Thanks for admitting that you've sold out, Joe.  Now tell all your viewers about the dead intern who was found in one of your congressional offices again....

My personal observations of Mccain is that he refuses to answer direct questions, always finding ways to repharase the question asked into something he can pontificate on, while the questioner is left scartching his ba$$s wondering what happened. That is something you learn to do after 30 years of yuckspeak in Congress.

Obama has been assertive but the meme is that Dems never are so you have Scarborough sitting there asking a stupid question.  And saying that he'll say whatever McCain tells him to say.  What a dipsh*t.

Thanks Joe!!

for admitting you're basically a worthless piece of crap "journalist" wrapped in a corporate suit.

But Joe, we already knew that.

"Why can't they respond? Why can't they respond more aggressively, the Obama camp?"

Why can't you pay attention, Joe?

Obama has responded.

"I want to address the latest made-up controversy by the John McCain campaign," Obama said. "What their campaign has done this morning is the same game that has made people sick and tired of politics in this country. They seize on an innocent remark, throw out an outrageous ad because they know it is catnip for the media. It would be funny except for the news media decided that was the lead story yesterday. The McCain campaign would much rather have a story about phony and foolish diversion than about the future."

"Enough," he said of the focus on the contrived lipstick controversy. "I don't care what they say about me. But I love this country too much to let them take over another election with lies, phony outrage and swiftboat politics. Enough is enough. These are serious times and they call for a serious debate about where we need to take the nation. We can't take another four years that were like the last eight. Spare me the phony outrage. Spare me the phony talk about change. We have real problems in this country right now and the American people are looking to us for answers. Not distractions, not diversions not manipulations they are looking for real answers. That's the type of debate I attempt to have."

It was a great response from Obama.  It's about time he slaps at the media for their baloney too, good for him.  People like a candidate who is assertive and blunt, Obama is right to smack it down and show it for what it is, nonsense.

It was a great response but if it doesn't get reported in the media few will ever hear it.  It'll be something like this:

"The McCain campaign slammed Democratic hopeful Barack Obama today demanding he apologize for calling Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin "a pig in lipstick", an obvious reference to Palin's own convention speech in which she compared herself to a pitbull in lipstick.  The Obama campaign has given no response to our inquiries but Obama did refer to the matter on the stump today saying that he didn't care what anyone said about him.

Now if his advisors could understand that emphasizing the negatives in your opponent with negative ads is not to be confused with unethical ads. There is a difference between positive and negative ads and ethical and unethical ads.

Obama doesn't need to abandon his ethics to point out that Palin is a zealot who would overturn Roe v. Wade, criminalize abortion (no exceptions including rape and incest) and since she is a firm believer in the death penalty, execute rape victims. She would essentially write a rapists bill of rights.

And you know what? I don't care if my language and attitude is offensive to rightwingers on this. Palin has demonstrated she has no character, she said, "Al Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America ... he's worried that someone won't read them their rights?"

She is saying that we justice loving liberals wish death on our own family. That is hateful and divisive, it's damned unpatriotic to divide Americans like that. She is filthy, the attack is filthy therefore to question and attack her character is a legitimate issue.

I mean do we really think the Rove-McCain campaign is going to take it easy on Barack if he just plays nice and ignores the smears?

Round,

Pray tell, how would Palin overturn Roe v Wade? 

By having, and or helping McCain decide which crazed right wing idealogues to place on the Supreme Court is how Roe V. Wade gets overturned. And because McCain has pledged to place more judges on SCOTUS in the mold of who George W. Bush put on there, and there is a very good chance that in a couple of years, 1 or 2 justices will retire from the high court, therefore making it turn ever further right than it already is.

There's a branch of government called the Supreme Court.  Justices are appointed BY THE PRESIDENT and approved by the senate for life, or until they retire.  Remember that, AA, from your jr. high government class?  There may be at least 3 appointments in the next 4 years.  It is the 2nd most important issue today (behind the Iraq war).

