O.U.C.H. - Palin BOOED....At Hockey Game
Find a Conversation
O.U.C.H. - Palin BOOED....At Hockey Game
| Sat, 10-11-2008 - 11:40pm |
That's gotta hurt (video).
Especially since it occurs to me that this won't run in the "politics" or "national" section of the paper (though it may run there as well, after getting this kind of attention), but in the SPORTS section, where typically not-very-political folks hang out alongside their more-political brethren. The injection of this story into the sports world may be one of the few glimpses of politics that some segment of the electorate which doesn't bother reading those stories usually will get this season. And it wasn't pretty.
Especially when you consider some of the write ups. Here's Forbes, not exactly a buncha commies:
Ow. That's gonna sting. Even the AP, while not identifiable as a conservative or pro-business outlet in the way that Forbes is, said the following...which (unlike Forbes) will be read in dozens of papers around the country tomorrow:
Someone not long ago wrote up a post here about the "bloom being off the rose?"
I think they were right....just not about the right candidate.
Especially since it occurs to me that this won't run in the "politics" or "national" section of the paper (though it may run there as well, after getting this kind of attention), but in the SPORTS section, where typically not-very-political folks hang out alongside their more-political brethren. The injection of this story into the sports world may be one of the few glimpses of politics that some segment of the electorate which doesn't bother reading those stories usually will get this season. And it wasn't pretty.
Especially when you consider some of the write ups. Here's Forbes, not exactly a buncha commies:
Palin Gets Booed in Philly! This is sure to be the headline splashed across television and newspapers Sunday morning, the day after the Republican Vice Presidential candidate and hockey mom from Alaska drops the puck at the ceremonial face-off for the Philadelphia Flyers' home opener on Saturday night at the soon-to-need-a-name-change Wachovia Center. What will be missing from the news: the jeers were deserved.
Ow. That's gonna sting. Even the AP, while not identifiable as a conservative or pro-business outlet in the way that Forbes is, said the following...which (unlike Forbes) will be read in dozens of papers around the country tomorrow:
Palin was booed when she first stepped on the ice before the Flyers' home opener against the New York Rangers to drop the ceremonial first puck. Palin, the Alaska governor and self-described "hockey mom," is trying to turn Pennsylvania into a red state.
Someone not long ago wrote up a post here about the "bloom being off the rose?"
I think they were right....just not about the right candidate.

Pages
"I am sorry but you have your own Rush Limbaugh. His name is Keith Olbermann."
Um, no. That's just not accurate. That's the difference between Rush and the right-wing hate mongers and Keith. Keith cares about the facts. Rushco are so off that they have invented sites whose sole purpose is to correct them.
And as for hate, the nutty hateful comments coming from Rushco far outweight those coming from Keith.
By the way, you've got O'Reilly, Coulter, Rush, Savage, Hannity and all the other rabid right wing fop personalities. The only major media figure you can point to having any influence on the left is Olbermann. Does that sound like a fair fight to you. But then, since when were the Republicans and "Fair and Balanced" Fox/Murdoch about fair?
"The rest are just decent Republicans who don't agree with me politically (and there is nothing wrong with that)."
I agree, there are a lot of decent Republicans. Many of them happen to be voting for Obama. They know the best thing for their party at this point is to pack it in for a while, take stock, press the reset button, spit out the Rove types and start focusing on accountability, competence and the other things they say they are for but clearly are not presently.
Yeah Keith cares about his spin on the facts.
"I guess that pointing out what the lefties are saying just rubs some the wrong way. Interesting that the left will do whatever they can to blame others for their comments."
I guess you just don't get it. I'll try again. I never said any of the things you are accusing 'the left' of saying. I personally do not know of anyone who has said, or posted, the kings of things you are saying 'the left' as said and posted. I would not want to participate in that kind of negativity on either the candidates or their children. Your post implies that 'the left' as in every liberal is complicit in this behavior. It is just not so.
I was trying to point out that by posting this trash you have joined in the problem through promogulating the very thing you claim to be against. I am not blaming the original posters - clearly they should not have posted the trash they posted, but you are the one who is choosing to spread it by way of proving how bad 'the left' is. Interestingly you have now posted something this member of 'the left' had NOT previously seen, nor desired to see.
No one has ever accused you of saying such things.
Whoa, you said the site is bad. Now you seem to be saying the content the site posts is okay but you don't like some member quotes you found. Hmmmmmm. By that standard any site with a vigorous debate would fail. In fact, your posts on iVillage of pictures showing Obama is like Hitler would fail iVillage.
And I believe that some other posters on this board showed how the links you cited to were isolated examples and in fact in many cases some members disagreed and talked down the bad posts. Well this week we just had a McCain rally where the whole audience booed him for trying to talk down hateful smears against Obama.
So I would be interested to see a Swiftie type site on the left which encourages hate. I think the right's record is a lot worse on this. Just look at Bill Kristol in the link I posted. Even he says the right is mired in muck and needs to clean themselves up. Bill is saying it because he knows what happens to muck. Eventually it gets flushed down the proverbial toilet.
Just check out the election stats here:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/
And while you're at it, this from the same site is interesting. It's McCain's new ad which you can watch at the link above:
"This is a much darker ad. The viewer is caught in a matrix-like web of television screens. The colors are washed out. There a sinister (although barely audible) low-pitched hum in the background. The female narrator is humorless, scolding.
It is an ad, in short, designed to engage the viewer on an emotional rather than intellectual level, to play to the subconscious mind. And that carries through to the tagline -- "Who is Barack Obama?" -- a question that the ad addresses only obliquely. What, precisely, is that supposed to mean? Shouldn't the ad be telling us who Barack Obama is, rather than asking our imaginations to run wild?
I am no advertising critic, but the McCain campaign's ads are routinely among the most bizarre that I have ever seen, appearing to originate from a sort of parallel universe in which cartoonish Obama heads float disembodied before sepia-toned backgrounds, in which language is distilled to a technocratic shorthand, in which the line between imagination and reality is blurred. I find them exceptionally disturbing, and that is surely the reaction they are meant to evoke."
Pages