McCain's Hero Petraeus: "I Do Think You Have To Talk To Enemies"
So General Petraeus agrees with Barack Obama -- and not John McCain -- on the question of whether we should meet with hostile enemies?
In an interview that aired on CBS last night, John McCain, when asked which three living people he'd like to have dinner with most, promptly chose General Petraeus. McCain frequently hails Petraeus as an "American hero."
McCain, however, might not enjoy that dinner so much if he heard Petraeus' views on one of the leading foreign policy differences he has with Barack Obama.
In a case of comically awful timing, Petraeus yesterday gave a talk at the Heritage Foundation in which he more or less echoed Barack Obama's views on negotiating with hostile foreign leaders -- views that McCain has repeatedly subjected to criticism and ridicule.
Asked by a questioner specifically about the disagreement on this topic that McCain and Obama had at Tuesday night's debate, Petraeus demurred a bit, but said: "I do think you have to talk to enemies."
"I'm not trying to get into the middle of domestic politics," Petraeus also said, "but I mean what we did do in Iraq ultimately was sit down with some of those that were shooting at us. What we tried to do was identify those who might be reconcilable."
Petraeus' comments were reported on yesterday by Spencer Ackerman and were noted elsewhere today, and we think they deserve more attention. We went to the video on Heritage's site to get a longer transcript, and sure enough, the context shows that Petraeus was more or less backing up Obama's point of view.
What Petraeus said isn't a perfect endorsement of Obama's views -- he didn't specifically discuss Iran, and the question of "no preconditions" didn't come up -- but it's pretty darn close.
That's because it's as clear as day that the context specifically was the debate between Obama and McCain on this topic on Tuesday night. During that exchange, the candidates clashed on whether to meet with the leaders of Iran, and the questioner at Heritage posed the subject about talking to enemies specifically in that light.
And while Petraeus did say he didn't see Tuesday's debate, the general no doubt knows precisely what the disagreement between the two men is on this topic. So the question Petraeus was asked was basically the same as him being asked whose views he endorsed when it comes to the two men's very public disagreement. Petraeus' own joke about not wanting to wade into "a minefield" and his allusion to not getting "involved in domestic politics" would suggest that that's how he saw the question, too.
And Petraeus more or less picked the Obama argument.
Maybe Petraeus and McCain can discuss this at dinner someday.
Full transcript after the jump.
Late Update: Video added above.
Late Late Update: Petraeus's spokesperson, Steven Boylan, contests our interpretation of what the General said, and sends over this statement:
Some of the remarks made by Gen Petraeus at the Heritage Foundation have been misinterrepted and mischarecterized. At no time did he state or intimate that he agrees with or disagrees with either candidates views on foreign policy. Gen Petraeus remains a-political in his remarks and actions. In his response to a question about the debate, he clearly stated that he was not getting into domestic politics and that he had not seen the debate.He did provide a response based on his experiences as a military commander and those experiences based in Iraq. In his response to the question Gen Petraeus was referring to talking with our enemies that are facing us in Iraq such as the Sunni and Shia extremists to determine who is reconcilable and who is irreconcilable. In the same regard, he was referring to the potential to have the same type of discussions with various elements/members of the Taliban as we did in Iraq with AQI and other extremeists.
QUESTION: One question, it came up in the debate last night, I know it has to do--Petraeus: Oh, I'm not walking into minefields now [laughter from crowd). I try to go around --
QUESTION: It was a British general who said we must learn how to talk to our enemy. A british general -- not a U.S. Can you comment?
Petraeus: Well, all I would say -- I didn't actually see that, we were doing some other stuff last night -- look, I'm trying to go around minefields these days, not blunder into them. But I do think you have to talk to enemies.
I mean again, you've got to set things up, you've got to know who you're talking to, you've got to have your objectives straight, all the rest of this stuff. I mean, so I'm not trying to get into the middle of domestic politics. But I mean what we did do in Iraq ultimately was sit down with some of those that were shooting at us. What we tried to do was identify those who might be reconcilable.
Cindy McCain calls Obama's the "dirtiest campain in history".
Obama may have bought a $3 million projector.
But McCain is married to a $100 million projector.
Now...
Let us reflect on the gift that Sarah Palin has given us all:
http://thetruthburns.wordpress.com/2008/10/09/maybe-i-aint-no-genius-but-is-sure-is-smartern-her/
October 9, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
the new head of state?
October 9, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
he's certainly auditioning for the role.
October 9, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mercifully short, though.
October 9, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, at least it's shorter.
October 9, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oooh. Love the "projector" line.
It makes sense that Petraeus would identify more with Obama than McCain. Much more similar in outlook and temperament.
October 9, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that attitude in Petraeus is probably born of the realization that his decisions directly result in good men and women dying.
Something McCain likely doesn't give a flying duck about.
October 9, 2008 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wish someone would speak up about that damn projector! Here's what the planetarium in question has to say:
http://www.adlerplanetarium.org/pressroom/pr/2008_10_08_AdlerStatement_aboutdebate.pdf
October 9, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
It just aint in the cards for McCain...Can he just scream Uncle and get it over with?
October 9, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right side of history is a tough opponent to bully up on. We
October 9, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whoa. Guess I hit enter a little quickly!
Welcome to Realityland, Senator McCain. Make yourself uncomfortable.
October 9, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Common Sense 1. McCain 0.
http://pufferfish.typepad.com/
October 9, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's not the real scoreboard:
Common Sense 70, McCain 0
And there's more touchdowns on the way!
October 9, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's rather difficult to know thy enemy if you don't talk to thy enemy.
October 9, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Talking to the enemy might jeopardize your preconceptions. That's just not the neocon way.
October 9, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
We only talk to our enemies *after* they greet us as liberators.
October 9, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain's favorite general....
talking with the enemy....
without preconditions....
"the horror, the horror"
October 9, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
It just gets worse for McCain at every turn.
How many times has he invoked this name, Saint-like, in hushed tones?
I'm tempted to do one of those bwaaa haah haah things here but I'm far too sophisticated for that.
October 9, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
McLame is like the third-grade Hollywood agent. Always claims they are friends, just because some big shot shook his hand in 1984.
It's clear Patreaus gives rat's ass about their friendship.
October 9, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a perfect analogy that hits on so much of what makes McCain a total hypocrite in a way that his former MSM pals couldn't miss.
October 9, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
You guys keep distorting the argument...the question is do you hold Presidential level direct talks without precondition? Obama says yes (it's still on his website), everyone you keep claiming agrees with him (including Biden during the primary) say no!
October 9, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you don't talk to enemies until they agree to all of your demands? Which would mean that they're not really enemies anymore at that point.
It's a bogus question, is the point.
How do you GET conditions, by the way, if you have no channels of communication with enemies?
But I suppose you disagree with Petreaus too. Ah well.
October 9, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
No one is distorting the argument. We just understand the argument. Precondition v. Preparation. Do you?
October 9, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
The question is should you talk to these "bad guys" without preconditions. The question of level is academic since the state department delegate would be speaking on behalf of the president. When Bush directed Rice to open up talks with N. Korea a few weeks ago, it was "without condition" -- was that at "the Presidential level"? Even Henry the K says you have to talk to the other side "without conditions."
October 9, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
From the first presidential debate:
OBAMA: So let's talk about this. First of all, Ahmadinejad is not the most powerful person in Iran. So he may not be the right person to talk to. But I reserve the right, as president of the United States to meet with anybody at a time and place of my choosing if I think it's going to keep America safe.
What part of this don't you understand?
October 9, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for bringing out the quote. This would be lost on McCain because he doesn't really understand who Ahmadinejad is, nor I'm sure, does he understand the rest of the structure of Iranian politics, unless of course, Joe whispers little foreign policy nothings in his ear.
October 9, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
SFC,
Patreaus is no Palin. He knows the consequences of his words. He just doesn't say something like that without calculating it's interpretation.
October 9, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. Like Greg said, he answered in the context of the debate. Though he didn't watch the debate, he surely knows the ongoing argument. I think SFCWallace, like McCain, doesn't understand the difference between preparations and preconditions. And besides, not once has McCain said that he agrees with talking with them, just as long as there are preconditions.
October 9, 2008 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe that is a question, but I do not think it is fair to claim that this is the question at issue. After all, John McCain has not belittled Obama merely for saying that he would meet with Ahmadinejad. McCain also taunted Obama for his willingness to pursue diplomatic engagement with Hamas.
Mind you, this was not about president-to-president engagement with Hamas; just diplomatic engagement. In other words, the differences between these two candidates do not exist merely on the subject of top-level negotiations, but on the subject of negotiations even at lower leves. With that in mind, Petraeus is coming in on Obama's side, not McCain's.
October 9, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. I think we have to define "precondition" very carefully but why not?
October 9, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
For Wallace. I seem to be replying to the ether.
October 9, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is so silly. It's not like BO said, well, we'll have the rogue nations take a number, then I'll sit down with them first come, first served.
Nothing happens on the presidential calendar without preparation. Chill out, and look at the principle of what BO proposes, rather than trying to twist a simple statement: You must engage your adversaries if you wish to change your adversaries.
October 9, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's actually closer to what he said then Patreus or Kissinger statements. Ask Joe...he'll tell you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSFSUbMWenU
Note the picture of Ahmadinejad when they say leader of Iran so you don't say that BS about "he's not the one he was talking about."
October 9, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's in the middle there...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvZpp9QJRME
October 9, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
After all of the dick-riding McCain has done of Petraeus, you know this has to hurt. No more tea bagging for your General Petraeus! John Sydney McCain is no slut! Now Get Off My Lawn!
October 9, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh that's just great. General Happy Talk has:
* cut the legs out from under Palin on Surge To Afgahnistan
* cut the legs out from under McCain on talking to enemies
I suspect 99% of the people are going to read these and have a good laugh at McCain and Palin.
That's pefectly fine. But it's missing perhaps the deeper issue here:
Petraeus is one of the biggest political whores we've seen in the military high command in decades. At a time when Bush couldn't find anyone to take leadership of his Surge Strategy, Petraeus stepped up. He's flacked for the Bush Admin in the 2004 and 2006 campaigns. He's flacked for the Bush Admin to Congress, and to the media to sell Admin Talking Points.
So should we be surprised that Petraeus takes a look at the polls, realizes Obama is in a commanding lead, and doesn't start sprinkling some Obama Talking Points into his playbook?
Petraeus doesn't want to retire. He wants to keep either his new gig, or work his way up to the Joint Chiefs. So he's got to start working the Obama side of the aisle as well as the McCain one. He already knows that if McCain pulls a miracle out of his ass and wins this election that he'll be a "made man" within the McCain Admin and their plans for the military. But on the Obama side of the table, while the won't openly rip him strongly, I don't think Petraeus has a lot of fans in guys like Wes Clark. They know exactly what kind of a political animal that Petraeus, and also that he's more than a bit of a right winger. If Clark has a position of power in an Obama Admin, you'll see Petraeus likely pushed in the direction of retirement. Carefully to a degree because he does have his sheepish followers in Congress and the Wingnut Media (and even the MSM). But progressively towards the door where he'll need to hang them up.
So the progressive blogs might want to be careful in making General Happy Talk up to be too much of a hero or straight talker just because he contradicts McCain. Petraeus isn't a friend at all to progressive concepts of US policy in that region, or the use of the military.
John
October 9, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
From my own observation of Petraeus and his Bush-enabling actions, I agree with you that he is an opportunist. Maybe a good general as well, but most certainly with one eye on his list of ambitions.
October 9, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent observation! Petraeus didn't react very well with Senator Obama's plan (of withdrawing troops from Iraq in 16 months) because Petraeus knew full well that the "surge" was just a bandage on a festering wound, designed mainly to save Bush's ass. He knew as well who would be his likely next commander-in-chief, and being an ambitious and political military man, he has to sidle up to the winner, not a loser. Sorry McCain, the "suuuurge" did not succeed; we have not won, and we're not winning in Iraq. By the way, what kind of idiot keeps talking about "winning" an occupation?
October 9, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know what strikes me about Gen. Petraeus sandbagging McCain's central talking point on negotiations, when McCain has made his entirely foreign policy thrust dependent on his support for Petraeus?
This is excellent news for John McCain. Simply excellent.
October 9, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's shitty news for McCain.
On the other hand, I also want to see an Obama Administration run Petraeus out of the high command as soon as possible. If one has followed the politicalization of the Pentagon and their increased use of propoganda (including domestic propoganda), Petraeus is the poster boy for that.
So be happy that he's cutting the legs out from under McCain. But keep in mind that he's a master at working politicos to advance his career. We *do no* want him in roles of increasing power and authority in our military in an Obama Administration.
I'm pretty sure Clark gets this. He himself was something of a political animal while in the military. He appears not to buy the surge as a "success" at all, and seemed to have no great love of Petraeus's flacking for the Bush Admin. Hoefully Wes gets a role in the Obama Admin and can deal with Petraeus.
John
October 9, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you don't have to worry about Petraeus or any other high ranking officer in an Obama Administration. Obama understands, what John McCain doesn't: The President sets the mission, the officers implement it. If they don't, they get fired. Hell even Bush understands that.
October 9, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Except Bush hasn't set any of the plans. Cheney, the Neocons, and elements of the Pentagon willing to help gin up the numbers for the President to sign off.
The high command can have an impact. We would have bombed Iran right now if not for a rather strong Pentagon dislike for the idea.
John
October 9, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
From:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/10/impulsively-unreflective-duo-inmccain.html
The Impulsively Unreflective Duo In..."McCain Goes Negative"
In our last episode, we saw the indomitable, impulsive duo suspend the campaign to take on the Crisis on Wall Street! Now, watch, as, in our next episode...McCain Goes Negative!
McCain paces the floor in the Fortress of Irritability. He is cracking walnuts.
A walnut slips to the floor.
McCain: Damn nutcracker!
Sarah Palin is sitting in a chair at a desk. She is writing on a piece of paper: "J.M + S.P." This is then crossed out and replaced by "S.P. + J.M.". These alternating versions , the one before it always crossed out, continues down the page.
McCain: Well, the first plan didn't work. We tried to put them in a trance with the folksy ray, but they had their deflectors halfway raised. If only you hadn't called the commander in Afghanistan "McClellan"
Palin: But...didn't you say they were fighting a civil war, Sir?
McCain stops pacing, looks at Palin silently. He is smiling through tight lips but he is holding back anger.
McCain: "I think the time has come. We have to call in...Dr. Negative."
He pushes a large black button, which is the only button on a red phone on his desk.
Dr. Negative immediately bursts through the door. He is carrying flyers, masking tape; telephone wires are wrapped around his arms hanging in every way; a tattered copy of the book "Accusations of Fascism, Communism, Terrorism, Drug Use, Pedophilia, Islamism, Adultery, Pandeism, Cannibalism, Cubism, Miscegenation, and Spousal Abuse...for Dummies!" is rolled and stuffed in his left pocket, filled with bookmarks; he is dragging a Robocaller behind him, leashed to a chain.
Dr. Negative (quickly, eagerly): Did you hear? Obama was born in Bin Laden's subterranean bomb making factory, outside of U.S. lines. He was born on a pile of cocaine and dynamite--and the midwife was a Trotskyite!
McCain: Not yet, Dr. Negative. I want you to meet Sarah.
Sarah: Oh, we've already met.
Dr. Negative: That trooper went down! He poisoned the salmon milk at the Wasilla Bible school! With drugs made at a Leftist Satan worshiping collective! That you could see from Russia!
Sarah: You betcha'!
Sarah and Dr. Negative give each other a high five. Dr. Negative's telephone wires rattle on his arm as he does so, triggering the Robocaller, which starts playing "...illegitimate babies made in test tube factories in North Korea and sent to Chicago by Bill Ayers..."
Dr. Negative shuts off the Robocaller with an embarassed smile.
Dr. Negative: Just practicing.
There is a pause.
McCain: That's fine, Dr. Negative. That's fine. Because, now, I have a special job for you. An important one.
Dr. Negative leaps into the air with excited glee. As he does, detritus falls to the floor--buttons reading "Election Day: Remember, the 3rd Tuesday in November!"; business cards, reading "Push Polls Anonymous--We Call, They Fall" and "Mongers On Call-No Rumor Too Far fetched"; Bandaids with purple hearts; mangled and dirty chads.
Dr. Negative: A new job! A special job! Oh, Mr. McCain! I'm ready! I'm ready!
Sarah watches from her chair, filing her nails.
McCain: Now, Dr. Negative. You have to make him seem radical...
Dr. Negative quickly pulls a can out of his right pocket, emblazoned with the word "Radical" He opens the top. Red and Black snakes fly out.
Dr. Negative: (eagerly, expectantly, hungrily) Yes...Yes...
McCain: You'll have to start rumors that are so inflammatory that they will spread like wildfire, and that will be started too late to stop them with the actual truth...
Dr. Negative pulls a gigantic grinder out of his left pocket. It is labeled "Rumor Mill". He turns the crank a few times. Hamsters, syringes, and Peace symbols fly out.
Dr. Negative: Yes...Yes...
He is salivating.
McCain: They will have to be so incredible, so over-the-top, based on such tawdry and poorly sourced evidence, yet riddled with tempting minutia--bullet gauges, Google maps of supposed meetings and the like, that the right will eat them up, and start analyzing the minutia with adolescent glee.
Dr. Negative (Very calmly, matter of fact): Oh, that's easy. They'll eat anything.
Dr. Negative reaches into his back pocket, pulls out a manila envelope labeled "Minutia: So-called "Proof" for the Right". He empties it to the floor. Bullet gauge measures, outdated copies of Photoshop, paperbacks entitled "How to Use the Insane as Competent Witnesses", "The Faked Moon Landings! Roswell! And Other Believable Phenomena!" and "You TOO Can Be A Warrior--From Your Own Couch!" fall to the floor.
Sarah plucks out the "Faked Moon Landings" book. She starts reading.
McCain: We know how our girl loves to read.
Sarah stops, and begins fixing her hair in a hand mirror.
McCain: Now, Dr. Negative, there is one final task.
Dr. Negative: Yes, Mr. McCain?
McCain: It is very difficult. Very...dark.
Dr. Negative: (Leaning forward expectantly, his voice quivering with excitement): Yes, Mr. McCain, Yes?
McCain: You will have to play the card that they played against me. Do you understand?
The room becomes silent. Sarah stops looking at herself, and looks towards the center of the room where McCain and Dr. Negative are staring at each other.
Dr. Negative: You mean...(eyes widened with disbelief. His telephone wires are quietly shaking as he shivers).
McCain (nodding): Yes.
Dr. Negative slowly removes from his jacket pocket what seems to be an ordinary pack of playing cards. They are labeled "Joker" brand. He takes a penknife from his pocket, and slowly slices the covering cellophane. There is a slight and distant roar. He looks at McCain.
McCain nods.
Dr. Negative then slowly removes the red ribbon encircling the cellophane at the top of the pack. He inserts the penknife--holding it from it very farthest end--and flips open the top of the pack.
Smoke begins to pour from the top of the pack, thick, acrid smoke. It quickly fills the room, covering all that is in sight.
McCain (shouting amidst the sound of smoke rushing into the room): And remember--no fingerprints!
Next episode: The smoke is cleared.
Cite:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/10/impulsively-unreflective-duo-inmccain.html
October 9, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
damn it!
October 9, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have no authority here, but, you are hereby banned from TPM.
October 9, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL - Somehow, when you said that, I heard it in Col. Blake's voice and it cracked me up.
October 9, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sez here the HoS blog is run by Alan Lipman <lipmana@georgetown.edu>. But a search of GTown U's faculty directory turns up nothing.
October 9, 2008 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Co-sign!
Somebody else do the petition this time. Please...
October 9, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I emailed TPM last night. They asked if the guy is commenting or just posting a blog and I said the latter. Not sure what they decide (or haven't decided) about this spammer...
October 9, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
The dude has done this under a few names, always linking to the same site. Pretty standard method of board-blog spamming to try to get attention over to your own site.
The trick is banning all the sockos.
John
October 9, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very clever stuff. I especially liked:
"a tattered copy of the book "Accusations of Fascism, Communism, Terrorism, Drug Use, Pedophilia, Islamism, Adultery, Pandeism, Cannibalism, Cubism, Miscegenation, and Spousal Abuse...for Dummies!" but way too long for TPM."
>b
Next time, give us a paragraph or two, at most.
October 9, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's all go spam the comments on his blog.
October 9, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've done that to spammers before. I've gone to their site and spammed the shit out of them telling them to stop spamming!
Have no idea if it worked. They change their handles.
October 9, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
How much you wanna bet, the next big issue McCain will be talking about is the dire need to rout the military of non-performing general officers that do not understand the US is committed to victory in Iraq?
October 9, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Make Hewson go away. Please.
McCain says today that "we need to know the fulle extent of the relationship between Ayers and Obama".
Remarkable. After Obama essentially says "Why's McCain such a coward that he won't say it to me directly", McCain goes out and continues to repeat the stuff.
He also says that he doesn't care about any washed up old terrorist. Isn't this kind of a contradiction?
October 9, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's repeating himself just like every other old guy, CT.
He said that yesterday. He saId it over the weekend - all he does is repeat himself, no matter how many times he's told it's not true.
October 9, 2008 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you!!!!
All this "no talking without preconditions" is infantile in the extreme. How the hell do they think Nixon got to China???
October 9, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Camp David accords demonstrate the value of a president's direct influence during negotiations. Last time I checked, it had been more than three decades since Egypt and Israel squared off.
October 9, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ping pong?
October 9, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, this reminds me of the rural equivalent of the Sarah Silverman campaign to reach Jewish voters. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081009/pl_afp/usvoteobamarednecks;_ylt=AqCJ06dOUI5weyUbiza3XrrCw5R4
I sent the link to my dad. Check out the guestbook for some encouragement about the attitudes of your fellow Americans!
October 9, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love Josh:
LOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!
October 9, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
How long before we get the GOP outrage machine out in full effect claiming "Obama is questioning a POW's courage". Obama is really painting McCain into a corner though, either McCain has to stop with the Ayers attacks, or he'll have to bring it up in the last debate (and you know Obama has a smackdown ready that he's eager to use).
October 9, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain spokesperson: "Well, what General Petraeus meant was, it's OK to talk to enemies, but only until that fake phone call comes in and the President suddenly has to leave...kind of like what happens to Tucker Bounds on every first date he's ever been on!"
October 9, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL!
Ah, the old cell phone to bathroom window trick.
I never did, but I had a girlfriend in law school who went to the bathroom on a first date and climbed out the bathroom window.
October 9, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nothing matters except polls, though Tena would disagree with me (I wonder what matters to her. Hope she skips my post).
I posted this partially at the end of the other thread.
Let me start with the big surprise.
Can anyone believe Obama leading in West Virginia by 8 points?
ARG Poll: Obama 50%, McCain 42%
And in Missouri, Obama 49%, McCain 46%
Even Montana is just 5 point difference and catchable.
"A new Ipsos/McClatchy poll of undecided voters who watched Tuesday's second presidential debate indicates that Sen. Barack Obama seems to be picking up momentum among the small number of voters who have not yet decided on a candidate.
Before the debate, these undecided voters leaned toward Sen. John McCain (Obama 45%/McCain 55%) -- but after Tuesday's debate, nearly six in ten lean toward supporting Obama (Obama 57%/McCain 43%)"
Source: Politicalwire
--------------------------
The 5 latest PA polls: (8+ / 0-)
Strategic Vision: O 54 M 40
Morning Call: O 51 M 38
Rasmussen: O 54 M 41
SUSA: O 55 M 40
Quinnpiac: O 54 M 39
Note: Strategic Vision is a GOP pollster.
-----------------------------
Rasmussen NC Poll - Obama 50 McCain 47
Rasmussen Indiana Poll - McCain 49 Obama 47
(copied from brianna69's post on the other thread)
---------------------------------
October 9, 2008 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
O sure you really want me to skip it - projection anyone?
Tcha!
I've explained my position over and over. I've said that the numbers of new Democratic voters we've registered matters a great deal to me as does the fact the GOP has lost close to a million registered GOP voters.
And while I don't trust polls, I'd sure rather have them showing us ahead.
Snark away - I have broad shoulders and I've been snarked at by professionals.
October 9, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was not snarking you, if by "snark," you meant "cruel humor." I was just posting some of the encouraging poll numbers, about which you had previously expressed your disliking. There is nothing wrong with that. We all have our different priorities. Where does this "professional" come from?
October 9, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's an expression.
October 9, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Totally off topic, but has everyone seen the new ARG poll that shows Obama ahead by 8 pts in West Virginia? Of course, ARG has been rather poor all season, so I do not know that I really believe this, but it certainly would be lovely to think. Imagine that solid wall of blue extending like a ray of light shining from the pin-point tip of Maine and spreading out all the way to Missouri at the southwest end and North Carolina at the southeast.
October 9, 2008 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, they also have McCain leading by 3 in MO, so I really am not overly eager to believe their results.
October 9, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not to mention they only have Obama up by 1 in Minnesota....
October 9, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Holy crap.
Then again, ARG is a bad pollster, so I too take it with a huge grain of salt...
October 9, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
The breaking down of the Southern Strategy, Missouri.
This is what I predicted at the outset - but I was wrong about how widespread it might be and how it was going to happen -
Well, up to this point I'm partly wrong and partly right and we won't know the extent of it until Nov. 5, I think.
This was my very dearest hope for this election.
October 9, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
You said it. I was confidently predicting back in February that Obama would greatly expand the map, but I was just as confident in asserting that he would not carry a single southern state. Boy, am I looking forward to being very, very wrong about that. It seems that the economic realities have finally become too obvious to ignore and Karl Rove's old divide-and-conquer voodoo enchantments have lost their potency.
October 9, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Goddammit, if BOTH W.VA and MO go for Obama and Kentucky does not we will NEVER recover.
To spend the rest of eternity in the company of Alabama, Mississippi and Texas ....
October 9, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
from the "should I worry" files: internet rumors abound that obama was member of the new party in the 90's...should I worry?
thanks!
October 9, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know what? I don't care anymore.
It's up to you - want to worry - you have my blessing.
October 9, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
In regards to the ARG Poll for WV, I would wait for some other polls to come out before celebrating. ARG has a dreadful track record. I ignore all ARG and Zogby polls.
October 9, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
WHUT R U FO REAL?RACIST WEST VIRGINIA?AND BARACK IS LEADING BY 8?THAT IS AMAZING,SFC WALLACE,LALO35,DUMBASS BIL C,MATTHEW WEAVERS AND FOGU2 I DON'T CARE HOW CONSERVATIVE AND RACIST YALL IS BUT THIS FINANCIAL CRISIS TRUMPS RACISM,AND NOT SAYIN THAT DEMOCRATS AINT RACISTS BKUZ IT IS SOME WHITE RACIST DEMOCRATS AS WELL BUT EVEN RACIST MUTHAFUCKAS R HURTIN FINANCIALLY WISE,SO THIS IS BEAUTIFUL NEWS FROM WEST VIRGINIA HOME OF SEN.ROBERT BYRD A STAUNCH OBAMA SUPPORTER AND JAY ROCKAFELLER!!!
October 9, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
OT: McCain is going back to Iowa this weekend? What the fuck are they doing?!
October 9, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed, it does make you wonder if they know something we don't. Oh well, if they want to waste precious resources on a hopeless cause, it is no skin off my nose...
October 9, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
And Obama hasn't been to IA for a long time. I really doubt McCain knows something that Obama doesn't. Maybe it's the start of his farewell tour.
October 9, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have an aunt that lives in Iowa. I just IMed her to find out what's going on. Will update shortly.
October 9, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
She says she doesn't know why he's going there cause they sure don't want him there. Iowa is firmly behind Obama. He might just be going there to hide. People aren't rude enough to stone him in public. He gave a very nasty tv interview. Got pissed because then he was there, the tv crew panned out to a very very small gathering of people. However, he may be trying to suck up to the Gov who is an idiot and a bully but a dem nonetheless.
That's all I have folks.
October 9, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wandering.
Aimlessly.
October 9, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
At this point, even PA is waste of time for McLame. He should be going to IN, NC and GA if he wants to avoid the humiliation of a landslide. The guy has lost his mind: He's trying to validate his mavericky, in double sense.
October 9, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes and really continuing his campaign is a waste of time now. He should wander off into the sunset.
October 9, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep. He's toast.
October 9, 2008 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just read on Politico that the McCain campaign's internal polling is showing that Obama is only ahead by low single digits there. I have a hard time believing that's true after that ugly Iowa newspaper interview, but that's what they're saying.
October 9, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Damn, I'm hoping that WV number is accurate - excuse me for questioning it, but it's shocking to read!
Not to sound overly cliched, but I just have a hard time swallowing Cletus and Billy Jo Bob waking up and deciding to vote for Obama!
October 9, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another OT
From Nate Silver, talking about McCain pulling out of Michigan
Voters really, really don't like it when you blow off their state. That's why Hillary Clinton romped to such huge margins in West Virginia and Kentucky in the Democratic primaries, where Obama essentially refused to campaign. It's why Obama won by more than expected in Wisconsin and South Carolina, which Clinton pulled out of early. It's why Rudy Giuliani's decision to ignore every state that didn't begin with an 'F', end with an 'a', and have 'lorid' in the middle was a catastrophic failure.
LOL
October 9, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that's about right.
October 9, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
WEST VIRGINIA - BANJO PLAYIN', NED BEATTY-LOVIN' BROTHERS UNITE FOR OBAMA!!!
October 9, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
WE SHOULD COME OUT IN FULL FORCE FOR GEN.WESLEY CLARK IN AN OBAMA/BIDEN ADMINISTRATION,IF ANYBODY IS IN FAVOR OF THAT SAY I.
October 9, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hells Yeah!! I love Wes Clark!!!
October 9, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think either:
1) Petraeus is pissed off about being used as a campaign mascot by McShame and trying to show he's not taking sides in the campaign; or
2) Petraeus knows Obama's going to be his commander-in-chief and wants to get in his good graces (certainly consistent with the way Petraeus has
manipulated the political process to advance his career); or
3) Both are true.
October 9, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I say none of the above.
I think Patraeus is just stating a reasonable and effective position and it just happens to be one that Obama also supports and McCain, in his infinite idiocy, doesn't.
October 9, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think I co-sign all 3 options.
LOL
October 9, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ditto!
October 9, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
ditto
October 9, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
The prospect for the military of having John McCain as C-in-C must be a bit worrisome. McCain is erratic, angry, driven by his emotions and no doubt thinks of himself as an expert on military matters.
For the more reasonable types at the Pentagon, the mere idea of having McCain as president could be nightmarish.
October 9, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not so much McCain, IMO - Palin.
The possibility of Palin being CIC has to scare the military to death.
October 9, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agrippina - I may have asked you this before - sorry if so, but is that painting in your avatar an Ingres?
October 9, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes! 50 points for Tena!
Her name was Madame d'Haussonville and according to the NY Times:
"The sitter had the distinction of being the great-granddaughter of Jacques Necker, who had served Louis XVI as director-general of finances, and the grand-daughter of Madame de Stael, in her day one of the most fascinating women in Europe. But she was also a remarkable person in her own right and the author, among much else, of a two-volume life of Byron and an unpublished autobiography that is remarkable for wit, candor and breadth of perception."
Not just cute but smart too.
October 9, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course!
Thanks.
October 9, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, you are dense. Almost everyone here has asked you to cut the shit out. But you persist. Like a bad case of crabs, you persist.
October 9, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
My comment was for Hewson, of course, but it got all hung up in the intertubes for 10 minutes, and now its down here.
Agrippina, you Madam, are not dense!
October 9, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whew...I thought you were talking to me.
October 9, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Got friends in WVa; center to slightly democratic. They voted for Carter but got hornswaggled by Reagan. I still love them, though.
They aren't big fans of the feds, but they know the difference between a government that's *trying* to help versus one that is severely screwing them. Nobody's watching the mines any more. Children are getting poisoned; moms and dads are dying. They love their beautiful mountains and work hard to save what's left.
It's amazing to see the country waking up. I'm even allowing myself to see a sea of blue on election night. Crabby No More.
MotoCrat (keep changing it but it ain't taking)
October 9, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yay! No longer crabby - I'm so glad you're happy and yeah, it's amazing that Obama's sincerity is actually getting through - but it seems to be.
I'm very happy for anyone who has a stake in W. Va.
I have my secret hopes for election night, though I'm not going to realize all of them, I can see that.
October 9, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a relief. I'm optimistic by nature but had this angry cancer in my political psyche. Your slap upside the head about Katie's great job interviewing finally snapped me out of it. I haven't yelled at the TV in days! Probably because of the brick I tossed through it. Har Har!
October 9, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Awwww - thank you.
Half the time I think I'm pissing half the people here off.
It's awful nice to know it's not always like that! ;)
October 9, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does a day ever go by any more without multiple pieces of bad news for Johan McPalin? Heh.
October 9, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heh. Indeedy.
See, Cmmdr CooCoo was celebratin with McLame and playin that geetar while NOLA drowned.
They fucked the wrong city. NOLA is so heavy with the spirits of generations of voudoun priestesses that I'm still convinced they did this. They did it to CooCoo - he's done nothing but go downward since NOLA. I think they're doing it to McLame!
[I'm half-kidding, of course, but there are more things in this world than are dreamt of in your philosophy Horatio!]
October 9, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
GEN.WES CLARK IS NEEDED TO CLEAN OUT ALL THE CORRUPTION AT THE PENTAGON,AND IF ELECTED I REALLY THINK BARACK SHOULD GRAB SEN.CHUCK HAGEL AND SEN.RICHARD LUGAR WIT HIM AS WELL,THOSE R 2 OF THE MOST HONORABLE POLITICIANS AND NOT TO MENTION THA REAL MAVERICKS MY FELLOW PRISONERS OOPS I MEAN MY FELLOW AMERICANS!!!
October 9, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey! Please stop YELLING at us! OK???
October 9, 2008 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Looks like General Petraeus has seen the writing on the wall and is maneuvering to keep his job under the new President.
October 9, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's actually closer to what he said then Patreus or Kissinger statements. Ask Joe...he'll tell you.
October 9, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
The take-away from this bit of advanced line-straddling is that Petraeus thinks Obama is going to win the election, and that Petraeus wants to keep his job. While he says that he doesn't like to get political, it was his d-bagnificent politicization of his position that made him in Johnny Mac's eyes "one of the greatest generals ever."
Lesser mortals (like me) would shitcan him on day 1; I suspect Obama will keep him around, de-balled, in order to keep his enemies close. Perhaps he can put him in charge of timely withdrawal.
October 9, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
SFC:
It must get tiring trying to defend McCain's positions ... whatever they are today.
October 9, 2008 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's what The Guardian's Ed Pilkington wrote after the debate:
So long, Magoo. Come back again when you can't stay as long.
October 9, 2008 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shit - I think that should have been: There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy, Horatio.
October 9, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
And McLame continues to ignore the war, Gen. Petraeus and the 679 point drop in the Dow to discuss the most important issue everyone in America must know - Bill Ayers. They met once for a state Senate fundraiser in Ayers home. They didn't go on 7 vacations together in the Bahamas like McLame and Charles Keating did on Keating's private jet.
October 9, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah,
George McGovern is credited as being among the handful of bomber pilots who kept us from being overwhelmed by Nazi Germany in World War II by the sheer number of daring 10-hour bombing missions he led in 1942. By age 22 he had led 35 such missions (the maximum allowed) and had received the Distinguished Flying Cross.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20021111/scheer20021029
What a loser!
Look, I know what the poster is saying, but please. I've seen George McGovern and he is a very impressive man and he was an outstanding candidate who missed being our president in large part because he was torpedoed by Eagleton's lying (the forerunning cause of today's thorough vetting process) and the fact that Watergate had only just begun starting to smell on Election Day, 1972.
October 9, 2008 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
PRESIDENT Patreaus. . . .HAS A NICE RING TO IT!
Uniform or not. .. they all R cut from the same cloth.
KEEP DANCING AMERICA, . . .THE PIPER CAN WAIT.
October 9, 2008 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's nice to know that someome in the military has some common sense.
October 9, 2008 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for your perspective on this, Greg. Looks as if Petraeus foresees which way the election will go. Your column is linked on RealityChex.com at http://www.realitychex.com along with other issues & opinions on the presidential race.
October 9, 2008 8:40 PM | Reply | Permalink