home

Obama Fights Back Against McCain Swift Boat Politics

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 03:23:19 PM EST
Tags: Barack Obama, John McCain (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Obama criticizes McCain's blatant attempt to swift-boat him over the lipstick comments.

"Spare me the phony outrage. Spare me the phony talk about change," Obama said at the start of an education event in Norfolk, Virginia.

"We have real problems in this country right now. The American people are looking to us for answers, not distractions, not diversions, not manipulations. They want real answers to the real problems we are facing.

More...

"I don't care what they say about me. But I love this country too much to let them take over another election with lies and phony outrage and swift boat politics. Enough is enough," he said, referring to how Swift Boat Veterans for Truth launched attacks against Sen. John Kerry in the 2004 presidential race.

< Party Time at Interior Dept. | We Are Not Winning in Afghanistan >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama Fights Back Against McCain Swift Boat Politics | 190 comments (190 topical)
    Very Good (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Todd on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 03:29:09 PM EST
    But now every Democrat needs to come up to the plate. The campaign needs to make sure every Dem is behind them. They need to swallow their pride and realize that Bill, Hillary, Al, John, John, Ted and everyone after needs to be engaged in this fight. This is a fight for our country. The Repubs get this. Do we?

    Meanwhile (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by Steve M on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 03:29:23 PM EST
    TPM publishes a reader email:

    Here in Wisconsin, one of the heads of the "Palin Truth Squad", former Lt. Gov. Margaret Farrow is giving interviews, outraged over the lipstick comment. The state GOP has called a 1:30 press conference where a group of GOP women will rip into Obama for all of the assembled TV cameras.

    My question... where the hell are the Democrats on this? Not just here, but nationally, they are letting Obama get bloodied over this. Where is Biden? Is he turning into this cycle's Edwards? Where are Pelosi and Boxer and Sebelius today?

    The campaign needs to stop forcing Obama to take on the entire right-wing... His organization in every state should have high-profile surrogates out there today ripping into McCain and Palin, not just on the lipstick, but on the the sex ed ad and the judge's order for Palin to stay out of the divorce.

    Where are these people?

    On some level you have to be impressed by the Republicans' ability to find so many surrogates to go out and repeat stuff that they know to be BS.  You don't see that from the Democratic side.  We have too many people who would go off the reservation.

    I hope Obama wins this round.  I can't help but feel like I've seen this movie far too many times, though.  When it's one guy against the entire right-wing noise machine, the machine usually wins the battle.

    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 03:35:55 PM EST
    unless you've got someone who's actually had to fight these jokers before they usually tend to win the argument. Sigh. This election just becomes more depressing every day.

    Parent
    Actually (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by Steve M on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 03:38:40 PM EST
    speaking of people who've had to fight the GOP before, Obama's closing exhortation ("I won't let them swiftboat me!!!") reminds me of nothing quite so much as John Kerry's stirring defense of his botched joke in 2006.  Despite all the lessons he claimed to have learned, the noise machine still won in the end.

    I'll root for Obama to win this dust-up but it's hard to avoid the sinking feeling that the Republicans simply play politics better than we do.

    Parent

    Sinking feeling? (4.66 / 3) (#21)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 03:42:25 PM EST
    Yeah, I have that too. The irony is that Obama played this same game during the primaries and seemed to have no problem with it then.

    I remember literally months ago when you were telling people on the blogs that the GOP will gin up stuff continually until the press does their bidding. I knew you were right then but I can't believe that after the last eight years no one else believed it.

    Parent

    What's ironic is (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Steve M on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 03:49:23 PM EST
    BTD has been more right than I was, on balance, about the media.  They haven't simply abandoned Obama.  In fact, in the first couple paragraphs of every story on this "lipstick" controversy you can find all the pro-Obama talking points about how McCain has used the same expression before, Obama was clearly talking about McCain's policies when he said it, blah blah blah.  So the media is actually doing fairly well at calling this a faux controversy.  I think I saw a comment elsewhere in the thread that even Fox is describing it that way.

    The problem with the right-wing noise machine is that they can effectively go right around the media filter.  If you can find enough GOP surrogates, preferably women, to go out there and pronounce that this was a horrible, sexist insult, it ceases to matter if the media says "come on, who are they kidding."  Certainly, it's better if the media sticks up for Obama than if they don't, but it's never been a dispositive factor for the Dems in the past - and right now, when the GOP has done such a good job of constructing a "the media hates Sarah Palin" narrative, it's hard to see how the outcome will be different.

    Parent

    Although oddly enough (5.00 / 4) (#114)
    by lilburro on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 04:43:47 PM EST
    from my vantage point, the media loves Palin.  They can't get enough of her.  They're obsessing, and the tone is less vexed than the one they used on Hillary.  I notice in almost every shot I've seen recently of McCain, she's in the photo somewhere.  The left media has hated her loudly, but I think the MCM is enamored.  She came into the game as someone completely unqualified - now people seem to be accepting of her as VP.  Which is scary.
    We weren't able to stamp out the Palin fire, and dumb left wing attacks only added fuel...so now it has spread.  

    Parent
    and Obama himself (4.25 / 4) (#131)
    by ccpup on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 05:05:49 PM EST
    had famously laid the groundwork for allegations of using "sexist" language with his -- and his surrogate's -- behavior in the Primary against Clinton.

    What was said about her and done to her is, by now, something akin to common knowledge (even if many people may not know the specifics), so it's not too big of a leap to accept that Obama and his campaign are at it again.

    He's made this bed -- which won him the Nomination --, now he has to lie in it ... which may end up (along with a host of other things) costing him the White House.

    Parent

    So let me get this straight (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by indiependy on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 05:18:47 PM EST
    Obama and his supporters made statements during the primary that while not outright sexist in some eyes are perceived that way, and it should cost him the election. So John McCain and his supporters, who have a long history of just out and out blatantly sexist remarks, continually vote to limit the rights of women, and passed over numerous other qualified women and selected the younger, more attractive one to be his VP, is the one to be rewarded?

    Parent
    didn't say that exactly (4.33 / 6) (#150)
    by ccpup on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 05:29:29 PM EST
    The point I was attempting to make -- and which may have gone over your head -- is because of Obama's most recent behavior in the Primaries, it's much easier for McCain to paint something he says or does re:Palin as sexist.

    If that, amongst other things, costs him the election, then it's his own fault.  People are more aware of what Obama and his surrogate's said in the Primary against Hillary a few months ago -- and even, in some cases, a few WEEKS ago! -- than what John McCain may or may not have said a few months ago, a few years ago, whatever.  

    And pointing out the McCain did it too doesn't necessarily give Obama a pass or erase the fact that he, in fact, may STILL be doing it, to some extent.

    That may be all that's needed to push people off the fence and into the Not Voting column or the McCain column.

    Parent

    Yep or Yup., (none / 0) (#159)
    by byteb on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 05:40:01 PM EST
    Sounds like an alternate reality, doesn't it?

    Parent
    Agreed (5.00 / 4) (#147)
    by Coral on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 05:28:14 PM EST
    And though I am very concerned about the nation's future, part of me can't help but say, "Well, what goes around, comes around."

    It is beyond me, why Obama, and his campaign, aren't doing more to reach out to female voters. The issues are with them -- healthcare, family leave, the economy, education. Instead they are letting themselves get caught up in the GOP name-calling war, which Democrats always lose.

    Parent

    Saying 'I won't let them swiftwboat me' (none / 0) (#63)
    by ruffian on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 04:04:10 PM EST
    does not actually stop the swiftboating.

    To be fair, I have no good solution - Marc Ambinder today calls it the Keyser Soze rules.  When the other side is willing to go as far as it takes, they are hard to stop.

    The people just have to decide they are tired of it.  Obama's statement today addressed that, and I think it should be amplified by all of his surrogates.  The people themselves have to say "Enough!".

    Parent

    The only way this could favor (4.00 / 2) (#105)
    by dailygrind on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 04:34:31 PM EST
    McCain is if Obama backed down. Unlike Kerry, Obama is not. He's right is his comparator. I believe you aren't. This isn't about a botched joke.It's about swiftboating. Where Kerry lost the race, IMO, is when he asked Bush to call off his attack dogs. Here, Obama did something that you can't find once in the 2004 election- called McCain's people liars among other things and questioned their committ to their country. I believe if he sticks with this it becomes a McCain liability because the press isn't buying McCain's argument (another difference from 2004 and the botched joke).

    Parent
    Yes, I totally agree (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by independent voter on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 05:02:50 PM EST
    Obama MUST keep on the offensive here. He has to call out John McCain and Sarah Palin, I truly believe he will be backed up by the MSM. He cannot be afraid to go after Sarah Palin, unlike Hillary, she is NOT on his side and deserves every bit of his scorn.

    Parent
    Have the Republican's overreached? (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by byteb on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 05:15:41 PM EST
    I'm wondering if the Republicans have so overreacted
    and overreached this time in trying to create a soap opera over this, that it will create a backlash among people who are getting sick of McCain's treating Palin like she's off limits to anything but applause and a spotlight.

    Parent
    His focus needs to be McCain (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by dailygrind on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 05:26:16 PM EST
    People don't vote for VPs. His comments also were about McCain, and this is just McCain trying to deflect against the McSame meme. That's why this politic theatre is happening. It's meant to distract. The question is can McCain do this for 57 days. We shall see.

    Parent
    CBS objects to McCain "lipstick" ad (none / 0) (#83)
    by litigatormom on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 04:15:00 PM EST
    CBS forced McCain's campaign to take down the anti-Obamalipstick ad because it used footage of Katie Couric decrying sexism in American life.  In the ad, it looked like Couric was agreeing with McCain's view that the lipstick line was sexist, when in fact she was talking about Hillary Clinton.

    Parent
    Oy. Truly ineffectual (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 03:37:38 PM EST
    except maybe for the political geeks. Whom, I think it's safe to assume, have already decided who they're voting for...

    Here's a reaction (5.00 / 5) (#25)
    by Steve M on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 03:44:16 PM EST
    from Jonathan Martin at the Politico.  After quoting Obama's response, he writes:

    This is what makes some Democrats nervous.  Instead of hitting back with, say, a reference to McCain's years-old crude comments about Chelsea Clinton (as one Dem suggested to me), he puts on his analyst hat and dissects the modern political-media process.  

    Of course, there is truth to what he said.    It's as plain as day to those of us who live this stuff and appreciate the finer points of the Drudge-cable news nexus.  

    But, to the broader world, he's being accused of outright sexism and his response is a disquisition on why the charge is gaining traction.

    Maybe he doesn't want to sully his "new politics" brand and he has more faith in the American people than quadrennially-nervous Democrats.   It seems like quite a risk, though.

    Hard for me to disagree.  It's weird to look around the blogs and see so many people who are like "Yes!  More tough responses like this one, Barack!"  I mean, I fully accept that maybe they're right and I'm wrong, but to me this looks like Standard Democratic Response 101 and it never works.

    Parent

    I think (4.50 / 2) (#48)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 03:56:32 PM EST
    that he doesn't want to get into a mud slinging fight with McCain about sexism.  At the end of the day it is McCain with a woman on the ticket.

    So I don't know if accusations of sexism at McCain will have much traction.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#50)
    by Steve M on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 03:58:41 PM EST
    On a cheerleading scale of 1 to 10 I think you're maybe a 7 or an 8 (and I shudder to think of what number would be assigned to me).  So tell me, as a guy who's willing to say Obama has it wrong when that's how you see it, what's your opinion on how Obama is responding to this one?

    Parent
    He responded correctly (none / 0) (#62)
    by samtaylor2 on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 04:03:21 PM EST
    It is the surrogates that need to say these things.  Which they are.

    Parent
    The outfit (none / 0) (#64)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 04:04:32 PM EST
    that is doing the commercial with the graph comparing Bush's declining approval rating with the increasing rate of McCain's voting with Bush, is going to do a commercial talking about McCain's joke about Chelsea....

    The first commercial was very good (as seen at Big Orange.)

    What we have here is a revival of the social conservative crusaders....

    Parent

    I know it shouldn't but that makes me..... (5.00 / 5) (#81)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 04:14:25 PM EST
    ...a little mad because these are the same people who probably didn't bat an eyelash when Shuster made his outrageous remarks about Chelsea. And I sure am glad I didn't hold my breath waiting for someone from the Obama wing of the party express support for Chelsea when she was being harassed about making public comments regarding her father's infidelity. But now suddenly its useful to them to be Chelsea's champions?

    I know I should get over it, but to quote the old song..."there's something always there to remind me."

    Parent

    And the pattern of Obama comments (4.80 / 15) (#106)
    by Cream City on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 04:35:39 PM EST
    like this in the primaries, comments that are so carefully crafted as to have ostensible deniability but only that -- that plus his delivery of this comment, the crafted pauses, etc., tell me he knew what he was doing.

    Lawyers ought, I think, understand the significance of a pattern of problematic comments like this.  Certainly, the rest of us do.  So I think that Obama ought to do so, too.

    And lawyers also ought to know the difference in pulling tactics like this before different judges and juries.  This is not the Dem-primary jury anymore, not the Clintons who couldn't fight back the way that the Republicans can -- and do.  And they are doing well in doing so.

    Obama needs to demote Axelrove and others who still are fighting as if this was a primary.  So it's probably too late, but there may be time.

    Parent

    Maybe the Wright way to look at it is (5.00 / 5) (#152)
    by Bob K on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 05:30:44 PM EST
    the WORMs have come home to roost. The plausible deniablity tactic has worn thin with the public.    

    Parent
    Well, it's an independent 527 (none / 0) (#132)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 05:06:25 PM EST
    and they are not lawyers....they are marketing people....

    Heh, it's not my idea, and someone else here said something about the Janet Reno/Chelsea comment....

    If you don't like the ad, you could let them know--they are taking e-mail suggestions and have posted their e-mail address at Big Orange.

    Parent

    Obama's not a lawyer? (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by Cream City on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 06:33:32 PM EST
    Or you're claiming that those who can't teach law, can't do, either?  Huh?

    Re marketing people, uh, I was one.  They ought to have been the first to warn how it would play in the court of public opinion, which sets a higher bar than the court of law in these cases.

    Sorry, no go with your excuses.

    Parent

    And I bet Hillary is just thrilled (5.00 / 3) (#168)
    by MichaelGale on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 05:48:58 PM EST
    that they - her party - are using her daughter being called ugly, to get back at John McCain.

    uh huh. This is going to get Hillary and Bill out there to campaign and rah rah for Obama.

    What happened to the no use of families? Didn't Obama just say that yesterday?

    I have just about had enough. It this happens, I can guarantee you it will backfire.

    Parent

    I had said a couple of weeks ago (none / 0) (#66)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 04:05:55 PM EST
    that the way Obama should treat this stuff is respond forcefully but not angrily.

    There aren't any right ways to respond to smear attacks, just less wrong ways.  That's why they are used so frequently and so effectively.

    If he makes it a battle on who is more sexist the best he can do is come out even.  Never engage in a fight in the mud with a big.  You both come out dirty but the pig enjoys it.

    What you want to do is prevent it from festering. Respond to it, ridicule the attack, and then wait for the next news event.

    These kinds of attacks have short shelf lives.  

    Then again I mostly agree with BTD that the Democrats should keep their powder dry on Palin.   The debates are a couple of weeks away.  Why let them know what you got before then?

    Parent

    It seems to me (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by Steve M on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 04:12:41 PM EST
    that this one largely comes down to likability at the end of the day.  In other words, if Obama basically strikes you as a good guy, if you see him as a nice family man with cute kids, then you're highly inclined to think "come on, surely he didn't really call Palin a pig."  And if you think he's some nasty, sexist guy, obviously you'd be inclined to think the opposite.  

    So maybe I agree with you that there's no way to win the A+ with this response.  All you can do is hope that, through all your efforts, enough voters come to basically like you that they're not going to credit smears like this.  So maybe the message works better for him than for John Kerry, who no one except beachmom really liked.

    Parent

    Heh (none / 0) (#93)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 04:26:49 PM EST
    John Kerry was the antithesis of charisma.

    The McCain campaign is trying to get the most mileage out of this now because when Palin is introduced to the wild she won't be viewed as a super mom trying to do right anymore.

    Parent

    calculated sexism (3.83 / 6) (#96)
    by sancho on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 04:28:04 PM EST
    helped him win the primary--and the dnc helped too of course. i think he is trying to catch mccain in the same sexist trap in which he caught hillary. but hillary, in a sense, started there, or was started there by the media. not sure mcain can be caught there but we'll see. the lipstick-pig comment goes with the remark today out of south carolina that says palin's only qualifiation is in not getting an abortion. part of me wants to say, ok, the dems are fighting dirty too. good for them. but i cant b/c the dems are doing so by denigrating women and turning roe v. wade into a game.

    Parent
    And through all this nasty stuff (4.57 / 7) (#109)
    by Jeannie on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 04:36:26 PM EST
    they are losing women voters who will not come back. He knew what he was saying about lipstick on a pig and so did the audience - you could see on their faces and tell by the nasty laughter. Lovely. How to lose women voters. And to fix it, they are going to run a nasty comment about Chelsea that McCain said years ago and apologized for? More women votes lost.
    Are they stupid or truly sexist? Which?

    Parent
    The woman in question (2.66 / 3) (#133)
    by independent voter on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 05:07:00 PM EST
    if indeed he was referring to her, has done NOTHING to deserve any respect. She has been blatantly snide, divisive and condescending. What makes her so qualified to deride any one else's experience??? It is absolutely ludicrous that she is even a factor in this race, she should not be in this race, she does not have the qualifications or the temperment to be in this race. And, before you want ot slam Obama's perceived lack of qualifications, please realize that he has faced the press and the public for a very long time, something this wonderful candidate for VP OF THE UNITED STATES does not have the guts to do.

    Parent
    So when Obama makes snide comments (4.85 / 7) (#219)
    by Matt in Chicago on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 06:48:29 PM EST
    about her experience it is just the obvious truth and she should just take it?  But when she has the audacity to strike back... and strike back harder than he anticipated, then those remarks are "blatantly snide, divisive and condescending."

    Yeah, that is a good strategy.

    Like a previous poster said, Democrats have decided that the Republicans are "evil" so we expect (and assume) everything they say is going to be negative.  But here we have a case of the "good guys" showing just how nasty and ugly they can really be... and you know what, THAT is exactly what the Republicans THINK about Democrats.

    We're either above and against this kind of BS or we are not.  Period.

    Besides, Obama has enough problems with women and his blue collar base... does he really need to do anything to tarnish his image?

    I am getting really tired of the parties trying to out-victim the other.  Frankly, if you think you're a victim or you could be a victim, maybe you shouldn't be in politics?!  And if you can't stop making comments that shoot yourself in the foot... maybe you're not ready to be President.

    Parent

    Although I think that this is pretty good, (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by eric on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 03:38:57 PM EST
    I am mindful of what I just read over at Glen Greenwald's blog.  He makes reference to how Dukakis handled a similar situation:

    MICHAEL DUKAKIS: I'm fed up with it. Haven't seen anything like it in 25 years of public life. George Bush's negative TV ads, distorting my record, full of lies and he knows it.
    ...
    It's about dragging the truth into the gutter. And I'm not going to let them do it. This campaign is too important. The stakes are too high for every American family.

    Now, Greenwald does point out that Obama just needs to be more aggressive and repeat this message more, so he is not equating Obama with Dukakis.  But I have to wonder, didn't we know this was coming?  Republicans have successfully smeared Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry with this same type of stuff.

    Another question:  Why was Bill Clinton able to survive this type of attack?  I was around and paying attention, but don't know the answer.

    Because he's Bill (5.00 / 6) (#29)
    by litigatormom on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 03:46:18 PM EST
    and he has more charisma than the rest of the Democrats you named put together. He connected with people. And he was doing a pretty good job as president.

    The Republicans impeached him despite overwhelming public opinion against it. It didn't stop them. And in the end, it proved worth their while, since Gore ran away from Clinton and a good record, and allowed Bush to come close enough to him to steal the election.

    Parent

    Because Bill came off as a good ole boy, (5.00 / 5) (#98)
    by byteb on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 04:29:24 PM EST
    he had that devastatingly lazy southern accent and Southern charm oozing from his pores...he was familiar to a whole swath of people. Combine all that charm with a blazing intellect and solid Democratic principles as his bedrock and Bill could charm, cajole and mesmerize most of the country.  

    Parent
    and (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by connecticut yankee on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 04:32:32 PM EST
    Bill Clinton also had mini-me. I mean Ross Perot.

    Parent
    But Bill also had (5.00 / 5) (#119)
    by shoephone on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 04:48:46 PM EST
    everything he wanted to say right at his fingertips. He was/is great off the cuff.

    Obama's response was about a B- today. A- on substance, C- on delivery. It is distressing to see that he had to constantly refer to notes to make this statement! We need someone who can hit back fast and hard. This statement today only got him half way there.  

    Parent

    Exactly. (5.00 / 5) (#127)
    by Jane2009 on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 04:58:04 PM EST
    Bill had a line, not a lecture.

    Parent
    fairly stated (none / 0) (#138)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 05:15:39 PM EST
    and accurately so.  i don't mind the lectures though he would be better served with quips.  Hire John Stewarts team to write them and make this race even more fun

    Parent
    But Perot ended up taking more votes from Bush (none / 0) (#186)
    by esmense on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 06:18:36 PM EST
    than Clinton.

    Parent
    Clinton has the ability to connect with people one (5.00 / 3) (#158)
    by Cards In 4 on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 05:39:56 PM EST
    on one as well as he did with a large crowd.  He has a natural charisma. Plus he had a great team from Carville on down that knew what they were doing.  Clinton had to succeed in a southern state instead of a safe liberal district and city like Obama.  This is all knew to Obama.

    Parent
    Bill never attacked Voters; he attacked policies (5.00 / 5) (#217)
    by jawbone on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 06:46:40 PM EST
    which affected voters negatively and supported policies which were designed to help them. He even sold NAFTA as a policy which was to help workers...hhmmm.

    But, he never, ever said the voters were too stupid or selfish to understand what the issues were and how they would be affected by them. If he had negative thought about votes, he never let on.

    He said he would fight for them and their needs; voters could tell by how hard he fought in the election that he would fight for them.

    Plus, he had to ability to explain things without sounding pedantic or as if he were talking down to voters. A rare, rare ability. I'm sure he worked at it, bcz we know from his first national convention speech that he could go on and on and on...and on some more. He was disciplined and worked very hard to be concise. He thought ahead about issues to be able to present them with understandable examples and metaphors.

    He was probably The Great Communicator. Reagan was slick, but Clinton could make people handle facts and reality.

    Why, I bet he actually practiced how to answer questions without hemming and hawing!

    I do miss him so much.

    Parent

    Bill Clinton (4.80 / 10) (#31)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 03:46:59 PM EST
    was able to fight it because he's a fighter. Obama is not a fighter. Bill Clinton had to run tough races against Karl Rove Republicans in AR. Obama has never had a tough race against the GOP. Bill Clinton had the working class behind him.

    Parent
    I've been listenting to Fox. . . (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 03:39:57 PM EST
    (trapped in an office with a TV on at work) and they're all over this pig on a lipstick comment.

    On Obama's side.

    It's the weirdest thing I've ever seen.  Cavuto just had some alleged former Clinton supporter on pushing the "Obama as sexist monster" line (he should treat her like a "lady" was her main point) and he wouldn't let her get away with trying to claim that this was something other than a comment about McCain's policies.

    Is it topsy-turvy day or something?

    We have entered the (5.00 / 5) (#33)
    by litigatormom on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 03:47:00 PM EST
    Star Trek Mirror Universe.  Next time you see Spock, he'll have a goatee.

    Parent
    While I'm glad that he has brought up (5.00 / 6) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 03:40:59 PM EST
    the McCain campaign phony issue/phony outrage today in such a straightforward and professional manner, Barack Obama is the last candidate who should stand before America berating such tactics and attempting to take high ground that is not his when it comes to campaigns using phony issues alongside phony outrage to gain political footing.

    Yep - good statement, (5.00 / 4) (#44)
    by ruffian on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 03:52:56 PM EST
    well delivered, but by a less than credible messenger.

    Parent
    Come on Tracy (none / 0) (#43)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 03:52:45 PM EST
    You can say that some dirty tricks occurred in the primaries but Barack Obama did have adds accusing Hillary or Bill of being racists.

    You could argue that he should have fought to prevent those attacks but he wasn't the one doing them.  

    McCain is pushing this argument.

    Parent

    You are absolutely right (5.00 / 6) (#56)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 04:00:52 PM EST
    Obama is exonerated from the dirt in the primaries simply because his dirty tricks didn't include a television ad.........NOT.  He failed to uphold the basic principles of the party I no longer claim as my own now, those things I once held dear where ethical and equal treatment for all.  Lying by omission is still lying in my tough love book and failing to speak out exactly as plainly as he is doing here when the very principles of the party are being violated, spat on, and toyed with is playing the damn game.

    Parent
    He didn't need an ad ... (5.00 / 6) (#74)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 04:10:00 PM EST
    the media accept it as fact and ran with it 24/7.

    C'mon, fly, this is a weak argument.

    We can forgive.  That doesn't mean we have to forget.

    Parent

    I'm suffering from schadenfreude (5.00 / 12) (#94)
    by tree on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 04:27:11 PM EST
    today. The campaign that blitz emailed their phony outrage about Hillary's RFK comment is now the victim of phony outrage. Oh well, live by the faux outrage, die by the faux outrage.

    Parent
    Speaking of Phony Outrage (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by liberalone on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 06:04:06 PM EST
    Somehow a common line becomes an indicator of how sexism of one candidate.  The other candidate who has a sterling record of obvious zingers against women is given a pass.  Spare me.

    Try google for "Lipstick on A Pig."  Try Torrie Clark (a woman).  

    This does not boil down to whether you like Obama or not.  It boils down to whether you think he is sexist or not.  I for one do not believe that he is.  I believe that he, like most people, can and does make comments of a questionably sexist nature.  I do not believe he intentionally offends or puts down women.  And, I vehemently disagree that the DNC supports overt sexism.

    Parent

    It has nothing t o do with how i feel (5.00 / 3) (#199)
    by tree on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 06:32:12 PM EST
    personally about Obama.

    It has to do with the fact that his own campaign ginned up phony outrage throughout the primary. Now he knows what it feels like to be on the other end. Sometimes the best way to teach someone about the bad consequences of their actions is to show them how it feels to be the recipient. Hopefully this will be a learning moment for the Obama campaign. (Thus my schadenfreude.) Unfortunately they haven't been quick political learners so far.

    Parent

    Nothing Personal (none / 0) (#220)
    by liberalone on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 06:50:04 PM EST
    Either you think that Obama intentionally makes sexist statements or you don't.  If you believe he makes sexist statements, as someone else on a previous thread mentioned, then more than likely you see something else in the lipstick comment and other comments he makes.

    Now as for the phony outrage over racism.  I listened to a couple of folks from South Carolina call in to C-Span during the primary.  They didn't sound phony.  They sounded angry.  Obama did not tell these folks how to feel.  Obama did not tell black people, who originally did NOT support him, to say or feel anything.  

    It doesn't appear that Americans will ever understand one another.

    Parent

    Obama (5.00 / 5) (#205)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 06:34:36 PM EST
    is passive agressive. And so is the DNC when it comes to sexism. The DNC did nothing to reign it in. They could have stood up to the media.

    Parent
    when reading comments, (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Lil on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 03:44:35 PM EST
    I sometimes forget this is a liberal blog. Obama fought back and did so fairly well, and if the Grand Media decides to they will play this frequently throughout the remainder of the day and it will help Obama.

    Really? (5.00 / 17) (#45)
    by Steve M on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 03:54:04 PM EST
    So it is unprecedented, in your experience, for liberals to wring their hands and lament that Democrats aren't fighting back hard enough?

    Allow me to welcome you to the party.  You must be one of our new members.

    Parent

    Sad but true (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by indiependy on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 04:16:35 PM EST
    However, while the hand-wringing and desire for more fight is nothing new, it's pretty shocking how many voices here are willing to give McCain and Palin way more benefit of the doubt and even defend them more than they are the Presidential Nominee of the Democratic party.

    Parent
    Sad and destructive (5.00 / 3) (#203)
    by katana on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 06:33:02 PM EST
    ...It's pretty shocking how many voices here are willing to give McCain and Palin way more benefit of the doubt and even defend them more than they are the Presidential Nominee of the Democratic party...

    Infuriating, but not shocking.  Not if you've been reading the blog since Obama unofficially cinched the nomination.   Whatever their political loyalties, a pretty sizable group around here believes that Obama's sins against Senator Clinton (and, by extension, against all women) make him unfit (or barely fit) to be president.  

    At a moment in which the United States is losing two wars (and toying with starting a third); is blithely gliding towards an economic pileup; has put in place the framework for a garrison state; has jettisoned half the Bill of Rights and  embraced the morality of a mid-level tyranny, like, say, Singapore, or Saudi Arabia; has ignored the deterioration of its physical and intellectual infrastructure and indebted itself to nations that used to be its sworn enemies; has coughed up as a serious presidential candidate a hot-tempered 72-year-old melanoma patient who's never met a war he didn't love and jokes about his ignorance of economics--yes, at this moment, there are people who, believe it or not, are more concerned with their hurt feelings about Obama's sexism than any of the above.

    And so, yes, they will not only give John McCain the benefit of the doubt, they will defend Sarah Palin.   And nothing you can say about Sarah Palin--her advocacty for creationism, her dismissal of global warming, her lust to drill in the wildnerness, her passion to kill endangered species, her blanket opposition to abortion and sex education, her readiness to ban books, her eagerness to abuse power, and her disregard for the truth--will have any effect.  Obama, or his surrogates, or somebody insulted Sarah Palin as a woman, and that trumps all.

    Parent

    Quit (4.33 / 6) (#209)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 06:35:54 PM EST
    blaming the voters. Obama had a responsibility to unite the party. He didn't try. He wasn't interested. Personal responsibility---it's something that he should try sometimes.

    Parent
    Wow, I had to check your name (none / 0) (#210)
    by steviez314 on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 06:36:07 PM EST
    to make sure I didn't write this :)

    Bravo.

    Parent

    I was surprised until I realized this is how we (5.00 / 1) (#211)
    by dailygrind on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 06:36:58 PM EST
    got Bush. A bunch of people rationalizing bad choices by ignoring the writing on the wall. I think McCain could come out tomorrow morning and point blank say "I am going to end abortion" and they would still say "but Obama would be worse" by rationalizing that Obama secretly wants to do the same. Rachel Maddow coined the term post-rational to describe  this behavior. When I was canvassing in 2004 I saw this all the time with bush. People liek their emotional define what they think rather than the facts in front of them. Rove was right to say we are a faith based country. we believe what we want rather than what is proven.

    Parent
    exactly (none / 0) (#160)
    by Lil on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 05:40:45 PM EST


    Parent
    Heh. (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 04:18:32 PM EST
    Yes, welcome to the Party.  And this is our favorite party game.

    Parent
    Steve, I ve got to say (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by tree on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 04:32:37 PM EST
    you have a way of saying things so succinctly sometimes it just crack me up!

    Parent
    The definition of Insanity (none / 0) (#99)
    by jb64 on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 04:29:39 PM EST
    Is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

    Seriously, WTF?

    Parent

    You don't attempt to discredit ... (5.00 / 7) (#28)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 03:45:57 PM EST
    a "smear" in front of a chuckling audience.  You get one TV reporter to ask the question after the event, answer it in a serious tone and work policy into your answer.

    Then they run your explanation and policy in the same bite.

    Are they new at this?

    And boy will this quote come back to haunt him:

    "Spare me the phony outrage. Spare me the phony talk about change."

    The ad virtually writes itself.

    It's been demoralizing to try to support this guy in the last two weeks.  I just wake up wondering how he's gonna make me cringe today.

    When Hillary found herself (5.00 / 5) (#36)
    by tootired on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 03:49:25 PM EST
    floundering, she had the courage to do a major shake-up in her campaign staff. Do you think it's time for Obama to take stock of how things are going now that the conventions are over and maybe make some changes?

    Parent
    Yes ... (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 03:52:15 PM EST
    it's time.

    He needs a new message team.

    Parent

    Biden (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by WS on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 03:55:52 PM EST
    , on MSNBC, just said that Hillary would make a better VP than him.  Is that true?

    mydd

    Parent

    Read it again (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by WS on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 03:57:24 PM EST
    MSNBC reports that Biden said Hillary would make a better VP than him.  True?  Biden gaffe or a shakeup?

    Parent
    I'm sure (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 04:07:38 PM EST
    Biden won't be dropped. At this point why would Hillary even want to be on the ticket? If Obama loses, she can walk away and not suffer any consequences for the future.

    Parent
    Not a gaffe (5.00 / 5) (#70)
    by Steve M on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 04:07:58 PM EST
    Just kind of a classy, maybe a little too honest, thing to say.  Kinda cuts against the notion that he has a gigantic ego, to tell you the truth.

    Parent
    It will be played up ... (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 04:11:12 PM EST
    as a gaffe.

    So it's a gaffe.

    Parent

    It's always anti-Obama handwringing here (5.00 / 3) (#101)
    by steviez314 on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 04:30:06 PM EST
    Why don't you actually see what he said and why?

    Someone in the crowd said they were glad Biden was picked as Vp and not Hillary.

    So Joe was actually being very self-effacing and gracious in his PRAISE of Hillary.

    Maybe you'd rather he have said "you're right, I'm so much better than her. It's great she wasn't picked."?

    Day after day here, it just never ceases to amaze me how everything is spun anti-Obama by the same 5 posters.

    Ok, rant over.  Now FLAME ON!

    Parent

    Maybe not a gaffe on who would have been (5.00 / 1) (#212)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 06:38:57 PM EST
    the better choice for VP, but something of a gaffe in pretty much saying Obama made another error in judgment.


    Parent
    You may be right (none / 0) (#218)
    by hookfan on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 06:46:55 PM EST
    and help me understand then why this doesn't speak to obama's lack of good judgment? He's running on judgment is superior to experience after all. Here's his vp saying he's chosen the inferior one. Joe may be protecting himself here, but I'm failing to understand how this helps Obama.

    Parent
    no way Hillary would join the ticket (none / 0) (#54)
    by ChuckieTomato on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 04:00:38 PM EST
    She wouldn't accept even if she was asked, and she won't be asked.

    Biden is the nominee, period.

    Parent

    Biden had been ... (none / 0) (#57)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 04:01:33 PM EST
    fairly gaffe free so far.  He was due for one.

    Of course, if the above is true.

    Parent

    Biden (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by JAB on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 04:34:24 PM EST
    Did tell a state political figure in MO in front of a crowd to stand up and take a bow - but the man is in a wheelchair.

    Biden apologized and the man took it all in good humor, but .....AWKWARD

    Parent

    well (none / 0) (#89)
    by connecticut yankee on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 04:21:09 PM EST
    Saying nice things about her is smart politics. I'd like a switch but I'm skeptical.

    Parent
    Politico reports (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by Emma on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 04:27:15 PM EST
    Biden, today in Nashua, NH, in response to an inaudible question from an audience member:

    "Make no mistake about it Hillary Clinton is as qualified as or more qualified than I am" to be vice president, Biden said. "And quite frankly, she may have been a better pick than me."

    Linky.

    Parent

    Oy gevult. (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by shoephone on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 04:52:36 PM EST
    He should not have said that.

    Desperately trying to stave off the Sinking Feeling...

    Parent

    then for the good of the country (5.00 / 5) (#142)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 05:20:37 PM EST
    step down and let her have the seat.  Want to end this race right now?  That would do it and historically speaking Joe Biden would be the christ of the democratic party, or the judas depending on whose camp you are in.

    I am not jesting here by the way, if the direction of this country is too important and the stakes TOO high and with your ticket limping into the headwind, it would be the most patriotic and caring thing you can do for all americans.

    Parent

    How so? (none / 0) (#163)
    by indiependy on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 05:43:03 PM EST
    Obama may have passed on Clinton as VP but he put on the ticket someone with every bit as much experience, substance, accomplishments, etc. as Hillary. The Republicans shamelessly thought that if they put someone like Palin on the ticket, no matter how little experience she had, no matter how many better qualified women she passed over, no matter how unprepared she might be, no matter how extremely out of sync her views on women's issues are, it wouldn't matter. Women would ignore all that and flock to them because of their disappointment with Hillary losing and anger at Obama. It's shocking to see they might be right.

    Parent
    one more thing (5.00 / 3) (#177)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 05:59:13 PM EST
    Obama is running on change and healing divides and it is ironic that he is perceived to have not healed his own party by even considering HRC for the position.  

    HRC would change momentum and totally put McCain in a position where he overplayed his hand.  

    History would treat Biden very kindly and he would always be remembered as the king of all sacrifice.....

    Parent

    because I think (none / 0) (#173)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 05:52:31 PM EST
    and I must be right because I think so, that HRC is more qualified, more respected and most importantly the most qualified person for either job.  I am not a fan of Biden and while I think Biden would do just fine if O were not available, if I had my druthers I would prefer HRC.

    That said, my guess is that many people disagree with my opinion as that is all it is.

    Opinion or no, many of the 18 million people who voted for HRC would get really fired up and even more importantly the FOCUS would shift from Palin to HRC and the demo ticket.  McCain stole the "historic" advantage O had, O can steal that right back with a "double historic" ticket.

    It really is that simple.  McCain would respond that we should question O's judgement and his stick to itiveness and HRC supporters would get out and campaign because he acknowledged her laying on the sword for him.

    Politics is far more chess than it is name calling.

    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by Todd on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 04:02:48 PM EST
    And he needs to enlist every big name Democrat we have. This fight has gone beyond the Obama camp, the DNC Camp, the Clinton camp and every other camp. The message has to be Democrats need to win. The Repubs are playing dirtier than ever, it's time to circle the wagons and bring every Democrat into the battle. Shake up the campaign if that's what it takes, but EVERY Democrat needs to become engaged.

    Parent
    Yes, the Republicans ... (5.00 / 5) (#67)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 04:06:12 PM EST
    are playing dirty. (I'm shocked.) But they're also just playing better politics right now.

    Parent
    Sadly (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 05:58:56 PM EST
    They usually do. They manged to out maneuver the Dem's in the last 2 presidential elections. Right now we should of had Gore completing his second term. But then we'd be defending Lieberman on the blogs now. Scary thought!

    Parent
    The DNC (5.00 / 5) (#72)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 04:09:10 PM EST
    and Howard Dean have proven themselves beyond worthless. Where were they during the primary? In a hidey hole I guess and they are still there.

    Parent
    When half the troops are demoralized... (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 04:18:30 PM EST
    ...a simple rallying cry will not suffice.

    Parent
    Obama's talk about change (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by litigatormom on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 03:49:49 PM EST
    isn't phony. It's just really really vague. "We are the change we've been waiting for." I still don't know what that means.

    However, his policy proposals, to the extent one can define specifics, do represent real change from Republican policies. Maybe not quite as much change as I think Hillary Clinton offered, but still significant. He needs to talk about that. All the time.

    Parent

    Ayayayay, you are sooo right about the ads (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by goldberry on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 04:11:48 PM EST
    Let's see, there was Geraldine Ferraro.  Then there was the "fairy tale" comment by Bill.  And he headed to the fainting couch over the Muslim garb.  So, much material to work with.  

    Parent
    The differnce with past candidates (5.00 / 0) (#37)
    by Lil on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 03:49:37 PM EST
    is that Kerry, for instance would have said nothing like he was taking the high road, while they battered the crap out of him. Obama actually used the phrase again like he's not backing down from it based on their spin. He's like, "Yeah I said it, and I'm gonna say it again because it's a stupid phrase not a sexist comment, you jokers".

    My biggest problem with this (5.00 / 5) (#53)
    by CST on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 04:00:18 PM EST
    Is that I presume the pig with lipstick comment came from a prepared speech.

    Which means no one on Obama's team saw that and thought "this is a bad idea", "republicans will use this against me"

    Is it a smear tactic by repubs?  Yes, what else is new?  That's what they do.  You don't need to run around giving them material by saying things that are un p.c.

    Bad politics.

    I didn't get the idea it was from a prepared (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by litigatormom on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 04:09:47 PM EST
    speech. He was standing with a mike in the center of a crowded room, and he was, to my mind, making the point that McCain's talk of change was ridiculous and that was the metaphor that came to mind.

    I really don't think it was sexist at all, either intentionally or inadvertently. It's just a cliche.

    Parent

    If it was off-the-cuff (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by CST on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 04:18:47 PM EST
    It's not as bad.

    Again, I don't find the remark personally sexist as much as insulting, mainly I find it politically stupid, and that offends me.

    Parent

    It was (2.25 / 4) (#141)
    by Jeannie on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 05:20:36 PM EST
    nasty, sexist, insulting, stupid and should offend everybody.

    Parent
    The fact that... (none / 0) (#188)
    by Garmonbozia on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 06:21:04 PM EST
    ...there is actually a debate about this is absurd. Was Ann Richards being sexist when she used "lipstick on a hog" against George H.W. Bush in the 90s?

    Waitaminute. I'm posing this to people who think the word "periodically" has sexist overtones. A country with enough people susceptible to this level of idiocy is why we end up with people in office like W. Bush and Sarah Palin.

    And why we deserve it.

    Parent

    This should be easy (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 04:00:39 PM EST
    If you want to talk about Palin, do not talk about her family or her physical appearance, and use gender nuetral terms.

    I agree:  Better to talk about McCain having the same economic policies as Bush....

    I'm for going back to (none / 0) (#154)
    by Coral on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 05:33:43 PM EST
    the houses ad. More like that!

    Parent
    New state polls from Rasmussen (5.00 / 4) (#75)
    by BrianJ on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 04:10:06 PM EST
    North Dakota:  McCain 55, Obama 41.  Obama's Northern Plains strategy, I think, is now officially dead.

    Alaska:  McCain 64, Obama 33.  What'd you expect?

    New Mexico:  McCain 49, Obama 47.  To quote Krusty the Klown, while standing in front of the letters KKK at the Apollo, "That's not good."

    put this on a poll thread or an open thread (none / 0) (#79)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 04:11:50 PM EST
    it's not the topic here.

    Parent
    No current open thread (none / 0) (#84)
    by BrianJ on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 04:15:16 PM EST
    Did you want this on threads discussing other polls?

    Parent
    The topic is McCain and Obama's Comments (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 04:11:01 PM EST
    not someone in South Carolina. References to it have been deleted.

    Those who oppose the Democratic ticket are reminded they are limited to four comments a day criticizing Obama.

    Just "someone" in South Carolina, huh? (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by ks on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 05:09:57 PM EST
    Uh huh.  That "someone" happens to be the Dem Party Chair in SC.  Nice way to try and "wish it away" and diminish her truly outrageous remark.

    Parent
    McCain and Obama's Comments (none / 0) (#118)
    by AvianoTeamB1 on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 04:48:28 PM EST
    At least you  are fair enough to  allow 4 comments a day to the Obama haters. Greta of Fox News would allow no comments that is positive of Senator Obama.

    Parent
    While people are describing McCain's (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by frankly0 on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 04:14:49 PM EST
    attack as "swift boating", it is hardly a classic Republican attack.

    What's really very remarkable about this attack is that it comes from the typically Democratic point of view: attacking Obama because he has not been, in effect, politically correct in how he has spoken about an oppressed group of voters.

    It's really a pretty extraordinary piece of political ju-jitsu. The amazing thing about it is that it pulls the perception of McCain and the Republicans well to the center of the political spectrum.

    I wonder how this is going to play out in terms of the overall perspective of McCain, in terms of how people think of whether he is right wing or not.

    In a way, even if he doesn't convince everyone that the charge was well founded, even that he wants to attack from that angle suggests he's moved beyond the usual Republican paradigm.

    Disagree (none / 0) (#91)
    by eric on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 04:26:30 PM EST
    I think it is classic Republican stuff, although I do agree that the subject matter is somewhat different.  Ordinarily if is phony outrage about questioning one's patriotism or maybe their family.

    What comes to mind is when Kerry made mention of Cheney's daughter being a lesbian.  What Kerry said was innocuous, but the Cheneys threw a fit and it snowballed.

    So yes, the PC angle is sort of unique, but not that different from the Cheney incident.

    Parent

    I can think of other examples (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Steve M on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 04:44:00 PM EST
    The Republicans don't get to play the race/gender/whatever card very often, of course, but when they do they're certainly not shy about it!

    For example, I remember during the "nuclear option" battle, when the Democrats were filibustering all those Bush-appointed judges.  And the Republicans were seriously running with the argument that the Democrats opposed Janice Rogers Brown because she was black; they opposed Priscilla Owen because she was a woman; and they opposed William Pryor because he was a devout Christian.  And they made absolutely no apologies for making all of these arguments simultaneously, as ludicrous as it appeared!  Apparently the Democrats just hate EVERYONE.

    If I were trying to put myself into the other guy's shoes, I'd say the Republicans have built up so much resentment over the years from having identity politics used against them by Democrats, that any time they get the chance to do it themselves, they're determined to ride that horse just as far as it'll go.

    Parent

    Interesting examples (none / 0) (#126)
    by frankly0 on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 04:55:54 PM EST
    I do think though, that in those cases the Republicans failed pretty abysmally because there was just nothing other than the fact that one of the judges was a woman, and one was black, that would suggest that the Democrats might oppose them on those grounds. It was too obviously a cheap, groundless trick to get anywhere.

    This, though, is a case in which they are pointing to what they depict as a "smoking gun" of bias, and basing their claim of sexism on that.

    I'm sure some people will be believing them in this case.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#115)
    by frankly0 on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 04:43:47 PM EST
    I agree that the Cheney case would seem to be another example, at least in part.

    On the other hand, the Cheney case was really not one in which the Republicans were defending lesbians per se by any means, but only the right the Cheney family had to be kept out of the fray. I don't really see that as pulling the perception of Cheney and the Republicans toward the center much.

    But this current foray is just a classic attack from a Democratic angle -- which is pretty different, though I also agree just about everything else about how it's being conducted is similar to former Republican attacks.

    Parent

    Opportunities missed (5.00 / 3) (#110)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 04:37:47 PM EST
    His response was OK, but I would have preferred that rather than talk about "real problems" he would have mentioned a specific one instead of generalizing again. I also would have preferred that he added that these problems are the result of 8 yrs of Republican leadership.

    You are absolutely right (5.00 / 2) (#200)
    by esmense on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 06:32:29 PM EST
    What he failed to do was use his response as an opportunity to strongly sell specific policies and his ability to make those policies reality. The Republicans are masters at phony outrage that not only puts their opponents on the defensive, but also makes the race about their opponent personally rather than the American people and the programs and policies that serve their interest. Obama has to resist the urge to merely defend himself and criticize his critics. If he doesn't he'll spend the entire rest of the campaign being little more than defensive and reactive.

    Don't let them make it about you, Barack. You have to focus like a laser on making it solely about the American people and the future they deserve.  

    Parent

    I was talking about sexism (5.00 / 5) (#124)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 04:53:23 PM EST
    and how it was used against Clinton during the primaries and Obama had nothing to say about it.  How odd for a candidate representing the Democratic party.....how very very out of character and odd for the party who claims to champion my rights and obviously feels like they own my vote.  I'm also talking about the phony stories about the Clinton's being racist and how Obama allowed all of his surrogates to use that filth to his advantage.  It was all sick and all wrong and he may be representing the party who will serve this nation the best at this time but he is hardly without blemish when it comes to filthy tactics and I will never abandon my rights as a woman to vote for anyone and the Democratic party had better figure that out today.  In fact they had better have figured that out yesterday!

    well (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by connecticut yankee on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 05:39:41 PM EST
    Even if you believe it was sexist, McCain has said far more offensive things about women. Janet Reno's gender, Chelsea's looks, his own wife was even a target according to one reporter.

    Which candidate will be more likely to side with traditional women's issues?

    Just saying.

    Parent

    Oh I see, now I'm supposed to vote (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 06:08:43 PM EST
    for who seems to despise me the least?   Vote for the smaller bowl full of chit?  Still the same chit only smaller.  I will never sell myself so cheaply, I'm a woman and I am no longer anyone's chattel!

    Parent
    Since McCain wants to deliver (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 06:21:08 PM EST
    to the United States the first woman President it would seem he despises me the least.  Do you see where your argument gets you and do you see what your allowance of sexism in primaries and pains that the woman of this country have suffered have purchased you?  Do you see how you lost the war by throwing away your standards to win the first fight?

    Parent
    I agree. (5.00 / 3) (#197)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 06:30:59 PM EST
    I'm so tired of the "well McCain's a sexist too!" argument. It does nothing for me.

    Parent
    what you might be missing (5.00 / 4) (#135)
    by ccpup on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 05:09:06 PM EST
    is most of us here, I strongly suspect, EXPECT that of McCain and the Republicans.  We DON'T expect that kind of behavior out of Democrats and certainly not those running for President.

    That's what makes many of us pause and seriously consider not voting Top Of The Ticket this year.

    Really? (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by JAB on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 05:24:49 PM EST
    Spare me the phony outrage. Spare me the phony talk about change,"

    This, from the king of phony outrage and phony talk of change.

    Watch Bill O and Hannity double over in laughter from this line (which in itself is phony outrage).

    so, um, i guess (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by cpinva on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 05:26:37 PM EST
    a "pitbull in lipstick" is prettier than a pig? just askin'................

    palin's the flavor of the month, but i knew, for months, that whoever the dems picked would be attacked by the media, it's their job, for almost two decades now.

    BTD foolishly expressed the hope that obama would be the media darling, i constantly pointed out how wrong he was, to even think that. clinton, with 16 years of media-bashed experience under her belt, would have had these clowns for a light snack.

    unfortunately, obama's the consummate rookie.

    Try again (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by Steve M on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 05:34:51 PM EST
    I think what you meant to say was "wow, what a disgusting comment."

    So Now Obama says Palin is the (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 05:36:25 PM EST
    lipstick and McCain is the pig.

    Unfreakingbelievable.

    http://tinyurl.com/5lfrbz

    Someone needs to take Obama away from the microphone NOW!  

    Well, (5.00 / 3) (#166)
    by chrisvee on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 05:46:59 PM EST
    to be fair, he said that technically if he had meant it that way, Palin would be the lipstick and McCain's failed policies would be the pig. So points to him that he didn't call McCain a pig but I doubt calling Palin lipstick is going to prove very helpful in the media storm.

    But that doesn't stop me from sharing in your wish that someone yank the mic now. He's in a hole and he needs to stop digging. The vaguely Michael Douglas in American President remarks cited above were much better than this attempt to explain the logic of the illogic or whatever he thought he was doing.

    However, the furor over the SC Dem Chair's remarks will likely put an end to PigGate.

    My suggestion is that Obama and Biden spend time tomorrow talking only about the economy.

    Parent

    yes (5.00 / 2) (#174)
    by Monda on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 05:55:32 PM EST
    I heard about "not having an abortion qualification" today.  I'm sorry, but I'm getting confused.  What's the purpose here with all this bs away from the issues?  Do we actually want to hand the election to the republicans?  Unfreakingbelieveble especially this year.  


    Parent
    OK (4.25 / 4) (#172)
    by Monda on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 05:52:00 PM EST
    He needs to avoid this stuff cause it's getting ridiculous.  You run out of words to defend this guy.  Scream all day about faux outrage and then go on Letterman and say McCain is the pig and Palin is the lipstick?  

    This melt-down has got to stop.  

    Parent

    Perfectly stated.. (5.00 / 0) (#184)
    by ks on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 06:13:39 PM EST
    At the moment, Obama is trying to be too clever for his own good.

    Parent
    That's not what he said on Letterman (none / 0) (#192)
    by steviez314 on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 06:25:05 PM EST
    Go read the transcript.

    I'm getting tired of doing sentence diagrams here.

    Parent

    No one is asking (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 06:34:51 PM EST
    you to diagram or interpret anything, your services are not requested.  But your offering is noted and appreciated.

    Parent
    Reading a full quote is not interpreting. (none / 0) (#215)
    by steviez314 on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 06:40:54 PM EST
    Just looking at the snips that let you go "Oh, noes, how could Obama.." is.

    And no, sometimes I think only spinning things as bad for Obama is appreciated by some people here.

    Parent

    Hey, as long as we can convince ourselves (5.00 / 4) (#161)
    by tree on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 05:40:56 PM EST
    we are no worse than Red State, what's there to complain about, right? Geesh.

    Do you think name-calling (5.00 / 2) (#179)
    by otherlisa on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 06:05:52 PM EST
    will change the reality on which Maria comments?

    That's a great strategery!

    HRC (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by NJDem on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 06:12:49 PM EST
    responds to this controversy (when asked of course)

    link

    Name.calling.not.allowed.here. (5.00 / 3) (#187)
    by shoephone on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 06:18:46 PM EST


    Step off buddy (5.00 / 2) (#196)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 06:29:11 PM EST
    You are WAY over the line here.  Maria has been around here A LOT longer than you have.

    That stuff may work at HuffPo or Daily Kos but you really need to read the comment rules.

    Because Donna Braziles's Momma will GETCHU if you don't play by the rulz!

    Not to mention one Jeralyn Merritt.

    Jeez, get yourself a microphone and (5.00 / 2) (#198)
    by ap in avl on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 06:31:50 PM EST
    join the campaign trail.  You'll fit right in with the rest of the "just words" turning off voters right and left.

    As someone who is banned from commenting.... (5.00 / 2) (#201)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 06:32:49 PM EST
    Could I please just make this one comment to say:

    This is the most ridiculous, contrived, smear on Obama. It is crystal clear from the tape of his original comments that the remark was innocent - he was talking about McCain's economic plan, not Sarah Palin, and he was using a common expression. No sexism here at all. I find the sexism charge here to be ridiculous and dishonest.

    OK, back to lurking.

    That (5.00 / 1) (#214)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 06:40:11 PM EST
    is Obama's responsbility to convince us of that. Have you considered that Obama just isn't good at closing the sale?

    We weren't born yesterday (5.00 / 2) (#221)
    by Yotin on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 06:50:58 PM EST
    There seems to be a concerted effort by the Obama campaign to ridicule Palin. After Obama's pig and lipstick comment, there's the not had an abortion qualification of Palin by Dem. SC Chair Fowler.

    Of course, they're going to plead being misunderstood and all that. But we weren't born yesterday. We know that Obama's talking points on the trail are written and reviewed by a number of his aides. You mean no one caught that in the context of what Palin said in the GOP convention? And it's obvious from the reaction of his crowd they knew what he meant and Obama didn't catch himself then.

    This is a sad tactic being used by the Obama campaign and the Dem Party is not known for it. It's changing the face of the party.  

    Something Dramatic and Creative Needed, (5.00 / 1) (#224)
    by KeysDan on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 07:20:17 PM EST
    to move away from McCain/ Palin media mania and ahead to opportunities for a real change-- good governance.  Nothing better than for Senator Obama to suggest nominees for critical cabinet posts in an Obama administration.  And, for great big starters, announce that former President Bill Clinton will be asked to be Secretary of State. There is some question of eligibility, since that cabinet post is third in line for presidential succession, but that can be resolved at another point by the Supreme Court, if needed. (a similar problem in 2000:Bush and Cheney both resided in Texas, but got around that issue by asserting that Cheney was really from Wyoming, at one time).  Not only would the country get an extraordinary Secretary of State and a demonstration of Senator Obama's good judgment,  but also, the idea would spike the discussion in a constructive manner.

    obama's racism is being thrown in his face (5.00 / 1) (#228)
    by zridling on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 04:31:46 AM EST
    Odd how everything said about obama was racist if you were a Hillary supporter like myself. Now everything said about Palin is sexist if you're an obama supporter.

    Seems obama doesn't like it when the shoe's on the other foot. Maybe he'll realize how white people feel when blacks accuse the best of us of being racists generation after generation.

    It's a lie and it hurts, doesn't it obama?

    Oh geez. (4.00 / 4) (#5)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 03:31:22 PM EST
    He sounds, yet again, like a college professor lecturing people. It comes off as he's in a bubble and the people in the room are really distracting to what he's trying to say.

    According (5.00 / 5) (#23)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 03:43:14 PM EST
    to the polls, you aren't alone. The problem seems to be that there just aren't enough people like you.

    Parent
    I like this particular example (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by ruffian on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 03:47:00 PM EST
    It is sharp and to the point and I don't think it comes across condescending.  

    Sometimes he does come across as the professor who knows he has you captive in the room and is just going to meander around and talk for 40 minutes because he can. He loses me then.  I like pointed remarks.

    Parent

    To you maybe (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 03:51:21 PM EST
    Not to me.  I thought this was a very good response....

    I like a clear, well-grounded, intelligent response.  This was it....

    Parent

    The problem isn't that it's too elite (5.00 / 7) (#90)
    by esmense on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 04:23:06 PM EST
    The problem is that it is not persuasive. I think Dems do this a lot -- they inform but they don't persuade. (And in fact most often don't know the difference). An election is like a sales campaign, not a seminar.

    A sales pitch uses information to back up a premise, to illustrate a  point, etc. But the pitch itself, the premise, the argument, the conclusion you want your audience to reach is more important than the facts.

    Republicans understand this. They sell. Too often, Democrats simply inform (hoping that if the  audience is presented with "the truth" they will reach the right conclusion).

    Bill Clinton, for all his policy wonkery, was the rare Dem who understood this. I think his "charisma" has always been over-rated -- while his salesmanship has been overlooked. Or, disdained.

    Parent

    folksy is face (none / 0) (#26)
    by progrocks on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 03:44:33 PM EST
    any person who is qualified to be president is educated and so called "elite"

    if you are really folksy, you should not be president

    Parent

    well (none / 0) (#97)
    by connecticut yankee on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 04:28:39 PM EST
    I think the other side to folksey is a demagogue.  The "Im just a caveman lawyer" shtick. Gerry Spence with his cowboy hippie jackets and self-deprecating orations.

    That doesnt work on me. I prefer to see someone who values precision and analysis.  Its a job interview, not a hotdog eating contest

    Parent

    Phony through and through (3.00 / 2) (#222)
    by OisforOpportunist on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 07:02:45 PM EST
    "Spare me the phony outrage. Spare me the phony talk about change," says The One as if we didn't know that the real phony in this whole situation is him! Not only is Obama a total opportunist he is also a serial plagiarist. Check this article out:

    http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/09/10/plagiarism-alert-did-obama-steal-his-lines-from-the-washingt on-post/

    The Obamabots are trying to claim that this was all an impromptu comment but it clearly was not, as can be seen from the above referenced article.

    Obama is totally not credible, a poseur and a disaster for Democrats. He thought because he got away with his sexist attacks on Hillary that he would be able to do the same thing to the Republicans but they smacked him down so fast he didn't know what hit him. The same thing happened when he tried using the race card he had so successfully used against the Clintons.

    downhill. (2.00 / 10) (#1)
    by bobbski on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 03:27:40 PM EST
    "We have real problems in this country right now. The American people are looking to us for answers, not distractions, not diversions, not manipulations. They want real answers to the real problems we are facing.¨

    Then why, pray tell, did he comment on pigs and lipstick?

    Why does the Prez nominee on the ticket attack the opposing VP nominee?

    He is losing it.  Not a pretty sight.

    His campaign is slowly circling the drain.

    Too bad.

    you need new metaphors (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by ChuckieTomato on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 03:31:20 PM EST
    Not ones recycled from Chris Mathews.

    It's a long way from over. Either can still win.

    Parent

    honestly (4.00 / 3) (#120)
    by dws3665 on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 04:48:53 PM EST
    can we please stop pretending that he was talking about anything but McCain's policies? Is your personal dislike of Obama that strong that you can't understand words any longer?

    Parent
    You're an intelligent person, yes? (none / 0) (#149)
    by Edger on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 05:29:24 PM EST
    You're not stupid enough to believe that anyone except McCain supporters are stupid enough to believe that anyone except McCain supporters are stupid enough to believe that anyone except McCain supporters would fall for that.

    Are you?

    Parent

    Or he can embrace it... (2.00 / 1) (#121)
    by darryl on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 04:50:36 PM EST
    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/215503.php

    I think that's a better strategy...

    Ah, proving yet again (5.00 / 3) (#128)
    by tree on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 05:01:47 PM EST
    that no matter how bad things look for Dems, there's always a "helpful" blogger with a brilliant plan that will only make it worse.

    Parent
    Going on the (none / 0) (#9)
    by Jane2009 on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 03:35:09 PM EST
    defensive is not a good idea. The Obama campaign would do better to dig up the McCain usage of the same expression (I'd look it up but I'm too lazy), and attack him on whatever issue it involved. The only way to win in politics is to keep the frame in your terms and keep the other side on the defensive. Bobbski, I think you're right; panic is not pretty. And reactive disparagement, no matter how justified, is NOT going to attract anyone.

    Well, no (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by ruffian on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 03:38:22 PM EST
    The expression in any other context pre-Palin is totally banal.  It means nothing.

    I'm all for attacking McCain, but on something that makes sense.

    Parent

    Unfortunately (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Jane2009 on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 03:46:42 PM EST
    in politics, context is everything.

    Parent
    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by ruffian on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 03:50:04 PM EST
    I get frustrated with the "Well, McCain said 'lipstick on a pig' last October" rejoinder.  So what?

    Parent
    Is this what you mean? (none / 0) (#61)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 04:03:02 PM EST
    Exaclty McCain can lie and cheat and do whatever he wants it doesn't matter, becasue the GOP is basically the party of fricking idiots, we on the other hand have to do the right thing.

    Parent
    No, not at all (5.00 / 5) (#69)
    by ruffian on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 04:07:57 PM EST
    I mean it is beside the point that McCain said 'lipstick on a pig' in the fall, before lipstick on any kind of an animal was linked to a female candidate. We know 'lipstick on a pig' in itself is a commonly used expression. It's Obama's context that is questionable, not the expression itself.

    There are plenty of on-point things to go after McCain on.

    Parent

    The context was crystal clear. (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by byteb on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 05:07:49 PM EST
    And it had nothing to do with Palin.

    According to Republicans, McCain gets a get of jail free card because he was a POW. All sorts gaffes are  should be overlooked and for anyone to point them out is verboten. Now, Palin should get a jail out free card too because she's a woman and a mother and a 'hockey mom'. To question her, to examine her past and to criticize her is now, according to Republicans, forbidden.

    It's impossible to campaign agains the POW and The Hockey Mom because they might get offended.

    Parent

    This sounds sooo (5.00 / 2) (#202)
    by Emma on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 06:32:54 PM EST
    It's impossible to campaign agains the POW and The Hockey Mom because they might get offended.

    familiar somehow....  Like maybe the Dem primaries.


    Parent

    McCain was talking about (none / 0) (#65)
    by litigatormom on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 04:05:44 PM EST
    HILLARY CLINTON'S health care plan.  So if any use of the phrase that is even remotely connected with a woman is sexist, why wasn't McCain's remark sexist? Especially after he made that crude remark about Chelsea.

    Parent
    Personally (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by Jane2009 on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 05:14:12 PM EST
    Two things: When McCain made the remark, Clinton was trying to downplay the gender aspect of her run, and god knows the Dems haven't been indignant on her behalf over sexist remarks. Sexism and gender is hugely in play right now in a way it wasn't back then. So that phrase is going to be heard differently NOW.

    Secondly, McCain was speaking in terms of Clinton's new health care plan/v. the 1992 health care plan - neither of these things are Clinton herself. Obama's quote, OTOH, references the "folks that have been in charge for the last eight years," and then implies Palin is the new face of the "pig."

    I hate to be splitting hairs, but I honestly hear those two quotes very differently, even outside the chronological context. For me, there's a big difference between insulting policy and insulting the human beings enacting policy.

    Parent

    I usually agree with you (none / 0) (#92)
    by ruffian on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 04:26:43 PM EST
    Maybe I'm naive but I really don't find the expression sexist in itself, even if in talking about Hillary's health care plan.  I think Obama's context was different - it was clear (to me anyway)what joke he was going for because of the laughter - and I don't even think what he did was outrageous.

    but yeah, go after McCain on the Chelsea comments, and also his supporter asking 'how do we beat the b---', and him laughing.

    Parent

    Show (none / 0) (#24)
    by WS on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 03:43:37 PM EST
    don't tell.  Obama needs to stop telling people that they won't swiftboat him (Kerry said Bring it On and they did and he lost) and show people that he's willing to take on McCain and his seedy tactics.  Throw out that McCain said Hillary's health care plan was like putting lipstick on a pig and use tactics like attack ads to get McCain on the defensive over the issues.  

    Yes! Yes! Yes! (none / 0) (#58)
    by marielee on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 04:01:36 PM EST
    That's what I'm talking about!  Obama & Co. must call out swift boat attacks early and often!  Obama's showing some muscle...and I like it!

    Helping MCcain win (none / 0) (#113)
    by AvianoTeamB1 on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 04:41:46 PM EST
    You guys must understand Fox News is giving Mccain and Palin the green light to say whatever they wish to say, regardless if its true or false.

    Obama should have (none / 0) (#125)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 04:53:38 PM EST
    not even given it ANY air time if he really wants to get the narrative back.  This is reactionary politics.

    There is a school of thought that Kerry lost because he didn't respond swiftly and with vigor to the charges of the Swiftboaters.  The R's are boxing Obama in and his campaign doesn't even realize it.

    MOVE on to the bread and butter issues.  I heard from a number of people today that it's too bad that the media manipulates the candidates to the point where they are talking about lipstick when gas is so high, lack of healthcare.........on and on and on.

    Neither candidate is focused.  Shows where Obama AND McCain are more interested in winning than helping Americans.

    WAIT FOR 2011 (none / 0) (#148)
    by Oceandweller on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 05:28:28 PM EST
    because if McC has th melanoma the medicam community knows about but does not discuss - ah hippocrates. in 2011 sarah p will be president and God have mercy on US
    SHE IS BOUND TO DISCOVER THAT Russia/USSR/Russian Federation called it Putin or Medvedev do not bother about Hockey Moms or Moose cum Creationnist hunters.
    Mrs P is in for a very cruel lesson; and so we shall too.
    Meanwhile carry on that sexist feud; Putin is not sexist, he is ruthless. That is realpolitik.
    So get back to your sense and vote OBAMA/Biden.
    The world is ready to give us another chance to prove ourselves, but for Palin/McCain the first foreign stupid idea will hit us back like a mean boomerang.
    I fear that in some places they will not even have guns to cling to because they will have been repossessed; no more Bible because they will not be able to afford them.

    Please stop this nonesense (5.00 / 6) (#175)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 05:57:26 PM EST
    I ask politely as someone who has known people who have had melanoma, have watched them survive it and not survive it.

    I don't care if I get kicked out, this has gotten really sick. What is wrong with you people?

    Wishing death on others because of political considerations? Why not just take a gun and go do the job.

    Enough!

    Parent

    Almost (none / 0) (#162)
    by lentinel on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 05:42:06 PM EST
    Obama sounds pretty good in this clip...

    but there is the usual cliffhanger.

    "They want real answers to the real problems we are facing."

    And your answers are....

    WHAT?

    Ship soldiers from Iraq to Afghanistan?

    Time is running out.

    here's something worht looking at (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by sas on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 05:49:35 PM EST

    September 10, 2008
    Categories: Joe Biden

    Biden bows to Clinton

    Biden, today in Nashua, NH, in response to an inaudible question from an audience member:

    "Make no mistake about it Hillary Clinton is as qualified as or more qualified than I am" to be vice president, Biden said. "And quite frankly, she may have been a better pick than me."

    UPDATE: Politico's Victoria McGrane points out that his remark came in response to a question from a man saying he was glad Obama had chosen Biden over Clinton; Biden was rising to her defense.

    Parent

    the poverty of republicanism (none / 0) (#185)
    by pluege on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 06:18:07 PM EST
    • devoid of ideas that help people other than the privileged;
    • long on corruption, deception, and diversion;
    • malignant in greed and self-absorption.
    sexism (none / 0) (#191)
    by AlSmith on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 06:21:24 PM EST

    I am not so sure that Obama 'pig' remark was sexist although the audience made it into an insult.

    But what does seem a bit sexist is the New York Times reporting on the size of Palin's highheels.

    "Ms. Palin in a black suit with ruby red, patent leather heels at least three inches high."

    http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/10/mccain-palin-draw-big-crowd-in-va/

    We care why?

    The pig thing has nothing to do with (none / 0) (#195)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 06:28:08 PM EST
    what I'm referencing.  The pig thing is ridiculous - and see, look, I can the truth about an issue even when I'm hardly thrilled with Obama's preformance.  Wish he could man up enough to do the women of this country the same favor!

    Parent
    And sadder still is that people here (5.00 / 3) (#213)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 06:40:10 PM EST
    seem to want to believe and tell themselves that Obama is held to the same standards of representing women that McCain is.  What are the principle's of the Democratic party though?  Why are women energized to join the party and vote with the party?  Take that one single fact alone though and discover that Obama is held to a far different standard concerning women and women's rights in order to maintain and energize his base than McCain ever ever ever will be with his.  If this is really us against them the Democratic gave up willfully a whole bunch of their US and they really think they don't have to earn them back.  They think they are going to register new voters to win with.  Voters who never sat in an emergency room with broken teeth and beaten children only a generation ago.  

    Parent
    The Chelsea Clinton "joke" (none / 0) (#194)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 06:26:32 PM EST
    McCain told wasn't something he made up. It was one of the email jokes circulating the net. I remember well hearing about McCain repeating that joke, but he is not the person, nor the source where I first heard it. And, of course, the media publicizing it over and over gives them the chance to spread the joke without being accused of same.
    It's about time. I wish he would start playing as (none / 0) (#223)
    by WillBFair on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 07:04:57 PM EST
    dirty as he did in the primary. The media won't help him this time.
    And I agree with Todd about one thing. All of the dems need to step up. But we don't have a pride problem. We have a problem with stooping to Obama and his worshipers' level.
    On the other hand, I still think that if Bill and Hillary really get out there, and the media doesn't start another massive smear campaign against Bill, they can put Obama in office with a comfy margin.

    so, um, i guess (none / 0) (#225)
    by Xclusionary Rule 4ever on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 08:06:40 PM EST
    I have the same feeling I had in Sept 2000 and 2004: "sure we're gonna win - we're smarter, better, more honest, and we're not stooping so low as to lie cheat and steal!"  Those years didn't turn out so well.

    I think Obama needs to stay on the high road but his 527s and surrogates need to bring the slime.  NOW.

    How about that "I will always hate gooks" comment??  And let's ask SP if she believes in submitting to her husband's will?  Y'know, when people overseas try to control and avoid the press we call them fascists and totalitarian.  Let's get some cancer docs out there to say that McC is a goner - where's his first wife?  Where's his written confession he gave to the VC?  

    The low-info voters are going to hear all the sleaze and none of the dignified rhetoric.  They are the 20% everybody is fighting over right now.

    McCain used Lipstick comment 4 times (none / 0) (#226)
    by Rashomon66 on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:16:11 PM EST
    I just saw a bunch of McCain clips and he used the term at least 4 times in the last year-and-a-half. Twice he used it when he was referring to Hillary Clinton's health plan. Why did no one say anything about that?

    How You Play The Game (none / 0) (#227)
    by john horse on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:32:16 PM EST
    Shame on McCain for the disgraceful campaign he has run.  

    As Grantland Rice once wrote:
    For when the one Great Scorer
    Comes to write against your name,
    He writes not that you won or lost,
    But how you played the game.

    McCain and the GOP only care about winning.  They will do whatever it takes to win including lying and wallowing in the mud.  They know how to manipulate us but they do not really represent our values.

    When the final votes are counted, Obama will not only win but will be able to hold his head up proudly for the way he has played the game.  

    Obama Fights Back Against McCain Swift Boat Politics | 190 comments (190 topical)