vincent - 07/14/08 22:41
We are going to look back at July '08 as the start of the real depression.

paul - 07/14/08 19:11
He just wants you to think he has a big stick, lol.

mrmike - 07/02/08 08:45
Thought something smelled fishy when I was at fowlers last night

tinypliny - 06/26/08 23:27
Tangential comment (but then which comment of mine was diametrical anyway?):
I think these cameras won't work in Delhi but for a totally different reason.
They would get stolen and hacked overnight. Hahaha :)

I wonder what the perspective of a person involved in real crime might be...
We are all just people who think we are arriving at the right conclusions via statistics.

drew - 06/24/08 14:18
He took control of how he was defined. Early on, he was the "wouldn't it be nice but too bad he's unelectable." He was not quite in the kucinich category, but still considered a rising star that needed time. I distinctly remember a column in the Times (from before he declared) begging him to wait, because he couldn't win now and a false start would be damaging.

Even when he was ahead in the polls, plenty of pundits were suggesting that he should be VP, which, for a front-runner, is just stupid.

His organization, his campaign, and ultimately, his votes led to him being taken more seriously. Before that, he was a liberal black guy that could make a great speech. A lot of people liked him, but didn't think he could be president.

joshua - 06/24/08 14:08
(e:drew) - don't know what to say when you suggest that Obama and his supporters have changed the media. In a way I do agree, although for reasons I'm sure you wouldn't agree with. What are we suggesting - fair weather fandom in politics? I think the media has been very consistent in who they have generally trumpeted. Prior to Iowa it was pretty clear that Obama and Hillary were by far the two biggest candidates and were being treated as such - have to disagree with you. Accuracy in media reported on this somewhat over a year ago - :::link:::

I have heard suggestions that Obama has been treated unfairly in comparison to Hillary, which I find impossibly ludicrous.

drew - 06/23/08 20:43
I don't have a valid sample size, but the majority the McCain voters I talk to don't want to/need to know anything about his record. They are pleased that he is not Obama, pro-life, and pro-war (which is, of course, a contradiction in an of itself).

I guess that shows the company I keep.

drew - 06/23/08 20:39
Obama was not taken seriously by the media until after Iowa.

Don't you remember that Hillary was "inevitable?"

The media coverage changed because Obama (and his supporters) changed it.

joshua - 06/23/08 20:11
(e:jim) - c'mon. I'm not nearly that conspiratorial. Have you guys really come up with a nickname for that? I like it anyway.

(e:drew) - I actually would like to see that proven re: what McCain supporters would say, in a similar format, or "man on the street" style.

McCain is flip flopping for the conservatives... he's trying to reassure them and get their full, if not somewhat reluctant support. He's a Teddy Roosevelt sort of Republican, similar to what I used to be prior to my leaving the party. What he isn't, is a GWB conservative. That is not, by the way, an indicator of support - I'm still considering writing myself in or voting for Lyndon LaRouche - I hear he's out of jail!

Actually the media has been incredibly interesting to me lately, because there has been a LOT of open introspection lately regarding whether or not their coverage of Hillary Clinton was fair. Just last week on NPR they openly questioned some of Obama's claims about McCain as well. That is not, to say, that they are being balanced in their coverage... they never have been. What they (some of them, anyway) certainly are interested in and self-conscious about lately, it seems, is fairness. We'll see how things go.

The Wright story could not be ignored - for them to do so would have been silly regardless of how they felt about it. This is a business, after all. So yes, they did cover it, but how MSNBC shaped their coverage was vastly different than FNC. The New Yorker virtually deified Michelle Obama while referring to Cindy McCain literally as a "Stepford Wife" - in the same article. Obama's speeches being referred to on every alphabet network as "worthy of RFK, Abraham Lincolnc, etc." We all know there will be no invitation for Cindy McCain on The View. We all know how the NYT, LAT, Boston Globe, etc. editorials read. Those of us who don't know any better still watch the network news. To suggest that Obama has had a tough time in the media... I'm sorry (e:drew) but I won't be buying it.

Governors in my view have always been the best pool of Presidential candidates because they have already done much of what the POTUS will do in terms of governing a large bureaucracy... simply on a much smaller scale and without foreign affairs concerns. I don't think it is a coincidence that congressmen rarely make it to the top desk. This year is rare and notable in that regard. In my opinion anyway, many Senators already think they should be President (Joe Biden, Barack Obama, John McCain, Chris Dodd, Hillary Clinton STAND UP!), and most of them are arrogant blowhards to begin with. House members mostly have local concerns to worry about when legislation isn't being considered. Plus, the House is occupied by two of the weirdest men ever to hold office in world politics, let alone run for President - Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul. I dunno - overall I like governors much better.

jim - 06/23/08 18:20
Nutpicking, not a representative or statistically valid sample would be my 2 cents.

drew - 06/23/08 17:43
Sadly though, you are right. The majority of the voters don't know who they are voting for (or against).

A lot of people just vote because of party affiliation. Others are voting because of race (both ways). Many people are sucked in by "celebrity," many others are scared by Obama's name.

Anyway, if they assembled the same panel with McCain supporters, the response would be similar. Or, at the very least, it would be humorous, because--as I mentioned earlier--McCain is against the McCain-Fiengold campain finance law and the McCain-Kennedy immigration reform.

This link will show you his "accomplishments" of his most recent term :http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=300071&tab=bills

This link will show you that McCain has only voted in the Senate once since March 15: :::link:::

drew - 06/23/08 17:13
Our past two presidents were sorely lacking in experience when they were elected. Sure, they had been governors, but neither state was particularly just or prosperous while they were in office.

As for Cindy McCain, I am sure that if she wants to be on the view, she can get on the view. I think the campaign doesn't want her out there.

The same media that is "polishing" Obama played Wright over and over and asked (again and again) "can America handle a black president?" It hasn't been a cakewalk.

gotta go. More later.

joshua - 06/23/08 15:34
Hmm - interesting perspective.

As for registering huge numbers of new voters, indeed that is a great accomplishment, although I'd venture to say 9/10 of them sound like these people as they are utterly and completely new to politics. Nevertheless, people have to start somewhere so in the end this is, in fact, one certified and worthwhile accomplishment Obama can lay claim to. Where were you in that crowd (e:drew)? You could have flustered Hannity! =P

It really is, however, an elegant illustration of how hollow the foundation is that Obama's candidacy has been built upon. The man's reputation has been built on hype and celebrity aura rather than achievements. I'm sorry, but when talking about voting for the POTUS that is an incredible problem. Voters don't know who he is - even those who claim to support him. I thought it was telling that Chris Matthews was as dogged as he was. After all, he is the one who Media Matters tried to crucify due to perceived anti-Hillary bias.

They don't know what they are voting for, and I'm sorry, but millions of these sort are looking at Barack Obama in a favorable light because of his air of celebrity. It has little to do with what is important (the issues). The truth is that if you look at what he has advocated for in his speeches (carbon taxes, windfall profit taxes, increased taxes on income LOL except for the middle class!, virtually immediate withdraw from Iraq regardless of what his commanders tell him, universal health care, expansion of entitlement programs, etc.) - all of it is classic liberalism, the economics in particular of which will have disastrous consequences for the American economy if actually implemented. Americans don't trust him on security, and for good reason - we'd be handing a glorified community organizer the title of Commander-in-Chief, and a lot of Americans are concerned about that one.

Even the Chinese government last week through out a pre-emptive shot at Obama - clearly they don't respect him and perceive him as a weak, if not terminally inexperienced leader. Particularly interesting to me is the media's complicit willingness to scrub the Obama's image... think Cindy McCain will be on The View anytime soon?

All of this is lost on the people in that video. I'd prefer that people actually know what they are talking about - admiring his vision isn't enough when it comes to the POTUS, and overlooking a lack of experience in favor of some nebulous vibe the candidate is giving off is bewildering to me. This is the POTUS we are talking about, for chrissakes! I suspect that when the debates begin there will be millions of liberal Democrats who will get a cold splash of water to the face because they've never been exposed to, or have flat out ignored the negative aspects of their own candidates. Hillary included there as well. It won't be introspection going on, either... these people will miss the point and wonder why so many people disagree with them.

drew - 06/23/08 11:51
Few could do the same for McCain. As for McCain's accomplishments, such as his immigration bill and his campaign finance reform bill, he has stated that he would not vote for either one of them today.
What other accomplishments does McCain have? Bringing Iraq almost back to the place where it was before he authorized war?

I think registering millions of new voters is a huge accomplishment, as is raising a ton of cash from individuals (as opposed to special interests).

But I don't care as much about accomplishments as I do about vision. If McCain were good at getting things done, that would make him an even LESS desirable candidate, because most of what he wants to accomplish is bad for the country. I would prefer an ineffective person working for good to an effective person that makes things worse any day (and I think that Obama will show himself to be effective anyway!)

tinypliny - 06/20/08 19:20
Chippewa Hoochie. ehehe.

jenks - 06/20/08 11:13
and chico- no no no. buffalo won't pony up for more cops until we "pay them like our life depends on it."
god I hate those stickers.
Freaking cops. I would pay perhaps doctors/nurses/ambulance drivers/mercyflight pilots/etc like my life depends on it- but not cops.

Ever since I learned that they have this union-assured health insurance "rider" that covers cosmetic surgery (i.e. free hair transplants and breast implants for all cops and teachers) I have been fed up with them. I guess in an effort to fix budget woes the county suggested maybe NOT subsidizing this unnecessary 'health care' but the union got all involved and threatened to strike blah blah blah. Yeah, way to "help people", state employees.

Ok while I'm ranting-
I had a patient the other day who is TWENTY.
And she has had: a nose job. Breast implants. And an abortion.
(likely in that order.)
And before I saw her, I had formed this image in my mind...
fake-tanned, straightened hair, back tattoo, slutty little top... I had this total little chippewa hoochie in my mind.
And lo and behold when I got there to see her I was 100 PERCENT correct.

ok, rant off. Sorry for getting so off topic.

jenks - 06/20/08 11:06
bahahaha, love the YMCA thing.

I had a little road rage episode yesterday.... I was driving down richmond at like 6am. No cars on the road. Some jackass pulls up on my right at a red light. As if he were turning right. But instead guns it when the light turns green, to get in front of me. Oh no.... now it's on. So I totally fly past him and pass him illegally to get back in front.
But then comes a red light.
And not only does he not stop- he passes me, on the right, runs the light, flicks me off, honks his horn, etc etc.

I followed him down richmond onto allen and he turned right on elmwood. There was a cop parked outside Towne, I was SO tempted to go tattle on the guy. Somehow he really pissed me off. i don't like being passed, I don't like being passed on the RIGHT, and I especially don't like when that passing involves running a red light. Grr.

joshua - 06/20/08 09:38
(e:felly) - I have to admit to something. Yesterday on the way home from work a guy in a new Mercedes did that very thing to me on Elmwood, so in retaliation I cut him off at the next light. It was the first time I've ever done it, and (e:jason) much prefers it to my typical methods of expressing my road rage. The guy deserved it!

My hypothesis is that most people who pull up on the right side aren't Buffalo residents and don't really know the deal.

fellyconnelly - 06/20/08 07:54
this pisses me off. Period.

Another thing that upsets me is people who pull up to the right side of you at a light only to peal out in front of you when the light goes green.

chico - 06/19/08 21:17
Great rant. I share your disgust. If the city wants to enforce laws more frequently, how about ponying up for a few more beat cops? Cameras and automatic tickets for traffic violations -- *shudder*

metalpeter - 06/19/08 18:07
I do think that the camera Idea is a good Idea. The problem is that it is coming from the lets get money and ticket people way of thinking instead of lets save lives and one way to do it is by putting cameras in. If that was the case what they would do is put traffic cameras on lights that were focused on stop signs. I can't tell you how many times drives come up to a stop sign and don't stop or roll through it. I have been going to cross a street and see a car going and known that with how fast they are going that they won't stop for me or if they try to I could get hit and it isn't supposed to be that way so if safety is what they want watch corners with out lights. But what happens when something else happens at a light say jay walking, drive by, someone smoking weed, or walking with an open container could those traffic cameras be used to try and catch that person? What would happen then?

janelle - 06/19/08 15:53
I fully supported lights on cameras in Philadelphia. Running red lights was absolutely an epidemic in that city. People would honk their horns at ya, if you didn't run the red! And people got hurt and it messed up pedestrian traffic.

But in Buffalo...I don't see the need. I rarely ever see people running red lights. So I'd have to agree that it's a money grab, but I'm not sure it's going to pay off the cost of the equipment.

To add to the fun, here's this article from Buffalo News about the behind the scenes manipulation of a politician to benefit his friend who manufactures the cameras: :::link:::