Obama to dump Biden.

Rumor has it:

On  or about October 5th, Biden will excuse  himself from the ticket, citing health  problems, and  he will be  replaced by Hillary.  This is timed to  occur after the VP debate on  10/2.

Pass this message on to anyone you know.  If the McCain camp is smart, they'll seize on this information right away and bring it to the forefront.  This information has not been denied by the Obama camp, nor has it shown up as a hoax.

Comments

[Iceman1964]

Amy how is this different then the post Jeffey did about Sorry Joe you must go?

[Anon]

Rumor has it? Where did this rumor originate from?

[John Foust]

"Rumor has it"? Who says? And you complain about the bias in the media...

It hasn't been denied by Obama? It hasn't been shown to be a hoax? It's pure conjecture! How can it be contradicted?

Here's real news, plus interpretation:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/24/mccain-wants-a-time-out_n_128991.html

[Anon]

SENATOR John McCain is doing the *right thing* by suspending his campaign to do his JOB.

[Zach W.]

Amy, don't you even read this blog? One would think that a contributor to this blog would at least read it.

Jeff already blogged about this, and we debunked it for him.

[JeffN]

Debunked? - ROTFLMAO!

What? giving a link to Urban Legends (http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/joebiden/a/octobersurprise.htm) and hoping that people don't actually go there is debunking? It says exactly what I said, it is an email rumor with no way to neither confirm nor deny it. But as I stated it made for interesting discussion and apparently to give you a false since of accomplishment.

Here's the address back to my post that Zack was referring to: Judge for yourself! http://www.rightviewwi.com/the_right_view_wisconsin/2008/09/sorry-joe-you-n.html

Just a little teaser here, if you want a good laugh - check out where Grumps asks, what if McCain turns blue with the tongue of a giraffe, would you vote for him.

[Randy Hollenbeck]

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/24/biden-dropping-out-rumor-thrives-on-internet/

Snopes.com, a site devoted to picking apart online rumors and urban legends, has labeled the status of the claim “undetermined.” Several online discussion boards have been loaded up with denials.

Dropping Biden from the ticket would be a throwback to George McGovern’s shocker in 1972, when he replaced running mate Thomas Eagleton after it was learned that Eagleton had undergone electro-shock therapy for depression.

McGovern lost to President Nixon in a landslide, suggesting that seventh-inning lineup changes are not the best strategy for presidential candidates who want to shake things up.

Speaking hypothetically, Beckel said that, if it were to happen, the Democratic National Committee could feasibly call a mini-convention of sorts to confirm a new running mate. He also said “it would be so disruptive” that it would make no sense for Obama to pursue such a change.

Deadlines have passed in some states to send absentee ballots to military personnel and civilian voters overseas — meaning they would have received a ballot already with Biden (and Palin) on their parties’ tickets.

[Amy L. Geiger-Hemmer]

Zach: Actually I do not have time to read every fellow bloggers posts before posting something of my own. And besides, so what if two bloggers post something on the same topic - especially if that topic is current and generating a lot of interest?

As for my sources on this one, I received several e-mails from people who know I do blogs. I also have talked with a few people, some from out-of-state, that are closely tied to the political workings in their areas.

Remember, too, I have stated this is a "rumor". However, given Joe Biden's continual gaffes and knack for expressing views that don't agree with Obama, I think he is being set up for a fall. Obama, in my opinion, wants him out. Time will only tell if Biden gets thrown under the bus...

[John Foust]

Snopes is correct. Any sort of prognostication like this is truly "undetermined". That's all they can conclude about it. There is no evidence to support it. It cannot be falsified. We can't present evidence to show it is incorrect. It's pure rumor, pure fortune-telling. Yet there's plenty of people on the Internet who swallow it up and forward the email to their entire contact list JUST IN CASE IT MIGHT BE TRUE!!!!!!! DON'T FLASH YOUR HEADLIGHTS!!!!!! IF THIS SAVES JUST ONE PRECIOUS LIFE IT WILL BE WORTH IT!!!!

[Steve T.]

At this time, it cannot be disproven either! John, I just wonder if you and the left would feel if it said Palin! Me thinks you would!

[John Foust]

"It cannot be disproven" does not itself count as evidence to support the claim, does it?

[Steve T.]

It is not as much of a fact to support it, but to not just dismiss it!

Because something cannot be proven doesn’t mean it could not happen! All that tells us that at that moment it has not!

Undetermined - not brought to a conclusion; subject to further thought; "an open question"

While you have already dismissed it “It cannot be falsified. We can't present evidence to show it is incorrect” without the possibility it is true! You are so quick to say it is false. Negative attitude. It is false until it is proven true. Pessimistic you are, hmm?

[John Foust]

Yeah, I'm really going out on a limb by calling this fortune-telling. The woman who rails at media bias is content to pass along an emailed rumor that might be true because she's heard the same thing from several people! None of whom have anything more than the emailed rumor. It feels like it might be true, you can't prove that this psychic prediction might be false, so therefore pass it along to all your Republican friends in all seriousness, because, after all, we're concerned about Biden.

[JeffN]

Amy, I’m with you, this is an interesting subject with proven potential for much discussion and obviously great minds think alike! BTW, that was my Zackism; an attempt to raise myself to your level.

Like you, I also do not have time to read everything on this site and I started it! I have a job(s) and a family. I don’t live in mom and dad’s basement – no failure to launch here!

Here they come, do you hear that . . . . “Jeff doesn’t read his own blog”. No, I don’t read everything on here. First of all it is not “My Blog” it is “Our Blog”, our being all the authors on this blog. Before you guys jump on that one, as I’ve said from the beginning, we the authors are independent with our own thoughts.

We do not and do not need to pass a group email amongst us to plan on posts or attacks. Posts are independent as are replies to comments. I have a great amount of respect for Amy, still I think that I’ve only had two email contacts with her one of which was to congratulate her on an article she posted that generated over 2,600 “page views” mostly from unique individuals!

[grumps]

Wow, this blog is such a rathole that its own contributors can't stand to read it.

And yet they wish to be taken seriously. I'm amazed.

It's not often that Hollenbeck gets a turn as "The Voice of Reason."

[Steve T.]

"It's not often that Hollenbeck gets a turn as "The Voice of Reason."" and what does that mean Grumps?

Is that in reference to his latest post on Scott Walker? I am one of those conservatives that doesn’t agree with Randy. I understand those people are very underpaid with repect to others in the same position. If Mr. Walker can cut taxes or hold them and give pay raises so be it! Great!!! I don’t see Barrett or Doyle cutting pay or not giving out raises!

Again, Amy didn't say she couldn't stand to read other blogs and this blog is not a rathole, but you can keep wishing and reading into things like the rest of the left.

You keep showing on how smart the left is or truly isn’t. You keep showing us that you cannot read and see what you want.

[Amy L. Geiger-Hemmer]

Steve T.: Thank you. I find it amusing that leftie bloggers somehow think it is a requirement for all the bloggers on this particular website to read each other's blogs before posting. Why? If someone writes on the same topic - is that somehow taboo? I think not. Jeff's blog was several paragraphs long and different from mine, although the main feature (the e-mail that is circulating) was the same. Again I say, so what?
The liberal media has absolutely no problem repeating certain stories over and over and over - you know, the stories that make Republicans and/or John McCain or the Iraq war, etc. look horrible. They will run the same articles for days if it helps out Obama and/or is critical of the United States, it's President, troops, or other issues that can help Democrats.
Grumps: Steve is right - I never said I couldn't stand to read blogs on this site - so don't put words in my mouth.

[grumps]

@Amy- If the blog had value and merit you'd find time to read it. You don't. It doesn't.

@Stevet- Hollenbeck took the time to tell you why you shouldn't be putting any credence into this email daisy chain and you didn't even read that. The piece of his to which you refer is the reason I'm comfortable saying that Hollenbeck doesn't get many right.

[John Foust]

Amy, post first, blink later.

Some bloggers take a moment to research what they're about to say, to examine what others might've said, to fact-check, as it were. It's not a requirement, certainly, but with an information source so respected and with such a fine track record as a pass-along email, some people even Snopes before they pass it along. It might be something for you to consider.

Either that, or just keep passing it along because it sounds true - after all, that's how it got to you! And you can take that as a simple reminder that your pass-along friends aren't blinking, either, or pausing to reflect.

[Amy L. Geiger-Hemmer]

Actually, John, I did check snopes. The determination on the rumor was listed as "undetermined". Could be true, could be false. And I stated the post is a rumor.
Grumps: Your comment doesn't make sense. How does one determine if a blog has merit before you even read it? So, if it has merit, that means you should read it. All you are saying is that I'd have to read every blog before posting? It is impossible to determine if a blog has merit without reading it? Do you get it?

And, like fellow bloggers, I am fairly busy outside the blogging world. I don't always have the time to read every post on this site. I also don't feel I need to see what everyone else is writing about to determine what I can write. Why do you have a problem with that? Is there some unwritten law that bloggers cannot write about the same topic? Please enlighten me.

[John Foust]

No, the rumor can't be "true". Maybe you can explain for us the reason we might deem such fortune-telling as "true". I don't see it. After the predicted date - maybe we could say that a prediction was accurate, but in advance, how can you claim it's "true"?

Of course bloggers will write about the same topics... especially if they're all repeating whatever drifted into their in-box that morning, and especially if they don't bother to think or fact-check before they repeat it. Then there will be many bloggers writing about the same topics, in the same tones.

[Amy L. Geiger-Hemmer]

John: If the rumor becomes a reality, it was true. If it doesn't become a reality, it was false. If you want to get picky, so be it. I never claimed the rumor was true or false - where are you getting that from? It was fact-checked on snopes, which mentions the status as "undetermined". It's a RUMOR, John! Why must I continue to explain this over and over?

[Randy Hollenbeck]

Grumps, to say I don’t get much right is an opinion and not a fact. Right is a subjective thing from a POV. I get it you don’t like me and that is just fine! I can say I don’t much like you, but I will respect you even if you don’t show the same level of respect!

[John Foust]

Hmm, here's a rumor that Palin thinks man and dinosaurs coexisted...

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-palinreligion28-2008sep28,0,3643718.story?track=rss

[Amy L. Geiger-Hemmer]

John: The following quote is from the source you refer to in your last comment: "Palin said "she had seen pictures of human footprints inside the tracks," recalled Munger, who teaches music at the University of Alaska in Anchorage and has regularly criticized Palin in recent years on his liberal political blog, called Progressive Alaska."

So one man says that Palin told him in casual conversation that man coexisted with dinosaurs, because she had seen human footprints with dino footprints. One man. In casual conversation. Who is currently a liberal blogger. Sounds like a credible source to me - not!

[John Foust]

So if we were to rank the credibility of these two stories - one, your pass-along email, two, my LA Times link - which do you think is potentially more reality-based? You'd rank a pass-along email without a source over the statements of a teacher in the LA Times?

Where do you stand on men riding dinos? True or false? With Sarah, or against her?

[Steve T.]

If the LA Times is using rumors like Sarah's daughter is the mom of her son is there a difference?

Hmmm.. John just think about!

[John Foust]

And if the LA Times did a story on Amy's pass-along email, is there a difference?

Where do you stand on dinos, Steve?

[Steve T.]

LA Times - You tell me John

They are still around, alligators.

I think Hollywood has depicted caveman and dinos one to many times!

[Steve T.]

John, is God a rumor? Are you an atheist or agnostic?

[John Foust]

I want a baby sauropod, just like the one at the Sinclair station.

[Steve T.]

John, is God a rumor? Are you an atheist or agnostic?

Do you believe in “Freedom of religion” or do you discriminate against religion.

What happen to coexist?

The idea of a "young Earth" -- that God created the Earth about 6,000 years ago, and dinosaurs and humans coexisted early on -- is a popular strain of creationism.

Though in her race for governor she called for faith-based "intelligent design" to be taught along with evolution in Alaska's schools, Gov. Palin has not sought to require it, state educators say.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-palinreligion28-2008sep28,0,1504131,full.story

John said, “Yeah, that multiculturalism is really dangerous. Obama's a Manchurian candidate, who knows what he'll become once he's in office! Far better someone merely pretend to be religious, and by that I mean some middle-of-the-road Christian church, or better yet, only spend their life in an arm-waving, tongue-speaking Pentecostal church where they won't be subject to multiple views of the world.”

Someone’s view doesn’t matter if John doesn’t like it! Sounds like you have a quality that you claim Fred has!

[John Foust]

What? It seems like days ago you said we can't trust the LA Times. And you're Googling me again! How sweet of you.

Yes, I'm not a believer. And you? Coexist? Apparently you didn't see my version. What, you think we can't judge religions?

[Steve T.]

First, that is the article and quote you were referring to.
Second, I didn’t Google you. That is your site “Boots & Kittens” info.
Third, is God a rumor? Are you an atheist or agnostic? I know you are a nonbeliever but that doesn’t answer them.
Forth, I believe.
Fifth, I will pray for you!
Sixth, I can coexist, if the others can and do!
Seventh, “What, you think we can't judge religions” just because we can does that mean we should?