Posts
All Comments
I guess that even Barack Obama can take only so much of John McCains ads full of lies and falsehoods.
“We will take no lectures from John McCain who is cynically running the sleaziest and least honorable campaign in modern Presidential campaign history. His discredited ads with disgusting lies are running all over the country today. He runs a campaign not worthy of the office he is seeking,” said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton.
Good start. Now go knock his fucking teeth out of his mouth.
This is a really cool Obama ad which I found. Maybe you'll turn your undecided friends onto this one. This is what Obama's run is all about!
Of course I am not voting for any gutter-crawling Republican.
Here is a sarcastic fact check on those Republican assholes that I hate learned to despise so much over the last eight years.
I'm voting Republican because being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and
you need our prayers for your recovery.I'm voting Republican because Government should relax regulation of Big Business and Big Money but crack down on individuals who use marijuana to relieve the pain of illness.
I'm voting Republican because "Standing Tall for America" means firing your workers and moving their jobs to India.
I'm voting Republican because a woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multi-national corporations can make decisions
affecting all mankind without regulation.I'm voting Republican because Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of
homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.I'm voting Republican because the best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.
I'm voting Republican because group sex and drug use are degenerate sins unless you someday run for governor of California as a Republican.
I'm voting Republican because if condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.
I'm voting Republican because a good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time allies, then demand their cooperation and money.
I'm voting Republican because HMOs and insurance companies have the interest of the public at heart.
I'm voting Republican because providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health care to all Americans is socialism.
I'm voting Republican because global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.
I'm voting Republican because Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.
I'm voting Republican because a president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense. A president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.
I'm voting Republican because Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.
I'm voting Republican because the public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George Bush's driving record is none of our business.
I'm voting Republican because what Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the '80s is irrelevant.
I'm voting Republican because trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.
Technorati Tags: voting republican,john mccain,barack obama,george w. bush,dick cheney,country first,health care
A few giggles and laughs for you.
"Sarah Palin has been getting briefed on what she needs to know to be John McCain’s vice president. The first thing they taught her was CPR."
---Conan O'Brien"[Sarah Palin] knows more about energy than probably anyone else in the United States of America. ... And, uh, she also happens to represent, be governor of a state that's right next to Russia."
---John McCain on Palin's foreign policy experience"It's autumn in New York. The leaves are falling. Earlier today, John McCain admitted he doesn’t know how many rakes he owns."
---David Letterman
-
"There are only 56 days until the election. I saw that they’re selling Sarah Palin action figures. Sad incident at Toys R Us today---a Sarah Palin doll shot My Little Pony."
---Jimmy Kimmel
-
"Well, it's a very strange political campaign. I mean, out on the campaign trail, John McCain and Sarah Palin are talking about how they stood up to the Republican party, they fought the Republican establishment, and they battled Republicans. Their message: vote Republican."
---Jay Leno
"New Rule: Republicans must stop saying Obama is an elitist and just admit you don't like him because of something he can't help, something that's a result of the way he was born. Admit it---you're not voting for him because he's smarter than you."
---Bill Maher
The ad that you are about to view is a very powerful ad against Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. It may contain some video that some viewers will not like.
Do we really want this creature as a Vice President?
After watching a short clip of this interview, I think that it is safe to say that Mrs. Palin does not have a clue about world affairs, or Bush policy. She does have one Republican habit down pat, and that is answering a question without providing a real answer. Watch her below.
Nothing new here for this Republican piece of gutter garbage. McCain still telling lies on Obama, only now he's using factcheck.org's facts in a very twisted manner.
DKos by Hunter Thu Sep 11, 2008
There's probably going to come a point when Straight Talk McCain's seeming inability to tell the truth devolves into farce. Maybe we're already there.
FactCheck.org is objecting to a McCain ad that attacks Obama using FactCheck.org as a source. The problem is, FactCheck never said what McCain claims they said.
A McCain-Palin ad has FactCheck.org calling Obama's attacks on Palin "absolutely false" and "misleading." That's what we said, but it wasn't about Obama.
Our article criticized anonymous e-mail falsehoods and bogus claims about Palin posted around the Internet. We have no evidence that any of the claims we found to be false came from the Obama campaign.
The McCain-Palin ad also twists a quote from a Wall Street Journal columnist. He said the Obama camp had sent a team to Alaska to "dig into her record and background." The ad quotes the WSJ as saying the team was sent to "dig dirt."
One would think that if you're going to lie about someone, lying about a fact-checking organization -- that uses "FactCheck" as their own freakin' name -- is probably not the best of choices. But what do I know?
Barack Obama at a town-hall meeting.
Ohhhh yes! Slice, dice, and twist that knife! This is how it is done.
Some of the text.
by Broken Skull Tue Sep 09, 2008
I respect everyone's military service, and I think that most of us feel the same way. We respect our brothers and sisters in arms, whether or not we agree with them. We all respect the service of the families left behind when a service member deploys. Although this is a different type of service, it is service none the less and should be respected. Even though I disagree with Sen. McCain's policies, I respect his service. He stood up and took the oath and went to combat, he spent 5 and a half miserable years as a prisoner of war. It is important as vets and supporter of vets to respect each other's service.
Thats not the message we are getting today from the McCain family.
This morning Meghan McCain sat down for an interview as a McCain surrogate on the today show. While making her way through an answer about her father she stated: "No one knows what war is like other than my family. Period."
There are 4155 families that lost a loved one in Iraq, 584 that have lost a loved one in Afghanistan. There are tens of thousands of injured soldiers like myself, who not only deal with their injuries but have families that deal with the injuries too. Does Meghan McCain think that those 4,739 families that are grieving the loss of their loved ones don't know about war. Does she think that the tens of thousands of us wounded soldiers don't know about war. Yes, she does.
This is not a simple mistake or a gaffe, this is a freudian slip and it gives us an insight into how Sen. McCain feels about the service of those of are not him. Sen. McCain has shown us by his voting record that we don't matter.
Sen. McCain was publicly against the bi-patisan Webb/Hagel GI Bill. He tried to introduce his own watered down version because the Webb/Hagel bill was "too generous". If you did 3 tours in Iraq and want to get out and go to school...Sen. McCain thinks you don't matter.
Sen. McCain voted against the bipartisan Webb/Hagel Dwell time amendment. This amendment would have required troops to be home for the same amount of time as they are deployed. If you are going on your third tour to Iraq just 90 days after you returned from your last one...Sen. McCain thinks you don't matter. Even if that means that your propensity for PTSD is now much higher.
Sen. McCain has voted against increasing veterans and military health care 29 times. These bills would have fully staffed the va and dod hospitals, money that could have been used to clean up Walter Reed before it became a national disgrace. If you have to wait in line for an increasing amount of time because they are an increasing amount of veterans and not enough staff...Sen. McCain doesn't care.
These are just 3 examples of the myriad of times that Sen. McCain has used his vote to say "your service doesn't matter". Now we have Sen. McCain's daughter acting as an agent for the campaign saying your service doesn't matter.
This isn't the first time we have heard claims like this from the Republican side of the house. When asked about Iraq on the Today Show, Laura Bush said "no one suffers more than their President and I do."
Your service does matter, to me and thousands of veterans like me. There is one veteran that your service does not matter too, and he is running for President.
Crossposted at www.vetvoice.com
This is a very good ad and as is usual, is a reality based truth.
But wait! There's more!
Another ad which points out the many other wars which John McCain is fighting.
From Old Man McCain
A McCain presidency should scare you.
The Palin administration won't release hundreds of emails from her office, claiming they cover confidential policy matters. Then why do the subject lines refer to a political foe, a journalist, and non-policy topics?
In June, Andrée McLeod, a self-described independent government watchdog in Alaska, sent an open records act request to the office of Governor Sarah Palin. She requested copies of all the emails that had been sent and received by Ivy Frye and Frank Bailey, two top aides to Palin, from February through April of this year. McLeod, a 53-year-old registered Republican who has held various jobs in state government, suspected that Frye and Bailey had engaged in political activity during official business hours in that period by participating in a Palin-backed effort to oust the state chairman of the Alaska Republican party, Randy Ruedrich. (Bailey has been in the national news of late for refusing to cooperate with investigators probing whether Palin fired Alaska's public safety commission because he did not dismiss a state trooper who had gone through an ugly divorce with Palin's sister.)
In response to her request, McLeod received four large boxes of emails. This batch of documents did not contain any proof that Frye and Bailey had worked on government time to boot out Ruedrich. But there was other information she found troubling. Several of the emails suggested to her that Palin's office had used its influence to reward a Fairbanks surveyor who was a Palin fundraiser with a state job. In early August, McLeod filed a complaint with the state attorney general against Palin, Bailey, and other Palin aides, claiming they had violated ethics and hiring laws. Palin, now the Republican vice-presidential candidate, told the Alaska Daily News that "there were no favors done for anybody."
But more intriguing than any email correspondence contained in the four boxes was what was not released: about 1100 emails. Palin's office provided McLeod with a 78-page list (PDF) cataloging the emails it was withholding. Many of them had been written by Palin or sent to her. Palin's office claimed most of the undisclosed emails were exempt from release because they were covered by the "executive" or "deliberative process" privileges that protect communications between Palin and her aides about policy matters. But the subject lines of some of the withheld emails suggest they were not related to policy matters. Several refer to one of Palin's political foes, others to a well-known Alaskan journalist. Moreover, some of the withhold emails were CC'ed to Todd Palin, the governor's husband. Todd Palin—a.k.a. the First Dude—holds no official state position (though he has been a close and influential adviser for Governor Palin). The fact that Palin and her aides shared these emails with a citizen outside the government undercuts the claim that they must be protected under executive privilege. McLeod asks, "What is Sarah Palin hiding?"
The list of still-secret emails includes a series of messages that circulated on February 1, 2008, among Palin, Bailey, Frye, and Todd Palin "re Andrew Halcro." A former Republican, Halcro ran as an independent against Palin for governor in 2006, collecting only 9 percent of the vote. Since then he has been a blogger who often criticizes Palin. There is no telling what the emails said about Halcro. But in a July blog posting, Halcro asked, "why in the world is Todd Palin getting copied on emails [about me] that his wife's administration is classifying as confidential....These emails should be released to the public....after all Todd Palin has no standing to claim executive privilege. By including him in the email loop, the Palin administration has arguably breached any claim of executive privilege." And McLeod wonders, "What do emails about Andrew Halcro have to do with policy deliberations?"
The list of confidential emails includes a number of communications related to the Public Safety Employees Association, a union for the state's police officers and state troopers, and the headings refer to PSEA ads and a "PR campaign." Many of these PSEA-related emails were CC'ed to Todd Palin—and were also withheld under the deliberative process and executive privileges. (Recently, John Cyr, the PSEA executive director, told The Washington Post that Sarah Palin held a grudge against the state troopers and held down their salaries and other funding because her ex-brother-in-law-the-trooper had not been fired.) A separate email sent from Frye to Bailey and Todd Palin and headed "I may be in trouble here guys" was withheld because it involves a personnel matter. In April, a series of emails with the subject line "from Sheila Toomey" zipped between Sarah Palin, Bailey, Frye, other Palin aides, and Todd Palin. Toomey writes the "Alaska Ear" political gossip column for the Anchorage Daily News. These emails were also withheld under the deliberative process and executive privileges. And a string of emails titled "Racism on the Radio" that went back and forth between Governor Palin and her aides was blocked from release on the same grounds.
McLeod says she intends to file an appeal of the decision to withhold the emails on the 78-page list.
Palin has denounced McLeod's efforts. After McLeod filed the ethics complaint, Palin told the Anchorage Daily News, "This is the same Andrée McLeod that follows us around at public events and camps herself out in our waiting area and hounds us for a job, asking us if there's a way she can...not have to go through the system to get a job with this administration." Palin also called McLeod "the falafel lady," because McLeod once sold falafel. On his website, Halcro has posted excerpts of emails Palin sent McLeod between 2002 and 2005, in which she praised McLeod. In one of these messages, Palin wrote, "You're all about accountability." In another, Palin said, "Thanks for working to instill the public trust." Palin also wrote her, "I'm proud to know you." And in one email, Palin hailed McLeod: "Holy Moly you are powerful regarding getting the word out to the press about questionable activity."
"I've known Sarah for years, " says McLeod, who moved to Alaska from New York in 1978. "When the finger is pointed at somebody else, she's all for accountability. When it's pointing at her, it's different. Sarah Palin was elected on the basis of providing open and honest government. She has failed miserably."
The McCain-Palin campaign did not respond to phone and email requests for a comment.
We cannot allow Bush and his conservative ass-wipes to trash our Endangered Species Act!
Death by Definition: Save the Endangered Species Act! Now!
By George Lakoff and Chris Shutes
Introduction
The Endangered Species Act is our primary legal tool for environmental protection.
We have until September 15—about a week—to save the Endangered Species Act.
Not just some species, but the Act itself! Bush administration officials are proposing redefinitions of terms that would allow conservative appointees in federal agencies to virtually the destroy the Act.
Their goal is to allow proposed projects to proceed even if such projects would kill off endangered species or place them or their habitats in jeopardy.
If the changes are not effectively challenged by September 15, they will go into effect, and, Goodbye Species!
Act now: Go to the end of this article for instructions. We need the public to flood the agencies involved with comments opposing the redefinitions and rule changes.
When the Cat’s Away
While our attention has been turned elsewhere, the Endangered Species Act, our major environmental protection legislation, is being gutted—now.
Not by Congress. Not by the courts. Not even by Bush’s executive orders. It is being destroyed by redefinition, by a series of linguistic tricks.
Causation, within an ecological system, is almost always systemic in nature. That is, there are disparate contributing causes with disparate contributed effects in various places at different times. Direct causation is rare. Direct causation occurs when there is a single act at a given time and place that results in a single effect at that time and place.
For example, a species of frog limited to a local wetland could be completely wiped out by a condo development with that wetland filled in. Direct causation.
But frogs around the country are dying out due to a complex combination of factors in different places at different times. Systemic causation.
Progressives and conservatives tend to think differently about causation. Conservatives, who think in terms of individual not social responsibility, tend to think in terms of direct causation—what an individual does. Progressives, who think in terms of social as well as individual responsibility, tend to think in terms of systemic causation. For example, if you ask what the causes of unemployment are, conservatives will tend to say people who aren’t willing to do hard work, or willing to get the skills they need. Progressives will talk first about social causes: lack of education, lack of opportunities to acquire needed skills, corporate greed or insensitivity, and so on.
The present Endangered Species Act is realistic about systemic causation: disparate causes that contribute to disparate future effects count as “causation.” But imagine what would happen if “causation” were redefined to mean only direct causation. Development projects now forbidden because they contribute significantly to future disparate loss of species and species habitat would now be allowed. Lots and lots of disparate projects at disparate places and times would be allowed. Their collective systemic effects could wipe out a great many habitats and species.
This is exactly what is being proposed by the Departments of the Interior and Commerce, as published in the Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 159 / Friday, August 15, 2008 / Proposed Rules. They want to redefine causation so that only direct causation (they call it “an essential cause”) counts as causation that jeopardizes the existence of a species listed under the Endangered Species act, or jeopardizes that species’ critical habitat. The effect is that proposed development projects can contribute significantly to the destruction of habitat and the extinction of species, provided that they do not directly cause the elimination of a species, or directly reduce the population of a species or extent of its habitat—something that rarely happens. The result is that almost all proposed developments that were previously understood as “causes” of habitat destruction or species extinction will no longer be seen as “causes” at all and will be permitted. The reason will be that “cause” itself will have been redefined.
Consultation
Up until now, the Endangered Species Act was governed by certain rules. The rules involved the following:
• A federal “action agency” (for example, FERC—the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) which proposed a project.. An example of such a project might be the granting a license to operate a hydroelectric power plant.
• A “service”— either the Fish and Wildlife Service for inland species or the National Marine Fisheries Service for marine species—whose job is the protection of plants, fish and wildlife and the gathering of information relevant to that protection.
• A “consultation”—a well-defined process in which an agency consults a service about a proposed project if it “may affect” species listed under the Act as threatened or endangered, in order to gather relevant information for the protection of those species.
• A Biological Assessment—a document written by the federal agency or its designated representative (perhaps, the hydroelectric project’s owner) and presented to the relevant service . This document analyzes what the consequences of the proposed project might be for any threatened or endangered species the project might affect.
• A Biological Opinion written by the relevant Service which states whether there is jeopardy to listed species or their critical habitat. If there is jeopardy, the Biological Opinion sets forth measures that must be taken to mitigate project effects, or, if the effects cannot be mitigated, stops the project..
Under the proposed rule change, the federal action agency could use, in place of a Biological Assessment, a document that it assembled for other purposes, as long as the information about effects on listed species was contained in it. While this might make it easier for the action agency, it makes is more difficult and time-consuming for the Service, which then has to distill and reassemble on its own the information relevant to listed species.
Under the new rules, many such consultations would no longer even be required. The agency itself would be allowed to make that determination. In the past, the consultation determined whether or not there was jeopardy or damage to critical habitat. Under the new rules, the party proposing the project would determine whether it even needs to consult based on whether it itself, and not the Service, thinks there may be jeopardy or damage to critical habitat. In the past, a federal agency that proposed a project had to defend the notion that its project would do no harm to listed species. If the rules are changed, it will merely have to assert that it will do no harm.
The Endangered Species Act also permits “informal consultation,” in which an agency informally consults with a service to see if a proposed action is reasonably certain to affect listed species. At the end of the informal consultation, which has no defined timeline, the agency is either required to enter into formal consultation, and prepare a Biological Assessment, or it is absolved by the Service from doing so. Under the new rules, this process would be limited to sixty days, an almost impossible timeline for the Services, which for years have been underfunded and understaffed. The new rules also state that if this timeline is missed, formal consultation cannot be required.
The Bush appointees who control the Services today say that it is appropriate for other federal agencies to take on some of the role that was up till now reserved to the Services. These appointees say that after 35 years of experience, the other federal agencies know a problem when they see it. The reality is that, even if the Services are in the future headed up by more progressive leadership, conservative directors of other federal agencies will still have the opportunity to evade consultation, killing off or jeopardizing endangered species.
Death by Definition
There it is. We have until September 15 to act.
The proposed new rules state that it if an agency allows the death of a plant or animal that is part of a listed species (or, in the language of the ESA, “take”), or the reduction of critical habitat, that it can be punished. This supports the conservative viewpoint that the way one avoids bad things is by a system of rewards and punishments. But the idea of the ESA is not to punish people after there is harm or reduction of habitat; the goal is to manage so that those things don’t happen in the first place. If a species goes extinct, punishing the agency won’t bring it back.
In addition, this conservative viewpoint presupposes that the burden of proof will be upon the Service to show that there has been take; in other words, we are back to having to show direct causation. If there is a combination of issues that may have contributed to the death of steelhead from the example described above, it would be necessary to show that a specific action resulted in the death of a specific fish. As it stands now, the combination of low flows, high water temperatures, lack of shallow rearing habitat for young fish in non-summer months, lack of high flows to help fish get from the river to the ocean, ocean conditions, and so on, all contribute to poor numbers of steelhead returning to the river to spawn. It is difficult, though not impossible, to show that low flows in the river in the summer caused take. However, looking at the matter proactively, from the point of view of the present options available to NMFS, the Service can require higher flows in the river to eliminate at least that part of the problem. It might not be definitive, or in the terms of the present proposed rule, “essential,” but it can substantially improve the chance of increased survival for the fish that are present in the river.
Polar Bears
These changes proposed as parting shots by the Bush appointees at the head of the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service are not about clarity, or eliminating unnecessary consultations, or the experience gained in thirty-five years of the Endangered Species Act. They are part of a concerted effort by conservatives to change the fundamental way that science is viewed and used in our society.
The language in the proposed rule change was reverse-engineered to address a huge looming issue: polar bears are clearly threatened by the systemic cause of ecological damage par excellence, global warming. But the evidence and the consequences of the systemic causation of environmental degradation are everywhere. Even if the conservatives succeed in truncating what scientists do and are allowed to say, and in limiting the Endangered Species Act by a linguistic trick, systemic causation, in the world of environmental science, will always be the ultimate inconvenient truth.
Act Now!
Here are some Talking Points:
• You are against the proposed rule changes because they weaken the Endangered Species Act nearly to the point of nonexistence.
• Environmental systems mostly work by systemic causation, with many indirect causes, not by “essential causation.” The change to “essential causation” opens the door to an indefinitely large number of projects that can jointly put endangered species in jeopardy.
• The change in “consultation” rules will de facto eliminate the gathering of information relevant to protecting species.
Here’s how you get your comments read:
Go to www.regulations.gov and use the search terms: “50 CFR Part 402 proposed rule”.
The proposed changes are in Document # EB – 18938
To see the proposed changes, click on “View this document”
Click on “Send a comment or submission” to write your comment.
Note that plain e-mails will not be considered. This is another way public input is being limited.
Write your comments before September 15, 2008.
George Lakoff is Richard and Rhoda Goldman Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at the University of California at Berkeley and author of The Political Mind: Why You Can’t Understand 21st Century Politics With an18th Century Brain.
Chris Shutes works for the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance
From a letter to the Frontiersman, the local Wasilla, Alaska newspaper.
Who’s running the state now?
Published on Saturday, September 6, 2008 7:36 PM AKDT
The lieutenant governor is running for Congress. The governor is running for VP. So who is running Alaska?
Neither have much experience and they haven’t stayed around to learn from the term they were elected to.
Both were elected by the people to do those jobs and they have already broken their word and jumped ship, abandoning our state it seems for their personal political and financial gain.Integrity, I think NOT. Not (from) politicians, that’s for sure. Talk about losing the public trust, these two have excelled at that.
Amazing and frightening.
Linda Anderson
Wasilla
Must be good ole Mr. Palin running things since the wife is sort of out to lunch!
by The Baculum King Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 04:34:18 PM PDT
Contrary to the assertions of some here, John McCain is not actually an idiot.
George W. Bush is an idiot, with impeccable credentials. From loaning his cronies a nuclear attack sub for a joyride to financing the most expensive war in American history by cutting rich people's taxes, George W. Bush has staked his claim as a contender for one of the biggest idiots to ever attain power, anywhere, any time. In competition with Caligula.
By only agreeing with Bush a little over 90% of the time, John McCain has not crossed the thresh-hold to qualify as an idiot. That takes 93%.
He's just a dumbass.
ABC News Poll. Sept. 4, 2008. N=505 adults nationwide. MoE ± 4.5.
.
"Do you approve or disapprove of John McCain's choice of Palin as his vice presidential running mate?"
.
Approve Disapprove Unsure
% % %
60 34 6
"Does McCain's choice of Palin for vice president make you more likely to vote for McCain, less likely, or won't it make any difference in your vote?"
.
More Likely Less Likely No Difference Unsure
% % % %
25 19 55 1
Of course, this poll was done three days ago so I would expect a change in the numbers to be forthcoming. If the public is paying any attention to all of the controversy and scandals which Palin is involved with, those numbers should be going down.
For something more currant, we have these numbers from Rasmussen Reports.
In the first national polling results based entirely on interviews conducted after Sarah Palin’s acceptance speech, Barack Obama gets 46% of the vote and so does John McCain. When "leaners" are included, it’s all even at 48%.
McCain earns the vote from 89% of Republicans while Obama is supported by 81% of Democrats. McCain also manages to attract 15% of Democrats while Obama gets 9% of the Republican vote. Voters not affiliated with either major party remain fairly evenly divided between the two men.
Forty-two percent (42%) of voters say that economic issues are most important this year and Obama holds a 34-point advantage among these voters.
Twenty-four percent (24%) of voters say the national security issues are most important. Among these voters its McCain by 39.
The Republican hopeful also leads by wide margins among those who consider fiscal issues or cultural issues most important. Obama leads among those primarily interested in domestic programs such as Social Security and health care.
Overall, McCain is now viewed favorably by 58% of the nation’s voters while Obama earns positive reviews from 56% (see trends).
Palin is viewed favorably by 58% of voters including 40% with a Very Favorable opinion of her. Biden earns positive reviews from 48% of voters.
The Obama camp had better get on the ball and start going after McCain/Palin and their policies. At this point in time, it appears that the Democrats are letting this election win slip away from them. That ain't a good thing.
I cannot embed the video, but comedian Robin Williams was on David Letterman and had a few observations about vice presidential wannabe Sarah Palin.
Start your Sunday off with a good laugh.
Go here to watch.
