Obama seems anxious to drive McCain batty

June 2, 2008

I used to worry a bit that Barack Obama’s above-the-fray style might not be assertive enough for a rough-and-tumble general election campaign against an aggressive Republican machine. I’m increasingly confident that my concerns were misplaced — Obama seems to enjoy going on the offensive against John McCain.

Last week, Obama went after McCain on the GI Bill. Over the weekend, Obama continued to hammer away at McCain’s confusion over the number of U.S. troops in Iraq. And today, in a speech in Troy, Michigan, Obama will take on a McCain quote that’s certain to generate an angry response.

“Senator McCain says we have made, and this is a quote, ‘great progress economically’ these past eight years, and he promises more of the same.

“Well, I couldn’t disagree more. Since George Bush took office, we’ve gone through the first period of sustained economic growth since World War II in which the incomes of American workers have actually dropped. 7 million more Americans don’t have health care. 1 million more Americans are out of work. Millions of families are facing foreclosure. You’re working harder for less, and paying more for tuition, more for groceries, and more at the pump.

“To me, this isn’t ‘great progress.’ This is a cause for concern and an impetus for change. Yet Senator McCain wants to double down on the Bush economic plan…. In fact, Senator McCain conceded not long ago that he didn’t know much about the economy. That’s not his interest. That’s not his priority. But it will be mine.”

The “great progress economically” originally came up in mid-April, and it was one of those gems we just knew we’d be hearing again.

When Obama first started pursuing this, a very annoyed McCain campaign responded, “American families are hurting and Barack Obama is being recklessly dishonest. It is clear that Barack Obama is intentionally twisting John McCain’s words completely out of context.”

Is the McCain campaign right? Is the “great progress economically” line being taken out of context? Not so much.

ThinkProgress has the video clip of McCain chatting with Bloomberg Television in April. The reporter offered the senator a “version of the Ronald Reagan question,” and asked, “Do you think if Americans were asked, ‘Are you better off today than you were before George Bush took office more than seven years ago?’ What answer would they give?”

McCain responded:

“Certainly, at this time, we’re in very challenging times. We all recognize that. Families are sitting around the kitchen table this evening and figuring out whether they’re going to be able to keep their home or not. They’re figuring out whether they’re, why it is that suddenly and recently someone in their family or their neighbor has lost their job. There’s no doubt that we’re in enormous difficulties.

“I think if you look at the overall record, and millions of jobs having, being created, etc., etc., you can make an argument that there’s been great progress economically, over that period of time. But that’s no comfort, that’s no comfort to families now that are facing these tremendous economic challenges.

“But let me just add, Peter, the fundamentals of America’s economy are strong.”

McCain suggested that he’s familiar with the difficulties currently facing millions of American families, but when asked about the economy under Bush’s leadership, McCain believes that the “overall record” points to “great progress economically” over the last seven years. The context shows that McCain seems vaguely aware of the fact that some have enjoyed this “progress” more than others, but McCain’s overall assessment of the Bush economy is a positive one.

And Obama seems anxious to remind voters about this. My hunch is Republicans will erupt, much the same way they did about the “100 years” line, but the quote is accurate. McCain said it, he meant it, and now he’s being called on it. McCain may wish he could take it back now, but it’s too late.

As for Obama, I can’t help but enjoy seeing a Dem presidential candidate go on the offensive and stay on the offensive, especially on subjects that seem to irritate McCain to no end.

Noting Obama’s rally tomorrow night at the site of the Republican convention, Ezra noted this morning, “If I didn’t know better, I’d say the strategy here is to tweak McCain often enough that he uncorks his famous temper and forces the American people to decide whether they really want to hand the presidency to a cranky, touchy old man. Actually, come to think of it, I don’t know better….”

Tweak, tweak, tweak, every time he makes these indefensible remarks he should be called on it. If his temper flairs so be it. Time for the flip flops to come home to roost.

  • Obama got my vote when he came out swinging after Bu$h’s thinly veiled attack on him at a speech in Israel.

    I hope he maintains the offensive. The republicans are more susceptable now than they ever have been, by their own hands. If we can’t capitalize and get the White House, then the democrats just ought to pack it in and go home.

  • He’ll have to pop it in reverse to get McCainiac to “batty.”

    I seem to recall a time when people thought Obama wouldn’t be tough enough to campaign and bewailed his refusal to go negative.

    This is how grown ups do tough and negative: Beat your opponent bloody with facts.

  • The context it it “taken out of” is the approved media context that McCain is a straight-talker who would only tell a lie if necessary, and then he would do it badly because it hurt him sooooo much.

  • that’s what’s going to make this so much fun. john w. mcsame has skin thinner than a dimestore balloon. and obama is just the guy to keep sticking it to him.
    sooner or later, mcsame is going to fly around the room backwards and end up flat on the floor!

  • If we can’t capitalize and get the White House, then the democrats just ought to pack it in and go home.

    agreed.

    Obama just needs to keep saying the same things that the majority of Americans have been saying, and let McCain whine about how out of context he’s being taken. The simple fact is that McCain cannot unhook from Bush and Bush is an anchor.

    Buh Bye, John. Have a good drown.

  • a very annoyed McCain campaign responded, “American families are hurting and Barack Obama…

    McCain’s original statement was anything but straight talk. But as a Republican who has supported Bush almost entirely, neither “things are better” nor “things are worse” would have helped. Now they’re back to “American families are hurting,” and Obama can start saying, “they finally admit it, but they still offer the same old policies.”

  • This is good. Very good. Obama’s brought the big guns around, he’s zeroed in on McMaybe, and is now firing for effect

    McMaybe—meet Obamakrieg!

  • I’m wondering if I would know how well our candidate is doing if I didn’t read this blog. Do newspaper readers and TV viewers know?

  • The “above the fray” style to me has always been about focusing on substance rather than attacking for the sake of attacking, or turning your opponents’ legitimate strong points against him a la Karl Rove. It means Obama isn’t going to go out there talking about Cindy’s tax returns or how he was for Hagee before he was against him. (It doesn’t mean those aren’t fun to bandy about on the interwebs, just that if Obama did it it would sound petty and trivial.)

    He’s going to take McCain’s own words, and votes, and stances, and policies, and flip-flops, and misstakes, and use them to make his case, draw the contrast, and put McCain right next to Bush where he, mostly, belongs. And he’s going to do it very, very skillfully.

  • Reminds me of the oft-misquoted way the Truman sobriquet arose, as I recall (i could be wrong, too).
    He was giving a speech wailing away at Dewey and someone yelled out “Give ’em hell, Harry!” To which Truman replied, “I just give them the Truth and they thinks it’s hell!”.

  • Ezra: “If I didn’t know better, I’d say the strategy here is to tweak McCain often enough that he uncorks his famous temper…

    That’s not the first time Ezra has been right today…

  • My early adulthood years spent kickboxing taught me to make the opponents fight on my terms.By making them respond to something I was doing I could control them and thereby control the fight. That’s how to win.That’s what Obama is doing.The rally at the GOP convention site is an awsome move. Watch McCain on his heals the entire campaign. This is going to be fun!

  • @ citizen_pain…

    Glad I took your advice there…
    The only thing missing is McCain’s voiceover beginning, as he always does:

    “My friends…”

  • Nice to see Obama setting the agenda – the day started with McCain @AIPAC attacking Obama on Ahmedinejad, and I thought “here we go again”…

    Now it’s good to see that Obama can hit McCain on the economy, and force J-Mac to defend…

  • “I think if you look at the overall record, and millions of jobs having, being created, etc., etc., you can make an argument that there’s been great progress economically, over that period of time. ” — “Ace” McCain

    Under the math of Republican Supply-Side Economics, this is arguably correct. Basically, if you put Bill Gates in a room with 99 homeless men, then on average you have 100 multi-millionaires in the room.

    In the real world, the $400 million in compensation paid to Exxon’s CEO balances out 10,000 workers losing their $40K incomes. The result, as far as the corporate-controlled media is concerned, is that on average, in spite of difficult economic times, average incomes have not declined.

    “Families are sitting around the kitchen table this evening and figuring out whether they’re going to be able to keep their home or not. They’re figuring out whether they’re, why it is that suddenly and recently someone in their family or their neighbor has lost their job. There’s no doubt that we’re in enormous difficulties.” — “I’m not good with economics” McCain

    And there’s no doubt that families are going to get doodley squat in the way of help from a McCain administration.

  • And Obama is attacking McCain on his weakness (the economy) AND on his so-called strengths (the military).

  • gorp said:

    heels

    As a former cage fighter I knew what you meant. The healing comes later if at all.

  • Excellent stuff. Now that he’s free of the intramural scrimmage, he’s bringing the full strength of his campaign to bear against McSame.

    It’s a minor detail, but I have to say the “doubling down” metaphor is the perfect one — it ties McCain to Bush, it paints him as reckless, and it does so in wholly non-elitist words so the media Heathers won’t scold him.

  • Senator Candyass is simply dick waving here, trying to prove he’s man enough to take on McCain. Of course, Obama’s dreamy-eyed followers ooh and ahh over this revolting display of testosterone, never considering how the average citizen views this exchange.

    By attacking McCain in McCain’s areas of strength, Obama shows his own weakness and fear. To red staters, he comes off as not butch enough, in contrast with Senator Clinton, who has the self-confidence and fortitude to recognize McCain’s superior experience and publicly compliment him for it. Obama is afraid to do that. What else will he be too frightened to do as president?

  • I used to worry a bit that Barack Obama’s above-the-fray style might not be assertive enough for a rough-and-tumble general election campaign against an aggressive Republican machine.

    I’m not at all surprised that Obama would be harder on Clinton on McCain. First of all, the differences are more clear cut between himself and McCain and himself and Clinton. (I’ve often disagreed with the conventional wisdom that there is little difference between Obama and Clinton, but the differences are not the type which for make high profile campaign battles.

    A second difference is that Obama had reasons to avoid going too hard on Clinton. He benefited from the contrast of him taking the high road while Clinton took the low road, attracting many more voters and superdelegates. He also had to be concerned with unifying the party after winning the nomination.

    With McCain he’s free to go all out and attack in areas where there are major differences in their views.

  • Great on Obama but he needs more of this and fortunately he has so much material to work with when it comes to McCain. I can’t wait until Obama says that , “you know, most people believe that putting on a military uniform does not make one a military expert and McCain is a perfect example of this. He has been wrong every step of the way on Iraq and he is wrong now on showing his appreciation and support of our brave soldiers by voting against the GI Bill”.

    McCain only knows what he’s told to say about the economy, it’s very confusing to him. He’s admitted this on more than one occasion and he makes very little sense when questioned about the economy.

    Now he’s hired Michael Goldfarb from the Weekly Standard (the Bill Kristol rag) to be his campaign communications assistant. The one that believes the president should have dictatorial powers (the thing our founding fathers feared the most) so this campaign is about to get dirty. These are the very journalism war cheer leaders that should be tried for complicity in committing war crimes. No fear…Obama is such a class act and McCain is really just pathetic…my friends…what a phony.

  • M above comment should say, I’m not at all surprised that Obama would be harder on McCain than he could be on Clinton. (Posting on our own blogs spoils us as we have the ability to edit and correct such mistakes after the fact, which we don’t have commenting elsewhere.)

  • I know we are not supposed to say McCain’s “Lost his Bearings.” This causes his shills to freak out.

    Can we say that he often seems “Befuddled,” instead?

  • In this ‘fight'(it’s to one-sided to call it that really), Obama’s greatest dangers will be complacency and the appearance of arrogance. All he has to do is slip and say something like ‘there is no fool like an old fool’ or one of countless and valid disparagements of former Bush supporters and the tide could shift. As long as he sticks to just the facts he is safe.

  • Mary, Mother of Odd, said:
    “By attacking McCain in McCain’s areas of strength, Obama shows his own weakness and fear.”

    Have been watching MSNBC with Norah Odonnell. She had Susan Rice (Obama advisor) on. Introduced her by stating that Obama was attacking McCain on his ‘strength’ of foreign policy. Had discussion about ‘talking to the enemy’, as if McCain was scoring points ‘because it is his strength’.

    Then showed graph showing that 61% of independents and 48% of republicans AGREE WITH OBAMA. It did not appear to sink into Norah that McLame being in disagreement with the American public countered the media driven mime that foreign policy is McSame’s strength!

    Mary dearest…
    Norah ODonnell continuously persists in displaying her ignorance about people and issues. Because of that I have nominated her for the title of ‘Dumbest C**t on the Face of the Earth”. Your ongoing drivel makes you a challenger to her!

  • I’m not sure why you think this is such kickass campaigning? Obama is clearly omitting the context when he excerpts only the part where McCain says things are great and not the part where he acknowledges families in distress. McCain is right to complain about that, because Obama misleadingly quoted only part of what McCain said and omitting the context changes the nature of his statement.

    How do you trust what a candidate says when he excerpts things in a dishonest way? McCain was talking about broader indicators not personal family finances. He made that clear in his statement and Obama did twist it. I disagree with McCain that there has been improvement, even in those broader indicators, since rate of growth has slowed and now unemployment and other indicators are worse and only show improvement if you average across both terms. But Obama chose to be dishonest in his quoting instead of pointing out how McCain is wrong and the economy has worsened.

    If Obama is going to build trust among those who do not know him well, he can’t do it by being dishonest. He needs simple and clear messages and effective attacks — not sneaky, deceptive ones like this.

    I’ve come to expect less and less from the commenters on this blog. If any other candidate had done this kind of excerpting to Obama, you’d be all over it. When Obama does it, you are blind and think he’s done something wonderful. And you accuse me of situational ethics? Obama is messing up and you condone it. It is too easy for McCain to show people the context of his remark and they will see what Obama did. Anyone not in the bag for him will find it unfair. Those are the people Obama will lose. The ones who can read and think beyond what Obama tells them to think.

    Obama needs to show strength, character and determination coupled with intelligence, experience, and ideas for workable programs. He is showing sneakiness and dishonesty. He is playing some game of “gotcha when he should be discussing important issues affecting the future of our country. People don’t want word games. They want substance. Everyone can see that McCain expressed empathy for struggling families — the issue isn’t that McCain thinks no one is struggling (as it was with Bush), it is that there is major disagreement about how to fix things. Why is Obama doing this stupid shit instead of engaging McCain in a meaningful way?

  • McCan’t is like a man with a dozen knives stuck in him. All you have to do is grab them and twist.

    Sadly, he stuck half of them into himself. The rest are from Rove and BGII.

    It’s not that Clinton and Obama don’t have a few knives to twist too. But Clinton is used to the pain and Obama’s are so fresh they aren’t really as sensitive yet (or maybe he’s just more stoic).

    McCan’t squeals like a pig.

  • ‘McCain was talking about broader indicators ‘. His indicators are narrower and amount to just saying ‘the rich are getting richer so ultimately everybody wins’. Its the same old piss on the lower classes and say its raining crap we have heard for decades.

  • Mary,

    I’m disappointed. You couldn’t find a way to work the “race” angle into your post. Surely while you were pointing out Obama’s blatant dishonesty, you could have employed your usual tactic of attributing his mendacity to the color of his skin. You’re getting sloppy. Keep it up, and somebody’s gonna call you a progressive or worse: a liberal.

  • “Why is Obama doing this stupid shit instead of engaging McCain in a meaningful way?”

    We are all sorry for you and your positions Mary. Unfortunately, the truth continues to have a progressive bias. Of course we do agree with you that using facts (stupid shit) to address McBush is an unfair tactic.

  • I suspect that everyone here(and Obama) thinks that McCain is every bit as compassionate as Bush.

  • With all of the Democrats backing up Obama this is going to be a great year for the entire party. This message and attitude will work in all of the so-called battleground states and probably a few of the pink ones too.

  • Michael7843853 said:
    In this ‘fight’(it’s to one-sided to call it that really), Obama’s greatest dangers will be complacency and the appearance of arrogance. All he has to do is slip and say something like ‘there is no fool like an old fool’ or one of countless and valid disparagements of former Bush supporters and the tide could shift.

    Crushing John McCain is the immediate goal. But to actually take our country back, Obama needs to work to discredit conservative ideas and philosophies that have become conventional wisdom for the corporate-controlled media — ideas like:

    – Supply-side economics
    – Deregulation
    – Judicial conservatism
    – Bribes campaign contributions as free speech
    – Imposing democracy from outside
    – the War on Terror
    – the War on Drugs
    – the War on science
    – the War on the “Gay Agenda”
    – the U.S. as a Christian nation
    – etc.

    I hope Obama keeps hammering McCain hard, but starts discussing broader themes than what an unstable, addled, flip-flopping moron McCain is.

  • Are there really “millions” of people facing foreclosure? As in >= 2 million? I knew it was bad, but that’s an astounding number considering maybe 70 million families are homeowners.

    This is an honest question…anyone know some real numbers?

  • It’s nice to see Mary finally drop her disguise and start shilling for McCain directly.

    Yes, yes, how dare those mean Democrats challenge McCain’s truth telling. Your concern has been duly noted. Run along and collect your points from McCain HQ now.

  • I’ve come to expect less and less from the commenters on this blog.

    The internet is a big place. Perhaps you should explore more of it.

  • Wow, I was going to be dickly and ask “But Mary, how does this HURT Obama?” You see, I thought even Black-Hole Mary wouldn’t be stupid enough to add her increasingly mind-numbing thoughts to this argument.

    I underestimated the sheer weight of black-hole Mary’s density.

    Black-Hole Mary, McCain SAID “the fundamentals of America’s economy are strong.” That in and of itself is wrong. Who gives a rat’s nipple whether then McCain tried to parse his stupid and irrelevant opinion to mean “Well, when I say the fundamentals are strong, I MEAN lots and lots of people are really really hurting from this shitty economy and god I hope that NEEEEGROOOO doesn’t call me out on it by taking my words out of context even though the facts upon which I base my opinion exist only in the heads of Republicans, morons and Black Hole Mary,” like you’d hope it means. No, it means “the fundamentals of America’s economy are strong.” And they’re not. Obama called him out on it, because McCain is wrong.

    Honestly, I’m surprised you didn’t say Obama was wrong because he didn’t curtsy when addressing the white man.

    Seriously, when are you going to give up your BS charade and say you’re officially voting for McCain? Pointing and laughing…I mean, ENQUIRING minds want to know!

  • Steve Benen posted McCain’s actual comment. It does refer to the pain American families are in but states that broader indicators show an improved economy. That was McCain’s whole statement. Anyone who can read can see that. When Obama pretends that McCain only said that things were getting better without acknowleding the distress of many families, he does twist McCain’s remarks. That is dishonest.

    If Obama does something dishonest, it is because he is Obama, not because he is black, and I have never said otherwise. Here we are back to the reality of this campaign. The only person allowed to mention race is Obama and anyone else who says anything whatsoever about race is automatically a racist. I am as entitled to discuss how race has affected the dynanics of this campaign as anyone else in this world, without being called a racist because of it. But I don’t know what else I should expect from a bunch of people who can’t read and who think that twisting words is OK if done in the cause of electing Obama.

    Obama is going down in Nov because he doesn’t know how to beat McCain and doesn’t know how to appeal to major constituencies he will need in order to win (such as those who know how to read). Unfortunately, he will take everyone else down with him and we’ll be left with McCain. My biggest fear right now is that Huckabee will be the VP and McCain may not survive his term. Heaven help us! That’s why I care so much that Obama is messing this up. Clinton would know how to go after McCain without playing cutesy word games involving dishonest quoting (or deliberately trying to goad McCain into a tantrum, as if he would blow up outside of an interpersonal exchange). This only makes Obama look petty and dishonest. You think Obama can do a better job beating McCain when he couldn’t beat Clinton without race-baiting, red state caucuses and cross-over voters (and now we hear, Bush donors). We’ll all see — and I’ll be telling you “I told you so” in November when we’re back with another Republican in the White House and it’s your fault.

  • I am not voting for McCain and I am NEVER, under any circumstances, voting for Obama. I am waffling between writing in Al Gore or Hillary Clinton.

