfan]

Sarah Palin is back in Alaska expanding her knowledge of foreign affairs by "Looking at Russia from my house."

[Kiwon]

Re: What exactly are they afraid of?

In 42 days we will vote..........and they are still shielding Palin from the public and from the press.
She has not held a press conference since being chosen by McCain four weeks ago, and has not done the traditional local interviews when traveling into media markets.

Yeah, "they" hid her away from the public at rallies attended by 10,000 in Green Bay and 60,000 in Florida. She wanted to go to the anti-
Ahmadinejad rally in NYC but Democratic activists threaten to go after the sponsors if she appeared. Interviews with ABC, Fox, and CBS somehow don't count as press appearances?

Seems to me that the almighty MSM is already doing a good job of commenting on all things Palin. Between the Hollywood nitwits constant trashing and SNL skits about incest in the Palin's home it's little wonder why she should make time for journalists who don't care about objectivity but are primarily looking to impress their friends and score big for Obama's campaign with their "gotcha" questions.

Good question, PIP, what exactly is the MSM so afraid of?

The election is between McCAIN and OBAMA!!

[HowardRoark]

The Man Who Never Was
By Tony Blankley

The mainstream media have gone over the line and are now straight-out propagandists for the Obama campaign.

While they have been liberal and blinkered in their worldview for decades, in 2007-08, for the first time, the major media consciously are covering for one candidate for president and consciously are knifing the other. This is no longer journalism; it is simply propaganda. (The American left-wing version of the Völkischer Beobachter cannot be far behind.)

And as a result, we are less than seven weeks away from possibly electing a president who has not been thoroughly or even halfway honestly presented to the country by our watchdogs -- the press. The image of Obama that the press has presented to the public is not a fair approximation of the real man. They consciously have ignored whole years of his life and have shown a lack of curiosity about such gaps, which bespeaks a lack of journalistic instinct.

Thus, the public image of Obama is of a "man who never was."

I take that phrase from a 1956 movie about a real-life World War II British intelligence operation to trick the Germans into thinking the Allies were going to invade Greece rather than Sicily in 1943. Operation Mincemeat involved the acquisition of a human corpse dressed as "Major William Martin, R.M.," which was put into the sea near Spain. Attached to the corpse was a briefcase containing fake letters suggesting that the Allied attack would be against Sardinia and Greece.

To make the operation credible, British intelligence concocted a fictional life for the corpse, creating a letter from a lover and tickets to a London theater -- all the details of a life, but not the actual life of the dead young man whose corpse was being used. So, too, the man the media have presented to the nation as Obama is not the real man.

The mainstream media ruthlessly and endlessly repeat any McCain gaffes while ignoring Obama gaffes. You have to go to weird little Web sites to see all the stammering and stuttering that Obama needs before getting out a sentence fragment or two. But all you see on the networks is an eventually clear sentence from Obama. You don't see Obama's ludicrous gaffe that Iran is a tiny country and no threat to us. Nor his 57 American states gaffe. Nor his forgetting, if he ever knew, that Russia has a veto in the U.N. Nor his whining and puerile "come on" when he is being challenged. This is the kind of editing one would expect from Goebbels' disciples, not Cronkite's.

More appalling, a skit on NBC's "Saturday Night Live" last weekend suggested that Gov. Palin's husband had sex with his own daughters. That show was written with the assistance of Al Franken, Democratic Party candidate in Minnesota for the U.S. Senate. Talk about incest.

But worse than all the unfair and distorted reporting and image projecting are the shocking gaps in Obama's life that are not reported at all. The major media simply have not reported on Obama's two years at New York's Columbia University, where, among other things, he lived a mere quarter-mile from former terrorist Bill Ayers. Later, they both ended up as neighbors and associates in Chicago. Obama denies more than a passing relationship with Ayers. Should the media be curious? In only two weeks, the media have focused on all the colleges Gov. Palin has attended, her husband's driving habits 20 years ago, and the close criticism of the political opponents Gov. Palin had when she was mayor of Wasilla, Alaska.

But in two years, they haven't bothered to see how close Obama was with the terrorist Ayers.

Nor have the media paid any serious attention to Obama's rise in Chicago politics. How did honest Obama rise in the famously sordid Chicago political machine with the full support of Boss Daley? Despite the great -- and unflattering -- details on Obama's Chicago years presented in David Freddoso's new book on Obama, the mainstream media continue to ignore both the facts and the book. It took a British publication, The Economist, to give Freddoso's book a review with fair comment.

The public image of Obama as an idealistic, post-race, post-partisan, well-spoken and honest young man with the wisdom and courage befitting a great national leader is a confection spun by a willing conspiracy of Obama, his publicist (David Axelrod) and most of the senior editors, producers and reporters of the national media.

Perhaps that is why the National Journal's respected correspondent Stuart Taylor wrote, "The media can no longer be trusted to provide accurate and fair campaign reporting and analysis."

That conspiracy not only has Photoshopped out all of Obama's imperfections (and dirtied up his opponent McCain's image) but also has put most of his questionable history down the memory hole.

The public will be voting based on the idealized image of the man who never was. If he wins, however, we will be governed by the sunken, cynical man Obama really is. One can only hope that the senior journalists will be judged as harshly for their professional misconduct as Wall Street's leaders currently are for their failings.

[packinpatland]

All of this would be totally not even 'talkable' if McCain weren't so damn old!

Being 'hid' at rallies of 10,000 and 60,000 (quesitonable numbers, but that's not the point)..........that's like comparing her to a football player or a member of a rock band. Being in front of people doesn't mean you're accessible. And yesterday in NY was a joke. She made small talk with world leaders......now she's qualified.