Campaign Creations

I ask because I read your blog.

Aye, link your blog on your signature, mAc.  I take a look at it every once in awhile too to keep myself "Fair and Balanced"

What say ye?

mAc Chaos wrote: Are you a Republican?

I'd describe myself as more of a centrist then belonging to either of Canada's parties.

Revan wrote: She even said that invading Iraq is part of God's plans.

See? I told you! female Christian Osama

AA7Dragoon wrote: Aye, link your blog on your signature, mAc.  I take a look at it every once in awhile too to keep myself "Fair and Balanced"

What say ye?

Consider it linked.

^ What's your take on the sudden change of the Republican campaign's theme?  At first, it was "experience, experience, experience" with McCain ramming Obama on foreign policy and saying only he has the credibility to lead the country.  Then the convention happens, and with Palin, suddenly the word choice is "change, change, Mavericks."  Why is it?  Why did the campaign completely adjust their theme from "experience" to "change," which, by the way, Obama's campaign has used from the very beginning?

Do you also find it dishonest Palin uses the e-bay jet and the Bridge to Nowhere to tout her "changing Maverick" status when those claims have been publicly debunked?


BTW, you didn't Obama trendy your blog with that new skin you asked us to pick from in your SA thread.  That's not change, mAc, that's more of the same!

You have to understand, most people here something from their leader-figure live on stage, and they'll chose to not believe media's attempts at debunking statement. They block all negativity. It's ridiculous, otherwise it'd be a much different story. But I've seen this from Republicans a lot, considering four years ago, I'd listen to phone calls on CNN with Southern state people saying "Bush is the best president ever," "all that propaganda blaming him for war is wrong," "Bush is an amazing president, he's never told a lie" ... That's when I realized just how cynical people can get about their chosen leader.

Lavarinth wrote: You have to understand, most people here something from their leader-figure live on stage, and they'll chose to not believe media's attempts at debunking statement. They block all negativity. It's ridiculous, otherwise it'd be a much different story.

hahahahahahahah

tipereth wrote:

Lavarinth wrote: You have to understand, most people here something from their leader-figure live on stage, and they'll chose to not believe media's attempts at debunking statement. They block all negativity. It's ridiculous, otherwise it'd be a much different story.

hahahahahahahah

quoted for posterity

So I was reading an article today on MSNBC about how Obama should only blame himself for blowing his lead on McCain. Some of the points it makes are understandable (going back on the public finance stance-- one for going back on his word, and the other for diverting valuable time to fundraising) and some are downright silly (not attacking McCain for two months-- which I understand is one of the things that makes Obama attractive to his loyal), but the one I really thought Obama dropped the ball on was waiting until now to reach out to the Clintons (almost everyone knows that Bill Clinton is still unhappy with Obama-- this observation being made that Obama is only just getting around to having a sit-down with Bill Clinton).

--- UPDATE ---
[youtube=425,350]3ALsjhDDdaA[/youtube]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080912/ap_on_el_pr/palin_interview;_ylt=Asy4Ot5bc.MBfkdOPhG2o7eyFz4D

Palin tries to defend qualifications in interview
1 hour, 10 minutes ago
FORT WAINWRIGHT, Alaska - John McCain running mate Sarah Palin sought Thursday to defend her qualifications but struggled with foreign policy, unable to describe President Bush's doctrine of pre-emptive strikes against threatening nations and acknowledging she's never met a foreign head of state.

The Republican vice presidential nominee told Charles Gibson of ABC News in her first televised interview since being named to the GOP ticket that "I'm ready" to be president if called upon. However, she sidestepped on whether she had the national security credentials needed to be commander in chief.

Watch the interview.  For anyone who is knowledgeable about current events and politics, this is a PAINFULLY BAD interview to watch.  Palin has proven just how inexperienced and clueless she is.  Her answers were noticeably scripted, she had no idea what Bush's doctrine of preemptive strikes were (when she had just said she supported them), and she contradicted herself several times.

RazorclawX wrote: So I was reading an article today on MSNBC about how Obama should only blame himself for blowing his lead on McCain. Some of the points it makes are understandable (going back on the public finance stance-- one for going back on his word, and the other for diverting valuable time to fundraising) and some are downright silly (not attacking McCain for two months-- which I understand is one of the things that makes Obama attractive to his loyal), but the one I really thought Obama dropped the ball on was waiting until now to reach out to the Clintons (almost everyone knows that Bill Clinton is still unhappy with Obama-- this observation being made that Obama is only just getting around to having a sit-down with Bill Clinton).

Completely agree.

The interview wasn't THAT bad (except for her accent). She was probably told "don't say yes or no to anything, just plug McCain," and that's what she did. You don't need to hear WHAT she says to know she's inexperienced, though. Her personality says it all.

"What do you mean by that, Charlie?"

On a lighter note, Palin and Hillary make a guest appearance on SNL:

VIDEO LINK UPDATED:
http://americanidolamericanidol.blogspot.com/2008/09/watch-video-of-tina-fey-impersonating.html