Obama Camp To McCain: Thank You For Highlighting My Leadership On Nukes
The Obama campaign is hitting back at McCain's speech today attacking Republicans and Democrats for failing on nuke proliferation.
Camp Obama's response is kind of fun: They're basically thanking McCain for, in effect, highlighting Obama's record on nukes by speaking out on the issue. From Obama spokesperson Bill Burton's statement...
"By embracing many aspects of Barack Obama's non-proliferation agenda today, John McCain highlighted Obama's leadership on nuclear weapons throughout this campaign, and his bipartisan work with Richard Lugar in the Senate. No speech by John McCain can change the fact that he has not led on non-proliferation issues when he had the chance in the Senate, and that his support for a war against Iraq -- which had no active nuclear program -- diverted us from our efforts to secure loose nuclear materials, hampered our ability to pressure countries like North Korea and Iran, and sets back our ability to lead the world against the threat of nuclear weapons."
The Obama camp has compiled a bunch of past quotes from him on the topic that it claims show McCain's more a follower than a leader here. View them after the jump.
The McCain camp responds:
The Obama campaign insists that their candidate has 'led the fight in the U.S. Senate for arms control.' But the record should be clear: Sen. Obama, after he entered the Senate in 2005, joined Sen. Lugar and the many other members who have supported the Nunn-Lugar program and other nonproliferation programs for years. His campaign points as evidence of his leadership to a bill so non-controversial that it passed the Senate by unanimous consent. There was no 'fight' for Sen. Obama to lead.
NUCLEAR-FREE WORLDMcCain: "A quarter of a century ago, President Ronald Reagan declared, "our dream is to see the day when nuclear weapons will be banished from the face of the Earth." That is my dream, too. It is a distant and difficult goal. And we must proceed toward it prudently and pragmatically, and with a focused concern for our security and the security of allies who depend on us. But the Cold War ended almost twenty years ago, and the time has come to take further measures to reduce dramatically the number of nuclear weapons in the world's arsenals."
Obama on 10/2/07: "But we need to do much more. We need to change our nuclear policy and our posture, which is still focused on deterring the Soviet Union - a country that doesn't exist. Meanwhile, India and Pakistan and North Korea have joined the club of nuclear-armed nations, and Iran is knocking on the door. More nuclear weapons and more nuclear-armed nations mean more danger to us all. Here's what I'll say as President: America seeks a world in which there are no nuclear weapons."
Non-Proliferation Treaty
McCain: "In 2010, an international conference will meet to review the Non-Proliferation Treaty. If I am President, I will seize that opportunity to strengthen and enhance all aspects of the non-proliferation regime."
Obama on 10/2/07: "As we do this, we'll be in a better position to lead the world in enforcing the rules of the road if we firmly abide by those rules. It's time to stop giving countries like Iran and North Korea an excuse. It's time for America to lead. When I'm President, we'll strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty so that nations that don't comply will automatically face strong international sanctions."
REDUCING ARSENALS
McCain: "While working closely with allies who rely on our nuclear umbrella for their security, I would ask the Joint Chiefs of Staff to engage in a comprehensive review of all aspects of our nuclear strategy and policy. I would keep an open mind on all responsible proposals. At the same time, we must continue to deploy a safe and reliable nuclear deterrent, robust missile defenses and superior conventional forces that are capable of defending the United States and our allies. But I will seek to reduce the size of our nuclear arsenal to the lowest number possible consistent with our security requirements and global commitments."
Obama on 10/2/07: "We will not pursue unilateral disarmament. As long as nuclear weapons exist, we'll retain a strong nuclear deterrent. But we'll keep our commitment under the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty on the long road towards eliminating nuclear weapons. We'll work with Russia to take U.S. and Russian ballistic missiles off hair-trigger alert, and to dramatically reduce the stockpiles of our nuclear weapons and material. We'll start by seeking a global ban on the production of fissile material for weapons. And we'll set a goal to expand the U.S.-Russian ban on intermediate-range missiles so that the agreement is global."
