home

Country First?

By TChris, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:44:12 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Even as John McCain claims to be questioning Barack Obama's judgment, not his patriotism, when he asserts that Obama would rather lose the war than lose the election, the smears from the McCain camp continue.

The attack machine is sharpest with surrogates like Joe Lieberman, the Democrat-turned-independent who seems gripped by a somewhat understandable cathartic need to stick it to the party that all but abandoned him in 2006. This race is "between one candidate, John McCain, who has always put his country first, worked across party lines to get things done, and one candidate that has not," Joltin' Joe declared recently.

Susan Demas asks whether McCain is actually "putting his country first" by indulging in and refusing to condemn unscrupulous campaign tactics. [more ...]

The assault ratchets up in the blogosphere and right-wing media, of course, where reasoned intellectuals like Michael Savage gently raise if Obama is a terrorist. Oh, and he's black, if you haven't noticed. You know, like gang-bangers and Kwame Kilpatrick. Just sayin'.

McCain has done precious little to denounce any of this, shrugging, "You gotta have a sense of humor" about the latest smear book on Obama by white supremacist sympathizer Jerome Corsi. In July, McCain shelled out $19 million in mostly negative ads (only $7 million less than he raised) and he is indeed closing the gap in polling.

But at what price? Has he resigned himself to run a campaign that falls far short of the honor and statesmanship he professes just to win? Sorry, John, that ain't putting your country first. I'd say that's conduct unbecoming of an officer and a gentleman.

< Still Waiting . . . Open Thread | Still Waiting, Still Bored . . . Open Thread >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Country First? | 130 comments (130 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    He's trying to come from behind (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:45:36 PM EST
    so he's attacking.

    Nothing shocking about it, and he doesn't much care if people tut tut him. I honestly wish more Democrats would take that attitude about negative campaigning, actually.

    They do. (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by Lysis on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:46:02 PM EST
    In the primaries.

    Parent
    Indeed. (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by chel2551 on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:48:38 PM EST
    I'll repeat:

    Negative campaigns win.  

    Parent

    Proof Positive, then.... (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 03:03:38 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton did NOT run a negative campaign!!  Of course, anyone trusting their own observations over the twisty-turny spin of the media already knew that.


    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 7) (#19)
    by BDB on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 01:14:35 PM EST
    These kinds of attacks need to be dealt with, but whining* about them is not the best way.  Hitting McCain back hard is the best way and I don't mean counting his houses for him.  I mean telling the American people that he's a fraud, a liar, a Bush enabler, and a war monger.  Although I admit that requires the Democrats to actually take a stand against those things, which they seem reluctant to do.

    * If I were McCain, I don't think I could use the word "whine" enough when talking about Obama.

    Parent

    Whining gets nothing done (5.00 / 0) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 01:18:44 PM EST
    Why doesn't Obama address this sort of thing like McCain did when Obama attempted to say he had taken part in creating bipartisan legislation?  McCain calmly blew Obama out of the water, this is the time for Obama to calmly blow McCain out of the water by simply stating simple truths.  I don't see anything negative about simple truths, they are only revealing if they aren't going to blow up in your face because your own simple truths aren't very spiffy.

    Parent
    If Obama could actually (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by dk on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 01:25:37 PM EST
    articulate why Democratic economic policies would be good for this country (and actually campaign on economic policy, as opposed to religion and the restriction of women's reproductive freedoms (mental distress, anyone?)), he could then effectively go negative on McCain by explaining why McCain's positions were bad for America.

    Instead, we get the silliness about the houses, the implications that anyone who isn't 100% behind Obama is a low information Appalachian racist, etc.  Yuck.

    Parent

    This is a brilliant response to MY whining (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 01:35:00 PM EST
    and causes me to remember Bill Clinton and how excited my grandfather got during that first campaign for president when Bill Clinton did exactly that for the masses.

    Parent
    Whining not only gets nothing done, (none / 0) (#111)
    by Grace on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 03:08:44 PM EST
    it makes you appear to be too sensitive to handle a tough position like that of the President.

    Today on TV, I hear Obama say (over and over again) he needs a VP to "help him govern."  That really makes him sound weak.  Help him govern?  Who does he need?  Dick Cheney?  

    I haven't heard McCain say that he needs a VP to "help him govern."  McCain says he needs a VP with the same mindset, apparently to take over if something happens to him.  Isn't that the traditional role of the VP?  To stand at the side as a spare incase the original goes flat?  

    Meanwhile, Obama seems to need a "co-president" "to help him govern."  

    Blah.  Shades of GWB.  I'm ticked today.  That was all I needed to hear repeated over and over.  Can't we just get Hillary back?  

    Parent

    A Democrat did (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 01:28:46 PM EST
    in 1992.  And in 1996.

    Take three guesses and the first two don't count.

    Parent

    They did during the primaries and were (none / 0) (#9)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 01:03:22 PM EST
    summarily dismissed by obama and his camp.

    Parent
    All I know (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:52:26 PM EST
    is that "wah, wah, they're attacking my patriotism" has never worked for Democrats.

    Nor has indignantly declaring, "I will never let them attack my patriotism!" aka the John Kerry tactic.

    I think you gotta get a little dirty to fight back against this one.

    The problem (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 01:05:58 PM EST
    is that Obama is even a less effective fighter against the GOP than Kerry was.

    Parent
    Indeed (none / 0) (#6)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:54:05 PM EST
    And I think the jury is still out on the "houses" thing. It might just move the numbers a bit.

    Parent
    McCain's domestic staff (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by DemForever on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 01:01:18 PM EST
    is still trying to get to the bottom of how many he owns

    Parent
    lol....who really cares and he probably (4.25 / 4) (#10)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 01:05:33 PM EST
    owns one and Cindy the rest.

    Parent
    If I were Cindy I would let him own the dog (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 01:39:54 PM EST
    house, I'm a mean girl though.

    Parent
    Lots (none / 0) (#54)
    by Claw on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 02:02:54 PM EST
    Lots of people will care about this ad.  Negative campaigning is usually most effective when it's kind of stupid.  Though this does highlight something the dems should be focusing on: that McCain is about as "everyman" as our current decider.

    Parent
    Since millions bought that our current decider (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Valhalla on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 03:00:40 PM EST
    WAS like 'everyman', that's probably not the best tack to take.

    Parent
    True (none / 0) (#141)
    by Claw on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 11:32:23 PM EST
    But neither Kerry nor Gore hammered Bush on his non-everyman status.

    Parent
    Heard on the radio... (none / 0) (#65)
    by kredwyn on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 02:12:13 PM EST
    that one of the places he owns is currently being inhabited by an elderly aunt.

    Parent
    Yawn (5.00 / 7) (#13)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 01:06:47 PM EST
    Maybe.  I personally have trouble processing a line of attack that is no different from what they said about Kerry, Edwards, and so on and so forth.  This is definitely the old kind of politics.  I feel very embarrassed to be associated with it.

    More to the point, I think every day Obama spends trying to pin all sorts of negative attacks on McCain is a day he's failing to define himself positively to the people who have doubts.  That's what is missing from his campaign and they're so giddy with the "house" thing they don't even realize it.

    Parent

    Well, (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 01:14:58 PM EST
    I don't have any problem with "old" politics. Yes, it's stupid. But so was "John Kerry looks French."

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 01:19:07 PM EST
    They can do it.  I'm not saying I won't vote for Obama because his campaign embarrasses me, it's no worse than the rest.  But I simply refuse to play along and prance around the Internet acting like this really does prove John McCain is out of touch, blah blah blah.  It's a silly game to be played by silly people.

    Parent
    It Also Continues the Trend (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by BDB on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 01:23:45 PM EST
    of reducing our political discourse to name calling, which has been disastrous for liberals and progressives for at least 30 years.

    Parent
    Because we are no good at it (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 01:36:29 PM EST
    and it isn't one of our goals to become good at it.  We want to save the world, not belittle it so we can rule it.

    Parent
    Some of us, that is. n/t (none / 0) (#106)
    by Valhalla on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 03:01:36 PM EST


    Parent
    Hey, I'm not going to go around shouting (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 01:26:55 PM EST
    about it.

    But if Obama's people find that it moves the numbers, they should use it.

    Getting second place because you played nice isn't satisfying.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 01:39:33 PM EST
    if I thought voters would respond better to this kind of crap than to a demonstration that Obama is ready to lead on the issues, then yeah.  My belief is the exact opposite, and in the meantime, I'm not going to run around cheerleading for an obviously hypocritical attack like the rest of the "reality-based community."

    Let's not pretend that the Obama campaign has all the answers or that they somehow conducted a comprehensive focus group in the 10 minutes between the time McCain committed his gaffe and the time they decided to run with it full-blast.  Reality is, people run with these sorts of attacks because it's cheap and easy.  Is it the right thing in the long run?  They have no idea.

    Parent

    I was talking to a friend of mine (none / 0) (#68)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 02:13:04 PM EST
    last night who told me that she just wasn't interested in the houses story - she's the one who brought it up though - she told me that she was much more interested in the fact that Cindy McCain doesn't acknowledge the existence of her half sister and didn't give her a more significant portion of the inheritance.

    So...  I don't know what to tell ya except what I told her which was some people are going to care about the houses gaffe, some people are going to care about the half sister, some will care about McCain leaving his ex-wife and some people are going to care about the issues.  Those of us who care about the issues are, however, clearly in the minority.

    I do think/know that the sad fact is that everything about American culture including politics is about who or what is "cool" or "not cool".  Sometimes being smart is "cool" and other times being a thuggish neer-do-well fake cowboy captures America's imagination...

    It is helpful to remember that this is same country in which Pet Rocks were for a time all the rage.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 02:16:29 PM EST
    my suggestion that Obama needs to focus on the issues is not some generic whine, but rather an argument that in this specific campaign we are currently embroiled in, Obama's biggest problem is that he has not crossed the threshold with a large number of voters as to his own readiness for the job.  Attacking McCain won't fix that.  He needs to demonstrate his knowledge and competence concerning the issues people care about, in a way that a more experienced candidate might not have to spell out.

    Parent
    I don't think it is some (none / 0) (#91)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 02:49:25 PM EST
    "generic whine".  I happen to agree with you about all of your points in favor of getting this race focused on issues.  

    I just shared that story because I thought it was sort of funny - honestly this friend is quite smart, thoughtful and so when she started with the half-sister thing I was a bit thrown off.  I thought she was going to say "the mortgage crisis" or whatever - she is a finance person.

    But I think what I concluded from that conversation in combination with a few others over the past couple of weeks is that camp Obama and Dem orgs need to do it all - issues and personality politics are both playing roles with  distinct groups of voters - which I think has always been the reality - just not one that Democrats were willing to acknowledge in recent years.  

    Parent

    Speaking clearly to the issues (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by brodie on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 02:31:12 PM EST
    is necessary but not sufficient.

    Issues alone campaigns appeal greatly to naive liberal idealists and to online faux Dems who try to get our side to remain passive and feckless while the Repub attack machine once again works its magic in yet another presidential election.

    I care about the issues, but I also care about winning.  If you can't win, and do what's necessary to get into office, all the lofty talk about issues means diddly.

    Parent

    Just wondering (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 02:37:46 PM EST
    do you consider me a naive liberal idealist, or an online faux Dem?

    Because for all your talk about how both things need to happen, reality is that the part where Obama demonstrates his competence on the issues simply is not happening, except in the minds of go-to-his-website fanboys who don't need to be persuaded anyhow.  The trivia is using up all the oxygen in the room.

    When the majority of McCain's voters are people who seem him as the "lesser of two evils" already, it's silly to focus attention on defining him negatively.  Obama's biggest problem is impressing upon undecided voters that he's up to the job, not impressing upon them that McCain sucks.

    Parent

    Exactly. (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by chel2551 on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 02:46:01 PM EST
    Obama's biggest problem is impressing upon undecided voters that he's up to the job, not impressing upon them that McCain sucks.

    He has failed to do that so far.  I wonder why.

    Parent

    I think he must do both. (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 02:55:20 PM EST
    Allowing John McCain to remain on his pedestal will make it impossible for Obama to "catch up" no matter how good he is at promoting himself.

    John McCain is not a good guy.  Really he is not.  It is okay to and highly recommended that the Obama campaign make sure that he can't hide behind the "maverick" "straight talk" "moderate" lies he's gotten away with promoting for years.

    Parent

    Sure, but whooping it up about how many (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Valhalla on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 03:10:15 PM EST
    houses he has will not accomplish that goal.

    Although I usually appreciate andgarden's perspective on polls, I seriously doubt this move anyone in the polls.

    The main reason think that is because the higher the volume at the frat party in the echosphere, the less likely a riff is to take with 'ordinary Americans.'  Because there's few groups less in touch with what ordinary folks are thinking about or worried about.  One thing they are not worried about is which side wins the Faculty Club debate contest for most 'zingers'.  Obama's not talking to the Lattes now.

    Or, well, he still is, but he should be talking to the audience of people who aren't already in love.

    Parent

    Because Obama has no track record (none / 0) (#96)
    by Prabhata on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 02:53:28 PM EST
    of accomplishments. He'll never convince me because I looked into the matter before I decided who to support in the primaries.

    Parent
    Issues and competence: (none / 0) (#95)
    by brodie on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 02:53:08 PM EST
    this is normally on display at the debates.  Three of 'em scheduled.  And I wonder whether McCain will manage to once again get the answers in advance.

    Because we know this bottom-of-the-class candidate will need some extra help in keeping up with Obama.  Maybe we all should look closely for any peculiar bulge on Mac's back.  And meantime, I'd advise the O camp to keep their debate prep books closely under wraps -- George Will is still around, not to mention Karl and Steve (Schmidt I mean) and the usual gang of cheaters and election thieves ...

    As for the campaign strategery, winning ones operate on two broad fronts always -- your side (issues, bio/character) and your version of the other guy and his sorry position on the issues.  It's not an either/or proposition, at least not for successful candidates.

    Parent

    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 03:22:16 PM EST
    I've long ridiculed the "there will be time to talk about those things later!" apologists, but excusing Obama's lack of focus on the issues by saying they'll come up at the debates is the silliest yet.

    Look, believe what you want.  But when we have a candidate who is so poorly defined in the eyes of much of the electorate, trivia and gaffe-obsession are NOT our friends.  Some people are so anxious to have a do-over of the last election that they are failing to think about the proper strategy to win THIS one.  Campaigns are not one-size-fits-all.

    Parent

    Re #121, I don't contend (none / 0) (#129)
    by brodie on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 03:51:36 PM EST
    O has had a "lack of focus on the issues".  They make up the bulk of his daily stump speech, and issues are featured in local/regional ad buys.  One or two recent ads that (finally) begin to take the battle to the oppo on other matters doesn't translate into he's not pounding the issues.

    As to campaign do-overs, I do believe we should avoid assuming the Repubs will magically change their usual slash-n-burn/dark alley strategy just because the calendar has changed.  Their tactics since July should indicate that is not true.

    Which is why our side should avoid the certified insanity of repeating the same thing over and over in hopes of a different outcome, and finally begin to acknowledge that Dems will not win the big one by taking the Mike Dukakis above the fray route.  

    Parent

    Don't Progressives Generally Lose (5.00 / 4) (#25)
    by BDB on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 01:20:55 PM EST
    when the discourse is reduced to this kind of crap?  Reality has a liberal bias as Colbert once said so instead of embracing reality, we settle for feeding the media the same kind of BS the GOP did.  I'm all for negative campaigning (I don't think Kerry did enough of it).  But I don't think "I'm not French, you are!" is what Kerry needed to do.  He needed to define why Bush was bad for the American people.  Obama needs to do the same with McCain.  Fighting over who is an elitist and who isn't seems like a loser in the long run for Democrats (nevermind that none of them seem to know the definition of elitist and how it differs from elite).

    This kind of discourse is killing our country and makes voters, IMO, more cynical that political leaders and the Government can and will do anything for them.  None of that is good for progressives even if Obama wins.

    Parent

    Liberals lose because they don't (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 02:23:25 PM EST
    take every opportunity that is given to them - there is nothing false about the story of McCain's too many to count or remember houses - it is true - and it wasn't the Obama camp that put it out there - it was Politico - the media picked up on it and Obama piled on weaving it into the fact that there is a mortgage crisis hurting people around this country - that was smart.  

    McCain has been spending the last few weeks trying to portray himself as some sort of average guy who gets it.  He is not that and never has been.  If the Obama campaign did not sieze upon the opportunity to chip away at that false image, I would have thought they were fools.

    For too many years our candidates responses to their opponents' gaffes have been something mealy mouthed like, "Oh, I couldn't possibly comment on something like that.  That's for him to talk to you about."  Blah.  Wimpy.  

    Parent

    Average (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 03:01:17 PM EST
    guy is a matter of perception largely. It's a cultural thing and it's why Obama is losing there only one house or not. Obama's "elitism problem" comes from how he has run his campaign (too many rallies) and his lack of being able to speak simply and clearly to the voters.

    Parent
    Great, Now We're Relying on the Politico (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by BDB on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 04:54:26 PM EST
    to tell us what's true.  Kill me now.

    The narrative about McCain's houses is almost entirely manufactured.  It's not at all clear he didn't know as opposed to not wanting to say how many houses his wife owns.  And the little kicker people throw in about McCain saying you had to make $5 million a year to be rich was clearly a joke.  

    There is no difference between this and the Kerry crap from 2004 except this time it's aimed at McCain and not the Democrat.  
    As Bob Somerby said today:

    In our view, it has been a bit embarrassing this week--watching Obama campaign against McCain's joke. In our view, you suspect a candidate has little to say when he campaigns in that fashion. But as the press corps starts pimping Obama's new narrative, you see the shape of an important new fact: Major elements of the mainstream press are, at long last, switching sides. It has been a very long time since they flung poo to the right.

    "McCain couldn't remember how many houses he owns!" It isn't clear that this is accurate, and the narrative it serves is largely inane. But you live on a planet of chimps; it's driven by people who just can't get serious. This morning, poo is being flung in a new direction. Your discourse got even dumber this week. And good lord! Some chimps have switched sides!

    Yay, the media switched sides!  It's still corrupt and uninformative, but now it's poo flinging is fair and balanced.  We're still not providing voters with any real basis to make an informed decision (McCain doesn't know how many houses he owns isn't much different than wanting to have a beer with Bush).  And the lack of hones information has made it impossible for liberals to get anything done and is destroying our nation's culture and political discourse.  But, hey, if it helps Obama, who cares about any of that?

    Parent

    So it is "better" in your mind (none / 0) (#139)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 06:32:46 PM EST
    if McCain wants to hide how many houses he owns?

    lol

    Something tells me that you wouldn't be quite so forgiving of Obama if he made a similar mistake or attempt at hiding something from the public.

    Parent

    Yeah, but while McCain (none / 0) (#94)
    by Grace on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 02:52:33 PM EST
    is eating lunch at O'Neal's Irish Pub and Schwartz's German Deli, Obama is in Paris eating at the Ritz and in Hawaii enjoying a luau.  

    Why isn't Obama doing townhalls at every VFW post in the country?  You don't see him climbing aboard his "Bull Moose Express" everyday, riding in the kitchen/bathroom combo part of his bus -- but you see John McCain doing that.  The only time I ever saw Obama carrying anything off an airplane, he dropped it on the tarmack as soon as possible, while we saw plenty of photos of McCain carrying his own luggage.  

    We look out of touch because we are out of touch!  Instead of nominating the woman who got 18 million votes in the states we need, we put up the black guy who won the caucuses in the Red states!  

    I'm only a voter so I can't really help it if the Democratic Party is stupid, but they are stoopid!!!  And we are stupid if we keep the people in charge that we have now!  They need to GO!      

    Parent

    I totally agree with you. (none / 0) (#101)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 02:59:18 PM EST
    I'm not defending his entire campaign here at all.  I think he should have gone to Kentucky - that's how far back I go in thinking he hasn't done enough to connect with voters.  But that is a separate issue from whether or not he should take opportunities like the one Politico and McCain handed him about the houses.

    I was glad to see him at a town hall in some park in Chester VA yesterday.  That was a step in the right direction I thought...  But I agree with you that he is way behind on this front.

    Parent

    He hasn't done anywhere near (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Grace on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 03:21:29 PM EST
    enough to try and court voters who might vote for him.

    Remember that trip McCain took through parts of the country where he knew people probably wouldn't vote for him?  It may have seemed frivolous to some people, but that's exactly the type of thing that wins you voters in other areas.  A candidate looks like they connect, like they want to be for all the people, even those who won't vote for them.

    Obama doesn't do enough of that type of thing.  He appears to write off vast numbers of voters without even trying to win their votes.    

    Parent

    Agreed. (none / 0) (#135)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 04:21:56 PM EST
    That's why having a VP at least before he went on vacation would have been a smart move.

    The only VP pick that would merit this long delay in my mind would be Clinton.  I see strategic reasons for holding her back at the outset and she has the ability to come out of the gate in full gallop.  

    I don't see the merit of holding any of the others though.  The end of this race is really coming quite quickly now and all of the others are going to have to create a national profile very quickly - I would have liked to have been doing that throughout July if not at least through August.

    Parent

    Dems lose when (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by brodie on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 02:23:52 PM EST
    the discourse is predictably reduced to this AND they fail to respond.

    See Mike Dukakis.  Al Gore.  John Kerry.  Three losers who played it above the fray.  Three otherwise smart guys who should have won.

    Sit back and allow the oppo to define you and you're a sure bet to lose.  An easy historical lesson for most people to spot with just a few seconds of reflection.

    Sorry some of you high-minded types and McCain enablers, but a winning campaign is one where you both define yourself and what you want to do AND define in your terms who the other guy is and how he wants to give the country more of the same.

    The Obama ads about Mac's Many Mansions is going to pay off.  It's factually true, so nothing dirty about it, and it neatly uses the candidate's own words and those of his surrogate against him.

    The fact that so many here in the ODS camp are against this line of attack is as clear indication as one needs to know that TeamO is on the right track.

    Parent

    I have to disagree. (none / 0) (#100)
    by Grace on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 02:59:05 PM EST
    Sit back and allow the oppo to define you and you're a sure bet to lose.

    The reason people get defined the way they do is because the definition rings true.  If our candidates weren't what they are, they would never be defined as such.  

    Everybody thought it was so cute and clever that Obama attracted huge crowds of women who fainted in his presence.  That wasn't cute OR clever.  It was enabling.  It allowed the Republicans to latch onto the "rockstar/celebrity" meme that they have successfully used.  They aren't calling names.  They are calling it as they, and everyone else, sees it!  Aren't we clever?  Aren't they nasty?  Nah!  They are just playing the game we started!      

    Parent

    Thank you! I couldn't agree more. (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Matt in Chicago on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 04:04:16 PM EST
    We went looking for a celebrity, another JFK, and when we found one we like... we're getting mad because people are calling him... wait for it, A Celebrity.

    As an aside, calling large chunks of America ignorant, gun-toting religious nuts is NOT going to win you votes.  It reminds people that you're an elitist... who looks down on them.

    Parent

    It's not the discourse (none / 0) (#102)
    by Prabhata on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 02:59:26 PM EST
    It's the candidate.  I like to use extremes in examples because it makes the point clear.  If a candidate is competent but a criminal, few can get behind such a candidate even if most people agree with what he'll accomplish.  With this example, I'm saying that the person, the candidate, is more important than the issues.  Those who want to talk about issues must first have the candidate.  Issues are secondary.

    Parent
    No, it's not because they refuse to (none / 0) (#122)
    by Valhalla on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 03:22:22 PM EST
    take every opportunity.  It's because they do it so badly, and spend far too much energy on the things that aren't working because they just can't give up on how 'right' they are.

    Republicans figure out what will have traction ahead of time (and NOT by doing endless market research) and go whole hog.  Democrats pick through R statements looking for logic gotchas and then crow it around all the while failing to notice no one is caring.  They pay no attention to how voters are really reacting and concentrate on how they'd like them to react.

    Here's the scorecard so far:

    women:  Rs = we respect you!  Ds = get over it, oh and you're too old for us to care about you.

    senior citizens: Rs = we ARE you.  Ds = you're too old for us to care about you.  You're not shiny enough.

    houses: Ds = 7 houses.  Rs = $4 million last year and convicted felon.

    associations: Ds = ties to Jack Abramoff.  Rs = convicted felon.  Oh, and 'G*d D*mn America'.  And domestic terrorists.

    Parent

    Right. (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by TChris on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 03:52:09 PM EST
    McCain respects women so much that he's against protecting their right to have abortions and against allowing them to sue for discrimination in wages. McCain loves the elderly so much that he was in favor of privatizing social security before he was (sorta) against it.  Maybe it's true that nobody cares, but if women and seniors think McCain specifically or Republicans in general care about them, their lack of caring will lead to four more years of government that is hostile to their interests.

    Parent
    Better 4 bad years now than 12 bad years (none / 0) (#142)
    by Valhalla on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 02:41:27 AM EST
    4 years down the road from now.

    And I said nothing about McCain caring for women or senior citizens.  I was talking about the message that is coming through.  It doesn't matter how good the Dems policies are (and you're really not on solid ground with Obama on women's issues and Soc Sec there), if they continually scr*w up the communication game.

    Again, Democrats want to win the argument; Republicans want to win the election.

    Parent

    Thank You! (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by BDB on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 01:16:40 PM EST
    I was beginning to think I was the only one.  There are so many things to attack McCain on, why drive our discourse further into the toilet by recycling anti-Kerry talking points.  McCain wants to continue the policies of the worst president in history, surely someone could think of a way to make that point effectively.  Not to mention the whole fraud, liar, war monger thing.

    Parent
    A smart politician, and one who understands (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Anne on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 01:44:16 PM EST
    what leadership really is would have seized the house brouhaha in a way that highlighted and advanced his own, better policies.

    Imagine if, instead of the stupid ad - yes, it was stupid because it was just part of the bickering - Obama had come out and said this:

    Today, John McCain was asked how many houses he has, and he wasn't sure.  Now, the question I have isn't `why doesn't he know how many homes he has?' because that's not something I particularly care about.  I know the McCains are in the fortunate position to be able to afford a very nice life, and there's nothing wrong with that.  We all want a good life.

    No, what I want to know is what John McCain is going to for the thousands of people who have no home, who have no health insurance, who will go to bed tonight worried that they might not have a job tomorrow, who have to make choices between medicine and rent, or food and clothes for the kids.  These are the issues I care about, and I think they're the issues America cares about.

    I want to give middle-class Americans a tax break, but John McCain thinks it's more important to take care of the corporations.  I want to make health care more affordable, while John McCain wants to eliminate the deduction employers get for the health care they provide for their employees, which will not only eliminate any incentive for them to keep providing it, but guess what?  If they do, you will have to report that benefit as income and pay tax on it.  Is that an idea that helps Americans?  Not the way I see it.

    He could go on and on and on like this, highlighting every single issue on which McCain is wrong for the country, using the media to speak to the things people really care about.

    It's just so ridiculously obvious.


    Parent

    Well, (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by chel2551 on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 01:52:50 PM EST
    ...using the media to speak to the things people really care about.

    I don't get the feeling Obama cares enough about the issues many dems care about.  

    That's been a problem from the beginning.

    This whole unity and bi-partisan nonsense pretty much cemented that feeling.


    Parent

    Couldn't he at least pretend to care? (5.00 / 0) (#59)
    by Anne on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 02:05:20 PM EST
    I have the same feeling you do, and also sense that this is just about winning, about getting to the WH, and not at all about what he will be expected to do once he gets there.

    There's no authenticity about Obama, and the fact that he can't even fake it is just pitiful.

    Parent

    May it's (none / 0) (#78)
    by chel2551 on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 02:24:58 PM EST
    because he hasn't been around long enough, hasn't ever made a real connection to the people he's supposed to represent.  He seems to be coming from one place and his views have been formed and solidified there.  He just doesn't seem to "get" the average voter.

    You're right.  He does not come across as sincere.  His little speeches sound good to some people, but give us no indication who he really is or what he wants to accomplish.

    I guess he's not a very good actor.

    Parent

    Agreed and agreed (none / 0) (#133)
    by Matt in Chicago on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 04:09:00 PM EST
    Your ad suggestion would totally work without exposing him to Rezko, and it gets him on point.

    Unfortunately, I think you're also right that the WH is the goal... and saying anything that gets him there is the means.

    It really is disturbing to me.

    Parent

    Obama doesn't want to be tied (none / 0) (#107)
    by Grace on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 03:02:46 PM EST
    to specific positions and policies, so it's his own dam fault that this election is turning into a name-calling mudfest.  

    Who can critique your policies if you don't have any?  

    Yes, he could have turned the house thing into his advantage, but that would have required taking a position and he doesn't want to do that.

    Blah.  

    Parent

    On a comical note, (none / 0) (#115)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 03:11:00 PM EST
    Karl Rove just said that Obama is the one using his 'change the subject' tactics when you don't like what's being said about you.

    Parent
    The bitter comment (none / 0) (#109)
    by Prabhata on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 03:03:56 PM EST
    Hillary said something like: I don't see bitter people.  I see hard working people having a hard time making ends meet.  She took advantage of what Obama had said, but used it to define how she saw the hunting working class.

    Parent
    Houses (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 01:07:28 PM EST
    issue would have been effective if not for Rezko. And the GOP is now talking about what a bunch of hypocrites we are because we had no problem with Kerry. This was a dumb attack. When are Dems ever going to learn? Never it seems.

    Parent
    Good point (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Slado on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 01:12:50 PM EST
    Even if McCain doesn't bring it up himself expect the RNC to go through the Jeramia Wright, Ayers and Rezko affiliation after Obama put out an add trying to tie McCain to Abramof.

    Obama better be carefull making the populist claim after vacationing in Hawaii for 1 week and after moving into a $4million dollar home in Chicago built by Rezko.

    Remember 50% of democrats had no problem voting for a women whose financial records where equally as lofty as McCains.

    Parent

    Or just point (none / 0) (#47)
    by JThomas on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 01:52:03 PM EST
    out the truth. Like how McCain smoothed a purchase of army land in arizona for a big contributor(Diamond) who purchased the land for 250k then sold it for 20 million two years later.
    He contributed over 200k to McCain.

    This is not attacking...it is exposing.
    McCain is awash in lobbyists. He covered up the abramhoff scandal also...sealing 250,000 in documents til 2056...why?  Cover up of a massive GOP scandal, that is why.

    Parent

    Golden Gloves vs. Velvet Gloves (5.00 / 0) (#28)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 01:26:24 PM EST
    McCain and Obama.  It's about to get down and dirty now.  After Labor Day you can bet the howitzers will be booming left, right, front and center.

    Obama better get on the offensive and PRONTITO!  The R's are looking for a fight. And with Obama's weaknessess, they feel like they have a real shot at keeping the White House.

    And only a real naive person would think that "post-partisan, negative-free charges" were ever going to be a part of this election.

    The (5.00 / 0) (#31)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 01:34:09 PM EST
    howitzers have already opened up on Obama. Ayers is running now by a 527. Rezko is now running in an ad with Obama. I don't think his campaign has answered either one of them. And now Obama has disabled liberal 527's from answering these ads I don't know how he's going to respond. And with the fundraising not meeting goals, he needs to be pulling out of states like GA where he's wasting more money than I can imagine. McCain hasn't put up one ad and is winning by 25% here. I wouldn't donate to Obama's campaign if this is the way they used my money.

    Parent
    I saw that ad (none / 0) (#39)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 01:42:05 PM EST
    on the YouTube this morning. It's running in MI and OH.  I say that that ad was in response to the Ralph Reed/Abramahoff charge.

    Obama is still intent on GA and VA.  MI and OH are not on his radar, at least, they appear NOT to be.

    Parent

    Polls (5.00 / 0) (#58)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 02:04:43 PM EST
    out today from McClatchy show him literally tanking in GA. 25 freakin' points! He's doing worse than Kerry! He can be an idiot and continue to throw money down the drain here in GA and probably kill any chances we have down ticket or pull out. After all these years, except for 92 and 96, of having Dem presidential nominees ignore the state we finally get attention from one that's going to probably hurt all the other races in the state.

    Parent
    The only way the Republicans can win is with a (5.00 / 0) (#35)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 01:38:32 PM EST
    fight and a dirty one too, and we can be sure they will deliver.

    Parent
    A little bit of history (5.00 / 0) (#44)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 01:48:27 PM EST
    repeating...

    Parent
    Stick to the issues (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Manuel on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 01:41:21 PM EST
    Every day that the campaign is about character and patriotism and how many  houses a candidate has and who is more elitist or who is inexperienced or too old is a win for McCain.  It doesn't matter what the actual merits of the charges are or how quickly the Democrats respond or attack.  What Obama needs to do is to change the narrative. The correct response is "McCain is trying to distract you from the issues".  How are we going to achieve energy independence?  How are we going to improve health care?  How can we fix our educational system?  What can we do to improve homeland security?  What kind of financial regulations do we need going forward?  What should we do about the GSEs?  This is what we should be talking about.  The issues are with the Democrats.  Why you would aloow yourself to be diverted to talk about character is beyond me.

    Nope. It's too obvious (5.00 / 0) (#45)
    by nycstray on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 01:50:56 PM EST
    McCain is not trying to distract from issues. This is the same game they played against Hillary. McCain made a comment and the Obama campaign is the one jumping all over it and hoping for 2 days of news cycles on it. Same with his stupid "funny name" implications and everything else. He's using his stump speeches to say what McCain and the Repubs will do, which distracts his fans from the issues. He should have used the houses comment to talk about the economy, housing crisis etc in specific terms and how his plans are better for current homeowners and for helping more people to become homeowners in the future.

    Parent
    Yes, it is bad strategy (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Manuel on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 02:04:30 PM EST
    McCain isn't Hillary.  Against Hillary there wasn't much of an issue contrast so the back and forth on charcater was understandable.  Against McCain the contrast on issues is heavily in Obama's favor.  They should be hammered again and again.

    Parent
    I really hope the past pattern (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 01:44:56 PM EST
    I have experienced attempting to support Obama doesn't hold true.  I find myself feeling a bit supportive today and that is usually followed by a total face plant the next day.  Biden or Kaine would be a total face plant for a middle class female voter.

    Oh boy do I feel that sentiment (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by blogtopus on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 01:53:45 PM EST
    I've looked back at posts where I've declared that I will hold my nose and vote for Obama, but he always manages to throw another obstacle between me and the voting booth.

    Parent
    I hope that writer has proof... (5.00 / 0) (#63)
    by kredwyn on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 02:07:34 PM EST
    of her claim that Corsi is a white supremacist. Cause if she doesn't, she's just opened her publication up to a slander suit.

    Support (none / 0) (#67)
    by TChris on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 02:12:30 PM EST
    for that accusation can be found here and here.

    Parent
    That he made an appearance (none / 0) (#72)
    by kredwyn on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 02:16:42 PM EST
    on a radio show?

    He makes appearances on Coast to Coast AM also. Does that make him a UfO enthusiast too?

    Parent

    You apparently didn't read the part (none / 0) (#92)
    by TChris on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 02:50:32 PM EST
    about
    his past embrace of bigotry and general scumbaggery, as documented by "a whole series of bigoted and hateful posts" that Corsi "put up on right-wing Web sites."


    Parent
    bigoted and hateful (none / 0) (#99)
    by kredwyn on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 02:58:16 PM EST
    does not make him a white supremacist. It makes him a probable racist.

    And his presence during the 2004 election, where he was just a scumbag, is evidence of scumbaggery.

    Neither do arguments of association, which can be used in various ways...as Obama has most certainly found out vis a vis his friendship with one W. Ayers--bomber.

    But unless you have him with active membership in a white supremacy organization, I'd advise treading lightly around the moniker.

    Parent

    Not sure why we're arguing degrees of Bigotry, but (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by indy in sc on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 03:15:37 PM EST
    she said he was a white supremacist sympathizer not a white supremacist himself.  Not that one is much better than the other.

    Parent
    My general point... (none / 0) (#140)
    by kredwyn on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 08:32:42 PM EST
    is that arguments of association are problematic.

    Parent
    That's how low we've come (none / 0) (#73)
    by Prabhata on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 02:17:02 PM EST
    We've got trouble in this country.  Appearing on a show does not mean one thinks like the host.  The show it's just a venue to hype the book.

    Parent
    That second article is remarkably (none / 0) (#126)
    by Valhalla on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 03:32:21 PM EST
    badly written.  I can't tell if it was Corsi who was on Larry King, or the other guy.  Or if the emails they quote are Corsi's or that Edwards (not John) guys.

    Parent
    Sorry (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Ennis on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 05:00:48 PM EST
    I double-checked the date, and you are correct. My mistake.  I wouldn't have gone into full-frontal if I didn't think I'dearned it.  I'll dial it back for another few days.

    Thanks.

    I think the campaign has been great thus far (4.50 / 4) (#40)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 01:43:11 PM EST
    Obama has been staying fairly positive.  His attacks up until this point have been comparison attacks (not all out negative adds that McCain has put forward), which though haven't made his base happy have worked well in terms of defining who he is.  The Republicans have been on a all out attack, and it has garnered them only a few points, but in the process they have blown/ used up many of what will be their only effective attacks.  Thus when September comes, and they come out with the same boring stuff it will fall flat.

    I think this attack on the houses thing does 3 things. 1) Gets the base excited before the primary- this is very important, and 2)Gives him a good narrative to talk about why McCain's economic policies only help with wealthy.  The third thing, which I think is just luck, is that McCain's POW response is starting to sound old.  

    The BIG thing he hasn't been able to do is translate his economic plan/ policies into the one liner "its the economy stupid".  It is a shame, because there is a lot to it.  

    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 01:51:29 PM EST
    I had to read that post twice just to believe it wasn't a snark.

    Obama, for all intensive purposes, should be TEN points AT LEAST ahead of McCain.  Instead his numbers are tanking like a lead balloon and even super D's are asking him to "define hope" and get away from the abstracts.

    The only ones about the hopey/changey/kumbaya are the ones who are not adept to presidential politics.  The Republicans are prepared to BURY Obama.  Gingrich himself opined that it would "be a waste to not use all the Jeremiah Wright footage."

    Obama is a Rove dream.  Low-hanging fruit as we say in sales.

    Parent

    Well we will (none / 0) (#50)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 01:53:55 PM EST
    Have to agree to disagree

    Parent
    My friend (none / 0) (#55)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 02:03:08 PM EST
    the phrase is "for all intents and purposes."  Just so you know!

    Parent
    DOH! (none / 0) (#66)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 02:12:28 PM EST
    thanks!  Kinda like that time I was in college and I corrected a friend who thought in U2's "Bullet the Blue Sky"  the lyric was "I can see those spider brains" and I told her that it was "I can see those fighter planes".

    Thanks!

    Parent

    I truly believe (none / 0) (#124)
    by Grace on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 03:25:09 PM EST
    Obama is the weakest candidate the Dems have put up in decades.

    This campaign will truly go down in history for what it was.  It'll show up on Wikipedia under "What were they thinking?"  ;-)  

    Parent

    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by trublueCO on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 02:13:06 PM EST
    Sam, you are right. This silly little issue of the houses lets the campaign lay the groundwork for the larger "our economic policies are better" argument.

    Think about how the right uses little issue after little issue to help build the overall narrative (factual or not) about a candidate. Obama's policies will resonate better with people because they will remember the house gaffe and the $5 million equals rich comment after it was pounded into our heads from every angle.

    I hope it is just a matter of time before the campaign can find their "its the economy stupid" moment.

    Parent

    One of thin lines I thought they were going to use (none / 0) (#75)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 02:22:26 PM EST
    Was what does McCain offer that is different then Bush in terms of economic policy?  I liked the line, but it faded.  I think it didn't go anywhere because he came back with "Obama will increase your taxes,"  which regardless of the truth is hard to overcome.

    Maybe, that should be Obama's tag line.  McCain's policy will increase our taxes. When you look at the policies, McCain's policy does cost more to the average american per year by a good 700 dollars.

    Parent

    I really hate (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 02:45:14 PM EST
    trying to beat Republicans on the tax issue by getting into a bidding war.

    At the end of the day the GOP can always cut them more than we can, because they simply don't care if the government has enough revenues.

    Parent

    That would be hard to do (none / 0) (#87)
    by cmugirl on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 02:41:37 PM EST
    since the conservative blogs and the McCain campaign are all over the place (and ads are out) saying Obama will raise taxes. It will just sound like more of Obama copy-catting.

    Parent
    Negative campaigning (none / 0) (#3)
    by chel2551 on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:46:51 PM EST
    wins.  Sad but true.

    Obama has been playing (none / 0) (#16)
    by Slado on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 01:08:56 PM EST
    dirty for weeks and so has McCain.   It is the ultimate hypocrisy for either side to claim the other is dirty.

    The gloves are off.   Obama is painting McCain as a rich washington lobiest cronnie old man.  McCain is painting Obama as a pretty boy, no experience lefty loon.

    The candidate of change and the Maverick have joined together into a traditional no holds bar campaign and with 74 days to go expect every negative aspect of each candidate to be explored, debated, decried, repeated and thouroghly discussed in the blogosphere.

    Let the best mudslinger win.

    Great! (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 01:18:26 PM EST

    ...expect every negative aspect of each candidate to be explored, debated, decried, repeated and thouroghly discussed...

    As it should be.  We don't need stealth candidates.

    Parent

    Yep It wouldn't be so bad now (5.00 / 0) (#32)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 01:34:44 PM EST
    if this vetting -- another name for negatives -- had happened in the primaries.  That the DNC didn't do the job, addressing and answering the questions about Obama, is not gonna keep McCain from doing it now.

    News flash:  One of these guys does not kowtow to the DNC.  

    Now we have to see if Obama is going to keep being taken off message and agenda by McCain.  Obama has about two days to get back on track.  Then come the conventions.  And then comes the real swiftboating, the punches that the Republicans have pulled -- so far.  This is why all of these weeks have been wasted by Obama, who needed to make the most of them.

    Parent

    unscrupulous (none / 0) (#18)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 01:14:12 PM EST

    Susan Demas asks whether McCain is actually "putting his country first" by indulging in and refusing to condemn unscrupulous campaign tactics.

    Is offering to debate any time any where and then refusing to do so unscrupulous?

    This is going (none / 0) (#43)
    by JThomas on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 01:47:30 PM EST
    to be McCain's ''macaca'' quote of the campaign.
    When he is totally exposed as having 15 lobbyists run his campaign with American Enterprise Institute's super hawk Norm Podhertz running his foreign policy those folks in Ohio,where unemployment has doubled to 7.3% since 2000 and over 31% of all ohioans live below the poverty line... those Ohioans are going to ask themselves...am I better off under the GOP?  No. McCain promises more war,less jobs.
    That will not resonate in America in 08.

    McCain is doing what Obama wanted (none / 0) (#57)
    by Prabhata on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 02:04:37 PM EST
    Obama: "I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views."  -The Audacity of Hope

    McCain is taking Obama at his word and defining the blank screen.

    No, if Obama is the blank screen onto (5.00 / 0) (#61)
    by Anne on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 02:06:39 PM EST
    which people can write their own hopes and dreams, McCain is the eraser.

    Parent
    McCain is putting his dream (5.00 / 0) (#62)
    by Prabhata on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 02:07:32 PM EST
    on the blank screen.

    Parent
    Obama said: (none / 0) (#64)
    by Prabhata on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 02:10:30 PM EST
    "project their own views".  Obama said nothing about hope or dreams.  McCain has views of Obama and he's busy, like an artist with paint on a canvass.

    Parent
    okay - I get your point, (none / 0) (#74)
    by Anne on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 02:21:27 PM EST
    and McCain has done a better job of projecting an image of Obama onto that screen than Obama has, so far.

    McCain's "over-writing" on Obama's screen, which is a little like being an eraser, no?

    I really think this strategy of Obama's just highlights what a cipher he is that he sees himself as being whatever others need him to be.

    And if what he was really saying was, "project your views onto me and I will carry the message forth," he's an even worse communicator than I thought.

    Parent

    A blank page (none / 0) (#79)
    by Prabhata on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 02:26:57 PM EST
    is just that.  One does not "overwrite" on a blank page.  Obama wants to do that for McCain.  People have views about McCain, maverick being the main one.

    Parent
    Oh, for the love of God - (none / 0) (#88)
    by Anne on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 02:44:23 PM EST
    is the screen permanently blank?  Because if it isn't, then whatever is on it can be over-written.

    Are the views projected onto the screen and just bouncing off?  Do they not stick?  Can they only be seen by the person who projected them there, or what?

    McCain is projecting his views of Obama onto the same screen that others have projected theirs; what the public at large sees on that screen is determined in large part by who's "writing" is seen by the most people.  At the moment, what McCain is projecting is over-writing what Obama has encouraged his supporters to project onto him.

    Obama can do the same to McCain, but he isn't, or he's being very ineffective at it.  That's the game: define or be defined, and Obama seems to have chosen to be defined more by his opponent than by himself or his supporters.

    Now, give me a break here on this "blank screen" nonsense, will ya?

    Parent

    Obama has a harder road to travel (none / 0) (#114)
    by Matt in Chicago on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 03:10:53 PM EST
    because people have had years to develop a sense for John McCain.  All of this "McSame" while popular is only playing with Obama-loyalists... Most Americans remember the 2000 elections and know that there is not much lost love between Bush and McCain.  Combine that with his support for the surge when everyone said it would doom his presidential hopes and it gets very tough to destroy his hokey "maverick" image.

    Obama would do much better explaining in clear, concrete terms why his plans are better than McCain's for America.  The hope and change stuff was great for the primaries, now it is time to talk specifics.

    Once again, my opinion only.

    Parent

    Unfortunately, that IS what he said and (none / 0) (#119)
    by Matt in Chicago on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 03:17:11 PM EST
    I think it is what he means...  When I talk to one of his true believers, they always explain his policies as being exactly what they hope they would be.  The funny part is, you can talk to several different believers on different topics but it always the same... Obama believe exactly what they believe.  Does anyone EVER agree with EVERYTHING in a politicians platform??

    My point is this: it seems to me that they have no idea where he really stands, but they know where they want him to stand.  And he has been happy to let them go on believing this...

    McCain is now using that to his advantage.

    Has anyone else noticed this??

    Parent

    Then it's unanimous! (none / 0) (#70)
    by Ennis on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 02:14:12 PM EST
    Obama is responsible for McCain slandering him.

    Thanks for the update.

    Obama is responsible (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Prabhata on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 02:36:14 PM EST
    for not defining himself but actively being a blank page.

    Parent
    I don't think so. (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 02:36:20 PM EST
    I think anyone who thinks that if Obama refrained from going on the attack the Republicans wouldn't roll out their dirt is fooling themselves.

    The Republicans were always planning on sliming either one of our front runners big time.  That has always been the plan.

    Saying that Obama mentioning McCain's houses "provoked" them to raise Rezko is a downright lie.  Maybe he pushed the schedule forward, but they were always going to go after him on this front - we all understand that deep down right?  I hope so because it won't be the last time they do it.

    If camp Obama is smart, they'll anticipate the responses accurately and will have hit hard enough in their initial attack to make the McCain campaign look like the whiners they are.

    McCain's spokesperson pulling out the POW thing one more time and calling this "the most personal attack of the campaign" really made them sound pathetic imo.

    Parent

    Well said (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by Ennis on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 02:50:52 PM EST
    McCain would and will use anything he can between now and November.

    But that doesn't matter to anti-Obamas.  Whatever he does is wrong.  If he does not respond to attacks, he's weak.  If he responds, he's reckless.

    Parent

    I have to agree with you on the initial (none / 0) (#103)
    by Matt in Chicago on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 02:59:56 PM EST
    reaction from the McCain camp about being in "one house."  A pathetic response.

    His subsequent responses about Rezko are way more effective... unfortunately it plays into McCain's previous "judgment" comments.

    Obama really needs to get out ahead of the Rezko and Ayer's things.  Here in Chicago, people are quite amazed that it doesn't have more legs nationally.  Obama needs to address his real ties to Rezko and try to explain it away because let's face it, Rezko is a sleazeball and ANY association with him is going to hurt... especially in October when he is sentenced!!

    Parent

    9 out of 10 people (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Ennis on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 03:13:13 PM EST
    don't even know who Rezko is, and most of the rest are Fox News morans.

    Housegate is the kind of gaffe that really resonates with average Americans.  It's like Bushdaddy and grocery store scanners.  Plus it's connected with the real issues of the economy, growing gap between rich and poor, and tax cuts for the rich.  

    "Rezco" is just a murky personal attack with no relation to issues that most people are concerned about.

    Parent

    My point is... (none / 0) (#123)
    by Matt in Chicago on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 03:22:40 PM EST
    They WILL know.  Consider it a non-issue at your own risk.

    Especially once Rezko's sentencing occurs in October.  This story is going to get new life.

    All of the sudden McCain can tie Obama's "shady" real estate deal to Rezko, while bringing up his connections to Countrywide... and Dodd... and a sweetheart bailout that Dodd championed.

    If you don't think that is a compelling narrative in light of the negative view of Congress, you are kidding yourself.

    He needs to address it head on now... because closer to the General Election is going to hurt.  

    Parent

    You may or may not know that (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 04:00:36 PM EST
    the House Ethics Panel charged John McCain with showing "Poor judgment" in his dealings with convicted felon Charles Keating.  McCain can go down this Rezko road, but Obama can pull out the House Record citing McCain for his poor judgment - as well as numerous clips and interviews of McCain admitting to same.  

    So...  while I think Obama is at risk in this area - I think that the weight of a House Ethics Committee judgment against McCain isn't half bad as return fire goes - could be worse - McCain could not be as corrupt as he is...

    Parent

    You're right, and I did know... (none / 0) (#134)
    by Matt in Chicago on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 04:21:28 PM EST
    What I would be worried about is the S&L scandal is a LONG time ago... before the press started the "Mavericl" meme (bet the MSM is regretting THAT), but the Rezko stuff is happening NOW.  And Rezko is getting sentenced in October!

    McCain will simply say he made a mistake in the 20 years ago... and then go on to list Rezko, Ayers, Wright and the Surge (because you can have a statement without mentioning the Surge).

    I get the feeling that people have already forgotten and forgiven the S&L thing.  And I think they would have likely forgiven Obama any one of his "mistakes" but all of them?  In the next 70-odd days?

    I guess I will say it again... Obama needs to get out in front of these things before McCain does it for him.

    Ennis, THIS will be the smear... and I am scared to death it will work.

    Parent

    Slander is saying things (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by misspeach2008 on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 02:54:54 PM EST
    that are not true. Rezko did help Obama buy his house. Rezko is a convicted felon. McCain may be saying things about Obama that are negative, but it's not slander.

    Parent
    Unfortunately you are completely right. (none / 0) (#110)
    by Matt in Chicago on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 03:05:46 PM EST
    I am not even sure if I consider these things "attacks".  Saying John Kerry was a traitor in 2004 was an attack, saying Obama has connections (more that I am happy with) to dubious people is just true.

    Once again from a Chicago perspective, he has supported/endorsed/accepted endorsements from some corrupt and shady people (Stroger, Emil Jones, Rezko, Ayers) here in the Chicago area.  He needs to get out ahead of this, because the RNC is not going to just ignore it (like too much of the national media seems willing to do).

    Time to start playing hard ball Obama team... you have negatives, address them.  Don't let someone else address them for you... because McCain won't do it in a flattering light.

    Obviously these are just my opinions.

    Parent

    Guilt by association is slander (none / 0) (#117)
    by Ennis on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 03:14:05 PM EST
    Thank you.

    Parent
    How is that slandering him? (none / 0) (#125)
    by Matt in Chicago on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 03:27:13 PM EST
    He directed State money to Rezko's projects.

    He bought land from Rezko (that strip for his garden).

    Rezko is a convicted felon.

    Obama is guilty of nothing... other than exercising poor judgment.

    All I am saying is that I want Obama to address it and move forward, rather than brushing it off (like you're doing) and allowing it to dog him.

    Parent

    oh yeah, and this isn't the definition of slander (none / 0) (#128)
    by Matt in Chicago on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 03:41:14 PM EST
    Guilt by association is simply a smear :)

    Slander typically requires a false statement.

    McCain is smearing him, but unfortunately he is not lying.

    Parent

    Biden's a Decoy - Wesley Clark is VP (none / 0) (#143)
    by Sometimey on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 04:54:24 AM EST
    Barack's gaming the press. It's not Biden it's General Wesley Clark.
    Country First? | 130 comments (130 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment