home

Nurses Organization Releases "Heartbeat Away" Ad Against McCain/Palin

The country's largest union of Registered Nurses with 85,000 members released this ad today in six battleground states -- Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Colorado, and Missouri.

The ad focuses on the possibility of a Sarah Palin presidency due to John McCain's health issues. From the e-mail I received from the California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee:

Fostered by the growing concern among healthcare professionals over the health status of Sen. John McCain, the ad also provides a reminder of some of the controversial moments of Palin's record as governor of Alaska and mayor of Wasilla, Alaska.

More...

The timing of the ad coincides with a report Tuesday from Bragg Associates, an actuary firm, that John McCain would have a 1 in 4 chance of dying in office from natural causes, which would lead to Palin completing his term.

Concurrently, NNOC/CNA leaders called on Sen. McCain, who has a history of skin cancer, to release his full medical records.

< Time Magazine Poll: Obama Has 17% Lead Among Women | Faux Right Wing Rage at Ifill Choice for Debate >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Shooting themselves in both feet. (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Fabian on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 03:00:23 PM EST
    Medical professionals calling on McCain to release his "full medical records"?  Have they done this for Obama?  Palin?  Biden?

    Just for that alone, this is ranking in the top ten stupidest campaign tricks.  Toss in patient confidentiality and privacy for good measure.

    I am so glad I am no longer working in a hospital because I would be about to blow my stack.  I could have been fired for just talking about a patient where a visitor could hear me and these yahoos think it's okay to demand someone to expose their entire medical records to public scrutiny just because...?  Morans!

    I don't see... (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 03:22:20 PM EST
    ...any violation of HIPAA being committed by simply asking that he release his records.  It is still his choice whether to waive those rights and release his records.  

    And personally, given the nature of the job that he is "applying" for, I think the public has a reasonable interest in knowing his health history.  

    Parent

    What would it take for YOU (none / 0) (#21)
    by Fabian on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 03:28:33 PM EST
    to disclose your complete medical history to the world and the media vultures?

    Besides - fair is fair.  Let them make the same demand of the rest of the field if it's so important.  

    I wouldn't support that either, because it's none of our business.  Medical decisions are between a woman and her doctor. Oh, and men and their doctors too.  

    Parent

    If I was running for... (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 03:41:34 PM EST
    ...Leader of the Free World, I have have an expectation that that my privacy would be much different than that of a private citizen.  

    I DO release my medical records--quite extensive at that--to those who have a legimate need to review them.  I think the American public has a legitimate concern as to McCain's health.  It IS our business.  

    If he doesn't want this type of scrutiny, he shouldn't have thrown his hat in the ring.  I have no problem with anyone asking that Obama release his as well.  However, the CNA has an agenda, so I doubt that they will.

    Parent

    I Could See Your Argument About Privacy (5.00 / 0) (#46)
    by daring grace on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 04:14:38 PM EST
    and violations of HIPA if these were HIS medical professionals asking him to release his records.

    Otherwise, it's another interest group doing it, and he can respond any way he wants including making your argument that all contenders should be held to that standard.

    Of course, then his specific health concerns can be cited in rebuttal.

    Parent

    This is completely a legitimate topic (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by samtaylor2 on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 03:47:15 PM EST
    Both candidates should release all the information about their health in a discrete fashion to a panel of healthcare professionals.  McCain allowed a limited number of people, a limited amount of time to poor over a huge amount of unorganized information.   Certainly Obama should do it as well, but this is more for reasons of fairness, as there should be no reasons of concern.

    The information should not be released to the public, but instead to trained medical professionals that can make informed statements about the impact of the information on the chances of death or loss of mental faculties while he is the President.  It shouldn't be released to the public because 1) the public won't understand the information, 2) If for example, the record shows he has Herpes, there is no reason for this to get out into the public realm as it has 0 effect on his long term health (and probably 0 effect on him at this age).

    Releasing this type of information is more common then you think.  Certainly a person or company has no right to go into your record without your knowledge, but it is legal to higher a person (or not) based on pre-equisting conditions that effect the persons ability to do the job.  

    Parent

    I seem to recall in 1932 (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 04:27:16 PM EST
    FDR had his doctors write that he was in good health.

    Then there was this in 1992

    Four of Mr. Clinton's doctors in Little Rock, Ark., wrote letters made public by his campaign staff, and three of them spoke in interviews yesterday with Mr. Clinton's approval.

    The letters from three doctors were more detailed than those that they released in June and the new ones included results of laboratory tests performed on Monday. The fourth letter was from a doctor who examined the Democratic Presidential candidate in September 1991 but who said she was not asked to write a letter in June.

    Mr. Clinton, who is 46 years old, is seen frequently by doctors who give him allergy shots and treat his chronic laryngitis, but he has not had a full medical checkup in more than a year.

    Dr. Susan M. Santa Cruz, a specialist in internal medicine, said the examination she performed on Mr. Clinton on Sept. 9, 1991, was his last and the only one she had performed on him. Dr. Santa Cruz said she wrote Mr. Clinton last month urging him to get a checkup. Repeated Requests for Details

    "Obviously it is time for another physical, but we are just having a scheduling problem here," said Betsey Wright, a deputy campaign manager. "It's just one of those things that I don't think is going to happen until we get through this election, but we did do the blood tests because the doctors wanted current information to do these letters."

    The release of more detailed medical information was in response to repeated requests from The New York Times and other news organizations. Mr. Clinton had previously not allowed his doctors to speak about his medical history, citing reasons of privacy.

    I am in a hurry, but this suggests both candidates released health info in 1996.

    See also

    The reporters then had a conference call with McCain's doctors, who said McCain was in ''excellent health.'' The doctors said the melanoma in McCain's left temple, a potentially fatal form of skin cancer removed during surgery in 2000, had not recurred. The records also indicated McCain takes a statin for cholesterol, aspirin to prevent blood clots and medication to prevent kidney stones.

    A week later, Barack Obama issued a six-paragraph, one-page letter signed by his physician of 21 years, Dr. David Scheiner. Scheiner's letter indicated Obama was in ``excellent health.''

    Ronald Reagan, faced with concerns in 1980 that he would be the oldest person to be elected president at age 69, said in an interview with The New York Times in June 1980 that if he were elected to the presidency that November, he would have the White House physician periodically check his physical and mental state. He said he would resign if evidence demonstrated he was unfit. Reagan's mother, Nellie, had become senile a few years before she died at age 80.

    Reagan's doctors at the time said he was in excellent health. Reagan had three major surgeries during his two terms in office, including having a bullet removed from his lung after he was shot on March 30, 1981. Besides that emergency procedure, he had a malignant polyp removed from his bowel in 1985 and a prostate resectioning in 1987. (He also had three cancerous skin lesions removed from his nose between 1985 and 1987.)

    Reagan also occasionally dozed off in Cabinet meetings and had periods of forgetfulness. He left office in 1989, announced his Alzheimer's diagnosis in 1994 and died in 2004.

    George H.W. Bush, who succeeded Reagan in 1989 at age 64, released medical records during his campaign and yearly during his presidency. His doctors said he had mild degenerative osteoarthritis in his hips, normal X-rays, EKG, urinalysis and blood work.

    The point being this isn't exactly new stuff.

    Parent

    I am honestly (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by liminal on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 03:09:11 PM EST
    more scared of the possibility of a McCain presidency than I am of the possibility of a Palin presidency and that's why I think attacks like the attack in the ad are still so wrong-headed.  

    I also think that ads like this reinforce a backlash/bunker mentality that can help energize the Republicans' goofier constituency, which does not help our side.

    Why choose? (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 03:11:00 PM EST
    They're both pretty scary to me.  McCain is more-of-the-same except with a worse temper.  But with Palin I really think we're in Dr. Strangelove territory.

    Parent
    Why choose - (none / 0) (#19)
    by liminal on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 03:24:07 PM EST
    Well, to get to a Palin presidency, we'd have to suffer through a McCain presidency.  That's why.  If we elect them, one is guaranteed - the other is a "maybe if he gets sick."  

    And McCain is scary because of his ideas - or rather, lack of ideas - and become of the intellectually bankrupt economic crazies with whom he surrounds himself, including Phil "Mr. Derivative" and "Americans are Whiners" Graham.  

    These are the guys who effed up our economy in a gigantic way - and their only solutions are more of what got us here, mostly.  That's the clearest message Democrats should be sending.  I think that the Palin Personality Politics tends to occlude that message - and reinforce the culture wars in a way that does not help us.  Folks who are scared of her are already on our side.  

    Parent

    You can always count on the CNA (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Radiowalla on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 03:11:51 PM EST
    to be utterly out of touch.

    In 2000 they endorsed Ralph Nader.

    It's a lousy ad (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by rdandrea on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 03:29:32 PM EST
    But an excellent example of why, as a campaign person, I always hate to see 527s or PACs or 501(c)(4)s get involved in a campaign.

    When they do, there goes any hope of message control.

    Obama is not running against Sarah Palin.  The best way to help ensure that she never becomes "one heartbeat away" from being President is to ensure that McCain never becomes President.  They should have spent their money toward that end, attacking McCain.  The fact that they didn't means it was wasted.

    You are so right (none / 0) (#35)
    by ruffian on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 03:52:19 PM EST
    McCain is wrong on every issue imaginable. Aren't there better ways to attack him than fretting about his health?

    Parent
    It's a very strange ad (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by andgarden on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 03:39:53 PM EST
    seems like a misfire to me.

    I thought Obama didn't want 527s ad (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by stefystef on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 03:46:02 PM EST
    I thought Obama told outside groups not to create ads  attacking McCain?  When Obama talked about "change" and transparency, I guess he forgot when it comes to getting outside groups to make ads against your opponent.

    Mind you, I don't have a problem with 527s, but I have a problem with Obama pretending that he doesn't need or want the help of the 527s but their ads are all over the place, with nothing from his camp discouraging them.

    Or maybe I'm missing something here...

    He's be better off without them (none / 0) (#37)
    by rdandrea on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 03:54:51 PM EST
    Most of them are pretty ineffective.

    Parent
    I think what's missing (none / 0) (#39)
    by CST on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 03:56:56 PM EST
    Is the fact that regardless what Obama claims he wants or not, he has no control over 527s, they are independent organizations, and they don't answer to Obama.

    Parent
    This ad (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by cal1942 on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 04:16:27 PM EST
    is risky and unnecessary.

    The image of the flat line over McCain's picture is, IMO, very poor taste.

    Obama has pretty good leads in these states if today's polls are accurate.

    This is the type of ad that should only be used in Hail Mary desperation.

    If you pile-on the people in striped shirts (voters) could toss a yellow flag.

    Two objections (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by lentinel on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 05:09:26 PM EST
    My first objection is the "he's going to drop dead" thing.
    It is morbid - and I would think scary to a whole host of people over 70 years old.

    Secondly, the absolutely crappy music that accompanies this ad.

    It seems to denote a folksy, we shall overcome, sort of togetherness b.s. feeling. Why oh why do they do that?

    Even if the content weren't distasteful, it is really hard to sit through that sophomoric soundtrack.

    Folks thought Cheney was going to drop dead (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by stefystef on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 06:40:08 PM EST
    but he's still ticking (or his pace maker is).
    Reports of McCain's demise is greatly exaggerated.

    Parent
    Wow. (none / 0) (#1)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 02:54:18 PM EST
    At the very least, this is hardball.  If not knuckle ball.

    Knuckle heads is more like it. (none / 0) (#8)
    by Fabian on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 03:05:31 PM EST
    It's pandering to the lowest common denominator.  First it implies that McCain is not in good health  (Prove it!) then it throws in a good dose of uncertainty (OMG! National crisis!).

    Rove would be proud.  They got a push poll to go with it?

    Parent

    Very poor ad (none / 0) (#2)
    by Richard in Jax on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 02:56:21 PM EST
    It flashes by points, (good points) so fast they cannot be taken in. Poorly done and will have no effect.

    I guess ageism's not one of bad isms. (none / 0) (#3)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 02:57:42 PM EST


    It's not "ageism" (none / 0) (#5)
    by Fabian on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 03:02:46 PM EST
    it's medical discrimination.  There's a lot of people who could tell you all about it.  

    Parent
    And still full of pip and vinegar?

    He could serve for 5 terms and still be younger than she is now.

    Parent

    Thing is. . . (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 03:20:59 PM EST
    I would consider voting for his mom.  Him?  Not so much.

    Parent
    Yeah, I'm liking Mamma McCain (none / 0) (#31)
    by stefystef on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 03:47:34 PM EST
    She seems so much smarter than him...

    Parent
    Has his Mom... (none / 0) (#16)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 03:17:53 PM EST
    ...had reoccuring bouts of aggresive skin cancer?  Or beaten and confined for an extended period of time with sub-standard medical care?  

    Sometimes how long your parents live has absolutely no effect on how long you will live.

    Parent

    Melanoma skin cancer is the bad one. (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 03:40:19 PM EST
    If left untreated it can spread to your organs and metastasise there and be fatal, however early diagnosis and removal of the cancer is quite easily done with basic health care.

    McCain has had 3-4 melanomas removed when they were still in that early obvious surface stage.

    Do you expect him to have insufficient preventive health care as potus?

    Parent

    How do explain the documented... (none / 0) (#36)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 03:53:34 PM EST
    ...facial ticks he has been exhibiting of late?  Could very well be benign (Bell's Palsey) or something that is related to the skin cancer.  

    The problem is we just don't know.  And, I'm not trying to play Dr. Frist here, but it is rather disconcerting.

    http://tinyurl.com/3owzcw

    Preventative health care doesn't do squat to prevent those conditions that have already manifested themselves--or I would be the healthiest person alive.  

    Parent

    Inspector Dreyfus disease. . . (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 03:56:30 PM EST
    "Hmm.  Kill Clouseau.  Yes.  Heh, heh, heh.  Must kill Clouseau. . ."

    Parent
    It is a boom! (none / 0) (#42)
    by andgarden on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 04:04:26 PM EST
    Facial tics are caused by skin cancer?! (none / 0) (#41)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 04:03:39 PM EST
    omg.

    Regarding preventive care for McCain and melanoma:

    Genetics also plays a major role, but McCain has no family history of the disease that would make him more susceptible.

    About 14% to 18% of melanoma patients have a second, unrelated tumor later, Justice said. "If [McCain] has had four, he'll probably have a fifth," he said. "But there is a superb chance it will be curable" because it will most likely be caught early.

    And, not to put too fine a point on it, but even if it's diagnosed "late" that does not mean it will be fatal - nor, even, that it will be significantly more debilitating than any other surgery like an appendectomy or a hysterectomy.

    Parent
    Indeed--they certainly can be. (none / 0) (#43)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 04:08:09 PM EST
    And no, if it gets into his brain, it is not like any other surgery.  

    Glad you're not one of my Doctors!

    Parent

    Oy. (none / 0) (#48)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 04:17:29 PM EST
    1. He's been checked out many times, he has no brain cancer.

    2. If you think his past skin cancers have gone to his brain - and only to his brain, and not to his bone and lungs and liver, etc., as well, well, you might want to think a little more about that one.

    This entire conversation is sounding frighteningly similar to the "Rezco bought Obama his house" threads of the primary.

    iow, "You can't prove it's not true, so in my world that means it is true." or "If there's really no truth to this (internet rumor), why doesn't he release the information to refute it?"

    Oy, again.

    Parent

    And you know that #1 is true... (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 04:20:48 PM EST
    ...how exactly?  As to #2, perhaps you should go back and read my post again.  Your reading comprehension is apparently as bad as JimPPJ's.

    Oy yourself.

    Parent

    Right, he, like Obama, (none / 0) (#51)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 04:24:48 PM EST
    won't respond to internet rumors so that means they both must be hiding something.

    I spent way too much time on this type of tripe re: Obama's house during the primary, this is more of the same.

    Parent

    Melanomas are easily detected. (none / 0) (#40)
    by Fabian on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 03:59:54 PM EST
    and treated.  Piece of cake compared to the various other possible internal tumors and cancers.

    There are some very aggressive varieties of adult leukemia that can kill you in under a year.  Or an aneurysm or....the list goes on and on.

    What I think people are really hoping to find isn't any physical ailment, but a mental illness because mental illness still carries a strong stigma.  

    Parent

    So... (none / 0) (#44)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 04:10:12 PM EST
    ...you've been treated for melanomas, have you?  I guess not or you wouldn't say something totally silly like it being a "piece of cake".

    Parent
    wife and two sis's-in-law have all had melanomas detected early and surgically removed, yes,
    Piece of cake compared to the various other possible internal tumors and cancers.


    Parent
    Come talk to me... (none / 0) (#53)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 04:38:36 PM EST
    ...when it is YOU going under the knife.

    Parent
    I bet you still wouldn't accept reality. (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 04:48:00 PM EST
    But I'll give it one last try.

    Over a decade ago sis-in-law was diagnosed "late" with melanoma -after it had metastasised to her liver. Two biiiig surgeries, chemo, etc. Months and months and months.

    At least twice since she's had melanoma diagnosed that hadn't metastasized, most recently on her calf.

    She has a 4" scar there now, but it was outpatient surgery and she was working the next day (she works from home).

    Absolutely a

    Piece of cake
    compared to her
    previous internal tumors and cancers.


    Parent
    I'm the one who doesn't get it, eh? (none / 0) (#56)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 06:10:33 PM EST
    Hmmm.  30+ surgeries and counting, 6 internal organs removed (of parts thereof)and countless minor procedures, tests, treatments to date.  No, I have no idea what I'm talking about.

    The thing is, it's rather personal--which you obviously have no idea about--every single freakin' time you get cut or are treated for a disease.  There's the physical aspect, as well as the mental one.  Again, you apparently don't quite grasp this.  

    Like I said, come talk to me when it is YOU in that position.  

    Parent

    OK. (none / 0) (#57)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 06:37:49 PM EST
    Cancer removed from my nose and corner of my eye. Tear duct removed and rebuilt, skin grafts from behind my ear.

    Absolutely a

    Piece of cake
    compared to her
    previous internal tumors and cancers.
    but mine was a non-malignant cancer (squamous), so it's not the same thing.

    But the fact remains that my sis in law says her surface melanoma surgeries were a "piece of cake" in comparison with her liver surgeries, chemo, etc. both physically and mentally. Which is the point of this particular conversation.

    Hope you're well. Live long.

    Parent

    Well... (none / 0) (#60)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 08:20:37 AM EST
    ...my Sister thinks that getting a colonoscopy is more painful than giving birth.  To me, it is no big deal.  I can do that standing on my head any day of the week.  However, I'm not going to presume to discount her feelings--or anyone else--by telling her that is a "piece of cake".  She owns her feelings, her perception of pain and suffering, not me.

    One's concept of what is painful or what constitutes suffering is personal thing, unique to each one of us.  For someone to say that what another person is going through is a "piece of cake" is flat-out wrong.

    Parent

    To be fair. . . (none / 0) (#23)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 03:31:27 PM EST
    President is one job in which some degree of medical discrimination seems permissible to me.

    Parent
    JFK (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 03:46:38 PM EST
    should not have been elected then.

    Parent
    Nor should have FDR n/t (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by stefystef on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 03:48:25 PM EST
    That is a possibility. (none / 0) (#34)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 03:49:23 PM EST
    Still, I think it was wrong to hide his medical condition.

    Parent
    Until you consider all the Presidents (none / 0) (#25)
    by Fabian on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 03:40:11 PM EST
    who managed to govern despite various physical and mental illnesses.  

    I think if you can campaign, you should be fine.  Fred Thompson was criticized for his apparent inability to make more than a token effort at campaigning in the primaries.  

    Parent

    No, even considering. . . (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 03:48:35 PM EST
    the Presidents who governed despite physical or mental (! not sure who you're thinking of here) handicaps.

    No doubt such a handicap would be a liability in an election but I still think voters are entitled to this information.  We demand all kinds of disclosures from our candidates, hidden health factors are, in my mind, a valid issue.

    Parent

    I'm not interested in playing doctor (none / 0) (#45)
    by Fabian on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 04:10:52 PM EST
    for anyone but my family.

    The American public have a pathetic grasp of medicine.  And mental health issues?  Most of the time, they haven't got a clue.  Mental illness is still a taboo subject to many.  They'll tell you about their sex lives before they'll admit they were once treated for depression.

    Parent

    questionable taste (none / 0) (#6)
    by candideinnc on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 03:03:37 PM EST
    I think this could have been done without the suggestion that McCain may die in office.  That is  what makes it feel a bit "over the top."  She is a terrible candidate, and the baggage of her political history is sufficient to disqualify her.

    Remind me never to inquire of a (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by oculus on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 03:05:25 PM EST
    CNA member about my prognosis.

    Parent
    Remind the CNA (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Fabian on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 03:07:57 PM EST
    to never ask me for a donation.

    I was proud to see a Union Rep going around my local Meijer this week, getting employees registered and reminding them to vote.  I can get behind that.  

    I can't get behind this ad.

    Parent

    Don't really like it (none / 0) (#14)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 03:12:24 PM EST
    Not because its mean but because its uneffective-- its like that Obama "McCain doesn't e-mail" ad or the "Celebrity" ads McCain ran (which actually may have worked in the medium term but killed McCain in the longrun. Seriously those were the most vapid and hypocritical ads ever, when you're a media celebrity and you call the other person out for doing it, it works in the short term but, basically makes one of your real assets-- that the press literally eats at the same table as you unusable in the the long run) they don't hit in the right place-- now you want to vicious but awesome ads check out the Planned Parenthood ones:
    (On NAMBLA John) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGBa-4ufCFg

    (On the Rape Kit stuff)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uq6Y-wgivIE&eurl=http://www.mydd.com/

    "NAMBLA" John? What's that? (none / 0) (#15)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 03:15:31 PM EST
    All they got (none / 0) (#20)
    by lentinel on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 03:25:19 PM EST
    I guess they better go for the "old man about to die" strategy against McCain.

    We are about to have a bailout bill that gives tax breaks to businesses.
    Also - FDIC will insure up to $250,000. That is wonderful news for the middle class about Obama is supposed to give a hoot.
    It reminds me that Obama and McCain both have millions.

    Our election should be:

    Obama/McCain or
    McCain/Obama

    Palin and BIden can be flower girls.

    I am SO glad I don't live in a state where (none / 0) (#59)
    by MoveThatBus on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:44:02 PM EST
    these political ads are running.

    This ad is really crazy. The music is so loud and stupid it's hard to get anything from the effort to berate Palin.

    She has so many valid negatives that I don't understand why anyone finds it necessary to keep trying to push things that have already been proven to be FALSE.  Use those things that are true and scarey if you want an effective ad.


    One more thing to consider... (none / 0) (#61)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 08:22:18 AM EST
    "The Armed Forces Institute of Pathology reviewed the cancer taken off McCain's head in 2000 and found it to be "highly suggestive of a metastasis of malignant melanoma and may represent a satellite metastasis." Even with the most optimistic scenario, if McCain has a metastatic malignant melanoma, he has only a 38% chance of surviving past 2010."
    --Think Progress


    Better than Doctor Frist (none / 0) (#62)
    by Fabian on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 01:44:45 PM EST
    ..but it's still a remote diagnosis without all the available information.  A guesstimate.

    Parent
    did you forget to ask Obama (none / 0) (#63)
    by bobbianne on Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 03:13:01 PM EST
    Obviously, RNA's are not getting much education beyond the rudiments anymore. First of all, did anyone ask Barack Obama to release his medical records?
    Many observers, (psychologists, etc) feel that he may have Narcissistic Personality disorder because of his childhood dysfunctional upbringing.
    Oh, I know a nurse can't take a blood pressure for that!
    Oha and did you remember that Barack smokes?
    Oh, one more thing one's life expectancy can be measured by ones' parents life. It's called the Science of actuarialism. According to that, because Obama's mother died at 53 and his father died of a DUI at 46, Barack has a life expectancy of 50.6
    On the other hand, John McCain's mother is still alive and chirping at 96; his father died at 70; so he has a life expectancy of 84.
    Oh and, BTW, if yu are going to get records, why doesn't Obama at least release his "vault" birth certificate?