NUCLEAR FUEL SUPPLYMcCain: "To persuade countries to forego enrichment and reprocessing, I would support international guarantees of nuclear fuel supply to countries that renounce enrichment and reprocessing, as well as the establishment of multinational nuclear enrichment centers in which they can participate. Nations that seek nuclear fuel for legitimate civilian purposes will be able to acquire what they need under international supervision. This is one suggestion Russia and others have made to Iran. Unfortunately, the Iranian government has so far rejected this idea. Perhaps with enough outside pressure and encouragement, they can be persuaded to change their minds before it is too late."
Obama on 4/23/07: "Countries should not be able to build a weapons program under the auspices of developing peaceful nuclear power. That's why we should create an international fuel bank to back up commercial fuel supplies so there's an assured supply and no more excuses for nations like Iran to build their own enrichment plants. It's encouraging that the Nuclear Threat Initiative, backed by Warren Buffett, has already offered funding for this fuel bank, if matched two to one. But on an issue of this importance, the United States should not leave the solution to private philanthropies. It should be a central component of our national security, and that's why we should provide $50 million to get this fuel bank started and urge other nations, starting with Russia, to join us.
LOOSE NUKES
McCain: "And we need to increase funding for our own non-proliferation efforts, including the Cooperative Threat Reduction programs established by the landmark Nunn-Lugar legislation, and ensure the highest possible standards of security for existing nuclear materials."
Obama on 8/01/07: "That is why I worked in the Senate with Dick Lugar to pass a law that would help the United States and our allies detect and stop the smuggling of weapons of mass destruction. That is why I am introducing a bill with Chuck Hagel that seeks to prevent nuclear terrorism, reduce global nuclear arsenals, and stop the spread of nuclear weapons. And that is why, as President, I will lead a global effort to secure all nuclear weapons and material at vulnerable sites within four years. While we work to secure existing stockpiles, we should also negotiate a verifiable global ban on the production of new nuclear weapons material."















Oooo - I do love this campaign style where they use the opponent's own words against them.
I just love it. It's deadly.
May 27, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
yeah, a very canny ploy.
May 27, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's some words to use against him then...
"It's time for America to lead. When I'm President, we'll strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty so that nations that don't comply will automatically face strong international sanctions."...but during the first year of my administration I'll gladly meet with their leaders without any preconditions...
May 27, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, Mike Mullen on Line 1. He says you're supposed to be apolitical now ...
May 27, 2008 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great Riposte!
May 28, 2008 8:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't worry, I'm retired. But good looking out.
June 3, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you our first McCain troll?
Welcome!
May 27, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, c'mon, give props to Gotnolife! He holds that honorary title.
May 27, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought gotalife is a passionate Hillary supporter. When did s/he become a McCain supporter?
Jeeez!
I guess I need to come into Election Central more often, instead of hanging out at the Cafe.
May 27, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, McCitizen popped up a few weeks ago. Posts now and then, always couched in sort of a concern troll kinda way.
Not to take anything away from SFCWallace but my memory is that McCitizen was the first true McCain troll.
gotalife has too many personalities for me to figure out if s/he is a Clinton troll, a McCain troll, or both.
May 27, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hiya CT Voter!
Thanks for the heads-up.
May 27, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tuxedo cats hang together!
May 27, 2008 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
:)
Yeah!
May 27, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, a troll is someone who posts controversial and usually irrelevant or off-topic messages. My comments are on point and only "controversial" in the sense that most of you disagree with them.
June 3, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
And being willing to talk to leaders of countries who we have disagreements (even sanctions) with is bad because?
Kennedy wasn't afriad to talk to the Soviet Union when they were hours away from launching nuclear msisles, what are you and McCain so afriad of that you refuse to have direct talks with other countires?
Why are you guys so chicken-shit?
