Red-Light Cameras Not So Special?
Cubs Combat Casino
The Return of The Chicagoist Reader Meet-Up
PHOTOS: Peaches And Amanda Blank At Metro
County Sales Tax Rollback Vetoed - Here We Go Again
Is Governor Sarah Palin going to sit down with Oprah? Not any time soon, despite a Drudge Report story today that claims Harpo staffers are lobbying to have her on.
Oprah's staff is sharply divided on the merits of booking Sarah Palin, sources tell the [Drudge Report.]"Half of her staff really wants Sarah Palin on," an insider explains. "Oprah's website is getting tons of requests to put her on, but Oprah and a couple of her top people are adamantly against it because of Obama."
But Oprah's denying it, releasing a statement that says:
The item in today’s Drudge Report is categorically untrue. There has been absolutely no discussion about having Sarah Palin on my show. At the beginning of this presidential campaign when I decided that I was going to take my first public stance in support of a candidate, I made the decision not to use my show as a platform for any of the candidates. I agree that Sarah Palin would be a fantastic interview, and I would love to have her on after the campaign is over.
Election day is a mere 59 days away, so make sure you're registered to vote.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
That's because Oprah's RACIST!
I hate Palin so so much. I consider her candidacy tokenism and think it is an insult on the executive office that someone with so little experience could be considered; I consider her mocking of Obama's experience to be juvenile and mean-spirited and stupid, and I consider McCain's decision to choose her illustrative of his overall lack of good judgement.
That being said, her speech drew as many viewers (viewers NOT voters) as Obama's. People are interested in her.
I'd love to see Palin on Oprah, but I highly doubt her handlers would let her go on the show. It's going to be interesting to see her in a setting that's not completely staged. I have a feeling she'll be kept away from the media for the most part, though.
We've seen that she can read a well-written speech (though I thought the delivery was incredibly snarky and condescending) but I wonder how she'll handle a situation that involves hard hitting questions.
Jennyblur: I can't stand her either (she fired her town's librarian for refusing to ban books, for God's sake), but I think that the "she has no experience" angle is falling right into the Republicans' trap. Because every time someone says that, they can say "she's only the VP nominee, your guy is running for President with no experience!" I fundamentally disagree with her on many, many issues, but she is the governor of a state of this union.
(I should add that it's laughable to me that the governmental experience on the local, state and federal levels that Obama has is routinely dismissed by the right wing. Go to thomas.loc.gov and look up the bills Obama has sponsored.)
I will bring up experience every chance I get because Obama HAS IT. And managed to get it without being like a mix of Willy Wonka and Hitler: crazy like Willy Wonka, psycho like Hitler.
Seriously, ol' girl is a book burner and tried to orchestrate her own pathetic "Saturday Night Massacre" and is the matriarch of a family of disgusting red necks.
Hate. Her.
Oprah , Oprah, Oprah. She says, "I made the decision not to use my show as a platform for any of the candidates." Oprah, the high priestess of insincerity, has already used her show as a platform for a candidate. Her candidate. I love that this is happening because it should be revelatory to some of the less numb housewives that are watching her show, that maybe O has an agenda. I think it also reveals a certain level of contempt that Oprah has towards her white audience, thinking that they will actually believe ANYTHING she says.
Could be that Sarah Palin is a joke?
Please, Moose-hunting mommy makes good? This and Zombor the undead senator are the best the republican party has to offer?
I simply cannot wait for Joe Biden to peel the paint off this bint and send her crying back to the 'tard farm in Alaska where her kids are raising an army of bastards.
Sorry, my hate is STRONG today. Watching that DISGUSTING use of 9/11 footage and the USA chanting and the POW "narrative" has made me cranky at these fuckos.
As Mr. Smith put it over at TOC, how can she mock Barack's community organizing...and simultaneously herald her own PTA involvement?
Clarification, the Republicans attack him for having no "executive experience". Technically, the only experience he has in this area is running his own campaign, and his tenure as president of the board of directors for the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (which then brings up the whole Ayers connection).
Albany,
I suppose Palin will do about as well in a debate with Joe Biden as Obama did against him in the primary.
Aren't they essentially the same thing?....Inexperienced candidate representing the right victim class at the right moment? Does anyone really believe that a 100% white Obama makes it this far? >>
And I wouldnt get your panties in a wad about the GOP pep rally last night....it is what is was...a pep rally. Problem is, doesnt matter who wins, nothing is really going to change. Politicans are Politicans, dem/GOP, its all the same. Washington is Washington.
McCain sux? sure. Obama a messiah?...January is going to be a collective "What do you mean the Tooth Fairy isnt real!?!" for whites ages 18-28.
You have a case of the 'hate' this morning, and I have a strong case of 'cynical.'
@ Marcus: The best line so far regarding Palin's derision of community organizing -- Jesus was a community organizer; Pontius Pilate was a governor.
And after bitching about Palin over lunch with a friend of mine today I totally crabbed at an elderly woman in a car who drove into the crosswalk. She sweetly apologized, and I couldn't get it together enough to tell her it was no big deal. I need to come up with a concise apology for people who get the wrong end of my ire -- "Sorry, I've got post-Palin-pissitude." Or something like that.
@Chris 60614
I've never been an Obama zealot. Of the two he's the choice that doesn't make my skin crawl. I give you his lack of experience, his 'magical negro' status with young white people is completely valid as a critique too.
Even third parties are just sad. The Green's are running Cynthia McKinnney, who is animal crackers crazy, and the libertarians have Bob Barr. Bob FUCKING Barr.
I'm thinking a write-in vote for the ghost of Thomas Jefferson might be in order.
What? Remington Steele not good enough for the write-in? he's so dashing!
Hey Liberals, here's a newsflash:
Third parties are
a) Never going to happen in this country because of the way our electoral system is designed. It is systematically impossible.
b) undemocratic. In countries like Israel and France, the PARTY chooses representatives, not voters so in a way it is like in Old America when State Legislatures chose senators. This was a system we hated so much we amended our constitution.
c) due to a little thing called coalition-building, in a multi-party system, parties band together to pass laws, often drifting toward the middle to attract more support. SOUND FAMILIAR?!
d) are wildly inefficient.
Talking about third parties clogs up the dialogue. DROP IT.
Jenny: Solid, useful points about third parties that I wish more people would understand. I am fed up with the status quo, but I am amused that some people seem to want some sort of parliamentary system here (Hoping that a small party will turn into one of the two major parties is another matter, and much more realistic).
And the Greens are a joke at the national level this year.
That said, Jenny, casual comparisons to Hitler are a bit much, I think. Less hateful and murderous people than Hitler have backed the burning of books. Let's keep our perspective.
"I'm thinking a write-in vote for the ghost of Thomas Jefferson might be in order"
Maybe his ghost slaves can wait on you too? I hear they have to serve him in the after life, the ones he forgot to free upon death
Or the Jefferson that endorsed the reckless, counterproductive orgy of violence of the French Revolution--you know, the wonderful experience that gave the world Napoleon, the modern Western world's best mass murderer until Hitler and Stalin came along.
Or the Jefferson who was convinced the future of the Republic was with the planter class and farms, not industry. (Jefferson tried to pretend he cared about small farmers, but members of the Southern planting class rarely meant such things. In any case, Jefferson was spectacularly wrong on that one, and he was a hell of a classic aristocrat--odd choice for someone who hates McCain's inherited wealth and complains about being out of touch with the common people.)
Jennyblur:
Never going to happen in this country because of the way our electoral system is designed. It is systematically impossible.
You can't rebel against Great Britain, they're the greatest naval power on earth.
Oh.
You say never, I say eventually. Will it take a cataclysm for people to stop consuming and fight the good fight? I think so. Peak oil, environmental collapse? 4-8 years of McCain Palin? What will set people off? I don't know, but something will and I feel it's coming soon.
Your attitude only serves to bolster the two party system. I'd rather vote my conscience and agitate unsuccessfully than vote for the lesser of two evils time and again and call it progress.
Spook: That offer is only valid in Egypt.
The only cool thing about having to agree with Matilda, is having to do so on a friday afternoon knowing that in a mere hour of two I will be drunk enough to forget ;-)
You can't rebel against Great Britain, they're the greatest naval power on earth.
Uh, wrong. That is not the point, not even close--the analogy fails miserably. The point is that the US Constitution all but makes it impossible to have anything that resembles a parliamentary system. One chief reason is the strong executive under our system and way that executive is selected, then and now.
You want more influence for third parties, or something that more closely resembles a true one party system? Change the Constitution.
I hate Palin so so much. I consider her candidacy tokenism and think it is an insult on the executive office that someone with so little experience could be considered; I consider her mocking of Obama's experience to be juvenile and mean-spirited and stupid, and I consider McCain's decision to choose her illustrative of his overall lack of good judgement.
you could also put this spin on
I hate Biden he is a token old white guy just there because of obamas lack of experiance and color. I consider his candidacy tokenism and insulting to white men. The only truth Biden has stated is in the debates when he stated obama is not qualified to be president.
"Change the Constitution." What? You mean the document wise great white men wrote over 200 years ago? Never!
On the other hand, stupid Americans not the constitution rulls out multi parties even with a strong executive. but the way the executive is selected would have to be adjusted I suppose, but not by much theoritically
p.s
something is so wrong that the below is news, so wrong that even smussy's god O'bama can't fix even if he was actually about change
"Oprah's staff is sharply divided on the merits of booking Sarah Palin,"
Spook: You are right about the blame on citizens (I think I will have to get drunk as well for agreeing--perhaps wash out my mouth with good Scotch), but if you really want a parliamentary system in the USA (not sure you are arguing for that, though), you will have to change the system so that parties, not voters at large, elect the main executive. That is a basic thing that will have to change.
If you merely want to get more third parties into the system so that they might, one day, become one of the major parties, that is easier, I think.
America has never, ever had more than two major parties for a long period of time. The reasons for this are various, but it goes back to having two main schools of thought about the nature of the federal government, though regional differences bolster such debates. Such a division, at least in a general sense, lasts to this day, even 150 years after the Civil War. That is a huge reason we have only two main parties, though each of the main parties, of course, has factions.
Third Parties don't exist because of a thing called "single member district plurality". It means that we have fifty states with wildly diverging interests and within all those states are districts, with also differing interests on a micro level. To win a seat in congress, you have to get a majority (or plurality) of the vote. One (single) representative (member) for each district.
So it follows that to have a viable third party, let's say a third of all seats in the Congress would have to be members of that party. And that would take an insane effort at the state level across several states. Just is not feasible.
If third parties happen, it is going to be at the local-local level like city council style. There are always weirdo outliers from states that don't count...i.e. that socialist senator from Vermont. But can you think of even 15 states that would elect one (or two) socialists to Congress. NO.
Sure Ross Perot won 19% of the vote in 1992. But he did not win a single electoral vote. Because there was no concentration of votes for him in even one state.
See my point? Impossible.
Uh, wrong. That is not the point, not even close--the analogy fails miserably.
No, actually, you fail to grasp it. I know, you're ready with your tired contrarian sniffling for everyone to see, sometimes you jump the gun a bit.
The point was, and is, that rebellion isn't over. It's not some dim historical idea. Saying "Never" is simply admitting a lack of imagination. The colonials could barely imagine the nation self-governing, but lo and behold. There's this ugly idea that all the great things have been done, that somehow the founding fathers were more than mortal. Just men, just bone and blood and ideas. That's all it takes.
The point is that the US Constitution all but makes it impossible to have anything that resembles a parliamentary system.
Impossible, never, can't, shouldn't won't...Dull, not reading.
We can make this world over whenever we like. Until you embrace that, you are worse than useless.
@Albany:
You you are better than Matilda because you are naive enough to not understand logical limitations to a system? We are not talking about reform or revolution, we are talking about a complete overhaul.
Which is so unlikely as to be impossible. Which is why we shouldn't try.
We can make this world over whenever we like. Until you embrace that, you are worse than useless.
Then do it and quit talking shit here, Albany.
Here is what I know: Americans, for whatever reasons, have failed to embrace a true multi-party system. There seems no interest in doing it now--hell, even less than the big flare up of the Progressives and their various allies about a century ago.
To me, that is pretty strong evidence that our current political system and our current society will not have a true multiparty system.
To you, that is apparently proof that myself and at least a few other people are dull, naive, unidealistic idiots.
God, you can't stand it when people use facts and observation to tear down your ideas, can you? Then out comes the personal insults and related crap: "Until you embrace that, you are worse than useless."
Go for it, Albany. Create this multi-party system you think America wants or is ready for. I double dare you.
By the way, Albany, Jenny kicks your ass on this subject and you can't stand it. She/he displays a grasp of factual reality that you counter with slogans and feel-good idealism. You seem ill-prepared to sit at the grown-up table.
Oh jenny, I'm talking about a revolution.
Three things this week that gave me the feeling that blood is in the water.
-The pure as the driven snow white faces at the RNC
-Cindy McCain's 300,000 dollar outfit
-Rudy screaming 9/11 to chants of USA USA.
Ephemera as tea leaves. Farce on a level that would have made Noel Coward shit himself.
I think war along racial lines is coming. I think a revolt of the poor against the wealthy is coming, I think the whole damn system is going to get torn down.
Frankly, I think Obama can stop it for a time, maybe turn back the clock a bit, but the damage is done. McCain/Palin in office? Blood and thunder inside a generation.
Tilddarest, actually we can have direct presidentail elections with a multi party system, i.e South Africa, now excuse me bitches, I'm out Happy Friday and avoid people like jennyblur limited and silly like the rest of the O'bama brainstims. I've always hated boring people who could only color between the lines.
Old Danny Burnham 's "Make no little plans, for they have no magic" is wasted on the O'bama crowd just like the republicans and democrats
Spook, out!
The past week has been tons of fun for us Republicans.
What can be sweeter than hearing Liberals sputter and stammer about Palin?
Each attempted dig by CNN and MSNBC reporters is music to my ears. As for bogus ACORN community organizers, their time is better spent registering phony voters and extorting grants from politicians. Good luck with the organizing!
Sure Ross Perot won 19% of the vote in 1992. But he did not win a single electoral vote. Because there was no concentration of votes for him in even one state.
But that was in large part due to the fact that he inexplicably dropped out of the race midstream, then just as inexplicably jumped back in. For a while, the polls were split in three roughly equal pieces.
Part of me wonders what would have happened to the political party system had Perot won that election.
Here is a two suggestion to a few commenters above:
1. As soon as you compare your candidate to Jesus, even an attempt at humor, you have lost all credibility.
2. As soon as you compare your candidate's opponent to Hitler, even in an attempt at humor, you have lost all credibility.
Those are two very simple points. Note that liberals seem to have no grasp of these points.
WardUp
9/11, 9/11. 9/11, 9/119/11, 9/119/11, 9/119/11, 9/11
9/11, 9/119/11, 9/119/11, 9/119/11, 9/119/11, 9/119/11, 9/119/11, 9/119/11, 9/119/11, 9/119/11, 9/119/11, 9/119/11, 9/119/11, 9/119/11, 9/119/11, 9/119/11, 9/119/11, 9/119/11, 9/11.
What did you make of that Guiliani quote?
Keep yammering on about the libruls, the conservatives are a sucking void space.
@ Ward Up: The point is NeoCons are hypocrites. They love to invoke Jesus' name, but fail to act like Christians.
You libs just don't get it.
I'm not actually a liberal, I don't think government is the answer to the question. But if you look at the way the Bush administration behaves and call that conseratism...well if we're just going to change what words mean that's simply unfair.
I think war along racial lines is coming. I think a revolt of the poor against the wealthy is coming, I think the whole damn system is going to get torn down.
Any evidence to support this--anything at all to support your idea of what would amount to a second revolution, or at least a resumption of the worst violence of the 1960s--or is this just another unsupported psuedo-idea?
And will it be a racial war or a class war? You seem to comingle the two. Or will this merely be a chaotic burst of violence without any guiding cause or leadership? Have you actually thought this out? And are you prepared to take up arms? Is Albany really our own little Malcom X? (Or is that Debs with a couple of shotguns and Molotov cocktails?)
I have the sense you have no idea what you talk about, that, once again, you are merely screaming for attention.
Seriously, dude/dudette, you need to really study history and critical thinking in a deeper way. Slogans and emotionalism, by the way, are no substitute for critical thinking.
I like the comment above that "....she can read a well-written speech.." Such a comment shows the desperation of the sputtering left.
Did any of you liberals make comments like that after one of Bill Clinton's speeches? One of John Kerry's? One of Hillary's? Or one of the Obamessiah's?
To address a few of the concerns above:
Creationism:
She apparently believes in some variant of Creationism, but no, she didn’t try to force the schools to teach it. She said if someone brought it up in Alaska, it was appropriate subject for debate.
Sex education:
No, she is NOT supportive of “abstinence only” education. Yes, she thinks abstinence is an effective way of preventing pregnancy. BUT, she believes kids should learn about condom use in schools.
Banning books in the local library:
This is a pure hatchet job-slash-fairy tale. Yet this fairy tale is on Obama's official website. And they KNOW that it is a fairy tale. To keep my post brief, and because the evidence is so clear that it is a fairy tale, I'll just say that the details are easily found elsewhere.
Libs, please confront her on the issues. And facts.
@Ward:
From a recent article by Gloria Steinem:
"Palin's value to those patriarchs is clear: She opposes just about every issue that women support by a majority or plurality. She believes that creationism should be taught in schools but disbelieves global warming; she opposes gun control but supports government control of women's wombs;she opposes stem cell research but approves "abstinence-only" programs, which increase unwanted births,sexually transmitted diseases and abortions; she tried to use taxpayers' millions for a state program to shoot wolves form the air but didn't spend enough money to fix a state school system with the lowest high-school graduation rate in the nation; she runs with a candidate who opposes the Fair Pay Act but supports $500 million in subsidies for a natural gas pipeline across Alaska; she supports drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, though even McCain has opted for the lesser evil of offshore drilling. She is Phyllis Schlafly, only younger.
I don't doubt her sincerity. As a lifetime member of the NRA, she doesn't just support killing animals from helicopters, she does it herself. She doesn't just talk about increasing the use of fossil fuels but puts a coal-burning power plant in her own small taown. She doesn't just echo McCain's pledge to criminalize abortion by overturning Roe vs. Wade, she says that if one of her daughters were impregnated by rape or incest, she should bear the child. She not only opposes reproductive freedom as a human right, but implies that it dictates abortion, without saying that it also protects the right to have a child."
(the whole article is in the Sept. 4 Los Angeles Times)
Libs don't have to make things up about this woman. There is plenty enough right there in our faces, and I'm sure there is a lot more that will surface. And it's so funny when the righties say to 'confront her on the issues'...firstly, that's hard to do when they've got her in hiding now and secondly, whenever you do try to confront the issues OR their blatant hypocrisy you will NEVER get a straight answer.
I loved how they were crying 'sexism' when the media got tough with her, and then you see clips all over the internet of right wing pundits slamming Hilary for crying over playing with the 'big boys'. So, in other words, it's NOT ok to pick on Sarah, but it's ok to pick on Hilary. You wing nuts are such blatant hypocrites who will never own up to it or answer a straight question directly.
Ingrid, you quote Gloris Steinem, who has a habit of misstating the facts.
She did it again in the column you quote. See what I wrote above about Creationism and Sex Ed. The mistakes about Palin's record and positions are flying all over the internet.
I see you are doing your part to perpetuate these mistakes.
Even Hillary voted for the " Infant Born alive act" and NARAL was neutral. Obama is a more radical pro-abort than NARAL. That is seriously scary. Finally we have Palin who is not a radical feminist but a true feminist and a member of Feminist for life.
Go Palin Go Palin Go Sarah Palin
I am so glad to have a candidate who actually understands the American
Family. Sarah Palin, represents real American families. She protects
her family by protecting her school, city, and country. She has
embraced the fact that women in general are natural nurturers and uses
those skills so serve others. I love that she has a servant's heart.
That is what public servants should have. I love that she is pro-life
and views her life giving ability as an asset and not something to be
overcome like radical feminists. Thank you God for good candidates
like Sarah Palin who run for office so that the people who put their
family first are finally represented. ALL OTHER CANDIDATES "PALE IN"
COMPARISON!
Oh Good Lord Cheryl, that Palin woman does not understand MY American family, so please don't think you're speaking for me or millions of other women.
Palin is the kind of person that scares the hell out of me. The biggest reason she's in office right now is that the incumbent candidate in Alaska was so unpopular. She then proceeded to give every Alaskan $1,200 by using the oil wealth of the state. She flouts being a 'tax cutter' when the fact is that Alaska has no income tax or sales tax.
She doesn't want the government to be involved with her right to own a gun, but she wants the government involved in a woman's right to her own womb. Hypocrisy at the wingnut finest. Let's use the government to suit our own needs when we need them!
And if the rumors are true about her saying "Sambo beat the bitch" when she heard about Obama winning the primary over Hilary, then that just takes the cake. Simmer down Ward...I know at this point it's just rumor, but the thing is that it wouldn't surprise me if she really did say that, that's the sad thing. I can see that she is a macho woman who digs being 'one of the guys' and I can totally see her saying something like that.
And then you have McCain making that horrible derisive remark about Chelsea Clinton as well as referring to his own wife as a C**T, you kind of wonder what they say that HASN'T been reported.
"Palin opposes just about every issue that women support by a majority or plurality", so if McCain thinks that he can court women's votes by having this woman be his running mate, he's got another thing coming. Like Gloria Steinem said, the only thing that Sarah Palin has in common with Hilary Clinton is a chromosome. I don't think that women who voted for Hilary Clinton are going to just jump ship and vote for McCain because Palin is on the ticket.
Sarah Palin is frightening. She is Nixon in a skirt.
I cannot WAIT to see the upcoming debates.
I started off thinking Obama was the man and intended to vote for him.
McCain has shown incredible wisdom and intelligence in the way he has handled his campaign and has made all the right moves. I have changed my vote to McCain. Mostly it's because the Democrats have continued their war of empty words and false promises. I refuse to support any political party that violates honor, integrity and is inconsiderate of the human value in all people. I also find that the Democrats currently are displaying the worst examples of the "double-standard" I have ever seen. And. it seems to be getting worse.
If you look at the analyze the facts, then one begins to realize that the party who bases its campaign on Hope and Change hasn't changed, and it's political tactics have only grown more covert without really changing at all.
Everything about this election will bring change. You can't go to bed and get up the next day without something changing. It's a fact of life. The problem is that not all change is good. Without honor, integrity, wisdom, guidance and hard work, change will only turn up negative results. It takes much more than mere rhetoric.