home

SPT Editorial: McCain's Campaign of Lies is a Disgrace

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 07:07:37 PM EST
Tags: John McCain (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I just returned from Tampa/Clearwater/St Petersburg. What a welcome surprise this morning to pick up the St. Petersburg Times and see the editorial, Campaign of Lies Disgraces McCain . It details the blatant falsehoods in his ads about Barack Obama and sex education and Obama and the lipstick on the pig statement, and concludes:

[McCain] has been a serious public servant willing to say unpopular truths when he thought it best for the country, but he's more than willing in this election to put his name on campaign lies. The leader who says he would rather lose an election than lose a war now risks losing his reputation in an attempt to win the White House.

When even Karl Rove says McCain's ads went too far in the truth department, you know it's going to backfire.

< "This is none of your business!" Addington exploded. | More On Roe >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    SPT Editorial: McCain's Campaign of Lies is a Disgrace | 58 comments (58 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Why (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by rooge04 on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 07:35:39 PM EST
    is it STILL perpetuated that he was  "willing to say unpopular truths." He's never been a Maverick.  Ugh

    He's actually more into saying. . . (none / 0) (#17)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 08:42:20 PM EST
    is it STILL perpetuated that he was  "willing to say unpopular truths."

    untrue popular things.

    Parent

    Don't count on it backfiring. (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by KVFinn on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 08:00:48 PM EST
    The more McCain can talk about anything other than issues, the better he does.  A negative ad works double, you get press on the ad, on the response, on the counter-response, everything.  So even if they backfire, that coverage can end up distracting voters from substantive issue talk.

    Palin works the same way -- even negative coverage of Palin blows any Obama coverage out.  Was there even a single comment about Obama at the Nation Service forum?  Or the constant issues Obama keeps trying to raise every day?  Nope, it's just ads and Palin, ads and Palin.  The guy doesn't stand a chance unless the public suddenly decide to focus on real issues.  

    The next four years are going to be just as awesome as the last eight.  Bleh.

    Actually (none / 0) (#76)
    by IzikLA on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 02:48:09 AM EST
    I think you hit on something here...

    As easy as it is to say that Palin is the new flavor of the month and that is the only reason she is getting so much attention, well, it is easy to forget that Obama was just that ever so recently.  THIS is the problem with the media-darling phenomenon.  Sorry BTD,  but this is where I start to question your main argument.

    Parent

    I feel that when (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by txpolitico67 on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 08:48:33 PM EST
    democrats and progressives start agreeing with karl rove or seeking some kind of approval from him we are in even worse shape than McCain.

    Even a broken clock is right twice a day. (none / 0) (#48)
    by Faust on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 09:58:23 PM EST
    I seem to remember him saying that Obama should choose Hillary as VP. If my memory is correct then I would be forced to agree.

    Sometimes the devil does math and when he comes up with 2+2 = 4 there is no reason to disagree with him.

    Parent

    And unfortunately (none / 0) (#77)
    by IzikLA on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 02:49:55 AM EST
    This is what gives the devil his due.  If he just spouted crazy 24/7 then no one would pay attention.

    Parent
    McCain's Lying Does Matter (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by john horse on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 09:01:46 PM EST
    Its interesting that in defending McCain none of the McCain posters have taken to disagreeing with the substance of the St Pete Times charge that McCain has been lying.  The reason they haven't is because they can't.  

    Regarding whether voters care, I think they do.  Lying is serious character flaw.  Its getting harder to see how McCain is any different from George Bush when he keeps following in his footsteps.

    As the St Pete Times has pointed out

    McCain's straight talk has become a toxic mix of lies and double-speak. It is leaving a permanent stain on his reputation for integrity, and it is a short-term strategy that eventually will backfire with the very types of independent-thinking voters that were so attracted to him.


    Great to see your voice in here, John Horse (none / 0) (#28)
    by glanton on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 09:09:29 PM EST
    Its interesting that in defending McCain none of the McCain posters have taken to disagreeing with the substance of the St Pete Times charge that McCain has been lying.  The reason they haven't is because they can't.  

    Bingo!!!!

    Parent

    You are misquoting Rove (4.30 / 10) (#4)
    by myiq2xu on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 07:19:59 PM EST
    He said:

    "Both campaigns are making a mistake, and that is they are taking whatever their attacks are and going one step too far."

    I remember when Democrats wanted to beat the Republicans, and not be like the Republicans.

    Just amazing (4.20 / 5) (#11)
    by glanton on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 08:16:19 PM EST
    No matter what the thread, no matter who is posting it, the Obama snipers and McCain wagon circlers leap in like moths to a light.

