Ya know, it occurred to me last night that I’ll feel particularly sorry for McCain if he dies within the next four years, because alongside the standard eulogies will be scores of “YIKES, we dodged the bullet on that one!” articles, possibly even overshadowing some of the good that he’s done over the years. That would really suck, for McCain and his family, because that’ll be a part of his legacy forever.
Have you read all the posts in this thread?As noted read this thread.
There are also more notable ones:
What post # has a link to a pundit saying so?
#83 just above does. The earlier posts were people relating stories from friends or family that were self-proclaimed republicans holding their nose to vote for Obama specifically because they could not abide Palin being a heartbeat away from the presidency.
A very astute observation.
Palin was a terrible pick, no doubt, but look at the electoral map.
Barack Obama ran the best political campaign I have ever seen in my entire life, in either my country or his. It was an amazing things to behold.
Given McCain another VP choice, a typically boring white guy pick; can you really give THAT many states back to the Republicans? They’re still fighting an election machine like no other in American history.
If you read conservative pundits or take the local pulse-I’m in a very conservative area, both “fiscal” and "social"types- you’d have noticed life long Republicans bailing and being vocal about it not long after Palin’s nomination. Chris Buckley was a bit later, a fair bit of momentum by then.
That’s a noted Independent/Libertarian saying why he’s voting Obama, and if you read the whole thing, he tells why:
“But that was—sigh—then. John McCain has changed. He said, famously, apropos the Republican debacle post-1994, “We came to Washington to change it, and Washington changed us.” This campaign has changed John McCain. It has made him inauthentic. A once-first class temperament has become irascible and snarly; his positions change, and lack coherence; he makes unrealistic promises, such as balancing the federal budget “by the end of my first term.” Who, really, believes that? Then there was the self-dramatizing and feckless suspension of his campaign over the financial crisis. His ninth-inning attack ads are mean-spirited and pointless. And finally, not to belabor it, there was the Palin nomination.” Th Palin Nomination was just one thing amoungmany.
And then there’s the list of why he likes Obama.
No where does he say that Palin was the one defining thing that changed his vote and in any case- again, he’s a Libertarian/Independent.
No, it doesn’t, read the whole article.
And, what posts say that they were a “self-proclaimed republicans holding their nose to vote for Obama specifically because they could not abide Palin”
We have #6, #7, #11- Pro-Palin and many many more saying Palin didn’t really matter. We have two posts #31 & 36 which say “The only reason I voted for Obama last night was I didn’t want Palin to end up being president if McCain died” but the rest say it was either a plus or it didn;t matter.
I think if Barack Hussein Obama were named David Johnson he would have picked up a couple more percentage points.
I’m completely serious.
Watching and reading the accounts of Palin that are now coming out (a histrionic greedy diva who refused preparation, didn’t know what NAFTA was, thought Africa was a single country, etc.), and this is from REPUBLICAN SOURCES, it’s just incredible. I’m wondering if the MR F bracelet had McCain and his Vetters fooled, just a grand WTF? in Hollywood sign sized letters. The man is senile, stupid, pro-Obama, or just more arrogant than Bush to have chosen her (and I’ve never thought of him as stupid or as having any more hubris than most veteran politicians). I’m hoping he’ll explain himself without BS when the time arises (maybe on The Daily Show).
It sounds like McCain was kept in the dark about a lot of this stuff. Check out the Fox News video clip here at HuffPo.
Carl Cameron spilled even more beans on O’Reilly, which I think contains some of the most stunning information yet about Palin. It includes the following items:
[ul][li]Palin didn’t know basic facts about civics and government structure[/li][li]She did not know which countries were included in NAFTA[/li][li]She could not name all the countries in North America[/li][li]She thought Africa was a country instead of a continent[/li][li]She refused to prep for the Katie Couric interview, then blamed her staff when it went bad.[/li][li]She had Naomi Cambell level, object throwing temper tantrums about critical press in which she blamed and berated stafffers, even reducing them to tears.[/ul][/li]
We didn’t just dodge a bullet, we dodged an ICBM.
But I’m not angry at Palin – I just think she was a preposterous choice for VP. [1] (I do feel somewhat betrayed by McCain for appointing her though.)
Hillary was accused off bumping of Vincent Foster. In contrast, most of the critiques of Palin have been pretty factual, the speculations grounded on genuine incongruities. [2]
I call false equivalence.
[1] I’ll add that if she runs in 2016, she will no longer be a preposterous choice, though if reports of her current ignorance are true and unexaggerated she would continue to be a poor one.
[2] Eg, why did she refuse to release her medical records until the day before the campaign when she provided a 2 page letter from her physician? After all, she was suppose to be Alaska’s Ms. Transparency.
I suspect [2] was because there was something in her medical records — possibly an undisclosed abortion, or something equally inflammatory — that they didn’t want the public to see.
Eh?
I can sort of spot you Romney. I thought he was the Yankee version of W Bush–all hat & no cattle, a winning smile masking deep father issues, probably would be happy to be a tool of whomever found his strings to pull. But yeah, he could get Centrist Upbeats, or whatever Pew is calling them now.
And I have a soft spot for the Thompsons. He’s from a similar religious background to mine, & I found their Hollywoodness as opposed to Washingtonness cute. Maybe Fred could have won if he’d done more than dully recite Reaganite boilerplate.
But…
You really think Huckabee was a stronger candidate for the general? Here’s a thought: Run Huckabee/Bachmann in four years.
Wow. That’s the GOP’s near future, isn’t it?
I welcome my new [del]insect overlords[/del] one-party Washington.
You know, I agree. If he were Bernard Hollis O’Hara, he’d have won by 20 points. I just had to chuckle: David Johnson is my former home county’s GOP chair. 
That was exactly my feeling as I watched his speech. OMG, the real McCain is back, but just a little too late for himself. Oh, and FTR, I didn’t vote for him and I’m thrilled that I finally DID vote for the winner, but at least now I understand what so many people saw of the man, none of which was exhibited during his campaign.
As to what effect Palin had, well, I agree she was a horrible choice, but I also found it near impossible to find out what he actually wanted to do with the Presidency. I was particularly interested in the tax agendas of both candidates, and when I Googled “McCain Tax Strategy” (without quotes), I found about a bazillion hits of him explaining why Obama’s tax plan was horrible, but virtually nothing on what HE would specifically do, other than lower taxes and magically create jobs.
Sorry, didn’t mean to rant. And yes, I breathe way more often than I insert periods into my run on sentences 
This was my top reason for being skeptical of his candidacy, early on.
Outside of a few Geo geeks, and maybe a staffer at the State Dept, few could. And it’d still be debateable
How many countries are there? What’s a “country”? Where exactly does NA start and leave off? I go to the wiki page, and there’s several I have never heard of and a number whose status is debatable (they are territories and some have varying degrees of autonomy). They list something like 23- 41.
I have always considered Central America and the Carrib. to be outside what I consider NA, and by one def , wiki agrees with me "In English, North America is often used to refer to the United States and Canada exclusively.[21] Alternatively, usage may include Mexico[22] (as with North American Free Trade Agreement) and other entities.[23] "
And Greenland is historically more part of Europe.
Is the answer 23? 41? or 3? I’d answer 3= USA, Canada, & Mexico, but then throw in "depending if you include central America and the islands).