This stuff really doesn't bother me. While there's nothing outstanding there, there's rarely anything outstanding at any of the conventions. I really enjoyed Zell Miller's speech at the 2004 convention, but that was about it. And I was enthusiastic about voting for Bush in 2004 and, quite frankly, I don't think his administration has lived up to my enthusiasm. 

While I watched a lot more of the 2004 convention than I have this one, I expect it to be . . . more of the same. Politicians have a playbook, and they don't vary much, because change makes a good campaign slogan but is very dangerous. Politicians don't want to run negative ads (to be "different") but then see their poll numbers dropping and--ta-da!--suddenly go negative. "Transcedent" candidates start acting like every other candidate when the polls stop trending in their favor.

The McCain ads are pretty good, but I think the Obama ads are pretty good, too. Hard hitting without every reciting the typical Democrat mantra that "McCain wants dirty water and pollution in the sky. McCain wants you to be sick, and to kill your children. McCain wants endless war." Obama's going negative without going DailKos, and I think he's doing a good job politically, but it doesn't seem to be moving the polls at all.

Which is a referendum on Obama. Is anyone really excited about McCain? I think Hillary has found nicer things to say about McCain than I ever have.

talk about falling in line...

http://cagle.com/working/080801/greenberg21.jpg

mr uc, you said:
I ask, what the hell is the purpose of the Democratic Party?
What are your goals and objectives other than “change�?? 
What’s your vision?
 
If you are still asking these questions, you either:
a) have not been listening or
b) just don't care.
 every one of these questions have been addressed- not only just in the past two days but also over the past 1 1/2 years. 
if you always have your ears tuned to only one source - it's pretty likely that you'll only hear one point of view. 

c'mon Toe ... you are a clear example of what I have been saying all along.  You put too much faith in a political party and your beloved candidate "obama" who changes his position (like they all do on both sides) on most issues. Visions/plans/objectives/goals need to be consistent and have "laser sharp focus" if they want to actually "make an impact".

The same thing can be said in business. When a CEO constantly changes the direction of his/her company; 9 times out of 10, the company fails. 

@toe
I am still waiting for your rebuttal to Clinton's statement about Obama and McCain. It is Hillary, right? Or maybe an imposter constructed by the evil right wing agenda. : )

The same thing can be said in business. When a CEO constantly changes the direction of his/her company; 9 times out of 10, the company fails. 

Man, that's so true. I've been there. Although, occasionally they've helped the "company" survive by firing almost everybody by themselves.

mr uc,
once again, the mc cain campaign has shown that they have nothing and must resort these ads rather than showcasing their own candidate.  you know as well as i do what and why candidates say what they do in the primary process towards and about their fellow candidates.
the mc cain people have not missed an opportunity to use these. it was not unexpected.
i don't know if you noticed or not, but hillary lost. 
mc cain foolishly feels that he will take in disgruntled hillary supporters by putting out an ad by a former hillary supporter who said she would vote for mc cain now.  informed women know that john mc cain is no friend to women or women's issues.  the chaos that you, rush, beck, hannity, and the rest of the sad make up of what is left of the reactionary conservative wing cannot get over the fact that the democratic party is unified in purpose and candidate.
we have a winning ticket with two excellent americans who exemplify what is possible in america- to achieve the american dream- and that anything is possible if you work for it. 
the fact is that the democratic ticket represents those ideals that you and the others here constantly insist upon-  nobody handed either of them anything.  they, through determination and purpose made their own way - without daddy's influence, without daddy's money, and without needing your permission.
i am sorry that you have allowed yourself to become such a cynic.  it's not really your fault.
we all have had years and years and years of seeing no one listen in washington.  i understand why you have given in and given up.  many have. 
you want to settle.  that's part of the problem.  influence peddlers depend upon this. liars and cheats need you.  uninformed voters are in demand by the republican party-  
my parents taught me that anyone can complain- that's easy.  what's hard is doing the right thing and telling people the truth not just what they want to hear.
they count on your limited attention span and lack of curiosity- mix in a few scare tactics and point fingers at those who would dare to disagree.  call them un-American. 
i kind of feel sorry for you, mr uc. 
almost. 
but... i know that you have the ability to seek out the truth if you really wanted to.  rush depends upon you to remain ignorant.  if you actually followed up on anything you'd learn that you've been snookered.  maybe you are afraid to learn that you were so easily distracted. 
so easily taken in. 
so horribly wrong.  we, as americans,  have paid a horrible price because of people like you who bought it all... hook, line, and sinker.

miss toe,

you have once again danced around the issue. I have asked you on several occasions why you put so much faith in a political party and/or candidate and you can't give me a straight answer.

I'm a cynic, indeed. Just like you. You are quick to point the finger at UC and yet you do not take any responsibility for yourself. But it’s okay because it’s a part of life. But please oh please do not feel sorry for little old me. Use that energy and your emotions to focus on something more productive than the UC.

Oh, and I am really sorry to inform you that I am really not a Rush fan and I can count on two fingers how many times I have listened to him on the radio. You see Toe, I work in Silicon Valley and have a very demanding schedule so I am limited to the amount of talk radio that I can consume in a given day. My day is filled with conference calls and meetings, not Rush Limbaugh. I get my news from Drudge, which aggregates the latest news from third party sources like WSJ, NYT, LAT, Politico, and local news sites as well.

We are all on a quest to seek the truth in our journey, but you will never find it from a politician’s website. You won’t even seek “your truth�? on this website. What you will find is “my truth�? and the way I view the world.

Ubran,

Man, I feel sorry for you. I love Rush. It is a great show. He's the single best conservative pundit working today. I mostly catch him via .mp3, via iTunes, but you have to be a member of 24/7.

Still, Toe's opinion not withstanding, it's definitely worth listening to. 

but... i know that you have the ability to seek out the truth if you really wanted to.  rush depends upon you to remain ignorant.  if you actually followed up on anything you'd learn that you've been snookered.  maybe you are afraid to learn that you were so easily distracted. 

Yawn. "You only think that way because whatever svengalis or puppet masters out there tell you to" is one of the laziest forms of argument. 

Debate the issues or don't, but "Rush Limbaugh depends on your ignorance, and I know you're ignorant because you don't agree with me" is tedious. It's not even an attempt at legitimate debate, and undermines your points about McCain's advertising, the attack ads, et al, because it says you weren't really serious about trying to convince anybody your talking to about any of your points, because we're all idiots and hopeless. 

Not particular original. Definitely not compelling. But, if that's the strategy you want to use to make your point, knock yourself out.

if you knew me, mr uc,
you would know that i am nothing if not an independent thinker.  that i come from a multi-cultural family,  that i was a single parent who raised two children to be open-minded, resourceful, and independent.  that i put myself through college, owned my own businesses,  trained myself in several worlds of business that were dominated by men and not only equaled them- i surpassed them.  i was easily elected to office because i had already been a long-time leader in the community.  i know how politics "work".  i understand palm greasing because i saw it first hand.
i also know that not all politicians are bad or go bad.  i am not blinded by pie-in-the-sky, head -in- the-clouds rhetoric.  when something is wrong, i work to fix it.  when something needs attention, i give it mine.  when someone is telling a lie- i call them on it.  when someone needs help, i help. if you knew me, you'd know that.
but , that's just me.  that's how i was raised.  obama reflects my way of doing business, and my approach to the resolution of problems that confront us.  
i am disappointed in those that live selfish lives. ( the conservative mantra:  "i've got mine- go get your own!" )
i am disappointed in those that take joy in the misery of others.
you can do better...but only if you want to. 

Hillary Clinton's speech today at the Democratic Convention was very well done and brilliantly delivered. Hillary was eloquent, forceful and on message. As expected, she urged her supporters to rally behind Obama. She was effective in delivering this message, insisting that supporters focus on democratic ideals and goals rather than on her person.

Of course, she needed to do this. If Obama loses in November, Democrats will be devastated, and if there are even the slightest Clinton fingerprints on the Obama loss she will be held in contempt by her own party. That's why she had to be forceful and convincing tonight.

Most of the media seems to endorse the speech and agree that Hillary delivered what was expected of her. However, some say that she could have done more to personalize her endorsement of Obama. She spoke of him in somewhat generic terms and didn't distance herself from the remarks she made during the primary season, where she said he wasn't experienced enough to be commander-in-chief. John McCain is now running ads reminding voters of how Hillary described Obama merely 4 months ago.

There's a simple reason why Hillary did not withdraw or distance herself from those earlier remarks. And that is, she still believes what she said then. Clearly, she ran for President believing she was the more experienced and ready of the Democratic contenders. She did not think Obama is ready for prime time, and she probably does not think so now, 4 months later. That's why she kept her speech in generic terms, preferring to endorse a generic democrat and focus her attacks on McCain as a "surrogate" and extension of Bush. (By the way, her remark on Bush / McCain in the twin cities was politically brilliant).

Democrats chose Obama's eloquence over Hillary's experience, and now we will see whether voters will buy the Obama package. The Democratic convention so far has gone a long way to re-introduce Obama to the American public as a devoted family man, father and passionate change agent. There is probably no doubt in anyone's mind that Obama is a caring and loving father and a charismatic and talented politician. But he's no post partisan change agent, having the most inflexible liberal voting record of anyone in the senate. The discrepancy between what Obama says and what he has actually done in his rather short political life is profound. The uneasy feeling and lingering questions surrounding him will remain with the American public and I doubt any amount of repackaging can remove them.

http://scepticalrepublican.blogspot.com/

Wow this is really getting out of hand, we now are going to see how Obama plans to spend our money, on expensive venues and sets.... You think we are in debt now wait and see what he does if he gets in office.  First on his list will be remodel the White House then new Air-Force 1 , new limo's and so on...  

If your tied of all this you need to take brake and check out ShootTheLiberals.com they have a new game call Freezer Burn where you use specially designed chemically enhanced projectiles which will change mental imbalance in Liberals which prevents them from understanding logic.  IT GREAT FUN

your hysteria over this is pretty silly- especially since any monies used for this evening's set and presentation was donated for the obama campaign (and, just a guess here on my part, but i'll bet not a penny of it came from you).
where exactly is your outrage over this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/11/AR2008011103772.html
or this:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article2364255.ece
or this:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/100/story/29070.html
 

Palin?!!!  HA!   What kind of choice is THAT?  That is supposed to be good decision making?  So, now if McCain becomes elected and, in all likelihood, passes away in the next year or two, we have a PRESIDENT with such shallow experience?   God help us all.  Obama at least has several years of experience and respect from colleagues at the national level and now has an experienced running mate, plus they both have the morality this country needs to move in the right direction.  It is obvious that the only reason McCain has chosen Palin is because she is a she, and he is hoping to capitalize on the simple fact that she is a woman.  What is politics coming to?  She is not anywhere near the level of Hillary Clinton, so I cannot imagine that strategy to work...  In any regard, it is transparent and PATHETIC.    Look who's grasping at straws...

"I ask, what the hell is the purpose of the Democratic Party? What are your goals and objectives other than “change??  What’s your vision?"

It doesn't change from political season to political season, or from candidate to candidate.  Their vision is this:

Government is the expression of our priorities as a people:  There's nothing wrong with pooling our resources (taxes) into an organization that's uniquely capable of making all of our lives better.  If the people want better roads, clean air and water, better schools, income in our old age, and health care for poor children, and no lead in their toys, then there's nothing wrong with government raising some money and doing what can be done.

In the bigger picture, Democrats also know that if left to its own devices, a capitalism will concentrate capital into the hands of the very rich, and thereby cut off most others from access to it.  This is not socialist fantasy, it can be seen today all over the world, in any of the "unregulated" capitalisms in which the rich live in palaces, the middle-class doesn't exist, and the poor live in carboard shacks.  England and America both faced this state of affairs in the second half of the nineteenth century, and both countries realized that some redistribution of wealth was needed to fix it.  That redistribution gave us the country we live in today, and Republicans have completely forgotten that fact while Democrats continue to believe it.

This controlled, subtle redistribution of wealth is mainly done through progressive taxation (i.e. the rich pay a higher percentage than the poor), but also through more subtle means:  Social Security, the minimum wage, Medicare and Medicaid, occupational health and safety, unions, direct assistance to the poor, and even regulation of the banking industry, among many other things.  Republicans oppose every one of these measures which gave us the country, and economy, we enjoy today (even the poor are better off in America!).  It's no accident that the economy grew like crazy when Dems controlled the congress for 44 years in the 20th Century, or that the economy performed better under Clinton than it did under Bush--The Democratic party understands the economy, and manages it, better than the Republicans could ever hope for.

Republicans don't want the redistribution of wealth to happen, and they don't think government should be trying to aid the "common good."  In fact, for them there is no such thing.  If companies can make more money by polluting than not, then they have every right to pollute.  Smart citizens will simply become rich and move to a less-polluted locale.  If you end up living in a cardboard box, it's not because you were denied access to education or capital, it's because you're stupid and lazy.  It's a profoundly simple-minded worldview, pretty much what you would expect from a people who think that a 2000 year old, self-contradictory book is the literal truth, but if there's one inconsistancy in a scientific theory, that theory can't possibly be true.

Either way, now you don't have to ask what the Democrats are "all about."  This isn't American Idol, and each candidate doesn't come with his or her own unique personal philosophy you've never heard before.

As an independent reader, not democrat, not republican, not even a voter, I am most impressed with people who post messages backed by facts not just rhetoric. After reading many of the messages, I find TOE to have been the most consistently interesting to read. I truly have enjoyed reading TOE the most.
Good job TOE

I knew the McCain Campaign going into their convention desperate to change the conversation, but preying on the simpletons out there by picking Palin is just sad.  People in our country are so easily swayed by a pretty face and no matter how shrill her voice is and how many lies she tells the simpletons will cheer her on. It is “distraco” politics as usual out of the Republicans. McCain is no longer worthy of my admiration as a true patriot and hero as I find out that he allows the same people who in 2000 created ad campaigns claiming he  had “illegitimate black child” to lie, fain insult, and distract the chattering classes from real issues.   The 3 am phone call is a wakeup call to Americans to take a deep breath turn and pay attention to what these scumbags are doing. If we in the United States are so vulnerable to lies as evident in the last eight years and in the last couple of weeks then there is little hope of us regaining the prestige we once enjoyed as the beacon of freedom for the world we should change it to “check your common sense at the door” America they did this in 2000, 2004 are you going to allow it in 2008 again?

ANCHORAGE - Gov. Tony Knowles recently signed legislation protecting victims of sexual assault from being billed for tests to collect evidence of the crime, but one local police chief said the new law will further burden taxpayers.
The governor signed House Bill 270, sponsored by Rep. Eric Croft, D-Anchorage, outside the Sexual Assault Response Team (SART) exam room at Alaska Regional Hospital. In attendance at the signing were members of victims advocate groups, law enforcement agencies and legislators.

The new law makes it illegal for any law enforcement agency to bill victims or victims insurance companies for the costs of examinations that take place to collect evidence of a sexual assault or determine if a sexual assault did occur.

We would never bill the victim of a burglary for fingerprinting and photographing the crime scene, or for the cost of gathering other evidence, Knowles said. Nor should we bill rape victims just because the crime scene happens to be their bodies.

While the Alaska State Troopers and most municipal police agencies have covered the cost of exams, which cost between $300 to $1,200 apiece, the Wasilla police department does charge the victims of sexual assault for the tests.
Wasilla Police Chief Charlie Fannon does not agree with the new legislation, saying the law will require the city and communities to come up with more funds to cover the costs of the forensic exams.
In the past weve charged the cost of exams to the victims insurance company when possible. I just dont want to see any more burden put on the taxpayer, Fannon said.
According to Fannon, the new law will cost the Wasilla Police Department approximately $5,000 to $14,000 a year to collect evidence for sexual assault cases.
Ultimately it is the criminal who should bear the burden of the added costs, Fannon said.
The forensic exam is just one part of the equation. Id like to see the courts make these people pay restitution for these things, Fannon said.
Fannon said he intends to include the cost of exams required to collect evidence in a restitution request as a part of a criminals sentencing.
Palmer police chief Laren Zager said that to his knowledge, no sexual assault victim has ever been billed by the city of Palmer for an exam to collect evidence of a crime. Zager, who has been police chief since January, said he would never expect a victim to be burdened with the cost of a police investigation.
Im prepared to pay every dime in an investigation. As long as I am chief, I would never bill a victim, Zager said.
The new bill would also make law enforcement agencies that are investigating a sexual assault responsible for the costs of testing victims for sexually transmitted diseases and emergency contraception.
 

As Mayor, Sarah Palin allowed rap VICTIMS to be charged for the rape kit done.

http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2000/05/23/news.txt

ANCHORAGE - Gov. Tony Knowles recently signed legislation protecting victims of sexual assault from being billed for tests to collect evidence of the crime, but one local police chief said the new law will further burden taxpayers.

The governor signed House Bill 270, sponsored by Rep. Eric Croft, D-Anchorage, outside the Sexual Assault Response Team (SART) exam room at Alaska Regional Hospital. In attendance at the signing were members of victims advocate groups, law enforcement agencies and legislators.

The new law makes it illegal for any law enforcement agency to bill victims or victims insurance companies for the costs of examinations that take place to collect evidence of a sexual assault or determine if a sexual assault did occur.

We would never bill the victim of a burglary for fingerprinting and photographing the crime scene, or for the cost of gathering other evidence, Knowles said. Nor should we bill rape victims just because the crime scene happens to be their bodies.

While the Alaska State Troopers and most municipal police agencies have covered the cost of exams, which cost between $300 to $1,200 apiece, the Wasilla police department does charge the victims of sexual assault for the tests.

Wasilla Police Chief Charlie Fannon does not agree with the new legislation, saying the law will require the city and communities to come up with more funds to cover the costs of the forensic exams.

In the past weve charged the cost of exams to the victims insurance company when possible. I just dont want to see any more burden put on the taxpayer, Fannon said.

According to Fannon, the new law will cost the Wasilla Police Department approximately $5,000 to $14,000 a year to collect evidence for sexual assault cases.

Ultimately it is the criminal who should bear the burden of the added costs, Fannon said.

The forensic exam is just one part of the equation. Id like to see the courts make these people pay restitution for these things, Fannon said.

Fannon said he intends to include the cost of exams required to collect evidence in a restitution request as a part of a criminals sentencing.

Palmer police chief Laren Zager said that to his knowledge, no sexual assault victim has ever been billed by the city of Palmer for an exam to collect evidence of a crime. Zager, who has been police chief since January, said he would never expect a victim to be burdened with the cost of a police investigation.

Im prepared to pay every dime in an investigation. As long as I am chief, I would never bill a victim, Zager said.

The new bill would also make law enforcement agencies that are investigating a sexual assault responsible for the costs of testing victims for sexually transmitted diseases and emergency contraception.
 

Heliocracy-- there are a lot of wealthy greedy democrats that will try any way they can to avoid paying their fair share of taxes.  so what do you have to say about that?  are they out for the common good.  so are you saying that the democrats in Congress today are managing the economy well?  they promised us so much and have accomplished so little.  if you are saying how great the democrats are, you need to talk about their failures today.  The LIMITED redistribution of wealth is ok as long as the people who are benefiting from the charity they are given are working to improve their lives so they don't have to rely on the government in years to come (exceptions are disabled, elderly, etc.).  well we all know that doesn't work very well does it.  THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT MANAGE PROGRAMS WELL!  OUR MONEY IS WASTED NO MATTER WHO IS IN CHARGE!  THE PROGRAMS ARE INEFFICIENT!  the taxes that are designated to the poor are wasted and eaten up by beaucracy so the very little of the money actually goes to help folks.  we pay a huge premium for every government run program.  how hard is that to understand?  i have personally spoken to a so many people who are poor and have been willing to dig in and work to help them only to find out they are unwilling to do what it takes to get out of their situation.  I have expertise in finance and have worked hard to help average able bodied people to learn a skill and help them learn to budget and manage their money.  100% of the time they refuse to change anything they are doing and in the end admit they like handouts.  so what do you say about redistribution?  i worked hard to get where i am and don't want to give to those who aren't willing to help themselves.  that should be a basic rule before anyone gets help but it isn't so the redistribution will continue to grow.  your criticism of the republicans is unfounded to say the least.  yeah, it is very clear what the democrats are all about.  i'm for helping folks but would rather choose who i help and not let government do it for me.  i would give a lot more money than i do now.  i don't want my hardearned money to go into the big black hole that it goes into now.  it has been proven that a lot of folks on the streets are mentally ill and they can't be helped because it is their right to continue to live on the streets and refuse help.  obviously, if they could be taken off the streets and given the proper medical and mental healthcare, they could be helped but they won't.  you say that redistribution made us the country we are today but there has to be a limit.  yesterday my taxes were high and tomorrow they may be taking 75% of my pay.  if it were up to the democrats i would not have enough money to send my kids to college.  of course, what happened to personal responsibility, i.e, don't have kids unless you can afford it??????????????  why should i pay for others' problems 100% of the time.  there should be a limit to what we as a people are responsibile for.  otherwise, those in need continue to make the same mistakes and continue to have more children they can't support.  personal responsbility and common sense need to be taught before my taxes are raised again and i can't feed my children.  you are entitled to your opinions but you don't need to talk about republicans as if you know what they are about.  

You really called Cindy Sheehan an "anti-war lunatic". Wow. You do know she lost her son in the war, right?

I am asheamed of Hillary and Bill Clinton. I was so proud of them. Until they went for obama. They really busted my bubble. I will never vote for another dem. again.  Margie