On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 01:05:10 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Sep 28, 4:18*am, wrote:
On Sat, 27 Sep 2008 11:22:41 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:



"daytripper" wrote in message
.. .
Anyway...according to the only *sampling* poll of those who actually
watched
the debate that I've found so far, Obama "won" the debate hands-down.

I found it fun to keep an eye on CNN's response meter of real-time emotional
response from a captive audience. Obama was actually getting better response
from Republicans, at times, than McCain. It was visible that when the
speaker switched from Obama to McCain, the meter plummetted, so I think
McCain's mannerisms put folks off. Sadly, Obama missed one opportunity to
end it all. McCain went on about Iran's Republican guard being a supporter
of terrorism. Iran doesn't HAVE a Republican Guard, the military wing is the
Revolutionary Guard,

Er, no. *There is the Army of the Islamic Republic and the Army of the
Guardians of the Revolution (which is commonly called "The Revolutionary
Guard" by much of the media in the US), which are, plainly, the two
divisions of "the Iranian army" when using "army" as a description of a
country's land forces, and which have some overlap. *And FWIW, McCain
probably got "Republican guard" (which is an arguably correct military
Americanization/Anglicization of a transliteration, or, a simple
oft-made mistake) from reading military reports - Petraeus and others
have used the phrase "Iranian Republican Guard Corps." *Long story
short, given the transliterations and Americanizations (versus
Anglicazations) of the Persian/Farsi, this wasn't an "AHA!" moment.

and had Obama politely pointed that out, it would have
made McCain look dim on his strong suit.

Not if McCain could have quoted Petraeus (or others) verbatim...and if
he could have explained it, Obama would have looked not only like a
nit-picker, but one who got his spike stuffed back on his ass...

Instead, Obama responded, repeating McCain's error.
So, silly season continues.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Tom

HTH,
R



- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

hey, wanna know what i think? (chorus of resounding yawns)..... if
the dems are successful in getting the highest possible number of
black voters into the voting booths at the designated hour, they will
likely win. if not, forget it.

Which black voters - the talked-down-to or, you know, like, the normal
ones...? IMO, while Obama will certainly get some votes from blacks
because he's "black," there are a fair number of blacks out there who
vote like white folks, you know, like, with a candidate's race being
down on the list of reasons (and I think that number is higher than many
people, including Obama's staff, realize).

OTOH, there are also a fair number of folks, black, white and otherwise,
who will vote for or against based firstly on skin color. The problem
for Obama is that blacks, even allowing the racist assumption that they
will vote purely Obama, aren't distributed in such fashion to make
Obama's racist strategy a sure thing. More importantly, the places
where an increased turnout by blacks voting skin color could make a real
difference are the very places that contain whites who will turn out in
increased numbers to vote against skin color. And no, I don't mean
Mississippi and Alabama, I mean New York, New Jersey, Florida, etc. The
real pity in it all is that it even matters, and the shame for Dems is
that many will say the end justifies the means - if it gets our guy in,
who cares how or why. The US is, or rather, was, slowly but surely
moving toward a society where such things really didn't matter much, and
now, because of some uppity high yaller pol desperate to get elected via
any means, things will backslide a bit...

TC,
R

yfitons
wayno