“McCain Camp accuses Obama of playing the race card”— AP
Let me get this straight, McCain campaign. You run an ad attacking Obama for being a “celebrity,” and you show pictures of him, Brittney Spears and Paris Hilton in the ad. And then you accuse him of taking the low road? Really?
You put an African American man in an ad with two young white girls, and then you act shocked that someone draws a racial inference? Really? That surprises you? Huh.
When Obama says of himself: “He’s new, he doesn’t look like other presidents on the currency. He’s got a funny name,” you say that he’s playing the race card from the bottom of the deck? Really? That seems out of line to you? Really?
You criticize Obama for not going to Iraq, for not having international experience, and then when he has a successful trip to the Middle East and Europe, you criticize and mock him for doing so? Really? That seem consistent to you? Really?
You say he won’t make time to visit with US troops because he’d rather go the gym, and then the shot of him at the “gym” is actually a shot of him visiting with US troops? Really? That makes sense to you? Seriously?
But my question to you is, really, what happened to John McCain? Really. Is this slimy rope-a-dope, taunt your opponent and then use his mild response to attack him some more really what McCain thinks is going to win the election for him? Really? You think Obama is going to fall for this stuff like Kerry did? Really? Seriously?
You think that being popular, being a “celebrity” is really a bad thing? Really? You sure? ‘Cause it seems like when you’re whining about not getting enough press coverage that you kind of want to be more of a celebrity yourself. Really, it does.
You think the American people are stupid enough to fall for this bullshit again? Really?
(I don’t know if I have a lot of conservative readers, but I’m pretty sure I have some Independent ones. I’d be interested in hearing how they see this tactic that the McCain team has embraced. This stuff working for you?)
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
More Documentation that Sen. McCain's Pants are on Fire
"McCain Charge Against Obama Lacks Evidence" - Washington Post
"McCain's advisers said they do not intend to back down from the charge, believing it an effective way to create a "narrative" about what they say is Obama's indifference toward the military."
That's their story and they're sticking to it. Even though they made it up. Karl Rove is smiling. Hey, it worked for the Swiftboaters.
"McCain's advisers said they do not intend to back down from the charge, believing it an effective way to create a "narrative" about what they say is Obama's indifference toward the military."
That's their story and they're sticking to it. Even though they made it up. Karl Rove is smiling. Hey, it worked for the Swiftboaters.
Monday, July 28, 2008
McCain: Into the Mud
Today I saw two items that nicely sum up my mixed feelings about Sen. John McCain. One was how he has to be very vigilant about skin cancer, due to his time as a POW, where he was apparently in the sun an unhealthy amount (added to all the other unhealthy things that happened). It reminded me of how much he sacrificed for this country, and how much I respect that.
But on the other hand, he is now running a campaign that regularly resorts to outright lies and smears in its political ads. The latest is the TV ad that claims Obama canceled a trip to visit wounded US service members because he couldn't take along TV cameras. As Andrea Mitchell (a journalist who has well-known conservative links) points out, this is simply not true.
There's more on this here
McCain vowed to run an honorable and dignified campaign. That is a broken promise. And we're only in July.
But on the other hand, he is now running a campaign that regularly resorts to outright lies and smears in its political ads. The latest is the TV ad that claims Obama canceled a trip to visit wounded US service members because he couldn't take along TV cameras. As Andrea Mitchell (a journalist who has well-known conservative links) points out, this is simply not true.
There's more on this here
McCain vowed to run an honorable and dignified campaign. That is a broken promise. And we're only in July.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Not-So-Quiet Desperation
John McCain wants you to know the Surge is working. No, scratch that, it is succeeding. Actually, it already has succeeded. We’re not only winning, we’ve won, and we’ll continue to keep winning, for however long it takes. Maybe a hundred years?
This incoherent line of thought is, believe it or not, McCain’s strongest argument at the moment. It is a relatively strong point to note that Obama said the Surge would fail, when as it turns out, the Surge seems to be a factor in the improving security situation in Iraq. This success can be overstated—Americans, being human, tend to oversimplify and see their own actions as being the most important. The reasons for the improving situation in Iraq are many, and they include the Surge. Be that as it may, Obama’s call was wrong on this one. So he’s batting 800 instead of a 1,000 on Iraq. That’s still a better average than McCain or most Republicans can claim.
As Obama’s overseas tour continues, though, it seems to me that McCain has made a significant mistake. His campaign was obviously worried that Obama’s trip would suck up a huge amount of oxygen, and that people would forget about McCain. That’s a legitimate worry; the media are treating this as a Very Big Deal.
But in his efforts to remind people that this is a two-person campaign, McCain has resorted to shouting, jumping up and down, and waving his arms. It’s not a good tactic for him. It might have been better to concede the national media to Obama for a week, and continue to campaign on a more regional basis.
Instead, we’ve had McCain on TV, blasting Obama for being wrong, wrong, wrong on the surge. “How’s the weather there in New Hampshire, Senator?” “Well, we’ve had some rain—it reminds me of how Sent. Obama’s claims about the Surge have turned out to be all wet. He was wrong on that, you know. And I was right!”
This kind of peevish, single-minded focus is hardly the stuff of great leadership.
What’s worse is that the McCain campaign has really started to sound a little unhinged. They put out an ad blaming Obama for the high price of gas. I am not kidding. I am not exaggerating. They blame Obama for the high price of gas. Desperate, much?
They also put out a three-minute YouTube video purporting to show how the media is fawning over Obama. You know, McCain has been a favorite of the media for a long time. One of the reasons he is the presumptive nominee is that his years of positive media coverage gave him the name recognition and good reputation to win primaries. It seems little silly for him to be complaining now about not getting enough media coverage.
Patently false ads, bitter denunciations, whining about the media. Not a great way to get people excited about your campaign, in my opinion.
This race is a long way from over. Heck, Obama’s trip is still not over. Things could happen to swing opinion one way or the other, but it appears to me the McCain campaign has made the worst of a bad situation.
Oh, and here’s a pertinent quote from Joe Klein of Time Magazine.
“John McCain said this today in Rochester, New Hampshire:
‘This is a clear choice that the American people have. I had the courage and the judgment to say I would rather lose a political campaign than lose a war. It seems to me that Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign.’
This is the ninth presidential campaign I've covered. I can't remember a more scurrilous statement by a major party candidate. It smacks of desperation. It renews questions about whether McCain has the right temperament for the presidency. How sad.”
This incoherent line of thought is, believe it or not, McCain’s strongest argument at the moment. It is a relatively strong point to note that Obama said the Surge would fail, when as it turns out, the Surge seems to be a factor in the improving security situation in Iraq. This success can be overstated—Americans, being human, tend to oversimplify and see their own actions as being the most important. The reasons for the improving situation in Iraq are many, and they include the Surge. Be that as it may, Obama’s call was wrong on this one. So he’s batting 800 instead of a 1,000 on Iraq. That’s still a better average than McCain or most Republicans can claim.
As Obama’s overseas tour continues, though, it seems to me that McCain has made a significant mistake. His campaign was obviously worried that Obama’s trip would suck up a huge amount of oxygen, and that people would forget about McCain. That’s a legitimate worry; the media are treating this as a Very Big Deal.
But in his efforts to remind people that this is a two-person campaign, McCain has resorted to shouting, jumping up and down, and waving his arms. It’s not a good tactic for him. It might have been better to concede the national media to Obama for a week, and continue to campaign on a more regional basis.
Instead, we’ve had McCain on TV, blasting Obama for being wrong, wrong, wrong on the surge. “How’s the weather there in New Hampshire, Senator?” “Well, we’ve had some rain—it reminds me of how Sent. Obama’s claims about the Surge have turned out to be all wet. He was wrong on that, you know. And I was right!”
This kind of peevish, single-minded focus is hardly the stuff of great leadership.
What’s worse is that the McCain campaign has really started to sound a little unhinged. They put out an ad blaming Obama for the high price of gas. I am not kidding. I am not exaggerating. They blame Obama for the high price of gas. Desperate, much?
They also put out a three-minute YouTube video purporting to show how the media is fawning over Obama. You know, McCain has been a favorite of the media for a long time. One of the reasons he is the presumptive nominee is that his years of positive media coverage gave him the name recognition and good reputation to win primaries. It seems little silly for him to be complaining now about not getting enough media coverage.
Patently false ads, bitter denunciations, whining about the media. Not a great way to get people excited about your campaign, in my opinion.
This race is a long way from over. Heck, Obama’s trip is still not over. Things could happen to swing opinion one way or the other, but it appears to me the McCain campaign has made the worst of a bad situation.
Oh, and here’s a pertinent quote from Joe Klein of Time Magazine.
“John McCain said this today in Rochester, New Hampshire:
‘This is a clear choice that the American people have. I had the courage and the judgment to say I would rather lose a political campaign than lose a war. It seems to me that Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign.’
This is the ninth presidential campaign I've covered. I can't remember a more scurrilous statement by a major party candidate. It smacks of desperation. It renews questions about whether McCain has the right temperament for the presidency. How sad.”
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Obama and the Evangelicals
Headline from US News and World Report:
Obama Campaign is Making Progress With Evangelical Voters
"They've researched where the votes are, and they've thrown away the old Democratic playbooks," says Brinson, who is among the evangelical leaders the Obama camp has reached out to. "Instead of just relying on a large number of urban votes, they're going to suburban areas and reaching out to a large number of conservatives."
I think this is great. It's about time someone on the Democratic side of politics went right after the church-going vote. Those folks tend to be more conservative, sure, but they're not all exactly the same. Despite what some on the left like to believe, evangelicals are not all marching in lock step. Some are going to be open to a centrist like Obama.
I like this approach that says, "We're not going to just try to win with 7 East Coast States and three West Coast states and try to pick up a few in the middle." If the Dems want to really lead this country, they are going to have to be a national party. They are going to have to have support outside the traditional strongholds. And Obama seems to get that.
The article ends by asking whether there are risks: whether Obama's outreach to the evangelicals will alienate traditional Dem voters. We've already seen some backlash over his supposed "change" in positions, which have been largely cases of media hype and selective memory. But let me put the question to my readers:
What do you think of Obama's efforts to win evangelical votes?
Obama Campaign is Making Progress With Evangelical Voters
"They've researched where the votes are, and they've thrown away the old Democratic playbooks," says Brinson, who is among the evangelical leaders the Obama camp has reached out to. "Instead of just relying on a large number of urban votes, they're going to suburban areas and reaching out to a large number of conservatives."
I think this is great. It's about time someone on the Democratic side of politics went right after the church-going vote. Those folks tend to be more conservative, sure, but they're not all exactly the same. Despite what some on the left like to believe, evangelicals are not all marching in lock step. Some are going to be open to a centrist like Obama.
I like this approach that says, "We're not going to just try to win with 7 East Coast States and three West Coast states and try to pick up a few in the middle." If the Dems want to really lead this country, they are going to have to be a national party. They are going to have to have support outside the traditional strongholds. And Obama seems to get that.
The article ends by asking whether there are risks: whether Obama's outreach to the evangelicals will alienate traditional Dem voters. We've already seen some backlash over his supposed "change" in positions, which have been largely cases of media hype and selective memory. But let me put the question to my readers:
What do you think of Obama's efforts to win evangelical votes?
Monday, July 07, 2008
Wall-E
"While the real-life grown-ups on TV were again rebooting Vietnam, the kids at “Wall-E” were in deep contemplation of a world in peril — and of the future that is theirs to make what they will of it. Compare any 10 minutes of the movie with 10 minutes of any cable-news channel, and you’ll soon be asking: Exactly who are the adults in our country and who are the cartoon characters?"
Frank Rich pretty much hits it out of the park with his column that skillfully uses an animated children's movie to illustrate what's wrong with our political process.
By the way, I saw Wall-E a few days ago and enjoyed it a lot. I'm not sure it's quite as spectacularly good as some of the reviews suggest, but it is very enjoyable, and the social/environmental commentary is on target and not heavy handed at all. It's hard to focus sometimes when your 2-year old is complaining of being "caird" and your five-year old is consuming a bag of popcorn nearly as big as he is, so I think I'll need to watch it again to really catch everything. But I recommend it.
Frank Rich pretty much hits it out of the park with his column that skillfully uses an animated children's movie to illustrate what's wrong with our political process.
By the way, I saw Wall-E a few days ago and enjoyed it a lot. I'm not sure it's quite as spectacularly good as some of the reviews suggest, but it is very enjoyable, and the social/environmental commentary is on target and not heavy handed at all. It's hard to focus sometimes when your 2-year old is complaining of being "caird" and your five-year old is consuming a bag of popcorn nearly as big as he is, so I think I'll need to watch it again to really catch everything. But I recommend it.
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
Change You Can Be Comfortable With
Doesn’t have much zip to it, does it?
But that could well be the unofficial theme of the Obama campaign these days.
Since become the presumptive nominee, Sen. Obama has carefully been moving back to the middle, making statements and policy proposals that are aimed to appeal to—and perhaps reassure—independents and more-conservative Democrats. This is nothing new at all, we see it pretty much every four years. And Sen. McCain made a similar move after he wrapped up his nomination; going on a poverty tour with a “Message: I Care” flavor to show Americans that compassionate conservatism was not dead. (Message: nice try.)
But while McCain is still exhibiting some minor symptoms of schizophrenia with his efforts to win over both independents AND the Republican base, Obama has morphed into Mr. Moderate, with a healthy helping of Bipartisan to go.
Obama has weighed in on the recent Supreme Court ruling on gun control by more or less agreeing that citizens have an individual right to bear arms. It’s not going to save him from the $40 million “Obama’s coming for your guns” attack ad campaign that the NRA has planned, but it might help him convince a few independents that he’s not as big a liberal as the NRA fanatics say he is. (My apologies to NRA members. But let’s be honest. The NRA is pretty out there at times.)
Obama has also recently changed his position on the FISA crimes that the current administration and telecom companies want immunity for. He’s taking a very middle-of-the-road stance here, and he’s right in step with most congressional Democrats at this point. But as far as I can tell from this rather complicated issue, the Dems are kind of caving on this one. We probably won’t know for sure how illegal the Bush Administration’s actions were until they’re out of office, but they really seemed to bend the laws here past the breaking point. “Bygones!” says Obama and the Dem leadership. Big of them.
And it’s been kind of sad watching Obama try to convince people that he doesn’t hate America. God knows he’s in a tough position there. I’ve seen some of the emails, and it is not pretty. So if he feels the need to wear a flag pin and make a speech on patriotism, all I can do is wish him luck. Some people are determined to find fault no matter what, and the patriotism issue gives them an excuse because it can be so subjective. “He didn’t say the Pledge LOUD enough!”
And then there’s the Wes Clark thing. I think Clark’s comments were unfortunate, but not scandalous. Yes, in fact, being a POW is not in itself a qualification for being Commander in Chief, but why even make that statement? Why give the McCain an excuse to act outraged and more patriotic-than-thou on the same day Obama is giving his speech dealing with that subject? It was a boneheaded move. And though many bloggers are mad at Obama for condemning Clark’s statement, the fact is it’s a huge mistake to start having arguments about Vietnam AGAIN, after we are all so sick of anything that remotely resembles Swiftboating.
If anything, Obama’s condemnation of Clark fits with his pledge to run a different kind of campaign and avoid the personal attacks and distractions. I honestly don’t think Clark was trying to make a personal attack on McCain, but it sounded petty.
Obama’s embrace of faith-based programs is also interesting, although I need to hear more details to comment on that at any length.
But all in all, Obama’s not looking like an agent of radical change as we enter the national stage of this campaign, and I think that’s both to be expected and appropriate. The county is hungry for change, but too much change is scary. Obama’s trying to find a balance. It’s a bit of a tightrope walk, but that’s what all presidential candidates do to some extent.
But that could well be the unofficial theme of the Obama campaign these days.
Since become the presumptive nominee, Sen. Obama has carefully been moving back to the middle, making statements and policy proposals that are aimed to appeal to—and perhaps reassure—independents and more-conservative Democrats. This is nothing new at all, we see it pretty much every four years. And Sen. McCain made a similar move after he wrapped up his nomination; going on a poverty tour with a “Message: I Care” flavor to show Americans that compassionate conservatism was not dead. (Message: nice try.)
But while McCain is still exhibiting some minor symptoms of schizophrenia with his efforts to win over both independents AND the Republican base, Obama has morphed into Mr. Moderate, with a healthy helping of Bipartisan to go.
Obama has weighed in on the recent Supreme Court ruling on gun control by more or less agreeing that citizens have an individual right to bear arms. It’s not going to save him from the $40 million “Obama’s coming for your guns” attack ad campaign that the NRA has planned, but it might help him convince a few independents that he’s not as big a liberal as the NRA fanatics say he is. (My apologies to NRA members. But let’s be honest. The NRA is pretty out there at times.)
Obama has also recently changed his position on the FISA crimes that the current administration and telecom companies want immunity for. He’s taking a very middle-of-the-road stance here, and he’s right in step with most congressional Democrats at this point. But as far as I can tell from this rather complicated issue, the Dems are kind of caving on this one. We probably won’t know for sure how illegal the Bush Administration’s actions were until they’re out of office, but they really seemed to bend the laws here past the breaking point. “Bygones!” says Obama and the Dem leadership. Big of them.
And it’s been kind of sad watching Obama try to convince people that he doesn’t hate America. God knows he’s in a tough position there. I’ve seen some of the emails, and it is not pretty. So if he feels the need to wear a flag pin and make a speech on patriotism, all I can do is wish him luck. Some people are determined to find fault no matter what, and the patriotism issue gives them an excuse because it can be so subjective. “He didn’t say the Pledge LOUD enough!”
And then there’s the Wes Clark thing. I think Clark’s comments were unfortunate, but not scandalous. Yes, in fact, being a POW is not in itself a qualification for being Commander in Chief, but why even make that statement? Why give the McCain an excuse to act outraged and more patriotic-than-thou on the same day Obama is giving his speech dealing with that subject? It was a boneheaded move. And though many bloggers are mad at Obama for condemning Clark’s statement, the fact is it’s a huge mistake to start having arguments about Vietnam AGAIN, after we are all so sick of anything that remotely resembles Swiftboating.
If anything, Obama’s condemnation of Clark fits with his pledge to run a different kind of campaign and avoid the personal attacks and distractions. I honestly don’t think Clark was trying to make a personal attack on McCain, but it sounded petty.
Obama’s embrace of faith-based programs is also interesting, although I need to hear more details to comment on that at any length.
But all in all, Obama’s not looking like an agent of radical change as we enter the national stage of this campaign, and I think that’s both to be expected and appropriate. The county is hungry for change, but too much change is scary. Obama’s trying to find a balance. It’s a bit of a tightrope walk, but that’s what all presidential candidates do to some extent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)