« McCain: Electing Obama Would Perhaps Be Biggest Risk Ever Taken By American People | Home | TPM Track Composite: Obama Holding Big Lead »
New Obama Radio Ad Pushes Back On Ayers Smear
The Obama campaign goes up with a new radio ad in Wisconsin pushing back in detail on the William Ayers smear -- the first spot, to our knowledge, that mentions Ayers by name:
The spot offers the most detailed paid media pushback yet offered by the Obama team on Ayers:
"Bill Ayers is a professor of education who once served with Obama on a school reform board -- a board funded by conservative Republicans tied to McCain. When Ayers committed crimes in the 60s, Obama was eight years old. Obama condemned those despicable acts. Ayers has had no role on Obama's campaign, and will have no role in his administration."
The new ad comes as McCain is indicating that he'll confront Obama over Ayers at tomorrow's debate.
Advertisement
Seriously, everyone - all this is doing is making McLame look stupid and like he wants to divert everyone's attention away from the fact that he's a Republican who voted with Bush 95% of the time.
Voters got that message. They really don't care about Ayers - they made that clear during the primary - Hillary is a much more formidable opponent than John McLame ever dreamed of being. Obama's been through this, the voters have been through this - the story from Obama hasn't wavered.
Nobody Cares except Hannity and a bunch of overstimulated mental midgets.
October 14, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
But (perhaps unfortunately) overstimulated mental midgets vote ............. and it may be that those are the only votes left for Obama to garner. So while most of the people don't care and don't need to hear this, a significant percentage of the 'undecided' or 'soft McCain' voters may well need this. Kudos (once again) to the Obama campaign.
October 14, 2008 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Any voter who buys this shit wasn't going to vote for Obama in the first place.
The polls have shown over and over that these attacks are driving McLame's numbers down.
October 14, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
But are we sure it's the Ayer's ads that are driving McCain's numbers down.
I keep remembering all those who re-elected Bush in '04 - an event which prompted the Brits to refer to American voters as "idiots" - and thinking that it's possible that the Ayer's ads are actually keeping McCain's poll numbers higher.
October 14, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
O now I get it - you're an "American voters are stupid" liberal.
There's no counter to that argument except facts: we won big in '06; Obama is 10 points ahead; Bush's numbers are at all time lows.
October 14, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not really. I've just been through so many elections, beginning with Eisenhower (I supported Stevenson) and been disappointed so many times that I'm leery when it comes to getting my hopes up.
And, if being a liberal means that I champion equity, fairness and individual rights, then I'll gladly wear the label.
October 14, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seems unlikely that Ayers is artificially inflating McCain's numbers. I think the lines are drawn, and what swing voters we have are leaning seriously toward Obama. At least that's where we've been trending for the past several weeks.
I think that if the economy hadn't decided to melt down, Ayers could easily have become a deciding factor -- look at our last two presidential elections -- Gore's "earth tones", and Kerry's wind surfing were put forth as actual factors by our beloved MSM. In that sense we *have been* a country of idiots.
But now something real is happening, and the stupid little character pseudo-issues that dominated the previous two cycles can't gain traction, despite the media's best efforts turn the whole thing into a tabloid spectacle.
October 14, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
In discussing the effect of the William Ayres negative campaigning that was in full swing last week, John Oliver on the Daily Show came up with a lovely, Pontyesque routine concerning the demographics of the largest single subset of the undecided vote, "The Stupid":
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/08/the-daily-show-mocks-cubs_n_133018.html
". . . and right here, the stupid. That's 45% of the undecided, John. They are the swingest of the swing voters."
John Oliver concludes "on November 4th, the election will be in their hands."
I don't know how much the Obama radio ad will affect this demographic, as it's doubtful that Gordon Liddy or Rush Limbaugh or John Gibson will air these ads. At the same time I think the Obama Campaign's decision to allow the McClowns to flail about in public has worked quite well. McCain's work so far has managed to blow off most of the conservatives who like to think of themselves as intelligent.
October 15, 2008 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not knocking the ad, Elizabeth. That's not my point.
October 14, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Understood. And it may not do much, but I still think there are some "we're settled into voting for McCain and so aren't paying attention" voters who have been brought up short by this economic turn and are now, for the first time, seriously thinking about Obama --- but still easily scared off. Work with a few in fact. They aren't so much 'mental midgets' really as just very uninterested in politics. So if they are seriously thinking about Obama for the *first* time, the Ayres/terrorist argument may carry more weight with them. I, too, find it hard to believe that there is anyone who is 1) a thinking person and 2) hasn't made up their mind, with conviction, long ago. But think about the percentage that just don't vote every time. Those folks may, belatedly, be tuning in because of what's happened to their retirement or college savings.
October 14, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would add that in addition to trying to pick-up a few votes on the margin, this add does two things: 1) Suppress McCain voters who have no other reason to vote for McCain than a hatred/fear of Obama. Every McCain vote that stays home is one less vote to overcome. 2) Whitewater inoculation. The GOP will not let this go EVER. They will try to drag his administration down over little shit like this. The more Obama gets his side of the story out now, the better. The more he makes it obvious that he is up against a craven pack of liars, the more people are likely to believe him down the road. This isn't just about winning the election, it's about de-fanging the opposition.
October 14, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right - I like this ad and have nothing against doing this at all.
I'm coming at it from a different direction - I came up fresh from a thread where people were arguing Ayers could make a difference in the election - in McLame's favor. I don't think so - that's what I'm saying.
:)
October 14, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agree. In fact, I had to drive today and nothing on the radio except, ugh!, John Gibson. So I listened for a bit. (I guess being an idealouge requires turning off one's brain if there's ever a contest between intelligence and the outcome you want?) Anyway, his callers are usually right along his way of thinking, but tonight no fewer than 4 (out of about 7) took the Reps. to task for making too much out of the Ayres issue. I was rather surprised -- and, must admit, pleased.
October 14, 2008 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would add that in addition to trying to pick-up a few votes on the margin, this add does two things: 1) Suppress McCain voters who have no other reason to vote for McCain than a hatred/fear of Obama. Every McCain vote that stays home is one less vote to overcome. 2) Whitewater inoculation. The GOP will not let this go EVER. They will try to drag his administration down over little shit like this. The more Obama gets his side of the story out now, the better. The more he makes it obvious that he is up against a craven pack of liars, the more people are likely to believe him down the road. This isn't just about winning the election, it's about de-fanging the opposition.
October 14, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can only assume that Obama has a beautiful response to all of this nonsense, but he won't bring it up himself, hence he challenge to McCain to "say it to my face." McCain is walking into a huge trap here, and I can't wait to see it (hopefully) go down in the debate tomorrow night.
October 14, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm starting to feel sorry for McCain. McCain can't talk about the economy anymore, and all he has left are topics that were already exhausted back in the primaries. Maybe the Republicans should stop spending money on the presidential race, cut their losses and coast until November 4. Really, they have plenty of other things to worry about down the ballot besides McCain's ego.
October 14, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great way to put it into context.
If McCain thinks this dude is so terrible, why is he allowed to be free in the America of which he strives to be President?
I am surprised that McCain hasn't laid out a plan to capture Ayers. If it did happen though, he would probably raid Iowa searching for him, and say it would be quick and easy...
October 14, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure he's got a SECRET plan....
October 14, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I haven't caught it, has he said he knows where he is and will follow him to the gates of hell?
October 14, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does Hyde Park have gates?
October 14, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, he said he would follow him to the gates of Hell, but it would be irresponsible to announce he would follow him to anywhere that actually exists. Unless, of course, sung to the Beach Boys...
October 14, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does his plan include making use of the dreaded Double Secret Probation?
October 14, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?
October 14, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just like all of his other secret plans that he won't share unless he is elected, "I know how to do it, my friends."
October 14, 2008 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
OT: Have you seen Biden's travel plans for today and tomorrow. Hes got 3 stops in OH today and another 3 on wed. Its just amazing how they acting as though they have to win every single swing state even when they only have to win 1.
October 14, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I guess they see how close they are. I wonder: does a wide-margin electoral win represent any kind of mandate? I ask because I imagine the popular vote will be fairly close, and--well--it just seems like the higher Obama's numbers, the more likely Americans are all going to settle down and accept this man as their president.
October 14, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
The perception that Reagan won in a landslide in 1980 is predicated on a) his huge electoral vote margin (something like 480 for Reagan to 50 for Carter), b) the GOP gaining a majority in the senate, and c) also gaining a lot of seats, though not a majority, in the house. Reagan's popular vote total was just over 50%, with Cater in the low 40s and Anderson around 6. A solid popular vote win, but not historic. The big story was that Reagan led the wave that swept away the long-held perception of the democrats as the majority party. If Obama racks up more than the 350 electoral votes he currently appears likely to gain, the Dems pick up a filibuster-proof margin in the senate and add significantly to their majority in the house, this election will be seen as a sea change very similar to 1980. The wingnuts and their useful idiots in the press will do all they can to deny it, but the reality on the ground will quickly overtake stale media narratives.
October 14, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have you been to fivethirtyeight.com lately? The trending numbers (including the popular vote) are completely outragous, but not so outrageous that Obama/Biden can afford to sit on their butts. Smart campaigns do NOT act like it's already in the bag, even if it is :)
October 14, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suspect that Obama has more realistic standards then GWB for what he would like to call a "mandate" -- and a US map with blue all across it and in unexpected places is psychologically a great achievement, both on the public conscience and within the party. Compare the maps for 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 at http://www.270towin.com/. Just my opinion, but I think that Obama 1) wants to cover all contingencies and 2) wants his victory to look more like 1992 or 1996. Even if the vote is close, that's a powerful argument for a 'mandate'.
October 14, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Political neophyte here, but I suspect that it's also that the down-ticket races are more susceptible to swaying in our direction in the swing states.
October 14, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Political neophyte my butt - you got it exactly right that downticket races are second only to not taking any state for granted.
If Obama not only wins a landslide (375-plus EV) but also shows long coattails by bringing a lot of dems in close races with him, THAT's a mandate nobody can deny.
Though the wingnuts, freakazoids and other dead-enders will certainly try.
October 14, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I keep thinking about that 1/2 hour of air time coming next week. mcFraud can spin like the dickens, but he's not gonna be there for Obama's prime time alone with the voters....
October 14, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's week after next. I've been doing the same thing -- collapsing the time left. Almonst messed up an important appointment because I was 'deleting' a week in there. Are we ready for this to end - with things just as they are right now - or not?!?
October 14, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds like the answer we'll get Wednesday night if McCain is dumb enough to bring this up.
http://pufferfish.typepad.com/
October 14, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's going on is the Neo-Con artists are pointing to "scary looking black people" as the right-wing elect is picking your pocket in broad daylight. What we are doing here on the blogs is waking up the left-wing base to all these felonious assaults on our pocketbooks and our intelligence. What the Obama campaign is doing is getting disenfranchised low-income voters into election booths.
We need a real mandate this time.
October 15, 2008 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
What's going on is the Neo-Con artists are pointing to "scary looking black people" as the right-wing elect is picking your pocket in broad daylight. What we are doing here on the blogs is waking up the left-wing base to all these felonious assaults on our pocketbooks and our intelligence. What the Obama campaign is doing is getting disenfranchised low-income voters into election booths.
We need a real mandate this time.
October 15, 2008 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
What's going on is the Neo-Con artists are pointing to "scary looking black people" as the right-wing elect is picking your pocket in broad daylight. What we are doing here on the blogs is waking up the left-wing base to all these felonious assaults on our pocketbooks and our intelligence. What the Obama campaign is doing is getting disenfranchised low-income voters into election booths.
We need a real mandate this time.
October 15, 2008 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry about the triple posting, apparently there was there was a sever glitch or two.
October 15, 2008 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Have you seen the photo of Obama and Ayers together? Neither have I. Seems that if they were such good friends and were spending so much time palling around together, plotting the overthrow of civilization and all that, that there would be at least one photo that at least shows them in the same room together. But so far, nothing. Not a single photo. I'm confused and puzzled.
October 14, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, it's not out there. But there is this:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/Acorn_pushes_back_hugs_McCain.html
Nothing stinks of desperation quite like pulling someone out of thin air that 95% of America has never heard of in the midst of a sleazy presidential campaign.
Let McCain have Ayers, Obama will take the economy.
October 14, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow! Nice clinching by ACORN!
October 14, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess it's a double edged sword, but by responding to the Ayers smear, Obama allows attention to be deflected to some degree from the real issues. It goes as part and parcel of not allowing any smear to stick, but if you're forced to play in the gutter, then it would be better to attack rather than to defend. While Obama hasn't been one to use his artillary (gun for knife fight...whatever), it would be refreshing to see him dispatch this flatulent old geezer with a final devastating assault (Keating, Libby, AIP, etc.). I don't expect to see such pyrotechnics, but still, it would be nice.
October 14, 2008 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
i think by releasing a radio ad in a one state allows him to confront the issue without making big hay about it.
if he released a television ad that ran in ohio, west virginia, pennsylvania and iowa, that would be an indication that the obama camp is worried about the ayers situation.
i agree that it would be good to see sen. obama pull a bait-and-switch on sen. mccain (goading him to bring up ayers and then snapping on him on something that will quiet any more inflammatory, incendiary, and incorrect associations about him and ayers).
and i don't think that sen. mccain has more flatuence issues than any other respected member of the senior community, and even if he did, it wouldn't automatically disqualify him from speaking his mind on the important issues that face our country.
October 14, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was referring to the flatulence conferred on him by his geezerdom, not his age. As for speaking his mind: well, I think the concept of flatulence about covers that topic.
October 14, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think if McCain had picked Condi - this race would be totally different now.
I've got no love for her but that's who I was afraid would get the spot.
Who picked Palin? Really....
October 14, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. While I don't like Rice, she is at the very least a serious person.
This is the thing many moderate reps. have with McCain. Why and how did he come to choose Palin?
That choice, his most important, was so terrible that many reps are finally questioning McCain's judgement. That, and when they say, "President Sarah Palin" out loud, it sends shivers down their spine.
October 14, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not that the lead would change - but I wonder what it would mean to have a black & female VP candidate that could put a sentence together?
October 14, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Both Rice & Palin are pro-oil.
One thinks the Flintstones are real...the other does not.
That's one difference.
October 14, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Inasmuch as Condi is part and parcel of Commander CooCoo Bananas, all Condi would have done on that ticket is weigh it down possibly faster than Palin has.
October 14, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Condi may have weighed it down more than Palin. Who Knows. The point being that McCain had lots of options for VP and he picked Palin.
That choice makes many in the middle question McCain's judgement. The more the moderate reps see of Palin, the less they like her and the more fearful they become of the possibility that she could, one day, be president.
October 14, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hell I'm not arguing with that - I was just making a comment on Condi as VP and whether she'd have helped.
October 14, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
She's too smart for him. . . he clearly likes them dumb and highly made-up.
October 14, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
And white.
I don't buy into the "McCain's not a racist" bullshit.
By their actions shall ye judge them, and by his actions he clearly is a racist.
He'd quit before accepting Condi.
October 14, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
You got it!! (I too was very afraid of Condi Rice .. so thank goodness for McCain's, er, preferences.)
October 14, 2008 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
my question is, does this pushback resemble the rebuttal that sen. obama will give if confronted by sen. mccain about ayers during the debate on wednesday?
by the way that sen. obama is practically goading him into bringing ayers, one wonders (hopes) that whatever retort sen. obama will deliver will be strong, memorable and will deafen the ridiculous claims put forth by the mccain campaign
October 14, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
"a board funded by conservative Republicans tied to McCain" is they key line.
Obama - So John, it's your friends the Annenbergs that gave Ayers $46 million, and your Republican buddy Daley that named him Chicago's "Citizen of the Year" in 1987, why don't you ask your good friends about their connections to him? By the way, didn't your buddy G. Gordon Liddy say something about aiming at the head of ATF agents? John?
October 14, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Obama is loaded up with a response that will
a. Debunk the smear
b. Call into question some of McCain's shadier dealings, and
c. Make the old man look like the pathetic loser that he is.
And he'll do it all within the two-minute time limit for the question.
Obama and Biden (and Tom Vilsack) did not specifically call McCain out over this for nothing.
Obama's response will not be a throw-away. It will be the haymaker that will put McCain down for good.
October 14, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's what I was wondering (below), and here's, possibly, the answer, from Andy Sullivan:
October 14, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't feel sorry for either McPain or Ms. Painin, the kind and queen of sleaze.
And just in case you missed this:
By Bademus - October 8, 2008, 11:03PM
It's a beautiful poem from the comedy icon of Monty Python fame that perfectly captures the essence of Sean Hannity.
Ode to Sean Hannity
by John Cleese
Aping urbanity
Oozing with vanity
Plump as a manatee
Faking humanity
Journalistic calamity
Intellectual inanity
Fox Noise insanity
You’re a profanity
Hannity
October 14, 2008 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't feel sorry for either of them, either.
I don't know of one good reason why I should.
October 14, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Co-sign.
October 14, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Headline on The Page:
I just have the sense that the Obama campaign is trying to bait the McCain campaign, and the McCain campaign is falling for it, hook, line and sinker.
Why release that radio ad today, unless they're deliberately trying to goad the McCain campaign?
I'm just wondering if Obama has the names of a whole bunch of Republicans who "palled around with Ayers", and he's going to unload them on John McCain tomorrow...
October 14, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
That'll only force The Maverick to counter with his patented Mavericky Feint: "I'm known for going up against my party. If Republicans want to pal around with terrorists, then I've got no problem with calling them out. You will know their names. I am The Maverick!"
October 14, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I doubt McCain has thought it out, even to that degree. He's probably only gotten as far as thinking about making the charge itself.
The stupid old git is not even considering the blistering response that is assuredly coming his way.
That's his problem, has been all along. He can't think or project past whatever desperate move he's about to make, and for some reason it never occurs to him that Obama is a smarter man than he is.
October 14, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is something fishy about this. I see two potential traps for Obama.
All the emphasis on the response is on the boards they served together on--absolutely sound response. But little is said about how and why the early in his career fund-raiser was held involving Obama. This would be where McCain would press the issue.
The other thing I have wondered---The McCain campaign has been uncharacterisitically silent about Wright. I am satisfied with what obama has said about it, but, objectively, it seems like it would be much more fertile ground to be plowing using the Palin McCain methods of attack. I have to wonder if they want to get past the last debate before unleashing a much more extensive smear of Obama regarding Wright.
October 14, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Trap for the candidate who is conservatively 10 points ahead?
There are no traps for Barack Obama.
October 14, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I saw mention of the Wright issue somewhere yesterday, and that McCain has insisted that religious attacks are off-limits.
October 14, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I doubt the media will go along on another Wright parade. The last one was so extensive; they know voters are mostly tired of hearing about it. For that to succeed, the McCain campaign would have to come up with something new to say.
October 14, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
They got nuttin.
If there was sumpin, Hillary's people would have found it.
October 14, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
You don't need anything, though, to make this an issue. You can have the talking bobbleheads on cable yak over this endlessly, thereby reinvigorating the discussion. Then it will be several days of "Should McCain have brought up Wright?", prolonging the theme.
October 14, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Certain cable news will. I watched a lot of Fox yesterday, courtesy of a high fever, and they've been flogging, hard, the ACORN (non)-story. They'd be all over Wright, of course.
More telling, however, was Dana Bash trying to pin McCain down on why he wasn't using Wright. She sounded downright annoyed that he hadn't brought it up. So my sense is that she'd be happy to return to Wright.
October 14, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Boo - Fox and cable are not synonymous.
Look - since there is no Fairness Doctrine, broadcasts are free to be partisan and Fox is partisan and everyone knows it.
We have our own partisan news shows - Olbermann and Rachel Maddow, for example.
October 14, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
This was in response to the "I doubt the media will go along with it".
Of course Fox will.
And so will CNN.
And so will MSNBC, during the day, because MSNBC during the day is nothing like MSNBC at night.
So, 3 cable outlets out of 3 will be flogging the story during the day.
October 14, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sooooorrrrryyyy!
I get it now and yes they will and they're ginning the ACORN story as hard as they can.
October 14, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain says the issue is not about the association but about Obama's honesty. Then he says that Obama "launched his political career in Ayers living room."
So what I would like to see Obama do tomorrow is simply say to McCain: "OK, I agree this is about honesty with the American people, so let's make a bet, right here right now. If it is true that I started my state senate campaign in Ayers living room, I'll get out of the race. But if it turns out to be false, then you withdraw tonight. How about it? Are you willing to bet your campaign on whether you are being honest with the American people?
Oh and here's a hint John, I was actually there when I launched my campaign, where were you?"
October 14, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Bill Ayers thing only works as ominous innuendo. Substance kills it. McCain's undoing is being forced to look at Barack and deliver a specific, meaningful accusation about Bill Ayers. That's an air ball. Doesn't even clang off the rim. Doesn't even hit the backboard.
McCain has nothing, and he knows it.
October 14, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, but it is a lot more fun if Obama says I bet you will shoot an air ball before he does it.
October 14, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I never said it wasn't going to be fun to watch.
October 14, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
would it be harder for the mccain campaign to have a roundabout or veiled racial attack on sen. obama if it included rev. wright?
i think it would be harder. by going with william ayers (a white, liberal, "terrorist") the mccain campaign can paint sen. obama as the other without invoking the obviously racially tenuous topic of rev. wright.
October 14, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
the other meant to be written as the "OTHER" (evil, disgusting, immoral etc.)
October 14, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope they do cover the "launched his campaign in Ayres' living room" bit. Per the one ad they put out, Obama's campaign was "launched" at a Ramada Inn in the area and per multiple stories I've read the meeting at Ayres' apartment was one of a number of typical "neighborhood coffee" to "meet the candidate" that are absolutely typical in local politics everywhere. There's an interview somewhere with a rabbi who said that he had the first one of the coffees in his home. The coffees have been described as the then-State Senator Alice Palmer using those occasions to introduce the new candidate for her seat. She now says that she didn't arrange the coffee at Ayres' place but nothing I've read says that Obama did so, and it would be unlikely -- most often it's the party heirarchy that sets up these things. So I hope it is mentioned - shows how far McCain is going to stretch the truth and make it look ominous.
October 14, 2008 10:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the MSM were doing their jobs, Obama would not have to respond to this nonsense.
Instead they're comparing the Keating docu-ad with the McCain sleaze ads and trying to say that both campaigns are hitting below the belt.
It is really pathetic. I hope that an Obama administration rings in a "fairness in media" doctrine.
October 14, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama already rightly said that the Fairness Doctrine was unconstitutional at the outset.
And it would be impossible to administer under the circumstances we have today - we have foreign broadcasts coming in, cable and satellite which we pay for and the government has very little control over and rightly -
October 14, 2008 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess that means we're stuck with the media that we have.
October 14, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, we don't and you miss entirely where the media fits in our culture.
Basically is lags behind the public. In case you failed to notice, the media is not treating Obama like they did Gore and Kerry - with thinly veiled contempt. The media follows US because we are their bread and butter.
October 14, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is this lie they keep repeating about Obama launching his campaign at Ayers house? It's ridiculous. Rezko helped him launch his campaign, not Ayers.
Keep the smears straight, A*holes.
For everyone tired of all the rumors, watch this funny sketch: http://tinyurl.com/6jb7l6
October 14, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
More than in 1992, the republicans desperately scared. Many of them feel that this country belongs to them and them alone, and how dare anyone...especially this younger bi-racial man (because that's who he is)think he is going to run this country and move into the White House. It's not just the overtly political republicans...it's the white male dominated media. Chuck Todd, Joe Scarborough, Tom Brokaw, etc. are stunned as well. You can see the sadness in Chuck Todd's eyes every time he gets on his virtual electoral map. So, remember what they did to try and make Bill Clinton illegitimate? Take that to the tenth power with Barack. In their minds, it is already lost, and that's why they have to bring up ACORN, and Ayers. Believe me, Reverend Wright is coming in the last days just to dig the knife in and give the base 4 years to say horrible things while our new president is trying to help even the nastiest republican thug. I am glad the ad is there, but I really believe that those who want to believe Barack is evil...well, they are either going to the polls with their smear signs, idiotic little racist dolls, and any other nasty things they can bring, or they are going to sit this one out. Either way, they already remind me of zombies in some village of the damned horror movie..like the one guy said in Wisconsin.. they can't believe this is happening...how sad that their version of the American dream of being white, republican, and being right on everything seems to be slipping away. How we must look finally to the rest of the world as they see the lie of democracy "American Style" is just an illusion that has fallen away as fast as the economy.
October 14, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agree with your sentiments, but not about Chuck Todd. Anyone that concerned with details -- forseeability - organization *has* to be a fan of Obama's. The sad or deadpan look is, I'm almost sure, a determination to NOT let his personal opinions become obvious.
October 14, 2008 10:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sad for them.
Healthy for the country.
October 14, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
co-sign.
with bells on!
October 14, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like the phrase "filibuster-proof margin", but would Democrats know what to do with it?
Would they repeal laws that permit warrantless wiretapping? Would they undo laws which insulate Administration officials from being charged with war crimes?
Will Democrats abolish our ridiculous medical insurance system, which diverts almost one third of health insurance premium for nonmedical purposes?
October 14, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Obama condemned those despicable acts."
GOP operative: Yes, but did he condemn them when he was 8 years old? No, he conveniently waited until he was running for president. This man cannot be trusted!
October 14, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink