Obama voted with Pelosi 97% of the time and she and congress have a 9% approval rating.
Posted by: nobama | Sep 9, 2008 7:53:47 AM
hmmm...isn't that funny Nobama, You've been an asshole and douchebag 100% of the time and yet no one seems to agree with you. Isn't that strange?
Posted by: Pekemo | Sep 9, 2008 8:08:17 AM
Right on! Finally the democratic party has grown some balls and are calling them what they are: LIARS!
Posted by: Mike | Sep 9, 2008 9:13:16 AM
Yeah but the Rethugs didn’t beat up on them gays at their convention this year so the LCR are votin’ McSame! Praise the lord and stop fag marrriage.
Posted by: ggreen | Sep 9, 2008 9:13:37 AM
Nobama - you are totally entitled to vote McCain. Just remember that you will be put to an ex-gay camp if Palin has her way.
Posted by: Landis | Sep 9, 2008 9:14:01 AM
Obama should be more careful with his commercials because McCain/Palin can bite back hard on this topic...just wait and see. Both Obama and Biden voted for the Bridge to Nowhere...not just once, but twice, supporting the Bridge in the second vote in lieu of re-earmarking the money to Katrina recovery efforts. McCain opposed the Bridge alltogether...and Palin can claim she did indeed oppose the Bridge by using the already earmarked money for other infrastructure projects in Alaska. Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, daily.
Posted by: Mark N Chicago | Sep 9, 2008 9:45:15 AM
Palin will probably leave the bridge topic alone if she knows what's good for her - she was very much pro bridge during a good part of her mayorship. Pointing fingers at Obama/Biden will turn around and bite her in the ass.
Posted by: scientitian | Sep 9, 2008 9:54:11 AM
I agree with Mark. Obama does need to be careful with his commercials mostly because his voting record is so sparse. It just fuels another Republican talking point: he has not been an active member of the legislature. When it's examined closely, his record makes Palin's look pretty substantial. If I were him, I'd avoid this topic altogether.
And Scientitian, I see what you're saying, but logic must be tossed out the window when dealing with Palin. She can and will say anything and get away with it. Nothing is going to bite her in the ass, hence all this attention needs to get back to where it belongs: on McCain and Obama.
Posted by: David | Sep 9, 2008 10:20:28 AM
Mark in Chicago
WAPO, Wall Street Journal, NYT, and the AP (head wanted to work for mccain) all tear into Palin on the bridge to nowhere.
They all cite that she in fact supported it, campaigned for it when running as governor, even appearing in a pic holding up a t-shirt supporting it.
She can claim she was against it when congress said "hell no" on anymore money for it while she kept the money already acquired. SPIN SPIN SPIN
Congress always as a whole gets low marks while each individual congressional critter gets super high marks from their specific constituents. You are a neophite
As a canadian, how do you guys feel about Alaska. How do you guys feel about the Alaska Independence party (her husband a member for 7 yrs and she spoke at their convention via video feed saying she supported them)
If they do become the independent nation of alaskastan, you know they want to keep the US nukes stationed there and all of the US ammunition and submarines stationed there. as if! I would bet they would then try to annex canadian territory.
Anyway; I am interested in a canadian's thoughts on crazy Alaska.
Posted by: Jimmyboyo | Sep 9, 2008 11:09:29 AM
Odd, I found this add very sharp and on-target. Maybe I was reacting subconciously to the harsh Richard Cohen article from this AM, which complained that Obama wasn't fighting the smears as indignantly or vociferously as Cohen wanted. Obama seems like a keep-the-cards-close player, who then slams down a full house. This ad goes right to the source of McCain's "bump" right now--that people think he's a maverick who will "reform" Washington. Obama's ad points out how ludicrous this claim actually is in the face of the facts.
Posted by: Dback | Sep 9, 2008 11:12:28 AM
Alaska is as much as an after thought like Canada is to America. LOL.
Well, my personal take is that in 100 years Canada will be "absorbed" or "annexed" into US anyway. America wants Canadian land and resources, and I am sure they will package it in some kind of scheme (sorry!) with the strong public support. Iraq, Bush, McCain are just case in point. Your citizens are unforunately not informed enough and let the Republican elite control the agenda. I don't see it ending frankly.
And if that happens, Alaska would have no need to go away, because it would be attached to US/Canada.