« Report: Poor Hillary Performance In Wisconsin Will Raise "Big Questions" About Her Candidacy | Home | Obama Wins Wisconsin, Networks Project »

McCain Wins Wisconsin; Immediately Trains Fire On Obama's "Empty Call For Change"

CNN has just called the Wisconsin GOP primary for John McCain, and what's interesting is that in his victory speech, he's already training fire directly on Obama.

McCain said:

"I will fight every moment of every day in this campaign to make sure Americans are not deceived by an eloquent but empty call for change."

McCain said the phrase "eloquent but empty call for change" repeatedly, indicating that the campaign had settled on it as a chosen phrase against the person they expect to be their opponent this fall.

"Eloquent but empty call for change." Get used to that one, you'll be hearing a lot of it.



43 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

I can't tell if he won a primary or if he's declaring World War III, IV....

McCain? Who cares?

NBC just called it for Obama.

Onama wins WI

user-pic

Granted, it's early, but returns are showing 61% for Obama and 38% for Clinton on MSNBC as of this writing.

user-pic

GO BADGERS!!! You make me proud!

user-pic

So McCain's new strategy is "More of the same-but with swear words!"?

I really don't think he wants to try that approach.

Hm, that sounds familiar. So will there now be media outrage about McCain "plagiarizing" his campaign message from Hillary Clinton? :P

user-pic

Cause if you want REAL change, the 73 year old lifetime politician is your safest bet.

watching Mcain's speech, its like he is trying too hard to come across as calm cool and collective....I hate that fake smile/grin of his...

user-pic

the fake smile is actually part of his strategy now

read a piece on it recently, the conscious reformulation of McCain

Question....How do you loose a 25 point lead that you had 2 months ago?

WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

McCain sounded like he was ordering takeout.

Yes people be sure to vote for the old fart that wnats to have the nation stuck in Iraq for a century or more after he is gone from the scene.

Not such a clever phrase.
It cedes Obama's eloquence - never praise your rival.
It also sets McCain up for a fall. All Obama's got to do is point out very concretely that the changes he intends are significant. Joe voter thinks about it, and decides that the call may be eloquent, but it's not empty.

Look. This line of attack works poorly, at best, for Hillary, but it's all she's got. It won't work at all for McCain. Hillary's point is that she and Obama are both pushing the same policies, so his high-falutin' rhetoric doesn't amount to much. But McCain is advancing many of the same policies as the present administration - so Obama's rhetoric of change, in the context of a general election, is actually incredibly meaningful.

The only explanation I've got is TNR's Jason Zengerle, who's suggesting that by amplifying Hillary's line of attack, McCain is trying to bolster her chances in the primary. Thin stuff, but can you do any better?

How many times is McCain going to use that tired "My friends" nonsense? Does anyone actually believe McCain is anyone's friend?

Obama wins! Wow. Didn't expect a call this early.

Obama has to nip this meme in the bud. He has plenty of substance for the policy wonks. It's intellectually dishonest for McCain and Clinton to suggest otherwise.

Read the damn Web site. Read the damn Web site. Read the damn Web site.

Mccain came across as violent and aggressive. I'm sure he'll have a few slips of the tongue during a general debate with Obama. He's so hellbent on fighting, WWIII would be a certainty on his watch. Scary.

Hooray for WI. I knew the good folks of the Badger State would not let us down.

Given our geopolitical climate, I have to describe McCain in a way I've never described a presidential candidate:

dangerous.

He doesn't have his eye on being president as much as he does on being commander-and-chief.


I finally figured out why Hillary did better in the Primary States than the Caucus States. It is the not having seen her factor. The more people get to know her the less they like her. That is why the caucus states turned against her, and of course the big Super Tuesday Primary states actually only saw her on commercials, but not much in person.

Take a look at what has happened in Texas and Ohio. She was way ahead in the polls until she spent a good amount of time in both places, and her polls started to collapse. I tell you folks, she is both the Hillary and the anti Hillary all by herself. The more people see and hear from her the worse she does.

Even in Wisconsin, she actually was doing better in the polls while she was staying away than after she she finally showed up in the State.

People just do not warm to her, and there is no slogans, tactics, or smearing of her opponent that will make some one vote for a person that they have a visceral dislike of.

She is toast.

user-pic

So I wonder whether McCain is getting on the Obama bandwagon, or, by attacking Obama, trying to give Hillary a boost (since he'd really rather run against her).

Or, perhaps, he's just playing to his base. You know, the "I-hate-inspiring-speeches" crowd.

And why does Hillary's... um... consession? speech sound just like McCain's?

-- ARG

user-pic

If McCain's base is the "I-hate-inspiring-speeches" crowd, he's fuxored. He's depending on the people who voted for Bush because he dressed up in a flight suit and gave a speech on an aircraft carrier to vote for him.

user-pic

I don't think McCain means that Obama isn't proposing enough change; I think instead the idea is that what Obama calls "change" is really more of the same shopworn Teddy Kennedy liberalism. He'll keep pushing the "#1 most liberal Senator" thing to say Obama is old wine in a shiny new bottle.

Personally, I happen to _like_ liberalism, and I've been one of the ones who gets kinda grumpy that Obama hasn't been as liberal as I'd hoped. But I think it's going to be McCain's main angle of attack.

I agree, McCain is not attacking rhetoric, he's setting up for a declaration that the rhetoric is false.

Step 1, demand specifics under the assumption that Obama's specific tilt left since he's still in the primary stage.

Step 2, highlight the specifics produced to argue this isn't change, it's a return to pure Dem party politics.

I really don't think McCain's advisors are stupid enough to attack someone for empty slogans when McCain is all about the "I will not wave the white flag of surrender". I mean hope is at least still popular, the war that's behind McCain's slogan rather less so.

McCain can talk all he wants, but no one who says that he knows nothing about the economy, and that he wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years, can win the presidency. His time has come and gone.

Before I make the leap to go visit McCain's website, can any of you give me a clear and unbiased statement about where he stands on Iraq, and where he stood back in 2002?

Keep in mind, I voted for him in the 2000 primaries, back when I was a Republican...and stopped watching the news sometime around January 2002.

All I have heard is that McCain opposed Bush's approach to Iraq, arguing that he wanted more troops sent in from the get-go. Which is why he applauded the surge.

I would like to know how he feels about the now-known lack of WMD's. I would like to know why he feels we should've pulled our troops from Afghanistan and gone after Saddam Hussein instead.

I never did get a clear answer from Hillary...

There are no direct quotes from McCain about troops and Rumsfeld pre-2006.

But it was reported in inside-the-beltway media in late 2004 that McCain was starting to mutter about not enough troops and a failing strategy, and that fellow Repubs were not amused.

McCain went public only in mid 2006. By then, Fred Kagan had proposed more troops, and labeled it the "Surge." This term was picked up in Baker Hamilton or ISG, one of those.

So it's a hard argument for McCain to make, even though it would appear that he did in fact call for more troops in 2004. Also, Republicans hate McCain so much there's a ton of stuff out there arguing McCain had nothing to do with the Surge, and that it's all Fred Kagan and other Bushbot wingnuts who should get credit. All the usual outlets have hammered this point in already, Limbaugh/Fox viewers do not link McCain to the Surge.

I was also for Mac in 2000.

Nine states in a row, and Hawaii still to come. Way to go Hillary. I bet McCain is scared to death of the though of having to face such lethal campaigner as you.

"Empty call for change?" Yeah, that worked really well for Hillary, so I'm sure it will work almost as well for McCain. We'll have the 'change' candidate against the 'anti-change' candidate. How do you think that will work, after eight years of Bush/Cheney?

To LisB I feel the same way, I voted for McCain in 2000 as well. It is a long way to Nov. and I'll keep an open mind.

But the question is if McCain will keep independent, stay central. or veer right.

I don't hold McCain 100% responsible for the Iraq war, maybe 1% as if his vote counted.

I will say this, I'm taking in Obama on CNN and he will be tougher to run against than Hillary.

But it is still a long way to go till November.


dilluminati, don't get me wrong....I'm behind Barack Obama in this one. 100%.

I just want to be able to draw clear distinctions when I talk with my family members, who are still Republicans but who oppose the US occupation of Iraq.

I'd like to find a website that will give me a clear picture of McCain's stance on it...his defense of it.

So if you or anyone else can point me in the right direction, I'd be appreciative. Otherwise, like I said, I'll dig through his official website.

Thanks.

Is McCain on steroids or what? What is up with that huge jaw muscle?

user-pic

I never understood how "The Surge" could be consider a military strategy. I never been in the military but it pretty elementary.

More troops will always lead to better results in a war. Would you rather go to battle with 50,000 troops or 100,000 troops?

LisB, just Google "McCain Iraq War," and you'll find everything you need/

LisB

I think the way that we exit Iraq at this point is more important than how we got into there, if you buy into the "ferocity of the moment" argument.

I have watched carefully McCain, Hillary, and Obama as well. and really when Hillary said she would "fine people" for healthcare I totally tuned out. The word today on CSPAN was "garnish" as it was applied to her plan.

Obama I think has to set some statement as to what conditions if any will be factored in leaving Iraq, or Afghanastan, or when he would use troops. McCain will force that topic to be addressed.

On McCain, I give him credit with calling for Rumsfeld departure first privately, then vocally, and I wonder what would be the circumstances if bremmer and rumsfeld had not done so damn poorly?

Really this election might be decided by people like Sec Def. Gates, people like the current political ooallition in Iraq, in effect.. if the violence is manageable, then the argument by McCain that it is not the deployment, but deaths.. that count might sell. Providing security and not fighting...

But the readiness issue is also in play...

McCain is better than the "crazies" as George Bush Sr. called them.

I'm honestly not sure how I will vote in the future, allot could change.

Obama totally out performed Hillary, watching CNN and saw her speech clips..

I fear she is done. McCain and Hillary.. who would you have voted for??? LOL

dilluminati, I would've held my nose and voted for Hillary, in the hopes that she would start withdrawing our troops.

Happily, I found a better alternative.

RE: McCain's jaw: he had skin melanoma removed from his face/temple and lymph nodes and salivary glands removed in 2000.

RE: his "spin"

Almost pathetic...I don't dislike McCain--I think he's dead WRONG about almost everything, but I don't think he's especially venal...

Still, his efforts to take down Obama almost make me feel sad for him.

I used to like McCain. I, too, voted for him in the 2000 primaries - not because I was a Republican, but because I already knew I hated Bush. And I admired him for speaking out for campaign finance reform and against Falwell and Robertson.

But he's rather sad now - that photo of him pathetically hugging Bush is symbolic of what he's become. He's made up with Falwell and Robertson, he's suddenly for the tax cuts he so famously inveighed against, and he's no longer against torture, despite his famous line about how we treat the bad guys says more about who we are than who they are.

It's sad to see, because I did respect him at one time, but he's sold his soul to get the Republican nomination.

John McCain will always have my respect, and it's my hope he will always continue to earn it.

Anyone seen Matthew Weaver? ;-)

While watching McCain's speech I kept worrying whether there was a defibrillator somewhere nearby just in case.

Yes, just what America is looking for, a bitter old man running on fear and desperation. I think this election is proving that McCain is exactly what America does not want right now.

Is it just me, or do you cringe every time McCain tries to smile? It almost breaks his face.

Leave a comment

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address