Obama/Biden vs. McCain/Palin

[stlouie_lipp]

So, we're right back where we were 2 weeks ago?

That was a big waste of time.

But confetti manufacturers got a big boost.

Aren't politics all about the $$$$ for all involved?

[PujolJunkie]

There's a LOT more in Obama's favor than McCain's. This isn't me being partisan or non-objective. This is just how the map plays out.

I would have thought that McCain would have Colorado in his corner, since he seems to have most of the west locked up, but the populated front range has always been a little more progressive.

I think you're right that Obama has an advantage right now. McCain's got a hard battle, but we knew that going in.

Nope. Colorado has been seen as being in Obama's favor for a while now. Along with New Mexico. New Mexico is almost certainly Obama. Colorado is leaning Obama. Barely.

[Socnorb11]

it very well may have been scripted for him, but the "choreographers" surely didn't do their job.

I don't know, I see a slight McCain upswing here:

Not surprising. But how much more of an upswing could there have been if Giuliani hadn't acted like Otis Campbell trying to get Barney re-elected as deputy of Mayberrry?

Huh? Your argument that his speech was bad was not reflected in the polls so you come back with "Well, it could have been a bigger bump" argument. Not sure about the reasoning there.

I don't really think that the polls are much reflection of Giuliani's speech specifically, do you?

[stlouie_lipp]

it very well may have been scripted for him, but the "choreographers" surely didn't do their job.

I don't know, I see a slight McCain upswing here:

Not surprising. But how much more of an upswing could there have been if Giuliani hadn't acted like Otis Campbell trying to get Barney re-elected as deputy of Mayberrry?

Huh? Your argument that his speech was bad was not reflected in the polls so you come back with "Well, it could have been a bigger bump" argument. Not sure about the reasoning there.

I don't really think that the polls are much reflection of Giuliani's speech specifically, do you?

You seemed to indicate that it was when you posted this, or did you mean a bump in the polls when you said it was "more damning than anything else"?

I don't think he was up there ad-libbing with everything that's at stake. Someone signed off on it. Probably several of the smarter people in this country.

Could be.

Probably his presentation was more damning than anything else. But you're right...... it very well may have been scripted for him, but the "choreographers" surely didn't do their job.

[Socnorb11]

it very well may have been scripted for him, but the "choreographers" surely didn't do their job.

I don't know, I see a slight McCain upswing here:

Not surprising. But how much more of an upswing could there have been if Giuliani hadn't acted like Otis Campbell trying to get Barney re-elected as deputy of Mayberrry?

Huh? Your argument that his speech was bad was not reflected in the polls so you come back with "Well, it could have been a bigger bump" argument. Not sure about the reasoning there.

I don't really think that the polls are much reflection of Giuliani's speech specifically, do you?

You seemed to indicate that it was when you posted this, or did you mean a bump in the polls when you said it was "more damning than anything else"?

I don't think he was up there ad-libbing with everything that's at stake. Someone signed off on it. Probably several of the smarter people in this country.

Could be.

Probably his presentation was more damning than anything else. But you're right...... it very well may have been scripted for him, but the "choreographers" surely didn't do their job.

I'm not sure what you mean. When I said "I don't think the polls are much reflection of Giuliani's speech specifically", I meant that I don't think that the slight spike in the polls is because Giuliani is winning votes. If anything, I think that the spike for McCain may have been greater if not for Giuliani's little charade.

[stlouie_lipp]

it very well may have been scripted for him, but the "choreographers" surely didn't do their job.

I don't know, I see a slight McCain upswing here:

Not surprising. But how much more of an upswing could there have been if Giuliani hadn't acted like Otis Campbell trying to get Barney re-elected as deputy of Mayberrry?

Huh? Your argument that his speech was bad was not reflected in the polls so you come back with "Well, it could have been a bigger bump" argument. Not sure about the reasoning there.

I don't really think that the polls are much reflection of Giuliani's speech specifically, do you?

You seemed to indicate that it was when you posted this, or did you mean a bump in the polls when you said it was "more damning than anything else"?

I don't think he was up there ad-libbing with everything that's at stake. Someone signed off on it. Probably several of the smarter people in this country.

Could be.

Probably his presentation was more damning than anything else. But you're right...... it very well may have been scripted for him, but the "choreographers" surely didn't do their job.

I'm not sure what you mean. When I said "I don't think the polls are much reflection of Giuliani's speech specifically", I meant that I don't think that the slight spike in the polls is because Giuliani is winning votes. If anything, I think that the spike for McCain may have been greater if not for Giuliani's little charade.

Didn't you say "the 'choreographers' surely didn't do their job"? Well, looks like they did.

[Jocephus]

this is how i would respond to any question if i was being attacked by my opponent:

Oh, it's all right. I'm sure that we can handle this situation maturely, just like the responsible adults that we are. Isn't that right, Mr... Poopy Pants?

[Freed Roger]

I don't claim to be a military expert - but it seems that Palin/McCain comments about the huge success of the "surge" is them blatantly trying to exploit the naivety of people. It is more wave-the-flag, support-the-troops blind nationalism.

Bear with, don't butcher me, I do support the troops. It is honorable what they are doing. Thus, I'm not a big fan of politicians using them as tools in their campaign BS.

Reason is - I'm not buying into the notion that sending 50,000 extra people over to Iraq to kick arse is finally what made progress in Iraq, after 4+ years. At the beginning of the war -they pounded the heck out of Iraq with tons of bombs for a long time and that wasn't enough. Fallujah-they torched, and that wasn't enough to stop the foes...

It seems an undermentioned pivotal thing happened around the time of the surge - under Petraeus they started cutting deals with these mullahs and clerics. Before then, the strategy was just to kill these insurgents. but they would just get replaced with a new one. Petraeus figured out these guys are more useful to US alive than dead. Pay them off. Get the mullahs on our side, and to control and call off their desperate loyal followers.

Case in point - the powerful cleric Al-sadr. he just disappeared off the map. Last thing heard from Al-sadr was a pacifist statement towards his followers and that he was going back to school to study Islam, or something like that. Was this because of the extra troops he finally caved? that doesn't make sense. There is little doubt, that he is on the US payroll. Much easier to grease them with payola than to make martyrs of guys like him.

IMO, it was diplomacy (albeit a shady version of it), not firepower that has finally changed things in Iraq. I wonder what happens in Iraq, when/if we stop pouring our money into their pockets. how friendly will they be then?

[InvincibleCakeEater]

I don't claim to be a military expert - but it seems that Palin/McCain comments about the huge success of the "surge" is them blatantly trying to exploit the naivety of people. It is more wave-the-flag, support-the-troops blind nationalism.

Bear with, don't butcher me, I do support the troops. It is honorable what they are doing. Thus, I'm not a big fan of politicians using them as tools in their campaign BS.

Reason is - I'm not buying into the notion that sending 50,000 extra people over to Iraq to kick arse is finally what made progress in Iraq, after 4+ years. At the beginning of the war -they pounded the heck out of Iraq with tons of bombs for a long time and that wasn't enough. Fallujah-they torched, and that wasn't enough to stop the foes...

It seems an undermentioned pivotal thing happened around the time of the surge - under Petraeus they started cutting deals with these mullahs and clerics. Before then, the strategy was just to kill these insurgents. but they would just get replaced with a new one. Petraeus figured out these guys are more useful alive than dead. Pay them off. get the mullahs to control and call off their desparate loyal followers.

Case in point - the powerful cleric al-sadr. he just disappeared off the map. Last thing I heard of al-sadr was a pacifist statement towards his followers and that he was going back to school to study Islam or something like that. Was this because of the extra troops? that doesn't make sense. There is little doubt, that he is on the US payroll.

IMO, it was diplomacy (albeit a shady version of it), not firepower that has finally changed things in Iraq. I wonder what happens in Iraq, when/if we stop pouring our money into their pockets. how friendly will they be then?

The surge is a bandaid. I don't know why anyone would think otherwise.

[Freed Roger]

I don't claim to be a military expert - but it seems that Palin/McCain comments about the huge success of the "surge" is them blatantly trying to exploit the naivety of people. It is more wave-the-flag, support-the-troops blind nationalism.

Bear with, don't butcher me, I do support the troops. It is honorable what they are doing. Thus, I'm not a big fan of politicians using them as tools in their campaign BS.

Reason is - I'm not buying into the notion that sending 50,000 extra people over to Iraq to kick arse is finally what made progress in Iraq, after 4+ years. At the beginning of the war -they pounded the heck out of Iraq with tons of bombs for a long time and that wasn't enough. Fallujah-they torched, and that wasn't enough to stop the foes...

It seems an undermentioned pivotal thing happened around the time of the surge - under Petraeus they started cutting deals with these mullahs and clerics. Before then, the strategy was just to kill these insurgents. but they would just get replaced with a new one. Petraeus figured out these guys are more useful alive than dead. Pay them off. get the mullahs to control and call off their desparate loyal followers.

Case in point - the powerful cleric al-sadr. he just disappeared off the map. Last thing I heard of al-sadr was a pacifist statement towards his followers and that he was going back to school to study Islam or something like that. Was this because of the extra troops? that doesn't make sense. There is little doubt, that he is on the US payroll.

IMO, it was diplomacy (albeit a shady version of it), not firepower that has finally changed things in Iraq. I wonder what happens in Iraq, when/if we stop pouring our money into their pockets. how friendly will they be then?

The surge is a bandaid. I don't know why anyone would think otherwise.

People would think otherwise, because people aren't too bright ...especially with all the bright lights and flags waving in our eyes.