« Report: Hillary Gets Major Speaking Slot At Convention | Home | MoveOn Ad: "Senator McCain, You Let Me And My Kids Down" »

Election Central Morning Roundup

Quinnipiac: Obama Ahead In Pennsylvania, Ohio And Florida
A new set of Quinnipiac polls has some very good news for Barack Obama, with him leading in all three of the largest swing states, albeit within the margins of error in two cases. The numbers: Obama ahead 49%-42% in Pennsylvania, ahead 46%-44% in Ohio -- and ahead 46%-44% in Florida.

Obama In Iowa Today, Then Texas Tonight
Barack Obama has a busy day ahead, starting in the swing state of Iowa. He'll be meeting with flood victims in Cedar Rapids, discussing the economy at a campaign event later on, speaking via satellite to AFSCME's annual convention -- and then heading off to Texas for a fundraiser tonight in Houston.

McCain In Wisconsin Today
John McCain is holding a campaign event today in Racine, Wisconsin, scheduled to begin at 1 p.m. ET. This perennial swing state has voted Democratic in every election since 1988, but it's often been very, very close, and it's always on the GOP's target list.

Obama: GOP Will Try To Scare Voters About Me
Barack Obama told a Missouri crowd last night that Republicans will try to scare voters by reminding them that he "doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills." Campaign spokesman Robert Gibbs said Obama was not referring to race: "What Barack Obama was talking about was that he didn't get here after spending decades in Washington."

McCain Hedges On Tax Increases For Social Security
John McCain is giving himself wiggle room on whether he'll raise taxes in order to fortify Social Security, a position that has been condemned by many on the no-tax right. "And in any negotiation that I might have, when I go in my position will be that I am opposed to raising taxes," McCain told a fundraiser last night, "but we have to work together to save Social Security."

McCain Camp: Stevens Scandal Part Of Pork-Barrel Culture
John McCain's campaign has finally responded to the scandal surrounding the Ted Stevens indictment, with a spokesperson telling the AP that Stevens is part of Washington's culture of pork: "This is a sad reminder that the next president will have his work cut out for him in rebuilding public trust by ending once and for all pork barrel spending and reforming Washington from top to bottom."

Obama Camp Condemns Rap Song Bashing His Detractors
Barack Obama's campaign is distancing itself from an overly-exuberant supporter, with the campaign condemning a rap song by Ludacris that uses various obscenities to describe President Bush, Hillary Clinton, John McCain and Jesse Jackson. "This song is not only outrageously offensive to Sen. Clinton, Rev. Jackson, Sen. McCain and President Bush, it is offensive to all of us who are trying to raise our children with the values we hold dear," said spokesman Bill Burton.


109 Comments

| Leave a comment

Actually Obama's lead in all of those polls contracted, however slightly. It appears that a number of voters want offshore drilling. Seems Democrats aren't doing enough to (a) explain how fruitless that would be and (b) offering something that APPEARS to be designed to lower oil prices.

user-pic

Simple communication strategy: Instead of convoluted explanations, Obama needs to say in two sentences:

"My plan will lower gas prices and create jobs. McCain's will do neither."

http://strategy08.wordpress.com

user-pic

...problem, windfall tax on big oil and hope we invent something else won't lower the price of gas...

user-pic

Yes, and giving tax breaks to Exxon has done so much to *lower* the price, hasn't it?

user-pic

Agree that it has to be simple, although it's hard to combat, "There's oil here and we're not drilling it because Obama and the Dems won't let us." That the issue is much more complex than that doesn't matter, because most people's attention to the election is what the get from a 30-second commercial, what they hear on talk radio, and what the other low info voters at the coffee shop are talking about. (which likely includes some wacky email about Obama not drilling because he wants to save it for the Muslims he's going to bring over from Kenya)

As for slightly more informed voters, a little education would help. My mother-in-law is going to vote for McCain, there's no changing that. But she's only recently jumped on the drilling bandwagon. My wife told her about the 68M acres already leased by Big Oil or available for leasing. She didn't know anything about this. Knowing this isn't going to make her vote for Obama but it may make her more skeptical about the promises of drilling in protected areas. I fear that most Americans either believe a) that we're not drilling offshore anywhere in the US or b) that the Dems don't want any additional drilling to occur on unprotected areas. Neither are true but the framing in the media and in poll questions - "McCain is for drilling, Obama is against" - leads to these perceptions.

On this topic, I though this was a very helpful resource.

Excellent.

The DEMS are doinga poor job in explaining this issue. But one simple fact is not getting out there....we already have offshore drilling in the US!

These polls are asking if people support offshore drilling. Well of course they do. The question is do they support expanded offshore drilling off the coast of Florida and California and in the Artic National Refuge? When you ask that and also point out that there is already plenty of offshore area available to drill then you will have these number change.

Nancy Pelosi did a good job on this question on the Daily Show a few days ago. She pointed out all this stuff.

user-pic

Exactly! I honestly believe that there are many people in this country who read the headlines or see poll questions on the teevee scroll who think that we just don't drill in the US, especially offshore. So of course they "support" drilling. So does Obama, so do the Dems, just not in the protected areas. There are millions of acres already being tapped and millions more available for tapping. I don't know why this is such a hard concept to explain but it seems like the Dems are struggling.

They may also want to point out that a) the GOP voted down the "use it or lose" it bill re: existing available lands and b) voted down opening up the strategic reserves. (which actually would provide almost instant relief, although I'm not a fan of the idea because like the gas-tax holiday BS, it's a quick fix that really doesn't fix anything)

well people overall approve of obama's energy and economic policy so the fact that obama doesnt support off shore drilling and people still support his policies means that off shore drilling isn't number one on the list of what people want.
Many people want a long term solution to this problem and mccain only offers a gimmick.


Maturity Went Out The Window And People Noticed

Well, which one is it, McCain? You won't raise taxes or is everything on the table? You can't have it both ways...ah, who am I kidding, of course he can. He's the maverick.

Barack Obama told a Missouri crowd last night that Republicans will try to scare voters by reminding them that he "doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills." Campaign spokesman Robert Gibbs said Obama was not referring to race: "What Barack Obama was talking about was that he didn't get here after spending decades in Washington."

I'm sorry, but this explanation is not very plausible. At first glance, he does seem to be obliquely referring to race.

Yeah, that's a bullshit explanation.

user-pic

Yeah, mostly bullshit, but maybe with a teeny bit of wiggle room:

Campaign spokesman Robert Gibbs said Obama was not referring to race...

BigO could claim to be referring not only to McSame's race-innuendo ads, but also to his depictions of BigO as young, sexy, and (in a whisper) elite -- things generally antithetical to the monetary images of Dead Presidents.

I mean, you'd have a hard time imagining Abe Lincoln hanging out with Paris Hilton and Britney Spears, right?  (Well, Ben Franklin maybe, but technically he wasn't a President.)

user-pic

Agreed.

Which is not to say I don't completely agree with the comment. They absolutely will try and scare the electorate about Obama. That's all they have.

Drudge's headline this morning has Obama on the 1 dollar bill, so you can bet the MSM, who let Drudge do their work for them, will be hyping this story.

user-pic

...and everyone knows Republicans are just a bunch of racists in "States Rights" clothing anyway...they're not concerned about Obama's policies...just his "Blackness"...just like with Kerry and Gore and Clinton and Dukakis...It's all about keeping the brothers down.

Then why don't they run on the issues instead of running a negative campaign against the person?

user-pic

Because "Hope" and "Change" aren't issues...

That's such a bullshit comment, SFC. If you're not aware of Obama's policy positions and plans, that's no one's fault but your own.

I think you've officially become a troll.

user-pic

You cut me deep Shrek! I am aware of many of his policy ideas...that's the reason I'm not voting for him (not because of his blackness). I don't think Illegal immagrants should get free heathcare. I don't think raising the price of gas is the answer to our current energy problem. I don't think giving the insurgents in Iraq a "just hang in there" date is a good idea. I don't think Canada's "you're not quite sick enough yet" style of healthcare is better than ours...and I still don't think "Hope" and "Change" are issues.

See, you just easily rattled off several policy differences between Obama and McCain (after saying Obama was all "hope" and "change") that McCain could conceivable run against. But he isn't. All McCain is doing is attacking Obama as a celebrity and comparing him to Britney Spears.
So much for McCain's promise of a high-minded, policy-driven campaign.

user-pic

He mentions the other stuff every day in his town halls...it just doesn't make the headlines like the "empty suit" deal.

Then why don't they run on the issues instead of running a negative campaign against the person?

)))))))))))-crickets-((((((((((((

You sure like putting words in other peoples' mouths, SFC.

user-pic

That's what's being claimed...Tell me that 85% of the posters here don't feel that GOP=Racist.

I have no idea what the majority of posters on here think, but no one in this comment thread you responded to called anyone a racist.

I can only speak for myself. Do I think GOP = racist? No. But I do think that they're more than willing to play into some of the electorate's racism if it means they have a better chance of winning the election.

user-pic

...but Obama's camp is the only one bringing it up. It's Democrats that keep pointing out the fact (that most can see for themselves) that Obama is black.

user-pic

This is bullshit.

Obama said he doesn't look like previous presidents.

The whole "racism" issue was raised by Josh Marshall and Atrios, and is now being reinforced by Ben Smith and Jonathan Martin over at Politico. Unless you want to include Josh Marshall, Atrios, Smith and Martin in the Obama campaign, it's patently absurd to say that the Obama campaign is the only one talking about it.

Bullshit bullshit bullshit.

user-pic

Just supply me with one quote from a prominent (hell even un-prominent) Republican that mentions Barak Obama is black...

user-pic

You're picking fights and putting words in people's mouths, here. It wasn't the Obama campaign that brought up the racism issue, it's the political punditry who brought it up, same as in South Carolina.

ATrios/Josh Marshall/Ben Smith/Drudge/Jonathon Martin--these people are not part of the Obama campaign.

Get it?

And the whole give me one prominent Republican who pointed out that Obama is black is just a dodge, SFC.

“I'm going to tell you something: That boy's finger does not need to be on the button," Davis said.

Rep. Geoff Davis (R-KY)

I don't have specific quotes for you, sorry, but there have been many on the right trying to stir up racial fears of Obama whether it's by emphasizing his middle name or insinuating he might have terrorist ties (that quote I can't find but there was that GOP congressmen a few weeks ago who said he "wasn't sure" if Obama had terrorist ties/sympathies).

user-pic

Don't forget the racist repug that said Obama was the "first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,"...

Racist buttons sold at Texas GOP Convention:

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=6411

Joe Biden has a lengthy civil rights record that is pretty much beyond reproach, an inartful gaffe has done nothing to diminish that. You really have to try harder.

user-pic

...ahhh, Democrats are allowed "inartfull gaffes" but Republicans are default racists...

....ahh, if your record and a history of insensitive statements line up perfectly with something questionable that you might say - is it really an inartful gaffe at all?

user-pic

...but does "being a Republican" automaticly equate to "a history of insensitive statements," thereby making GOP=Racist the default position?

I never said that, and I've always said that calling someone a racist is a losing argument - but I have always been a proponent of citing someone's own statements and voting record and letting people decide for themselves.

"All the sudden you've got two dots, and two dots make a line," said Castellanos. "You start getting some sense of who he is, and it's not the Obama you thought. He's not the Tiger Woods of politics."

Republican ad man Alex Castellanos.

user-pic

you're right, he should've said "Phil Mickelson" of politics...

A banner slogan on the Pemberton Republican Club's Web site that said, "Obama loves America like O.J. loved Nicole," disappeared yesterday after local Democrats alleged racist campaign tactics.
The Web master, Ed Kuck, a recently elected Republican County committeeman, said he had seen the slogan on an Internet site and copied it onto the club's Web page about a month ago as "a joke."

He removed it yesterday from the site, http://homewebs.net/pem, after a community person told him it would offend people, he said.

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/local/20080709_N_J__GOP_club_accused_of_racism.html

user-pic

"Pemberton Republican Club's"
Prominent?

Hey, you're the one who said "hell, even un-prominent."

user-pic

True...but WTF is the Pemberton Republican Club?

That's the whole thing behind modern racism: IT ISN"T BLATANT LIKE IT ONCE WAS! It's more about subtle innuendo now. Of course the GOP isn't gonna run an ad saying 'you're not REALLY gonna vote for this black guy are you?!' but what they'll do and what they've done is use anything they can to reinforce any connection to it without stating it plainly. hence Josh and others pointing out the similarity to the attacks on Harold Ford. I can't remember who, but another poster pointed this out earlier this year about the phenomenon that black candidates simply face more doubts from white voters and hence have to 'prove' themselves more than a comparable white candidate. the GOP line of attack so far has been to play off of that theme as much as possible. Maybe it's not 'racist' per se, but it is disingenuous to claim that race isn't being used by them to their advantage. This is probably a good explanation for why this contest is polling much closer than would be expected considering McCain is mostly pushing policies that have little public support on their own but a lot of folks are still uncomfortable supporting a black candidate and so they default to McCain.

Late last week, Rep. Steve King turned his fire on Barack Obama, taking aim at his middle name, which is Hussein. He stated:

"The radical Islamists, the al-Qaida ... would be dancing in the streets in greater numbers than they did on Sept. 11 because they would declare victory in this war on terror...His middle name does matter, it matters because they read a meaning into that."

Yesterday, he refused to back down and apologize for his bigotry; instead he decided to dig in deeper, saying:

"(Obama will) certainly be viewed as a savior for them [the terrorists]. That's why you will see them supporting him, encouraging him."

Rep.Steve King (R-IA)
http://www.culturekitchen.com/mole333/blog/yet_more_republican_racism_iowa_republican_insu

Agreed. Gibbs flubbed this one.

i'm sure msm will tell me why these poll numbers are bad for obama and even though mccain was said to win fl.

You mean, like, "McCain narrows Obama's lead in key states"

Thank you, CNN.

why obama need to distance himself from ludacris he is not part of their campaign

Whats better?
Obama distancing himself from the get go or having the media bash on him for a while then have him distance himself.
A Hillary aid already complained about the song before the Obama camp responded and iam sure the media would of started to make a fuss about it soon if they didn't get ahead of it.

Because Obama is responsible for anything any black man says, in the same way that McCain is always held responsible for anything any white man says -

Oh wait, never mind.

Polls, schmolls. . .the Intrade chart to the right on this page is more useful than any of the information coming out of the polling outfits this Summer.

why obama need to distance himself from ludacris he is not part of their campaign

Because the GOP will do their level best to make it look like Ludacris is Obama's spritual advisor, campaign manager, and all around inspiration. So better safe then sorry.

user-pic
Because the GOP will do their level best...

Somehow, GOP and level best don't seem to go well together in the same sentence.  Perhaps crooked best is closer to the mark.

Who cares about polls, all that matters are that votes are surpressed and the Supreme Court rules who becomes president.

I think he should have said "The GOP is going to try and scare you by painting me as a wild eyed mandingo who will rape your daughters and blow up your office buildings" because thats a little more accurate.

No, they would NEVER bring up race!

Barack Obama told a Missouri crowd last night that Republicans will try to scare voters by reminding them that he "doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills.

The Republicans reply: "No shit, Sherlock."

I like the fact that Pennsylvania is leaning Obama for some time now. Ohio and Florida will be close all the way, but this confirms that the poll who give McCain 10 points ahead in Ohio was an outliar.

About the "doesn't look like the dollar bills" line,
let's be honest people, racism is the elephant in the room and it has to be tackled head on. Many of the attacks by the GOP (on Tennessee, for example) and the 527s, have an underline of racism. They will continue this line of attack, no matter the cost. Let's not shy away from it and deal with this openly. Maybe in a little more subtle way, but we can turn this around as part of the "same old politics" response.

user-pic

Is this the most absurd discussion ever?

Of course he doesn't look like other presidents. He's freaking black. For opponents to criticize him for pointing that out is beyond the point of parody.

True. But for the campaign to claim that he wasn't referring to his race is just silly.

user-pic

My objection is that the campaign was even asked about it.

He's black. For christ's sake, he doesn't look like previous presidents. If Hillary Clinton were the nominee, and she said she didn't look like previous presidents, would this be questioned?

This is patently ridiculous. Which means it probably has legs.

It appears he wasn't asked. It was part of a speech.

user-pic

That's not my point. He said he doesn't look like other previous presidents. Duh.

The press is turning this into "the Obama campaign is raising the racism issue", and making it an issue, not the Obama campaign.

Why should he be questioned when he quite obviously doesn't look like previous presidents?

Would everyone be aghast if Hillary Clinton were the nominee and said the equivalent thing?

It's not just the media. I (and others here) had the same first take on it.

Why should he be questioned when he quite obviously doesn't look like previous presidents?

What exact physical characteristic of his most distinguishes his appearance from previous presidents?

Would everyone be aghast if Hillary Clinton were the nominee and said the equivalent thing?
I sure would.
user-pic

I wouldn't. Neither looks like previous presidents. To acknowledge that isn't to cry racism, or sexism. It's to recognize reality.

I agree racism is the unspoken factor here and we have to honest and open about this.

The GOP will not hesitate to use race as an issue....they will attempt again and again to get Obama to be seen as a "black politician" not the unifying politician he seems today. what they want to accomplish by ads that have a racial component is to get him to react...If he protests too much he looks like and "typical black politician" aka Jesse Jackson. If he doesn't say something then they stil accomplish their goal of playing to racial fears a la the new "Britney" ad. The unspoken goal of that ad was to link Obama to young blond white women. They are playing up the fears of whites (especially white men) who think black men want their women.

when i first saw mccain attack ad yesterday i thought about that harold ford jr ad with the white woman.... those kind of ads are for certain group of people that they hope will catch ......

user-pic

"when i first saw mccain attack ad yesterday i thought about that harold ford jr ad with the white woman...." That's because you are a racist and are predissposed to cracking their coded messages.

user-pic

Cracking code?? No need to get out our secret decoder rings here; the dog whistles from the McCain camp are as clear as the ones emanating from Bob Corker's "Harold, call me" ad.

The party that invented the Southern Strategy and the Willie Horton ad -- we're supposed to believe they've seen the light, now, right SFC? No sane reader here buys that horseshit. That celebrity ad was focus grouped within an inch of its life to achieve its desired effect, just like Frank Luntz poll tested "death tax" and "climate change" wording...

user-pic

You're right GOP=Racist...I'm surprised there's still any elected north of the Mason-Dixon line...

so are you really trying to suggest that they are no racists north of the mason-dixon line? please tell me you're joking.

user-pic

That was an absurdity used to show how absurd it is to say GOP=Racist... and everyone in the South is a racist... especially those Republicans from the South...with their "Southern Strategies!"

some people think cucumbers taste better pickled. what? huh?

as I pointed out in an earlier post, it's debatable whether some of the GOP strategies are racist or simply taking advantage of racial issues but that seems like a pointless argument to have. It gets a little too close to depending on what the definition of 'is' is... ;)

I think it's safe to say there ARE a lot of people in the south who are racist, it directly affects their political positions, and the GOP recognizes this and uses it to its advantage whenever, wherever and however it can without directly stating it is doing so and often claims to not be doing so even if it can be irrefutably demonstrated that they are.

user-pic

SFC, even your hero Rush Limbaugh acknowledges the reality of the GOP Southern Strategy. Heck, 3 years ago this month he even chastised Ken Mehlman's plans to apologize for it. For your reading pleasure:

*****

Nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh blasted Republican National Committee (RNC) chairman Ken Mehlman's plans to apologize for his party's notorious Southern Strategy at the annual convention of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). Responding to Mehlman's planned renunciation of the race-based electoral strategy, Limbaugh accused Republicans of planning "to go bend over and grab the ankles."

Though President Bush has refused to speak to the NAACP throughout his presidency, Mehlman's July 14 speech to the NAACP renounced Republican efforts to capitalize politically on white Southerners' backlash against civil rights-era legislation. In his prepared remarks, Mehlman said, "Some Republicans gave up on winning the African-American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization. I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong."

In discussing the topic, Limbaugh -- whom Bush described as a "good friend" in an August 2004 appearance on Limbaugh's show -- referred repeatedly to the group as the "NAALCP," which he has explained stands for the "National Association for the Advancement of Liberal Colored People."

From the July 14 [2005] edition of The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: President Bush skipping this week's annual NAALCP convention for the fifth straight year, but that's not preventing the White House and the Republican Party from waging a drive to woo African-American voters. Ken Mehlman of the RNC is going to the NAALCP convention, and he is basically going to tell them how the Republican Party of Abraham Lincoln lost its way with African-American voters over the years and how determined the party is to get them back. He said, "We can't call ourselves a true majority unless we reach out to African-Americans and make it the party of Lincoln. There was a time when African-American support turned Democrat, and we didn't do enough to retain it. Now we want to build on the gains we made in the last election."

Know what he's going to do? He's going to go down there and basically apologize for what has come to be known as the Southern Strategy, popularized in the Nixon administration. He's going to go down there and apologize for it. In the midst of all of this, in the midst of all that's going on, once again, Republicans are going to go bend over and grab the ankles. They're going to the NAALCP. This is like going into Hyannisport and apologizing to [Sen.] Ted Kennedy [D-MA] for whatever and expecting him to become a supporter. It's like showing up at the [Sen.] Chuck Schumer [D-NY]-Joe Wilson press conference in 20 minutes and saying, "Okay, Ambassador Wilson, we apologize. We hope you'll support us. We can't become a majority party until people like you are voting for us." It is just -- it's absolutely absurd.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200507140004

Via The Daily Dish.

I'm the last person to buy into the so-called "racist" intentions of mainstream Republicans. And I think Democrats way too often cry wolf on the matter, to the detriment of race relations. But reading John Riley's post gave me pause:

We just got off a conference call with Camp McCain, defending their new ad comparing Barack Obama to Paris Hilton and Britney Spears. They said they thought the ad was legitimate because Obama is a big celebrity..., and Britney and Paris were Number 2 and 3. The problem: Anyone with even a vague sense of pop culture knows that Britney and Paris are yesterday's news. Here's a link to Forbes' Celebrity 100. Paris and Britney don't even make the list any more. Instead, the top 10, in order: Oprah Winfrey, Tiger Woods, Angelina Jolie, Beyonce Knowles, David Beckham, Johnny Depp, Jay-Z, The Police, JK Rowling, Brad Pitt. So, they didn't pick other big celebrities, who were either men, or black, or married. What they picked was two sexually available white women.


I find it interesting. I don't know if I buy it, but it's something to think about.

user-pic

Dude, you guys spend all day talking about how old and feeble McCain (and his campaign) are. You make fun of him and "the google" and "the internets," but now because he selected "yesterdays" pop divas it's a racist scheme. More likely since Tiger's and Oprah's celebrity is based on talent Paris and Brittney fit the "empty suit" mold that they are trying to paint Obama with. Or GOP=Racist...it's one of those two.

What, exactly, is Oprah's talent?

user-pic

She's got a pretty successful talk show...she's written a few books, she's a mgazine publisher...runs a pretty successful production company...nominated for an academy award...just to name a few.

Those are accomplishments. She's very accomplished, no doubt. But I don't think those accomplishments are based on any particular talent.

user-pic

...if it din't take talent, I'd be writting best sellers and publishing magazines instead of beating my head against the wall commenting here in between customers...

user-pic
What they picked was two sexually available white women.

It's just one of Karl Rove's minions continuing Rove's meme:

"He's the guy at the country club with the beautiful date, holding a martini and a cigarette that stands against the wall and makes snide comments about everyone who passes by."

Explaining why drilling won't help is easy.

What is the price of a gallon of gas in Europe? $5.00 or so. In Indonesia? $4.80 yesterday. If you were a rationaloil company where wouldyou put that oil rig? North Atlantic by Europe, SE asia by INdonesia, China and India, or in Alask wher you have to ship 1/8th of the way around the world to a market wheregas is selling for less than a dollar and you pay 50 cents (actually more) per gallon in tax. (20% to alaska permanent fund, and Highway trust tax).

Duhhh, if oil companies wanted to drill in Alaska there are already proven wells by the North slope pipe line look at the 2002 EIS. They ionly want ANMR open to control the rights, they will nto produce oil from it - too costly. They want the Gulf open and are using ANWR as a proxy chip to pry open drilling in the gulf and off California.

I have no idea why Obama "went there" with his comments and probably deserves the coming shitstorm. McCain and Camp have at most been dog whistling around the issue, it seems like Obama wants to tie them into with the wingnut talk shows and State camapigns who have been more overt.

Essentially he played the race card first here, and Gibbs explanation is just plain silly.

Obama has stepped in it here folks.

Much ado about nothing.

I am known for doing a pretty good Chicken Little impersonation now and again, so we'll have to wait and see on this issue. I would have felt much better if he was talking about "the Right" in general terms because then there wouldn't be need for clarification. It's the mentioning of McCain that will bite him.

I agree with you up to a point. What pisses me off is the blatant double standard in the amount of attention and scrutiny given to offhand comments by the two candidates.

Obama can say he has a rather unique place in our history, or that he's different from most other major presidential candidates, both self-evident and not very controversial statements (except in the bizarre circus of our current media environment), and it will lead to weeks of speculation as to whether he is "arrogant" or "presumptious."

McCain can joke about killing tens of thousands of innocent people, can show complete confusion as to the facts regarding what is supposed to be his signature issue, and can smear his opponent as wanting to see Americans die for his political bebnefit, and nary a peep from the MSM.

I'm sorry, Jonze. The problem isn't that Obama may make a verbal misstep, no matter how slight. He will. The problem is that the media will not apply equal standards to coverage of the two candidates' statements.

The media must be hounded and shamed to get them to stop applying this ridiculous, and ridiculously unfair, double standard.

Over thinking whether Obama was referring to race is a little off the mark. The larger issue is that the McCain campaign will try to chip away at Obama's popularity by focusing on matters that are completely irrelevant to whether he would be a good president. It is the termite approach, take a seemingly insignificant bite here and there and eventually the house will fall down.

The point isn't that Obama's race and funny name hasn't been attacked, it's the fact that he tried to pin it on McCain and his Campaign. If he was rallying against the Right in general he could have pointed out the radio talking heads or the state ads against Michelle, but to say "Bush and McCain" is just plain wrong and he should get out in front of this before it blows up.

Gibbs phony explanation only further highlights the fact that it was a mistake.

This is not the time for nuance.

Go to any local TV news station in a red (or purple) state and read what the blogs are saying. It is all Limbaugh vitriol - hateful and ignorant. The few voices of reason come off as defensive, whiny and dare i say, elitist.

These people do not like what's going in the country but it's going to take a lot more than a pretty face and a great speech to get them to vote against grandpa John. He may be old. He may be mean. He may be wrong for the country. But he is familiar. He is a known quantity. White. All American. Like Bush, he is anti-intellectual. Anti-culture. Anti-funny languages. Half of his platform is his BBQ rib recipe. The other half is down home kick your teeth in, shut the fuck up politics. He appeals to who they are and he does not appear to be "above his raisin'"

I appreciate the high road stance Obama is trying to take. It just scares me that it may not be enough.

He cannot mince words. He needs to be able to lay out his campaign in short, memorable sentences that do not leave any room for doubt or misreading. He needs to have people immediately associate his message with his name and his face.

On this score, McCain / Rove et al are beginning to re-define Obama in their own terms. If it sticks, he will lose this race.

I second that emotion.

Couldn't agree with you more, Roadkill. But how do we combat it?

I am in Michigan on business for the next few months, and I am compelled to get out there and do something. But it's becoming increasingly difficult to figure out just how to do that. What are the words I should be using? I wake up some mornings and wish that Obama would just come out and destroy McCain, eviscerate his lies and maybe tell a few lies of his own. And other mornings I realize how foolish that would be.

I think the biggest question here is: how do you sell a clearly intellectual candidate to a populous that is, increasingly, anti-intellect?

Well, I know he won't lose votes for being a little more, shall we say, "direct." His responses are immediate, which is good, they just need to be better.

And two, he needs to go on the offensive where McCain is the target. Load up on all the flip-flops, the disgusting groveling to neo-cons, the lies and reversals, and then how he, Obama, is a product of the melting pot and the American Dream - and leave it at that.

He always "explains" his best lines. They should stand on their own.

I am just spouting here . . .

user-pic

"The few voices of reason come off as defensive, whiny and dare i say, elitist." Now you know how I feel...well except for the "elitist" part.

Polls show Obama leading in key states? I guess we'll be seeing the following headline soon:

"Trouble for Obama in New Polls"

user-pic

One of the stupidest things we can do in this country is to scare illegal immigrants away from using free or lowcost healthcare...
Why? Because a terrifying number have TB and if it isn't treated properly, it can become the superbug variety. You do NOT want a million person pool of people infected with superbug-TB in this country. It is far cheaper to treat them quietly than to discourage them to come in so they either don't get treated at all, or use half-doses of the correct medicines.
Its a public health nightmare if we don't do it.

Here's a good republican idea. Lets stop requiring farmers to provide porta-potties to the migrants who pick all of our fresh vegatable (a socialistic democrat program) and lets not allow them to access our health care system when they have gastrointestinal problems. Salmonella peppers anyone?

user-pic

I have a better idea, let's deport them for entering illegally and prosecute the farmer for breaking the law too.

Anyone who looks like the guys on the bills is a gol-durned long-haired hippie . . .

Hah. Obama was certainly talking about race with the "dollar bills" comment. Fine by me. The Republicans have been dancing around the issue with coded language since even before Obama won the nomination - it's about time somebody came out and at least planted the idea into people's heads. Whether or not his spokespersons deny it is sort of irrelevant, IMO.

Barack Obama told a Missouri crowd last night that Republicans will try to scare voters by reminding them that he "doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills." Campaign spokesman Robert Gibbs said Obama was not referring to race: "What Barack Obama was talking about was that he didn't get here after spending decades in Washington."

This is a terrible explanation: Washington ($1) and Franklin ($100) both died before the District of Columbia became the official capital of the United States (1799 and 1790, respectively); Jefferson ($2) only spent four years there as Vice President in the Adams Administration before his election in 1804; Lincoln ($5) served one term in the House of Representatives (1847-49) before his election in 1860, passing the time in-between as an Illinois litigator; Hamilton ($10) was dead within four years of the District becoming the functional capital of the United States; Jackson ($20) served intermittently in the House and Senate, it is true, but the total of those years is less than ten (not to mention that part of that service preceded 1800, i.e., the year Congress first convened in Washington, D.C.); and Grant ($50) spent most of his pre-presidential life as a soldier in the field.

And if we’re going to look to the coins, the only historical figures remaining -– aside from Susan B. Anthony and Sacagawea –- are Presidents F. Roosevelt (dime) and Kennedy (half-dollar). Apart from his stint as Secretary of the Navy (1913-20), Roosevelt spent most of his political life trying to wedge his way into New York State politics, eventually becoming Governor in 1928. Of all the figures Mr. Gibbs suggests Sen. Obama could have been referring to, only Kennedy -– with six years in the House and eight years in the Senate -– spent more than a decade in Washington before ascending to the presidency. (Even then, fourteen is less than twenty, by my count.)

Okay, so I clearly don't know how to use the tags. My bad.

Yep, Gibbs did flub this one. Some of those dudes on our bills weren't even in Washington for very long, so his statement doesn't even make much sense.

You don't need to be a racist to use fear in your campaign tactics. I never thought the Clintons were racists, and I doubt McCain is. But they know that many in the country are and they use it in subtle ways to create fear and resentment. McCain's whole campaign theme this week is Obama is an uppity black man, stepping out of bounds. As Maddox asked, why did nobody in the MSM accuse McCain of being presumptious when he ran ads with "President McCain" written on the side? Because he's not black so he's not attacked for it.

(I'm just attempting to post this again with the correct tags. Just ignore my kowtowing to an OCD impulse.)

Barack Obama told a Missouri crowd last night that Republicans will try to scare voters by reminding them that he "doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills." Campaign spokesman Robert Gibbs said Obama was not referring to race: "What Barack Obama was talking about was that he didn't get here after spending decades in Washington."

This is a terrible explanation: Washington ($1) and Franklin ($100) both died before the District of Columbia became the official capital of the United States (1799 and 1790, respectively); Jefferson ($2) only spent four years there as Vice President in the Adams Administration before his election in 1804; Lincoln ($5) served one term in the House of Representatives (1847-49) before his election in 1860, passing the time in-between as an Illinois litigator; Hamilton ($10) was dead within four years of the District becoming the functional capital of the United States; Jackson ($20) served intermittently in the House and Senate, it is true, but the total of those years is less than ten (not to mention that part of that service preceded 1800, i.e., the year Congress first convened in Washington, D.C.); and Grant ($50) spent most of his pre-presidential life as a soldier in the field.

And if we’re going to look to the coins, the only historical figures remaining -– aside from Susan B. Anthony and Sacagawea –- are Presidents F. Roosevelt (dime) and Kennedy (half-dollar). Apart from his stint as Secretary of the Navy (1913-20), Roosevelt spent most of his political life trying to wedge his way into New York State politics, eventually becoming Governor in 1928. Of all the figures Mr. Gibbs suggests Sen. Obama could have been referring to, only Kennedy -– with six years in the House and eight years in the Senate -– spent more than a decade in Washington before ascending to the presidency. (Even then, fourteen is less than twenty, by my count.)

Leave a comment

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address