To gauge the average intelligence of Americans in the 21st century, one has only to look at the president they elected/allowed to ascend to the white house.

Twice.

Jesus was stupid. He should have remained a friggin carpenter. Instead he unleashed his followers on the world and weve been in a constant state of warfare for 2000 years.

BTW you being a Republican makes a helluva difference ... its easier to identify and analyze the context of your remarks. No right-thinking feminist (at least all my best friends) would touch Palin with a barge-pole. The only thing Palin shares with feminists is a vagina and nothing more.

Leea -- "I guess I'd have to choose the guy coming from the party that the entire world has agreed couldn't get any worse,"

Damn ... say it aint so ! I didnt realize you were a Republican masquerading as a 'feminist' ! I understand you are confused by the Palin pick. How do you defend an 'anti-feminist' woman ??

The stupid American public will be swayed by a somewhat attractive female, regardless of the regressive drivel that comes out of her mouth. We will congratulate ourselves on our broad-mindedness even though the woman supports only anti-woman positions. We will vote for the Republican ticket because they say they represent "change" regardless of the fact that they are the party that brought us an unjustifiable war in Iraq, and an economy in crisis and were in charge when the worst terrorist attack in history occurred on their watch. We can't seem to recognize an unqualified nominee, man or woman, when the media is telling us that proximity to Russia is definitely foreign policy experience. We can't recognize an unqualified nominee, man or woman, when the "executive" experience is running entities of less than 9,000 population and the possibly least populous state in the union for terms totaling less than 2 years on the latter and a one (?) in the former. We can't recognize an unqualified nominee, man or woman, when she doesn't know what the VP does on a day to day basis. We can't recognize an extremist, man or woman, who has been a member of a secessionist party when we are told what a loyal "put America first" person she is. If we return the Republicans to the White House -- and put a completely unqualified, extremist, religious fanatic one heartbeat from the presidency, well, I suppose we'll all pat ourselves on the back. We'll have earned the contempt of the rest of the world, and deservedly so.

"I have no problem with that either....but it sure seems most of you here do"

Well maybe you are in the wrong place ? Buzz off and kiss FOX ass .. thats your calling isnt it ? You and your fellow rednecks are clearly ecstatic over the palin milf-fest. Here is an 'intelligent' question for you -- how many rednecks does it take to screw on a light bulb ??

RichM -- "ordinary people in America (or anywhere else) have a vigorous capacity for perceiving their own interests"

I applaud your sunny optimism but how then would you explain the fact that 90% of Americans vote for either of two parties who have consistently governed against the interest of ordinary Americans. Is it because they cannot perceive this glaring anomaly ? Most Americans are against the Iraq war because they see the futility of their own soldiers getting killed ... not the abject misery and displacement and murder of millions of Iraqis.

If their 'own interests' were paramount they would have willingly elected Nader years ago. I do blame Corporate Media for not upholding the social contract of responsible journalism and educating and presenting to the public issues that matter and affect their lives. Corporate Media has clearly failed to do so and 'our vigorous capacity for perceiving our own interests' hasnt materialised.

arduh,

If thats you saying you're mad I stole your thunder, I don't blame you, and you wouldn't ever be allowed close enough in my life to 'rescue me' so don't sweat over it.

You don't strike me as an individual who could save yourself by saving someone else if the entire world depended on it, and I doubt you have friends lining up to hang out with you. Unless you've found some undetected Nazi cells that you cower down in a cave with? Oh, wait, you virtually did find a group like that to hang out with, and I'm getting to know all your call names.

Heh. :) If Sarah is a bull dog with lipstick, I'm a St. Bernard with diapers, and it looks like yours need to be changed cause your stinky. Would you like me to change you?

wolfe -- "I will be the first to admit that I am not trained in Science..."

Which pretty much explains your ignorance with regard to creationism and all that B.S. And yeah ... this non-sense should not be thought in schools. Its not about tolerance and diversity ... if you were tolerant and diverse you would also believe in teaching islamic sharia law alongside this christian non-sense. Its about science and scientific evidence. WTF is intelligent design ?!!

As for RichM ... sorry. I dont agree with this 'we are the victims' mentality. Its hard to accept it but seeing the reaction to the wars in the last 8 years and the general reaction to Bush-Dick transgressions convinces me that the American public is either indifferent or conservative enough to absorb it.

It's good to have 's No Wolf around as an example of a real superficial, gullible, oblivious, stupid, uneducated or education-denying typical 'murican voter. This is what we are up against - millions of his kind with a blind faith in the Republican status quo after eight years of abject failure. He's the face of modern America - a flag-waving fool who cannot think for himself but votes for the party of power in hopes that they might throw him some crumbs, even while their every policy is designed to kill him.

