Carly Fiorina on Sarah Palin

Justin Webb | 16:34 UK time, Wednesday, 3 September 2008

I agree with those who say she is not the new Eagleton: ditching her would destroy McCain's campaign. It is interesting to get the take of party insiders who are not natural backers of Sarah Palin though, and I sat down with Carly Fiorina, one of McCain's senior advisors and strongest surrogates.

Here it is:

In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.

Bookmark with:
del.icio.us |
Digg |
Newsvine |
NowPublic |
Reddit
- What's this?

Comments

1. At 5:11pm on 03 Sep 2008, davidterron wrote:
No Justin. What is grossly unfair is (a) you lot twittering about Sarah and Bristol Palin yet said nothing about John Edwards and his love child whilst married until you were forced to (b) having so called journalists write articles about George Bush's video speech which bore no resemblence to reality - he was applauded warmly by the entire convention according to my spy yet the BBC claimed he was not. (c) banging on about Todd Palin's conviction in 186 - ancient history. (d) still no mention of Biden's problems - I do hope he was vetted properly.... 8-)

In short. Yours and the BBC's coverage of the Republican convention has been nothing short of disgraceful. Even Sneering Matt Frei took a pop at Sarah Palin for having 5 kids when he has 4 himself! Impartial? Rubbish when you look at the gushing overwhelmingly friendly coverage about the Chosen One Obama compared to the constant barrage of half truths and lies by omission you are pushing about the Republicans. You have really gone too far this time and many of my friends agree.

Complain about this comment
2. At 5:12pm on 03 Sep 2008, Cyril_Croydon wrote:
Great interview Justin. You ask all the right questions and I hope your US counterparts do the same. The fact that she has to play the sexist card so forcefully underscores the weakness of her candidate.

The Obama campaign have to be very careful not to appear snooty and condescending about Palin and so far they have been. They don't even need to attack her at all. She is such a flawed candidate with so many contradictions and skeletons that the next 2 months will expose her as not a viable potential commander in chief.

Alice Miles in the Times today. No-one can accuse her of being sexist.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/alice_miles/article4662805.ece

Of course, the GOP are very good at playing the elitist card. Any criticism of their candidates is immediately branded as coastal snobbery and as we all know you can't be patriotic unless you are a Republican!

Great analysis here from Danny Finkelstein. The demographics favour a Democrat, but Palin may turn out enough cultural conservatives in swing states like Bush in 2000 and 2004.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/daniel_finkelstein/article4663145.ece

Complain about this comment
3. At 5:15pm on 03 Sep 2008, Gary_A_Hill wrote:
I can't install all that junk on this computer. Here's a link that doesn't require it:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/mccain-campaign.html

Complain about this comment
4. At 5:17pm on 03 Sep 2008, hants_gw wrote:
Before getting too starstruck about anything Carly Fiorina says it might be worth considering the following quotes from the BBC Business News on the 9th of February 2005

"Carly Fiorina, the chairman and chief executive of Hewlett-Packard, has resigned."

"Investors cheered Ms Fiorina's exit, HP's shares rising 10%."

"They stayed sharply higher all day, closing up nearly 7%."

The full article is here -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4250315.stm -

and the graph of the share price speaks volumes.

Couldn't McCain find someone competent?

Complain about this comment
5. At 5:22pm on 03 Sep 2008, Lord Vetinari wrote:
Words fail me with regard to this woman - she could get to sit in the Oval Office with her figure in the nuclear trigger - be very, very afraid.

Complain about this comment
6. At 5:26pm on 03 Sep 2008, mars_central wrote:
"McCain and Palin will govern from the centre." Really? Excuse my disbelief, but they both seem so far to the right now that they make Nixon and Regan look like Hybrid driving liberals. I also like how Alaska is "one of the largest states", which is true geographically. In terms of population, which is what matters for things like economy, it is 47th with less than a million people. I'm not sure how someone involved with the infamous "bridge to nowhere" and allegations of firing a state official for personal reasons is really going to change Washington or an example of great executive experience.

While I agree that you don't need to agree with every view a candidate holds (that would be nigh impossible), it seems that neither Carly Fiorina or John McCain, let alone Hillary Clinton or her supporters agree with anything Palin believes in.

I also think it is a valid point you raised about her gender being the real reason she was chosen.

If McCain and Palin are elected it will be eight *long* years.

Complain about this comment
7. At 5:29pm on 03 Sep 2008, wanderingangus wrote:

I heard the interview on Eddie Mair programme and thought it excellent - JW asking serious INVESTIGATIVE questions which the world wants answered.

Unfortunately Ms Fiorina was able to respond on behalf of John McCain but could offer no information regarding the views of Gov. Palin especially in regard to her belief in creationism.

If even this senior and seasoned McCain surrogate is stumped it only confirms that we are running blind as to what on earth Gov. Palin is going in the race (I know, I know, she is there to appease the evangelical base)

Complain about this comment
8. At 5:34pm on 03 Sep 2008, benkarlin wrote:
Firstly @#1, the Edwards 'love child' rumours were just that, and when he admitted the affair he was an ex third place candidate for nomination, not the presumptive GOP nominee for vice-president. It's not really the same thing, and Justin and the BBC have been pretty light on the Bristol Palin stuff from what I can tell - you can't deny it's news, so I don't really see your point.

Secondly, good interview. Thought she only had a good answer when you said Palin wouldn't be in this position if she were a man (which is probably true) and she came back with the bit about if Obama was a woman there's no way he would have won the nomination, which is also true. The rest of the time I was quite unconvinced, she seemed to realise she'd started the interview with a pretty weak, 'yeah well, at least she won't really be President, and McCain's OK' line, and went a bit overboard trying to make up for it, forcing herself into this sexism argument which is always going to sound weak, especially as it involves mentioning Hillary so much and one of the main points against Palin seems to be that she's a desperate attempt to get Hillary voters.

Personally I think she's a pretty poor choice, chosen seemingly more for short term tactical reasons rather than her ability to govern. I'm not 100% convinced by Obama but if VP choice is 'the first presidential decision' he owned McCain at that one.

Complain about this comment
9. At 5:34pm on 03 Sep 2008, jacksforge wrote:
5 because Nobby made the descision,and we all know he's got the common touch.

Complain about this comment
10. At 5:36pm on 03 Sep 2008, jacksforge wrote:
This comment has been referred to the moderators. Explain.
11. At 5:37pm on 03 Sep 2008, pluto61 wrote:
Absolutely ridiculous that someone who believes in a literal creation can be a heartbeat from president.

This is not an issue about the right to believe what one wants - I have no issue with people believing that the earth is flat or the moon is made of cheese - but Politicians need outstanding skills in judgement. Someone who believes that the world was created in 7 days, that the earth was formed 6000 years ago like the Reverend Usher in the 1700s, and is willing to go against all scientific evidence to the contrary should be teaching primary school kids bible studies.

Complain about this comment
12. At 5:43pm on 03 Sep 2008, robzaba wrote:
Did everyone actually catch the important slice of this interview? It's really extraordinary...

CF "John McCain as President will make an Energy Bill and a climate-change Cap n Trade System at the top of his priorities..."

JW "But Sarah Palin wouldn't."

CF "I have no idea. Sarah Palin is not going to be President."

JW "But that's the point, isn't it?"

CF "You know, I think JMc has chosen a partner who he believes shares his priciples and priorities."

Wow. Amazing comments, either she has 'no idea' about Sarah Palin's priorities, or has 'no idea' if Palin will support McCain's Energy Bill? No idea? How can Palin share his priorities if Palin's are not known?

How can the American people vote for a person to be VP or even P when even top Republicans have 'no idea' about her priorites?

Complain about this comment
13. At 5:44pm on 03 Sep 2008, Froggy wrote:
How a foetus could be important in US election.
Make sure, Obama's daughter is not pregnant.

Complain about this comment
14. At 5:46pm on 03 Sep 2008, jacksforge wrote:
they are doing it to save hillary.

thats what she wants us to believe.
It was sexist, thats what they want us to believe.

Theyonly picked her after Obama went for Biden, because she was female.

as for ballancing work life.
tell that to the guy who gets kicked out of his house in a divorce because he is too busy earning money while the mother of his children refuses to use the masters degree to ern because she has to look after the Kids.
What Sexist crap is what I'm saying, from this lady.
Men have to ballance a work life and the kids as well, if they understand the modern approach(unlike that carly witch) to child rearing.
If they offer to give up their lower paying job to look after the kids, live in the house and let mastres degreed mom go to work.
But then sexist laws come in. MOM gets the deal.

Sexism works both ways,
Obama has raised his kids and been there for them .he has balanced familly and work.

What plural spheres

Complain about this comment
15. At 5:48pm on 03 Sep 2008, jacksforge wrote:
Rob zaba
it is strange they all think she is great and they haven't even heard her speak for more than a minute it seems.

Condi is the one to pick.At least she seems smart enough to stay out of it.

Complain about this comment
16. At 5:49pm on 03 Sep 2008, wanderingangus wrote:

BTW, I note Justin's conclusion about the Eagleton comparison but I do think that there is a chance that she will withdraw of her own accord. The pressure must be enormous - it would for anyone to be pitchforked into a campaign at the eleventh hour like this, but with the family problems (for a man or a woman, before we start that hare running again), and the inexperience, it must be excruciating.

After all, with all her responsibilities it sounds as though she upped sticks and left home last Wednesday and hasn't been back since. It must be a weird and scary situation for someone who really hadn't even been abroad until last year.

She has talked about having a good political team with her but she doesn't acknowledge the pressure that puts on YOU, the candidate, to perform well.

Only time will tell.

Complain about this comment
17. At 5:50pm on 03 Sep 2008, jacksforge wrote:
sorry earlier I was confusing creationism with INTELLIGENT DESIGN.
proves the point though

Complain about this comment
18. At 5:53pm on 03 Sep 2008, Simon21 wrote:
1. At 5:11pm on 03 Sep 2008, davidterron wrote:

"In short. Yours and the BBC's coverage of the Republican convention has been nothing short of disgraceful. Even Sneering Matt Frei took a pop at Sarah Palin for having 5 kids when he has 4 himself! "

Matt Frei is actually not running for office in the US, has this escaped you?

What a ridiculous comment.

I"mpartial? Rubbish when you look at the gushing overwhelmingly friendly coverage about the Chosen One Obama compared to the constant barrage of half truths and lies by omission you are pushing about the Republicans. You have really gone too far this time and many of my friends agree."

Do they and your friends of course are entirely objective.

The Republicans, the party of smear, are squealing and its a great sound.

The BBC is not here to support the Republican party

Complain about this comment
19. At 5:54pm on 03 Sep 2008, DanaForObama wrote:
I have never checked out Blogs from the BBC before but was prompted to as I wonder, what in the world our foreign neigbors must be thinking of this disgrace of an administration we currently have.
I am a Democratic woman and I am so glad even in England they can see through the Republican rhetoric!
There is absolutely no sexism going on against Sarah Palin- she is simply being held to the same scrutiny as they GOP has applied to Barack Obama- it's not our fault she came to the table with a laundry list of her own issues. She chose to accept the nomination so she knew her dirty laundry was going to come flooding out- they thought they could hide her behind the veil of being a woman- but that is sexist in itself! She has labeled herself a maverick that can stand up and play with the big boys, she has even denounced Hillary Clinton as a "whiner" and a dissapointment to women everywhere for using the "sexism" card...but of course the Republicans always try to manipulate and spin things to no end!
I am praying that Barack Obama is our next President because many American's are scared of what will happen to this country if Republicans remain in power for another 4 years. Our diplomacy throughout the world has all but been shattered- and many of us are embarassed of the mockery we have turned into in the past 8 years.
Keep your fingers crossed for us...we need all the help we can get! :0)

Complain about this comment
20. At 5:58pm on 03 Sep 2008, RedDonnaAnn wrote:
You have just witnessed the issue dodging of American politics. It doesn't matter what she thinks, it doesn't matter what her family does, it doesn't matter what her track record. What matters is my guy will win, your guy is less qualified, we are right, we don't need to give examples or facts or straight answers.

Is there room in London for an-ex Pat redhead?

Complain about this comment
21. At 6:01pm on 03 Sep 2008, mars_central wrote:
robzaba wrote:
Wow. Amazing comments, either she has 'no idea' about Sarah Palin's priorities, or has 'no idea' if Palin will support McCain's Energy Bill? No idea? How can Palin share his priorities if Palin's are not known?

McCain had only met her once before last Friday, so I have to wonder how much he knows. If I was part of the Dem campaign, I would keep playing that clip from the end of July where she admits to not even knowing what the VP does with "Ready to lead on Day One?!?" over and over.

Complain about this comment
22. At 6:03pm on 03 Sep 2008, DougTexan wrote:
Opinions and professionals,.. alot of words with little result.

Taking a slightly different approach, will someone just list the possitive points of McCain - Obama, and then the same for Biden - Palin. Heck with the Negative, as the good points will say more.

Obama
1. Articulate
2. Charissma
3. Good Looking
4. Has some good people working for him
5. Has run a fair campaign
6. Picked Biden for a VP who has 36 years in Senate
7. Christian (Black liberation theology)

McCain
1. Well spoken
2. Well liked by both parties
3. Works well with both parties
4. Surrounded by good people
5. Has run a fair campaign
6. Picked New Blood Palin for a VP with two years as Govenor and ten as Mayor
7. 36 Years in House and Senate
8. Graduated from the Naval Academy (894 0f 899)
9. McCain-Feingold Act (bi-partison)
10. Christian

Biden
1. Chaiman Foriegn Relations through the Bush years.
2. Senator for 36 years
3. Roman Catholic, though has own view on abortion

Palin
1. Governor of Alaska
2. Mayor of small town for six years
3. Hunter, fisherman, NRA life member
4. Roman Catholic (baptised),Assembly of God as an adult
5. Chairwoman Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (2003-4)
6. Ethics Supervisor of the commission (2003-4)

I have work to attend, but I'd like to see and talley the additions. Please help.

Thanks

Complain about this comment
23. At 6:05pm on 03 Sep 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:
Good Interview, Justin. I, too heard it on th "Eddie Mair Show" Robzaba, well highlighted.

I almost feel sorry for Fiorina having to do this, but I don't.

As to "running against the media",
""The McCain campaign will have no further comment about our long and thorough process," Schmidt said, lashing out at "the old boys' network" that he says runs media organizations."
Yup!

;-)
ed

Complain about this comment
24. At 6:08pm on 03 Sep 2008, Gary_A_Hill wrote:
robzaba (#12), I wouldn't expect Carly Fiorina to know much about Palin. She's probably never met her, and is likely in the same boat as the rest of us, having to learn who this person is and what she stand for. Fiorina has had a lot of time to get familiar with McCain, who has been around since the flood.

I wouldn't call Fiorina a "top Republican," either. She is a Republican businesswoman who can be trotted out on occasions like this, but I don't think she has ever been a significant operator in Republican Party governance.

Complain about this comment
25. At 6:11pm on 03 Sep 2008, wanderingangus wrote:

Some of today's complaints from the GOP make it sound as though they are going to limit press access to Palin. That would be quite crafty and a whole new departure for American elections.

If they can keep her quiet she will retain the support of the evangelical base because of what is known to them of her views - but the rest of us will just be left to make up our own minds on crumbs of information from surrogates.

Would also stop her taking the limelight from Mcain who must be spitting tintacks about the way he has been overshadowed since last Thursday/Friday, whenever it was.

Complain about this comment
26. At 6:11pm on 03 Sep 2008, chronoTanakajoe wrote:
Great job Justin. You asked great questions. We got to see how little this republican party can produce substance and how much they must rely on clever rhetoric.

Complain about this comment
27. At 6:20pm on 03 Sep 2008, aquarizonagal wrote:
To#14Jacksforge

You are right on!

I consider it very sexist when people imply that men do not have the same pressures to balance work and family that women do. The young men I see are very involved in the raising of their children and take this part of their lives very seriously.

To#16Wanderingangus

I agree! You are also, right on!

Palin should be nervous and somewhat scared to be suddenly thrust in this position. If she is not, we should be REALLY WORRIED!

The democrats will have to be very careful in challenging her lest they be accused of sexism.

Complain about this comment
28. At 6:20pm on 03 Sep 2008, pluto61 wrote:
Dana for Obama: you highlight USA diplomacy around the world.

My son has just returned to UK after 7 months travel in South and Central America. Very much enjoyed meeting several nationalities, USA included, but commented that all the Americans he met had Canadian flags on their backpacks.

Complain about this comment
29. At 6:22pm on 03 Sep 2008, Gary_A_Hill wrote:
jacksforge (#17) "intelligent design" is merely "creationism" in disguise, as an attempt to get it into the public schools. It hasn't worked. There was a lawsuit in Dover, Pennsylvania which settled that matter.

Complain about this comment
30. At 6:23pm on 03 Sep 2008, aquarizonagal wrote:
To #19 Danaforobama

A double AMEN to that, sister!

Complain about this comment
31. At 6:24pm on 03 Sep 2008, lawchicago wrote:
The Republicans have got it down well . Bush isn't us . McCain isn't Bush . Bush is Bush.. he is going home soon anyway .
We are the new guys- forget about the fact that we are Republicans,about the war the scandals, the fraud the economy . Republicans haven't had any ideas for years but we just found a few we are in favor of the environment, we will answer the phone at three A.M. and Palin is not the issue .

Remember we are the family values crew!
God , Guns , and Globalization
The liberal press is doing it again... picking on the fill in the blank ___ A . President BUsh B. McCain C .Palin D. Dick Chaney

All I can say is you gotta be kidding !

Complain about this comment
32. At 6:24pm on 03 Sep 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:
Culture Wars?
"John McCain's convention gambit is now a culture war strategy. It depends for its execution on conflict with journalists, and with bloggers (the "angry left," Bush called them last night) along with confusion between and among the press, the blogosphere, and the Democratic party. It revives cultural memory: the resentment narrative after Chicago '68 but with the angry left more distributed. It dispenses with issues and seeks a trial of personalities. It bets big time on backlash.

At the center of the strategy is the flashpoint candidacy of Sarah Palin, a charismatic figure around whom the war can be brought to scale, as it were. In fact the Politico is reporting just that: Palin reignites culture wars."
Light blue touch paper and stand well back...

;-)
ed

Complain about this comment
33. At 6:28pm on 03 Sep 2008, lawchicago wrote:
by the by , that much used word I keep on hearing from the politicians -globalization is just another word for you have been made redundant .

Complain about this comment
34. At 6:30pm on 03 Sep 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:
Justin, from your link, above, an illuminating vignette on Ms Fiorino
"In July 1999, when Fiorina was named chief executive officer of Hewlett-Packard, she became the first woman to run one of the companies in the Dow Jones Industrial Average. Her rocky, five-and-a-half-year tenure was full of drama: a big, ill-timed merger with Compaq in September 2001; the dot-com/tech meltdown; difficulty managing the board and other executives. When she resigned in February 2005, there was much speculation that the charismatic executive would pursue a career in public life."
Just the job for someone who has trouble managing one's executives, I suppose....

;-)
ed

Complain about this comment
35. At 6:34pm on 03 Sep 2008, benlons84 wrote:
Its quite obvious that as soon as Obama dropped Clinton, McCain was desperate to find a female candidate... wow, this governer in Alaska has approval ratings of 80%, and she appeals to evangelical christians... get her on the next flight to washington, print some t-shirts and lets get going! It's pretty terrifying that the world's only superpower can potentially elect an aging President who could very well become ill during his presidency, with a VP choice that is so inadequately prepared to take over the reigns.

McCain's VP pick is one of the most important in modern history. The electorate surely needed an experienced backup in case the worst happened. I'm sorry if I come across as ageist, but in this case his age plays a significant role.

Complain about this comment
36. At 6:37pm on 03 Sep 2008, ProfCapelo wrote:
Exactly what re you saying Justin? That Darwinian orthodoxy is one of the basic truths about the world? Let's forget about creationism for a moment. I'm no 6-day creationist, and i'm all for stem cell research and efforts to combat global warming, but you sound much like a fanatic in your proclamation of naturalistic evolution, and your assessment that only Darwinists are rational is most absurd to say the least.

Darwinists have made a name for themselves as intellectual belligerrents, and their pope used the word 'delusion' in a book to describe skeptics and unbelievers. They are no better in temperament than the ancient flat earth proponents, and you are left to wonder how they'll fare if they have the political power of medieval popes... My guess is they'l burn up all the churches, condemn heretics to the stake, and erect an altar to Darwin in every district

Complain about this comment
37. At 6:41pm on 03 Sep 2008, gunsandreligion wrote:
#4, hants_gw: Carly is so unloved out here that
when her plane lands, we change the signs at
the airport just so that she will move on

Good interview technique, Justin. I think that
we just saw the standard Republican anti-tank
defense for the rest of the campaign:

"You're only attacking Palin because she's a woman."

Complain about this comment
38. At 6:42pm on 03 Sep 2008, robzaba wrote:
Hi Gary,

"robzaba (#12), I wouldn't expect Carly Fiorina to know much about Palin. She's probably never met her, and is likely in the same boat as the rest of us, having to learn who this person is and what she stand for. Fiorina has had a lot of time to get familiar with McCain, who has been around since the flood."

I take that point. Don't you think it a little strange that there seem to be very few people who have met her, know who she is, or know how she will fare under the pressure that a VP must work? Getting to know her, fair enough, but at this very very late stage in the process - it must be even harder for the American people who must vote in a team for at least 4 years, and times are pretty difficult for them economically already, under a Republican Administration.

Would you agree that the American people are astute enough to want / need / demand to know how their home finances, for example, might look after 4 years of this particular team in office - or any particular team in fact? And how to gauge it?

Palin does have a record to defend, no doubt, but so many other unknowns? People may or may not like Biden's record or policies, but he certainly is not an unknown.

Complain about this comment
39. At 6:46pm on 03 Sep 2008, gunsandreligion wrote:
#33, lawchicago, an equivalent definition of
globalization is the lowering of environmental
and labor standards to the lowest common
denominator around the world.

Welcome to the 21st century; no, you can't go home.

Complain about this comment
40. At 6:55pm on 03 Sep 2008, jon112uk wrote:
Just watched your 6pm news item on Palin.

Last week we had wall to wall Obama - item one on TV and this site every single day.

This week?

Well at least there was an article on Palin. Item 5 I think. But nothing on the actual presidential candidate - I think he's called McCain.

I still haven't heard McCain speak on BBC news. Not even once. What accent does he have?

I can't make my mind up...Is this news blackout on McCain a deliberate BBC policy or just unconcious institutional bias?

I know you all think Obama is the 'new JFK' here to deliver us from the evil Boosh, but shouldn't you make at least some pretence at impartiality? Doesn't the BBC have a charter or something that says that?

Complain about this comment
41. At 6:55pm on 03 Sep 2008, lordBeddGelert wrote:
Great interview.

Why on earth, if McCain wanted a woman who could win over 'Hillary' voters, could he not have asked Carly Fiorina onto the ticket !!

She would be TEN times better without the 'moose and bear' baggage..

Complain about this comment
42. At 6:57pm on 03 Sep 2008, presbytis wrote:
Let me get this right. It's "sexist" to question a virtually unknown woman polician's stands on various issues relevant to Americans. Especially, as she might have a fair chance (given McCain's age and health) to assume the role of commander-in-chief.

Now for the sake of discussion, even if one was to ignore Palin's stand on various issues (including those relevant to women), Carly Fiorina seems amazingly unperturbed by or concerned about the "sexism" of the candidate she supports. McCain's abysmal voting record on numerous issues relevant to women's rights and health is well documented and easily available online.

Complain about this comment
43. At 6:57pm on 03 Sep 2008, wanderingangus wrote:
#32 - yes, Ed, and I understand that he had no business giving a political speech to the convention from the White House. It's like Gordon Brown giving a speech to the Labour Conference from No. 10 (although, having said it, I bet he'd like that very much indeed !)

A former Clinton adviser said today that if Bill had tried anything like that, Kenneth Starr would have brought in on the case before the day was out.

Complain about this comment
44. At 7:03pm on 03 Sep 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:
Thoughts on The Economy
"Though I can see no way to defend the economy, I recognize the need to be concerned for the suffering that would be produced by its failure. But I ask if it is necessary for it to fail in order to
change: I am assuming that if it does not change it must sooner or later fail, and that a great deal that is more valuable will fail with it. As a deity the Economy is a sort of egotistical French monarch, for it apparently can see no alternative to itself except chaos, and perhaps that is its chief weakness. For, of course, chaos is not the only alternative to it. A better alternative is a better economy. But we will not conceive the possibility of a better economy, and therefore will not begin to change, until we quit deifying the present one."
-- Wendell Berry in "A Continuous Harmony"
and Globalisation
"One thing at least should be obvious to us all: the whole human population of the world cannot live on imported food. Some people somewhere are going to have to grow the food. And wherever food is grown the growing of it will raise the same two questions: How do you preserve the land in use? And how do you preserve the people who use the land?

The farther the food is transported, the harder it will be to answer those questions correctly. The correct answers will not come as the inevitable by-products of the aims, policies, and procedures of international trade, free or unfree. They cannot be legislated or imposed by international or national or state agencies. They can only be supplied locally, by skilled and highly motivated local farmers meeting as directly as possible the needs of informed local consumers."
Globalisation in a world of diminishing supplies of transport fuels is a recipe for species suicide.

We live in Hope
ed

Complain about this comment
45. At 7:05pm on 03 Sep 2008, jacksforge wrote:
Thankyou Aqua girl.

Good to hear your back.

The sexism I see is from both sides and most of it from those on the right.

Gary hill
I got it wrong and admitted it. I confused the two.
Inteligent design does not include the belief that the world was created in 6 days. just simply put says that the process of evolution was started by God.

Now I think that is as logical as saying God said this and God said that. Ie I'm a bloody atheist.

But however there are some scientists out there working in physics and biology that get so overwhelmed with the shere beauty of it all that they end up believing in a God even if they did not at the start.

I would argue there are mor einteligent people that have given up religion, but who knows.

I am not saying Inteligent design belongs anywhere but in the religious studies hall.
But to be correct they are not the same by a different name.

Complain about this comment
46. At 7:05pm on 03 Sep 2008, seanspa wrote:
#26, chronotanakajoe, are you aware of just how funny you are? A joke we can believe in!

Complain about this comment
47. At 7:07pm on 03 Sep 2008, namronseer wrote:
Oh Justin! What a question!

"Doesn't it concern you that she (Sarah Palin) is a creationist?" you ask.... Why should it? How good it is to hear of someone in "high office" who has the courage and confidence to call herself a Creationist. Is that a crime?

No, this doesn't as you suggest, deny what most "rational" people in the west accept as basic scientific truth - for starters evolution is not scientific and certainly not truth - how can a theory, unproven at that, be truth? There are numerous scientists, Christian and others who are very "rational" who live not just in the west, who hold to 6 literal days of creation. Even scientists who hold no Christian belief do not go along with evolution. Come on, Justin, give Sarah a break and some credit too. Yours kindly

Complain about this comment
48. At 7:09pm on 03 Sep 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:
Sindy disagrees on abortion
"COURIC: Well, I think probably, at least, it's reported that a lot of people are now talking about this. And I-- where do you stand on abortion?

MCCAIN: I'm pro-life, I'm on the record as being pro-life, like my husband.

COURIC: So, do you oppose it even in the cases of rape and incest?

MCCAIN: No."
The battle of the Barbies...

;-)
ed

Complain about this comment
49. At 7:09pm on 03 Sep 2008, fragility wrote:
At 6:37pm on 03 Sep 2008, ProfCapelo wrote:

"Exactly what re you saying Justin? That Darwinian orthodoxy is one of the basic truths about the world? Let's forget about creationism for a moment. I'm no 6-day creationist, and i'm all for stem cell research and efforts to combat global warming, but you sound much like a fanatic in your proclamation of naturalistic evolution, and your assessment that only Darwinists are rational is most absurd to say the least."

Darwinism, 6-day creationism and "combating global warming" that you admittedly believe in have one common point. All three have severe problems with common sense, known facts and basic scientific principles. Having said it, I have to declare my strongest support to the principle of religious freedom. This, however, should be strictly separated from science that is supposed to be taught in the state-supported system of education.

Complain about this comment
50. At 7:10pm on 03 Sep 2008, mystjohn wrote:
When I consider the validity and sanity of an opinion, I look to see first if the truth can support the beliefs, or if it has to be manipulated. If it is the latter, no thanks. In the case of McCain, his older age is a definite factor in his choice of VP. To pretend otherwise is to demean the intelligence of the American public. Palin hasn't enough experience, executive or otherwise, to be in federal government at such a high level. Her religious views are not mine, and I think the topic of her daughter's pregnancy has nothing to do with anything, and the media should let her be. She is everything Bush and McCain is, and that is NOT "country first" -- it's self-serving agendas first -- and it is NOT "reformer" - it is the Good Old Boy Network. For the republican party to be indignant at the flack Palin has received, makes me laugh! Why don't they just quote Bush and say, "Bring it on"? If they were truly confident over their choice, they would all be rubbing their hands together in glee at the thought of having opportunities to put the truth about Palin out there. But sadly, as far a s a VP candidate goes, she is a miserable choice. But then McCain is a miserable choice as a leader, too. Justin -- thank you for asking the questions you did. If the Republicans weren't afraid of them, they wouldn't get so ticked off that they were asked, defensive and accusatory. I'm sorry some people feel obligated to "shoot the messenger."

Complain about this comment
51. At 7:11pm on 03 Sep 2008, seanspa wrote:
Can someone please explain to me where feninism stands now? I used to think it was all about being more than just sex objects. Now it appears that it's all about what you can following unprotected sex.

Complain about this comment
52. At 7:12pm on 03 Sep 2008, Gary_A_Hill wrote:
robzaba (#38), it certainly must seem strange to outsiders that a candidate for the Vice Presidency could be so little known. It's not uncommon, however. The choices of Spiro Agnew and Dan Quayle by the Republicans come to mind. And the choice of Geraldine Ferraro by the Democrats.

Sometimes, candidates for the presidency are little known nationally, for example James Earl (Jimmy) Carter and Barack Obama. This is offset, however, by the lengthy and arduous nomination process, which gives voters time to learn something about the candidates.

Much is made about Obama's inexperience, but he has been out there for over a year now seeking the nomination. Presidential candidates are "vetted" by the voters in their party.

As for the American people being "astute," I think that for the most part we do not approach presidential politics (or any politics) as an intellectual exercise, so the term doesn't really fit the situation.

Complain about this comment
53. At 7:13pm on 03 Sep 2008, bayleyco wrote:
I thought when I saw it, you might withdraw that comparison with Eagleton- the fact that you would make it in the first place shows you don't understand McCain at all. The fact that you withdrew a comparison with a VP candidate who McGovern pulled because of accusations he was mentally ill shows you realized you went over the line.
I had been a fan of your blog and your foreign correspondent reports on the radio, but I did not realize you would suggest anything to try to ensure the realization of your prediction that Obama would be the next president.
This is now a sorry excuse for journalism, and I believe this should be looked into by the BBC Director General.

Complain about this comment
54. At 7:16pm on 03 Sep 2008, 60022Mallard wrote:
Who said... "America is often portrayed as an ignorant, unsophisticated sort of place, full of bible bashers and ruled to a dangerous extent by trashy television, superstition and religious bigotry, a place lacking in respect for evidence based Knowledge. I know that it is how it is portrayed because I have done my bit to paint that picture..."

I don't know about you but that sounds remarkably like a description of (some) Americans on the Six O'Clock News tonight.

Could Justin at ten o'clock discuss his evidence based knowledge of the influence of man in the four ice ages and warmer periods between and confirm where we stand now in the cycles of warming and cooling since the last ice age, a relatively short time ago in earth history.

As for creationism isn't that a feature of Islamic religions. I suspect many bloggers here may blanche a bit about discussing their views on creationism with any Moslem neighbours.

Complain about this comment
55. At 7:17pm on 03 Sep 2008, Gary_A_Hill wrote:
lordBeddGelert (#41), Palin is not on the ticket to "win over Hillary voters," who will likely either vote for Obama or stay home. She is there as someone with impeccable "pro-life" and "creationist" credentials who will attract the Huckabee voters who might otherwise have stayed home.

Complain about this comment
56. At 7:17pm on 03 Sep 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:
Jon112uk,
"I still haven't heard McCain speak on BBC news. Not even once. What accent does he have?"
You can hear him here, if you must.

The reason there's little of him on BBC (or anywhere on TV) is possibly due to him being boooooring, as well as somewhat un-enamoured of the meedja...(used to be his "base")

;-)
ed

Complain about this comment
57. At 7:20pm on 03 Sep 2008, aquarizonagal wrote:
To# 35Benlons84

If you are being 'ageist' then so am I, because I have repeatedly said that McCain is too old for the job of president. (I am older than McCain)

His pick of Palin for VP is truly frightening to me. I worry about our future if voters elect these two.

Complain about this comment
58. At 7:27pm on 03 Sep 2008, jacksforge wrote:
123uk
Mc cain is an old tired father figure who threw his daughter (who was busy throwing her daughter)to the wolves.
At the moment we are too busy watching the spectacle to bother with the pusher. But I am sure it will get back to that.
When the gore factor is over.

For 2 years we have heard lies rumours innuendo and falsehoods about Obama.
Now Mr MC cryingShame has given us some MORE fodder.

To say these attacks are sexist as the witch in the video says is truely hillarious.

If Obama had picked this woman somehow I am sure despite being a guntoating spunky alaskan girl she would have been slammed.

It is not her sex that has drawn the attention(except for a few desperate males(and a few even more desperate ladies)) it is the fact that she is running With Mr Mc crying as his partner in Crime.

He decided to wait to see what Obama did(will he pick clinton) before making this descision on the basis that she was a woman And then they could shout sexist because There is no woman on the Dem ticket to say " you cow".

He waited because he had to see Obama's pick first. He is responding to Obama's campaign.
He waited till now and now his announcement makes him look as boring as he is.
as wishwashy as he is,
as pathetically behind the game as he is
as useless on the economy as he is.
as useless at making descisions as he is.

If he did not want all this in the way of his day at the confrence he should have waited longer .
But he does not care if he is overshadowed because she is a better picture to th party faithful than him,or GW or Dick.

So put her up and let her take the flack.

Or let Mc cain stop trying to run behind the change machine shouting "look look I can change too"

Complain about this comment
59. At 7:28pm on 03 Sep 2008, aquarizonagal wrote:
To #40Jon11uk

McCain is avoiding the press unless it is very carefully choreographed. The Republicans really cannot afford any more 'geezer moments' from him. Not knowing how many houses he had hurt him with many people who are struggling economically.

I am sure Justin Webb would love a one-on-one interview with McCain but I doubt that will happen.

Complain about this comment
60. At 7:28pm on 03 Sep 2008, nwcanadian wrote:
I will withhold judgement until I listen to her speech and see how she handles the press in the coming weeks. If she can hold her own and not back down on her positions she will not only maintain the support she has now, she will build on it. Americans like individualists--unpretentious, can-do, self-determining and non-apologetic. While the mainstream press may not like her, the mainstream voters do. I don't think even she believes that Hillary voters will automatically vote for her ticket because she is a woman, but she does solidify the female vote among those women who do NOT agree with Hillary. And there are many. She has also found solid support among many blue-collar men who were on the fence about both McCain and Obama.

Complain about this comment
61. At 7:28pm on 03 Sep 2008, jacksforge wrote:
57aqua.
I worry about these voter if they elect those two.
that would mean over half of america should be locked up in loony bins.

Sorry mental correction facilities.

Complain about this comment
62. At 7:31pm on 03 Sep 2008, BienvenueEnLouisiana wrote:
People, the attacks against Palin and her family are unbelieveably distasteful and condescinding in the worst of ways. The Obama suragates have targeted Palin's family because they were furious that McCain stole their thunder and didn't know how to respond; go look up the Obama camp's original response, not the watered down one that made the news. So, her daughter's having a baby at 17, so what, life happens. Her daughter has handled it as best she can and she is not running for VP. The other stories are just trash that just make it easier to rally behind her. The stories have been reported by all the traditional media elite with such speed, voracity, and emotion that you can literaly see it in their puffed up faces. One only has to remember the way Hillary was treated in the Primaries to recognize it. I'm so disgusted by the abusive behavior towards Palin and her family relative to the fawning coverage of Biden and "The One" that I'm glad that the lack of power prevented me from reading that garbage until noon today. The attacks are desperate and just plain meanspirited.

Complain about this comment
63. At 7:33pm on 03 Sep 2008, 7C8R9S wrote:
Please, someone explain to me how questioning Sarah Palin's experience is sexist?Was it sexist when McCain questioned Obama's experience?

Complain about this comment
64. At 7:33pm on 03 Sep 2008, jacksforge wrote:
bayleco
but I did not realize you would suggest anything to try to ensure the realization of your prediction that Obama would be the next president.

oi justin can't find that bit in your bio saying you bet Mc Crime will be the next president.

But balyco he did.

so maybe your loosing it.

Complain about this comment
65. At 7:34pm on 03 Sep 2008, jacksforge wrote:
ease up on the mods guys . I know it is annoying to wait but they have to occasionally check some facts etc and also check the complaints out to see if they are valid.

Complain about this comment
66. At 7:39pm on 03 Sep 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:
Jon112uk,
If you really want to see McCain at his best, try this
video

Enjoy it ;-)
ed

Complain about this comment
67. At 7:39pm on 03 Sep 2008, robzaba wrote:
Hi Gary,

'Astute', yes, you are right, but I wan't thinking about 'intelligence' in this case but rather responsibility, and gauging future circumstances.

But parents, people in general, can also be emotionally astute, economically astute, and I was thinking more on the lines of 'sitting down, talking, working the figures out together... things like: if things continue like this in my job/town/area, will I still be in a job this time next year?

That kind of thing.

With such a big unknown in Palin, (fiscal views? Corporate taxes? I fear to add, family finances...) how can the US people vote her in, regardless of McCain's records on these, when no-one knows, not even top Republicans? (who also seem to be waiting for hr speech tonight with some trepidation, no wonder why).

Cheers, Rob. Good debate this evening.

Complain about this comment
68. At 7:40pm on 03 Sep 2008, bobbyfromedinburgh wrote:
RE: First post - ...[you have] said nothing about John Edwards and his love child whilst married until you were forced to...

John Edwards is as relevant to the Democratic campaign as Larry Craig is to that of the Republicans. There's no left-wing media conspiracy to protect Edwards - mainly because the GOP don't want to get into a public debate on the whole morality of marital infidelity...you know...what with McCain and all...

Complain about this comment
69. At 7:48pm on 03 Sep 2008, davidterron wrote:
"The BBC is not here to support the Republican party" says No 18. Err yes I KNOW that so why the overwhelming coverage of the Democrats prior to and during their convention. Why no coverage of Democrat supporters rocking a bus with CUB SCOUTS inside or hurling full sandbags onto buses etc from bridges.....hmm?

The BBC is not here to support ANYONE but is SUPPOSED to BY THEIR CHARTER be impartial. They ain't.

"Matt Frei is actually not running for office in the US, has this escaped you?

What a ridiculous comment."

The ridiculous comment is Frei sneering at Palin and being HYPOCRITICAL whilst doing so. What the heck does it matter how many kids she has? Just another pathetic excuse for Frei to sneer.... Has the BBC reported on McCain's adopted Bangladeshi daughter yet? The one Mother Teresa asked them to adopt 17 years ago? Will Frei also sneer at her?

There are lots of other things that the BBC could have reported like their colleagues in the world media but sadly they continue to try and run down almost everything anyone says or does at the Republican convention. My flatmate is there and what she sees s at odds with what the BBC claim. And it shows when you contrast their coverage of the Dems.

THAT is what the problem is Number 18/simon so trying to be clever (and failing miserably) will not solve the problem: The BBC is NOT being impartial. Try listening to Nicky Campbell! He's in permanent sneer mode at the moment! Today on Radio 4 is also showing their leftie bias.

I object to paying £100 odd quid a year for something that does not do what I want and miss - that the BBC report EVERYTHING fairly and without favour and certainly without the opinions or prejudices of the BBC reporters etc showing through. BBC NEWS should be NEWS. Let Newsnight etc have the debates and show opinions - that is what it is meant to do not the news programmes.

Complain about this comment
70. At 7:48pm on 03 Sep 2008, jacksforge wrote:
63. At 7:33pm on 03 Sep 2008, 7C8R9S wrote:
Please, someone explain to me how questioning Sarah Palin's experience is sexist?Was it sexist when McCain questioned Obama's experience?

WELL SAID.

Lovely way of pointing out sexism,or not.

Complain about this comment
71. At 7:48pm on 03 Sep 2008, ProfCapelo wrote:
#62. At 7:31pm on 03 Sep 2008, BienvenueEnLouisiana wrote:
"... the Obama suragates have targeted Palin's family". That is patently false. Try another lie. Obama made a special point of saying people's family are 'off limits' and that he will fire any of his adviser going after Gov Palin's family.

Complain about this comment
72. At 7:51pm on 03 Sep 2008, Gary_A_Hill wrote:
bayleyco (#53), I don't understand the basis for your criticism of Mr. Webb for his previous thread on Eagleton. All he did was remind people of an earlier controversial choice for the Vice Presidency as a way of soliciting comments. Unlike most of his threads, he added no comments of his own to steer the discussion in any particular direction. What's wrong with that?

As for these threats to make a complaint to the BBC that are raised from time to time, does anyone imagine that these have Justin quaking in his boots?

Complain about this comment
73. At 7:52pm on 03 Sep 2008, anotherdeadhero wrote:
"No, this doesn't as you suggest, deny what most "rational" people in the west accept as basic scientific truth - for starters evolution is not scientific and certainly not truth - how can a theory, unproven at that, be truth?" -namronseer

Seriously? LOL

In science a theory is a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. For the scientist, "theory" is not in any way an antonym of "fact". For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation, and the general theory of relativity.

Complain about this comment
74. At 7:52pm on 03 Sep 2008, robzaba wrote:

If you really want to see McCain at his best, try this video

Enjoy it ;-)
ed

..................................

Ed, good link, he seems to be reading well enough, and then smashes a (blinking) smile, as if to say "you see! I CAN read ok!" !!

Do you think McCain could say anything like that without the 3 'message-boards' before him?

Ok, it's not a decider in P elections, but to be able to speak without help... well, it could be a useful guide to Presidential credentials...

:)

Complain about this comment
75. At 7:53pm on 03 Sep 2008, jacksforge wrote:
Good view in luisianna.

you think enough is enough eh.

"the one"

a lot of racist selfish posters use this term for 2 years now.

so would you rather we called her" the ONE"

You want to anoint her.

and by the fway it is not the OBAMA supporters that call him , "the ONE"
it is you repubs .

So why don't you cut the crap or sit back and watch it when it comes home to roost.

Complain about this comment
76. At 7:53pm on 03 Sep 2008, proles wrote:
That's curious, the LA Times last month referred to the ambitious Fiorina as McCain's "chief surrogate" too. So now we not only have 'surrogate' mothers as VP candidates but campaign advisors as "surrogate" presidential candidates also. Well, dear 'ol Carly took a turn at being a president once in corporate America where the pol's get their marching orders and she made a complete hash out of it with Hewlett Packard. For six years she stumbled around in the executive suite making frequent missteps that finally led to her dismissal in 2005; after dragging HP shares down and laying off thousands of American proles. She never had any serious tech experience to begin with but was hired for alleged marketing savvy which didn't turn out to be very true either. But not to feel too sorry for dear Carly, she pocketed a $21 million severence package when she was "ditched" by HP. Maybe some of that came from the billions of dollars of HP funds that patriotic Fiorina put in overseas tax shelters during her turbid tenure at HP. And now crafty Carly has reinvented herself as a presidential "surrogate", a whole new political persona with a big stage to dissemble on. McCain's special ambassador to women voters steeped in the venal values of corporate America. Maybe someday she'll get a chance to do to the rest of the country what she did to HP.

Complain about this comment
77. At 7:55pm on 03 Sep 2008, aquarizonagal wrote:
To#48Edinglehart

McCain does seem to like his 'Barbies' by his side. Was he deprived of cross-gender play as a child?

Complain about this comment
78. At 7:56pm on 03 Sep 2008, wanderingangus wrote:

# 62 Bienvenue

The majority if bloggers on this site aren't interested in the baby sagas. What we're interested in is her :

- political stability (what's all this about playing footsie with Pat Buchanan and the Alaska Independence party)

- environmental awareness (drill, drill, drill and blow the bears)

- fairness and consideration (she seems to have fired a few people because she didn't like the cut of their jib)

- social awareness like believing in teaching teenagers sexual abstinence and increasing support to those who get into trouble

- compatibility with the man who paid her the compliment of selecting her. Lots of people have no time for McCain but slagging off old men probably isn't too wise in St. Paul today

- realising that guns may have a place in Alaska but aren't the solution to problems on the mean streets of the inner cities

- knowing what job the VP carries out.

Complain about this comment
79. At 7:58pm on 03 Sep 2008, AnonymousCalifornian wrote:
As was to be expected, the Democrats have once again demonstrated that they are more skilled than the Republicans (so far) in the art of throwing an exciting shindig.

At least the Republicans who chose to wave signs and banners over their heads had their messages right side up, which is more than could be said for quite of few of the Democrat delegates at their convention in Denver.....

Complain about this comment
80. At 8:03pm on 03 Sep 2008, MikeIL wrote:
Why do the media and the BBC in particluar continue to ignore reporting on the corrupt party politics in Illinoisand and how Obama rose within the city there meteorically to be where he is?

What is a : "community orgainzer in Chicago"?

What is this Woods Foundation in Choicago that fired and trained Obama to "organize"?

How effective was the "Chicago Annenberg Challenge" foundation Obama headed? They administered the largest single private donation to improve Choicago schools -- well how did they do? How effective were they?

Sarah Palin fought corruption in her party and state. Obama took advantage of what Chicago's corrupt party politics could do for him persoanlly, including getting him into a comfy mansion he could not afford himself without some help according to John Kass of the Chicago Tribune.

This focus on Palin's family is just a diversion to distract from the obvious comparison between the two youngest and least experineced candidates on both tickets.

Please Justin and BBC - how about some real issues and some real examination into both unknowns on the tickets this year -- for a change?

Complain about this comment
81. At 8:03pm on 03 Sep 2008, aquarizonagal wrote:
To#60Nwcanadian

Palin will SAY anything in order to get her party elected. This is what politicians do. Actions will speak louder than words. Let us really examine what she has done as mayor and governor of her state.

Complain about this comment
82. At 8:06pm on 03 Sep 2008, timpressiveone wrote:
Joe Biden - as a Catholic - presumably believes in the doctrine of transubstantiation - namely "...that in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ...". (A doctrine - incidentally- in which we must assume Tony Blair believes, as he has recently converted to Catholicism.) If Sarah Palin’s belief in creationism is to be legitimately to be regarded as an impediment to her becoming Vice President, should not a belief in transubstantiation be similarly be an impediment? Or is it simply that one is a more familiar religious belief than the other?

Complain about this comment
83. At 8:10pm on 03 Sep 2008, joshkin2001 wrote:
I have but one question I'd like to have put to Sarah Palin:

So, how's that "Abstinence Only" education working out for your OWN CHILDREN?

All politicians are hypocrites, and only a child or a fool believes a political promise, but really - this is just willful refusal to accept reality. Possibly delusional. Which makes the Eagleton reference completely valid!

Complain about this comment
84. At 8:14pm on 03 Sep 2008, Gary_A_Hill wrote:
robzaba (#67), good point, we might expect people to calculate their self-interest and vote accordingly. I think voters do to some extent, but they can also vote in what they believe to be their self-interest and be wrong.

For example, Reagan was a popular president, and with control of the Senate, this was the beginning of a Republican ascendancy. Part of the Republican agenda was, to put it simply, to disassemble the New Deal. Over the next quarter century many New Deal regulations were withdrawn. With the deregulation of the financial markets, we destroyed the Savings and Loan industry, enriched other financial institutions (and individuals who could work the system) and got the "mortgage meltdown" of today. It's likely that many of the people in California who have lost their homes in past year or two were Reagan-Bush voters. Were they "astute"? I don't think so.

Complain about this comment
85. At 8:15pm on 03 Sep 2008, HelenColorado wrote:
The only words that Sara Palin could utter this evening at the RNC, that would generate even a modicum of deference from me would be “While I am deeply honored to have been offered the opportunity to be the vice-presidential running mate to John McCain, I must, out of love for my country and respect for my party, decline the invitation as I have neither the knowledge nor the experience to effectively carry out the responsibilities inherent in either the position of vice president or potentially that of President of the United States.”
Anything short of this will only show her to be an ego-maniacal fanatic, who, in the worst of scenarios will convince herself that this is a god-given destiny.

Complain about this comment
86. At 8:17pm on 03 Sep 2008, Orpheus1 wrote:
That interview was a travesty. Not once have i seen a democratic candidate - either Biden or Obama - being put under anything like that kind of scrutiny. The BBC are at it again.

Complain about this comment
87. At 8:21pm on 03 Sep 2008, aquarizonagal wrote:
To#50Mystjohn

You stated that very well. If judgment is an issue in this election than John McCain has shown an abysmal lack. In my opinion, Obama chose the person he wanted for VP. McCain was forced by political expediency to select Palin in the hope of keeping the extremists in his party and of collecting a few votes from Hillary supporters. So sad!

Complain about this comment
88. At 8:27pm on 03 Sep 2008, Orpheus1 wrote:
There are a lot of awfully brain washed people in the world, and judging by these postings, there're either European, Canadian or from California.

Complain about this comment
89. At 8:30pm on 03 Sep 2008, nwcanadian wrote:
to #81 aquaarizonagal

She seems much more transparent than most politicians. We'll see, won't we? That's why I said I was withholding judgement. But, so far, she doesn't seem like she's plastic or playing things just to her advantage. She seems forthright. If she puts her money where her mouth is, most voters will respect her, regardless into which political category they fall.

Complain about this comment
90. At 8:34pm on 03 Sep 2008, invisibleserendipity wrote:
#82

You really aren't serious in posing that question are you?

On the off chance that you are, I would say the answer is fairly simple. One regards a personal moment at a Mass, to which only the participant is affected - the other entails teaching a philosophy in which thousands (if not millions) will be affected. It is my understanding that Senator Biden has never discussed or promoted teaching transubstantiation in the schools ...

Complain about this comment
91. At 8:38pm on 03 Sep 2008, Gary_A_Hill wrote:
timpressiveone (#82), I don't think one should presume anything about Biden's Catholic beliefs, or Palin's or any other candidates beliefs. I take seriously the Constutional dictum that no religious test shall be required for offices under the United States. However, what actions a candidate might take to impose his or her religious beliefs on others is our business. What is important is whether Palin has (as McCain does) an agenda item to repeal Roe v. Wade, or to require or allow the teaching of religious doctrine (under any name) in the public schools.

Complain about this comment
92. At 8:38pm on 03 Sep 2008, DominickVila wrote:
Eagleton? Ferraro? I think Truman is a much better analogy. Hopefully, if elected, she will not face a dilemma similar to what Harry had to confront.
Anyone with a minimal amount of common sense should realize by now that the GOP is not going to dump the person that has energized its base and given life to the campaign of an old gentleman whose credentials include being 5th from the bottom in his Naval Academy class and the fact that her was a POW. While his service is worthy of praise and respect, the fact remains that McCain lacks the qualifications needed to be President.
Not surprisingly, our attention is being cleverly diverted from economic and fiscal issues to teenage pregnancy, creationism, abortion and other issues that, as in the past, will lose relevance the day after the election.
Obama must do something dramatic to refocus the attention of the electorate on the economy, and to influence the opinion of Independents who happen to be the key to winning in November. Revealing, or at least leaking, the names of some Cabinet members would accomplish than talks about community service; particularly if those revelations involve people like Susan Eisenhower, Michael Bloomberg, Gen Clark and others whose credentials in critical areas of presidential responsibility would reassure Independents and would give credence to Obama's pragmatism and vision of what is best for our country.
Dancing to the tune played by GOP campaign strategists is not going to do the trick.

Complain about this comment
93. At 8:41pm on 03 Sep 2008, gunsandreligion wrote:
I can't post the link because it contains an
ampersand, but if you go to youtube.com and
do a search for "The Beverly Hillbillies(1993)"
and mentally cross that with "Northern Exposure",
you'll get an idea what we are in for the next
4 years.

More or less everything is in place - some bubbling
crude, the Clampetts, and perhaps a little better
roadkill.

I wonder if Karl Rove will be playing Mr. Drysdale?

Complain about this comment
94. At 8:44pm on 03 Sep 2008, jacksforge wrote:
88. At 8:27pm on 03 Sep 2008, Orpheus1 wrote:
There are a lot of awfully brain washed people in the world, and judging by these postings, there're either European, Canadian or from California.

So europe canada and california are easier to brainwash than you americans.

OK logistically if I were to try and brainwash a lot of people I would stick to one area.,unless I was murdock and we know he tries world wide but is only called news in the US.

they might brainwash you but it could be hard.

Complain about this comment
95. At 8:44pm on 03 Sep 2008, stupendousBennyboos wrote:
What does "rationalism" have to do with globalisation and free trade again?

Complain about this comment
96. At 8:45pm on 03 Sep 2008, aquarizonagal wrote:
"Transparent" is a very good description of Palin. Maybe voters will be able to see through her and assess what is really happening here.

Complain about this comment
97. At 8:47pm on 03 Sep 2008, DominickVila wrote:
Ref 81

You are correct, but don't underestimate the wisdom of her advisors. speechwriters, or the value of a well placed teleprompter. I expect Gov. Palin's acceptance speech to go well beyond the bridge to nowhere and, instead, demonstrate a grasp of national and international issues that would put our most distinguished statesmen to shame. After all, journalist majors know how to read, and she does have charisma.

Complain about this comment
98. At 8:49pm on 03 Sep 2008, DanaForObama wrote:
In addition to my earlier comment...

The media has plenty of Just Cause to be digging into Sarah Palin's background. With 2 investigations going on within her state, against her...with a fluffed up resume- they had all the audacity in the world to pick Barack Obama apart- from his religion beliefs, to his associates, to his experience, to his ability to relate to the American people in general... but in all of that Obama never once pulled the race card- even though most knew the super right wing were aiming at that- examples of that are speaking of him and using his FULL name including his middle name "Hussein"...questioning his citizenship to the point that his Campaign had to post the original document so it could be validated and speculation still swirls via the internet. Accusations that he is a Muslim even though he has been raised a Christian and raises his children as such... demeaning his wife- calling her his "baby momma" and an "angry black woman"... this my friends is horrible attacks... what the media is doing to Sarah Palin are justified inquiries. Now granted on the internet of course you have the bloggers who are quite nasty in their remarks- but bloggers have nothing to do with Barack Obama directly. For all we know there could be a 17 or 18 year old kid sitting in his room digging up all this random stuff and throwing it out there.
It just really bothers me because now the media is going to back off, and everytime Barack Obama makes a justified distinction- he will be accused of belittling her or being sexist.
My question is this- as a woman if I want to play with the "big boys" so to speak- then should I expect the same level of critique and expectations put on me as are put on them. I wouldnt want special treatment because I am a delicate woman- I wanted to be treated as an equal!
If Sarah Palin is as tough as she lets on... a "Maverick" then all of this shouldn't phase her. If media speculation is wrong then correct it... but dont ask them to stop asking... thats like asking a Shark not to attack where there is blood...or a moth to avoid a flame- its obsurd... but rather than commenting on all the speculation they dodge it which only raises further speculation.
In all of this- I think it only further proves the level of class of Barack Obama and his campaign to never have to stoop to their levels... in all honesty it was there own candidate choice that brought this onslaught on bad publicity for them... you reap what you sew and John McCains judgment to select Sarah Palin is what created this- not the media and not the Democratic Party.

Complain about this comment
99. At 8:51pm on 03 Sep 2008, SanYing wrote:
So far no one seems to have noticed or remarked that John McCain's exbeauty queen VP is noticeably crosseyed.
Not important? I would say all of one's physical attributes or imperfections play a part in one's character.

Complain about this comment
100. At 8:55pm on 03 Sep 2008, JohnAAA wrote:
Eagleton was yesteday's talking point lifted from a left journal and not reflecting reality among the GOP at all. - as Justin Webb now admits.

Today it seems to be Frei saying Palin is a bit of a hick, 5 children, how strange, But Frei happens to have 4 kids himself, so that supercilious remark sounds a bit hypocritical

Webb's theme today is Palin's relative inexperience. How about Obama's ? How about Edwards when he was running for VP ? I don't recall the BBC raising the question then - and they seem to be studiously avoiding the acute lack of executive inexperience of Obama ?

I expect Palin to hit hard on the experience issue tonight just as Thompson and Lieberman did last night. The media swarm have ensured she will have a big audience. From what I have seen of her speaking style, she is no stumblebum, comes across very naturally.

Here are some comments on why the media are miffed by being blindsided by the Palin selection :

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/03/the-reason-for-the-palin-bashing-in-the-media/

Did the BBC ever once mention Palin's name - anywhere - before last week ? I don't recall an instance. But I know a lot of other people who saw her as a possibility from months ago. A friend of mine won money on her selection last week - he could get odds of only 8 to 1, and his bet was placed a while ago.

I aver the BBC too has been blindsided on Palin. BBC political punditry off track once again. (I wish they would stick to the news, quit the punditry)

One reason the media gets blindsided is cultural. It is in the Bubble. Not in the real world.

Maybe Palin will come across as Marge Gunderson from the movie Fargo. A hick in the eyes of media sophisticates - but a dogged and popular winner.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/sarah_palin_and_the_two_americ.html

Complain about this comment
101. At 8:56pm on 03 Sep 2008, allmymarbles wrote:
How does this sound to you?

John McCain wants to choose Joe Leiberman for his running mate. But this would cause a big bruhaha at the convention.
So he chooses a lightweight, with a history that is expected to cause problems.
He gets her to resign after the convention, and puts his favorite in her place. No conventon problems.
His advisors talk him out of Lieberman.

What does he do now?

Complain about this comment
102. At 8:57pm on 03 Sep 2008, robzaba wrote:
Hi Gary,

#84

Yes, it's true. It happened in the UK too, under Thatcher. People voted her in for a number of reasons, mostly I think (in the first term) through fear for their mortgage repayments, (at that time Con. meant lower repayment rates) thinking a Conservative gov. would protect them in that respect, but in the end there was the famous UK property crash of the late 80s.

In the US it seems (and I stand to be corrected) that there seems to be a mix-up/ mixed concerns between US stance in the world (rightly or wrongly) and the more personal economic experience. And therein lies the problem perhaps? To vote for 'my' personal wealth, or for the higher ideal?

Perhaps never the twain shall meet?

But I think there might well be a correlation between how 'I' stand, and how 'my country' stands. With the importance of US in the world, it's a tough choice, but must be made at some time?

Thanks for your balanced responses to my comments/views. Rob

Complain about this comment
103. At 9:03pm on 03 Sep 2008, JohnAAA wrote:
Who raised the term "Thrilla from Wasilla" ?

Complain about this comment
104. At 9:04pm on 03 Sep 2008, ExpatAndy wrote:
PLEASE can we see through this scam for what it is?

The Republican's are doing what they do best. Putting up smoke screens and evading the real issues.

Fiorina ststed that the economy is number one on the list for the American people yet she and her band of idiots seem to forget that two terms of Bush has left the US and now the world economy on a downward spiral. talk about fiddling while Rome burns!

Forget Palin! Concentrate on the real issues and bury them.

The saddest part of this is that it sends a clear message to the rest of the world that the US has no idea how to pick a leader even though they take months more than any other country on the face of the planet.

It makes a mockery of democracy and shows the deep divisions that run deep within the country.

The fear is that the uneducated and gullible will follow like sheep and vote McC and P in. What the world wants (a strong and knowledgable American leadership) is not a priority to many Americans.

Why would anyone listen to someone who has no idea about the rest of the world and global issues. take a drive through Nevada or for that matter most of the midwest and listen to the talk on local radio stations.

As a Canadian I watch with awe that the US may once again trip up on its laces.

Complain about this comment
105. At 9:16pm on 03 Sep 2008, nwcanadian wrote:
Transparent=without guile, candid, frank.

Look, she represents a threat to many of you, I understand that. You may be in the majority in your thinking, but your palpable fear is that you are not. Come November, we'll have the answer.

Complain about this comment
106. At 9:17pm on 03 Sep 2008, JohnAAA wrote:
The Authenticity of Experience versus the Audacity of Hope ?

I'd go for a bird in the hand, personally.

Complain about this comment
107. At 9:20pm on 03 Sep 2008, gunsandreligion wrote:
And now comes this little bombshell...

Complain about this comment
108. At 9:27pm on 03 Sep 2008, seanspa wrote:
An earlier poster makes reference to Palin's "moose and bear baggage". I must admit I missed the reports on her hunting bear, but it doesn't surprise me if true. Bear, although a bit fatty, makes excellent sausage.

Complain about this comment
109. At 9:29pm on 03 Sep 2008, DominickVila wrote:
The focus that many commentators have on the issue of experience ignores the reality that with the exception of a President running for re-election and VPs everyone else is inexperienced in the demands of the most powerful office in the world.
Obviously, having been Mayor of a small town and governor of a state, regardless of how sparsely populated it is and the shortness of her tenure, indicate some management experience; the same can be said for senators with experience in foreign affairs and other areas of presidential responsibility.
As in the past, we will not know how well any of these candidates will perform in the Oval Office until they are there. Let's face, the last President to run for re-election had four years of experience and that certainly did not do a whole lot of good for us.
Obviously, education, relevant experience, demonstrated performance, judgment, character and their ability to control their temper and perform under pressure are all important considerations that should be debated and considered, but at this point my focus is on their national and international exposure and on the proposals they advocate to solve the problems facing our nation. The rest is background noise.

Complain about this comment
110. At 9:34pm on 03 Sep 2008, JohnAAA wrote:
Newsweek described Palin as pragmatic, postpartisan last October, and seemed to like the idea of vigorous women Governors.

But that was then, of course. Knowing Newsweek - they might switch their views.;

mahttp://www.newsweek.com/id/42534y change theur tune ?

Complain about this comment
111. At 9:38pm on 03 Sep 2008, invisibleserendipity wrote:
#107

Are both of the presidential candidates now in a race to see who can lose by the biggest margin?

Complain about this comment
112. At 9:39pm on 03 Sep 2008, invisibleserendipity wrote:
#106

Clearly, you have never read The Audacity of Hope! Very good book, I would recommend it for a read. Particularly the sections on the constitution and his policy positions ...

Complain about this comment
113. At 9:44pm on 03 Sep 2008, DominickVila wrote:
Ref 102
"In the US it seems (and I stand to be corrected) that there seems to be a mix-up/ mixed concerns between US stance in the world (rightly or wrongly) and the more personal economic experience. And therein lies the problem perhaps? To vote for 'my' personal wealth, or for the higher ideal?"

For many of us the issue is not our personal wealth but the economic survival of our country. In the past 7.5 years the USA became the largest debtor nation in the world, our national debt doubled, the $53 trillion in unfunded liabilities have adversely impacted the value of our currency, much of our industry has moved overseas or it is in such a state of disrepair that it is no longer competitive, technology is being recklessly sent overseas, our infrastructure is literally collapsing, and our Social Security, Health Care, and Education systems are lagging the rest of the developed world.
Frankly, I am much more concerned about the welfare of my family and friends than the well being of the Iraqis or anyone else (bear in mind that I do not support the war in Iraq and believe we should withdraw ASAP). The only foreign priority I support is capturing Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants/financiers, and bringing them to justice. The rest is garbage, especially all the trade agreements that invariably short change our workers to the benefit of those overseas.

Complain about this comment
114. At 9:45pm on 03 Sep 2008, David_Cunard wrote:
#100. JohnAAA: "Did the BBC ever once mention Palin's name - anywhere - before last week?" Did The Times, The Telegraph, The Daily Mail or The Independent? Did ITV? They're all British, and The Times is Britain's 'newspaper of record'. You should be spending your retirement chastising the British Press for not being as clever as your friend. Mrs Palin was never on anyone's list as a possibility for Mr McCain's running mate. And probably not even on his own.

Complain about this comment
115. At 9:45pm on 03 Sep 2008, lordBeddGelert wrote:
seanspa... "moose and bear baggage" - this was a reference to her wanting to sue the Federal Government to PREVENT those cuddly endangered Polar Bears from being made a 'protected species', as this would have played havoc with drilling for the oil in the Arctic...

Is this really the woman who will tackle the huge, and urgent, challenge of huge chunks of the ice cap falling off due to man-made climate change ??

I somehow think not, although one suspects that neither are the Democrats, if one is honest..

Complain about this comment
116. At 9:47pm on 03 Sep 2008, JohnAAA wrote:
112

Actually I have read Audacity of Hope. Didn't like it, too windy. And too self-absorbed.

Complain about this comment
117. At 9:49pm on 03 Sep 2008, vagueofgodalming wrote:
I'm not going to listen to the whole thing again, so can someone with a better memory or more patience than me confirm: did Fiorena really say that it's a strength of America that it's people believe any old rubbish?

Complain about this comment
118. At 9:53pm on 03 Sep 2008, David_Cunard wrote:
Before all you Republicans get weepy-eyed about Mrs Palin as a financial reformer, you might care to Google Sarah Palin Earmarks. This, from Los Angeles Times is typical. And verifiable.

Complain about this comment
119. At 9:55pm on 03 Sep 2008, invisibleserendipity wrote:
#116

Too windy? Sorry, I left the "Dick and Jane" series quite a while ago ...

(Sorry - I am very snippy today, aren't I...)

Complain about this comment
120. At 10:01pm on 03 Sep 2008, allmymarbles wrote:
111, invisible.

Looks that way, doesn't it? Instead of skilled boxers, we are offered punch-drunk palookas.

Complain about this comment
121. At 10:01pm on 03 Sep 2008, bethpa wrote:
Nice interview Justin Webb

and interesting to see Carly Fiorina justify the unjustifiable--

Complain about this comment
122. At 10:02pm on 03 Sep 2008, gunfitr wrote:
BBC, please pay more attention to your countries own internal troubles and not on the USA presidential race.
Do not interview people who have failed in their own lives and work histories.
You are wasting peoples time and internet spectrum.

Complain about this comment
123. At 10:07pm on 03 Sep 2008, everyones-a-critic wrote:
I agree - forget Palin. All of this guff is posted on the Beeb by Mr. Webb (and created a frenzy in the rest of the media), but the real story of this week was that Joe Lieberman, the Democratic *Vice Presidential candidate* of eight years ago *endorsed* John McCain as a reformer and a reach-across-the-aisle uniter, and savaged Obama for the empty suit he is. You won't see that get much play because it terrifies the left wing media.

I fail to see any independants or disgruntled Republicans lining up behind Obama. Can anyone seriously see Obama winning the governorship in PA, OH or anywhere else in the midwest, or southwest? Of course not. This is where the election will be decided, not in NYC or LA. Obama is all media hype. It will not impress middle America.

The Republicans have had the common sense (even though it galls some of them) to pick the one candidate farther away from GWB than anyone else in the party, who can appeal to both middle america and middle of the road voters. McCain *hates* Bush even if he can't come out and say it publicly. The man's 2000 campaign accused him of having a child with a black stripper (the child was in fact adopted from Bangladesh). McCain is the only Republican who could possibly win in 2008. All the dems had to do was put forward a competant, acceptable candidate with low negatives and *some* experience (Bill Richardson anyone?) and they would have it in the bag though.

Instead, the Democrats, as usual, have picked the candidate which most appeals to liberal elites on the coasts, politically correct nitwits from safe democratic states, and young people who never end up voting anyway, and *least* appeals to main street America. A man who praises Weather Underground terrorists and hangs with racist preachers. A man whose wife is only really proud of her country when her husband is a presidential nominee (I don't know - D-Day didn't make the list? Moon landing anyone? Or why not just be quiet if you can't say something productive?). In the process they have also managed to alienate their own female base due to Clinton's hack campaign.

I'd like to see proper health care, less free breaks for corporations, tax cuts for the middle class not millionaires, and end of the Iraq debacle. I doubt I will see it, at least on the terms most would like, because the Dems never, EVER get it right. And this is why they have lost every presidential election not skewed by a major right- leaning third party candidate (Ross Perot) since 1976. And this is why they will lose again.

Complain about this comment
124. At 10:07pm on 03 Sep 2008, 60022Mallard wrote:
Haven't noted any answers yet to the question in message 54.

Read on another web site that it is a back projection of the Republicans do behind Justin when he is on as he has had his accreditation removed, but the BBC haven't announced it.

Why would the Republicans want to do something like that?

Complain about this comment
125. At 10:12pm on 03 Sep 2008, Calliann wrote:
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
126. At 10:12pm on 03 Sep 2008, MagicKirin wrote:
Off topic:

But Obama did a smart move. He is going on the O'Rielley factor. The moonbats would disagree, but this is the nighttie news interview that matters

Complain about this comment
127. At 10:12pm on 03 Sep 2008, David_Cunard wrote:
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
128. At 10:13pm on 03 Sep 2008, invisibleserendipity wrote:
#120

I mean, really! McCain taking Palin - Obama suing Bush - by end October, Barr will be leading in the polls!

Complain about this comment
129. At 10:22pm on 03 Sep 2008, JohnAAA wrote:
114 David_ Cunard

You forget I am forced to pay for the BBC service, and I expect them to be unbiased. in their political coverage. I regard the coverage of the US election so far as slapdash, incomplete and certainly biased.

You say the Times as "newspaper of record" were not talking about Palin until last week. Try using Google. It took me one minute to find they were saying on 13 August that she was on McCain;s short list .

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article4428699.ece

And they were talking about her run-in with BP and other big oil companies last year. - they blinked before she did.. Sarah Palin has been on the radar for a long time as a tough cookie. But maybe not on the BBC's radar.

And it is fatuous for you to claim she was not on McCain's shortlist. How on earth would you know ? How come the Times guy in New York disagrees with you ?

Complain about this comment
130. At 10:25pm on 03 Sep 2008, theknifeandfork wrote:
Take a look at this, Justin:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/212920.php

Peggy Noonan doesn't seem too pleased about Palin.

Complain about this comment
131. At 10:34pm on 03 Sep 2008, Cyril_Croydon wrote:
No doubt Palin will read off a great speech tonight from the teleprompter and the media will fawn over her.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJTJbqKuDDM

Lieberman on Obama back in 2006.

Complain about this comment
132. At 10:36pm on 03 Sep 2008, bethpa wrote:
Regarding favoritism by reporters or news channels

Obama will be interviewed by O'Reilly on the Fox news channel when McCain gives his acceptance speech

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/03/uselections2008.barackobama1

and its because Rupert Murdoch likes Obama

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2008/09/03-4

Well I will be watching Obama take on O'Reilly

Complain about this comment
133. At 10:40pm on 03 Sep 2008, DominickVila wrote:
Ref 123

"I fail to see any independants or disgruntled Republicans lining up behind Obama".

I assume you missed the Democratic convention, where several prominent Republicans, including Susan Eisenhower, endorsed Barack Obama.
Quite frankly, I don't think the endorsement of a disgruntled Democrat turned Independent is something McCain should brag about.

Complain about this comment
134. At 10:56pm on 03 Sep 2008, Justianus wrote:
She is not the new Eagleton only because she so utterly surpasses him in the ability to wreak disaster.

No-one in their (left or) right mind can possibly take her seriously.

Perhaps the death-knoll is here.

Complain about this comment
135. At 11:07pm on 03 Sep 2008, Candace9839 wrote:
Great job, Justin. Keep holding their feet to the fire and pressing them on the issues. Just because they say it doesn't make it so, especially with what that the media have uncovered.

Complain about this comment
136. At 11:10pm on 03 Sep 2008, gunsandreligion wrote:
#128, invisible, that's right, it's a race for
the bottom to see who can exude the most
amount of stupidity in the shortest time
interval.

How long does it take to become a Canadian
citizen? I may need a new place to live soon.

Complain about this comment
137. At 11:13pm on 03 Sep 2008, RealFrigid wrote:
#11, pluto61:

"Absolutely ridiculous that someone who believes in a literal creation can be a heartbeat from president."

Isn't Bush?

Complain about this comment
138. At 11:17pm on 03 Sep 2008, silent-whispers wrote:
Mccain's camp said that eventually this election is going to be more about personalities than policies:

Whether he was referring to Mccain - the warmonger,
Or Sarah Palin - the shameless hypocrite,
I don't really know what he means.

It shows the shabby, shallow, hollow emptiness of that campaign.

Complain about this comment
139. At 11:18pm on 03 Sep 2008, dakeane73 wrote:
Peggy Noonan (right wing columnist) and Mike Murphy (Republican strategist and McCain adviser) have been caught out 'Jesse Jackson style' by completely trashing the Palin VP pick with the mic still on after they did a piece on a NBC show. They've said she was no way the strongest woman pick, that others are p---ed off at this and that the whole thing is cynical and a gimic.

This is 2 Republicans saying this (or at least one plus a flag waver). Not the dems and not the liberal media. So those of you saying that's where it's all coming from can go ponder this for a while before you start accusing the 'left' of brewing up an unfair storm. YOUR OWN PEOPLE THINK SO TOO!

As for Justin Webb's tough questions for Fiorina, fair enough in this light. They may say one thing in public but now we have it out of their own mouths what they really think.

Here's the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dq4sOM4tpno

Complain about this comment
140. At 11:26pm on 03 Sep 2008, Candace9839 wrote:
Even Noonan and Murphy are not buying the Palin pick...
Open mike chat

Complain about this comment
141. At 11:28pm on 03 Sep 2008, allmymarbles wrote:
128, invisible.

It's time to go into hibernation again. Wake me up in November. Or not.

Complain about this comment
142. At 11:36pm on 03 Sep 2008, David_Cunard wrote:
#129 JohnAAA "How on earth would you know?" The same way as you. Show me a list of potential VP choices that includes Mrs Palin. I don't expect Tony Allen-Mills to be any more informed than the rest of us - and by the way, when you're quoting dates, get it right. The article is dated August 3. You don't refer to other publications available in the UK - I was there in August and did not see any reference to Mrs Palin as a possibly candidate. No reliable papers in the contiguous United States had her on the top four list and they would be better informed.

If you don't like the BBC, why not get rid of your crystal set/radio/TV. Then you wouldn't have to pay a penny. In case you have forgotten, the BBC accepts money for advertising for its foreign internet service, so it's not just your contribution which makes it possible. If one is 75, as you may well be, your views being so reactionary, the licence is free.

Complain about this comment
143. At 11:37pm on 03 Sep 2008, Candace9839 wrote:
Re:#134 well spotted

Complain about this comment
144. At 11:39pm on 03 Sep 2008, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
Why don't you just come out and say what you think about Sarah Palin Mr. Webb, that as a candidate, she sucks. Carly Fiorina as much as said that about you during the interview. How do I know? I understand American Corporatespeak. She was a champion of it at AT and T and later at HP. What she said about Obama, that he would not have been considered if he was a woman was American Corporatespeak for that he would not have been considered if he was white.

You really don't understand American politics Mr. Webb. The inexperience card was played by Hillary Clinton and it is a loser. McCain taking on a woman VP candidate was very smart. But he might have done better. Kay Bailey Huchinson would have been a better pick IMO. OTOH, Palin has executive experience as a Governor of a State and took on the establishment of her own party when it was corrupt. You wouldn't dismiss that if you knew what it actually meant but you don't know what the hell you are talking about. Being Governor of Alaska is roughly the American equivalent being Prime Minister of Portugal. We vote for the individual here, not the party. The party is a mere vehicle. When it doesn't suit the candidate, he or she switches. Just like Lieberman.

Complain about this comment
145. At 11:48pm on 03 Sep 2008, marygrav wrote:
It's all in how you narrate your story. The Horror as Conrad said in his Heart of Darkness is John McCain and Sara Palin forever at war while platering upi the 18 million cracks that Hillary Clinton left in the Glass Cealing.

Palin fired her working class cokk and chauffer and hired her Unionized husban to take their place.

Both McCain and Palin plan to take the US back to the future in '08, 1908 that is before Womens' Sufferage, Civil Rights, and Affirmative Action. They are both hell bent on destroying Affirmative Action when it is Affirmative Action that advanced White women more than any minorities; and Affirmative Action which all an elederly man like McCain to stay in the race unchallanged. On second thought maybe we don't need it after what it has produced.

And so much for ABSTANCE ONLY. It certainly does not work. We have evidence. And what is more strange is that the Christian-Right who trupet it, in their defense of Palin, KNOW IT TOO!

Have US been had?

Complain about this comment
146. At 11:52pm on 03 Sep 2008, RealFrigid wrote:
Justin,

I think Carly Fiorina now thinks you are a sexist. I just checked by the way, Alaska is the smallest populated state covering 1/6 the land area of the US mainland. Alaska is about 1800 (Yes! 1800) times larger than the UK.

BTW, I think you are a little bit sexist too. Sarah Palin was picked because of her record in Alaska, and because of her conservative religious beliefs. Having Sarah will help McCain win those Bush Red states (where Americans still desperately cling to guns and religion) that he needs in November. Start looking at the electoral map, and figure out what Obama has locked up and what McCain has to do about it. Would a Lieberman, Ridge, or Pawlenty help him? No.

Carly Fiorina was also correct that Obama is a little light in the actually doing anything department.

Check out this comparison of Obama to JFK.
Ask Not! Why Obama is No JFK

Complain about this comment
147. At 11:52pm on 03 Sep 2008, funnythat wrote:
Fair is fair. Justin's piece on today's ten o'clock news was quite balanced between negatives and positives about Sarah Palin.

The latest blog reflects this (although first mentioning an unflattering comparison and later dismissing it is like throwing a stone and then hiding one's hand).

I will not speculate on the reasons for today's sudden transformation, but why can't he take this balanced approach every time?

After all, that's what he and the BBC get paid for. Other media can be as biased as they want, you don't have to subsidise them if you don't like their way of reporting the news.

Complain about this comment
148. At 00:04am on 04 Sep 2008, RealFrigid wrote:
Eisenhower was a Creationist.
Jimmy Carter is a Creationist.
Reagan was a Creationist.
GHW Bush is a Creationist.
GW Bush is a Creationist.

Is this attack on Palin Anti-Christian bigotry, or just senseless attacks because there is blood in the water?

It's a Borking. Thanks Justin for feeding the frenzy another day.

Complain about this comment
149. At 00:08am on 04 Sep 2008, JohnAAA wrote:
Perhaps Sarah Palin does not normally use a teleprompter. And may not yet feel confortable with one.

She may speak from a lectern ? - obviously she can do that.

Maybe she will get a dig in about not needing to hide behind a teleprompter reading word for word a scripted speech.

ie she is genuine, not plastic ?

Complain about this comment
150. At 00:11am on 04 Sep 2008, RealFrigid wrote:
#115, lordBeddGelert :

"seanspa... "moose and bear baggage" - this was a reference to her wanting to sue the Federal Government to PREVENT those cuddly endangered Polar Bears from being made a 'protected species', as this would have played havoc with drilling for the oil in the Arctic... "

Why did the US buy Alaska? Was it because they wanted to create a 170, 013, 036 hectare wildlife refuge?

Complain about this comment
151. At 00:12am on 04 Sep 2008, MargeeW wrote:
Justin, Great interview. As a former Hillary Clinton supporter I am deeply offended at Carly Fiorina's comments comparing Sarah Palin and Senator Clinton. There is no way I would support Sarah Palin. The Republican Party is dreaming if they think that. By the way, Alaska is one of the "largest states" land wise but the entire population is a little over 300,000 people-about the size of Austin, TX. Sarah Palin was the mayor of a town with a population of 6700. What experience does she have? To compare her with Sen. Obama or Sen. Biden is absurd. Also her accusation that Hillary Clinton's treatment during the campaign was sexist and that her supporters are upset is a outright lie. Our only hope for our country is Sen. Obama. I pray he becomes president.

Complain about this comment
152. At 00:12am on 04 Sep 2008, David_Cunard wrote:
#132 bethpa, re Obama and O'Reilly "its because Rupert Murdoch likes Obama" - and don't forget that it was his UK publication "The Sun" that claimed to have put "New" Labour and Tony Blair into government. It would never surprise me to see Fox News being nicer to the Democrats, probably not an endorsement, but with reservations about the McCain-Palin ticket. O'Reilly can turn on the charm when he wants to; he was very fair to Mrs Clinton.

Complain about this comment
153. At 00:24am on 04 Sep 2008, toughwestover wrote:
The gentleman before me listed all the positve quailties of the Candidates. He must be pro-Republican, they say the election is about personalities and character, not issues. The Democrats say it about issues. There is a slogan from the internet here in America, from neither party, that says it for us all: " IT'S ABOUT THE ECONOMY, STUPID." And that is what it is about.

Complain about this comment
154. At 00:29am on 04 Sep 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:
G&R (93),
"I can't post the link because it contains an ampersand,"
Oh, but you can, of only you add [amp;] to the &, THUS: & It will still work as a URL, and the parser in this cobbled system will accept it.

Smile
ed

P.S. Loved the link you didn't post

Complain about this comment
155. At 00:49am on 04 Sep 2008, JohnAAA wrote:
142 David_Cunard

OK the Times story was 10 days earlier. Which means even earlier than the BBC, whcih looks as though it was blindsided.

You said no newspaper had named her as being on McCain's short-list. Can't you read the link ?- she wasspecifically named by the Times article as being on the list. End of story.

I had not seen the Times story. But I was speaking to an Alaskan businessman in London who was on a golfing trip, that was some two months ago - and I raised with him the question of Palin being a possible runner. I can't remember where I first saw it, but it was obviously before the dinner. (Nice meal in Memories of China, we had booked elsewhere but changed our minds).

The Alaskan guy knew Palin, had dealt with her, didn''t particularly like her. He mentioned NO scuttlebutt about her.

And nor did he mention anything when we emailed each other after the announcement last Friday.

Which makes me wonder what the Dems are going tio do if all the media frenzy leads nowhere significant ?

You seem to be saying that no reputable US newspaper had her on a possible short-list. I foumd that hard to believe, itis a very sweeping statement. So I did a quick Google. Within am minute - there she is in the Wall Street Journal on 5 August.

Why make sweeping statements without checking them first ?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121789966299912231.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Maybe what you are really saying is that YOU did not consider her a contender ?

As regards the BBC licence fee, I want to watch other channels. If you knew the law you would realise that I can't simply switch off the BBC and thereby avoid the licence fee.

You ageist remarks were a bit comic.

Complain about this comment
156. At 00:56am on 04 Sep 2008, allmymarbles wrote:
148, Real.

I will take your word for it that they were all "creationists." So what? Does that mean the notion has some validity? And why is not believing in it anti-Christian. Anti-ridiculous, maybe, but anti-Christian.

Complain about this comment
157. At 00:59am on 04 Sep 2008, David_Cunard wrote:
#148. RealFrigid:
"Eisenhower was a Creationist.
Jimmy Carter is a Creationist.
Reagan was a Creationist.
GHW Bush is a Creationist.
GW Bush is a Creationist."

I haven't checked about the rest, but former President Jimmy Carter's views on evolution can be read here.Frankly I can't believe that the others, all educated and sophisticated men (well, most of them . . . ) could actually believe that the world was created in six days six thousand years ago.

Complain about this comment
158. At 01:03am on 04 Sep 2008, Xie_Ming wrote:
# 17 #49

The court has determined that "intelligent design" is advanced by the proponents of creationism as a another name for their doctrine of creationism:

http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf

Complain about this comment
159. At 01:08am on 04 Sep 2008, JohnAAA wrote:
You gotta love it - Joe Klein thinks it is the press that is being slimed :

http://theeprovocateur.blogspot.com/2008/09/joe-kleins-coocon-mentality.html

But I am sure after Justin Webb's interview with Carly that the BBC's card has been marked.

The theme seems to be - you want access , play nice - or at least play decent. Quit the smearing, quit the overt sexism, do as much checking of known issues concerning the Dems as you are focussing on Palin.

(For instance - do the Obama Ayers relationship, come to any conclusion but at least do it and publish it so the people can judge - cos he was far more than a neighbourhood acquaintance. That is just as relevant as a 20-uear old driving offence by someone who isn't even on the ticket))

Sounds fair to me.

Meanwhile, tonight may well be fun :

http://jammiewearingfool.blogspot.com/2008/09/i-guess-small-town-mayor-is-sort-of.html

The ploy could be that Palin will size herself up against Obama - make him look small and inexperienced against McCain ?

Complain about this comment
160. At 01:08am on 04 Sep 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:
Cool One,
"Alaska is about 1800 (Yes! 1800) times larger than the UK."
Slight miscalculation - around seven times as big as UK
(1,717,854 km^2 Vs 244,820 sq km )

;-)
ed

Complain about this comment
161. At 01:11am on 04 Sep 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:
Cool One,
"Eisenhower was a Creationist.
Jimmy Carter is a Creationist.
Reagan was a Creationist.
GHW Bush is a Creationist.
GW Bush is a Creationist."

Which of them proposed teaching their "belief" as science in public education?

Salaam, etc.
ed

Complain about this comment
162. At 01:17am on 04 Sep 2008, David_Cunard wrote:
#155. JohnAAA "Can't you read the link ?- she was specifically named by the Times article as being on the list." I can - and did - read the link. It was only the reporter's view that Mrs Palin was on the list. As for the Wall Street Journal, it wrote:

"Yet as a young Southern conservative from a swing state, Rep. Cantor is increasingly listed alongside up-and-coming Republicans, including Govs. Sarah Palin of Alaska, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota -- three reform-minded governors also rumored to be on Sen. McCain's list of potential running mates -- as the next generation of Republican Party leaders."

A rumour, get it? A rumour. I'm not saying that I did not consider her a contender, but that no one in the major metropolitan newspapers thought so.

I do know the law about the licence fee: I was suggesting you simply cut off all channels; you can rely on the internet for news and DVDs/BlueRays for entertainment. If all else failed, you could ditch your colour TV and get one for a black-and-white set for £47. I'm glad to know that you were amused since you appear to have a very slender sense of humour.

Complain about this comment
163. At 01:18am on 04 Sep 2008, DougTexan wrote:
The Battle is ON!

The McCain campaign will launch a television ad directly comparing Gov. Palin’s executive experience as a governor who oversees 24,000 state employees, 14 statewide cabinet agencies and a $10 billion budget to Barack Obama’s experience as a one-term junior senator from Illinois.

Just the fact, she got it, Nobama had it, we'll see in November (or before).

The first sign is already past,.... nominal bounce from DNC convention. Next sign, the ad attack, both sides. Last sign, the debates. Whew, gonna be fun.

Complain about this comment
164. At 01:21am on 04 Sep 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

""There can be no incompatibility between Christian faith and proven facts concerning geology, biology, and astronomy.

"There is no need to teach that stars can fall out of the sky and land on a flat Earth in order to defend our religious faith."
-- Jimmy Carter
AMEN!
ed

Complain about this comment
165. At 01:29am on 04 Sep 2008, gunsandreligion wrote:
I did actually hear an interview with Carter at
one point on the topic. Unfortunately, I cannot
recall when it was.

Anyway, there was one thing that stuck in my
mind. The interviewer asked him if one of his
beliefs made him a fundamentalist.

His response (sorry if I can't recall the exact words)
was something to the effect that "If I believe something
that you don't agree with, that, in and of itself does
not make me a fundamentalist. If, on the other
hand, I maintain that no one can reasonably
hold beliefs other than my own, then I am
a fundamentalist."

Complain about this comment
166. At 01:29am on 04 Sep 2008, tarquin wrote:
Fiorina isn't bad - clearly explained by the fact she's described as 'rational' - she doesn't seem half as evil as normal republicans, although she is spinning in circles trying to defend a woman who is clearly the opposite of McCain and a serious threat as a creationist (not exactly a minority like a muslim or jew)

playing the sexist card was weak though, surprised she didn't try the ageist card too - justin is right, there's no way a male* inexperienced governor of alaska, which may be the largest state but only has 0.6 million people, would get a look in - then she turns the argument against inexperience on obama, which is possibly fair game, but in my book two wrongs don't make a right and they have been hammering at Obama for that reason - sheer hypocrisy, also the VP is picked, not elected through popular votes like Obama was, and so this choice has far less weight

it always astounds me how simple and obvious american politics is, the ridiculous lies that come out of fox, and the open hate campaigns that the republicans actually admit to - nobody has a problem with this? nobody questions it, they just allow them to talk BS and make up obvious lies - obviously all politicians the world over dodge questions, but their arguments don't even make sense - this isn't anti-republican propaganda, just watch fox news, or try to find a witty and funny american tv show that doesn't mock them for being pure evil

Let Paxman on them!

Complain about this comment
167. At 01:33am on 04 Sep 2008, DougTexan wrote:
Where did you get Six thousand years for the creationist start? From a 1517 Protestant? You got to be kidding?

"From 1517 the Protestant Reformation brought a new emphasis on lay literacy, with Martin Luther advocating the idea that creation took six literal days about 6000 years ago, and claiming that "Moses wrote that uneducated men might have clear accounts of creation", though a German peasant listening to a translation would have different perceptions from a Jew familiar with early Jewish language and culture, and Luther still had to refer to allegorical understandings such as the meaning of the serpent. John Calvin also rejected instantaneous creation, but criticised those who, contradicting the contemporary understanding of nature, asserted that there are "waters above the heavens."

That is so far off base and has no revelence at all. Christians believe in Jesus Christ, "new Testament",.... and historically read the Old Testament.

Progressive creationism, Gap creationism, Young Earth creationism, Intelligent design and Theistic evolution are all different to some point. But this has to do with,...????

Complain about this comment
168. At 01:33am on 04 Sep 2008, rupertbe wrote:
Very biased interview. The BBC would never ask Barrack about his experience. Just plain elitish and sexiest from the BBC.
What is interesting is the more that the republicans can link the attacks on palin to the attacks on hillary then the more hillary voters they can take.

Looking good for the RNC.

Yep when I was watching the convention Bush got cheered.

Also why nothing on liebermans great speech?

Complain about this comment
169. At 01:36am on 04 Sep 2008, jacksforge wrote:
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
170. At 01:36am on 04 Sep 2008, jacksforge wrote:
thats only a personal opinion though.

Complain about this comment
171. At 01:39am on 04 Sep 2008, jacksforge wrote:
doug people in europe are known for accepting science to enough of a degree to generally be convinced that the best explanation is one of evolution however they ,if religious, may hold that the why the big bang happened and Gods part in it are not subjects for the science lab.

Complain about this comment
172. At 01:40am on 04 Sep 2008, jacksforge wrote:
opps I swore

Complain about this comment
173. At 01:41am on 04 Sep 2008, jacksforge wrote:
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
174. At 01:42am on 04 Sep 2008, allmymarbles wrote:
148, Real.

Well, those "creationists" didn't work. Can you come up with a different set of prominent people who were "creationists"? It still wouln't change anything, would it?

Complain about this comment
175. At 01:47am on 04 Sep 2008, jacksforge wrote:
shall we say the speech by the weasel was not universally appreciated

Complain about this comment
176. At 01:49am on 04 Sep 2008, jacksforge wrote:
So did you hear?
Mr Dick Cheney went east to say to certain states , we really really need you we will do anything for you.

Security in action.

Might it not be easier to just try to treat the Russians in a civilised manner

Complain about this comment
177. At 01:51am on 04 Sep 2008, JohnAAA wrote:
As you say, you don't know the BBClicence fee law. So why talk about it.

I want live TV, off air or by cable, not Internet TV. So I need a TV set. Even if I used a computer TV tuner card I am liable for the compulsory BBC tax. Most Americans find that a total joke.

So I must have a licence - even if I don't want to watch much BBC, think the licence tax is terrible value and retrogressive, and don't like subsidising biased reporting.

As I am effectively forced to pay the licence tax towards a bloated BBC, I am entitled to criticise theoir output. I have dealt with them on business matters in the past - believe me, they are a total shower, a throwback.

Re. who was naming Palin as a possible VP pick, the main point is that the BBC wasn't. It was blindsided. The Times of London was. The BBC maintains a large and expensive US presence - it looks to be poor value to me. With abundant examples of bias.

Complain about this comment
178. At 01:54am on 04 Sep 2008, jacksforge wrote:
So according to adrianninny the Palin woman would as an anti abortionist Pro-lifer be against rape victims being able to have an abortion.
Well the BBC would not print what i said in reply, but lets say that I did not paint anyone who could possibly think that was OK to command on someone else that ordeal is sick to the core.

Complain about this comment
179. At 01:59am on 04 Sep 2008, Dondanville wrote:
The New York Times ran a story this morning about Sarah Palin's use of wedge politics and her first elective office, as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, pop. approx. 7,000. It is an enlightening story found at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/03/us/politics/03wasilla.html?em

Most frightening of all, I think, is the references to Palin's insistent attempts to ban books in the public library, firing and then being forced to rehire the popular librarian, who eventually left town anyway.

Palin may have learned subtlety since then but her world view doesn't seem to have changed at all.

Complain about this comment
180. At 02:03am on 04 Sep 2008, jacksforge wrote:
John aaa a total shower producing the best nature footage in the world for 20 years.

A world service heard all around the world.
TV in the UK free of 12 minutes of adverts in the last 3 minutes of a film.

Stop moaning go back to watching the red dog like station.

Complain about this comment
181. At 02:04am on 04 Sep 2008, JohnAAA wrote:

This journalist thinks it has been a shameful week for the poltical press.

I would add the BBC to the list.

The BBC has given us 4 days of condescending tittle-tattle, and is still giving it.I

Some of us are waiting to hear from the BBC about Palin's positive executive achievements, and where she stands on the issues. For instance on energy policy where she has clear views.

Waitinf, waiting, 4 days and counting.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/03/excerpts-from-palin-speech-small-town-and-proud-of-it/

Complain about this comment
182. At 02:07am on 04 Sep 2008, NETCRUSHER wrote:
WHY is the issue of election fraud not talked about when this is the most serious issue in America today? Offcourse it is controversial, but this is the attack within - we talk about terrorists and SEP 11 ground zero, but what about OHIO 2004 electronic voting machines? Just watch “hacking democracy" or even youtube “Ohio 2004" and watch the first video where you have someone in the position of power admitting to fraud in a court of law. So are you confident now that the Republicans won’t use their tricks that they KNOW they can get away with? Why don't we take this as seriously as we should because how can you spread the seeds of democracy when you don't represent it yourself???

Complain about this comment
183. At 02:11am on 04 Sep 2008, apkeeley wrote:
Some other people have already caught on to this- Noonan and Murphy lamenting their party's VP choice-
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/03/noonan_and_murphy_meet_the_hot.html

Also, how did Carly Fiorina become a credible source about anything? Her bungling at HP led to her forced exit (though well paid) and the layoff of thousands. It's telling that McCain would look to her for economic advice.

Complain about this comment
184. At 02:12am on 04 Sep 2008, DougTexan wrote:
jf

Agree with the premise that belief is one thing and science is another.

Wonder though, why did Europe fall so far from Grace, do you think it was WWII or just a combination of all thier wars? Italy is still Roman Catholic,... isn't it? Or is that just Vatican City?

Real question is does it matter in our election? Policy and character, history and background. Still say she has nobama beat

Complain about this comment
185. At 02:24am on 04 Sep 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:
Doug,
"Wonder though, why did Europe fall so far from Grace, "
The Euro is strong against the dollar, we have generally lower infant mortality than USA, lower teenage pregnancy and STD, better health coverage, lower crime rates and far fewer folk in jail, etc., etc. What sort of "grace" did you have in mind?

Salaam, etc.
ed

Complain about this comment
186. At 02:33am on 04 Sep 2008, anthonyinhove wrote:
I support Obama, but I think the initial view of Sarah Palin as a liability to McCain is all wrong. She reminds me of Margaret Thatcher, who used to attract the votes of a whole lot of people who didn't agree with her, but who admired her for being a conviction politician and for speaking her mind. Palin is just the kind of all-American girl type who is going to be very popular and thus quite difficult to attack. If she expresses herself in simple terms, it will be a pleasant contrast with both Obama, who talks much too complicated for the average US voter, and Biden, who just talks interminably.

And yes of course it makes the whole Notready2008 approach untenable, but that's a good thing for McCain. If he had had his way and chosen Lieberman, it would have been a campaign of two very old duffers peddling an essentially negative message. This rescues him from his own folly, not just because suddenly there is a bit of pazazz and people are actually going to be interested in his campaign, but also because he has no alternative but to be less negative about Obama and instead to go for the positive 'reformer' message that she helps him with.

I hope Obama and Biden wil take her a lot more seriously than the critics are doing. The danger for them is that McCain might make Obama look naive and she might make Biden look like an old Washington blatherer. Sophisticates may think she's a joke, but that doesn't matter. If the US electorate was sophisticated, they would never have elected Bush twice, would they?

Complain about this comment
187. At 02:34am on 04 Sep 2008, ozziehearts wrote:
aggressive bi partisan questioning is what the BBC is all about . As yanks you have got used to the biased coverage of Fox for example. It seems that the BBC is asking the questions which need to be asked .

You only need to see how our journos take on our politicians in the UK to understand probing journalism. Politicians who stand for office need to be able to handle this type of questioning, and not what they get from the fawning, pathetic, so called journos from Fox or similar

Complain about this comment
188. At 02:40am on 04 Sep 2008, kings_29 wrote:
Sorrry you wasted your time talking to this tired hack ex ceo. I worked for her for 6 years. Destroyed jobs, destroyed brand name and killed the stock price. And to think it was reportd McCain ws considering her for VP. Once I heard she was part of his group of supporters, I changed to decline to state from Republican. I can imagine 75000 other former employees who might have suported McCain thining twice with Carly on board. Heck I may knock o doors for Obama now.

Complain about this comment
189. At 03:06am on 04 Sep 2008, somelilli wrote:
As a woman I am deeply irritated. It is obviuos that the main reason why she was chosen is because she is female.I don't think the pioneer feminists fought so hard just so that a gunloving anti-choice ex-beauty queen would be the first woman to go near the presidency-what a let down!

Also, Iam watching the republican convention and I can't believe that the down syndrome baby is in the audience- at 10 pm! is this baby just some kind of prop! this is too weird!!!

Complain about this comment
190. At 03:12am on 04 Sep 2008, bethpa wrote:
#152 david

People like Murdoch are attracted to power...

Obama has the power of a mass movement that is world wide behind him...and Murdoch will try to join with that..Its certainly possible that Obama will be the next US president and the wealthy and powerful will have to work with him for their economic gain...

They are sizing one another up and seeing whether they can work together

Complain about this comment
191. At 03:19am on 04 Sep 2008, gunsandreligion wrote:
Carly was definitely a carpetbagger.

Too bad McCain can't seem to pick decent people.

Complain about this comment
192. At 03:30am on 04 Sep 2008, marcharris wrote:
Offcourse!! Its not that there are legitimate questions surrounding the McCain campaign or that journalists report the situation as they see it. It’s a massive media conspiracy to get Obama elected! I suggest that all media outlets are vetted by the Republican party to ensure glowing reports of the convention. Any reports that do not pass muster should be suppressed and the reporters locked up.

The fact is the Republican party has many issues and problems as well as positives that need to be reported. The tactic of suggesting a media witch-hunt or bias (especially with respected media outlets like the BBC) seems like sour grapes. The tactic may back fire in the long term.

Complain about this comment
193. At 03:37am on 04 Sep 2008, allmymarbles wrote:
189, Some.

McCain has his strategy just like all the other political bozos, and I can understand your annoyance. What I can't understand is your indignation at the baby being in the audience at this time of night. Of course he is a prop, but certainly his health is not being affected. Infants fall asleep whenever they want, anywhere they want. They can't tell time.

Complain about this comment
194. At 03:49am on 04 Sep 2008, bethpa wrote:
Having a baby in the midst of a cheering crowd with intense lights on is not a way to treat a baby...but these are ruthless people who want power...they say what they need to say and do what they need to do to gain power...

Complain about this comment
195. At 04:14am on 04 Sep 2008, DougTexan wrote:
As to Palins speech,.. Queen to queen four,.. check mate

Complain about this comment
196. At 04:18am on 04 Sep 2008, NETCRUSHER wrote:

WHY PEOPLE WHY is the issue of election fraud not talked about when this is the most serious issue in America today? Ofcourse it is controversial, but this is the attack within - we talk about terrorists and SEP 11 ground zero, but what about OHIO 2004 electronic voting machines? Just watch 'hacking democracy' or even youtube 'Ohio 2004' and watch the first video where you have someone in the position of power admitting to fraud in a court of law. So are you confident now that the Republicans wont use their tricks that they KNOW they can get away with? Why don't we take this as seriously as we should because how can you spread the seeds of democracy when you don't represent it yourself???

Complain about this comment
197. At 04:30am on 04 Sep 2008, JohnAAA wrote:
The line of the night - being a mayor is a bit like being a community organiser. Only with rel responsibilities.

Its is about time the BBC actually examied the responsibilities Palin has carried, and what sh has achieved, good or bad. Enough of the gossip, Lets have some executive facts for a change. What is Obama's actual record.? What is Palin's?

Obama is a smooth talker - but he is not in her league. She bashed him real hard tonight.

Second best line was Guiliani - after all the Eagleton nonsense, echoed by Justin Webb, he suggested that Biden ought to ask Obama - Hey, your promise I can campaign with you as VP - can I have it in writing ?

Complain about this comment
198. At 04:38am on 04 Sep 2008, SamTyler1969 wrote:
#195

Dougy,

She's like one of those yappy dogs pensioners keep. Yap yap yap yap bit me tail yap yap yap oops I made a mess on the carpet. Annoying but not a threat.

The interesting things are:

a) Giuliani was a better speaker. Too male to be chosen but still better. If only he had ovaries

b) The more the Republican convention goes on, the bigger Obama's bounce.

So far it is all 'John isn't Obama'. No Sh . . .

Amused Sam

Complain about this comment
199. At 04:38am on 04 Sep 2008, ExpatAndy wrote:
Just watched the Speech. Very rousing and well rehearsed and written, but I wanted to make the following note.

There weren't many black delegates visible in the crowd.

Mostly the WASPY republican elite and this may be a telling issue in the campaign ahead.

Complain about this comment
200. At 04:54am on 04 Sep 2008, SamTyler1969 wrote:
#188, Kings

Well, I hear you. My experience with her was probably a company before yours, I expect. We all have blind spots and when you have yes men around you then they get dangerous.

That said I would also point out in her defense that being a board member does not mean you choose or agree with the board. Although that one was a case study in disfunction.

Which is why the whole Obama Ayers thing is such nonsense. Served on a charity board with a guy who 20 years before . . . If that is the best smear you have, give it up.

Sympathetic Sam

Complain about this comment
201. At 04:54am on 04 Sep 2008, bentist wrote:
Americans must watch this video! The media coverage of this election is so dumbed down in the US. The McCain campaign wouldn't dare brag about their positions on stem cell research or global warming on American media. I still support Barack, but this made me feel more at ease about McCain.

His choice of Palin as a running mate is very suspect though. She's the polar opposite of what this country needs right now. Please.. let's agree. This woman has no business running the country... Could you imagine her facing off with Vladamir Putin?.. and that accent? cmon!

Complain about this comment
202. At 04:58am on 04 Sep 2008, David_Cunard wrote:
I thought I had imagined it, but the wave or salute Mrs Palin gave having delivered her diatribe was far too close to another from many years back. This was caught by The New York Times - check photo number 3. A few inches higher and it really would have been an outrage. Her assessment of Mr Obama's proposed fiscal policies appear to be seriously at odds with what he has in fact proposed.

Complain about this comment
203. At 04:59am on 04 Sep 2008, WarDove wrote:
I agree wholeheartedly with #51 and #52.

I myself was (am still am) shocked at McCain's pick of Palin as his VP. I'd never even heard of her (I was fully expecting him to pick Romney or Pawlenty in response to Obama's strong, safe pick of Biden), and my first thought was "Oh God, he's going to lose for sure." Even now, I still have my doubts about Palin - mainly, where does she stand, how strong does she stand, and how "maverick" is she really?

Unfortunately, I haven't seen much (probably due to Palin's limited experience) off of the mainstream media to go in depth about her viewpoints. Until then, I'm not judging her simply by what her daughter did (see comment below), nor by her husband's DUI several years ago.

PS - By the way, Bristol Palin did make the decision on her own to marry Levi Johnson, the baby's father, even before her parents suspected that she was pregnant. It had nothing to do with Sarah Palin, her stances, nor her VP candidacy, and I think it's very irritating that the mainstream media would jump all over it like flies on a dead body.

Why should anyone even care about Bristol's pregnancy? It was her own choice, and she has to live with the consequences for the rest of her life. It's not the world's business to horn in on family matters, and I also wholeheartedly agree with Sen. Obama on the issue.

Complain about this comment
204. At 05:06am on 04 Sep 2008, SamTyler1969 wrote:
#197

Hello John,

Experience.

So let's contrast:

Led town of 7,000 with budget less than a department in an average corporation

vs.

Edited and led Harvard Business Review, most influential business journal in the world

or

4 years as innovator in US Senate, serving on various committees and sponsoring legislation

Vs.

Rooted out corruption in local Republican party in self interest to get a bigger title

C'mon. And if you take 'Maverick McCain' he's reversed every position he had as a maverick to be the candidate because last time round the republicans thought W was a better choice.

Sad Sam

Complain about this comment
205. At 05:08am on 04 Sep 2008, FolksyDevlin wrote:
Palin just finished her speech, and to be honest I think it has opened her up to attack more than anything else. She cannot compete on the issues on a national level and has only one element in her favor: she's folksy! This, of course, was the impression from the beginning, but she certainly did not silence any of the criticisms against her: she is for teaching creationism in school, she knows nothing of foreign policy, she was a supporter of the Alaskan Independence Party, she is against abortion even in the case of rape and incest, she was in support of the "bridge to nowhere", she worked as a small town mayor then as governor to secure millions in federal earmarks, she is an advocate of abstinence only sex-education, and she believes the war in Iraq is God's will. But hey, then again, she's folksy...who knows.

Complain about this comment
206. At 05:10am on 04 Sep 2008, David_Cunard wrote:
#167. DougTexan wrote: "Where did you get Six thousand years for the creation?" You may care to check Creation on the Web. Christians accept The Bible as "the word of God" and that includes the Old Testament, or Torah, and some believers might also read the Apocrypha. Remember, Jesus was a Jew and subscribed to the tenets of Judaism.

#177. JohnAAA - You really must read, very carefully, the posts you criticise. Look at the last paragraph of my post at #162: "I do know . . ."

#190. bethpa: "People like Murdoch are attracted to power... " More importantly, those who would be in power are attracted to Murdoch. Like it or not, he is *the* international press baron of our time - and in fact, all media. His opinions count for a great deal today, rather as did William Randolph Hearst's in a different era.

Complain about this comment
207. At 05:14am on 04 Sep 2008, David_Cunard wrote:
Regarding my post at #192 - the photo in question is now at number 5.

Complain about this comment
208. At 05:24am on 04 Sep 2008, Gary_A_Hill wrote:
Ed (#185), you seem to be stipulating that Britain is a part of Europe.

Complain about this comment
209. At 05:37am on 04 Sep 2008, David_Cunard wrote:
As a point of historical interest, today, September 3rd, is the anniversary of the outbreak of World War II - at least as far as Britain and Europe is concerned. Looks like another 'war' has just been declared. In the last one, the rabid right wingers were defeated: will history repeat itself? Incidentally, the photo I referred to has moved position yet again - look at the lot and you'll see what I mean!

Complain about this comment
210. At 05:39am on 04 Sep 2008, Gary_A_Hill wrote:
Palin does seem to have the common touch. I can understand her appeal to Republicans. But she's still an anti-choice, book burning, score settling, small town Republican. Not someone I want wielding the power of the presidency.

Complain about this comment
211. At 05:56am on 04 Sep 2008, bethpa wrote:
#206 David

Palin was nasty ...Rudy Giuliani is alienated from his children...and has had a nasty divorce.

These are not nice people.

But they have skills that lead them to associate with one another... they want power and they will use others to get what they want...

Murdoch has remarried to a woman who is Chinese and he is supposedly softened by her... But really he wants her to help him get access to China. She will understand that culture in a way that a westerner will not..

Its all about power

Complain about this comment
212. At 05:59am on 04 Sep 2008, Stan_Expat wrote:
Sarah Palin will be the first president of the USA.
No doubt about it.

Complain about this comment
213. At 06:04am on 04 Sep 2008, gunsandreligion wrote:
#209, David_C, wrong hand! Nice try, though.

Maybe you can do something in photoshop to fix that.

Complain about this comment
214. At 06:06am on 04 Sep 2008, David_de_Jong wrote:
With GWBs standard of literacy, he probalby thinks he supported a Plain/McCain ticket.

Complain about this comment
215. At 06:11am on 04 Sep 2008, gunsandreligion wrote:
It's too bad that Palin's speech was almost
identical to one that McCain gave a week or
two ago.

Sooner or later, they're going to have to come
up with something new to say.

Complain about this comment
216. At 06:13am on 04 Sep 2008, gunsandreligion wrote:
Oh, no, David_C, you're right! It is the right hand!

No wonder they keep throwing me out of those
white-supremacy group meetings!

Complain about this comment
217. At 06:18am on 04 Sep 2008, AndreainNY wrote:
Palin gave a great speech. She's not quite the barefoot and pregnant hick people have been hoping for.

It will be hard to convincingly paint her as a "champion of the rich" and out of touch with working people.

My favorite criticism was that her speech was written by President Bush's speechwriter and ... 4-more-years-blah-blah-blah. Talk about a desperate attempt to link her to Bush.

My guess is that most democrats were completely clueless about what went on at this convention. Expect to hear, "Nothing was said." Try, "Nothing they could understand." Perhaps they can hire a translator.

Complain about this comment
218. At 06:22am on 04 Sep 2008, aledlhughes wrote:
I used to find Justin Webb to be unbiased, but recently, his stance on the Republicans has shown his true Leftist colors. His comments about hurricane Katrina on the BBC News were blatant lies - both the Mayor of New Orleans and the Governor of Louisianna at the time were Democrats, and surely both should shoulder the blame for the lack of helping people. I have always viewed the BBC as a hot-bed of young, Labour supporters, but the older ones would be wise to listen to both sides. Some of your commentators' remarks about Carly Fiorina are puerile to say the least. I suspect most of these people have no idea about politics in the US.

Complain about this comment
219. At 06:28am on 04 Sep 2008, AndreainNY wrote:
It's interesting how paltry and insignificant Palin's city and state are until it's time to talk about hiring a lobbyist, earmarks, etc.

Then, it's like she's governing the largest state in the country.

The budget she managed was supposedly trivial; yet the earmarks she sought were gargantuan and significant.

She's only a "real" governor when it's convenient.

Complain about this comment
220. At 06:53am on 04 Sep 2008, David_Cunard wrote:
#212. Stan_Expat: "Sarah Palin will be the first president of the USA." You're never going to pass your citizenship test if that's what you think - ever heard of George Washington?! :)

Complain about this comment
221. At 06:53am on 04 Sep 2008, davidnewyork wrote:
They have absolutely no shame! They are presenting a hypocritical morality circus that pushes "mob" buttons, while the facts are that the world is quite different -more nuanced and more complicated- than a generation ago.

Complain about this comment
222. At 07:13am on 04 Sep 2008, ArcticFrostAK wrote:
I find it hysterical that a New Yorker who knows nothing of Alaska dares to post and show their complete ignorance. This seems to be a common trend on the internet these days.

How do I know? I live in Alaska. We have one of the largest budgets in the Nation. We ARE the largest state in the Union, in size. One third the size of the entire continental United States. Our population is small; but our logistics are mind boggling. Get your facts straight if you're going to talk trash about someone you know nothing about. Most of these posts are based on falsehoods.

I see by the postings on this board not many of you know the truth about Palin. You've been fed the media hype, but that's okay. She will show you who she is, and you'll come away impressed in the long run (unless you're fanatical.) Most of you here will disagree with her, for she never hides what she believes and she's conservative. But you won't be saying the trash talk of the recent days that I see here, nor the media hype trying to disguise the success of tonight's speech. It'll bite them and they'll have to turn around and start telling the truth. To compare her to Bush is laughable and I can't wait till that backfires.

These are very biased postings, so for the BBC to claim it does not cater to a certain clientell would be ludicrus. I do not know if the BBC reporting is biased or not, for the only thing I watched is their coverage of the Palin speech. I thought it was unbiased, though one of the commentators showed his liberal slip as he panicked over what the other commentators were saying. But no one's perfect and I think they did a fine job covering Palin's speech.

I quote your commentators, '. . . watch out four years from now, that woman is going to be the next President. . .'

'. . .What O'Bama did four years ago at the Democratic Convention, Palin did tonight. . ."

". . . It's impossible to not like her. . ."

Basic slobbering all over her until the one commentator said, "Let's not get carried away here. . ." and seemed to have panic in his voice over his fellow's comments. They switched to the other side of the night commenting on the O'Bama bashing. I'm not sure I completely agree with all they said, but I do see the Republican move of attack as a failing plan. O'Bama is impressive in his control and not lashing out.

The analyst that did the overview got Palin's appeal perfectly. His views will come true, for he was exceedingly accurate of her charm and how she affects people. I know, and you'll know soon.

I suggest people dig up BBC's coverage tonight and watch the whole thing. Disagree with her for who she really is and stop being fed your opinions. The truth is for the first time in a long time America has two GREAT candidates to choose from and hating someone just because you disagree with their views is foolhardy. Both O'Bama and McCain are very impressive and you're an extremist one way or the other if you can't admit it. Both of their records and words show they are the change this country needs.

So. . .try to remember this post as you discover Sarah Palin over the following campaign.

Complain about this comment
223. At 07:27am on 04 Sep 2008, ArcticFrostAK wrote:
It should be noted that there can be no doubt of Palin's conservatism. But as one of her constinuents, I can tell you she doesn't put her extremist views ahead of what's good for the governed. She's very practical in her leadership and understands not everyone believes as she does. She doesn't budge from her representation of the people, and to her that means all the people not just the ones that agree with her.

Before you label me a Palin groupie, know that I was an editorial cartoonist during much of her career and I loved picking fun at her. Once her husband came in very angry with me and demanded to speak with the editor. So I'm no push over. But what she has achieved and how she has lead as a Governor has really shown her as a great leader first and a conservative second. But have no doubt, she's ultra conservative and if you balk at her for that, I can't argue with you. Just don't be so "afraid" of her and make assuptions based on no evidence.

Complain about this comment
224. At 07:27am on 04 Sep 2008, RealFrigid wrote:
#156, allmymarbles:

I was reacting to Justin's comment, and others who those aghast that Sarah Palin is a creationist. So what? It's not the first time a creationist has held the Presidency. Not just a heartbeat away, but there. In fact, Carter, devoutly Christian, quite explicitly believes as I do, that the philosophy of theology has no place in a science classroom. The point being that not all politicians seek to use office to serve their own interests, but rather some actually must set aside their personal beliefs to serve the people's interests.

Complain about this comment
225. At 07:30am on 04 Sep 2008, captainhighbury wrote:
This woman(Fiorina) took HP to the drain and now she is defending Palin's position.
Why even take such an interview.Fiorina is a failure and also not a politician and still she was asked for her opinion.I dont understand.

Complain about this comment
226. At 07:34am on 04 Sep 2008, RealFrigid wrote:
Ed,

You are right. Alaska is 7 times larger than the UK. I must have had my units wrong.

Complain about this comment
227. At 07:43am on 04 Sep 2008, allmymarbles wrote:
224, real.

If they can do that I respect them. But Carter's presidency was colored by these beliefs, perhaps not even realizing it. I think he was benevolent person, but not a great pesident.

Lieberman's religious biases, on the other hand, are not held in check, and his war-like attitudes make him dangerous.

Complain about this comment
228. At 07:52am on 04 Sep 2008, RealFrigid wrote:
#225, captainhighbury:

You are being highly dismissive of a woman that has had a long brilliant career. There are many factors in why a CEO is dismissed by a board of directors, but it is not alway due to a "failure". Often, it is that the board wants to try a new approach, or re-energize the stock holders confidence.

She was interviewed because she is the leader of "Chair of Victory, 2008" a committee of the RNC.

Would you have said the same about Joe Eberhardt?

Complain about this comment
229. At 07:56am on 04 Sep 2008, allmymarbles wrote:
222, 223, Arctic.

Those of us who are more liberal in our outlook would oppose someone like Palin. She is anti-abortion and a creationist. We don't have to know anything else about her. She is against our interests. Do you call that bias or preference?

And to take this stance we don't have to know anything about Alaska.

Complain about this comment
230. At 08:04am on 04 Sep 2008, RealFrigid wrote:
I think tonight, Sarah Palin's speech, was made in direct response to the media attack and scrutiny she's received over the past few days.

Some of the points from Palin's speech tonight were brilliant;

"In politics, there are some candidates who use "change" to promote their careers. And then there are those, like John McCain, who use their careers to promote change"

"This is a man who can give an entire speech about the wars America is fighting and never use the word 'victory' except when he's talking about his own campaign"

"It's easy to forget that this is a man[Obama] who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform, not even in the state Senate."

Complain about this comment
231. At 08:29am on 04 Sep 2008, gunsandreligion wrote:
222, 223, Arctic, what I and probably many others
down here in the temperate zone want to know
is, how tolerant is Palin of other peoples' ethical
positions?

It's fine if she believes XYZ about something.

Is she the kind of person who would try to
enforce her ethical positions on everybody else?

We need someone who can bring the country
together, and not divide it.

Complain about this comment
232. At 08:31am on 04 Sep 2008, ArcticFrostAK wrote:
229 - allmymarbles

Absolutely not - I do not call your view bias. As a matter of fact I can respect your view and I won't white wash her conservatism. She'll place conservative judges if she becomes President and she'll sign any abortion bill no matter how restrictive. Now those are reasons to oppose the woman.

Not because she's a Mom, not because her daughter got pregnant out of wedlock, not because of nasty made up conspiracy stories trying to convince people her baby is actually her Grandaughter. Not because media outlets are trying to convince you she's incapable of leading when you know nothing about her leadership qualities.

I don't like slime politics and I didn't like some of her statements about O'Bama. Because of her record up here I know she was fed those lines and I don't like that she cow towed to that. Geavonnie (New York's past Mayor - I can't spell the guy's name) went way over the line on O'Bama and is just as guilty as some on this board for my distaste.

Complain about this comment
233. At 09:04am on 04 Sep 2008, ArcticFrostAK wrote:
231 gunsand religion

What an excellent question!! As a matter of fact she hasn't pushed her views on us here in Alaska, though we know she's true to them. We just couldn't afford politics in our current situation and we needed a leader that understood that. She's stayed true to that promise so far. The Republican party up here even insisted she put an abortion agenda to a special session called of the Legislature to finalize the natural gas pipeline and she refused. She appropriately stated that it would cloud the important gas line issue to political posturing and she wouldn't allow it.

Some pro-life folks got bent out of shape but she didn't budge. However, she IS very pro-life. She may not put it ahead of the good of the country but if given a sensible opportunity she'll definitely stay true to her beliefs. The thing you'll notice about her is she'll lay it on the line about what she stands for but she won't break her word.

Complain about this comment
234. At 09:27am on 04 Sep 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:
Gary, Ed (#185),
"you seem to be stipulating that Britain is a part of Europe."
Isn't it? It was, the last time I looked.

;-)
European ed

Complain about this comment
235. At 09:29am on 04 Sep 2008, Xie_Ming wrote:
# 161

As I recall, Eisenhower said: " I don't care what your your religion is, as long as you've got some religion".

These other assertions about believing in "creationism" fir well with the characteristics of creationists/intelligent designers as demonstrated in:

[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

Complain about this comment
236. At 09:41am on 04 Sep 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:
Cool One,
"You are right. Alaska is 7 times larger than the UK. I must have had my units wrong."
Or should that be "six times larger"? I'm always a bit puzzled by the "x times larger" formula as opposed to "x times as large"...

I'm interested which units you could have confused - square inches Vs cubic kilometers?

;-)
ed

Complain about this comment
237. At 09:41am on 04 Sep 2008, JohnAAA wrote:
222ArcticFrostAK

A clear and thorough description of Palin, thanks. Maybe the BBC should offer you a job, they had failed to describe her properly, and are still wide of the mark.

A central point you made is that Sarah Palin is a reforner first and a conservative second. I agree entirely.

But I have just heard the lead presenter on the BBC's flagship morning news programme, James Naughtie, get it exactly the wrong way round. He focussed on her conservatism, was asking questions about abortion law for example. And pushed the tired line that McCain chose her primarily because she was a social conservative.

I have heard NOTHING substantial from the BBC about her reform track record. Nothing about her record of executive acton, first in her home town and then - very very rapidly - as Governor. She has a record of executive reformist ACTION that far exceeds anything Obama and Biden can claim.

The BBC have not clearly explained, after many weeks, that the core of McCain's campaign is reform of the way Washington operates. How can they be so blind ?

A key line in Palin's speech was that the difference between a mayor and a community organiser is that a mayor has actual responsibilities to meet. Executive responsibilities. It is for her record of executive success, reformist success, that McCain chose her. Appeal to the social conservative base is secondary but fortuitously true. McCain knows he can't win with just that base - he has to gain the middle ground too.

I am put in mind of "Mr Smith comes to Washington". That is how Palin will be promoted, as a capable sidekick to McCain the Maverick - and Obama and Biden will be cast as the old-guard with their snouts in the trough. Corruption on a grand scale exists in Washington - or at least the perception of it..

The other image the Repubs might hint at is Maggie Thatcher. She will be anathema to many here, no doubt - but many in the US, across party lines, still refer to her with admiration. A sort of folk hero across the pond.

Is there a yearning in the US for someone like Thatcher who will take the whole Washington system by the neck and shake it?

They say that Palin's method of cleaning her house is to pick it up and shake the dust out. There are many jokes like that going the rounds - and they are mostly affectionate references to her toughness. If Palin now establishes a reputation nationwide for toughness and reform - and last night was a big step on that - she will stand as an entirely logical VP for McCain who is tough as old boots.

That is - her social conservatism will not be the main attribute people see. The 85% of Alaskans apparently see and support her primarily as a reformer Thus contradicting what James Naughtie was saying.this morning, suggesting that her appeal is her religious views.

And the Repubs are going to try to present Obama and Biden as machine politicians. They won't have much difficuty doing that, I think. Their records speak for themselves.

Anyway, those here who have tried to paint Palin as a naive hick (someone just a few posts back was criticising her accent, for goodness sake!) are in for a rude shock. Last night showed that she can handle herself well - and that she has genuine populist appeal.

All the polls show that there is derision of Congress - consistently worse favourability results than ven Bush. If the election turns on the question of reform of Washington, the Dem ticket can't hack it. McCain and now Palin can. Both have a track record of achieving reform - Obama and Biden don't.

The Dems may try to get the election to turn on hitching McCain-Palin to simply a continuation of Bush. They already claim that. That's the duck the Repubs have to shoot. I think they will shoot it .McCain has sufficient record of bipartisan actions in opposition to Bush, a record of clear policy differences with Bush (for instance in recommending what became the surge). And Palin on her record has bipartisan credentials, and a significant record of taking on her own party, cutting across the old ways.

Justin Webb banged on a couple of days ago about Eagleton, picking up the dem the theme-of-the-day in Atlantic and the NYT. Guiliani referrred to the falseness of that notion - if it applies to anyone, it will be Joe Biden. As he said, Biden needs to go back to Obama and say "Hey, that job of VP candidacy you offered me - can I have it in writing".

Palin's speech last night may have transformed the election. All the trashing of her in the media will have caused big audiences, and she is getting the headlines today. Day after day she has been trashed, with prurient attacks on her family, and supercilious reference to her small-town roots. The Repubs have welcomed her - but were in some trepidation as to how she would perform on the big night. No-one can deny that her premiere proved strong and confident.

And on issues such as energy, for example, she is no policy slouch, she can range over the big issues confidently. By the time she faces the big test of meeting Biden, I think she will have been briefed up to speed on many policy and defence issues, she could hold her own. On first showing, she is not going to be a liability to Mccain's campaign. She could be a big asset, with populist appeal and a willingness to be a fierce and witty attack dog separating Obama's image from his actual record.

Game on !

Complain about this comment
238. At 10:03am on 04 Sep 2008, gunsandreligion wrote:
237, JohnAAA, we are all hoping that she is
the person that you and Arctic describe.

One of the things hurting McCain is that his
party organizers have "dumbed-down" his
campaign, so that his legendary maverick
qualities really haven't shown forth.

Here's hoping that all of the candidates in the
race realize that they have nothing to lose by
dumping their spin doctors, and actually saying
what they think.

Complain about this comment
239. At 10:24am on 04 Sep 2008, JohnAAA wrote:
Palin likes chewing gum and kicking butt.

And apparently she is clean out of gum.

The traditional VPm candidate's role is to act as the attack dog against the other side's lead dog.

Biden probably won't get anywhere near inflicting damage on McCain. (McCain may inflict damage on himself, of course)

But I can see Palin inflicting some serious damage on Obama - by jokes at his expense, popping the bubble, challenging his track record, his thin resume.

We now have two celebrities in the race, maybe.

Complain about this comment
240. At 10:27am on 04 Sep 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:
John,
"The BBC have not clearly explained, after many weeks, that the core of McCain's campaign is reform of the way Washington operates. How can they be so blind ?"
Maybe all they can see are the (ex-)lobbyists with whom he has surrounded himself?

;-)
ed

Complain about this comment
241. At 10:31am on 04 Sep 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:
McCain and "friends" The great reformer of lobby-driven politics...NOT!

Salaam, etc.
ed

He also features here

Complain about this comment
242. At 11:50am on 04 Sep 2008, ray564k wrote:
"Most Americans are not single issue voters"
"Most Americans will vote on the issue that's number one to them, and that's the economy."

Two mutually exclusive statements, one after the other. 3 mins 06 seconds. Think you should have challenged her on this Justin. The interview flows very well otherwise.

Love the way she got in a little dig on Hillary Clinton. Still can't see Democrat women voting Republican on a major scale unless Obama makes a major sexist gaffe.

Complain about this comment
243. At 2:32pm on 04 Sep 2008, AndreainNY wrote:
237. JohnAAA: Could it be that her passion for doing the right thing in government is not as important to democrats as her social/religious beliefs? Interesting priorities.

Christians are fair game in the US. What a liberal would die before being heard to say about a minority or gay is said quite freely about Christians, without any recognition of bigotry. I'm always surprised and have to believe if they realized just how bigoted they sounded, they be absolutely horrified. Nonetheless, it's not likely Christians will fall under the dems' socially acceptable, broad tent of tolerance any time soon.

The irony in the democrats' ballistic response to McCain/Palin is that McCain is the one Republican who is most likely to consider their interests. I can't think of another candidate who has taken their side more often. He's practically half-democratic. Conservatives don't trust him for good reason.

My assessment is that Palin would also be responsive to her constituents, and, if she were to represent all Americans, would do so fairly. I can't see her changing her core values, but I also can't see her deliberately disregarding the widely-held viewpoints of her constituents. She seems to take representing them -- all of them -- very seriously.

I wonder if McCain didn't pull another fast one on the conservatives with Palin. She's got the conservative credentials but I can't see her forcing them down people's throats.

If you notice the criticism, it's about her beliefs. There's no evidence to support the accusations that she's forced them on anyone. That's all conjecture.

I suspect she's a conservative who would govern for everyone.

Complain about this comment
244. At 4:09pm on 04 Sep 2008, Simon21 wrote:
243. At 2:32pm on 04 Sep 2008, AndreainNY wrote:
237. JohnAAA: Could it be that her passion for doing the right thing in government is not as important to democrats as her social/religious beliefs? Interesting priorities. "

As defined by her of course. And her "right thing" is a desperrate desire to go to Washington and be VP.

While claiming to find Washington of odius. "I hate power, but give me more"

"Christians are fair game in the US. What a liberal would die before being heard to say about a minority or gay is said quite freely about Christians, without any recognition of bigotry. I'm always surprised and have to believe if they realized just how bigoted they sounded, they be absolutely horrified. Nonetheless, it's not likely Christians will fall under the dems' socially acceptable, broad tent of tolerance any time soon"

Well they are dying out and not before time.

"My assessment is that Palin would also be responsive to her constituents, and, if she were to represent all Americans, would do so fairly. I can't see her changing her core values, but I also can't see her deliberately disregarding the widely-held viewpoints of her constituents. She seems to take representing them -- all of them -- very seriously."

So her own personal views do not matter. Odd inversion. Presumably Obama's personal views do not matter either?

Most people won't want to take the risk.

"I wonder if McCain didn't pull another fast one on the conservatives with Palin. She's got the conservative credentials but I can't see her forcing them down people's throats. "

So she would do anything to get elected? And turn her back once in office.?

"If you notice the criticism, it's about her beliefs. There's no evidence to support the accusations that she's forced them on anyone. That's all conjecture."

Either a candidate's personal views matter or they don't. If you don't beleive she would "force her views on everyone", how do yoou know she is going to be teh outsider she claims

Complain about this comment
245. At 4:14pm on 04 Sep 2008, Simon21 wrote:
239. At 10:24am on 04 Sep 2008, JohnAAA wrote:
Palin likes chewing gum and kicking butt."

Does she. Better concentrate on that then instead of trying to run for high political office.

You obviously know her well.

And apparently she is clean out of gum.

"The traditional VPm candidate's role is to act as the attack dog against the other side's lead dog."

Really what tradition is that. Your own? Certainly not the US tradition.

"Biden probably won't get anywhere near inflicting damage on McCain. (McCain may inflict damage on himself, of course)"

Crystal ball gazing again. Biden will demolish Palin. He will have plenty of ammunition.

"But I can see Palin inflicting some serious damage on Obama - by jokes at his expense, popping the bubble, challenging his track record, his thin resume. "

I think Obama will tie her in knots if she tries. I shouldn't imagine he will bother, he will simply wait for her gaffes to emerge

"We now have two celebrities in the race, maybe. "

Maybe but watching the republicans implode won't be pretty

Complain about this comment
246. At 4:21pm on 04 Sep 2008, MagicKirin wrote:
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
247. At 4:28pm on 04 Sep 2008, Gary_A_Hill wrote:
Ed (#234), I think so, too. But there was someone from the continent (maybe it was on another forum) who seemed to take exception to it.

Complain about this comment
248. At 4:29pm on 04 Sep 2008, Simon21 wrote:
"237. At 09:41am on 04 Sep 2008, JohnAAA wrote:
222ArcticFrostAK

"But I have just heard the lead presenter on the BBC's flagship morning news programme, James Naughtie, get it exactly the wrong way round. He focussed on her conservatism, was asking questions about abortion law for example. And pushed the tired line that McCain chose her primarily because she was a social conservative."

And he chose her because she was good looking?

She is on record with her primitive beliefs it will be good to see them pilloried.

And of course it seperates her from Mrs Clinton's supporters - the gamble MCain was taking.

"And the Repubs are going to try to present Obama and Biden as machine politicians. They won't have much difficuty doing that, I think. Their records speak for themselves."

Not that you know anything about them as we have found. ANd their records are very creditable ones.

"Anyway, those here who have tried to paint Palin as a naive hick (someone just a few posts back was criticising her accent, for goodness sake!) are in for a rude shock. Last night showed that she can handle herself well - and that she has genuine populist appeal."

By giving a prehearsed speech to an audience that realised what trouble they wre in?

She will have to do a bit better than that.

Did you see McCain'sd embrace, I thought he was going to hit the chap?

"The Dems may try to get the election to turn on hitching McCain-Palin to simply a continuation of Bush. They already claim that. That's the duck the Repubs have to shoot. I think they will shoot it .McCain has sufficient record of bipartisan actions in opposition to Bush, a record of clear policy differences with Bush (for instance in recommending what became the surge). And Palin on her record has bipartisan credentials, and a significant record of taking on her own party, cutting across the old ways."

But wants to be an old president and VP. Beleive away. Oh youmight like to reflect that the US is tettering on recession, trying to campaign against you're own party with a virtual political novice in toe is not a recipe for success.

"Palin's speech last night may have transformed the election. All the trashing of her in the media will have caused big audiences, and she is getting the headlines today. Day after day she has been trashed, with prurient attacks on her family, and supercilious reference to her small-town roots. The Repubs have welcomed her - but were in some trepidation as to how she would perform on the big night. No-one can deny that her premiere proved strong and confident. "

Oh dear purient attacks, sob, sob. Remember the attacks on Mrs Obama? Remember the attempts to brand her and her husband terrorists? Didn't some right wing fanatic journo call for Obama's assassination?

At a set piece show she performed well, few do not in these circumstance. But sadly she will be easy meat.

"And on issues such as energy, for example, she is no policy slouch, "

Really what federal policies has she authored?

"she can range over the big issues confidently."

Well inexperienced and ignorant people can appear confident - Bush jnr was very confident for example that cyclone katrina was well handled.

" By the time she faces the big test of meeting Biden, I think she will have been briefed up to speed on many policy and defence issues, she could hold her own."

Hardly and you know it.

" On first showing, she is not going to be a liability to Mccain's campaign. She could be a big asset, with populist appeal and a willingness to be a fierce and witty attack dog separating Obama's image from his actual record."

And so many scandals creeping out of the Alaskan woodwork she is going to need her scripted wit.

Complain about this comment
249. At 4:57pm on 04 Sep 2008, jacksforge wrote:
artic fox i like some of your comments and hope you vote dem come nov.

Complain about this comment
250. At 5:09pm on 04 Sep 2008, David_Cunard wrote:
#83. joshkin2001: "I have but one question I'd like to have put to Sarah Palin:

So, how's that "Abstinence Only" education working out for your OWN CHILDREN?"

The question might also directed toward the mother of the self-described "redneck" son who was responsible for Miss Palin's condition. Don't they sell condoms in Walissa?

Complain about this comment
251. At 9:04pm on 04 Sep 2008, bethpa wrote:
#243 Andrea

"Christians are fair game in the US."

Can you define waht you mean by Christian?

Can a Christian be a liberal?

Can a Christian be a Democrat?

Complain about this comment
252. At 9:31pm on 04 Sep 2008, goleooo wrote:
Bethpa,

Christians don't do politics. What you are referring to are hypocrites who use christianity the same way the roman empire used it to rule over its territories, the same way the church later used it to hold control over europe and to kill thousands.

There is no such thing as Fair Game christian in the US.

There are those who are christians who do exactly what Obama has done, who value volunteering, helping those in need without a huge governator paycheck at the end of the month, who give parts of their income to good causes even though they are not CEOs or own 9 houses in 3 timezones like McCain, are those who are true to their families and do not abandon their sick wives for personal lust, are those who would want everyone to be equal in their eyes as they are in the eyes of God especially when it comes to the issue of healthcare and education.

And then there are those who call themselves christians who would crucify christ everyday of the week and twice on a weekend. the sort of people who want everything for their families, and nothing for everyone else, the ones who have millions of dollars in their accounts without knowing what it is like to sweat for your money, the ones who have goverment healthcare they don't pay for but don't want anyone else to have it, are those like Sarah Palin, who even God I have a feeling would be disappointed at.

But it is a shame that christianity has taken such a dark image. today's christian's are not what they were meant to be, just a bunch of hypocrites using religion as a weapon to get everything they want. Thus the reason i despise both religion and politics at the same time as they are both the same, often tools for the liars and powerful to control the uneducated/gullible masses.

Complain about this comment
253. At 9:53pm on 04 Sep 2008, bethpa wrote:
#252 goleooo

Yes

Matthew 6:5-6

“And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you."

They are using the power of Christianity for their own purposes.

Complain about this comment
254. At 00:56am on 05 Sep 2008, captainhighbury wrote:
228 RealFrigid.

Yes.I would say the same thing to man, woman, a monkey or whoever dragged down the company to the drain even after taking one of the highest pays in the country.

Being a gender bised,race biased is the least form of defence (BTW I am a minority).
Please bring simething substanial with proof.Politics is not her subject and still she was asked her opinion.Why is that?

Complain about this comment
255. At 04:52am on 05 Sep 2008, allmymarbles wrote:
232, Artic.

The problem is that if the republicans are elected they have debts they have to pay. That includes Palin. She is not free to do just as she pleases. It is the republican government I oppose more than any one person, although I make exceptions in the case of Bush and Cheney.

The republicans are dedicated to restricting our freedom and they are hell-bent on war. I would vote against anyone on the ticket. I am an independent and have voted every which way, usually splitting my ticket.

But this time I am voting democratic all the way - for the first time in my life.

Complain about this comment
256. At 04:58am on 05 Sep 2008, allmymarbles wrote:
233, Arctic.

The problem with executives or legislators who are pro-life is that they force their beliefs on others. People who are pro-abortion do not. We would not legislate compulsory abortion.

Abortion has become mainly a religious question. But a large hunk of the United States is not religious (and a larger hund do not want religion to intrude on politics). Look at the 2000 census and you will see what I mean.

So she keeps her word. That's terrible because I don't like her word. Evangelicals are bullies.

Complain about this comment
257. At 06:15am on 05 Sep 2008, AndreainNY wrote:
256. allmymarbles: "Evangelicals are bullies."

Why because they have strong views and want others to accept things just the way they see them? Because they won't acknowledge an opposing viewpoint? Because they see things in stark terms, their view as good, others' as bad?

Hmmmm. Where else have we seen this behavior?

Complain about this comment
258. At 08:09am on 05 Sep 2008, GlobalChild wrote:
@ 257. Darwinists? Oh, no, they are not afraid to question and rationalise their beliefs and the beliefs of others. Sorry i dont see any connection bar western evangelicalism as the mirror image of eastern islamic fundamentalism.

Creationism in schools? To hell with the seperation of church and state (quite litteraly). Thomas Jefferson is going to be turning so fast in his grave perhaps the republicans can use his body as a turbine and solve the energy crisis. How can somone adovate freedom yet demand their own backward and narrow view be imposed upon vunerable children.

This 'colourful' woman from the north appears to have no long term vision for the country, but hey, her ability to have 5 kids is more than enough qualification to judge global warming as a myth!

Be careful this woman doesnt want to take you too far into the past America, alaska used to be Russian!

Complain about this comment
259. At 03:55am on 06 Sep 2008, SamTyler1969 wrote:
#257

Republicans.

Sam

Complain about this comment
260. At 9:42pm on 06 Sep 2008, HickorySmoke wrote:
Help it's an attack of the 60foot fundamentalist with lipstick and four legs.

Complain about this comment
261. At 9:46pm on 06 Sep 2008, HickorySmoke wrote:
That's great!

Carly is billed by justin as "on the rational wing" and doesn't take issue.

Those presumpticons are amazing, they are happy to have nutcases and lunatics shoulder to shoulder.

No wonder they want liberal gun laws, if one of those mad-dogs goes crazy they may need to put it down.

Complain about this comment
262. At 07:56am on 08 Sep 2008, johngloucestershire wrote:
You let her off lightly there, when she answered "creationism" as a religious issue. The word is too vague (some UK listeners think it just means believing God is Creator, which I do) and will agree it is a religious question. Instead, focus on science: does Palin think the earth appeared less than 10,000 years ago? Or that humans were around at the same time as dinosaurs?

Complain about this comment
263. At 9:13pm on 26 Oct 2008, doherk wrote:
The old bigotries of racism and sexism have been replaced by rural and christian prejudice.
Ridiculing accents and dialects is something the British are very familiar with where snobbery has been an entrenched part of the culture for generations. Now throw in the J. freak slurs against Christians common in the US from "liberals" and you get a better understanding of American politics of personal destruction.
Margaret Thatcher was who she was thanks to her convictions. Not Oxbridge diction
but her common sense and will power. Sarah Palin fits that mold. Perhaps the American people will one day be brought down as low as the British were when they turned to the Iron Lady.

Complain about this comment