really…i mean..really…

commenting on it like its brand new kinda makes you look stupid

And 98% of the media does not love him- how can it when over 50% is owned by Mr. Republican Natl Committee Rupurt Murdoch???? That makes not logical sense…And Murdoch is not known for his hands off approach to his outlets…

With that said- occasionally the media has been too easy on Obama…as they have been on McCain, and Palin, and too hard on him at others, and on the Clintons, Bush Sr, etc (I think they are too soft on Bush Jr- they never said BOO about him until 2 years ago). The media is biased- use your critical thinking skills to figure out the bigger picture and decide what you like—and read/listen to non-American sources occasionally- it is really quite enlightening

The diplomatic meetings are much more complex then this and most of the MSM media want them to be, but you are correct- that was said. THink this arguemnt is silly- but you are correct.

Drilling is also complicated- and with changing times and informaiton, it is only appropriate for adult rational thinkers to adjust opinions. I still think it is silly- but many Americans like to think it will help them now (and probably will since a large portion of the price of oil is psychology not reality)—but yes, he said both things.

Troop funding- both have voted both ways- in the end both voted for the funding of the troops- and in the earlier bills, the reasons they might have voted differently is, again complicated- our political system is not black and white- it would be nice if all of the voters would remember that instead of blindly rooting for their team… but sure, again, you are right,

Coal- definitely- Biden is just being silly when he tries to claim this was out of context…he definitely opened mouth and inserted foot

Alternative energy- yes, he only actually voted specifically against it 11 times, the other times, he just did not vote for it.

You cannot one minute use FactCheck.org to support you and ignore it when it does not- all analysis have McCain’s health care plan caosting MANY amounts of money- this is wrong

You may be correct about the windfall taxes- but Pailn herself was fine with this characterization of her actions- at least she did not say anything to correct it

Surge is a joke- it was a political ply all around- separate the semantics (we have had more troops in Iraq at different times than the “surge” had, and the working with the tribal leaders was in place for months before the “surge”- and I fault the dems for calling it that- I hate the war, but the CIC has every right to deploy how ever many troops he and his staff deem needed to a war etc- that whole things was stupid.

Regulation- he may have called for it, but he did not VOTE for it….

IRAQ- yep- Iraq you may be right- I recall Biden being ok with much of that- but he also questioned much of it…complex issue- where niether can be said to be “dead wrong”, as nothing is black and white- so I think that you can be thought of as correct on this, in a simple world.

Tax Increases- I think you may be correct- however I believe that the increas on that small portion would be less than under McCain if I recall the fact check pages…so again, not as simple as we would like

Bailout- I cannot comment- too fast, too stupid, not working (it might, but not today)…socialism for big finance is ok, but not for children’s health care- I am at a loss to explain the bx of the entire spectrum of Rep-Dem…so no comment- that whole thing makes me sad.

Reagan tax rates…hmmm I think that they may be right- but what rate are they speaking of and what rate are you- 1980 or 1988???? again, not so simple…

But here is my perspective on this issue, having seen both
sides. It seems that in traditionally female professions, that have also traditionally had male administration, that the bitchy/catty thing seems to happen- i.e in primary and secondary education, nursing, etc. I say this because I have MANY female relatives that have worked in these environments- and this seems to be the only thing they have in common (obviously not a full socilogical analysis here- just one person’s observations).

ON the other side however, even within these environments, I think that the culture is influenced greatly by the leadership- weather male or female, if the leadership does not allow or condone this kind of behavior, it d
does not occur. But I think that many male leaders are oblivious, or actively lead by dissent (either staff are male or female). In contrast, in many non-traditional environments, I have found that my personal emplyment experience has been amazingly mature and appropriate, when the leader was a woman- where as my associates with male leadership seem to have more random experiences. I always thought of this as a direct result of affirmative action- not that AA is bad, but that many of the minorities it is supposed to help put on equal ground are undermined by the culture around them that makes them feel that they are ONLY there BC of AA- so if they are supportive of others, they will loose their position- only room for one girl crap. SO they eat their young, if you will- and discontent runs rampant. It is, IMO, a failure in leadership in almost every case, when women act like junior high school quenn bee-ness never ended- but is is also a choice of the women in that situation to perpetuate that behavior- you can choose not to play the ugly games. My mom had a very similar situation as a floor nurse after having been a home health administrator for 10 yrs- she simply ignored it (it was VERY hard on her), and kept her eye on other opportunities- and now she has a much better (not Utopian, but better) environment, with a female local leader-. Does this all sound like babble- I apologize, but I think it is complex- not regional, and not just about women who cannot grow up.

j/k

Did you notice that meter along the bottom of the screen that was based on Ohio voters? Did you notice how whenever Joe was talking he carried a slight lead amongst women vs the men? Did you also notice how whenever Palin would start speaking the men’s opinion would have a serious spike while the women’s opinion was hitting rock bottom?

FYI – none of my female friends, who work in a variety of places, have ever complained that their workplace is a hotbed of intrigue and backstabbing. They complain about their workplace, sure, but not about that. Seriously, I don’t know where you people live or who you work with, but I’m damn glad it’s not me or my workplace, or my friend’s workplaces, either.

I can understand that you, and many others, find her likeable, but THIS IS NOT A POPULARITY CONTEST. It’s a job interview, and like her all you want, she’s not qualified.

I don’t know what part of this country lolnation and froufrou live in, but I have been working for 30 years in two different industries, about 70% of my coworkers were female, many of them attractive and successful, and I have NEVER seen the kind of behavior you describe. Women who were disliked were disliked because of their behaviour or if they were incompetent, not for their looks or accomplishments.

You two must live someplace were the culture encourages that kind of nasty behaviour (Texas? the south? redneck nation?) but where people are decent, like the Pacific Northwest, women don’t behave that way. If (and that’s a big if, I suspect you just have axes to grind) women behave like that where you are, blame your culture, because it isn’t that way everywhere.

I vaguely remember people digging for dirt when Clinton ran in ‘92.