How Obama Got Elected

[moondog]

Well, in all actuality, Obama did not get big numbers from the debates and McCain did. It was his campaigning that was sorely lacking and his inability to address the continuous flow of falsehoods being printed and displayed in the media. I watched every debate and reviewed the poll numbers after every debate. After every debate McCain closed the gap, but allowed it to widen in the days that lapsed between each debate. That is what really happened.

And by the way, I thought you were not going to respond any longer. I only posted the second post because I said it was you who made the accusation about Palin being able to see Russia from her home, when it was actually your pal Mink. I wanted to correct my mistake and make sure you knew I was on the ball.

You made other false accusations about Palin, which were eventually proven incorrect. But, you did not weigh in on this particular issue as I claimed you did.

Dec 4, 2008 15:08:33 GMT -5 saunterelle said:

I'm done with this pathetic thread.

[moondog]

And by the way, Obama has not actually been elected yet. The voters have voted, but until the Electoral College actually votes, he is not really an elected official, now is he?

[saunterelle]

And by the way, I thought you were not going to respond any longer.

And I thought you weren't going to post anymore either, bolverk.

[moondog]

That is not what I said, I said I was ending my last conversation with you over the issue of calling Georgia racist. You said you were done with this pathetic thread. Which I can understand, considering you have been thoroughly trounced. I did not mean to make you angry by pointing out that even your own ally here on the board made the same mistake as all the other interviewed Obama supporters did in relation to Sarah Palin, Russia and Alaska.

I can only suggest that you endeavor to read more and study math and geography. My use of Google Maps, algebra and geography were all I needed to prove that the false accusations were ridiculous at best and proof of media bias at worst. A bias you claim does not exist.

So please don't get angry and start calling me names and having a fit. Just because I am able to prove my points with numbers, maps and quotes does not mean you should get mad. If you wish to change my mind, make some valid points and present them in a rational post, I will read every word. That is how I was able to catch your mistakes about the "Push Poll" and Minks mistake about attributing a Tina Fey quote to Sarah Palin.

[jgaffney]

Dec 4, 2008 19:25:27 GMT -5 @moondog said:

So please don't get angry and start calling me names and having a fit. Just because I am able to prove my points with numbers, maps and quotes does not mean you should get mad. If you wish to change my mind, make some valid points and present them in a rational post, I will read every word. That is how I was able to catch your mistakes about the "Push Poll" and Minks mistake about attributing a Tina Fey quote to Sarah Palin.

Moondog, you're wasting your time trying to encourage Saunterelle to be reasonable and logical in his debate tactics. He has never exhibited those traits in the past and, now that Obama has won the general election, he is too busy gloating to provide a reasoned defense of his positions.

Yes, Obama has been elected as our next president and the best thing we conservatives can do is hope that he doesn't trash the country before the 2010 elections. Do you recall Clinton's first two years, before the Gingrich Congress was swept in on a tide of disgust over Democrat leadership? This will be better.

[jgaffney]

As proof that the original premise of this post is true, the NY Times has this:

Senator John McCain’s presidential campaign spent more than $165,000 over the course of nine weeks on a trio of stylists for Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, equivalent to what a Hollywood studio might invest in preparing an A-list actress for a movie premiere or publicity campaign, other stylists said.

The fees showed up in new campaign finance reports filed late Thursday with the Federal Election Commission. The filings furnished a trickle of new details to what has become one of the lingering controversies of the 2008 presidential campaign: the expensive makeover of Ms. Palin, the vice-presidential nominee, for the campaign, including the tens of thousands of dollars spent by the Republican Party on clothing for her and her family, undermining her calibrated “hockey mom” appeal.

Besides the payments to the stylists, the new reports, for the period of Oct. 16 to Nov. 24, showed additional purchases on Ms. Palin’s behalf, significantly beyond the $150,000 already reported that was spent by the party at luxury stores like Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus.

Meanwhile, a significant story about Rahm Emanuel gets buried:

Mr. Emanuel, who was chosen last month to become President-elect Barack Obama’s White House chief of staff, went on to make more than $18 million in just two-and-a-half years, turning many of his contacts in his substantial political Rolodex into paying clients and directing his negotiating prowess and trademark intensity to mergers and acquisitions. He also benefited from the opportune sale of Wasserstein Perella to a German bank, helping him to an unusually large payout.

The period before he was elected to a House seat from Illinois is a little-known episode of Mr. Emanuel’s biography. Former colleagues said the insight it afforded him on the financial services sector is invaluable especially now. But Mr. Emanuel built up strong ties with an industry now at the heart of the economic crisis, one that will be girding for a pitched lobbying battle next year as the incoming Democratic administration considers a potentially sweeping regulatory overhaul.

After Mr. Emanuel left banking to run for Congress, members of the securities and investment industry became his biggest backers, donating more than $1.5 million to his campaigns dating back to 2002, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Mr. Emanuel also leaned heavily upon the industry while he was chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee during the 2006 midterm elections. Financial industry donors contributed more than $5.8 million to the committee, behind only retirees.

Or, how about this one:

Democrats carrying significant campaign debt after winning a string of House and Senate races are grumbling about President-elect Barack Obama's financial reserves, saying the party's leader is sitting on a pile of cash while Democratic leaders are broke.

Obama's organization retains some $30 million after his successful presidential bid, but it's unclear how the Democratic president-in-waiting might use the money. Members of his party are doing their best to appeal for the funds without appearing greedy, ungrateful or hostile to their new leader.

So, one might be led to think that greed is only a matter of perspective. A CEO who gets a golden parachute under the terms of the employment contract that the company's board negotiated with him is, by definition, greedy. But, if Rahm Emanuel rakes in $18 mil by being in the right place at the right time, that's a good thing, no? And, Obama can wring his hands over the workers at Union Door being thrown out of work, but he can't let go of some of that $30 mil to help them? What is wrong with this picture?