home

McCain Portrays Obama as Scary Mystery

By TChris, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 08:00:19 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

John McCain's strategy of the day tacitly accepts voter disapproval of his Bush-like positions on the important issues. Even if you think my ideas are bad, he seems to be saying, at least you know who I am. That Obama, we know nothing about him. Doesn't that scare you even more than I do?

The Arizona senator, a veteran of more than two decades in Congress, told his audience that while he is a known quantity the same cannot be said about Obama, who is midway through his first term as a senator from Illinois.

"You need to know who you're putting in the White House — where the candidate came from and what he or she believes," McCain said. "And you need to know now, before it is time to choose." Later, he added: "There are essential things that we don't know about Sen. Obama or the record he brings to this campaign."

Hey Sen. McCain, if you want to know something about Barack Obama, why not ask him tomorrow? Or you could listen to his debate answers. Or read his books, or look at his website. What are these "essential things" that are so mysterious to you about where he came from or what he believes?

< WSJ/NBC Poll: Obama/Biden Widen Lead | Palin Ignores Supporter Who Yells "Kill Him" After She Insults Obama >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    McCain Portrays Obama as Scary Mystery | 87 comments (87 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    too late (5.00 / 0) (#1)
    by coigue on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 08:02:35 PM EST
    ha ha haha ha

    Maybe cut the phrase about the books (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Cream City on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 08:06:58 PM EST
    since Obama says they were fictionalized.  (And so you were correct to not call them autobiographies.)  

    As for the rest, I have a lot of questions about both of these guys -- but as usual, I will get the answers later.  The media are worthless.

    Well (5.00 / 0) (#11)
    by Iris on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 08:23:14 PM EST
    on this, at least, we are in agreement:
    The media are worthless.
    But it's important to note that the Ayers story has been flogged to death in numerous newspapers, and the only conclusive thing we know is that a former 60's leftist anti-war radical supports the more liberal candidate who promises a dramatic change in direction for the country.  How is that surprising?  

    Parent
    Well, I know more than media report (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Cream City on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 08:31:38 PM EST
    because I've been researching in terms of impact on me and my city of Obama's and Ayers' work on their foundation boards.  But as those records that had been available now have been pulled back, I can't get more specific answers I seek.  (Nor can researchers get straight answers about the peculiar actions of archivists at Ayers' campus.)

    But I found enough to be d*mn mad about the role of thse boards when they were on them.  My city deserved to be better than a lab for their experiments.  And the results here are awful.

    Beyond those questions about my city, though, I don't care who were Obama's neighbors.  I do care that Ayers clearly was more than a neighbor, and that was a mistake on the record by Obama.  It won't be enough to hurt him with most people, though, because the national media ignore that.

    Parent

    You look for reasons (none / 0) (#73)
    by MKS on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 02:14:08 AM EST
    to dislike Obama....Your tendentiousness is unrelenting....

    Parent
    It seems to me (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Steve M on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 08:11:15 PM EST
    that the time to portray Obama as a mystery was back when he was a lot more mysterious.

    Indeed (5.00 / 0) (#5)
    by andgarden on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 08:11:46 PM EST


    Parent
    How Obama will govern ... (none / 0) (#58)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 11:07:32 PM EST
    still remains quite a mystery, even among his supporters.  Heck, even among his campaign staff.

    Parent
    well (none / 0) (#65)
    by connecticut yankee on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 11:22:38 PM EST
    And how McCain would govern is also a mystery, because he's never governed.

    The only time that we know exactly how they will govern is if they are either currently in the WH or retired.

    Parent

    I had a very good ... (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 11:56:23 PM EST
    idea how Bill Clinton would govern, both on the positive and negative side. Based on the positions he espoused, his connection with the DLC and a long history of governing in Arkansas.  

    Obama?  Not so much.

    Parent

    the world he will govern is a greater (none / 0) (#78)
    by Christy1947 on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 11:09:43 AM EST
    mystery. The only thing we know for sure is that it will look a whole lot different than it does now or it did when the campaign started. The country when the biggest drain was the Iraq war and the wave of failures and credit freeze had not started will not be the same when he has to sit down and figure out what he can do with a whooooole lot more debt and a whoooooole lot less money. At this point, the things he can be asked about probably ought to be the things he can change without a lot of money, until he sees and we see how much he has to work with. Best guess? Piggy bank seriously empty and a lot of undisclosed Fed debt first found on January 20.

    I am clear in my own mind that the mysteries McC is hinting at are phantasms, things designed to stimulate prejudice, where McC and P hope they will be taken for regular decent Americans, not abusers of power, closet secessionists, bigots against non-Europeans, especially Native Americans, and warmongers with a capital W.

    Parent

    More than anything else, (5.00 / 0) (#6)
    by Pegasus on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 08:12:28 PM EST
    McCain just sounds like a PUMA now.  Good luck with that line of attack, Senator.

    It's probably intentional (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Iris on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 08:18:22 PM EST
    they are trying to pick off Democratic votes in swing states.  The talking points are straight off of No Quarter, Confluence, Make them Accountable and at times even Corrente.  And the PUMA's are playing right into their hands...accepting everything McCain and Palin says at face value and discounting everything Obama says because they supposedly "can't trust" him.  Does anyone else also see it this way?

    Parent
    The PUMAs were already voting McCain. (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Pegasus on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 08:27:10 PM EST
    The only people taking this line of attack seriously, IMO, are people whose minds were made up.  

    With Obama polling over 50%, it's not a big concern to me.

    Parent

    You are both wrong (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by nycstray on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 08:52:13 PM EST
    PUMAs are not of one mind, so assuming they are or making sweeping inclusive statements about them is a waste of time and space. There are many varieties of PUMAs (aka as anyone not voting for Obama it seems at times)and to use PUMAS for some trumped up scenerio to explain away things is dishonest. What McCain/Palin are doing has nothing to do with them at this point. Any moderate/centrist/Republican Hillary voters were picked off early and that's all there is.

    PUMAs will be voting for McCain, N.O.T. (Nobody On Top), third party (Green or Nadar) or staying home.

    Parent

    puma's ARE of one mind (5.00 / 0) (#37)
    by Iris on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 09:31:43 PM EST
    in hating Barack Obama.  That's all that unites them.

    What a noble cause!

    Unfortunately having no shared principles leaves them wide open to being led around by the right, and if you visit any of the PUMA sites that's exactly what is happening.  I won't back down on this because it's the truth.  It makes me sick.

    Parent

    No. The issue is the Dem Party (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Cream City on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 10:20:40 PM EST
    and the DNC and RBC, etc., for many PUMAs.  Have you been to their website to see or are you just saying what you've seen incorrectly stated here?

    Parent
    Sure (none / 0) (#56)
    by Iris on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 11:06:03 PM EST
    that's not what I see on those websites, and yes I have looked on in horror.  It's all Obama hate, all the time.  Of course, there is plenty of virulent anti-liberalism too.  But it seems like they go hand in hand.  Like I said in another comment, I thought one of the criticisms of Obama supporters was that getting in bed with the right was counterproductive.

    Parent
    ha (none / 0) (#66)
    by connecticut yankee on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 11:25:39 PM EST
    They are simpletons who are hoping to allow the SC to be dominated by the far right.

    Whatever that gets them, Im sure it wont be pleasant.

    Parent

    I have read PUMA websites (none / 0) (#71)
    by MKS on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 02:07:49 AM EST
    and your comments here today are watered down version of that stuff

    Parent
    Folks, PUMAS don't look in the mirror. They (none / 0) (#79)
    by Christy1947 on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 11:13:04 AM EST
    know, like the mirror-user in Snow White, they they would not like what they see. It's always somebody else's fault.

    Parent
    PUMAs continue their (none / 0) (#72)
    by MKS on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 02:10:31 AM EST
    irrational reasoning--anything to oppose Obama....

    Lady Lynn de Rothschild is the epitome of this spiteful unreasoning opposition.  There are even a couple of PUMAs here, no?

    Parent

    Of course. (none / 0) (#20)
    by Cream City on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 08:33:30 PM EST
    I'm still trying to unpretzelificate, though, the statement that McCain sounds like a PUMA. :-)  All I can conclude is that it's another case of tossing around the term without knowing its meaning.

    Parent
    His message today was substantially the same (5.00 / 0) (#21)
    by Pegasus on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 08:36:34 PM EST
    as one of the major PUMA ones: [whatever you think of me, as a subtext,] we just can't trust that Obama guy, because we don't actually know who he is.

    Parent
    Have you heard (none / 0) (#22)
    by Steve M on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 08:39:27 PM EST
    that Osama bin Laden sounds just like the Democrats?

    Parent
    Clever steve (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Faust on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 10:52:41 PM EST
    but beneath you imo.

    Parent
    I can't even understand (none / 0) (#46)
    by Cream City on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 10:18:35 PM EST
    the opening paragraph at that site.  Computer literate definitely is not the same as literate.

    Besides, Bin Laden is dead.  I read that on another site, so it must be so. :-)

    Parent

    Meh. (none / 0) (#55)
    by Pegasus on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 11:05:19 PM EST


    Parent
    Ah, well that is said by more than PUMAs (none / 0) (#48)
    by Cream City on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 10:22:39 PM EST
    so he sounded like the lot of them.  As to why single out one of them, I understand -- it's fun to play to the crowd here.

    Parent
    How could he sound like a PUMA? (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by litigatormom on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 08:41:48 PM EST
    PUMAs are disappointed Clinton supporters who don't plan to vote for Obama. Not all of them plan to vote for McCain.

    McCain has always been for McCain!

    Parent

    Eh, I guess I'm lumping too much. (5.00 / 0) (#27)
    by Pegasus on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 08:44:44 PM EST
    He sounds a lot like some PUMAs.  The ones campaigning for McCain.

    Parent
    So he sounds like someone campaigning for McCain (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 09:00:55 PM EST
    like maybe....McCain

    Parent
    Bwwwaaah. Exactly (none / 0) (#49)
    by Cream City on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 10:23:49 PM EST
    but you put it so much better.

    Parent
    Silly. (none / 0) (#59)
    by Pegasus on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 11:08:15 PM EST
    I'm pointing out that McCain is (apparently) reducing his message to "Obama is too risky" at the expense of his own policies -- implying that what he himself wants to do doesn't even matter because Obama is just so bad.

    That's pretty descriptive of the approach of a lot of PUMAs, and not at all like McCain's original approach, and there's no reason I shouldn't point that out.

    Parent

    McCain has an original approach? (none / 0) (#64)
    by andgarden on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 11:22:33 PM EST
    It sounds to me that McCain, like the PUMAs, is now mostly reduced to arguing against Obama on a personal level.

    In the issues that voters care most about today, Obama wins and McCain loses.

    And seriously, the PUMAs have been objectively campaigning for McCain for a while now.

    Parent

    that's fair, (5.00 / 0) (#41)
    by Iris on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 09:54:52 PM EST
    and those are the PUMA's I refer to, mainly.  But even the ones not directly campaigning for McCain are being immensely more fair to him than they ever have been to Obama.  Maybe it's because they consider themselves Democrats and have higher standards for Democrats, but the end result is to convince people who don't know any better that the two candidates are equally bad on the issues.  That's just wrong.

    Parent
    Really? Who are the PUMAs convincing? (none / 0) (#50)
    by Cream City on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 10:24:41 PM EST


    Parent
    no one, I hope (none / 0) (#57)
    by Iris on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 11:06:52 PM EST
    but in order to ensure that, they need to be called out for what they're becoming.

    Parent
    MSM, to cover them. (none / 0) (#80)
    by Christy1947 on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 11:15:02 AM EST


    Parent
    Oh really? (5.00 / 0) (#34)
    by Faust on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 09:08:36 PM EST
    You don't think so?

    How about this.

    I'm pretty sure riverdaughter sounds EXACTLY like McCain.

    Parent

    exactly (5.00 / 0) (#42)
    by Iris on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 09:56:23 PM EST
    It's a 'movement' united only by their shared dislike of one man.  If they gain enough adherents they might be able to provide the margin of victory for McCain.  That's exactly what McCain is hoping for, and Riverdaughter and her fellow travelers are in on it 100%.  She's throwing out every argument possible (and maybe she even believes them) to get people to vote against Obama, even claiming that they can elect McCain and still get progressive policies...LOL

    What's shocking and scary is that any liberals or progressives would get in bed with this garbage.  I'm certain the Bible had something to say about selling your soul to get revenge.

    Think about the selfishness and pettiness inherent in this.  They (the ones voting for McCain) are willing to literally risk lives in order to teach Obama and the Democratic party some kind of lesson.  To sacrifice the possibilities of an Obama administration because they are angry.  

    Parent

    Again, no. You really oversimplify it (none / 0) (#51)
    by Cream City on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 10:25:39 PM EST
    and keep doing so, so you don't want to know.  Fine, but then it's silly to keep being wrong.

    Parent
    Anything having to do with politics and opinions (none / 0) (#61)
    by Iris on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 11:13:09 PM EST
    is complicated by definition.  But in another way, it's really quite simple.  When the animating principle is purely negative (ie "Nobama"), feuds tend to erupt if you try to advocate for anything positive.  Witness the advocacy for HOLC and then the shift to blaming minorities for the financial meltdown.  No one can agree on anything basic, so in order to hold it together it reverts back to hatred most of the time; everyone involved can get excited about that.  

    Essentially, the common denominator of PUMA's is that most get a thrill at seeing McCain throw jabs at Obama, because it vindicates their anger and hatred.

    Parent

    A wager for a bag of chips. If McC wins, the (none / 0) (#81)
    by Christy1947 on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 11:16:01 AM EST
    PUMAS will be back wailing about his policies.

    Parent
    Been a while since I read Riverdaughter (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by FreakyBeaky on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 12:28:15 AM EST
    I think what we've got here is a case of when you look into the abyss, the abyss looks into you.  A lot of Clinton supporters were -- indeed are - mightily peeved with the CDS of the primary, and rightly so.  At The Confluence, it looks like they've produced a mirror image of it.  

    RDs main thrust has been that Obama doesn't hold a candle to HRC, that she and hers who actually cast votes as opposed to caucusing got sandbagged by Obama and the Democratic party, and that therefore she and hers are going to sandbag Obama.  Oh, and not nominating HRC is a huge missed opportunity.  I resemble some of those remarks, but there are huge problems with the PUMA position.  If Obama doesn't hold a candle to HRC, McCain/Palin doesn't hold a match.  If Obama isn't what many of us want, at least he is sane.  If Obama isn't One Of Us, at least he isn't one of them.  If Obama is merely the lesser of two evils, less evil sounds pretty good right now.

    It would be a lot easier to toy with voting Republican if they weren't insane.  

    Parent

    Dear John: (5.00 / 0) (#9)
    by stevea66 on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 08:19:53 PM EST
    Dear John:

    You must be in the early stages of Alzheimers.  What don't YOU know?  Barack's entire record is available for anyone to see.  I've seen his entire State Senate and US Senate voting records, legislation authored or sponsored, which is pretty impressive by the way. Just how stupid do you think the American people are?  Or is it you that is so stupid?

    Seriously, Palin quoting a Starbucks cup?  And misquoting it at that?  And, as Olbermann said tonight, isn't Starbucks a bit elitist?  hehe

    Boy, this is getting fun now!

    Oh, and John...you'd better hope you don't get Barack pissed.  He might do a documentary on your ties to organized crime.  Now, wouldn't that make your third debate uncomfortable!

    Media reaction might be interesting. (5.00 / 0) (#16)
    by Pegasus on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 08:31:24 PM EST
    Setting aside any pretense that major media outlets are interesting in serious journalism, here's how I see it:

    On the one hand, they're fundamentally lazy, and "McCain gets desperate" is pretty clearly the easiest response for the media.  On the other hand, I take it as a given that corporate media outlets want a close race for ratings purposes, and if this is the hand McCain is dealing them they may well play it out of self-interest.

    Even Tweety (5.00 / 0) (#26)
    by litigatormom on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 08:43:55 PM EST
    was calling out McCain today as desperately trying to distract voters from the issues they care about -- mainly, the economy.

    Parent
    Heh, there you go. (none / 0) (#29)
    by Pegasus on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 08:48:40 PM EST
    Although MSNBC's pretty clearly morphed into a partisan mouthpiece by now, so maybe that doesn't really count.

    Anyway, I'm considering this an interesting lab test of my sometimes-competing theories: "dear god they're a bunch of lazy morons" vs. calculated, manipulative infotainment.

    Parent

    false equivalency (5.00 / 0) (#43)
    by Iris on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 10:03:16 PM EST
    MSNBC may lean towards Obama when the anchors editorialize, but it's nowhere near a partisan mouthpiece in the way that FOX is.  And let's not forget that Brokaw got Olbermann and Matthews 'demoted' for the election coverage.  It just isn't comparable.

    Parent
    Oh, I don't know. (none / 0) (#60)
    by Pegasus on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 11:11:29 PM EST
    Don't get me wrong, I like what they're doing, but they're quickly approaching "fair and balanced" territory.  Olbermann hasn't even pretended to be neutral for quite a while now, Maddow's got her own show (which I love), etc.

    Parent
    The ONLY thing that makes (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by litigatormom on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 07:36:06 AM EST
    KO even remotely tolerable is that he makes no pretence at being objective.

    His special comment last night about Palin was way over the top. So much so that even I, a vehement Palin critic, was cringing and finally stopped listening to it.

    Maddow's show is better, IMO, in that she doesn't get quite so puffed up with outrage, and she actually has at least one person every night (often professional blowhard Pat Buchanan) with a contrary viewpoint. KO never has anyone on who disagrees with him.

    Parent

    That's true at least, n/t (none / 0) (#62)
    by Iris on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 11:15:50 PM EST


    Parent
    And darn it, everyone knows (none / 0) (#39)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 09:41:27 PM EST
    that's Tweety's job!!!

    Parent
    "Even Tweety"? Sure, he still tingles (none / 0) (#52)
    by Cream City on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 10:27:40 PM EST
    up his leg when Obama talks.  One wonders what his leg does when McCain talks . . . but one really doesn't want to know more about Tweety's anatomy.  Anyway, since when did his tingle stop, so as to merit an "even Tweety"?

    Parent
    He's "even Tweety" (none / 0) (#76)
    by litigatormom on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 07:38:26 AM EST
    because until very recently, he's continued to express a certain fondness and respect for the ex-Straight Talker. He was much more obviously in the tank for Obama (the "tingle" comment, for example) when he was running against Clinton, whom Tweety obviously loathes. He tried to sound more even-handed once it became McCain/Obama. But I think McCain's finally lost him.

    Parent
    interested* (none / 0) (#18)
    by Pegasus on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 08:32:18 PM EST
    Clearly they're not that interesting either.

    Parent
    Well, I'm voting for Obama (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by ChrisO on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 09:06:48 PM EST
    but did you really have to say "read his books, or look at his website?" Ugh. I heard way too much of that during the primaries.

    I liked Obama a lot more (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 09:42:42 PM EST
    before I read Audacity of Hope.  I would not be recommending that.

    Parent
    This morning BTD was asking for optimistic (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 09:11:24 PM EST
    thoughts.  It really did take me all day to come up with one, but it is a good one, so here goes:

    This theme on Obama is just a variation of the same one that they GOP trotted out against Gore and Kerry: they are not normal people like you.  They are radical left scary liberals. Don't trust them.   And look at the polls: it is not working this time.  I hope McCain and Palin do throw the kitchen sink - every character smear they have - and that is doesn't work.  Because the GOP is going to keep doing it until it stops working.  Maybe if it stops working they will stop doing it.  Maybe our next candidate will have a little less mud to wade through.

    But that all goes out the window when we act like them.  That would be shame.

    That would be A shame (none / 0) (#36)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 09:19:01 PM EST
    I hate when I typo in my Special Comment.

    Parent
    Too much smoking and eating over the (none / 0) (#84)
    by Christy1947 on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 11:20:52 AM EST
    keyboard. Take it from one who knows.

    Parent
    I like your Special Comment (none / 0) (#86)
    by sallywally on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 11:24:57 AM EST
    a lot better than any of KO's!

    Parent
    No one needs to trash Palin (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by litigatormom on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 07:50:57 AM EST
    on the basis of gender. She's incompetent and incoherent enough to be thoroughly trashed without even noticing that she's a woman.

    Yes, women are free to embrace conservative positions that may strike other women as anti-feminist.  But there are conservatives, including women, who bother to be informed about the issues they discuss, who bother to think and read, who don't wink at debate audiences, who don't need to look down at their cue cards to remember their ghost-written attack lines and talking points.

    I was one of those who was extremely offended -- and still am -- by the treatment of Sen. Clinton by the media, the DNC, and by Obama himself. But even though he was not my preferred nominee, I could not in my wildest dreams imagine myself voting for McCain.

    Will the PUMA concerns ever be addressed? I don't know, and that troubles me, because I share them. I think whole Democratic primary system has to be restructured. But those concerns certainly won't be addressed if John McCain becomes president. Obama isn't perfect, and he's no Hillary Clinton. But I've gained confidence in him in recent weeks, and his debate performance made me feel comfortable enough with him that I no longer view him as a "lesser of two evils" choice. I do think he's ready to be president. I would still take Hillary Clinton over Obama if I could. But I can't. And it's not a calamity that I can't. "Not my first choice" doesn't = "bad."  

    This is starting to get dangerous (none / 0) (#3)
    by steviez314 on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 08:07:02 PM EST
    The McCain and Palin rallies today have that "brownshirts" feel to it.

    Yeah, I know who McCain is (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by litigatormom on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 08:40:10 PM EST
    He's that angry, bitter guy who sold his sold to the Devil, pandered to the extreme right by picking an unqualified neophyte to be his VP pick, plans to cut Medicare and Medicaid (without telling the public), wants to force people into the private insurance market so that insurance companies can "compete" with each other over how to limit coverage as much as possible, who wants to stay in Iraq forever....

    I know him so well, I can't even write everything I know about him in one post.

    Parent

    uh, ya (5.00 / 0) (#28)
    by connecticut yankee on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 08:46:38 PM EST
    I guess when McCain yells out "who is barack obama?",  a guy yells back "a terrorist!".

    At the Palin rally an audience member yells out, "kill him".

    The clips were on Rachel Maddow tonight.

    Parent

    this is what the right does (5.00 / 0) (#44)
    by Iris on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 10:07:32 PM EST
    and when the inevitable result, scapegoating and violence, ensues, they will blame it on liberals.

    Parent
    The left is not without sin on this (none / 0) (#53)
    by Cream City on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 10:29:27 PM EST
    with the things yelled at Clinton.  This is the problem that undercuts liberal credibility on such tactics now.

    Parent
    i'm speaking in general terms (none / 0) (#63)
    by Iris on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 11:20:47 PM EST
    right-wing rhetoric like this lends itself to demonization, scapegoating and eventually, violence.  That's just history.  I'm speaking in terms of human political tendencies, not political coalitions or parties.

    Parent
    ha (none / 0) (#67)
    by connecticut yankee on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 11:31:40 PM EST
    "liberal credibily"

    You funny republican.

    Parent

    "Killing"? (none / 0) (#74)
    by MKS on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 02:15:09 AM EST
    You think that is something equivalent that was said about Hillary?

     

    Parent

    How about (none / 0) (#83)
    by nemo52 on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 11:19:14 AM EST
    KO's comment that he hoped someone would take Hillary into a back room and "only one man come out"?

    Parent
    World of difference. Nobody has been caught (none / 0) (#85)
    by Christy1947 on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 11:24:11 AM EST
    headed to an HRC rally carrying radios and automatic rifles. And America does not have a history of physical attacks on female politicians. I don't think HRC supporters sat staring into space wondering if she was going to live through the campaign and how it would happen as my Harlem neighbors do for O. Literally. Tasteless, sure, but not in the same league. To do moral equivalency, you have to have moral equivalents.

    Parent
    You don't know (none / 0) (#91)
    by Cream City on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 08:48:42 AM EST
    as I was one who definitely worried about the attacks on Clinton and how far they would go.

    Keep in mind that her Secret Service detail had to be increased repeatedly.  That is done for a reason.

    Parent

    I think this is kind of scary..... (none / 0) (#89)
    by sallywally on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 11:38:03 AM EST
    The folks at these rallies aren't regular pissed-off Repubs.

    They are people who are much closer to the radical far right militaristic folks who would consider taking action if inflamed. And now that it's out there, it's also a shout-out nationally to those folks.

    If she did not hear the yell, Palin is not liable for not denouncing it.

    Maybe it's just a passing thing, but it's new to the campaign and it's over the top.

    And now that it's out there, she is liable and should denounce it loudly and very strongly. And so should McCain.

    Like tonight.

    Parent

    That's just wrong, you have it wrong. (none / 0) (#90)
    by insanelysane on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 12:19:43 PM EST
    That's is not how it went. You are misdirected. The comment prior to "kill him" was one about the domestic terrorist and Chicago inside guy William Ayers.
     The kill him referred to Billy Ayers, the terrorist. IT was not directed at our Presidential nominee, Sen. Obama.
     Do not spread falsehoods like that.
    It is nothing to lie about. Get the facts .

    Parent
    In many ways (none / 0) (#12)
    by Cream City on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 08:24:01 PM EST
    as I surfed around and saw the Palin rally -- and that stage had lots of Secret Service on it.  

    Parent
    I just flipped on FOX- and (none / 0) (#8)
    by kenosharick on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 08:18:56 PM EST
    I think they are wetting themselves. All they are talking about now is ayers- it reeks of desperation. I can hear the tv in the next room and they are talking about how the "polls are tightening" (Dick Morris and Hannity) and "how close this election will be" Are they deluding themselves? Scott Rasmussen is on after the break- how are they going to spin those numbers?

    The new Ras polls (none / 0) (#10)
    by andgarden on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 08:22:49 PM EST
    in VA and OH strike me as being tilted toward McCain.

    Parent
    Agreed. The one Palmer meeting, which was (none / 0) (#87)
    by Christy1947 on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 11:26:08 AM EST
    sponsored for Palmer not O, has become meetings. The sitting on boards as urban go getters do has become working closely together, and Ayers training O to take over the country for. . . whatever they are afraid of and can pronounce that day.

    Parent
    On Hannity & FOX (none / 0) (#13)
    by stevea66 on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 08:24:40 PM EST
    I'd love to be a fly on the wall at Hannity's house.  And, as a pacifist, I can say that for the first time I really, really, want someone to feel pain.  I'd like nothing more, NOTHING more than to hit Hannity repeatedly in the face.  I've never wanted to shut someone up more in my life.  I would give up my savings for an opportunity to inflict some pain on that guy.  What a weanie.  I just turned on FOX, too.  Just listen to this stuff.  He does twist things as well as anyone, though.

    Hannity makes Olbermann and O'reilly (none / 0) (#19)
    by barryluda on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 08:33:08 PM EST
    look like honest, reasonable journalists.  Quite a feat!

    Parent
    O'Reilly makes Olbermann (none / 0) (#45)
    by Iris on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 10:09:29 PM EST
    look like an impartial observer.

    Parent
    OBAMA'S FRIENDS ARE KILLING CIVILIANS? (none / 0) (#14)
    by stevea66 on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 08:25:30 PM EST
    Did I just hear that right?  Did Hannity just say that Obama has friends who are air-raiding and killing civilians?

    I thought Obama was unpatriotically (none / 0) (#25)
    by litigatormom on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 08:42:53 PM EST
    smearing our troops in Afghanistan by saying that they've been dropping bombs on civilians.

    Pssst. We have been.

    Parent

    In their minds, any statement that America (none / 0) (#88)
    by Christy1947 on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 11:28:20 AM EST
    has done anything wrong is an unpatriotic lie. In their minds, no American has never flown over a village and killed anyone other than terrorists, and the one who says different is a traitor.

    Parent
    McCain Portrays Obama as Scary Mystery | 87 comments (87 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment