« Joe Biden To Visit Georgia This Weekend | Home | Poll: McCain Pulls Even With Obama In Ohio, But... »

Election Central Sunday Roundup

Dem Party leaders call on Obama to run sharper race on economy
Some leading Dems, worried that the race against McCain looks tougher than they imagined, want Obama to sharpen his economic message and convert his popularity into a stronger sense among voters that he will improve their lives in concrete ways. "It's fine to tell people about hope and change," says Governor Ted Strickland of Ohio, "but you have to have plenty of concrete, pragmatic ideas that bring hope and change to life."

Obama in Nevada today; McCain off the trail
Obama is in Reno today and will attend a fundraiser tonight in California; McCain has no public events. Hillary is campaigning for Obama today in New Mexico.

Obama: By November, people will understand that this election is "not about me"
In an interview with CBN's David Brody, Obama responded to a question about the "celeb" sneer ads with an answer that sounded a bit like an acknowledgment that right now, the election is shaping up more as a referendum on his character than on his opponent or on their respective policies. "I think ultimately the American people are going to understand by the time they go into the polling place in November that this is not an election about me," Obama said. "This an election about them."

Kaine: It's unlikely I'll be Veep
Virginia Governor Tim Kaine is campaigning his heart out for Barack Obama, but he appears to have largely written off his chances of becoming Veep. "I don't have any illusions about it," Kaine said. "I don't think that's likely to happen."

Pundits: McCain won the day at Saddleback Church
Some on-air pundits say McCain was the winner last night when both men appeared at the Sddleback megachurch in Orange County, California. ABC's George Stephanopoulos said that McCain "solidified his ties to the evangelical community," while Jake Tapper said that McCain "won over this crowd" with tales about his POW captivity -- you know, the topic we keep hearing McCain is reluctant to discuss.

Obama outworking McCain in North Carolina
In yet another sign that the Obama camp is dead serious about broadening the electoral map, his campaign is vastly out-organizing McCain's in North Carolina, a state that hasn't voted for a Democratic president since Jimmy Carter in 1976. Although John Kerry lost to President Bush in this state by over 13 points -- with John Edwards on the ticket, no less -- the polling average finds Obama trailing McCain here by only around four or five points.

Bush: "Bullying and intimidation are not acceptable" in the conduct of foreign policy
Displaying his typically acute self-awareness, President Bush is now reacting to the Russia-Georgia crisis thusly: "Bullying and intimidation are not acceptable ways to conduct foreign policy in the 21st century."


193 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

Both McCain and Obama did well last night. The only reason McCain is perceived to have "won" is because the expectations for him were so low going in!

Oh, and he totally plagiarized his "personal story" about his faith:

http://www.thepersonalispolitical.com/2008/08/mccains-faith-plagiarism.html

How shameless.

user-pic

I just wrote a TPM diary on this
--your link to "The Personal is Political" site covers this well. I am amazed, perhaps having just come from Slytherin Vespers Service, that McCain might have stolen this spiritually uplifting story for political gain. It is intensely personal and religious. It would be outrageous if false.

It really is a huge slap in the face to the religious right isn't it? I mean it is one thing to plagiarize a story, but to do it about something that is supposed to be deeply PERSONAL?? I mean how low you can you get? It's probably one of the worst possible things to make up, in one of the worst possible venues.

Chances that the media will bring it up?

ZERO.

Heres how I summed up the night at SaddleBack

McCain was war, war, war, POW, Islamic extremist, stories, no substance, jokes, nothing to prove (mostly conservative evangelical audience), didn’t answer questions fully, man of few words, oh and vote for me because Im a veteran (guilt trip alert).

Obama was Jesus, god, christian, personal, intellectual, in-depth, substance, a little more serious, nothing to lose (evangelicals aren’t his base, most aren’t going to vote for him), bible quote, sincere, honest, talks a lot, answered questions, man of a lot of words, oh and values.
http://sensico.wordpress.com/2008/08/16/faith-forum-sincerity-versus-stump-speech/

user-pic

Yes, this really bothered me. Very manipulative.

McCain did what he supposed to do. He pander and preached to the choir. He told them what they want to hear. He used the same stuff he uses on the stump. He rallied to the base.

Obama spoke his mind. He was on hostile territory. He handled himself well. He wasn't there to suck to them. He was cool and he was sincere. Maybe it wasn't showy, but it will make the moderates take a second look at him.

This wasn't a debate, it was a conversation. The debates are a different ballgame. In this forum Obama proved that he wants to be open-minded president. McCain proved that he will be like Bush.

When will the media probe McCain? When will Obama begin to directly and specifically address the worsening economy.

user-pic
When will the media probe McCain?

Frank Rich took a pretty good swing at it today:

What is widely known is the skin-deep, out-of-date McCain image. As this fairy tale has it, the hero who survived the Hanoi Hilton has stood up as rebelliously in Washington as he did to his Vietnamese captors. He strenuously opposed the execution of the Iraq war; he slammed the president’s response to Katrina; he fought the “agents of intolerance” of the religious right; he crusaded against the G.O.P. House leader Tom DeLay, the criminal lobbyist Jack Abramoff and their coterie of influence-peddlers.

With the exception of McCain’s imprisonment in Vietnam, every aspect of this profile in courage is inaccurate or defunct.

Whether anyone else in the media follows suit is another matter.

When will Obama begin to directly and specifically address the worsening economy.

I think when the conventions are wrapped and the tickets are solidified, Obama will pivot back to the economy. Of all the issues that McCain is sub-par on, the economy is the most target-rich environment. Even McCain himself admits he sucks at it.

And since Phil 'Nation Of Whiners' Gramm is apparently back in the McCain campaign, I'd expect to see an Obama ad tying him around McCain's neck.

Great column by Rich today. And he gave a nice shout out to Josh Marshall.

Seriously.

If the media, or even the handwringing Dems out there, spent half their otherwise wasted time carping and focusing on who McCain really is and what he really stands for this election would be no contest.

Instead we have the media who latches onto whichever shiny new object is floated in front of the sorry eyes (to the detriment of BOTH candidates) and a bunch of old school Dems inciting whatever discontented voters are out there.

This is one of the main reasons Obama is so attractive to many voters...he represents at least a chance at changing our politics, if not the country's direction.

Expend worrying energy writing letters, making phone calls and emailing media outlets and newspapers. Call your friends and get them to do the same. Then start calling elected representatives and tell them to get constructive rather than carping their way through this process.

Obama's platform is based on us getting the hell of our couches and staying off of them.

Not ranting at you...just this whole divided party BS is feeding on itself and will become a self fulfilling prophecy if we let it.

/rant ;)

user-pic

I have been wondering for some time why we pay any attention to the "pundits." Most of them are in the bag for the Republicans anyway. Those that aren't are deep into the horse race. All of them are in the upper 1% and all work for the giant multi-national companies that have spent the last 8 years raping the American economy and sending our jobs to the third world.

I have quit watching the Sunday morning shows and am thinking about giving up cable news, including MSNBC (sorry Keith.) I don't need pundits. I need hope. I need change.

I have been wondering for some time why we pay any attention to the "pundits."

The pundits influence very little in the way of public opinion directly, since their readership/viewership is very small. However, they *do* influence the editorial of their respective publications and other media especially if they continue to repeat certain memes, and in that way their opinions tend to percolate and get amplified over time - the media echo chamber in effect. When this makes its way into more local media like city papers and TV news, the process is complete.

That's why pundit opinion, as ridiculous and reprehensible as it often is, is still considered important. It's the breeding ground for some very insidious and stupid ideas that nevertheless become "conventional wisdom".

I agree.
It was the Repub mantra after the 2000 election that the votes were "counted and recounted and recounted" which was bullshit, but the punditocracy kept repeating it where it almost became convential wisdom, and gave credence to the "Sore Loserman" PR campaign waged by the Repubs during the weeks after the election.

Exactly. But the joy of pundits is that they are so easily influenced. More of us have to badger them than those doing it now.

Change the meme. My new motto. ;0

Obama gave long, well considered answers. McCain gave short, oversimplified responses (lacking in sophistication). This was an evangelical audience that simply doesn't cotton to nuance & thoughtfulness- it is perceived as long winded and evasive. McCain has been able to use his lack of intellectual sophistication to good advantage. It remains to be seen whether this tactic will carry the day.

To early to say if Saddleback will have an impact. At minimum, I'd say that both of them reinforced some positives and some negatives about themselves. But the most important thing in my view is that Saddleback was not some sort of presidential exam where you have to answer questions exhaustively and get an A +.

It was about an overall show of character, as part of the campaign "narrative". That's why Obama didn't win, he somewhat reinforced some negative perception points that Republicans were hammering him on.

What neg perception points do you think were reinforced.

Maybe the way Obama responds. It's true that he doesn't make "soundbite" answers. Some think that's a liability. I disagree.

One of the things that really gets in my craw is how people complain about politicians just giving slick prepared responses, but then when Obama is obviously working out a thoughtful answer rather than something canned for him by his team he's branded as stumbling over the answer.

That's what I'm talking about.

That's what I'm talking about...

Repeated message. My bad.

He came across more or less the same way as he did during the debates with Hillary, which has already been discussed to death so I won't go there.

I also have to admit that my own expectations for McCain were as low as anyone else's, and he indeed surprised. If the debates run in the same way as Saddleback, McCain will win the election.

He was sharp, direct, alive and human. He looked like a very solid alternative to Obama, especially for those who had doubts.

Only if the moderators allow him to use POW stories to respond to every question.

The focus was on McCain, because of his previous problems with the evangelicals. He had more to lose in this forum. He did was he was supposed to do.

Obama had nothing to lose. I think he did well, but the attention of the media was really on McCain.

I agree but would also add undecideds to that column. He presented a real alternative to them, too, last night.

The undecideds that are swayed by that performance, which amounted to talking points that avoided a deep sincere discussion of faith and values, are the type that are swayed by conventions (hence the bumps). So what was gained is easily lost.

>>>He came across more or less the same way as he did during the debates with Hillary, which has already been discussed to death so I won't go there.

Could you sum it up in a simple sentence or two for those who weren't invovled in those discussions? Thanks.

As I recall, dear Elizabeth2, you were a very active participant in those discussions. I'm pretty sure that the purpose of your question is not the summary you're asking for. Am I wrong?

user-pic

I wasn't involved, and I was curious about that comment as well.

One word: archive

user-pic

OK, but your comment sure sounded like you could have made your point pretty easily...

For someone using "troll" as a way of trying to win an argument, you sound an awful lot like the worst of them.

So, keep you bait, I don't need it. Thanks.

user-pic

Have it your way. I wasn't trying to bait you. I am not aware of your arguments about the debate performances.

Sorry for the wrong impression I inadvertently gave.

i'll take that to mean that you don't really have a worthwhile point to make.

I think that Obama was hoping to reach out to the moderates and independents, to reassure them that he a deeply Christian man (it is a shame that politicians still have to pass this litmus test). As far as the constituency represented by the audience he was hoping to undermine any fervor that had been building against him because of the smears about his faith. In both cases he was successful in my opinion.

user-pic

I'm not so sure. Obama is weak with Catholics and as I Catholic I have to say that pandering to the glitzy mega church philosophy of evengelicals is a turn off for me. Religion is cultural as well as theological and what works with Warren isn't necessarily going to work with little old voting Catholic ladies in Philly or even with the German Catholics and Lutherans who populate the rural northern tier from the midwest to the plains.

I agree with you, but in the case of these folks, I would guess that McCain fared far worse.

I agree with your viewpoint. Obama is not going to carry the crowd that was there last night. It was clear when their first and loudest applause for Johnny boy was when he mentioned Offshore Drilling. Obama's goal last night was to play to the independents and attempt to take some of the evangelist vote his way or at least make that voting block comfortable with him as president.

Overall, I thought Obama did very well. As for John, I thought he was great at getting out his few campaign talking points, yet felt he came across as a Bush clone. I think he hurt himself badly with independents.

user-pic

Couple of points:

1. I agree with the NYT article that Obama needs to make the economy his signature issue and he has NOT done that yet. The last month and a half has been about Obama going overseas, his talk about faith & patriotism, his standing fast on the Iraq War, then finally Obama did great when talking about energy and then he went on vacation for a week.

This coming week needs to be all about the economy and what he will do about it in concise answers ie "an elevator talk".

"Some leading Dems, worried that the race against McCain looks tougher than they imagined, want Obama to sharpen his economic message and convert his popularity into a stronger sense among voters that he will improve their lives in concrete ways."

SOMEOBODY TELL STRICKLAND TO GET HIS HEAD OUT OF HIS ASS!

anyway that sounds exactly like hte criticism of the primaries.

user-pic

Reality check here. What are we and the punditry talking about today? Evengelical religion and foreign threats. Seems to me the Republicans have the conversation exactly where they want it.

Good point. The reality is that we are dealing with a political environment crafted by the Repubs over the last 30 years that culminated with Bush/Rove. One of the reasons I support Obama is that I believe he will help LEAD the national dialogue about what we really need to be discussing in order to move forward. But it's going to take time.

user-pic

I'd hoped so too, but it seems to me he's taken the same bad advice that lost the elections for Gore and Kerry, remaining so fuzzy and flip-floppilly willing to be whatever his advisors want him to be that we're failing to get a real sense of the man. He won the political junkies in the primary season but I couldn't tell what his message is today. It's so risk averse it isn't anything. Change REQUIRES risk. I think he's become too risk averse to sell change and without that message I'm not sure what the message is.

I would disagree to the extent that where they are taking the risks is on the local level, DHL in Ohio, Yucca in Nevada, etc. The message is pro-worker. McCain handed them the perfect soundbite last night, you're not rich until you make 5 million a year. I think Obama will be heard saying that after making a few million on his books, that he is relieved to hear that McCain doesn't think he's not one of the rich.

In that case, Obama should start hitting McCain on the water issue regarding Colorado.

user-pic

That looks like his strategy regarding ads - target ads to state issues. The DHL ad in Ohio is a great example.

If they intend on expanding this ad strategy, it's a pretty smart way to go - keeping the national ads upbeat and general, while creating doubts about McCain in different states according to smaller issues that wouldn't resonate nationally to the extent that they will on a state level.

I'd love to see them run a two-tiered ad campaign. It would also extend the meme that Obama is about the Voters, not just taking the office.

I haven't seen a man beaten so brutally since Ivan Drago left Apollo Creed stretched out in front of his wife.

The Obama bubble finally burst last night. I hope Hillary can steal the nomination cause this guy can't win. Two months before the election and he still doesn't know what the American people want. He's still appealing to the nerds on TPM instead of the brain dead masses who actually decide elections.

What have we done? We had the Clintons ready to go, the GOP kryptonite, and we gave it up for the guy they love to run against. We gave the Republicans a gift they never could've dreamed of.

What the Repubs could dream of was a race against Hillary. The basic argument by the PUMAs et al. was that Hillary lost because the media, Obama and DNC used Repub talking points against her. So somehow this caused her to lose the primary, but during the general election these talking points would have no effect.

And so far there is no evidence in the polls, fundraising, ground game, etc. that Obama is even remotely losing to McCain.

Agreed. This fight is only beginning...

"The Obama bubble finally burst last night. I hope Hillary can steal the nomination cause this guy can't win. Two months before the election and he still doesn't know what the American people want. He's still appealing to the nerds on TPM instead of the brain dead masses who actually decide elections."

Michael, I know we are on the same side here so I say this with the utmost respect - your histrionic hand-wringing of last night's event is nothing more than a case study in hyperbole. Obama was never going to win that crowd over, especially considering him being the pro-choice candidate - he just had to show the fence sitting evangelicals, the one's whose political views aren't hinged on Roe vs Wade, that he is a steady hand who isn't some crypto-muslim. Mission Accomplished. Sure, McCain was allowed to recite his fucking stump speech and out-Vietnam Obama when answering questions questions unrelated to the conflict - but while he was throwing red meat to the dopes, he also made crystal clear to all the slow learning independents out there that he is a bona fide right winger. Not exactly a bad thing if you are a Obama supporter.

Co-freakin'-sign.

You never run out of explanations and excuses for Soetoro's failures.

"You never run out of explanations and excuses for Soetoro's failures."

You never seem to run out of opportunities to be categorically debunked and bitch-slapped on a regular basis.

On August 17, 2004 Kerry led in states worth 327 electoral votes on electoral-vote.com. A new poll that day showed Bush ahead by 6 points in NC, a state Bush ended up carrying by 12 points.

On August 17, 2008, Obama only leads in states worth 275 electoral votes on electoral-vote.com. The most recent poll in NC has McCain up by 6 points in NC. So if 2004 is any guide, Obama is wasting his time and money in that state.

Not if:
(1) he helps the down ticket
(2) causes mccain to spend resources and time in NC
and
(3) creates the meme that he is carving out a new electoral map for the Dems.

And if 2004 is any guide, 2004 is not 2008 and Obama is not John Kerry...

And, right on schedule, heeeeere's Doc Zaius to explain to us how polling results from the summer of 2004 in an election with different candidates, different campaign teams, different issues, different economic factors, a different global situation, and an incumbent vs. a non-incumbent are determinitive of the outcome of this election.

You remind me of this guy I played cards with. He'd say stuff like, "well you've already had aces, so you can't have them now" or "I had to bet into that because straights are running hot tonight."

If 2004 is any guide, the Democrats will never win another election, ever, ever, again, the Republicans will retain their iron grip on Congress forever and the country will become a one party oligarchy.

But, oh, wait, none of that's happened.

Commenter, my point was that a 6-point lead in NC by a Repub nominee on August 17 augurs for a double-digit win in November. Meaning that just because McCain's polling numbers right now aren't as good as Dumbya's final results in November 2004 doesn't mean that McCain won't end up doing just as good in NC as Dumbya did.

Barack is wasting his money in any Southern state except VA. Will he make the Southern states closer than in the Gore and Kerry runs? Yes. Will he win any electoral votes there? No, except VA maybe if Kaine is on the ticket.

Meaning that just because McCain's polling numbers right now aren't as good as Dumbya's final results in November 2004 doesn't mean that McCain won't end up doing just as good in NC as Dumbya did.

Right and it doesn't mean he'll end up doing anywhere near as good as Bush did, either. I understand you're an orangutan and all but try and keep up.....what happened in 2004 doesn't have any relation to what happens this year. There isn't a rule that states that each election must follow the same polling patterns. I'm not sure which part of that you're having a hard time understanding.


I appreciate you responding respectfully to my snarky, ill-tempered post. So, of course, I'll continue to be ill-termpered and snarky because its an extra Mondayish Mondy.

My point is "augur" is the operative word in that analysis. You might as well be trying to predict the future by looking into a plate of chicken guts as to try to make predictions about November 2008 based upon a polling data point from August 2004. Formally, it's a fallacy of induction.

Informally, trying to make predictions about what will happen this year based on August 2004 data from a particular poll, or any poll, in states with dynamic demographic and economic patterns that Kerry did not contest but Obama is contesting heavily is a recipe for flawed predictions.

This is particularly true given given that McCain is repeating the mistake that the Democrats made in 2004 on a nationwide basis--he's basically abandoned any attempt to run an integrated national ground game and s depending upon state and local party organizations to make up the difference.

McCain easily won.

Obama was worse than Bush, it's no wonder he doesn't want these formats.

Hillary must be smiling.

Hillary needs to stop smiling and start talking to delegates and superdelegates behind the scenes. She's our last chance and we need her to steal this thing.

Saddleback was the final straw. What I witnessed last night was the rest of this election condensed into two hours.

What I witnessed was Obama speaking thoughfully and sincerely to the questions and McCain spewing talking points and stories about being a POW. I know more about the faith of that Vietnamese solider who put the cross in the dirt with his toe than I do with McCain.

McCain helped bring the right wing to his side but nothing else.

I hate you for making me spill my coffee.

People like you are the reason officers carry sidearms in combat.

You can't be serious. You really think Hillary is going to come to Soetoro's rescue? Bwahahaha.

"You can't be serious. You really think Hillary is going to come to Soetoro's rescue? Bwahahaha."

Desperation laughter is the only therapy that you have when your candidate failed to become the nominee.

At Saddleback Oilbama said the most gut-wrenching decision of his life was to vote against the Iraq War. Oilbama was not in the U.S. Senate until 2005 and NEVER VOTED against the War. Oilbama is a liar who will say anything to get elected.
Those who DID have to make that “gut-wrenching decision” were John McCain, Hillary Clinton, Oilbama's supporters John Edwards and John Kerry, and 96 other senators. Oilbama was not briefed by the Military, knew nothing of enemy capabilities and yet decided he knew enough to oppose the War in a speach to a anti war crowd. Much to weak to lead, Oilbama the limp wristed one, is not fit to serve this Country in Wartime. Oilbama's one notable legistlative accomplishment in his short career was to vote for his friends Dick Cheney and GW Bush's Big Oil Energy Bill.

No surprise to those of here who are used to your troll droppings, but you're a big frickin' liar.

Obama never claimed last night to have VOTED against the war...he said his initial decision to "go" against the war in Iraq and then continued on to talk about how he was just beginning his campaign for senate. Maybe you should be just as critical of Hillary for not bothering to take the time out to actually read the NIE before casting her vote and sending people off to die.

When someone has a hour interview to pour over and they have to resort to a lie in order to make an attack says that they have no ammo and are just mouthing the words "bang" "bang"

Yeah, that's pretty much his/her schtick.

Greg, are you sure about Obama's schedule for today? It says here (and seems to be backed up by his website) that he'll actually be appearing with Hillary Clinton today.

http://www.elpasotimes.com/ci_10219346?IADID=Search-www.elpasotimes.com-www.elpasotimes.com

user-pic

I wondered how long it would be before we subjected a candidate for public office to a religious test. Last night's abomination confirms that I need not wonder any longer.

A bit more of our Constitution got shredded last night and I doubt that anyone realizes it. "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." The Framers.

there was a test??? i must've missed that part. when did the government give the candidates a test?? was it multiple choice? fill in the blank??

the portion of the constitution relevant to the saddleback event is freedom of association. candidates for political office are free to practice (and pander to) whatever organized idiocy they choose.

the constitution remains exactly as intact (or in tatters) as it was before the saddleback event.

user-pic

Thanks, MichaelHussein, for revealing yourself as the Clinton troll I always suspected you were.

"We need Hillary to steal this". yeah, the Democratic voters will be really motivated to go out and vote for someone who "stole" the election. Excellent strategery, dude.

Strickland and Bredneson did the Obama campaign absolutely no favors by parroting Republican talking points. It's no wonder that Democrats have a hard time winning Presidential elections: they can't bring themselves to be unified in anything, except in criticizing the nominee. Nice work, gentlemen.

I'm not a Clinton troll. As people I can't stand the Clintons and I did not vote for Hillary in my state primary.

I'm an "I Want To Win This Election" troll who is falling out of love with the belief that Obama has what it takes to win the American presidency.

You want to win it?

So considering that people are wringing their hands because only 70 plus percent of Clinton supports are backing Obama right now (and I would posit it's probably much higher), do you think that if she stole the nomination that she would get anything remotely close to 25 percent of the Obama supporters?

If she stole the nomination we can hand the White House to McCain.

Yes, I guess you and hyperRevue are right. The party would be too damaged.

It looks like we've passed the point of no return. We're going to lose in November.

user-pic

Take a deep breath and step away from the hyperbole, ok?

And the evidence that you base this conclusion on is what? It's not the polls, not the fundraising, not the ground games, not the enthusiasm from the base. So what in god's green earth are you making such an assertion of the inevitability of Obama's loss?

Let's be clear. Soetoro stole the nomination with his rigging of the referendums and blocking the legitimate MI/FL voters.

Clinton had a higher overall vote in the primaries.

Soetoro's handlers stole the nomination in a way that made Bush proud.

Clinton should be nominee. If the Dems want the WH in '08, she will be. She would stomp McCain.

"Let's be clear. Soetoro stole the nomination with his rigging of the referendums and blocking the legitimate MI/FL voters."

Lets be even clearer fuckstick, Hillary Clinton herself said that Florida and Michigan wouldn't count - of course that changed when Obama was handing her her ass.

"Clinton had a higher overall vote in the primaries."

If you are bad at math, or retarded - sure.

"She would stomp McCain."

She wouldn't stomp shit. Only an idiot would think that their candidate would do better than the person who beat them handily in the primaries.

Do we have to keep having this same argument over and over and over again?

Seriously. Hillary lost because she was ran an incompetent campaign and was outmanuvered strategically. Simple as that. It's time for you to put your big girl panties on and deal with it.

right.

the very idea that clinton would do better in the general election is so ridiculous when you consider that the biggest reason she lost the primary is because her campaign fundamentally did not understand how delegates are counted.

You want to win this election but you also want Clinton to "steal" the nomination at the convention?

Good luck with that.

user-pic

Being an "I want to win this election" troll is fine with me, but advocating that Clinton "steal the nomination" is nuts, if you want my opinion.

She would be in worse position than Obama right now, if you ask me, because like it or not, I seriously doubt this country is ready for a woman president when we're involved in two wars, and Georgia is busily trying to restart the Cold War. McCain would have an even bigger edge on Clinton. He shouldn't, of course, but he would.

Second, were Clinton to somehow "steal the nomination", the Democratic Party would be in shambles, and the brand would disintegrate. Bill Clinton would suddenly become the focus of the Republicans, and you can just imagine the ads.

Obama went into enemy territory on a night in mid-August when most of the country was a) waiting for Michael Phelps to swim or b) out enjoying a normal Saturday night. The only way Obama was going to "win" last night would have involved him selling out his entire party. Wasn't going to happen.

Also, Clinton HAS NO MONEY!!!

Oh, good grief. McCain easily won because some pundits said so?

Look, I'm not at all sanguine over any election, especially this one. But all this Nervous Neil and Nellie stuff is not helpful.

WTF did you EXPECT from an audience made up of people who obsess over abortion and stem cells? Flowers and sweets?

All McSame had to do was to pretend he was likeable, because he's a nasty piece of work. So he had the easier job--when has that not been the case for McSame? He kept his creepy cackle to a minimum...score one for McSame.

Now, from what I said at another blog: Obama sounded more authentic and thoughtful. This was not a debate, so this works. I think he was respected more because he didn't pander, which 1) wouldn't have been believable and 2) would have made him look weak, like he was afraid to stand up for his positions (which we're always criticized on). And he seemed reasonable, that even if he didn't agree with them on all their issues, he respects their positions, respects them, and wants them in the room with him, at the table.

What I also thought was quite helpful to Obama was the very matter-of-fact way that Warren referred to Obama's Christianity. He didn't question it or ask him to clarify his stance for the audience. He took it for granted that he was a Christian and let him share his witness. Very important.

He also took mentioned that while Bush was "pro-life" that abortions have increased during his term. He also worked in universal health care as a measure to reduce the number of abortions.

Now, let me say that I wish he didn't have to do this at all. I don't like it. My standard is that if you don't believe in something, don't do it--but you don't have the right to tell any other adult what to do based on your beliefs. This is especially important because I am a woman. I don't need a group of morons thinking they know how I should run my life because they believe I'm inherently inferior or evil.

Having said all of that--this is the reality of where we are now. I'm not happy about it, but it is what it is until we can change things and return some sanity to our process.

Overall, I think he did a great job with an audience not necessarily disposed to be friendly to him or his views. I think Obama did better with this audience than McSame did with Urban League audience.

Thanks for the great post. Summed up my feelings as well.

For a guy who has been wearing his religion, their religion, on his sleeve the entire candidacy has was a total miserable failure. He persuaded no one and made McCain look good.

Complete Obamic failure for Barry Soetoro.

"For a guy who has been wearing his religion, their religion, on his sleeve the entire candidacy has was a total miserable failure. He persuaded no one and made McCain look good."

..this coming from a knuckle-dragger who is still holding out, in hopes that Hillary will be the nominee. People have to seriously consider the inbred source here.

Nobody complained 4 years ago when Kerry talked about his Vietnam experience.

Is "thoughtful" the new spin for Obama's performance yesterday?

AWFUL is more appropiate.

Then explain how it was awful. Convince me. When he referenced the Bible, talking about Matthew and how this relates to our responsibility to our fellow humans, how was that awful>

McCain presented positions that the audience found palatable.

Obama attempted to preach. The "above my pay scale" is appropriate since pretty soon he's gonna be flipping burgers instead of positions.

"McCain presented positions that the audience found palatable."

McCain simply fed red meat to the dopes, Obama gave thoughtful answers - but then again, you are intellectually inept.

And Kerry didn't use his Vietnam experience to deflect gaffes and blunders. "Hey I windsurf because I served in Vietnam." Maybe he should have and he would have gotten the votes of people such as you.

Nobody complained 4 years ago when Kerry talked about his Vietnam experience.

Yes, actually Republicans pissed and moaned and then began swiftboating him to all hell and walked around wearing cute little purple band-aids at their convention. Meanwhile, if a Dem even mentions McCain's time in Vietnam we're "questioning his service" and we hate America.

Obama has plenty of specific economic proposals that he's been hitting for a while now, having people like Strickland say he's only talking about hope & change undercuts everything the campaign has been working to do over the last few weeks. perhaps someone should remind these top democrats that the media narrative is what needs to change, and they aren't helping on that front.

user-pic
having people like Strickland say he's only talking about hope & change undercuts everything the campaign has been working to do over the last few weeks. perhaps someone should remind these top democrats that the media narrative is what needs to change, and they aren't helping on that front.

Co-sign. I nearly spit out my coffee this morning when I read the quotes from Strickland and Bredneson. They sounded like Republican strategists. And now the media will pound the "top Democrats unhappy with Obama" theme to death. Nice work, gentlemen.

These comments are representative of a fundamental problem in the way that democrats approach politics.

When McCain surrogates or other Republicans are questioned by the media, they use those questions as an opportunity to attack Obama, even if the question is about McCain and his prbolems with the electorate.

Asshats like Strickland, Schumer, etc., use the opportunity to bash their own. This is a big part of the reason why Democrats' favorability on issues never seems to get any traction.

Hey Ted and Chuck: next time someone asks you why Obama's superior economic policies aren't resonating with the public, answer by saying "once the public sees that John McCain's economic policies consist of tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and further giveaways to the oil and gas industries, they'll realize that Barack Obama is the candidate of the middle and working classes."

Don't attack your own candidate, you stupid fucking morons. Do you even WANT to win this thing?

user-pic
Don't attack your own candidate, you stupid fucking morons. Do you even WANT to win this thing?

Exactly. People are convinced Obama isn't hitting back hard enough, or doing enough, or whatever, but when the Dems have governors like Strickland and Bredneson going on record as being dissatisfied with their own freaking candidate, you gotta wonder what's going through these guys heads?

Yeah! What ever happened to truth, honesty and the American way dammit!

Whatever happened to the "new politics" dammit!

"Whatever happened to the "new politics" dammit!"

..it just got finished completely destroying you candidate, and her clumsy husband..lol

Today it is Ted Strickland.
Yesterday it was Loretta Sanchez.
Last week it was Bill Clinton.
And before that, Harold Ford.
And I'm sure there are others if someone cared to look.

Perhaps the DLC operatives are attempting to sabotage the Obama campaign like they did the Howard Dean campaign in 2004. One doesn't have to look far for a motive.

user-pic

Let's not forget that McCain lost Colorado with his comments about reopening the western states water rights agreement.

That being said, of course McCain came across well. He was there to deliver a gift wrapped message to a crowd primed to receive it: "I'm right to life and will appoint right to life justices."

Obama thoughtfully defended his positions, and McCain came across as a simpleton: "evil must be defeated," and the reprise of the idiotic "chase Osama to the gates of hell" comment. The latter should definitely make it's way into an attack ad, "he'll go to the gates of hell, but not Pakistan. When it was time to capture Osama, McCain went after Saddam Hussein, [etc.]"

The deck was stacked against Obama going in. If anything, McCain significantly raised his expectations going in to the debates. People like David Gergen won't be talking about how inept McCain is on the stand, rather Obama, given his somewhat lackluster debates during the primaries, will be seen as the underdog.

What the Obama campaign must do, since McCain won't stop talking about war, is to paint McCain as a shallow warmonger - not a hard task, given his statements during the Saddleback forum - while tying the cost of war to our current economic malaise. I wouldn't be above demagoguery here. Show images of Iraq in shambles, with a voice over talking about no-bid contracts to Halliburton to rebuild Iraqi infrastructure while cities, bridges and schools in the US crumble; meanwhile, big oil profits massively courtesy of our oil-fueled foreign adventurism.

Strickland's right: kill McCain on the economy, painting him as an old, out of touch elitist, who's spent a quarter century in Washington beholden to big financial and energy interests that have bankrupted our country through two massive crises. N'uff said.

Ugh, that gates of hell line is so fucking aggravating. We've had 8 years of hollow tough talk.

That comment caused a severe wretch. Every day McCain is scaring me more and more. I think a good meme to get out there is McCain will show us what it would have been like had Cheney was President rather than Bush.

Just once I would like somebody to call him out on that crap. "Senator McCain, you say that you know HOW to catch Bin Laden but apparently you intend to keep that knowledge secret until and unless you are elected president. While we wait, Bin Laden could be planning attacks that will kill thousands of Americans. Given that possibility, isn't your refusal to share your knowledge an act of treason?"

"chase Osama to the gates of hell"
Wait. Isn't that from a Sprinsteen song?

"“If I have to follow him to the gates of hell, I will get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice. I will do that and I know how to do that. I will get that done,” -- McCain.

Indeed, Barack Obama should vow, that if elected, he will ask Senator McCain to lead a mission to the Gates of Hell to fetch Osama bin Laden. I think this is a pledge that McCain should be held to even if unsuccessful in his bid for the Presidency.

user-pic

If I were an information challenged independent voter, what I learned last night from the bits and pieces of those interviews that I watched, is that one candidate is a genuine American Hero, who never caves under pressure, has firm solidly believed morals, is an independent thinker and truth teller. He is also very experienced and has a good grasp of the terrible threat of Islam to America. The other guy is young, untested, talks a lot, and doesn't look at all like my Daddy. Guess who I would vote for.

Unless the Democrats can frame McCain as something different from the above, he will win. They need to get started.

user-pic

I agree. Once again, we've allowed the Republicans to frame the agenda. They've scored on the Georgia thing not because it's a real threat but because it's a distraction from the issues that Americans WANT to talk about and need to talk about all of our needs at home. They're letting the election be about "values" which is about comfort with the status quo/fear of change and Obama can't win that one. They've not only failed to get the focus on the economy they've allowed the foreign policy debate to be focused on "threats" rather than the strategic blunders that are costing us trillions.

When are Democrats ever going to learn that they cannot win by standing for NOTHING. They have to have the balls to at least pick one big issue that they are willing to sail into the wind with and fight for it. Instead, they pander on every issue which reinforces the Republican's core theme that they are weak. They are weak! They don't have the moral courage to fight for anything or anyone.

I agree. Obama and the dem's must define McCain.

The operative word here is information challenged. Your theory is based on the idea the undecideds right now are those that delve into the information about the issues. At some level, I wouldn't argue that. But here's the kicker: I don't need to know (or care to know) the intricacies of oil prices and the Georgian conflict to know that no one can say exactly what McCain morals and values are.

What McCain and Company have to accept is that those who are going to buy into the idea that he must be patriotic and moral because he was a POW are ALREADY supporting him. That is why he has been between 42 and 44 percent since April.

The rest of low information voters want something MORE than just I'm a POW.

you have low information voters confused with someone else.

user-pic

I think if you were an information challenged voter, you would have seen a bunch of Olympic events, and not the forum at Saddleback.

Exactly.
What Saddleback debate?
I was more interested on Phelps winning a gold medal.

Some people here need to take a deep breath.
Obama gets assailed for not talking about the economy and trying too hard to establish foreign policy cred, then gets assailed for not saying anything about Georgia like a Republican would.
Gang, this isn't 2004, and Obama isn't John Kerry.
Like war, people like to fight the new war using the last war's strategy.
It usually works in neither case.

I was less than impressed with the last nights forum. Its was more about Rick Warren and less about the candidates perspective. McCain is perceived to of won because he appeared to be rehearsed. Obama was more concrete and nuanced. Overall the forum was lame--there is a reason why we the laws of church and separation.

Last nights forum was not impressive. Its was more about Rick Warren and less about the candidates perspective. The questions were typical accompanied by typical answers. McCain is perceived to of won because he appeared to be rehearsed. Obama was more concrete and nuanced. Overall the forum was lame--there is a reason why we the laws of church and separation in our country.

MCcain was campainging and Rick Warren let him, It also seemed to me taht he was briefed.

Could've sworn I heard somewhat that he might have been receiving text messages. Wonder if that "cone of silence" also a cone of dead zone for wireless service.

That should read,

Could've sworn I heard somewhere that he might have been receiving text messages. Wonder if that "cone of silence" was also a cone of dead zone for wireless service.

He seemed to have been a little TOO sharp that night. I want an investigation.

His answer to the supreme court question was the give away.

McCain wasn't sharp at all. The question about the 3 wisest people upon whom you would rely as president knocked him on his ass. He quickly trotted out Petraeus, because he sees the world through the lens of military engagement and he wants to talk about the "surge" at any possible chance, but you saw his brain completely shut down by the time he got to the third. He finally tossed out Meg Whitman because so many people are making money selling their stuff on eBay. Great John - the economy is so completely hosed that the only way people have left to make money is with a giant garage sale.

McCain was rehersed in that he went in with talking points he wanted to hit and was able to pivot from any question to the answers he wanted to give, but he didn't know the questions in advance. The questions didn't even matter to him.

Agreed. At first I thought he must have had the questions first because his answers were so quick. But then I realized that there was no thought behind his answers.

"When does life begin?"

"At conception. Next."

"What should we do with Evil?"

"Defeat it. Next."

"Define marriage?"

"One man, one woman. Next."

"What defines 'rich'"

"I will not raise your taxes. Next."

Mix in a couple stump speech retreads, tired jokes and anecdotes we've all heard many, many times, and you have McCain's performance last night.

LOL. Thanks hyper. That's another way (and probably truer) way of looking at it.

Your post is so on point!! I always thought David Gurgen was pro Hillary, but he was spot on last night! If Obama doesnt tighten up he is going to do badly in the debates. I thought Obama was great and all Mccain did was ramble but it seems that what the people wanted....go figure?

"I thought Obama was great and all Mccain did was ramble but it seems that what the people wanted....go figure?"

And nothing else matters except what the people want. That's how you win elections. Elections aren't about you going down in flames while scoring a few points with Frank Rich for pragmatism and thoughtfulness. Elections are about winning. Frank Rich won't mean a motherfuckin' thing to nobody when we turn on the news late night November 4th and see the US map covered in a sea of red.

I hope Obama comes around to this realization.

A lot of callers called Cspan and seemed to think he had the questions b4 the Forum. Some said they were Independants and Obama really connected with them.

It's feedback like that restores my faith. I think at times we focus too much on the voter who is just voting so he can shoot his gun when and where he wants to. When Bush wins for a second time it understandable, but the reality is that there are plenty of "independents" who just looking for a candidate that he or she connects with, ie you're on my side and 4 years later my life and this county will be better off.

You need to stop snorting meth and watching "Rocky IV" over and over.

That was probably directed to me, right?

You could learn a lot from Rocky IV, young man.

user-pic

Since we are a nation founded on religious pluralism - no matter what the bible thumpers say - it's only right that McCain and Obama debate before Catholics, Protestants of all persuasions, Jews, Muslims and any other group who professes a religion. Or is the religion of the Saddleback malevolent devine and his congregation now our State Religion.

The fact that Obama and McCain didn't decline the Saddleback invitation really should scare the bejesus out of all of us.

user-pic

I agree. First they bully the guy out of the UCC and then he's off pandering to right wing politically suspect mega churches. Let's put McCain and Obama before the Pope then. The Pope and I have our differences but at least we agree on war and I'd like to hear McCain go head to head with Benedict on his theory that the answer to every problem is invading countries and destroying villages. Equal time for the Pope!!!

If Obama blows it off, they he gets accused of flipping off the evangelicals by ignoring the invitation.
This is politics.
Sometimes you have to go into enemy territory to cut down the home team's margin of victory, and to show you're not a wuss.

user-pic

Re: Saddleback event:

It was a set-up. Luckily, Obama did not hurt himself. However, it did permit McCain the opportunity to persuade any fence-sitting evangelicals that he was one of them. He would appoint right-wing judges. Life began at conception. His guard, when he was a POW, drew a cross in the sand and they prayed together - before he erased it with his foot - just like the character in the Ben Hur movie. Let's hope McCain is not confusing reality with the movies, as Ronald Reagan did?

How was it decided that Obama would go first? Did they flip a coin? Heads, you win! You get to go first? And who actually believes that McCain was in a cone of silence and did not have access to the questions? Wanna buy a bridge? This has "set-up" written all over it. Rick Warren is a GOP operative? It does appear so.

user-pic

When McCain told that guard and cross story - the first I'd heard of it - it seemed like the gesture could be interpreted as an anti-Christian taunt as much as "two Christians praying together."

There's an interesting diary over at Kos about that story:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/17/122230/161/239/569299

user-pic

Whoa, this could be a big deal, that is if team Obama had the first clue as to how to effectively deploy attack surrogates.

This is big opportunity to blow a hole in the foundation of McCain's argument for the presidency. If Obama's too milquetoasty to handle this task, people in the blogosphere should do it for him.

The viral video entrepreneurs among us should see what they can do with this whopper of a revelation. How about McCain as a serial plagiarizer: 1) Cindy McCain's cookies 2) the Wikipedia Georgia flap 3) McCain's imprinsonment - all fraught with lies.

Very interesting...

McCain could say he was visited by aliens on a nightly basis while he was a POW and nobody would blink an eye.

Neither the MSM nor Obama surrogates will touch this.

user-pic

A good video that "goes viral" would prove irresistible to the MSM in its lazy search for easy-to-get, time-filling pulp.

If I had the skillz, I'd do it myself.

If there was a good viral video on this and the MSM picked it up the story would be "Obama web supporters smear McCain's military service".

user-pic

No one thought that swift boating Kerry would be taken seriously either. Undermining McCain's military record a concerted, organized effort on multiple levels - Vietnam vets, former Senate colleagues (all we need are Cochran-type quotes here), experts on Russian literature, "concerned citizens," McCain's own service records etc., that when taken together will be taken seriously as a movement to question McCain's credentials.

Of course the MSM talking heads will poo-poo any effort to impugn McCain's record, but the point is to get the message out and hit it hard and don't stop.

There are a lot of former vets absolutely po'ed at McCain over his POW/MIA stance who would be delighted to call McCain's service into question. Group these people w/an expert "authority," some left-wing Corsi stand in, who prattles about McCain's record of deception combining equal parts Keating 5, Georgia lobbyist as campaign guru, and the plagiarism from the Gulag, mix together and presto: instant Manchurian candidate.

I've heard the cross in the sand story from McCain before, however the way I remember it was the guard who loosened the ropes wrote the cross in the sand at that time. Now maybe my memory is wrong, or maybe McCain combined the two stories in the past.

Another thing about the story, it says more about the guards catholic beliefs and "Jesus in his every day life" than anything about John McCain.

user-pic

Here's an interesting article ostensibly from McCain's pen.

Kentuck, Actually Rick Warren said they did flip a coin, but I also believed Mccain knew the questions, and what was the deal with Limp Lindsey and Cindy in the audience? I'm from SC and I am so ashamed of him!

There's an interesting diary over at Kos about that story//Wow!! How do we get this to KO?

"IT'S THE ECONOMY, STUPID!" I still think that Obama will win handily, but winning elections these days is all about framing the issues and being the squeaky wheel that gets the media grease, and Obama has to pound in the message that the Republicans and McCain in particular, have royally screwed up on the economy and made us much worse off than we were 8 years ago!

I really feel like the Obama campaign and the Dems in general need to be more, yes-- Machiavellian. I'm being serious here, b/c I'm tired of the Democrats being known as the party of the "noble losers." It's not that Obama himself needs to do the dirty work, but he needs his proxies to be willing to punch hard, the way Paul Begala used to back in 1992. (And no, I don't think for a second that Hillary Clinton would be a better nominee-- she had a war chest of $300 million and was still so disorganized that she lost the nomination, plus all the corruption surrounding the Clintons' fundraising scandals and the Clinton Foundation, with all the suspicious donations, would provide enough fodder for the Republicans to savor through 2016. And no, forget about 2012, Clinton supporters-- if the Dems were to lose the WH in 2008, the Clintons would get the blame and face permanent ostracism, considering their and especially Bill's less-than-enthusiastic embrace of the nominee and their own distracting scandals.)

One thing that irritates me about many of the progressive/Democratic blogs, is the constant complaining about/frustration with media one-sided-ness, McCain's pandering and the fact that Obama is more respectable and accomplished. All of these things are true, but what matters, quite simply, is-- what wins you 51% of the vote on Election Day?

The media is what it is. The messed-up, corrupt system we have is what we have, for now. You still need to win election within in to have power to effect change. So you need to push hard within it. Don't complain about the media, don't say that "deep-down, Obama is better" b/c none of that matters-- what matters is perception and winning the votes.

I sometimes think Obama should have just skipped this damn forum in the first place, to have guaranteed a more favorable audience. In fact, Obama in the future should try to bait McCain into having these little mini-sessions in the midst of the Urban League, with labor-union voters in Ohio who were screwed by McCain's DHL decision, with homeowners facing foreclosure-- something that'll make him look bad.

Maybe whispering campaigns about McCain's divorce of his first wife to marry a trophy wife, the fact that he called his wife a c**t, the apparent affairs-- just make McCain look bad!

And most of all, THE ECONOMY! Don't let this election be about "the homicidal towelheads" and other irrelevancies-- the economy is by far the strongest issue for the Democrats! Especially as new economic data constantly emerges. Hit the Republicans right, left and center over the economy! Highlight the foreclosures, the $10 trillion national debt and other disasters brought on by Republican mismanagement.

I don't like our current political system anymore than the rest of the you do, but if the USA is going to survive, we cannot afford a noble loser in 2008. We need a winner, and we need to hit the Republicans hard.

Perhaps most of all, PLEASE REGISTER BLACKS AND LATINOS TO VOTE! Wherever you are! Remember, by law any community with a large community of minority-language speakers must have ballots in those languages, so any area with a large Latino population must have Spanish-language registration materials and ballots. (This has been a practice in the Southwest since the Mexican War for example, and in Florida as well.) Mass voter registration of minorities may be the single most efficient way to boost Democratic prospects this year!

And yes, soundbites do matter. Again, I don't like this particular electoral system and media environment, but it's what we have. One other improvement that Obama needs to make in his campaign, is to condense his messages better, to say things in simple sentences with simple messages no longer than a single phrase. Again, focus on the economy first and foremost, and on that and other issues, say things simply and crisply. Don't ramble and get too complicated, just stay on point with crisp, simple, sound-bite messages. For the ads that go on a bit longer, still keep the message crisp and focused, simple, and hit the heart, embarrassing the Republicans.

"Foolish policies by Republicans like John McCain have brought about massive foreclosures and bankruptcies for ordinary Americans, enormous suffering due to inflation, and increasing unemployment. {Then give condensed version of economic plan with goodies geared specifically to regular Americans.}" That's it. Simple, focused, hard-hitting messages that show how the Republicans are blundering and incompetent, even insensitive to ordinary Americans, while Obama cares for them-- that's what we need.

One last point here-- Democrats need to realize that in the electoral climate we have in the USA, when framing issues is so important, winning is a matter not just of answering questions well, but of CHANGING THE SUBJECT TO FAVORABLE TERRITORY FOR OUR TEAM.

When the Republicans try to bring up pictures of scary terrorists, the Democrats should hammer home the message of McCain's failures on the economy, an issue that touches Americans much more fundamentally. When the GOP starts making stupid comments about taking on big-bad Russia, the Democrats should respond by talking about GOP failures on the economy. Values? Respond by changing the topic and bringing it back to the economy!

STAY ON TOPIC! This election is all about the economy, and Democrats must work vigorously to ensure that the conversation stays on this ground!

Examine this map:
http://www.pollster.com/
With exception of Ohio (I learned in 2004 not to trust the voters of Ohio) there's a very good chance Obama will win every blue and and light blue state. That's 264 electoral votes. All he'll need is 6 more. If he wins Virginia, Ohio or Colorado, that's it.

I'll see if I can bring together a couple of different parts of the saddleback forum here...

Obama (as I expected) showed a good grasp of the historic Christian teachings and I thought challenged his audience to tie together the verses with actual policy ideas. McCain went with his canned story of the cross in the sand at the Hanoi Hilton (which is his stock-in-trade) as already used in ads earlier this year. Nothing new here move along...

However, on the economic front... Obama explained in precise terms that there's a difference between those in the $150K-$250K range and the rest of the general population; those making $250K and up being in the top 2 to 3% of the income ladder here in the US - making a valid point that those at the very top of the income scale should pay a bit more in taxes and those below pay less.

McCain on the other hand just threw out a number $5 Million as the point at which someone is wealthy - so all those folks who have a mere 1 or 2 million in income are just peons getting by like the rest of us?? So the next time the GOP wants to start bragging about how we're the greatest and richest nation on earth(!!) it might be helpful to ask them what exactly they mean by that tripe (propaganda) when 98-99% of our people are not by McCain's own definition "wealthy" and most would be considered actually poor - and not better off than they were Four or Eight years ago - and in fact their children saddled with debt are likely to be even worse off.

Did McCain say 5 million in income? Or net worth?

I just found the quote. Holy crap he said income. What a dumbass.

Either would have been an appalling statement, but yes, he said income, which is even worse:

http://www.thepersonalispolitical.com/2008/08/mccains-disgusting-elitism-not-so.html

Obama is a gifted actor when tightly scripted.
At improv, he fails miserably.
Last night he failed the audition.
Retail politics is largely theater.
Obama needs to find a new career because from here on out he will not be saved by a script.

Line please...line please....

"Obama is a gifted actor when tightly scripted.
At improv, he fails miserably."

..a clumsy talking point that seems to be born out of the collective asses of the desperate.

You need to look up the definition of "retail politics."

Okay, will do.

Perhaps Wholesale politics is a better term. But retail works too. Candidates presenting themselves to voters in any public forum, even one on one is theater.

mccain was a POW I never heard that

John McCain's Economic Policy: Don't worry about your job or your income or any other national priorities like energy production - that's all chump change - Besides if you think there's a problem with the Economy it's all in YOUR Head.

oh and if you're worried about anything at all just remember to have a Budweiser you'll feel so much better (and so will Cindy & I).

I'm John McCain and I approved this message ;)

I'm liking Kaine on mtp.

The ohio Poll is not reliable. 18% of the black vote for McbushSame - not a chance...


the breakdown of female to male is 55-45.
Mccain wins males 47-42.
Obama wins females 47-42.

How can they still be tied then?

Obama's lead among women is equal to mccains among men, but there are 10% more women in the poll!

Explain please?

Not just the highly unlikely 18 % of AA voters but the fact that with the high advantage of Obama with independents and he gets only a total tie...

You know, these polls are leaving more questions than answers. Not just now, but since the primaries.

After the election, there should be a deep review on the whole polling issue. The numbers maybe don't lie, but those who make the math does and if they want it, they could make 2 + 2 = 5

I wonder if McCain might have been somehow fed the questions beforehand. Asked what three people have the wisdom he respects most and would depend on while making decisions in the whitehouse, he quickly rattled off Petraus, then a soldier who suffered a head injury, and then somebody I never heard of, the founder of Ebay. Really? This is who he'd depend on as he sought sage advice during his presidency? I doubt it, but the triad sure plays to three key areas: fear (the war and general P), our patriotism and national pride (the inujured warrior), and our economic anxieties (the uber-successful businessperson who started Ebay). I missed Obama's answers. Who did he list?

Ted Strickland telling Obama to toughen up is like Justice Scalia telling the interrogators at Guantanomo to be nice.


The Strickland's and Bayh's and Reid's and Schumer's and Hoyer's and McAulife's and Emanuel's of the party have so infiltrated it with pro-business pro-warmongers centrists who won't support anyone's platform but their own should quit the two faced bullsh$$.
I've seen the same demoralized look in Obama as I saw in Hackett and Lamont and Feingold and even in Governor Dean after the insiders were done screwing them over.

Strickland is one of the DLC bunch - whining boring castratos like Harold Ford Jr. who've so split the party - real Democrats don't have the platform or the microphone anynmore.

MSNBC for example/ has aired most of it's Left wing views from Harold Ford's point of view - views like " Well, gee I sure hope them Democrats in West Virginia don't see the Germans liking Obama too much".
That's the new ticket for '08- winning over the white racists voters .

Good Job Harold!

This poll is yet another in which the AA vote breakdown is just not realistic. Only 13% turn out? In 04 the Ohio AA turn out was 13.6 so this is a lower number and somehow McNero gets 18%?? Are ffing kidding me? Additionally was this poll conducted before or after DHL?

user-pic

Hey, you think that's bad, you should see the tragicomedy in Al Franken's ad for the Minnesota Senate seat.

He literally has a Texas Republican with a Texas drawl telling Minnesota we should vote for Al because he's a real patriot. Stood up for helments for the troops and all.

That's the kind of confidence our party has. When a Minnesota Democrat thinks he needs a Texas Republican's endorsement for a Minnesota office, it's the end of the world as we know it.

After 8 years of Bush, he thinks we want to hear a Texas Republican. You can't make this stuff up.

Granted, I'm not from Minn., but I thought it was a fantastic ad....showing that there's more to supporting the troops than flap pins and car magnets.

user-pic

I want them supported with airline tickets home. I so fed up with this pandering to right patriotic b.s. Meanwhile, phony Norm the incumbent has a touchy feely ad about saving kids with cancer. Talk about role reversal. Al's got the fighting Texans on his side and Norm's fighting for health care. If the voters get confused and vote for Norm, well, who could blame them!

Yeah....screw Al Franken for trying to get them better helmets. Splitter. Better that they die of unnecessary head wounds than give an inch to the right wing. That'll show 'em.

Look, I understand your frustration...I think people need to be facing prison time for everything that's happened over the past 7 years, but geez...it's that sort of hyperbole that allows the right wing to get away with the "why do Dems hate the troops?" crap.

user-pic

I'm all for effective helmets, but it's so over the top defeatist to think that a Minnesota Democrat needs a Texas Republican to affirm his patriotism. He should be telling us he's proud to be a Minnesotan following in the footsteps of Paul Wellstone who bravely voted against the war and following Paul's commitment to Minnesota veterans. (Wellstone had a genuine commitment to veterans long before the Iraq war). That's what I want to hear.

Maybe it's because I'm from Texas, but I didn't give a second thought to the fact that the guy was from Texas (or that he was Rep., other than to think...."well, he obviously doesn't have any other ulterior motive here"), but it obviously seems to really be bothering you. Is there some sort of anti-TX thing you guys have going on in Minn? We're not all like Bush, ya know, and quite frankly, any real Texan doesn't even consider Bush one of us....he was born in Conn for chrissakes.

Anyway, I didn't think he was there to affirm his patriotism...I thought he was there to show that Franken did a pretty good thing of his own accord and that he could work with people regardless of ideology for some greater purpose.

I think the Wellstone idea is great,...why don't you suggest it to his campaign? There may be some concern over trying to co-opt a deceased person's memory for political purposes, though. Hillary caught some flack for doing that with Ann Richards during the primary I seem to recall.

user-pic

So they're running the ad outside of Minnesota? Isn't that just typical. Here's a guy who hasn't sold Minnesotans on the idea that he still is a Minnesotan and they're wasting money to frame the party as warrior friendly, and during the Olympics, of course, wouldn't want to give Americans the idea Democrats buy into this peaceful world stuff.

I think I saw it on a website....in fact I think it might have been here on TPM, but I can't be sure.

Democratic affiliated pollster PPP says Obama lost 8 points in Ohio in the last month, leading to a tied race there. Since PPP gave Obama his biggest lead in OH of any pollster this year (11 points on June 15), you can be sure that McCain is actually ahead there. Rasmussen's last OH poll had McCain ahead by 10 points.

On RCP's homepage, McCain is now listed ahead in OH, MO, FL, CO, and VA.

McCain's celebrity/messiah complex (antichrist subtext)/tax-raiser attack ads are taking their toll on Barack the arugula eater. Will he fight back?

Only an orangutan would think that McTemper will get 18% of the AA vote.

Let the DHL commercial play for awhile, let all the Ohioans hear McTemper announce that "rich" only applies to those making over $5 million a year....and then we'll see what the polls have to say.

Obama is folding faster than Superman on laundry day.

His terrible performance yesterday is a perfect example of this.

His terrible performance yesterday is a perfect example of this.

How was he expected to compete with McCheater? It's easy to answer the questions if you know them ahead of time.

Wait a flippin' minute. Looks like McSame was NOT in the so-called "Cone of Silence"

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/18/us/politics/18mccain.html

Senator John McCain was not in a so-called cone of silence on Saturday night while his rival, Senator Barack Obama, was being interviewed at the Saddleback Church in California.

The McCain campaign, which flew here Sunday from California, said Mr. McCain was in his motorcade on the way to the church as Mr. Obama was being interviewed by the Rev. Rick Warren.

The matter is of interest because Mr. McCain, who followed Mr. Obama’s hourlong appearance in the forum, was asked virtually the same questions as Mr. Obama. Mr. McCain’s performance was well received, raising speculation among some viewers, especially supporters of Mr. Obama, that he was not as isolated during the Obama interview as Mr. Warren implied.

Can our weak-kneed "supporters" kindly calm the eff down? This is not Obama's base; it's supposed to be McSame's. All Obama had to do was to be reasonable and show that he respects them and their opinions.

McSame, OTOH sucks so badly before his "base" that he had to cheat in order to get it right. Ha!

Meanwhile, Obama's headed to Martinsville/Henry County, Va. on Wednesday. They've been hit especially hard by job loss in that area.

I'm getting in late here, but I think this is an important point that I haven't seen anyone mention so far.

Now that I've watched the show at Saddleback, I'm not surprised that people thought McCain had the questions beforehand. He seemed so smooth and confident whereas Obama seemed tentative and always a little off balance (although the content of what he said was usually, after too much erring and ahhing, very good).

Why? Go back and watch a bit of it again. During Obama's entire hour, Rick is constantly sending him "wrap it up" signals. Usually not verbally, but by very impatient sounding "uh huh"s and so on. The general demeanor of the interviewer seems to be, "Don't try to put one over on me, buddy, I'm tired of all your rhetoric." If you don't believe me, please review the part where Obama actually says as much: "Oh, I'm getting the cues." or something to that effect. That kind of treatment can really put a crimp in one's style.

And what about McCain? He gets a big bear hug and the two of them sound like old straight-talkin' buddies.

With such obviously unprofessional and biased treatment, it's a wonder Obama came off as well as he did, and garnered so much applause with this audience.

However, some say McCain was not in the "cone of silence" during Obama's interview and was aware of the questions to be asked...

• The Politico -- McCain campaign protests NBC's coverage: Rick Davis, manager of Republican John McCain's presidential campaign, called Sunday "for a meeting with Steve Capus, the president of NBC News, to protest what the campaign called signs that the network is 'abandoning non-partisan coverage of the presidential race.' " The trigger was a comment by NBC's Andrea Mitchell, who said on the air Sunday that some aides to Democrat Barack Obama thought McCain might have been listening Saturday as Obama was being questioned during Pastor Rick Warren's "civil forum" (Warren had said McCain would be in a "cone of silence). The McCain campaign says the candidate did not hear any of the Obama-Warren exchanges.


This particular reporter was seen as biased rather frequently during the primary. Perhaps, she could be temporarily replaced. There was very energetic reactions from the Obama campaign against Chris Matthews who exposed a Democratic politician in Texas as being incapable of naming a single piece of substantial legislation that Obama had initiated. Matthews got all "tingle-ly" later, "correcting" his under-enthusiastic coverage of the candidate in question. Another journalist on that station tends to be somewhat less fawning about Obama.

What has to be taken into consideration is that the Obama campaign has a lot more money to throw around ... and they do thrown it around. The word "Glitzkrieg", a Blitzkrieg of glittery advertising, typifies the Obama campaign style.
McCain comes across as "plain" in comparison, which is not necessarily a negative attribute in places like my home state of Pennsylvania or Ohio or Michigan.

user-pic

McCAIN WOULD RATHER START A WAR THAN LOSE AN ELECTION. He has a paid foreign agent lobbying him for his support of Georgia to the point of promising US involvement in a cold war.

Obama needs to make this charge known because unlike McCains charge that Obama would rather lose a war (which republicans have done all by their lonesome)in Iraq than lose an election the charge that McCain would rather start a war than lose an election is demonstrably clear as he has attempoted to do exactly that by getting Georgia to attack Russia first relying on the US military to back them up...information given to them by Shunerman of the McCain campaign along with Rove's mysterious presence in the region. Thinking the American public will just pick up on the obvious is not enough...Obama needs to be drilling this point home and stop being so respectful that he does what the press is doing and giving McCain a pass. POW McCain is dead. This McCain is a lobbyist pawn unworthy of representing our nation. The Georgian president did ethnic cleansing and is not a representative of democracy but of a back door double dealing lobbyist power broker. The US media is only telling one slanted side of this story...one that Shunerman has been lobbied to sell us. Georgian military bombed their own cities 3days in a row. Russians are pointing this out but the US press is ignoring it.

user-pic

I'll say it again: What I am most angry about is ,,,THIS IS AMERICA AND WE ARE HAVING A MAJOR CAMPAIGN “DISCUSSION”/EVENT IN A CHRISTIAN MEGA-CHURCH MODERATED BY A PREACHER. I find the whole event offensive to my sense of democracy. This is not a “Christian” theocracy and this event is setting a precedence for future campaigns to be all about religion. Next election will it be held in a Catholic cathedral, a Jewish temple or a Muslim mosque?
I see no way of stopping it but view it as a warning of things to come because already the minister is telling us what God wants and what he says(according to whom?) with this comment…”…Their personal life does matter as a leader. God says so.”…”

History has shown us what happens when religion and government mix and it’s never been good. The pressure to pander for Christian votes by allowing political campaigns to debate issues in front of the cross and the ten commandments instead of the constitution and the flag is an insult to our democratic republic and our founding fathers. The damage from this will be irreversible no matter how well it goes now. It welcomes the idea that “when fascism comes to America it will be draped with the flag and carrying a cross”. Get your cameras out.

user-pic

This I posted at Carpetbagger Sunday/18th but bares repeating here since most of it comes from driftglass:

You could see this was a set up a mile away. Just like you could see the 12 billion dollars sent shrink wrapped into a war zone from the moon if it were stacked on top of itself…meanwhile McCain is busy referencing 3million on some obscure DNA ape exploration. Notice none of the huge pork spending from the DOD was mentioned. Right wing set up made sure there was no mention of lobbyists or lying us into a war or politicalization of the DoJ. Nothing of the overwhelming power breaches of the executive branch under republican control. Driftglass say it best:

“…After all, if the last 30 years of GOP politics has proven anything, it’s that Conservative horse-shit has a “strong influence on the weak-minded”.

…1. Never trust these motherfuckers. Ever. They will never leave the business of winning and losing to anything that smells of “free and fair”, because they know if they do they’ll lose every time. Every game they run is crooked, every piety they utter is a lie, and every deck they deal from is stacked, marked and frozen.

So…

2. Never, ever fight them on ground of their choosing.

PLEASE PLANT 1 & 2 FIRMLY IN YOU MEMORY so you will never forget.

Feel like Charlie Brown running to kick that football Lucy is holding yet. How many ways do they have to cheat before you realize they can’t be trusted…ever…they think it’s okay to steal elections, to disenfranchise voters, to eve allow the SC to install them to power over the votes of the American people….you really think that a little thing like hearing the questions and Obama’s answers before hand (with so much riding on it) would be any kind of big deal to them…how fucking naive can you get.

It accomplished 2 things 1) buffed that little turd of phony hypocrisy to an acceptable gloss, and 2)got a Christian church environment moderator’s nasty little foot in the door of our campaign process permanently. These mass murdering Jesus worshipers torture people and lie about it so cheating accounts for little to nothing in their moral scale.

Now they can get busy with the viral emails threatening a “nation under Allah” if Obama is elected, now that the Christian base can say “I’ve got nothing against McCain…he gave good answers and seemed nice”. It won’t matter in the long run because too many people see through McCain and anyone basing their vote on that Saddleback jibberish hasn’t got the brains god gave a goose. Condone this war seeker at your own (and everybody else’s ) peril.

Leave a comment

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address