Either you're acting dumb or are, in reality, dumb.  Not sure which it is.

Beat you to it by about 20 seconds...

Don't forget, the majority of justices on the high court were put there by republicans already...

"Pray tell, how would Palin overturn Roe v Wade?"

You tell me. Every Republican hypocrite for that last 34 years has offered some permutation of overturning Roe v. Wade. Why don't you tell me how it would be done?

But you know what? It's good to see that even zealots know that Roe v. Wade is a necessary protection of individual rights.

And you know what else I want to know? How does Palin square executing rape victims with her abortion views?

Tommy,

People like a candidate who can assert themselves but can also understand the impact of their words.  In two consecutive phrases Obama used the terms "Lipstick on a pig" and "Old Fish".  If it was not Obama's intent for these terms to be the MaCain ticket he should have had the foresight to understand how his words were going to be intrepreted. 

I do not believe Obama could have come this far by being clueless to the impact of his words.  However even giving him the benefot of the doubt his reply today is nothing short at trying to deflect blame to others for his own stupidity. 

Obama was talking about policy.  If you can't criticize your opponent's policies, what else do you have?

I'm not suggesting he shouldn't. 

Oh, as long as it's not something that can be taken out of context and twisted to be personal in nature, is that right?

So if McCain criticizes one of Obama's policies as "silly" or "stupid", then that's McCain's fault if the Obama campaign turns around and accuses them of saying Obama himself is "silly" or "stupid".  I bet. 

Had Obama used the adjectives "silly" or "stupid" his intent would not be in question.  He used lables that refer to women (lipstick) and age, which both just happen to be characteristics of the McCain ticket.  Obama made either a foolish or ignorant statement - neither befits a candidate for president.

Dems soul wrote:

>>Had Obama used the adjectives "silly" or "stupid" his intent would not be in question.  He used lables that refer to women (lipstick) and age, which both just happen to be characteristics of the McCain ticket.  Obama made either a foolish or ignorant statement - neither befits a candidate for president.

No, Obama made no gaffe. You are simply helping spread fake outrage against Obama.  

His intent isn't in honest question anyway.  Again, it's not a new phrase.  McCain's used it himself, as has Obama before Palin was on the scene.  The meaning of it doesn't magically change because Palin used the word "lipstick" or just because she's a woman.

That's the point with talking about "stupid" policy.  If your critics are going to do all they can to twist what you say, then it doesn't really matter how much thought you put into it.  You can't avoid using a word or phrase that can be dishonestly used against you forever.  Also consider that Obama has to try to connect with rural people all over the country.  You have to expect he's going to be making some animal references along the way.

Also consider that Obama has to try to connect with rural people all over the country.  You have to expect he's going to be making some animal references along the way.

??? - I guess because he already tried to connect to them through "guns and religon" - and we all know how well that went.

Yes, another comment that was taken out of context and blown out of proportion.  That wouldn't prove anything even if your comment was relevant to what I said.

OK, so Obama uses rhetorical statements that have been used for, I don't know how long, to represent a "rearranging of the deck chairs on the Titanic", and all of a sudden, he's somehow an affront to women because he used the phrase "lipstick on a pig"? Surely, you can't be serious. And also, using the phrase about stinky fish is along the lines of, "There's something rotten in Denmark", and again, Obama is referring to how McCain's policies (the point of the speech he was giving by the way, in case you forgot), are the same as Bush's, and they were bad before, and they're still bad, and no matter how you dress them up (lipstick on a pig), they're still bad.

I can't believe that you are this ignorant of these phrases. So now are all references to lipstick to be credited to Palin just because she mentioned something about being a viscious animal wearing lipstick? You guys are utterly amazing to me how you twist, take out of context, distort, and then make up things about what Obama was "really" saying... Amazing, utterly freakin' amazing...

Mags - welcome to the world of the Politically Correct. These days (in Texas) we say "dress up a pig" - it's gender neutral.

If McCain in turn said "You can put a tie on a donkey -but it's still a Jack Ass" - could Obama be offended because the JA is the symbol of the Democratic Party?

No.

And since when is anyone in Texas politically correct? The phrase of putting lipstick on a pig has been around for a LONG time, it's common vernacular, and since when have republicans been worried about political correctness? You guys are the ones always yelping about how you're being held down because of it, and that us liberals are always soooo offended. Some have claimed that this phrase, or idiom, has been around for more than 300 years, and doesn't mean anything demoralizing to women, it's called making superficial changes to something, and calling it brand new and great! Like McCain's policies.

Cant speak for all Texans but I don't care about being PC - but the Libs do.  So when one of them totally screws up it makes news.  How many other phrases or words have been around for centuries that you can't use anymore without being smacked down for it?

Face it - Obama screwed up and he got busted and - all you trying to defend him sound no different than the Limbaugh apologistts did over the poiny soldiers remark.

Thing is, there is nothing to defend him against. He used a phrase, that is in common use, and is NOT un-PC by any stretch of the imagination. You can make believe that it is, but it's not. We have to defend him, because people like you make the assertion that he somehow was calling out Palin (when her name was nowhere near the speech he was giving), and called her a pig with lipstick on. I'm utterly amazed by your ignorance on this. Obama didn't screw up. He used a common phrase in the English vernacular that is not un-PC (as you suggest that it is). I'm a hard core liberal, and guess what? I don't give a flying F*** about political correctness. This story, shouldn't even be a story, but folks like you, are making it a story...

You sure have a funny definition of PC. PC was never supposed to be about what words can you or can't you say, it's intent was treat people with respect regardless of whether or not you agree with or like them. My personal experience has been that a lot of racially inclined folks immediately decided this meant the N word was banned. The point was if you say it, there are consequences just like we've seen consequences if you criticized Bush. Now, sure, the suggestion is if you don't want to get your @ss pounded in, don't say it in mixed company, but regardless, the key word is respect.

 all you trying to defend him sound no different than the Limbaugh apologistts did over the poiny soldiers remark.- DEMS_SOL

Hmmm, second post I've seen here today trying to make a comparison between this and the phony soldiers. Do we have new marching orders from the golden EIB microphone?

Mag,

While I agree with your premise, and I don't think Obama was intentionally putting the bite on Palin, the crowd obviously did think the reference was a snipe at her.  

If you listen to it in it's entirety it seemed to me that they took it out of context.  

I wont disagree that it has taken on a life of it's own at this point.  

Sol-

In your last sentence, you used the word 'doubt'.  Does that mean that you have 'doubts' about the Republican ticket, consisting of Sarah Palin and the other guy?

KB - if you have been following my posts over the last year you would know I am no fan of McCain.  Unfortunately though - the Obama campaign is going the way of the '78 Red Sox. Big lead in July disolves into an October loss due to self distruction and strong play from the "Evil Empire".  Sometimes it's great to be a Yankee fan!

Dems_soul wrote:

Yup. All trash talking from the Repubs. Ha ha! You Dems are going to lose!

Apparently you don't care that the Repubs are lying through their teeth and spreading fake outrage.  

Your 'Evil Empire' remark just shows that you are a sexist.  Sarah Palin is not evil just because she is a woman!!

Poor comeback - the term is both gender and age neutral.

Roundy

Nice try, but that response from Obama came HOURSSSSS  after Joe was on the air this morning.  And while on the air, an Obama spokeswoman said over and over that Obama would NOT waste time addressing the issue today.

Nice try with the bait and switch however.

Oh big deal. Time line, shmime line. At least then, Barack didn't listen to the same ignore it and it will go away advice that gave us presidents Dukakis, Gore and Kerry.

No, he gave it right back to their smarmy asses. I hope it's a sign of more to come. Because I don't know about you, but I am sick of zealots like Palin using government to make us live according to her interpretation of the scriptures.

Roundhouse said..."Oh big deal. Time line, shmime line. "

LOLLLLL  you have to be kidding.  First you say...."Why can't you pay attention, Joe? Obama has responded."

Then when I point out that Obama made his remarks after Joe........making it impossible for Joe S. to have heard them, you come back with " ..."Oh big deal. Time line, shmime line."

That is the most impressive ditch of the truth I have ever seen.  You are so dis-honest in your posts it is beyond compare. 

Why do you have to disparage Sarah Palin with your 'ditching of the truth' line?  I mean, it's not like she's the only politician who lies.  You only said that because she's a woman.  Sexist!!

You are the one that is dishonest, Obama replied yesterday EARLY.

Round,

Just what scriptures are you being made to live by?

He said "interpretation" of the scriptures.  Abortion, euthanasia, gay rights and teaching creationism/ID as science in public schools leap to mind as issues that zealots argue based on Biblical justifications.

Brab,

Maybe you missed my point. Looking over your list, tell me how many on that list are you being forced by biblical interpretation to live under?

It depends what state you live in.  Euthanasia and gay marriage aren't allowed here.  Of course, that's the whole point of "states rights" advocacy.  Leave these things up to the states so that they can ban whatever they like on religious grounds, and if you happen to want an abortion in Mississippi, you can just go to New York to get one.

Round,

Just what scriptures are you being made to live by?

-----------------------------------------

The Satanic Verses.

I didn't mean to imply that Palin and her rightwing authoritarian cultist buds were influenced by the Bible. That's your misconception.

I am forced to live by the law that says it's ok to disappear any U.S. citizen abroad and render them unto torture. I am forced to live by the law that says America can invade any country on the grounds of suspicion alone just as easily as her police can invade a home in St. Paul...on suspicion alone.

it is catnip for the media

That's a great line. And oh so true.

Wow, this has to be the most outrageous statement yet from the corporate media. Are they saying they will only be a mouthpiece for "mad" Johnny?

I'm going to give him a pass on this - He's simply stating the truth.

 

Wasn't it just a few months ago when word was leaked out that Christie and Hannity received phone calls from the White House outlining talking points for them to echo?

Jump in the time machine, and catch up with the rest of us.

This didn't leak, they proudly proclaimed that they got to go to the White House, have lunch with the President, and received their marching orders. This happened several times with many different conservative talk show hosts. Not one liberal talk show host got to meet with the President. Funny how that happens.

This reminds me of Chris Matthews asserting that they had no other choice than to cover Reverend Wright 24/7 because "that's what the viewers are interested in".

So much for responsible journalism.

If Obama is lucky enough to survive this piling on and win, his first order of business should be to revert to the time when giant corporations weren't allowed to buy up entire media markets. The state of the "Free Press" today is an absolute tragedy.

Obama is somewhat disadvantaged because if he acts "too assertive" he will be labeled "uppity". It's kind of a lose/lose situation for his campaign because no matter what he does he will be mislabeled.

For probably the only time here l agree with what Ned is saying. The media narrative has been set. This non-story has actually had some play here in the UK, with my favourite sports radio station mentioning it on the news. Of course they get their news reports from Sky News (UK sis of FauxNews) so it wasn't that big a surprise but l did end up ranting about it with someone else on the train home. 

He's sorta right, they'll talk about whatever the McCain camp wants to talk about. Assertive here means their bosses will tell them to do mccains bidding.

I like that Obama's addressing it with the only thing it deserves, derision. I just caught Michael Medved's take on it, and his advice to Obama. Medved thought Obama should have apologized for his words, and been more gracious.

Nope, tried that. The Republicans love playing the victim, and love having the other side be polite and gracious, apologizing for everything that could possibly be twisted to hurt their feelings.Then while the sympathy's still out there, the GOP have their surrogates continue to pile on the smears.

I've had it with the coddling of conservative America, and while I know the Dems are held to tighter rules and need to be careful, I'm hoping they're starting to pull off those kid gloves.

This... is gonna leave a mark! Click the link to watch the video!

McCain Once Blamed Palin's Bridge for the MN Collapse

by Kagro X

Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 11:45:57 AM PDT

We now know that the truth is that Slick Sarah Palin supported the Bridge to Nowhere before she "opposed" it.

But did you know that the man responsible for foisting her on America blamed that bridge and Palin's hunger for federal pork for the collapse of the infamous August 2007 I-35 bridge collapse in Minnesota?

Well, now you do.

No wonder they're so sensitive about pig comments.

Col:

I would have to agree. We've seen what happens when you try to play nice with these thugs.

It's time to beat them at their own game and start kicking them in the balls. It's the only thing they understand.

For the question as to how palin will help overturn roe v wade.

Keep in mind something no one is talking about.  The vp votes to break a tie in congress.

They don't have to wait to appoint a judge.  They can chip away by making new laws that are so complicated and restrictive and the whores in congress know how to create a tie vote.  They know how each other votes.  Watch for Lieberman to change party to give the republicans a majority.

Imagine palin voting to break a tie on bombing iran, on privatizing social security, on impeaching bush, on taxing medical benefits paid for by your employers.  

And are you aware in a few days HHS new laws for medical providers go into effect giving protection to those in the profession to act on their personal conscience and not provide abortion services or birth control services?  It could translate into tubal ligations being denied, prescriptions being denied, the morning after pill being denied to rape victims, and abortions for victims of rape and incest being denied.   There are those in government positions now that believe birth control is a form of abortion.  Someone should ask palin who promotes abstinence what she believes.

When will the media get serious.

 

 

First, you can't impeach Bush after he's left the Oval Office.

Second, there are plenty of women who have already been denied birth control prescriptions, and other female care prescriptions because the pharmacists filling them disagreed that they should have birth control. Never mind that it's none of their business, and that choices such as birth control are things that are decided upon between a woman and her health care provider. These things are already happening.

Let McCain Palin run the country, and we'll have 1-3 more far right justices on the Supreme Court, plus, like what you said, a ton of new legislation that will impede the rights of women in this country like never before I think, as well as make the rest of us less secure, more poor, and whole bunch of other things going on.

Well put, suze.

"Whatever the McCain campaign wants us to talk about, because the McCain campaign is assertive."  (Sound of critical thinking apparatus being disengaged) The lib-rul press is working for that socialist fascist mooslim with the crazy Christian preacher, Obama. 

Doublethink, anyone?

Scarborough: Media will talk about "[w]hatever the McCain campaign wants us to talk about, because the McCain campaign is assertive"

No: they will talk about "[w]hatever the McCain campaign wants us to talk about", because morons like Joe "dead Lori Klausutis" Scarborough if not an outright idiot is a lying right-wing hack who will to do everything in his power to keep the American people in the dark about the real issues and what is at stake. There Joe--we can play this game too. You can put lipstick on the pig but you can't make it drink. Is that a brain I hear exploding?

 

Interesting.   I have the condition mentioned in one of the articles.  It's never made me fall down.

Course, I guess it could.  But when it happens you know, and you sorta slow yourself down and hold on to something, so that you don't fall down or faint.

 

Kind of makes you wonder what Joe meant when he said:

SCARBOROUGH: "Hold on, hold on. Let me finish. I will make them, by sundown, beg that I stop talking about it."

Makes me wonder how far Joe would go to make someone beg to stop talking about something. You're right though people "just fall down" all the time.

McCain campaign "more assertive?" Ha. Try "more in bed with me & my corporate masters."

At this point I think it is important for those of us aware of how corporate media is destroying our country to apply strong pressure to ALL our friends and loved ones to STOP watching TV news. Cable or local. Starve the beast!