Don't worry...I'll be here the morning after the election serving Black Coffee, Tylonol and crying towels and you can tell me what collective Dumbasses we American People are

Then we'll all have a group hug and get ready for 2012

(ever notice you Guys are a LOT like Cubs fans?)

Robert Parry recently wrote an article describing the October Surprises that Repugs have engineered and deployed to win elections. In 1968, the CIA, closely aligned with the Republican party, met with South Vietnamese leaders to sabotage peace negotiations. They claimed that they would get a better deal under a Republican administration. Lyndon Johnson learned of the plot but kept it covered up "for the good of the country." Likewise the Republican-CIA plot to subvert the Iran hostage negotiations in order to undermine Carter's reelection in 1980. Again, the Democrats kept this quiet "for the good of the country." It did not come out until the Iran Contra hearings years late, and even then the Repblicans were never held accountable for these acts of treason.

Republicans are successful because they will stop at nothing to gain and hold power. Their modus vivendi has always been ruthlessness, slander and outright lies, pandering to the worst in the American collective psyche: fear, xenophobia, racism, sexism, militarism, their perverted view of patriotism, etc. They are concerned only with power in order to protect their own narrow self-interests. This is the worst type of opponent because you can only defeat them by doing the same. For all their similarities to the Republican party, the Dems have never matched this level of ruthlessness.

Good luck. I don't trust either the RP nor the DP, but realise that it's either of these two main parties in the U.S. that's going to win the presidential election. I trust [neither] and realise it's one or the other that's going to get the presidency. While I might pretend to myself that Obama or that team is better, they leave me extremely little for such hope; I doubt they'll be [significantly] better. They may appear, to many people, to be better, like Pres. Clinton pretended, but he was obviously NO better! Obama's not Bill Clinton, no shit, but there's a lot more to all of this than only the candidates. Who's candidates, btw?

Not mine. I'd have never chosen either.

Haven't you people heard of PUSH-POLLING? It's one way to RIG a poll and it has been going on for years !

kivals -- "Do you think that a corporate media that continues to bash Obama even as he moves so far right would not drop a ton of bricks on Nader or McKinney if they were perceived to have any chance whatsoever?"

I completely agree with you on this. The problem is Corporate Media and we need to unleash our collective hatred to fight them. Instead we have a steady pissing stream of 'i hate obama' whines and holier-than-thou progressives hissing 'i told you so'. Obama, McCain, Biden, Palin, Hillary and the whole slew of 'politicians' are bit players used to maneuver us into thinking we have a choice.

Also what we NEVER acknowledge is that most Americans are conservative, which is why Palin, despite such glaring 'issues' is accepted wholeheartedly into the fold.

I dont buy into the oft repeated progressive mantra of the Democrats losing ground because Obama is moving to the Right. Americans by and large are conservative and are not particularly bright.

Snowwolf-- "she would allow intelligent design (world of difference than creationism)"

The difference between Creationism and 'Intelligent' Design is similar to the difference between my left testicle and right testicle. God doesnt fucking exist. Get over it.

This 'every four years' repeated handicap of Democrats tells us what ... more, though? It says that they're not willing to [think] in respectably critical terms, realistically, and [honestly]; that they obstinately refuse to consider alternative candidates who present better platforms, more hope in terms of their past records as activists (f.e., Ralph Nader) and members of U.S.A.'s top political ranks (f.e., Cynthia McKinney), as well as having better current (and past) campaign platforms. The "Democrats", who aren't truly friendly to democracy, except in their own biased and awfully narrow, and tragic, terms, always use the excuse that these third-party candidates have no hope of winning elections, but it's true only because of biased voter choices, biased against real and full democracy. It's not the fault of these ostracized candidates, but of the supporters of either of the two big U.S. parties; and we get too much the same in Canada and elsewhere.

Those two candidates probably do both have some weaknesses, in some respects anyway; but they present better campaign platforms and have better track records in society and govt spheres nonetheless. Democrats [are] coloured, racist (in a sense), always having to stick with their chosen, indoctrinated, and so on colour of political party, blue, red, green, purple, purple with pink [poker]-dots, and so on; red (Liberal) for my Cdn grandfather, blue (Conservative) for his brother-in-law, f.e., and my granfather came to realise that this had been a mistake on his part, but not my grand-uncle.

We see this from so-called Democrats, so-called democracy supporters, as if they're the only people who care about democracy, a true kind, which Dems usually do really oppose, while pretending otherwise; always applying dishonest biases, instead. We see this when they pretend that third-party candidates aren't even worth considering, that only their chosen idol of worship is worthy; a continuously repeated themmatic with so-called Dems.

DP has lost credibility due to what? DP! Same thing with RP. Same thing with [anyone]; except when falsely accused, but which I'm not doing with respect to either the DP or RP. They're both and extremely guilty of extreme criminality, hijacking of the U.S. govt, and so on! BOTH ARE!

But, heh, you can all relax; no one has to worry about Nader or McKinney, regardless of their platforms being much better than the RP and DP alternatives. After all, U.S. voters make sure that third-party candidates have no real chance of winning anyway; Dems do, and also do RP supporters. You can all rest easily, RP and DP supporters, for it's only one of your two hellbent teams that have a real chance of winning with such a SICK or uneducated or otherwise diminished (mentally and/or intellectually, educationally anyway) electorate.

Nader's not perfect and not God, while neither is McKinney; and none of their supporters have claimed or pretended otherwise, although some may even more than seem to be pretending otherwise. NONE of us can truly say that any political candidate is perfect, for we aren't even capable of such evaluation on a mass or general scale, for anyone, in general. I'm only saying that these two candidates have better platforms and that they must not be ignored; especially not in a country that claims to be a democracy. It's not their faults if they don't have a chance of winning; their words should remain accepted and carefully considered. If either or both of them can at least get our attention with respect to issues that do need to be resolved, then this can only be overall beneficial; no negative, not at all destructive. It should help to [inspire] for better, as fully good as people can vote for other parties for, but while remembering that the additional issues need to be ... pushed, say.

The only problem with the DP, as well as RP, is their refusal to be legal, according to and answerable to law, ethical, sane, etc.; therefore, McKinney and Nader present good platforms.

Too many people, in the West anyway, prefer to see everything in purely "black and white", forgetting that there are plenty of grey areas.

But until RP and DP show [real] improvement, I had another election year to justify abstaining from. I trust NEITHER party, and while I might very much trust Nader and McKinney, for first terms anyway, I don't see how they could really change the U.S. govt, for both Congress and the Senate would remain mostly RP and DP, as well as the DoJ, CIA, and so on, I think.

They could make either such President seem totally incapable, when actually very capable, but against "the (real) powers"; and the latter doesn't work out well, never, or rarely anyway. Whether either of them became President, I'd hope, sure; but would be expecting some sort of counter-event or -subsequent of non-good nature. What the event would be? I don't know, can imagine two or three possibilities, but there may be more. One way or another, I don't think a third-party Presidency in the USA can really work, for the USA does NOT have a real democracy anyway. It's an association of oligarchies, with some, if not many, "overlapping" or else dual (hedging their bets both ways) members.

Good luck with Obama; I might trust him more than McCain, but that's saying or comparing to ... [nothing] anyway.

As a great man once said, you will never go broke underestimating the intellect of the American people.

The masses falling for those born rich and priviliged, calling those born poor and underpriviliged "elitist", is typical Rovian doublespeak.

The GOP claim the Democrats will raise your taxes, while the neocon's illegal foreign warmongering, domestic incompetence, reckless borrowing, and the shamless stuffing of their friends bank accounts, guarrantee that your CHILDREN'S and GRANDCHILDREN'S taxes will HAVE to be raised.

Those who put the interest of a brutal foreign occupier in the middle east first, over the interests of their own country, call the democrats "unpatriotic"

Those who hypocritically selected an unknown, unexperience, neandrethal woman as running mate simply because she IS a woman, in order to divide the opponents supporters who truly ARE feminists, and refuse to allow her to speak to the public, is pathetically cynical..I dont care how good Bush's speechwriters are, or how well she reads a teleprompter.

The encumbant party in power, back by the entire Bush machine, posing as the agents of reform and change, is truly bizzare and ridiculous. Only in America.

The one thing the democrate have going for them in this kind of fight is that they dont need to make up spurious claims to fling at theor opponents, as the truth, spoken loudly and clearly, is far more damaging than anything the GOP can make up.

Dems, grow a pair.

"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats

All you have to know about this woman is that she used her executive powers to unethically and probably illegally try to remove her brother in law from his job.

On that basis alone, and anyone who wanted to could find this out BEFORE she spoke at the RNC, Sarah Palin is disqualified for any federal office.

Barack Obama was for single payer before he came out against it.

Maybe democracy is not for you.

If the Obama campaign won't go negative on Palin, we must encourage the MSM to do so

you've GOT to be kidding me...where have you been all week?

If the Obama campaign won't go negative on Palin, we must encourage the MSM to do so. They are showing all signs of backing off since the McCain campaign whined about the "unfair treatment."

Here’s a copy of the nasty note I sent to CNN and MSNBC, plus the Washington Post, to try to motivate them to do their job for once. Here’s the links to contact CNN and MSNBC, if you want to plagiarize my note and send them an equally angry message. I encourage everyone at CD to not only complain to these media outlets about their failure to expose Palin for what she is , but their local newspapers as well. These media outlets are hearing from the right - if we on the left are not willing to try to have our voices heard then we deserve another eight years of GOP rule.

If you don't like my note - then come up with your own - but quit your complaining here at CD and start letting the media outlets have it. Do something!

http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form1.html?35

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10285339/

"CNN has performed its duty to the public in the past by providing reports on John McCain's involvement in the Keating Five affair, as well as details on Senator Obama's relationship to Reverend Wright, his views on patriotism, and whether or not his "Bittergate" comments reflect an attitude of elitism. I therefore look forward to CNN thoroughly reporting on the following issues that have already arisen regarding Sarah Palin. What does she have to say about the following? And why won't the Republican party allow her to be approached and questioned?

1. She is being investigated in Alaska by a Republican legislature for improperly terminating the employment of a public safety official who refused to fire or accelerate the investigation of her ex-brother in law.

2. As mayor of Wasilla, she apparently tried to fire a librarian in her home town for refusing to ban "bad books."

3. She claims she opposed the "Bridge to Nowhere" when she apparently actually supported it during her campaign for governor. She only came out "against" it when it became clear it was going to be killed anyway.

4. She is claiming she is against corruption and "politics as usual" when she apparently actually hired consultants to help her bring federal dollars into Alaska.

5. She cites as an accomplishment the sale of the governor's jet on ebay. Senator McCain has stated that she personally sold it "at a profit." The plane was actually sold months after the attempted internet sale, for a loss of some half million dollars.

6. She apparently wants to teach creationism in the public schools.

7. She apparently not only doesn't believe global warming is being caused by man, she doesn't even acknowledge that it is occurring.

8. The minister at her Assembly of God church has made numerous controversial political statements. How much of his world-view does she share? Obama ultimately disavowed most of what Reverend Wright had to say. Will Palin be willing to do the same regarding her minister, or will she embrace his positions?

Failure to subject Governor Palin to the same level of scrutiny as other candidates, i.e., providing her with special treatment, constitutes sexism of the worst kind. CNN must not back off just because the GOP is trying to argue that she is being treated unfairly. An ABC poll shows that while some 50% of the county view her favorably , almost 40% do not. (These numbers do not make her "popular" BTW.) Suggest you do your job and keep the 40% provided with the information they seek. It's a sorry state of affairs that we have to rely on the international press, Jon Stewart, Bill Maher, and of all things, the National Enquirer, to conduct proper investigative journalism.

The problem with the Dems going "negative" is that the Rove-publicans have spent eight years illegally spying on said Dems and are armed with all kinds of career-killin dirt they're just waiting to unleash as soon as one of the Blue Pussies opens their mouth.

And the Dems know it. The name Spitzer ring a bell? Though he admitted his guilt, notice how he was assassinated-by-FBI-leak, and not actual criminal charges or indictment or prosecution?

Americans love love love a good cat fight, and the Dems would find themselves newly respected if they took off the gloves and went toe to bloody toe, especially with such a wide range of actionable targets. But that's like expecting the geeks to fight the bullies - and what high school has that ever happened at?

Will The GOP's Negativity Produce A Backlash?
hahaha
i've been called an alligator before...no big deal.

wild ;)

My sister used to work for a clothing manufacturer and importer. She would tell me about some horrible design they were selling and how she was worried they would go out of business. However it seems, the uglier the item, the better it sold, and her job was secure.

You cannot go broke underestimating the taste of the American public.

That being said, I personally know of 8 people including myself who have just decided that we have to go work for Obama in swing states to keep this piece of work from being one heartbeat away from the Presidency. Despite our deep misgivings about Obama, he is the "enemy" I would rather face than McCain-Palin.

Joe

If one does not respond to character assassination, people will think it to be true.

I hope these numbers are wrong and that the electorate does not validate their stupidity by electing McBomb.

Most of the American media are right-wing since their owners are. And lousy, with only few, albeit notable, exceptions.

The vast majority of the American public has been weaned from intellectually challenging articles or TV-programs and is by now addicted to a steady diet of the equivalent of fast food. Give them one-liners that are easy to remember.

And they are used to emotions, emotions, emotions. They want to see people cry live on TV, they want some "Oh my Gaaaawd!" screams. Appeal to their voyeurism and you've got their interest.

Appeal to their brains and you are called "elitist". They hardly have brains any more, whatever they were endowed with at birth, it has largely been sucked out of them, primarily via TV. Younger generations are into the violent black and white ideology of computer games.

Give them a soap that's simple enough to grasp and the majority will vote for the soap.

Palin provides them with the soap. She's like one of the figures in the one thing they are interested in by now: Gossip, drama and an unintellectual mind. So it was a clever move.

First you manipulate your electorate into mindlessness and ignorance for decades, and then you just feed them the stuff they crave by now.

Universal suffrage under these circumstances is beginning to look questionable. You might end up with a dictatorship one day in America, and they'll vote for it, if only the person to pull it off is compatible with the kind of soap opera most people are addicted to.

I am sure that most American media would oblige, as long as their ratings and their earnings are good.

The Democrats screwed up early...by attacking her within 10 minutes of her being nominated...

I can't say it was all the Democrats...the Press (or as I like to call them the Democratic 5th column) kneejerked and tried to squash a threat to their Golden Boy Barack

problem is Sarah Palin epitomizes the ideal that they have pushed for so mnay years...s smart working woman balancing family and career and being very successful...

I expect these numbers to hold all the way to the election

Progressives:
Read this excellent article on counterpunch, by Richard Rhames, Commondreams should publish it as well.

http://counterpunch.com/rhames09062008.html

Do The World A Favor And Retire!
Green Retirement Planning

Why assume that "negativity" by Democrats would get the same press/media "ride" that is given to Republican attacks?

In this thimble full of water I have here in my right hand is a single cell animal called a rotifer. It has been nominated by the Republican party for the presidency of the United States. In my left hand is another thimble of water containing an amoeba, the vice presidential candidate. Do you prefer these two candidates over Barack Obama and Joe Biden? Are they more righteous?, you ask. Certainly! No creature is more righteous, more Christian, than Republican candidates for high office! FINAL TALLY: rotifer/amoeba: 58%. Obama/Biden: 42%.

So the poor Democrats lose every time because the nasty Republicans say bad things about them and because the Democrats are too well-mannered to respond in kind. Is that what Greenwald is telling us? If so, I disagree. Presidential and other political contests in the U.S.A. descend into mudslinging "personal" attacks because opponents are typically feeding from the same corporate trough and have nothing substantive to "debate" about. If a Democratic candidate were to get on his/her hind legs (as opposed to those wobbly Blue Dog ones) and stand up, political hell or high water. for single payer health insurance, military disengagement and disarmament, living wage economic policies. the abolishing of incarcer-nation, he/she wouldn't need to worry about any petty name-calling from the opposition. But no, our two Corporacratic parties leave it to the despised "third parties" to do these things, and mobilize their efforts at every form of Ridicule (as RichM defines it) of their opponents. Gentlemen, let's have an unfair fight, no hitting the opponent with any facts or logic, may the best Ridiculer win. That's a sure formula for GOP wins, because
not just Rove but a generation of Machiavellian manipulators have perfected the art, and hapless Democrats can only yell "foul" when they were hit with nothing but the kind of blows that the "referree" has specified as appropriate. Crybabies don't win this kind of fights, but "progressives" like Greenwald and John Nichols can already be seen forgetting their recent criticism of Obama for his head-long rightward dive. They are bringing out the crying towel for what is shaping up as "four more years" in which they will be ridiculing still another GOP President and Vice President and Obama will be consigned to the same flip-flopping triangulating purgatory now occupied by the likes of Clinton, Gore and Kerry.

I wonder who was polled? If the numbers are a true representation of the US electorate only 3 conclusions are possible:
1. The US electorate needs a collective lobotomy.
2. We MUST organize the various disenfranchised groups (who can still think and SEE what's going on) into a unified 3rd party.
3. Media must start telling the TRUTH.

My sense of these polls is that they see a pretty face, and hear "mother," and see her "standing by her child," (the pregnant daughter). But if the public heard about the Alaska independence idea, or knew how this woman managed excess funds, fired people she didn't like, wants to ban books, is against educating teens about sex while her own has shown appropriate rebellion to her mother's authoritarianism, and thinks it's "tourism" to shoot live animals from the air... I wonder what the alleged approval numbers/ratings would become?

And if I were an intelligent person living in an Arab nation watching this inane spectacle, I'd definitely look for ways to cripple America's military might. With "leaders" like these, no sane compromises, treaties, or negotiations are POSSIBLE!