Palin Speech Generates $8 Million in Donations within 24hrs - To OBAMA!

[iNow]

Well, I guess the thread title says it all. Wow. I guess she scared a lot of people.

 

 

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/04/palin-speech-pulls-in-8-million-for-obama/

 

Barack Obama's campaign says it has raised more than $8 million from over 130,000 donors following Republican VP candidate Sarah Palin's speech Wednesday night.

 

The campaign also says it is on track to raise $10 million before John McCain takes the podium at the Republican National Convention tonight.

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i6BkMiFClO-golI3_rj8iiidLNTAD9308008B

Barack Obama's presidential campaign said it raised $10 million Thursday following the Republican National Convention speech by rival John McCain's running mate, Sarah Palin.

 

Obama spokesman Bill Burton said Palin's address, heavily laced with digs at Obama, prompted an outpouring of donations from more than 130,000 donors.

<pause for laughter>

The Republican National Committee announced earlier Thursday, at mid-afternoon, that it had raised well in excess of $1 million since Palin's speech. Republicans expect Palin to mobilize their donors.

<resume laughter>

[ecoli]

It scares me how much money is being wasted on this miserable excuse for an election.

[iNow]

I'm honestly not sure... are you old enough to have voted in any previous? This one is more energized and passionate than any I've seen before, and I've been voting since the early mid-90s myself.

Edited September 5, 2008 by iNow
Mistake in memory

[ecoli]

I'm honestly not sure... are you old enough to have voted in any previous? This one is more energized and passionate than any I've seen before, and I've been voting since the early mid-90s myself.

 

This is my first presidential election yes. I've been following it very closely since the primaries, and have concluded its more like a giant advertising/ marketing campaign than what I thought a presidential election should be like. Too much empty campaign promises and rhetoric. Too much promising of things that president has (or should have) no power to give.

 

I'm not even entirely convinced that a McCain administration would be altogether functionally different than an Obama one, since I don't trust either of them much farther than I could throw them.

 

I've pretty much become disillusioned/disinterested in the whole process. I find local elections to be much more real and interesting. I've started becoming much more concerned with international relationships (btw nations) and issues being dealt with at my local and state level (you know, where the citizen can actually have an influence).

[iNow]

Ah... welcome to your 20s. The feeling never goes away, you just get used to it.

 

 

Kidding aside... I think an Obama win would have great impact on what can happen and who can get elected in oh-twelve.

[ecoli]

I think the most important thing riding on the presidential election is who gets the supreme court nomination. That's the only thing I can think about that I think Obama and McCain could be significantly different on... and from that respect I'm hoping it'll be Obama. I can't stand to think the kind of 'moral legislation' that would come out of a socially conservative supreme court.

[CDarwin]

I think the most important thing riding on the presidential election is who gets the supreme court nomination. That's the only thing I can think about that I think Obama and McCain could be significantly different on... and from that respect I'm hoping it'll be Obama. I can't stand to think the kind of 'moral legislation' that would come out of a socially conservative supreme court.

 

So the rather starkly divergent way the two men see the world and the American imperative in foreign relations isn't sufficiently of note to you? I mean, the two are probably more alike in policy than either would like to admit (definitely more so that Bush and Kerry, say), but to call them identical seems a bit of a stretch.

[Pangloss]

I'm honestly not sure... are you old enough to have voted in any previous? This one is more energized and passionate than any I've seen before, and I've been voting since the early mid-90s myself.

 

The thing I worry about is that being energized and passionate about beating Republicans/Democrats is not the same thing as being energized and passionate about fixing this country's problems.

[ecoli]

So the rather starkly divergent way the two men see the world and the American imperative in foreign relations isn't sufficiently of note to you?

I don't hear either talking about cutting off aid to foreign nations (except McCain talking about our "enemies"). I see neither ending foreign military campaigns in any complete way.

 

Obama is perceived slightly better overseas, but IMO is still too aggressive when it comes to his policy in dealing with Iran, etc.

[iNow]

The thing I worry about is that being energized and passionate about beating Republicans/Democrats is not the same thing as being energized and passionate about fixing this country's problems.

 

In fairness, I think you would be willing to concede that the DNC at least focussed more on issues, whereas even Republicans themselves are commenting that the RNC has been relatively content-free and vacuous. Am I mistaken?

 

 

 

Btw, ecoli - Dr. Paul was on Colbert Report tonight. Video should be available online by morning.

[Pangloss]

In fairness, I think you would be willing to concede that the DNC at least focussed more on issues, whereas even Republicans themselves are commenting that the RNC has been relatively content-free and vacuous. Am I mistaken?

 

Ack! You're actually asking me which political party's convention was more substantive?!

 

I'm not sure whether to chuckle at your predisposition showing through just a wee bit, or cry at the notion that an ostensibly reasonable, intelligent person found either of those awful, 4-day-long-attack-ads substantive. (sigh)

[iNow]

Okay. Mistaken it is.

[CaptainPanic]

Obama is perceived slightly better overseas, but IMO is still too aggressive when it comes to his policy in dealing with Iran, etc.

 

He has to be aggressive because of the general opinion (and lack of information) of the American public.

 

Obama is a lot more popular overseas. His speech in Berlin was just great. One remark he made showed he understands the situation: "Many Europeans feel that America is part of the problem, rather than part of the solution." He couldn't have said it any better... This goes for climate and world peace. I also think that other parts of the world (of which I know a lot less) think he's a better chance of having talks rather than bombs.

 

In addition, if elected, there is a fair chance that the old grandpa (McCain) dies in office. The guy is 72 years old after all. I would be terrified with a hockeymom as president. Honestly, what does she know about the world? She'd be overrun by all the advisors that have made the Bush administration such a success!

 

I'm honestly not sure... are you old enough to have voted in any previous? This one is more energized and passionate than any I've seen before, and I've been voting since the early mid-90s myself.

 

What's perhaps even more remarkable is the attention in Dutch media. We can't even vote, but it might be covered as much as the Dutch elections normally are. I guess we also need change. We don't care about US healthcare or US social problems, but the foreign policy of the USA has been a complete disaster, and not many will disagree with that.

Edited September 5, 2008 by CaptainPanic
I had more to say :D

[bascule]

This is my first presidential election yes. I've been following it very closely since the primaries, and have concluded its more like a giant advertising/ marketing campaign than what I thought a presidential election should be like.

 

Sorry to break it to you, but it's been that way for awhile:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uOK9ti1kM0

[Pangloss]

He has to be aggressive because of the general opinion (and lack of information) of the American public.

 

So he lied when he said he would go after bin Laden in Pakistan by force without their permission?

 

I don't buy it.

[iNow]

So he lied when he said he would go after bin Laden in Pakistan by force without their permission?

 

I don't buy it.

 

Would you "buy it" if our current president followed Obamas advice and did EXACTLY that?

 

http://news.mobile.msn.com/en-us/articles.aspx?afid=1&aid=26522492

 

American forces conducted a raid inside Pakistan on Wednesday, a senior U.S. military official said, in the first known foreign ground assault against a suspected Taliban haven. Pakistan's government condemned the action, saying it killed at least 15 people.

 

The American official, speaking in Washington on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of cross border operations, said the raid occurred about a mile inside Pakistan. The official didn't provide details on casualties.

 

Pakistan's Foreign Ministry protested the attack, and an army spokesman warned that the apparent escalation from recent missile strikes on militant targets along the Afghan border would further anger Pakistanis and undercut cooperation in the war against terrorist groups.

 

 

 

Via: http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2008/09/bush_follows_obamas_suggestion.php

 

Remember when Obama suggested that as president he would send US special forces into Pakistan to hunt down Bin Laden even if the Pakistani government disagreed? And remember how the right attacked that idea as proof that he wasn't ready to be president? Well Bush just did exactly that. Just like McCain condemned the idea that we should pull out troops out of Iraq within 18 months of the election and now the Bush administration has agreed to do just that. Funny, that.

[Pangloss]

What does that have to do with whether Obama will do what he said he would do, or not? Don't change the subject just to hide a weakness in an Obama position.

[iNow]

Loaded questions, much?

[Pangloss]

Not at all. CaptainPanic deliberately implied that Obama has no intention of going into Pakistan, he just said that in order to appease uninformed people.

 

He has to be aggressive because of the general opinion (and lack of information) of the American public.

 

And so my question is reasonable: So he lied when he said he would go after bin Laden in Pakistan by force without their permission?

 

I don't buy it. I think Obama was telling the truth, and I also happen to think his position is the correct one.

[iNow]

Not at all. CaptainPanic deliberately implied that Obama has no intention of going into Pakistan, he just said that in order to appease uninformed people.

 

 

 

And so my question is reasonable: So he lied when he said he would go after bin Laden in Pakistan by force without their permission?

 

I don't buy it. I think Obama was telling the truth, and I also happen to think his position is the correct one.

 

So, in one post, you state that there is "weakness in Obama's position being hidden," and then in the very next post you state that you think "Obama was telling the truth and you happen to think his position is the correct one."

 

 

That's some double-speak, if you ask me, and it's no wonder people are confused by what you are saying.

[Mr Skeptic]

Pangloss, if someone is (more or less) forced to say something, it doesn't mean that they are lying.

[Pangloss]

Pangloss, if someone is (more or less) forced to say something, it doesn't mean that they are lying.

 

So you think that Obama was forced to say that we would put troops on the ground against Pakistan's will in order to find Osama bin Laden?

 

Interesting. How was he forced to say this? I assume you mean political forces -- what would they be?

[Mr Skeptic]

So you think that Obama was forced to say that we would put troops on the ground against Pakistan's will in order to find Osama bin Laden?

 

Interesting. How was he forced to say this? I assume you mean political forces -- what would they be?

 

Politicians are frequently "forced" to say things, that they might or might not agree with, to maintain their popularity. This is one of the reasons that politicians give different answers to the same questions depending on who the audience is. Not necessarily conflicting answers, but they might give more of a word salad to one side.

 

As for whether or not this applies to the case of chasing Osama in Pakistan, I'll let you and Captain Panic figure that out. However, if the question was if they were sure Osama was in that particular place, than the only answer that would not be political suicide would be to chase him. If it were only likely, than the Republicans would want to chase him regardless of Pakistan's permission, and the Democrats not so much.

[ParanoiA]

Politicians are frequently "forced" to say things, that they might or might not agree with, to maintain their popularity. This is one of the reasons that politicians give different answers to the same questions depending on who the audience is. Not necessarily conflicting answers, but they might give more of a word salad to one side.

 

Why do you accept this? Is that not false? How would this "force" ever hope to be countered without an opposing force?

[Pangloss]

Yeah that wouldn't (if it's true) say something good about Obama, it would say something bad about him. If he doesn't think it's the right thing to do then he shouldn't say it, period.

 

Not to put this on anyone here, but the idea that people have to be "tricked" into voting the right way really irks me.