May 27, 2008 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
yet another bush policy innovation that mcsame wants to continue...
May 27, 2008 9:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, some would say it was that meeting, without any preconditions, in June of 61 that brought us to the brink of nuclear war. The Cuban missle crisis came 15 months later and they weren't "talking" 3 hours away from launching, they were threatening mutual destruction...You and Obama should do a little research.
June 3, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Biting humor can be very effective.
May 27, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
These guys are good. Their judgment has been almost impeccable throughout this campaign and underscores the idea that "experience" doesn't mean much when you don't exercise sound judgment based on what you have learned.
May 27, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who defined insanity as repeating the same actions over and over again, hoping for different results? Reminds me of the current govt!
May 27, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe Albert Einstein is credited with this quote.
May 27, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Debg
And this is the same thinking that applies to the knuckleheads who are consistently looking at the electoral map IN the SAME way as a path to the Presidency despite what we learned in 2000 and '04. Democrats have to RE-draw the electoral map...and Obama has the visison to do it, just as he has done with his strategic thinking when it came to fundraising and winning caucuses and primaries.
This man is a thinker and he learns not just from his own errors but from those who came before him.
May 27, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen. That was, in fact, the quote that jumped to my mind when I read Josh's front-page post a few moments ago. Which is truly riskier - making a play to expand the map and build a new winning formula, or using the exact same game plan as the last two losers*?
* For purposes of this comment, "losers" also include those who win yet have a margin of victory so small that the win can be stolen with the help of the Republican machine and the U.S. Supreme Court.
May 27, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you're talking about the analysis of the trip West that Obama is engaged in, I completely agree with you.
David Kurtz sounded very much like the typical Democratic analyst, in a Washington office. Imagine winning without Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania???? Scratch the "typical Democratic analyst". He sounded like Lanny Davis or Mark Penn.
The Dems have been tryingn that same route to victory for years at this point, and it just worked in 92, didn't work at all in 2000 or 2004. So we go back to that, why?
It's sort of like hiring Bob Schrum (sp?) over and over and over again, when he hasn't run a successful campaign for a significant office, ever.
Why?
May 27, 2008 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
And we had a little help from a big eared fella back in '92 to get the job done...
May 27, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
And this year we have an assist by the House manager for the impeachment of one William Jefferson Clinton!
May 28, 2008 8:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, o god yes.
Yes yes yes.
May 27, 2008 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is what's known as "poking them with the soft pillows" (as opposed to "hitting them with the chair"). It's all very civil and well-mannered, which you just know is gonna piss off Grandpa Simpson.
May 27, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope Obama pushes McWar's temper some more.
May 27, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I immensely suspect that anger provocation is a major goal of the Obama campaign.
May 27, 2008 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
THey should court many more over-the-top responses like the one McCain gave over that Webb bill. His response made him look like a red faced old man screaming at passers-by.
May 27, 2008 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Most assuredly. Recall, Obama did the same thing to Bill Clinton. He would talk about building a bridge to the 21st century not back to the 20th century. All the time knowing that is the hallmark quote on the Clinton Library. That got under Bill's craw. Obama also said that Reagan has transformative politics and Clinton didn't. That ticked off Bill too. Obama hits Bill Clinton where it hurts...his legacy.
Bill has been on a tear every since and it will not be long before McCain comes similiarly unglued.
Neither one of those grayheads beleive they should have to tolerate this young 'inexperienced' upstart.
lol lol...go Obama...yes. we. can.
May 27, 2008 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeap.. McCain is losing his bearings.
(wry grin)
May 27, 2008 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes he hates the condescending stuff, hah
May 27, 2008 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really can't wait for these debates.
May 27, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
O you and me both.
May 27, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
You may want to re think the debate thing until your guy decides what he really thinks:
On Sunday,in Pendleton, Ore., he said Iran and others "don't pose a serious threat to us."
The next day in Billings, Mont.: "I've made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave."
I guess as long as he doesn't have a position switch right in the middle of answering a question y'all probably won't even notice.
May 27, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you have links to those speeches, or are you paraphrasing Obama's words?
Links, please?
May 27, 2008 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Never mind. Paraphrasing it is. Thanks, Dorn76 for the links!
SFCWallace? I think you've been busted!
May 27, 2008 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clearly paraphrasing...clearly a Hillary troll.
Thankgoodness that role will come to an end for all those paid to post and blast her talkingpoints on boards all over the net.
I have not forgotten how TPMcafe was swarmed with them at the end of Dec.
Ugh
May 27, 2008 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
S/His page says s/he's a Republican.
May 27, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would've guessed Republican, yeah. Trying out the old "he's a flip-flopper!" strategy, I guess.
May 27, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
He...his
June 3, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Y'all are way too "politically correct" sometimes.
June 3, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Context is a bitch, ain't it?
In Pendleton, he was comparing the current threat from Iran with that of the Soviet Union in the days of the Cold War. To say that it is comparatively "tiny" is perfectly accurate when you consider the number of missiles the USSR kept pointed at us. And that comment also does not run counter to Obama's later statement in Billings that the threat from Iran is grave. Those two statements are not mutually exclusive.
And a friendly warning, Dude: An overdose of Krauthammer can be an ugly thing.
May 27, 2008 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are leaving out the context. No surprise there. He has said Iran is not the threat the soviets were when making his argument to engage Iran diplomaticly. And they aren't. Their pursuit of a nuclear weapon is a "grave threat", although not to us.
May 27, 2008 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
SFC Wallace: Did you cut and paste your post the "Powerline" blog?
Here's the link:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/05/020554.php
You should really attribute the material you pilfer so as to not appear as a plagiarist.
Cheers,
Chris
May 28, 2008 8:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, can we get an edit feature please? Pretty please...
May 28, 2008 8:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually no. I'm sure I wasn't the only one to read the paper that day.
June 3, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lame and weak.
May 27, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Explain.
May 27, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
You might as well ask a pig to juggle.
May 27, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please refrain from insulting the dexterity of our swine friends!
May 27, 2008 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL!
both of you! (Aubie84)
May 27, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Me too!
For the first time in my career of attempting to combine blog commentation with graceful English, I feel congruent with the times to say I was RIMCLOL (Rolling In My Chair LOL) with their comments.
May 28, 2008 3:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yup, McCain is pretty lame and weak. See what a leader Obama is?
May 27, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg references McWar and then gives us Obama's response. So who are you calling "lame and weak?"
May 27, 2008 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Lame and weak."
Please tell me, gotalife, that we are not going to see you morph into a McCain supporter, right here on TPM. If the urge comes upon you, take Nancy Reagan's adage to heart: JUST SAY NO!
May 27, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anything that doesn't show someone answering a phone at 3 am is "weak and lame" according to gotnolife, which is how things rolls on Planet Bizarro where s/he lives apparently.
May 27, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
The McCain campaign's overreaction to Obama's statements (ever seen a meltdown-by-press-release before?) is a pretty remarkable "tell" by a major political operation -- obviously Obama's team was quick to see this as an opportunity. Since McCain appears to be settling on the "Obama is an inexperienced showhorse" position, and since he's proven himself to be incredibly sensitive to any criticism, this is a nice shot right back at Gramps.
Now, if Obama can get the same reaction from McCain in a debate setting, we'd be set.
May 27, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
O I think that's a very good possibility.
It's going to depend on what kind of drugs they have McLame on.
And I mean that - if it's not clear by now that the Republican administration is on drugs, then let me remind you that they've all but admitted it. Powell said at one time that they were all on Halcyon to sleep.
And I know very well that's not all.
May 27, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama slams McCain on housing crisis
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/
27, 2008 03:21 PM
As John McCain hammers Barack Obama daily on foreign policy, the Democrat is returning the favor on domestic issues.
In a speech this afternoon in Las Vegas -- a fast-growing city hit particularly hard by the foreclosure crisis -- Obama seeks to link the presumptive Republican nominee to what he calls the "disastrous" economic policies of President Bush.
"Here in Nevada, the foreclosure rate is over three and a half times the national average. Here in Las Vegas, one out of every 44 households is facing foreclosure," Obama says, according to prepared remarks provided by his campaign. "As so many Americans walk away from their homes, millions more have seen their home values plunge, which only puts our economy into a deeper hole."
Obama says that President Bush offered a housing plan that was "too little, too late," and McCain's plan "amounts to little more than borrowing bad ideas from George Bush."
"We’ve had enough of the can’t-do, won’t do, won’t even try approach from George Bush and John McCain," Obama says.
May 27, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.fpif.org/fpifzines/wb/5252
Excerpt:
The Day Diplomacy Died
In our special Memorial Day edition, World Beat is publishing an obituary for Diplomacy, which died prematurely last week after an extended illness.
The last seven years or so were difficult ones for Diplomacy. According to press reports, the mainstay of foreign policy began complaining of chest pains and nausea in 2001. In the lead-up to the Iraq War, Diplomacy sustained several shocks to the system, went into intensive care, and very nearly succumbed. But it was last week that its heart and soul finally gave up after a double-barreled assault by President George W. Bush and his presumptive successor John McCain.
The proximate cause of death was a pair of speeches. President Bush, talking before the Israeli parliament on May 15, declared that “some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along.” Diplomacy, which had always maintained that negotiating with adversaries was the very lifeblood of international relations, suffered a stroke on hearing the president’s words.
The killing blow, however, came from John McCain. The Republican presidential candidate assailed Diplomacy in an effort to get at Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama. According to McCain, Obama doesn’t understand the “basic realities of international relations” because he favors sitting down and talking to people like Raul Castro in Cuba and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran. McCain’s words, and the possibility that he might bring such an attitude into the White House in 2009, were simply too much for Diplomacy.
Gathered around the deathbed in a last-ditch effort to revive the ailing patient, former secretary of state in the Reagan administration James Baker repeated his assertion from 2006 that “talking to an enemy is not in my view appeasement.”
May 27, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love that Obama mentions that he has worked with Richard Lugar on this.
heh.
May 27, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
A new coalition?
May 27, 2008 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain makes a big deal about his perception that Obama has not worked across the aisle, that Obama’s claims in that regard are all frauds.
McCain insists that only he has done such cross-aisle work in the Senate.
Lugar, mentioned in this, allows Obama to kind of put another thing into McCain's eyes and into the eyes of Independents and courtable Republicans that Obama does indeed work across the aisle with Republicans.
May 27, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
It isn't even fair when his opponent doesn't have a (popular, or used to be popular) former president campaigning for him full time. There is no beating Obama in a fair fight. McCain is toast.
May 27, 2008 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was a serious mistake for McCain to give a major speech trying to blame both parties in an area where the Bush Administration hasn't just exercised their usual mix of evil and incompetence, but has actively taken the country backwards from the moment they took office. They seriously undercut the Nunn-Lugar program for securing nuclear materials because they thought that bullying everyone was a much better way to keep us safe than some sissy negotiations to keep dangerous nuclear materials away from the black market.
This reinforces my impression that McCain is an incredibly inept campaigner, and it was only his long-term love affair with the media that enabled him to come out on top of an incredibly weak field of Republican contenders.
May 27, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee. I like to see how quick on his feet Barack is when he delivers a punch like this.
May 27, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
The next few months of this will be so much fun that even Taylor Marsh will be passing the popcorn.
May 27, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Optimist, are we?
May 27, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps so, but Hillary supporters will be forced into the realization that Obama had shown restraint with their candidate.
May 27, 2008 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. Obama has been refraining from running circles around Hillary out of what amounts to politeness and civility. It hasn't stopped her from alternately trying to look tough and then whining about being picked on, but it's made him look like he's got a hell of a lot more class than she does.
McCain is in for a surprise if he thinks for a minute that Obama isn't going to Rope-A-Dope him. The debates are going to be almost embarrassing to watch.
May 27, 2008 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
perhaps, but I've got a pretty strong suspicion that most of these online hillary "supporters" are mccain trolls anyway, just looking to sow division. even starting to think that about taylor marsh...
May 27, 2008 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cherry picking quotes are we?
Obama's full quote says, in the context of talking with our enemies, and I paraphrase, and post a link to the quote, unlike you: "Iran doesn't pose a threat to us in the same way the Soviet Union did"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ew5qP2oPdtQ
Meaning Iran is not an existential threat to the USm like the USSR was with 1000's of nukes pointed at us.
That is not opposed to the idea that the threat from Iran is "grave" which he said in Billings.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jm-VduN-FVc
Argue with facts, not distortions, you will fare better.
May 27, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Meant in reply to SFCWALLACE upthread.
May 27, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great response and links. thanks Dorn76.
I kinda surmised from the inconsistency that it was paraphrasing as Obama does not deviate that drastically from any core messages especially when it comes to war, foreign policy and nukes. Susan Rice will not allow that. She delivers information to Obama cogently and accurately.
May 27, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, if you go to the links, they are direct quotes. Not paraphrasing. As to what he meant when he was saying them, that's up to the reader to discern.
June 3, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
The timing is also impeccable. The Obama campaign consistently leaves scarce time for an evening news McSame response, except on Fridays, when it does not matter.
May 27, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
:)
I noticed that too.
May 27, 2008 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hee hee hee. I love how the Obama campaign is framing this race, and quickly too. A joy to watch after seeing Kerry limp around in 2004, responding days if not weeks too late. Excellent turnaround time.
And this, using McCain's words against him. Brilliant.
What an intelligently run campaign.
I can't wait until it's official for Obama, responses like this one show he is ready. Time for focus now, no more distractions.
Fall in love for the nomination, passionately arugue your points. When a nominee is declared: fall in line for your party and to win the general election.
Until then....
May 27, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Truer words were never spoke - he is very ready.
Very. This is going to be wonderful, if what has happened so far is any guide, and surely that's all we have to go on.
May 27, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's gonna be good. Real good.
Obama's gonna be running circles around this guy. McCain has nothing... nothing. Every single story of late is him flipping or flopping on some issue he used to be on the right side of. The war, torture, teleco-amnesty, his pastor problem, even supporting our troops.
I can't wait until McCain inevitably loses his cool. Hopefully during a debate....
May 27, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, saying he was on the "right side" on some of these was a misnomer. Please disregard that.
May 27, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner, a strong favorite to be elected to the Senate this year, has told associates that he is being considered as Sen. Barack Obama's vice presidential running mate. He did not indicate whether he would be receptive to such an offer."
- This comes via Robert Novak so take it with a grain of salt obviously. I think it's believable that Warner would be on the list at some stage of the process, though.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/novak/968590,CST-EDT-novak25.article
May 27, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Warner would pretty much be the perfect running mate for Obama, but everything I have read says he's pretty uninterested in the spot right now.
May 27, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like Warner. I like Tim Kaine too! Either would be awesome choices. Kaine's rhetoric and style of speaking mesh very nicely with Obama's. Also, he was the first non-Illinois endorsement for Obama.
May 27, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kaine is also catholic and a fluent spanish speaker.
May 27, 2008 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed.
You could damn near bank VA right now if either were on the ticket, which totally up-ends the electoral map apple-cart. With VA, MO and CO, Obama would still win even without FL, OH and PA.
McCain and the GOp will be outgunned and not have the resources to fight everywhere (like Obama will be able to) which means McSame will be hamstrung in holding the line anywhere.
May 27, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
And McCain punches back saying Luger-Nunn were pushing this bill long before the junior Senator was even in the Senate and it was so non-controversial that is passed without any fight necessary. So basically Obama just attached his name to a piece of legislation that everybody pretty much agreed with.
May 27, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Everybody.. except John McCain?
May 27, 2008 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Side thread--
McCain has flip-flopped on:
Somebody start me off.....
May 27, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Campaign finance
May 27, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
when to bring home the troops
wingnut preacher endorements
his knowledge on economics
his lobbying friends
May 27, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
torture
May 27, 2008 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
gay marriage
May 27, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
teleco amnesty..... see link below...
May 27, 2008 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hamas.
May 27, 2008 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
A woman's right to choose.
May 27, 2008 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bush tax cuts, Roe v. Wade, torture, long term occupation of Iraq...
May 27, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Argh, meant that as a reply to josephcast's post.
May 27, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agents of intolerance...
May 27, 2008 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rovian character assassination based on race...
May 27, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks! Kos revealed today how McCain has flipped on telco amnesty. He was against it, now he's for it. And he changed his mind in less than a week..... guess, his base didn't like his (surrogate's)last answer.
http://mcjoan.dailykos.com/
May 27, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
and that was a reply for middlenamesare..... well, so much for that idea. thanks TPM, your response mechanism sucks ass!
May 27, 2008 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Presidential campaigning as an art form...positively sublime.
May 27, 2008 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Huh?
May 27, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
My vote goes to Obama, of course, but his position on nukes (in spite of the who's on first silly shit from the Mc-stir) ISN'T a far cry from McCain's current blow. Doesn't anyone find that disturbing?
"McCain: "A quarter of a century ago, President Ronald Reagan declared, "our dream is to see the day when nuclear weapons will be banished from the face of the Earth.""
What a flipping laugh, pinning this lofty senitiment on King Boraxo as though nobody ever had this idea before whistles and bells Ronnie hopped along. The Reagan administration was so cavalier about using "limited" nuclear options, they spent taxpayer money on establishing postal forwarding for U.S. cities evacuated by nuclear catastrophe!!!
But most disturbingly, the candidates agree on this, too...
"Obama on 10/2/07: "We will not pursue unilateral disarmament. As long as nuclear weapons exist, we'll retain a strong nuclear deterrent. But we'll keep our commitment under the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty on the long road towards eliminating nuclear weapons."
Mr. Change and chat with 'em can't muster the opportunity to toss a bone to non-nuclear readies with a squeak of disarmament.
The absurdity of this country telling others NOT TO DO WHAT WE DO, does not fail to entertain. Couldn't we just make a good will gesture then, and toss out 50 or 100 of the TEN THOUSAND or so warheads America has? Does the fate of the nation rest on every single one?!?
I'm not even going to bother to address the fact that knuckleheaded human beings shouldn't screw with this phenomenally deadly shit; it's way too late for the know-it-alls.
May 27, 2008 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
No I don't find it disturbing. Only a GOP troll or a naive Naderite would.
May 27, 2008 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Make McWar keep showing how he worked across the aisle to pass McWar-Feingold because every time he says it, his base leaves him.
May 27, 2008 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just think the flip-flopper tag is played out, not so much the charge but the actual term. What would be some possible synonyms?
May 27, 2008 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hypocrite?
May 27, 2008 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Works for me.
But I honestly do believe that hypocrite and republican are synonyms.
May 27, 2008 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
...and in the case of those like Sen. Larry Craig-R ID, flaming hypocrites. (wry grin)
May 27, 2008 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Panderer-in-chief, another threshold he's passed with Hillary.
May 27, 2008 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Obama campaign insists that their candidate has 'led the fight in the U.S. Senate for arms control.'
There was no 'fight' for Sen. Obama to lead.
Where did Obama say he "led the fight"? I'm confused. And it's interesting to note that McCain uses language that insinuates there's a battle. War-like language is what it is. Obama doesn't use that kind of language. It's an interesting linguistic tidbit I've noticed.
May 27, 2008 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink