« Obama Doesn't "Take Fox On," After All | Home | McCain: Obama Said It's Okay To Hit Him On Wright »
DNC Launches New Ad Against McCain On Iraq -- RNC Says It's Illegal
The Democratic National Committee has announced a new ad against John McCain, set to air on national cable TV. Their previous ad took McCain on regarding the economy, while this one goes after him for Iraq -- specifically his comment about staying "maybe a hundred" years over there:
Meanwhile, the Republican National Committee said in a press release that not only is this ad false, but it constitutes coordination with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama: "This morning we saw yet another advertisement being announced by the Democrat National Committee which is not only illegal, but a complete distortion of Senator McCain's comments and record."
Advertisement
Yeah, that'll show em.
April 27, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whiny Republicans.
April 27, 2008 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are Republicans stupid? Is that why they cannot pronounce, spell, or say "Democratic" rather than "Democrat?" They show their childish petulance and ignorance day after day by mispronouncing a very basic word that they had no trouble with until after Reagan was toast. Too bad for them!
April 27, 2008 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I must be dense -- I don't get what the slur is in "Democrat" versus "Democratic" as the GOP keeps using it and Dems keep getting upset about. Can someone enlighten me so I don't feel so, er, unenlightened?
April 27, 2008 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a juvenile attempt at diminishment by the GOP. It's in the same vein as their whining about the term "African American" and how it used to be "negro" and then "black" and why can't they just settle on one thing and stick with it? This, of course, is just an excuse for ignoring the most basic rule of civility and manners, which is, you show respect by addressing people by the terms and titles they say they want you to use. Lots of doctors want to be addressed as "Dr." rather than Mr., Mrs., or Ms. In the case of the Democratic Party, that's the legal name of the entity, so there's really no reason for anyone to call it anything else, unless they think they're being cute by being disrespectful. Which is today's GOP in a nutshell. And I do mean "nut".
April 27, 2008 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have heard some ultra-conservatives refer to liberals as "labials." Does that help you understand the issue, liberal elite?
The point is that it is intentional and disrespectful. It is not an accident, as Bush claims with his mea culpa - "I'm so bad at English," because before Newt Gingrich started it, the "Democrat" adjective never existed.
Think of it this way. If your daughter was dating a guy named Randolph, and you greeted him (intentionally - not because you were too stupid to know his name) as "Jerkoff," it might be percieved as an insult.
April 27, 2008 9:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm. I thought the DNC didn't have any money?
Why is collaboration with Obama and Clinton an issue? (I do not know campaign advertisement laws...)
April 27, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll gladly donate to the DNC if they keep producing ads of this caliber.
April 27, 2008 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agree!!
April 27, 2008 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's going to be fun watching all the Obama Democrats who have been screaming about Hillary's negativity cheering on the attack ads against McCain. We're going to see a lot of double standards ahead.
April 27, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry Otto, I should have known that you thought Hillary was a member of the Republican Party. I can understand how you got confused.
April 27, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the issue Obama supporters have had with Hillary's negative ads is its negativity toward a fellow Democrat. To stereotype Obama supporters as anti-negative or peaceniks is specious. You'd be hard pressed to find members of either the Hillary or Obama camp who feel we needn't attack McCain in order to win the general election come November.
Also: along the lines of CT Voter, I am not familiar with most of the campaign ad laws. Does the RNC have grounds for their accusation that collusion on the part of Obama and Hillary is illegal, and if so, what sort of legalese can the party put together to counter the RNC's argument?
April 27, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ben Smith at Politico reports:
Since neither the Clinton campaign or the Obama campaign paid for the ad, but would presumably benefit from it, it's a "contribution", and therefore is prohibited?
I didn't know that national arms of either party were prohibited from "contributing" to the campaigns of presidential candidates.
April 27, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're kidding! It doesn't even mention them! And this isn't some 527, it's the fricking DNC!!
April 27, 2008 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
if party runs an ad after consulting with one of it's candidates it's considered a contribution (as opposed to an independents independent expenditure) and is then illegal if it cost more than the contribution limit ($2,300). It may not make sense, but it is the law.
Of course Dean and the DNC know the law, and didn't actually make the mistake of consulting with HC and BO before releasing the ad, and the RNC has no evidence to back up its claim, so at this point its all just hot air.
April 27, 2008 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks. At least now I know where this is coming from.
April 27, 2008 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, see, the Republican leadership has become used to defining the distinction between legal and illegal purely in terms of what they want.
April 28, 2008 8:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Otto,
Hey dumbass - McCain is a conservative: FAIR GAME.
We want the Democrat to win in November, remember?
April 27, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
otto doesn't.
April 27, 2008 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anybody with a brain can cheer on an attack on McCain without being accused of hypocrisy....with the possible exception of Hillary who's working on McCain's campaign full time now.
April 27, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
This ad should run from now until the election. Good for the DNC & good for Howard Dean for running it. We can't wait until Obama is officially the nominee. It's about time we start take this raving lunatic down. He's gotten a free press ride for far too long.
Illegal!?
LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL.
OMG They're pissing in their pants. No wonder the RNC is flipping out!
LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL.
Howard, you hit a nerve. Double the air-time.
April 27, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Otto, my friend:
Well, they are - er, were - in different parties. In any case, the attacks on McCain will be true. That is not negative, just factual. Since McCain has taken almost every side of every issue (save Iraq), this should not be difficult.
Just remember this:
http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/funnypictures/ig/100-Funny-Pictures/Brokeback-Bush-and-McCain-.htm
April 27, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I have no problem with attacks, as long as they are true.
Personally I want to see an ad featuring Mcain singing his rendition of Bomb Iran.
April 27, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is a MoveOn.org ad featuring just that:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U39zae4IxUA&NR=1
April 27, 2008 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since when did it become Illegal in the USA, to
inform the American People about the War Mongering words that the Republican War Monger said!!!
April 27, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the interest of fairness, we could have the DNC acknowledge that Hillary is also a neocon.
April 27, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone? Why would coordination between the DNC and the two candidates be illegal?
Or is everyone still venting over on the other He took on Fox! No, he didn't! thread?
April 27, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
i just addressed this in my reply to clevomon upthread.
April 27, 2008 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Illegal...riiiight. I guess the FEC will get right on that, as soon as they finish investigating McCain's 'loan' shenanigans.
I find it interesting that the RNC didn't complain too much when the DNC was running the economy ad but they are all up in arms about the Iraq one. This isn't the first time they have whined about 'mischaracterizing' McCain's 100 year remarks. I think they know this is a huge liability for McCain.
April 27, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. I understand that the FEC can't do ANYTHING -- surprise, surprise. We have voting machines that can be corrupted. Meantime we have no way of checking to see if the machines are accurate (after all these years of bloviating about what happened to steal the last two elections!) The same companies that provide us with ATM's have no problem with providing a receipt, but it WOULD JUST BE TOO HARD TO DO IT WITH THE VOTING MACHINES! Funny -- all those companies are Republican shills.
Meantime, we are spending $5,000 a second to bring "democracy" to Iraq!
How can we legitimize the vote for 2008? Any ideas?
April 27, 2008 9:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
So what would the RNC like the DNC to do, in order not to be seen as helping Clinton or Obama? Perhaps the DNC should air an ad in praise of McCain?
April 27, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary has already taken care of that. She has endorsed War Monger McCain for Commander in Chief, ahead of her fellow Democrat, Senator Obama.
Hillary is the New Lieberman.
April 27, 2008 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain's worst enemy is his own "straight talk".
How dare the DNC distort the McCain myth with his own words. On tape yet. Disgusting.
April 27, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a mistake made by both McCain and the Clintons. "Change you can xerox." Do the people who used to xerox still do it? Change you can mimeograph?
It has not sunk in -- and there is a thesis or three on the exact nature of this phenomenon -- that the Inter-Webs have already changed the game. Why else would they utter such dippity-dipshit comments like "100 Years In Iraq" or "They played the race card on me" or "Oblitration," a reckless threat that is not getting the attention is deserves?
Life by denial is not a quality one desires for the president.
Pax,
M.
April 27, 2008 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a great reminder of the fact that the general election is gonna be fun.
Wish we could get it going. Nice post though, I'll recommend all McCain mentions.
April 27, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. The first ad made Sen McCain appear like a dottering old fool. And Sen Clinton has disqualified herself as even Sen Majority Leader with the lies and Obliteration.
McCain will be hoisted by his own petard, assuming his health permits it. Look for the Shadow of Huck lurking behind the Old Soldier.
April 27, 2008 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
the Shadow of Huck
April 27, 2008 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
The RNC didn't complain when McCain and Clinton were coordinating attacks on Obama.
April 27, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ecellent point. But neither did the DNC. That is why I will not give them one red penny! Every cent I am donating is to Obama! Do you hear that DNC?
April 27, 2008 9:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you guys are missing the point. It's not the merit of the RNC's charge, it's the way its mere existence balances the DNC's previous complaint against McCain.
Now that each side has complained about the other, watch as the MSM resolutely demurs from its responsibility in actually evaluating these claims. Both sides are complaining and so the scales can, with the right point of view (and by "right" I mean selective and lazy) can be said to neutralize one another.
This charge is all about innoculating McCain against the consequences of his own lawbreaking. Per the logic in play, the charge won't be evaluated critically and so it needn't be of much merit. All that matters is that it's delivered with a straight face.
April 27, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you are correct. And it's called "stenography". The DNC launches an ad. The RNC says it's illegal, and the press report the existence of the ad, and, the fact that the RNC thinks it's illegal.
There's no discussion of whether the RNC claim has merit. Stenography.
Even here.
April 27, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
But in the case of Reverend Wright they play it and play it and play it and play it over and over and over and over again.
OK, like HIllary I am 60 and forgetful. Why did I start this?
April 27, 2008 9:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks to the deliberate disassembly of government over the last 7 years, even if all future campign ads contained cussing and nudity, there is no cogent FEC to hear any complaints.
Envelopes are just beginning to be pushed.
April 27, 2008 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love the sound of Republicans whining for a change.
It's music to my ears!!!!!!
April 27, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's been steadily doing that. He links the economy to the war all the time - it's one of his standard talking points. In fact, he never fails to link the two.
I agree it's the right thing to do.
April 27, 2008 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
It might be good politics, but it's largely factually innacurate, unless you're going by a very indirect route - there are one or two there that hold some grains of truth. However, in all honesty, the two mostly have no relation except that they were aided by the same president - and even that claim has its limits.
April 27, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
The ad brought up the cost. Looks like they're going to tie the economy to Iraq. Pretty good strategy.
April 27, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice ad but the gop bringing up legality is priceless.
April 27, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
That comment was supposed to be after Jayasurya's cause it was supposed to be a reply.
April 27, 2008 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, on what basis, exactly, is it illegal? And why is the RNC allowed to air dumb ads about Obama's pastor to discredit Congress members with barely any relation to Obama, and we aren't allowed to attack McCain about his position and record on Iraq??
April 27, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
On the basis of the Republicans saying Ow Ow Ow Ow!!!!
It burns! Takes it off, takes it off!!!!!!
April 27, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
My only complaint is that they used the wrong picture of him & Bush. they should've used the one of them hugging, where St. John is nuzzling his face into Bush's chest while he hangs on for dear life.
April 27, 2008 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
MoveOn's ad uses that one.
I hope that gets wider distribution.
April 27, 2008 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Guys, no need to worry about the RNC at all. They're complaining about the "Democrat National Committee", while the ad is being running by the "Democratic National Committee". Two distinct groups. Thankfully, the FEC (once they finish investigating McSame's blatant violations) will be so busy hunting down the "Democrat National Committee", they won't figure out that it was the Democrat National Committee", and that the stupidity of the RNC got them on the wild goose chase, until December, when it'll be too late.
Republicans, the gift that keeps on giving stupid.
April 27, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Forgot an "IC" on that last one...
Thankfully, the FEC (once they finish investigating McSame's blatant violations) will be so busy hunting down the "Democrat National Committee", they won't figure out that it was the DemocratIC National Committee", and that the stupidity of the RNC got them on the wild goose chase, until December, when it'll be too late.
Republicans, the gift that keeps on giving stupid.
April 27, 2008 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL!!!!!!!
Priceless comment.
April 27, 2008 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
The entire national political might of the GOP nominee and his RNC cannot convince one harpy in NC not to run what is a really childish ad.
All maw, and no teeth.
April 27, 2008 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't the FEC short chairs? I thought that was why McCain could use his wife's jet all over the country to campaign, as the FEC did not have enough members to get the final passage through regarding this proposed violation.
April 27, 2008 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
This ad cannot be helpful to Hillary.
It knocks her off message---and makes it sound like McCain is the opponent who needs to be defeated in 2008---instead of Obama.
April 27, 2008 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why is collaboration with Obama and Clinton an issue?
Um, because the Republicans thought Clinton was on their side. No fair! The two Dems are ganging up on McCain!
April 27, 2008 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
The GOP is whining? What a surprise. Aren't they the same people who spent several years claiming that disagreeing with them was "treason"? Clearly they have strange ideas about the law.
April 27, 2008 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
O this is just the start. It's going to be a loooong whining season for the Republicans. Another 40 years, say. We had it for 40 years before the got the majority and it took them exactly 12 to fuck everything up beyond recognition.
So I'd say another 40 years of whining from the Republicans is probably what we're in for.
:)
April 27, 2008 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's amazing the depths to which we've fallen since the Republicans came in from 40 years in the wilderness and took control of the government. OTOH, in the eyes of those who see the Republicans as their kind of people, they're happy with the big tax cuts, aggressive foreign policy, and free trade policy. Deficits, 'what do I care' I made $100 million this year. As for the rest of us, things stink.
April 28, 2008 12:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Man, does McCain look old and doddering in that ad.
Maybe that has something to do with why the Republicans are so up in arms about it, compared with their reaction to the economy-focused ad.
April 27, 2008 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I absolutely adore Howard Dean.
I'm so glad I sent the DNC some money.
April 27, 2008 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
The old and doddering thing is going under the wire as all attention focuses on the Dems, but man, I'm telling you, this is not the McCain of memory and I think most people think he is and are going to be blown away when it comes to the general and he's puttering through debates and...
Have you seen him give a speech lately? Oh man, it's horrible. He reads the teleprompter so bad. Their convention is gonna be hurting. Who's to be the big gun, firing for him? Romney? Huck?
I wonder if Arnold would. That would be the biggest score McCain could get, but I'm not so sure the Gov would these days, the way he's coming to blows with the Administration lately.
Anyway, the McCain v. Obama debate will be almost as bad as Kennedy/Nixon, for McCain that is..
April 27, 2008 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can Arnold be a VP? I know he can't be president - it's unconstitutional. So I don't think Arnold can be anyone's VP.
April 27, 2008 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess you were talking about a convention speaker.
They might get Ahnold for that. That wouldn't surprise me.
I cannot wait for the debates between Barack and McCain. I just can't wait. O it's gonna be good - I just know it. That little ancient dwarf with a temper that he barely holds in check with age, and Barack Obama. Tall, cool, Barack.
I can't wait.
April 27, 2008 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
How old is Libby Dole?
I think hutchinson is in her late sixties, but....
I saw that she wrote an article about Ethanol the other day and couldn't help but wonder what that was about. I lived in Texas for most of my life and most of her Senate career and she's not one for intellectual vigor, especially in the last ten years, as she's become a total absolute worthless shill for her man, Bush. So...I think she at least thinks it's possible.
She and her old ass husband adopted children a couple years ago even though she'll be eighty when they're teenagers. Selfish lady, though I guess the kids will be richer than they might've been otherwise.
April 27, 2008 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Always remember that Fluffy was consistently voted "Senator who brings the least to the picnic" as a freshman.
She's not gotten any smarter.
I was just throwing names out, basically. But Dole looks like hot stuff to someone in McCain's demographic - nursing homes.
April 27, 2008 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
We can only hope that they go and sue the Democrat National Committee.
April 27, 2008 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm really happy to see the DNC hitting McCain on this point. But am I the only one who thinks this is not a very good ad? The editing is baffling, and I'm not sure I would have been able to tell what was happening (an audience member asks McCain a question, McCain answers) if I hadn't already been familiar with the incident referenced. At first I thought the voice at the beginning was some kind of voiceover.
April 27, 2008 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a great Ad. It has suckered the Republicans into going into to full whining mode. That causes the media to show the clip over and over, and a lot more people get to hear War Monger McCain, in his own words, talking about keeping our Troops in Iraq for a Hundred years.
The latest Gallup National Poll shows that 63% of voters now think that the Invasion of Iraq was a huge mistake. That is the highest number ever rated against any war, including Vietnam. McCain is bucking 63% of the voters when he talks of keeping our Troops, as sitting Ducks, in Iraq for another hundred years.
I hope that the Republicans keep on complaining about the ad, so that the media has to show the clip in all their news shows.
April 27, 2008 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good one, roo_P. Who exactly is the Democrat National Committee? Is Howard Dean chairing that in addition to the Democratic National Committee?
April 27, 2008 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wouldn't the alleged illegality of the ad have to be decided by the FEC, which can't decide anything because it doesn't have a quorum? If this is the case (I don't know whether it is or not), doesn't it mean that anything goes this time around? Like McCain's flights in Cindy's jets?
April 27, 2008 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even when the FEC is functional, it's rare that these things reach a decision until long after the campaigns end. In this case, the RNC would have a pretty high bar to prove its allegations. Either of the candidates meeting with DNC officials isn't proof of collaboration on an ad, because there are lots of reasons why the candidates or members of the campaign might be meeting with one or more DNC officials. If the RNC could produce audio or video proving that candidates or members of either campaign discussed the ad with DNC officials, or produce financial records showing payments by either campaign to the DNC for unspecified or bogus purposes, they might have a case. Otherwise, it's just more typical Republican titty-baby whining that makes a lot of irritating noise but accomplishes nothing.
April 27, 2008 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Given the Constitution, it seems like no, but I've never heard it addressed before. Then, I'm sure if he could his name would be being thrown out every day, so luckily for November (if I were to guess), I think we're safe.
April 27, 2008 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
this was meant as a reply to husseintenax...
April 27, 2008 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I bet McCain picks a woman.
I'll bet anything - Libby Dole, maybe?
Fluffy Hutchison?
April 27, 2008 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I predict he'll go for the Condi Rice trifecta: female, black, with final adjective of "clueless" "conservative" or "lesbian" deliberately left open to the preferred intepretation of the individual.
April 27, 2008 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
We're missing each other. I just replied to this post about women up-post. Check it out.
April 27, 2008 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll go look.
Jenn - I've said that myself about Condi before -it seems like the perfect thing for him to do.
April 27, 2008 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think they would love to do Condi (probably not literally), especially against Obama, but she's pretty much made it impossible, no?
Between sitting in at the torture meetings it just seems that selecting her would be the nil in the coffin on the bush's third term thing.
She would do well as a choice too, bringing in white who would never vote for Obama but don't want to admit the real reason why and would feel justified against that real reason by pushing for her in a worthless role.
Anyway, I think it's prefect in almost every way except for the one that overrules all others, the whole bush thing.
April 27, 2008 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tena, I almost always agree with you, and you always make me grin ("George Bush with tits," indeed), but not on this one.
I'd dearly love to see McCain pick Rice as a running mate -- he's already having so much trouble energizing the Christian fundamentalist GOP base. I'd love to see all the racists stay home in November, too. Can you imagine how they'd feel about the prospect of a scary-looking, never-married black woman a heartbeat away from the Presidency of a frail 72-y.o. man.
It's not as though the reason black people don't vote Republican is that the Republicans keep putting up all-white tickets in presidential elections. The Democratic ticket has been winning >90% of black voters for two generations now. That near-unanimous support is not based on race or gender -- black people aren't Dems bc we love all-white tickets. It's because (a) Democrats' policies are better for African-Americans' political and economic interests, and (b) Republicans traditionally run race-baiting campaigns.
Rice might help McCain get black votes as against Clinton (whose race-baiting has alienated and disgusted so many black voters), but she'll do diddly-squat to help him get votes as against Obama. And it's Obama, not Clinton, who McCain is going to be running against.
April 27, 2008 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain is a whiny little toad.
I don't think he quite understands what the purpose of the DNC and RNC.
April 27, 2008 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Watching Rev Wright live now from Detroit NAACP Freedom Fund Dinner...wow...I can only say go find it and watch it!
April 27, 2008 8:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
As i am watching Rev wright, I can honestly say, i can his influence on BO. Like BO, Wright is a thinker. he made some very good points. The man is putting it down.
Different doesnt mean deficient...
He called out some of Fox's commentators out...
WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
April 27, 2008 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just listened to every word of Rev Wright's speech. If I were Sen Obama, I would be very proud of this message. It just sizzled!
April 27, 2008 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am watching fox for there response!!!!!!!!
April 27, 2008 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
At least we now know where BO got his oratory chops from!!
April 27, 2008 8:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Every paragraph was a teachable moment. The way he used music, for example. Powerful stuff.
Now cometh Geraldo...complains about Eubonics...his plant in Detroit says "nothing to see here". Geraldo wants to complain about Hussein; he evidently did not HEAR the speech.
It was a poweful speech. You'd want to hear it in Denver, whoever gave it.
Pax,
M.
April 27, 2008 8:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rev Wright said nothing that would hurt Obama but you can bet Fox News, CNN, Joe Scarbrough, Pat Buchanon and David Gregory will do there dam best to make it seem otherwise
April 27, 2008 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Going to be very tough to do. Geraldo has not been able to get any purchase. He is fixated on Eubonics. Were I to perform any exceedingly inexpensive arm-chair phychobabble, I would say Herr Geraldo doesn't really have his heart in this "fight". The There, there, seems to be missing.
Whatever else, I see the wind coming out of these sails. It was an amazing speech, and Geraldo seems to know it. It must just grind his bacon that McCain doesn't inspire a trip to the toilet.
Pax,
M.
April 27, 2008 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
CNN is rebroadcasting the Rev. Wright speech again now - the cancelled a re-run of Larry King.
Watch it now on CNN!
April 27, 2008 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
MSNBC needs to get its act together...All the major news networks are talking about the speech and they are showing some stupid prison documentary!!
April 27, 2008 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
MSNBC goes to sleep on the weelends. They save the Big Bucks for Chris Matthews. defying all reason and several of Newton's laws.
April 27, 2008 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does anyone have a link to this? I'd love to watch it!
April 27, 2008 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would too. I bet there will be multiple links by tomorrow.
April 27, 2008 10:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Come on.
No one has done more the DNC's advertising campaigns than Barack Obama.
April 28, 2008 12:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are the DNC and Camp Obama also opposed to our troop presence in S. Korea and Germany? Because that's what John McCain was talking about in Iraq, if the "well-educated" (what a joke that's turned out to be) Obama supporters would actually read McCain's entire sentence instead of randomly cherry-picking 2 words out of context.
I mean, if that's the best that Obama supporters can do is to go through McCain clips and pull 2 or 3 words out of context here and there, then that begs the question as to where exactly is the famouts "New Politics". Is that it? Misquoting?
April 28, 2008 9:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
McCitizen, how many U.S. personnel were killed in Germany after Hitler's forces surrendered? Until we get to the point in Iraq where our troops are as safe as Americans were in Germany after WWII officially ended, then McCain's comparison is ludicrous. The question is how long we're going to be there under the conditions that currently prevail.
April 28, 2008 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
"The question is how long we're going to be there under the conditions that currently prevail." Ok, then I would suggest that Obama supporters quote waht McCain says about THAT, instead of lying to the nation by saying that McCain wants to remain there 100 years under the "conditions that currently prevail." You seem to be dancing around the fact that Obama and this DNC ad are intentionally misrepresenting what McCain said.
April 28, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
The questinon arises: has he answered that question? He's skipped ahead to a "peaceful presence" and yet hasn't addressed how we ARRIVE at that peaceful presence save bey sticking around and fighting indefinitely.
April 29, 2008 2:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's "illegal" to use McCain's own words against him????? Since WHEN?
McCain said those words and he means to stay in Iraq for how ever long it takes - why is that illegal to show that, huh???
But today in the WSJ, Karl Rove says this about Obama.
...despite the fact that less than a fifth of Americans agree with Mr. Obama's call to rapidly withdraw from Iraq.
Somebody at the GOP needs to show us the ad thereby Obama is saying, "We need to RAPIDLY withdraw from Iraq? Where is it, it doesn't exist.
Republican don't HAVE any standing to sue, NONE whatsoever. Where is it written that Republicans can out right tell LIES, (I mean where is their ad showing Obama saying this?) but Dems can't even use McCain's own real live words?
Time for Repugs to put their lawyer where the court is?
May 15, 2008 9:20 AM | Reply | Permalink