    The truth is McCain's campaign makes Bush 2004 look substantive.  At least Bush hung his hat on the gay marriage issue.  He exploited bigotry, of course, but technically gay marriage did count as an issue in 2004.  I wouldn't be surprised at all if Rove isn't a bit envious; McCain's people have taught him that you really can make a credible run for the Presidency without standing for anything.

    All McCain has done is lie and smear and use the word Maverick a lot.  Palin is the same.  It is all cynicism all the time.  For selling themselves as change agents they should be getting laughed out of the electorate by now.

    But here comes the noise machine known as TL comment box.  
     

    McCain vs. Bush 2004, really? (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by jerry on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 08:42:03 PM EST
    I'm not disputing your position, which I've seen in all sorts of places, I just don't get it.

    Bush 2004, swiftboating Kerry and his attacks on Social Security is less worse than McCain twisting Obama's words re: lipstick and lying about Obama's position on sex education for kindergartners.

    I watch even less TV now than in 2004 (trying not to be smug, I just can't afford cable and the big hill in the middle of town keeps reception pretty bad for all but poltergeist reruns.)

    Anyway, I consider the sex ed commercial to be hugely disgusting, and most of the other commercials to be clear and obvious nonsense, but sadly, well within the bounds of one of our elections.

    But I don't see these commercials as comparing to the long running lying substantive attacks on Obama like the attacks on Kerry's Vietnam's record.  The sex ed comes the closest.  Next would be accusations of his being Muslim, or attacks on his association with Reverend Wright.

    I perceive McCain's positions as being pretty non-existent most times, and when present, claiming to be for the people, but actually favoring his buddies.

    But instead of hearing Obama talk about specifics of his own plan, I mainly have been hearing nonsensical attacks on Palin and discussions of his being the change guy.

    I'm not disputing your perceptions, I just find it weird that I can't compare the "evilness" that I saw in 2004, with the "standard ugly negative election shenanigans" that I perceive in 2008.

    It's probably that I have changed, perhaps, because I feel that what McCain has done to Obama is bad, but not as bad as Obama and his friends calling everyone racists.

    At one level, I think the charge that Obama wants to teach kindergarteners about sex ed is clearly, obviously ludicrous.  And so I think the charges that Ferraro (and others) were racist were much more outrageous smears.

    Even now, I think the various claims made in Salon and many other places that any opposition to Obama is either racist or tantamount to racism gives me a real hesitancy to worry about ludicrous claims that Obama wants to teach sex ed to kindergartners.

    The various claims in this campaign are mostly so transparently ludicrous, it's all I can do to keep from laughing.  Obama wants to teach sex ed to kindergarteners.  Palin wants to go to war with Russia (by adopting the same Georgia membership in NATO policy that Obama and Biden have supported.)

    Parent

    As Bad as the Swiftboating Was (none / 0) (#47)
    by glanton on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 09:58:05 PM EST
    Those Ads never ended with a clip of Bush saying I'm George W. Bush and I approved this message.

    Your last paragraph is interesting.  I wonder if Obama and Biden have been running around talking about putting Georgia in NATO.  

    It sucked that Obama altered his initial response to the Georgia incident.  But at no point did he say anything to the effect of "we're all Georgians today."  That matters.

    But parsing aside, let me ask you this.  IS there any doubt in your mind which Ticket is Most Likely, By Far, to get this country into a war with Russia in the next four years?  Any doubt at all?

    Okay then.

    Hmmmm.  I just thought of a poll question for citizens of the United States:

    "Which candidate for President is most likely to get the country in a war with Russia?"

    Parent

    Any doubt at all? (none / 0) (#51)
    by jerry on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 10:13:32 PM EST
    But parsing aside, let me ask you this.  IS there any doubt in your mind which Ticket is Most Likely, By Far, to get this country into a war with Russia in the next four years?  Any doubt at all?

    So every ounce of my body says to vote dem, and that's what I'll probably do (I live in a red state, I might vote for a third party if that would get a third party into a future debate).  Based purely and solely on their campaigns to date, I can't tell which Presidential candidate would be more likely to get us into war.  (Sometimes it takes a Nixon to go to China (credit to Spock.))  As one very small but expensive example as who may be better on national security, I think:

    1.  McCain's original view ca 2000 regarding the tanker was absolutely correct and commendable
    2.  McCain's 2006/7/8 view regarding the new tanker deal varied from defensible to corrupt (based on his lobbyists.)
    3.  Obama's 2008 view on FCS is not as good as McCain's view on FCS.

    I am leery about Palin and war, but in general, I think Biden's views and actions have hurt people far more.

    Parent
    FWIW (none / 0) (#54)
    by glanton on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 10:21:28 PM EST
    I hear you on third parties.  As much as it breaks my heart I can only respectfully disagree with Nader voters in the rust belt. I hope they come to understand that the gap between Dems and Repubs nationally is still quite wide, however Rightist our entire political system may be.

    It is different, and merits no respect, regarding people who vociferously supported either of the major Dems in the Primary, and who now do everything they can to pick at the victor, including circling wagons for the GOP.  The policies of Obama and Clinton being virtually indistinguishable.

    As for who is more likely to get us into war.  I just don't see how you can write "I can't tell which Presidential candidate would be more likely to get us into war."  McCain's ethos rests on international conflict.  "I know how to win wars."  For God's sake, what an encapsulation of the War Dog is McCain.

    Obama and Biden are far from perfect but they are not binary thinkers.  Especially Obama is not a binary thinker.  For Obama the world is not a Lord of the Rings movie.  For McCain it is.  That is evident.  I hope voters realize this, and the dangerousness of this, before election day.

    Parent

    First (3.50 / 2) (#79)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 07:17:57 AM EST
    of all regarding the primaries: The scabs are still there due to Obama's behavior. He never did anything to reach out to Hillary's voters. All his campaign did was issue threats about Roe v. Wade and that did nothing but make those voters dig their heels in even deeper.

    As far as issues, yes there was a difference. Obama was seen as very weak on national security hence the immediate exodus of those voters to McCain after the primary. Secondly, Obama's immediate policy changes in June made people have serious doubts about his convictions. He appears willing to compromise literally anything and everything away.

    McCain is leading in the polls largely because he is seen by many to have the ability to get things done. He has a record to run on: McCain/Feingold and Kennedy/McCain to list two.

    I frankly don't think that Obama is any more or less likely to get us into a war than McCain. Obama will try to overcompensate for his "weak on security" and get us into another war I believe.

    Here's the problem Obama has boxed himself into: people will choose strong and wrong over weak and right everytime. Obama could be right but he appears weak. Biden did nothing but reinforce that perception.

    Parent

    "Strong on defense" (none / 0) (#81)
    by glanton on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 08:20:46 AM EST
    Anyone who seriously believes that McCain is strong on national security is in trouble anyway.  They sure aren't going to be voting Dem anytime soon.  This is a chance for voters to recognize the clean bright line between bluster and chest beating on the one hand, and responsibly serving the nation's interests on the other.  It is a clear line.  Voter's fault if we look the other way, not Obama's.

    As for the argument that Obama (out of some weird Freudian compensation narrative) is more likely to start a war with Russia or anyone else than McCain.  That is just a specious argument; it is what causes people to think that GOP trolling is infesting these Boards.

    Dems in general deserve the benefit of the doubt re who is more likely to start a war.  After all the GOP has started one and is blustering away about starting at least two others.  

    Now.  Giving them the benefit of the doubt is fair; any fair person, any reasonable person, would say that McCain and Palin are more likely to start a war than is Obama.

    But let's give your specious argument the hypothetical, and let's say we do get burned by Obama re War.  If Obama does win and if he starts a war, then that would finish the Demo Party as it is currently configured.  Third and fourth parties at that point no longer be the stuff of hilarity, but would emerge in full force.  I know for my part, I would end my lifetime support of Dems once and for all, and begin spending time and money on people like Nader, or even Feingold & Kucinich (neither of whom would be Dems anymore).  

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#82)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 09:25:39 AM EST
    it's not the voters fault. It's Obama's fault. It's Obama's responsibility to convince the voters.

    I guess you've forgotten about Obama's behavior w/r/t Pakistan. Ineptness can get us into a war just as much as neoconservatism.

    Obama had no problem with trashing the party to get the nomination so I don't think he would have a problem doing it if elected. Obama has shown that he's all about Obama and what's best for him.

    Parent

    At what point (none / 0) (#83)
    by glanton on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 09:42:43 AM EST
    exactly are we the voters accountable?  

    What in God's name has John McCain's   GOP done in this campaign to convince voters?  They spit on voters, openly declare that issues are not relevant, that the economy is fine.  The GOP tells voters, all we need to do is smear Obama and that will be enough.

    Bush in  office two terms?  Blame Bush's lies, blame shenanigans, blame weak Dems.  But by no means blame the people that pulled the lever for him.  Now if McCain wins we will hear how it is Obama's fault.  At some point we the people are to blame.  The quicker we take responsibility the better.  After what we have all seen, nobody who votes for John McCain or abstains from voting need look any further than the mirror.

    Parent

    Blaming the (none / 0) (#85)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 10:18:36 AM EST
    voters never works. It only causes them to hate your party more and more. If you lose, you take responsibility and move on.

    Here's the situation: McCain is proposing ideas. He proposes drilling and tougher regulation on wall street. What is Obama talking about? All he does is restate the obvious: McCain is bad, or McCain is Bush's third term. These are shopworn. Yeah, McCain stinks but how is Obama better? What does Obama plan to do? He's wasted literally months of the campaign doing absolutely nothing to define himself or get his issues out to the public.

    Obama needs to give people a reason to vote FOR him. He already has the anti McCain vote. It's in the mid forties. If you can't move past that you can't win.

    Parent

    Why lie? (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by glanton on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 10:31:50 AM EST
    Why are you lying?  Obama is hammering away on issues every day on every stump speech.  Tax breaks for 95%, back to Clinton era taxes for the top tier.  Tax breaks for companies who create jobs here, remove breaks for companies that outsource them.  Responsible foreign policy where diplomacy once again plays a role.  Transparent government, competence in government.  Reasonable people appointed to the Courts.  Emphasis on green technology to complement any drilling that we do.  Addressing the health care crisis.

    All of this and more, every day, and you know it. You may not agree with what Obama wants to do  but to say he isn't making these appeals is only to lie.  Why do so many commenters continue to lie in this way?  If the bottom line is that you are just miffed because of the Primary and so all else is nullified, then that's petty as it gets, but at least have the decency to say that is it.

    And, oh yes.  On the principle of walking and chewing gum at the same time.  Obama is also hammering away the message that McCain is bad.  
    Because you know what.  McCain is bad.  Voters have every opportunity to see this.  As for alienating voters by holding them accountable, you are just being cynical.  Rather than worry about what is the politic thing to say, why not simply acknowledge that we are responsible for the government we get.  That if go for more GOP, we are asking for more GOP.  It is in fact that simple.  If people do not like to hear it, that is too bad.  Voting for GOP=asking for more.


    Parent

    You're (none / 0) (#89)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 11:16:39 AM EST
    proving my point. No one listens to stump speeches. People don't care about those. And it's left up to the media to decide what part of the stump speech makes it through the filter.

    This is the typical Obama supporter tactic to to call people liars who aren't "getting it". Do you realize how many voters are turned off by this type of behavior?

    Where are the ads saying this? All I've seen from Obama is an biographical ad and and ad lying about his support of welfare reform. Where are the ads touting his economic solutions? The only ads I've seen are ones stating that he's "not mccain".

    The problem that you don't seem to realize is that there are voters that see Obama as bad as McCain simply because he isn't making the case that he's better.

    Anger and blame shifting is not going to win an election. Obama is running a crappy campaign. No one is responsible for that other than him and his campaign.

    Parent

    So it's all about the Ads (none / 0) (#90)
    by glanton on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 11:29:54 AM EST
    Well, fwiw, I wish he'd run better television ads, too.  Ads that encapsulate the things I just rattled off, that he rattles off on the stump.

    Although, the way you put it is too totalizing.  To cite one example, by now everyone in the country who is paying any attention has seen an Ad or soundbite in which Barack calls to end tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas, and to give them to those that create jobs at home.   I bet you'd be able to think of at least five other things about what Obama wants to do, that everyone paying attention knows about.

    But look.  I understand the point about not alienating voters, about perceived elitism, I really do.  But at the same time, the unhealthiest thing for a republic, by far, is when we give up on the voters, rob them of accountability.  In my opinion the position you are taking is far more elitist because you are unwilling to hold the electorate responsible for seeing the differences between GOP and Dem parties. The differences are not as great as some of us would like but they are there for all to see.

    The choice this time is clear enough for American voters to see if they want to invest in the future of the country.  Don't we owe it to the electorate to say, if we vote GOP back in there, then that is what we deserve?  

     

    Parent

    I know how to win wars... (none / 0) (#58)
    by jerry on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 10:33:21 PM EST
    So he's in a campaign, and from what I've experienced AND been told, I can't believe anything anyone says in a campaign.

    Obama, I've been told, is much more liberal than he claims to be.  I'm told he takes these moderate positions to get to the swing vote, and because, well, a black man in 2008, can't take liberal positions and expect to get elected.  So I've been told that I shouldn't worry about his positions on trade.

    (Remember when we heard it said that if Hillary was 1/2 has liberal has her opponents made her out to be, she'd be twice as liberal as we thought she was?)

    If you believe what George W. Bush said in 2000, he didn't believe nation building.

    So as I said, based purely and solely on their campaigns, I can't tell.  Of course McCain says he knows how to win wars.  It's what Kerry said too.  That's what vets do when facing non-vets.

    In a sense, I think it comes down to who will have better advisors, and who I think will make the better decision.  I tend to think that's Obama, but I honestly haven't seen that in his campaign, which I think has been rather gutless and uninspirational.

    Parent

    I completely agree. (none / 0) (#12)
    by KVFinn on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 08:24:08 PM EST
    It's sad to see substantive crime policy posts getting practically no attention comments, while anything with the word lipstick gets 200.    

    McCain's campaign has succeed in derailing any talk about the issues.  People agree the policy of the last 8 years pretty much sucked, so as long as McCain can keep people talking about trivia, he can win.  It's going to be another 4 years just as awesome as the the last 8.  

    Parent

    Absolutely awesome it will be (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by glanton on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 08:34:07 PM EST
    The next four years.  What an embarrassment to the country if McCain wins.

    As to your comment regarding substantive posts versus lipstick posts on TL.  

    Hopefully that issue will at least go away after the election when the people who in the last nine months or so came to mistake this blog for an online feminist theory course, have gone away.  When those who mistook this blog as devoted to the Clintons or to Obama hatred, rather than issues related to civil liberties and social justice, have gone away.  When those invested in seeing the GOP win to vindicate their sense of woundedness, or to prove to those who do not care, how right they were all along, have gone away.  Then, perhaps, you will see the threads turn.  

    Parent

    Interesting. (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Anne on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 09:24:50 PM EST
    Of your last 120 comments, not a single one was on one of the legal issues posts.

    Parent
    Note the difference (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by glanton on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 09:39:38 PM EST
    I was not echoing the person I was responding to, but responding to that commenter's very good point.  

    Right now my own focus is on the election.  That is, on ending GOP rule.  If you go back through my commenting history, and are fair, you will perhaps be able to bring yourself to acknowledge that my reason for wanting to end GOP rile very much has to do with issues related to criminal and social justice.  

    Parent

    mistake this blog for an online (2.00 / 1) (#33)
    by sancho on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 09:27:01 PM EST
    feminist theory course, you say? that charming turn of phrase would play well in the weekly standard or on the sean hannity show.

    good to see the media trying to call mccain out, though.

    i wish they'd press both candidates on the issues but mccain and obama seem united about keeping such discussions under cover. then again, now that obama is ok with the surge, fisa, declared the abortion debate above his paygrade, and said that rolling back the tax cuts maybe should wait, what does mccain have left to run on?  

    Parent

    Charming turn of phrase (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by glanton on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 09:45:34 PM EST
    Well, since so many threads these many months have looked like Hannityesque caricatures of the American liberal mind, I can see where you would get that.

    Identity politics ravaged the Democratic Party throughout 2008. The Primary came down to two candidates almost identical on the issues but look at the bad blood that manifested on both sides.  How idiotic.  And identity politics continues to ravage the Dem Party.  See the Palin wagon circling on these boards for recent evidence of this.  

    Here in Realityville, all of the above makes the Weekly Standard and Sean Hannity very happy, I assure you.  Obama winning the election?  That would not make the Weekly Standard or Sean Hannity happy.

    Parent

    obama has staked a dem presidency, (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by sancho on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 10:36:24 PM EST
    which we desperately need right now, on identity politics. it is a remarkable gambit on his part--i am sorry he thinks it his best way to the white house because i think he would win as a democrat instead of as post-partisan cultural aesthete. i began the dem primary as an obama supporter but his gender baiting campaign turned me off. and then as he failed to win any of the key states, my jaw dropped as it became clear that winning red state caucuses was going to be enough to send him against mccain as the dem nominee. now i'm left unexcited but still voting for obama. just like i did kerry, gore, and dukakis--obama's future company i fear.  

    Parent
    Almost all Dems guilty (none / 0) (#63)
    by glanton on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 10:47:24 PM EST
    Blaming Obama for the Identity Politics problem is really unfair.  Maybe that is not yor intent but that is how your comment looks.

    The Media ate it up, making the Dem Party about Gender and Race.  The voters ate it up.  Of course Obama and Hill benefitted from it immensely.  Did anyone really think Edwards lack of a chance this time around had anything to do with arguments of ideas?

    But, all that can be over whenever WE say it is iver.  We can still salvage this.  Correct our fetish for Identity and vote to end GOP rule.  As Jeralyn often says, it is going to come down to who is there  more of, us or them.  I think if "we" can get over our petty divisions, we will prove more numerous this time.

    Obama is right when he says the election was never about him.  It is and has been about us, the electorate.  Shall we reward the last 8 years of GOP rule and ask for more of the same.  Or will we finally show some mettle and say, these dirty campaigns don't it anymore.  These lies, these empty arguments. It is time for the GOP elite, the War Dogs and the K-Streeters alike, to go sit in the corner with Dobson.  

    I'm going to go ahead and believe in the voters this time.  That we will do the right thing.  What do I have to lose.  There will be plenty of time to be ashamed of this electorate later, if I turn out to be wrong.

    Parent

    vote to end GOP rule (none / 0) (#64)
    by sancho on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 11:00:24 PM EST
    that's the key phrase. that's what obama and his surrogates should be saying. couldnt agree more. but he too often seems to be agreeing with GOP principles. so i do not think obama says 'end GOP rule' clearly enough. i dont think the dems do this enough, generally, either. and that's a key reason we lose almost all the time since 64. i also think it is obama's job to unite the party. i can understand you saying that he is trying--but the fact is, whatever he is trying is not working (yet). i think if he followed btd's suggestions (reach out to the clintons, run on dem principles), he'd win w/o too much sweat. there's still time but its getting short.


    Parent
    Well, I don't know what more he could do (none / 0) (#67)
    by glanton on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 11:21:17 PM EST
    That what he has been doing since the Dem convention.  His cry of "Enough" was incredibly poignant, and he has been hammering on that theme.  

    Anti: Corporate tax loopholes, irresponsible foreign policy, outsourcing, lack of transparency.

    Pro: responsible diplomacy; women's rights, tax cuts for the working and middle classes, tax breaks for companies that create jobs here in the US.  

    There is more to it but the point is he is running on issues and hammering home the "more of the same" Mantra that needs to be hammered home.  

    He and the Dems have offered the electorate an opportunity to end GOP rule.  McCain has offered the electorate nothing but lies, bluster, and in Palin, Social Con Red Meat.  

    The winner of this election will say a lot less about Obama than it will about us.

    Parent

    You're right (none / 0) (#78)
    by IzikLA on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 03:02:40 AM EST
    The media ate it up.  Doesn't make it OK that the Dem leadership thought it right to prop up and push over the line the candidate in the primary that lost by double digit margins in states such as CA, NY, NJ, MA, WV, OH, PA, FL, and many more.  Winning by double digit margins in places such as UT, WY, MS, AK, ID does not make up for this fact.

    Parent
    You miss the point (none / 0) (#80)
    by glanton on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 08:11:00 AM EST
    of my comment, and on purpose it seems.  

    My point is that the Dems voters ate it up and that now, we have a chance to see the stoopidity of the hard allegiances that we all were guilty of forming, to get over it, as it were.  To reject it and actually go to bat for issues.  We can look at the sleazy empty campaign McCain is running and say oh yeah, I remember who and what the enemy is now.  For some reason I had forgotten the last eight years.  Thanks John for reminding me.

    It is up to us.

    Parent

    I agree with Glanton (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 10:14:49 PM EST
    During the primaries, many readers misstook my support of Hillary as one based on her being a female candidate. It wasn't. I repeatedly said the presidency is too important to leave to a historical marker -- being first -- be it gender or race.

    That being said, no one has ever commented much on our crime posts. That's of no moment to us. Most practicing defense lawyers are too busy to comment on blogs. They don't sit at a desk all day, they are in court or preparing for court. Yet they read TalkLeft (as is evident from our traffic when it's not an election year -- and from the emails I get and what people tell me. )

    The criminal posts are designed to highlight cases and issues in the news that day -- and advance the defense point of view. It's to get the public and the media (which also reads TalkLeft) to view the topic through the lens of the Constitution. Many non-lawyers don't feel comfortable commenting because they aren't versed in the law.

    I'm not trying to foster debate on the views expressed in our posts. The kind of opposition that has occurred here on the election would never be tolerated on crime issues. For example, I have no interest in seeing comments supporting the death penalty or the war on drugs on my site. If there were several of them, it would be unacceptable. Again, the purpose of TalkLeft is to inform and promote my point of view.

    So, it's not a bad thing there are relatively few comments on the crime posts. Those who agree, don't feel the need to chime in "Me too" and those who oppose would be on a short leash. (I'm not trying to discourage commenting, and non-baiting questions and thoughtful comments are  welcome so if you want to comment, you can.)

    We have always covered the injustices of government, and will continue after the election. That's why you'll see posts about social security and health insurance, because Republicans would be dangerous for both.

    And, BTD is not a criminal defense lawyer so he'll always write about politics or whatever is of interest to him.

    Parent

    I am not a criminal defense lawyer (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by MKS on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:14:54 AM EST
    But I do enjoy reading the posts on criminal law--and I rarely have a basis to comment....I usually just wince or avert my eyes as I read another miscarriage of justice....


    Parent
    Yes, this is my situation: (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by shoephone on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:54:05 AM EST
    Many non-lawyers don't feel comfortable commenting because they aren't versed in the law.

    And sometimes, I simply find myself in personal disagreement with the views, knowing full well those kinds of comments would not be readily accepted, in which case, not commenting is the easier path. But I do read every post.

    Parent

    thanks, shoephone (none / 0) (#74)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 01:03:30 AM EST
    both are appreciated, especially that you read them. I usually try to include source links, to opinions, statutes, even  hearing testimony and the like, so people can get more than just my opinion. And, as I said, genuine questions are always welcome.

    Parent
    Press coverage of the issues I should have said (none / 0) (#56)
    by KVFinn on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 10:25:02 PM EST
    Obama is on the stump every day pounding on the issues.  

    Parent
    Eh (4.11 / 9) (#1)
    by nell on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 07:15:31 PM EST
    Not saying that it won't backfire, but I don't voters care all that much about campaign tactics. Especially not if they perceive a biased media, which I think a significant proportion of Americans do.

    For example, during the primaries, there was a newspaper editorial or some talking head on tv nearly every single day BLASTING the Clinton campaign for a so-called scorched earth strategy. In reality, the Clinton campaign was incredibly gentle towards Obama - they were critical, sure, it is a CAMPAIGN, but not in the way that the media claimed. So if suddenly we give the media credibility in deciding who is the real negative campaigner, then do we all have to agree that Clinton ran a positively evil campaign? I would never agree to that, because I heard what the media said and I saw the huge gap between what the news said and the reality of the campaign.

    The media has ZERO credibility.

    Not to mention the fact that the media never talks about the negative campaigning the Obama campaign engages in (the McCain can't email ad is a good example...he was tortured and repetitive motions are painful).

    Maybe it will backfire, maybe it won't...I think it's politics, both sides should fight as hard as they can. The media has no credibility as the mediators in this fight, whatsoever.

    Everyday someone is hoping something (3.77 / 9) (#3)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 07:18:56 PM EST
    will backfire on mccain and it just hasn't...this is how politics have been going for a very long time and it seems it is just business as usual.

    Parent
    Do you know what most of the voters (3.83 / 6) (#29)
    by Anne on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 09:14:03 PM EST
    hear out of all of this?  Two allegedly grown men bickering and sniping and slinging mud over things that have nothing to do with the issues that are keeping them up at night or making it harder and harder to get from paycheck to paycheck. "He's picking on me!" is not a winning strategy, and yet, as Obama continues to inch down in the polls, he persists in it.

    The voters are tuning them out, and apparently deciding that since the new guy isn't telling them anything about how he's going to change things, they're just going to go with the guy they know - McCain.

    Obama has squandered weeks of valuable time on petty, indignant messaging when he could have been talking directly to the American people about substance.  He's spent more time and more money on managing the optics of this campaign than on finding out what it is people want to hear from him.  He could have taken a cue and gotten a clue from the many town halls Clinton did where she connected one-on-one with voters; does he have any idea how many votes Clinton got because she was willing to do those kinds of events?

    If there's been any backfiring going on, it's been coming from Obama's decision to allow McCain to keep him on defense, and in believing that pointing out that McCain is a very, very, very bad man, and that Palin is the devil incarnate,  is all it takes to defeat the GOP ticket.

    He has no fight in him for the issues - people do not get a sense from him that he really cares as much about the issues as he does about making sure he has the last word in some schoolyard taunting contest with McCain.  He's so busy being cool that he's missing out on the fact that it comes across as blase and indifferent and yes, elitist.

    The voters aren't reading newspaper editorials or the NYT, and if Obama has not been able to take control of the narrative in the 12 days leading up to his debate with McCain, it's going to be very hard for him to climb out of the hole he seems determined to dig for himself.

    As I read it (3.60 / 5) (#2)
    by Strick on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 07:18:46 PM EST
    Rove said that accusing Obama of insulting Palin with the lipstick/pig comment was one step too far.  OK.  When is it a lie versus a difference of opinion?

    Rove also said this:

    "'Both campaigns are making a mistake, and that is they are taking whatever their attacks are and going one step too far,' Rove said."

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/14/rove_mccain_has_gone_one_step.html

    Obama's 1982 ad was a huge mistake, too.  Sounds like both sides are pushing the envelope.  

    Liar Narrative (none / 0) (#6)
    by WS on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 07:56:26 PM EST
    People in other parts of Left Blogistan say a "liar narrative" is taking hold.  Is that true out there in the real world?  The media seems to be picking this up but they could be cowed again.  

    His bounce does seem to be fading most noticeably in the Gallup tracking polls.  I want to know the latest polls to see where the state of the race is.  Also, I wonder what will happen to the RCP poll average once that +10 McCain goes away?  

    I wonder too (5.00 / 0) (#14)
    by nell on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 08:38:05 PM EST
    I have been wondering about this too...it is taking hold in the media, for sure. So far, I don't think it has hit "real people" but it is too soon to tell. I think it takes a few weeks.

    My dad is always my test voter - he has always respected McCain, though he wanted to vote for a Dem this year. Palin worries him, though, and has given him pause. He doesn't hate her, but he worries about her inexperience (but of course, the same thing worries him about Obama).

    He heard about the McCain can't use email ad on Friday and he was SPITTING mad when we started talking about politics this weekend. He said everyone knows McCain has a hard time using his arms and hands because of the torture and wondered why the Obama campaign has no common sense at all. He perceived it as Obama making fun of 1) people like my mom who struggle with email but who are incredibly smart and in her case professionals who just grew up in a different generation, 2) a torture victim...

    Parent

    well (none / 0) (#87)
    by connecticut yankee on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 10:22:53 AM EST
    My dad gave money to McCain in 2000 and would never vote for him now.  I liked McCain as well and actually defended him from right-wing slurs in 2000.  Over and over. The things they said....I wont even repeat.

    I dont like McCain any longer due to his erratic and press-courting ways. But I certainly would never smear him the way the right-wing jihadis have done.

    Parent

    liar narrative (5.00 / 0) (#18)
    by christinep on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 08:45:21 PM EST
    Anecdotal: My chats over the weekend suggest people think here what everyone else talks about--the campaign is getting tough, and a few seem offended and others sort of chuckle. Both sides seem to be in the "we're outraged" mode and (from what I hear) people view it as the old "liar, liar pants on fire." My opinion is that it is just some transitional mud-throwing; not worth getting the blood-pressure up. Seriously.

    Parent
    They were able to cow them due to Palin's gender (1.00 / 0) (#7)
    by dailygrind on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 07:58:09 PM EST
    McCain , who this race is really about, has no such luxury. That's why I loved the skit from SNL last night. It laid the truth bare in great comic timing.

    Parent
    McCain's Carl Rove Campaign Lies to Win (none / 0) (#38)
    by Teriss on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 09:42:06 PM EST
    McCain must have hired Carl Rove strategists to do this disgraceful dirty work but he still maintains control of his own campaign. This reflects on the type of underhanded methods he would use as a President. This disease of winning at all costs must have been matched with his cohort Mrs. Palin as she seems to have a fondness for exaggerating her resume. It is a dangerous duo who could very well spell the financial ruin of the United States as Alan Greenspan said today, we cannot afford John McCain's tax cuts nor his policies of continuing to bankrupt the country over the invasion of Iraq.

    missed opportunity (none / 0) (#75)
    by Amiss on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 01:17:11 AM EST
    as Alan Greenspan said today, we cannot afford John McCain's tax cuts nor his policies of continuing to bankrupt the country over the invasion of Iraq.

    Obama is seriously missing a golden opportunity to make an ad about this coming from Greenspan of all people.


    Parent

    Jeez, what is wrong with some of you? (none / 0) (#50)
    by Green26 on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 10:06:30 PM EST
    Here are the first three sentences from the above linked article. Note that Rove said the same thing about Obama.

    "Former Bush adviser Karl Rove said Sunday that Sen. John McCain had gone "one step too far" in some of his recent ads attacking Sen. Barack Obama.

    Karl Rove said both candidates are guilty of going too far in their attacks.

    Rove has leveled similar criticism against Obama."

    not quite (none / 0) (#86)
    by connecticut yankee on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 10:18:46 AM EST
    He was clearly more critical of McCain and suggested that they "need some adults over there".  I think he's worried they will blow it by taking the lying too far.

    Parent
    Drewski1233 (none / 0) (#69)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 11:40:26 PM EST
    has previously been banned under three different screen names. His/her account has been deleted and all 115 comments erased.

    which means (none / 0) (#70)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 11:46:00 PM EST
    that the comments to this thread makes little sense since so many were in response to his/her now deleted comments.


    Parent
    Unfortunetly both sides (none / 0) (#71)
    by Exeter on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:03:18 AM EST
    have been going back and forth... each stretching the truth a little bit farther with each new ad and now McCain has gone way too far.
    ya (none / 0) (#84)
    by connecticut yankee on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 10:16:24 AM EST
    Obama's new ad quoting all the papers is a solid hit.  A nice clean shot on McCain.

    That McCain is lying through his teeth this year was already noted by republicans in the primary.  

    SPT Editorial: McCain's Campaign of Lies is a Disgrace | 58 comments (58 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment