I apologize if I overreacted to the one or two occasions I saw it used here. I am seeing it used so much elsewhere and trying to link the media to it, or Obama to it etc, that I guess it seemed out of place in this discussion amongst friends of the US elections.
As it's being used liberally by some of the right wing commentators elsewhere, I was getting tired of hearing it used without anyone substantiating that claim.

No, Jordandog, you're obviously someone who is conscientiously trying to do the right thing but finding it frustrating this year as many of us are. At least we're trying...as I believe only forty nine or fifty percent of the eligible voters were active last time around.

Once again, I saw the word used here once or twice, and assumed that the same old quarrels from commentators that we'd heard a million times were leaking in when we could instead discuss these matters with friends around the world.

I was an enthusiastic supporter of Hillary Clinton, and my heart was broken when it didn't work out for her. I had no idea who I would be voting for in November, until I saw Governor Palin's speech at the Republican Convention. Halfway through, my mind was made up. In my opinion, Senator McCain made a poor choice in selecting such an inexperienced person, with precious little to offer, as his running mate. The thought of her being a heartbeat away from the Presidency frightens me. That so many people have embraced her candidacy with such enthusiasm is pretty scary also. So here's my vote: Obama/Biden

I haven't seen the term Stalinist used - I stay away from the ultra right wing blogs, as I'm sure they would prefer me to

"Socialist" has been used a couple of times, by I think several people, and I do think it's not too accurate. Even our furthest left mainstream party, the NDP, is not really socialist, and it's about five steps to the left of the Democrats.

"Stalinist" was used Monday evening on page 8 of this thread. Maureen Dowd in today's New York Times repeats the idea without using the word:

"Republicans, who have won so many elections painting Democrats as socialists and pinkos...."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/24/opinion/24dowd.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Yes, Bruyere, I think the term is used very loosely to mean anything not red-blooded American. We fear giving an inch lest a mile be taken. Many Americans are unaware that, as you pointed out, we are much farther to the right than most of the world.

Changing the subject a bit, Ruth Marcus aptly described Palin's public utterances as being like a polar bear leaping from floe to floe, never quite missing but in continual peril. (My paraphrase.)
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2008/09/palin_on_thin_ice.html

Friday is a big night, with the first debate happening.

I am going to be looking not as much at the questions they take their time to answer. But the ones they answer fast. This will tell me what their gut instincts tell them, not what the political version of the answer is. Also looking at not what the answer starts with or ends with, but what is said in the middle or responses. Politicians always start and end with prepared parts of answers.

I was reading real news reports and watching real interviews with Palin last night and just gave up and laughed, instead of worrying if she was going to miss the floe and get soaked. I told my husband that if this were a movie I'd be doing what so annoys my family: sitting there and saying, "This is so unrealistic! It could never happen!"

The present show reminds me of "Dave," or the original "The Farmer's Daughter," except it really IS happening!

I know that Wiki is not the most reliable source, but after looking around at various sites and articles, they all gave almost the same breakdown of the Democratic Party. This, from Wiki, seemed to have the most concise statement/wording about it.

"With over 72 million registered members, the Democratic Party is home to an ideologically diverse base. Liberals form by far the largest and most influential ideological demographic within the party."

Now, as far as my knowledge base goes, the term 'Liberal' is always equated with the left of center and not the right .

PaulDrake said

Quote:

---

Why are we given such pitiful choices?

---

But we weren't "given" the two contenders for president--they were the last two standing after the grueling round of primaries. They were "chosen" by voters, and by the super delagates (who also made independent voting choices), and they were not just "given" to us at the conventions. They do reflect the choices that the voters made during the party primaries.

Both Obama and McCain reflect their respective party positions on the major issues. In that sense, they both reflect rather traditional choices for voters. People who have any preference for one party's style of governing over the other party's style and values, should not have trouble making a decision solely on the issues.

McCain chose as his running mate a woman who reflects extreme right wing religious/ultra-conservative views on most issues of social policy (abortion, guns, teaching Creationism in schools, environmental issues, etc.) and whose thinking blurs the line of separation between church and state--her views are far more extreme than McCain's. People, including moderate Republicans, who are troubled by such social religious views, or their threat to secular government, might not want to vote for McCain if the idea of Palin ever becoming president is a concern. If they don't approve of the Democrats' philosophy of government, these people might then have difficulty deciding who to vote for, or whether to vote at all.


Obama and McCain differ considerably in terms of temperament, leadership style, and how they make judgments. McCain is the more hot-headed, impulsive, and inconsistent. Obama is the calmer, laid back, reflective college professor-type, who carefully and patiently considers issues in-depth, and who may be consequently slower to act and react at times. For many people, of both parties, McCain's basic temperament is seen as a drawback to his effective functioning as a president. His judgments might be hasty, too colored by emotion, too impulsive, and too inconsistent.People who feel temperament and demeanor in a president is important, might be disturbed by McCain's behavior.

Obama has already unified the Democratic party after a very contentious primary season. Those with Democratic party loyalty will vote for him, even though they might have preferred Hillary at the top of the ticket. As president, he should enjoy the full backing of his party. He also is flexible enough in his thinking to encourage bi-partisan cooperation.

The Republican party is very badly splintered and McCain has done nothing to help the rifts--in fact he may have widened them. In choosing Palin, he threw a bone to the religious conservatives (who really don't like or trust him), but the more recent positions he has taken on the economy have angered fiscal conservatives (who are also angry at Bush). So McCain does not have the broad backing or support of even his own party, his positions do not really invite bipartisan support, and this might affect what he could accomplish as president.

Democrats have history on their side when it comes to effectiveness in dealing with difficult economic times. The Democrats have simply been historically better at this than the Republicans. The Republicans tend to create the serious economic problems, the Democrats get them resolved.

McCain has more foreign policy experience than Obama, but no real executive experience that would make him a better Commander-in-Chief. His POW experience does not make him a military leader. He favors military solutions, and might well continue to pursue such options, following the same path as Bush--a path that many do not agree with, particularly after Iraq. Our military is stretched thin, and offensive military spending becomes somewhat more problematic when the overall economy is tanking and you don't have the troops to fight the wars.
Despite his relative lack of foreign policy experience, Obama appears to have a better grasp of the complexities and nuances, and advocates more diplomatic and cooperative strategies on the international level. Obama wants to try to mend fences and restore our national image and standing on the world stage. McCain is not really on this same wave length. He recently made a very strange comment that even a country like Spain, our NATO partner, would have to prove it's alligience to the U.S. before he would consider meeting with it's president. That's not exactly an approach that helps to build alliances.
There is no doubt in my mind that both Obama and McCain would protect the country against terrorist threats--and this also depends on how well government intelligence and security agencies do their jobs, and how well the president listens to what they say and evaluates their information.

Neither Obama nor McCain can advocate many specific proposals for the economy right now that have much credibility. We first have to see how the current economic crisis/emergency is handled, and what the cost of the bail outs will be, and if they work. If the emergency measures do not work, and there is no guarantee that they will, everyone will have to rethink their plans. The country is in uncharted territory with the current economic crisis--no one should expect Obama or McCain to come up with a magic solution, and the problem is bi-partisan. Obama has clearly shown a firmer, more consistent grasp of the economic issues then does McCain. Reform and regulation will occur regardless of who the next president will be, because the situation requires those changes. Obama has always advocated those things, McCain jumped on the regulation bandwagon only within the past week, and it remains to be seen how sincere his commitment is.

If one expects the next president to be a miracle worker, it ain't gonna happen. The next president is inheriting a terrible mess that will not be resolved quickly. We are all going to suffer through some difficult times. I think Obama is the better qualified, in terms of intelligence, temperament, leadership ability, and judgment, to help get us get through it in the best way possible.

One reason this thread is a cheering section for Obama/Biden, is because there is so little real enthusiasm for the McCain/Palin ticket. McCain generates so little excitement, he is reduced to making virtually all campaign appearances with Palin because she's the one who pumps up the crowds and generates interest--she completely overshadows him, which is rather pathetic, particularly because she has been kept under wraps, and away from the press, so we mainly hear her spouting only scripted comments and campaign slogans. Her only two interviews--with Charlie Gibson and Sean Hannity--revealed her thinking to be shallow, uninformed, and somewhat confused. That all the hoopla on the Republican side is for the person on the ticket who is the least known to voters, and is not the presidential contender, and who won't face the press to freely answer questions, is rathering frightening. There is a lack of real substance on the Republican side--it's mainly an attack driven campaign promoting "image" for McCain/Palin. But McCain's "image" has been inconsistent, his temperament and judgments subject to questioning and doubts, and his appeal is rather lukewarm--hence the greater display of real enthusiam for Obama, who truly excites and inspires many of his supporters.

You love Obama. I don't. Our "choices", however they are obtained are lacking from my point of view. Actually, I wish there were more Sarah Palins in the sense that I'd like to see ordinary citizens take the initiative at all levels of government. For the most part I really don't like professional politicians, and Obama looks like he could out snake oil, even a master like Bill Clinton. In the end, we are all products of our upbringing, environment, experiences and DNA. Let me say that I wish you nothing but the best life has to offer, but I certainly do not share your world view. I would encourage you to read and experience things that will challenge you to your very core. It's scary and troublesome, but in the end worth it.

Getting a crowd pumped up is not one of the categories I base my vote on.

When Obama doesn't take his time and think of the right political thing to say, he puts his foot in his mouth. I am not going to mistake looking for the proper thing to say at the moment as having poise.

Reagan wasn't a democrat and he did good for the economy.

"This thread has been a lot of quoted article after article from newspapers and other websites that are clearly for Obama. I can just as easily visit other websites and quote articles for McCain and Palin but I just choose not to. I also choose not to believe everything I read from the liberal press. Sorry, but McCain and especially Sarah Palin truly excites and inspires this FT member."

Thank you, ClaraSue, for reiterating that point which has been made a few times about hauling out article after article and not doing the same ie McCain/Palin. It is obviously a waste of time and I don't care to take up that much space when people are perfectly capable of reading on their own. Put out the facts and I will look at them. Put out the journalistic pandering and I won't be swayed one way or the other. Any more than I will be by how many times a cheer goes up while a candidate speaks. I said it pages back and BX brought it up again. Watch and listen to the debates without the teleprompters. Maybe, just maybe, we will get a realisic glimpse at who these people really are and more importantly, what they actually know.

Take a true and realisic look at the role of the Superdelegates, the entire debacle that system has caused yet again, and then tell me Democratic candidates are truly chosen by the populace. The day the Republican Party decides to opt into that ridiculous system is the day I tear up my voter registration and rights.

My point is that I look at the press from both sides and make up my own mind, but information from real live people in Alaska who've stated clearly their reasons to be skeptical about her candidacy and why, that's valuable to me.

If the use of the term 'socialist' is explained then I accept the reasons you're using it, but, the term 'stalinist' is being used all over the place without really justifiable reasons in my opinion. For me it's not my 'great love' for Obama at all that motivates this distrust.

I'm thinking that I value people's opinions here more than I value the press because you are all real. But when I see things dragged in from the press that's admittedly skewed one way or the other.

The experience of many people from outside the USA is valuable to me. For example, I used to be surprised when I first lived in France to hear about communist governed towns being governed well and having more resources for everyone. It just surprised me as the only communists I'd seen in the US were on street corners screeching nonsense!
For your average American, the words 'socialist' and 'communist' are scary, but for many Europeans, life works pretty well for some things under socialized medicine and other things and is tied up in bureaucracy for others. But calling someone a stalinist is a more serious claim. I'm trying to explain that for me, once you've used that term, it's over for me. If you are relating things about the Cook County experience then that's what I listen to, not the old stirring up of the fear of Stalinist government and massacres with the adjective there.

If the people at FT are as I think they are, then, they are capable of discussing issues without the trappings of too many journalists' opinions.

I tend to dislike the snarky tone of both sides that if you don't believe XYZ you're a sheep or worse. So this is why I dislike the journalistic terms coming here that are counter productive. If I wanted to hear about how so and so had drunk the koolaid or was a puppet of the MSM or whatever code words are fashionable I'd go there. I prefer to hear civil conversation about how life really is in places where those people have governed.

Now, I guess I can see that people who really don't want Obama for whatever reasons would vote for McCain and that Palin coming along would make them feel better about the ticket because she has a strong personality, but, if I were in their shoes, I'd listen to my friends from Alaska who are Republicans' comments with great interest however.

My philosophy is that both sides of the media are going to show their bias of course, but this is why I enjoy hearing from others. You have your own points of view and I respect those because they aren't just influenced by the media but by your own concerns.

Demeanor could be an important quality of an individual seeking high office.

I devoted an entire chapter in my book, on Pres. Bush's demeanor soon after 911.

I didn't believe it was totally genuine.

With these two candidates, I see where McCain appears too quiet, and then surprises with a nice female who has a future modeling ladies' garments.

With Obama, his ability to communicate is never questioned, it is just that I can't buy into his agenda entirely.

So, I try to keep an open mind.

I think our thought processes confound us at times, and then on election day it is a process of elimination rather than an enthusiastic conviction.

Wasting time and energy on bringing out points doesn't feed the bull dog.

McCain pulled another surprise by opting to return to D.C. rather than debate Obama, being that our economy is now in dire straights.

This is a move to show his statesmanship takes priority over trivialaties such as a debate.

I am a Democrat, I voted in the Democratic primary for Hillary Clinton, and I am more than satisfied with the candidate my party chose. Obama was chosen by a perfectly democratic voting procedure--I have no problem with the fact that super delegates also voted. Obama is an excellent candidate. There was no debacle in this system. The Democratic party is unified. I have no problems with Obama's candidacy at all.

I do have a problem with people here who say things like Obama reminds them of a snake oil salesman, or that they don't have a realistic glimpse of these two candidates or what they think or know.

People are entitled to distrust a candidate, but for purposes of discussion in this Forum, it helps if they say why they distrust the candidate, in terms of things he has actually said or done. I have been very specific about what I like about Obama and what I dislike about McCain.

Similarly, if someone does not yet know what these two candidates think and know about the issues, they just haven't been paying attention. They both engaged in debates for over a year as part of the primary process. I watched both the Republican and Democratic debates. I know what they think, and how they think, although with McCain that seems to be rather fluid, since he is constantly changing positions. Obama has been very consistent on major issues. Both candidates have written positions which are available on their Web sites. There is no mystery about what they have been saying on the campaign trail. It's reported in the papers every day. Their general demeanor and behavior has been under intense scrutiny.

I don't think there is "journalistic pandering" and I'm not sure I understand exactly what that means. Unless it refers to the cable media's overcoverage of Sarah Palin despite her refusal to answer questions from the press. They keep her image constantly on view (with almost no coverage of Biden), yet they blandly accept her refusal to answer reporters' questions, which is very strange for a news organization. That's pandering to the Republican strategy.

I do think it is useful to read newspaper and magazine political opinion pieces, from both sides of the aisle, because those people take the time to be thoughtful and to tie their opinions to facts about the candidates. They make one think about things they might not have considered or thought about.

McCain just realized there is a severe crisis in Washington with the economy--although the Secretary of the Treasury said exactly that same thing last week. Now he has now decided it is so critical that he cannot continue his campaign. Well, where has he been since last week if things were that critical?

Obama called McCain this morning and suggested they meet and work out a bipartisan statement on the current economic crisis. McCain said it was a good idea and he'd get back to him.

McCain did not get back to Obama. Instead he suddenly and melodramatically suspended his campaign and is rushing to Washington allegedly to help resolve the economic crisis. And he wants this week's presidential debate delayed or postponed. And he tells us that he is putting his country above his presidential bid by doing this.

Wouldn't you think he'd want the debate this week--just so he could demonstrate his command of the issues and problems? Isn't a crisis a good time to show his leadership skills? We are only 41 days from the election.

But maybe McCain saw the poll numbers that came out today, some of which showed a big jump for Obama. Maybe he needed to create a distraction from his flagging campaign--just the way he did when he picked Palin. So today, he gave us more drama by saying there will be no debate this week and he is rushing to Washington. Anything to create distracting headlines--so people won't realize it is the Republicans in Congress rejecting their own president's plan. So people in the public won't connect McCain to Bush. So McCain won't have to appear for the debate not fully prepared to answer tough questions about the economy.

Bush's emergency economic bail-out program is stalled in Congress, primarily meeting with resistance from Republicans. The program has too many unanswered questions, too little oversight, and puts too much unprecedented power (and money) into the hands of the Secretary of the Treasury. Bush is looking bad because Congress is giving him bipartisan flack about the proposal--as well they should. You don't hand one man $700 billion dollars without sufficient accountability for where that money goes and why it is going to some but not others. Bush wanted Secretary Paulson to have carte blanche, and Congress, very appropriately said, "Not so fast".

So now, McCain is apparently rushing to Bush's rescue, by trying to get the Republicans in Congress to move faster on the proposal. But no one in Congress really wants him involved in the current negotiations--economy is not his strong point, and they are doing fine without him. They don't need either of the presidential candidates distracting them from the work they have to do on this proposal. This emergency measure should not become a political football--Congress is doing it's job, and they are working on negotiations with Secretary Paulson and making progress. It's just as important that they get this right then that they do it fast. If this plan doesn't work, they have nothing else to try to rescue the economy.

Perhaps, by going to Washington, McCain is hoping he can wind up taking credit for something he had no part in. Or to put pressure on the Congressional Republicans to do something to make him look good on the issue of the economy.
McCain's primary motivation at the moment is to get elected. He's not suspending his campaign for the sake of the country, that's just nonsense. This move is some sort of impulsive campaign strategy to help restore his image on the economy, since everytime the economy dominates the news, McCain's poll numbers go down. But these erratic and impulsive moves by McCain do nothing to suggest he is a calm steady leader.

Whatever, the real reason, McCain can't just impulsively drop out of a presidential campaign and call off a debate with 41 days to go until the election. One of these two men will inherit this mess in January. If McCain cares about his country, he will realize that the election is just as important as the economic crisis and voters cannot be deprived of the opportunity to see these two men side by side in a debate.

Obama is sticking by his guns. He wants the debate to go on. It will be interesting to see if McCain backs down.

Obama does stumble and that's why I said watch without the teleprompters at the debate, but now I guess we'll have to wait. Apparently Obama will continue to run all his ads and stay on the road. He also stated he will show up at the debate on Friday. Hmmm...maybe there is a third candidate we haven't been told about yet?

As to the sexist remark about Cindy McCain we heard the opposite about how dowdy Hillary was when Bill was running. That has a lot to do with the country, yes?

chelseabelle:

Quote:

---

Democrats have history on their side when it comes to effectiveness in dealing with difficult economic times. The Democrats have simply been historically better at this than the Republicans. The Republicans tend to create the serious economic problems, the Democrats get them resolved.

---

That is such a partisan remark and then you go onto say this current situation is a *bi-partisan* one. That type of thinking and reasoning ie Republicans create all and Democrats solve all is what scares the hell out of me because there is no black and white here, yet that is how you choose to view it. I believe that may even go above and beyond some of the most biased columnists and commentators I have read and heard in my lifetime.

Quote:

---

Reform and regulation will occur regardless of who the next president will be, because the situation requires those changes. Obama has always advocated those things, McCain jumped on the regulation bandwagon only within the past week, and it remains to be seen how sincere his commitment is.

---

You obvioiusly choose to ignore the proof of the Senate Reform Bill in 2005 that I said was contributed to and signed by McCain. How has Obama *always advocated these things* when he has been absent for almost every vote in the past. Or, does *always* refer to the last 2 weeks?

I am so very grateful we have a majority that are willing to remain openminded at this point. That type of one dimensional thinking is akin to saying "I know the traintracks are closed, but I'm going to drive this train on them anyway. If it crashes, I'll find someone to blame."

ClaraSue,

I'm not a registered Republican, but I vote overwhelmingly Republican. I think I may have voted for a Democratic candidate once for a national ticket in the 30 years that I've been eligible to vote.

I would guess I'm the only Alaskan here on this site who has actually met Sarah Palin and probably the only one who has actually seen her debate in person. Given the extreme likelihood that the vice-presidential "debate" will be just random sound bites, where each candidate reads their pre-prepared speech while pretending, but not really answering the questions they're asked, I probably am the only one on this site who will EVER see Sarah Palin debate.

The newspapers here in Alaska tend to be conservative, and until recently, there was a definite pro-Palin bias. Foolish things that she did that I, as a conservative, were aghast at, including recklessly endangering the life of her child by refusing to seek proper medical care or a proper medical evaluation after foolishly traveling for self-promotion in the third trimester of pregnancy were given a total pass by the press here. Privately, colleagues of mine, OB-GYN physicians, told me that they were horrified by her recklessness, but since she was "popular", no one wished to risk losing patients by speaking out against her, other than one flight surgeon, who wrote to the paper urging women not to follow the Governor's example and fly with ruptured membranes.

Her failure to secure anything other than a plan to ship natural gas through a Canadian-owned company rather than an all-American, all-Alaskan pipeline (something she promised during her run for Governor) was given more attention, but the fact that there is not gas flowing through this hypothetical Canadian pipeline and the extreme likelihood that this pipeline will never be built at all doesn't get much attention.

Sarah Palin, ironically, has prospered by what some say is too close association with the press. Her Press secretary, Bill McCallister, was hired from a local TV station, KTUU, and only a few have pointed out what a conflict of interest the pro-Palin slant of KTUU has been during the yearlong period in which McCallister was seeking employment with Palin. Another former KTUU anchor, Meghan Stapleton, is part of the laughably named "Palin Truth Squad", along with McCain's lawyer, Ed O'Callaghan. Their job has been to obstruct the Troopergate investigation, an investigation into abuse of power on the part of the Governor and her husband. This investigation was unanimously approved by a bipartisan Alaska State Judiciary committee, which was at least two-thirds Republican, long before anyone in their right mind would have thought an inexperienced Alaskan governor would be selected as a VP running mate.

As I've mentioned above, the only poll I've seen on the matter (done before the Palin VP pick) showed over 70% of Alaskans (again a conservative Republican state) thought Palin was lying about her role in the Troopergate scandal. Now letters to the editor in the Anchorage Daily News, the paper which has been pro-Palin as above, are now 2 to 1 anti-Palin. The people in Alaska know she has been repeatedly lying, and they're calling her on it.

Palin continues to be sheltered by the McCain camp, who have, I suppose, made the decision dealing with the press is more difficult than dealing with Iran, or North Korea. We continue to not get any meaningful opportunity to examine her critically for her ability to discuss or deal with any issues, whether they be foreign policy, or economics. The only thing I know about Sarah Palin and her ability to comprehend Economics is the D she received in it while going to school in Idaho.

So, as much as the McCain camp would like to pretend otherwise, it is not the "liberal press" that is the enemy of Sarah Palin, but her gross inexperience on both foreign and economic policy, which is the least that I have ever seen in any candidate for a national party. It is not the Obama camp that voted to investigate whether Palin abused her power as Governor for a private vendetta, it was Republicans.

If Sarah Palin can't handle hard questions from the "liberal press" or if McCain, Biden, or Obama can't answer questions from either the liberal or the conservative press, then this should be a red flag about his or her ability to handle anything of the unenviable job our leaders will have over the next several years.

Wow! So many postings, and I don't have time right now to digest them all. For the record, though, I'm a registered Republican and a believing Christian.

Democrats are liberal and left of the American center, but compared to the rest of the world, quite conservative and right of center.

I agreed today with a person who is a Democrat, a Christian, and a woman, that the four candidates--2 for president and 2 for VP--are mediocre and don't have the stuff of great statesmen. At least that's how they seem to be at present.

Did anybody catch Bill Clinton on View explaining how people decide who to vote for? He wasn't talking about my lofty ideals, but about how real Americans really choose. Most Americans are not reflective intellectuals, but populists who unconscioucly respond to personalities and factor in gut feelings.

queproblema, if all Democrats are liberal, and left of the American center (a statement I do not agree with), then who do you think is in the center? Bush? Palin? McCain? Are you referring to liberal in terms of states' rights issues, or liberal on social issues?


jordandog, are you aware of how peoples' incomes have fared under Republican and Democratic presidents over the past 50 years?



It is not partisan to point out that all income groups have done better under Democratic presidents than Republican presidents--that is a fact.

McCain may have signed a bill in 2005, but as recently as about two weeks ago he was still advocating deregulation. He has always been a staunch advocate of deregulation. Deregulation has been a traditional pillar of the Republican party economic philosophy. It was deregulation of the banking industry in 1999 that directly led to our current economic crisis.

And right now, McCain is trying to weasel out of the first presidential debate.

Why is McCain suspending his campaign and rushing to Washington? He's not on the Finance Committee, he hasn't been attending the hearings this week, and the Democratic Majority Lesder of the Senate just said he really doesn't want McCain coming down there and distracting them from the work they are doing to get an emergency measure approved. This really isn't the time for a campaign stunt by McCain. They don't want his "help", they don't need his "help", they didn't ask for his "help".

At the moment, there is bipartisan cooperation in Congress. The Republicans in Congress are resisting Bush's attempts to shove his bail-out proposal down their throats, but they are working with the Democrats to come up with an emergency economic plan both sides can live with. They don't need McCain's "help". McCain was still insisting "the underlying fundamentals of the economy are strong" until the Secretary of the Treasury announced the economy was on the verge of complete collapse. McCain was unaware of how serious the problem was--and now he thinks he's the one to rush in and help with the most far reaching bail-out program in the history of the country?

McCain is pulling another of his impulsive stunts to deflect the heat off himself because his poll numbers have dropped. The polls clearly show that more people trust Obama on the economy than trust McCain. So McCain suddenly announces he is suspending his campaign to rush to Washington to save the day for our country by bailing out the economy? McCain is only trying to rescue his own faltering campaign by trying to grab some headlines with a dramatic, but essentially meaningless, move.

If McCain wants to suspend his campaign, that's fine with me. That's his choice. But spare me the phoney noble motives for why he is doing this. This is a campaign stunt to try to make him look strong on economic issues. It's like having Sarah Palin pose for photos with world leaders at the U.N. so she can claim she has foreign policy experience. Going to Washington right now will not make McCain better on economic issues than he was before, and posing for pictures with world leaders doesn't help Sarah Palin better understand foreign policy decisions.

Who knows how many millions of people are planning to watch the presidential debate this week. This is still a close race. If McCain owes anything to his country, it is to show up for that debate Friday night. He's not needed in Washington at the moment, he is needed at that debate. Can you imagine how the Republicans would be carrying on if it was Obama who was trying to call off the debate? McCain should stop trying crazy manuevers and start showing some stability. Obama's campaign will continue whether or not McCain resumes his campaign. The election will take place in November. The debate is scheduled for Friday night, and Obama has said he will be there. If McCain doesn't show up he will appear to be too unprepared to lead the country and too cowardly to face his opponent. He better show up.

I was so focused on thoughts about my last post that I neglected to mention, yet again , just how much I appreciate the words from those of you in Alaska who are living in the moment with Palin. It reminds me of *way back when* with Michael Dukakis and his Presidential run. I was a resident of Massachusetts at the time and could not get over some of what was being said about him. I was living under the laws and thinking of his regime as Governor, as you are now, with Sarah Palin. So, a belated, but sincere, thanks for your input.

"With over 72 million registered members, the Democratic Party is home to an ideologically diverse base. Liberals form by far the largest and most influential ideological demographic within the party.

"Now, as far as my knowledge base goes, the term 'Liberal' is always equated with the left of center and not the right."

"queproblema, if all Democrats are liberal, and left of the American center (a statement I do not agree with), then who do you think is in the center? Bush? Palin? McCain? Are you referring to liberal in terms of states' rights issues, or liberal on social issues?"

Chelsea,
I was responding to jordandog. Bruyere said the same thing on page 8 and I reiterated it above on this page.

Of course all Democrats aren't liberal; the one I spoke with today certainly isn't. I was speaking of the international community regarding social issues.

I still haven't read most of this page.

On previewing I see I didn't get those quotes into boxes. I'll have to figure that one out. The first two paragraphs are from jordandog and the next from chelsea.

I consider Obama just left of center and McCain to the right. Palin is farther right than McCain because of her religion and lack of internationalism, meaning a mind-set, not how much she has or hasn't traveled and met heads of state. Sorry to say, I know very little--yet--about Joe Biden. Bush, always to the right, has become more centrist in one respect: he now says the US needs to function in a multi-national rather than stubbornly independent mode.

I want to thank Clarasue for commenting on my previous post, even though I don't think modeling is a sexist profession...and probably more lucrative than politics.

Then again, I may be wrong.

It's not that I don't like the lady, it's just it seems so awkward seeing that particular lady thrown into a global goldfish bowl.

Of course, I disagree with her environmental position, and agree with strnog1.

I believe we are in a serious crisis now, and all the posturing isn't getting us anywhere.

The crisis is subtle, but one where our economic machine is literally stopped.

To revive it now requires great command of the situation, and quick ability to spark renewed interest in creating many jobs that last and corporations that are stellar citizens.

This needs to be done immediately.

So far, it's just bickering...won't get us anywhere.