    I believe in fair play, even for Republicans. I handle information for a living, so it violates an important value when people are dishonest about quoting. Obama was trained as an attorney, so he knows better than to do what he did, just as he knew better than to plagiarize, but did that anyway too. Obama is dishonest in ways that would get me fired if I did them in my job. It offends me.

    You can pretend he is just wonderful because you like him and you dislike McCain, but whether you like the guy isn’t what makes an action right or wrong. You aren’t children — I shouldn’t have to be telling you this.

    There are other people who care about these things too. I guess Obama doesn’t need their votes either. If he keeps writing off constituencies, he won’t have anyone left except the teenagers and his base, and that won’t be enough to win.

  • SteveT at #40. I like your list although maybe 3 more etc could be added. It is great to have such an eloquent and focused nominee; it is even nicer that the country may finally be ready to listen. Deprogramming on such a broad and profound scope will take years though. Thats where the bully pulpit will come in so handy. For the election, imho, Obama should avoid using too much of a shotgun approach; don’t overwhelm the voters. The war and the economy should do the trick. The real task begins after the inauguration.

  • . . . and I’ll be telling you “I told you so” in November when we’re back with another Republican in the White House and it’s your fault.

    And that really is what all the comments are about – so Mary can have peace of mind knowing she was right. That wasn’t such a long journey after all.

  • Side by side in debate the difference betwwen these two will be alarming. When it comes down to a stark comaparison it will take quite a stretch for alot of people to justify a vote for McCain…and I still say he’ll explode at one of the debates.

  • OOOOH, LET’S HAVE FUN WITH WORDS!

    Let’s say I said:

    Basically, Mary is a racist. She’s got some nice qualities, and I’m sure she’s nice to her mom, and I bet she bakes a hell of a honey-baked ham. But she’s a racist. A card-carrying sheet-wearing racist and don’t let her tell you otherwise.

    And THEN Mary said:

    I’m NOT a racist! slappymagoo is maligning my character by saying I’m a racist!

    THEN BY MARY’S STUPID NON-LOGIC, *I’M* ALLOWED TO SAY:

    Hey, Mary, I said you’ve got some nice qualities! You’re taking my words out of context! Come to think of it, I bet you treat your Mom like crap!

    THANKS FOR ALL THE WORD-PARSING FUN MARY! YOU MAKE LEARNING FUN!!! BUT ONLY WHEN YOU’RE NOT TRYING! I’m sure if anyone were to try to actually learn something from you, they’d be dumber the last day of class than they were on the first. Unless they learned NOT to listen to you.

  • I am not voting for McCain

    Yeah, you are. You know it and we know it. But we’ve moved on and you’re still pretending.

    I believe in fair play, even for Republicans. I handle information for a living, so it violates an important value when people are dishonest about quoting.

    Most un-self-aware person on the planet. Tragically born without irony gene.

    But fun for us. 🙂

  • Damn, Steve Benen is upstream comparing McCain to Bush on the budget. Are you going to let him get away with outrageously maligning a good man like McCain that way, Mary? Go get him, girl!

  • Noting Obama’s rally tomorrow night at the site of the Republican convention, Ezra noted this morning, “If I didn’t know better, I’d say the strategy here is to tweak McCain often enough that he uncorks his famous temper and forces the American people to decide whether they really want to hand the presidency to a cranky, touchy old man. Actually, come to think of it, I don’t know better….”

    Obama’s focus often seems to be to turn things around, let his opponents destroy themselves, etc. while remaining above the fray. I actually think this is part of the plan.

    I also think that age is a factor in his planning. McCain is not in the best shape, is not young, and if Obama can keep him going, McCain is going to wear out early. Keeping him off kilter, wearing him down, all leads to more and more chances McCain will do something amazingly stupid. All Obama needs is about two good McCain melt downs to keep a lot of people from even thinking about voting for McCain.

  • I’m curious. Mary, you say “Obama is going down in Nov because he doesn’t know how to beat McCain and doesn’t know how to appeal to major constituencies he will need in order to win (such as those who know how to read).”

    Where is the source of your certainty? Because, looking at the numbers, I don’t see any reason for certainty. Obama may lose by a hair or he may win by a landslide, but I see no way to justify certainty either way. On the other hand, Hillary Clinton might win by a nose or lose by a nose. It’s by no means certain either way either. If you look at the negatives (which smart people do) the negatives favor Obama — his negative set coincides fairly closely with people who haven’t voted Democratic in the last several election cycles. Clinton, meanwhile, is viewed negatively by a large number of independents who may be ready to vote Democratic otherwise this year.

  • charles, asking black-hole Mary to apply logic to argument?

    The phrase “pissing in the wind” comes to mind…

  • Slappy magoo,

    I’m not expected a comprehensive reply, or any reply at all, but you might say that I’m professionally curious about the sources of certainty.

  • Charles:

    You’re wasting your time on Mary Mary Quite Contrary from the Plannet HillaryWorld (whose garden doesn’t grow at all, since it’s full of noxious weeds). She’s just hanging around waiting for the TARDIS to arrive to pick her up and return her to the alternative reality from which she appeared in that cloud of crap when it burst through the walls of this reality.

  • I handle information for a living,

    so you’re finally admitting the I’m-a-professor schtick was a lie?

  • Mary: If you supported Hillary, then turn your back on your party for some sort of revenge when she doesn’t get the nomination, you do not honor her hard-fought candidacy. You dishonor your gender.

    If there’s one important lesson to be learned from Hillary’s candidacy it is that women are as smart as men and that they deserve to be equal players in a democracy’s politics. But, casting a vindictive revenge vote that could endanger the very important effort to fumigate the neo-cons from the White House means that you, Mary, have no place in politics.

    Good luck with that write in vote. It’s worth the paper you’ll scrawl it on.

  • These ad-hominum ( ad feminum?) attacks demean the commenters and the whole comment section. Please let us address the issue(s) rather than merely vent. No matter how good it feels to flame others, it doesn’t help advance the progressive cause.

    As for McC’s statement, as I see it he started by admitting things are hard for many. But then he pitched away this good start and claimed that there has been great progress economically. As if the measure he had been alluding to was not the right one. I am guessing he felt he couldn’t diss the current Pres and policies. So much for being on our side. McC’s current approval of tax cuts for the rich provides the context. Obama is right to blast him for it.

  • Don’t get your hopes up too much for the media. I have been watching MSNBC and CNN all day and haven’t heard a single mention of this economy exchange. On the other hand, McCain’s continued attacks on Obama for being willing to negotiate with Ahmadinejad have been replayed over and over and over (with absolutely no response mentioned from the Obama campaign), and there has been constant chattering about Obama leaving his church. They are also obsessing about Hillary’s supporters sitting out the election or voting for McCain. Every story and conversation seems to be aimed at painting a negative opinion of Obama.

  • 49. SaintZak said: Side by side in debate the difference betwwen these two will be alarming.

    I’ll believe it when I see it. The last two elections included debates between 2 very smart Democrats and a coke-addled moron who probably can’t spell his own name. The media turned them into a test of who was most like the average viewer and declared them draws at best. Don’t underestimate their ability to turn McCain’s hotheadedness into “proof that he will fight hard for Americans at home and abroad.”

  • Mary,

    I saw your link to it on another thread and replied there. Short answer: sorry, not convincing.

  • It isn’t a revenge non-vote for Obama, it is because I sincerely believe he would be the worst person for the job. He has the least experience, the most unsuitable personality, and I believe he would be a disaster in office because he doesn’t know what he’s doing and he doesn’t know enough to ask for help when he clearly needs it. I do not even believe he has good intentions, since I am unsure what lurks behind his Rezko connections and his odd funding sources. I do not admire his identity-politics and I believe he has done many dishonest and ugly things in his campaign. His casual sexism and his enabling of homophobia in the African American community are antithetical to my values. I find him to be overcautious in his decision-making and I worry about his need to be liked. His search for a father figure makes him vulnerable to mentors when he should be a leader (much as Bush’s father-problems have dictated too many of his choices). He has no appreciation of other forms of diversity than his own. He is arrogant (and I do not mean that as a synonym for uppity — I mean he condescends to people and patronizes them when a better person, white or black, would give respect to all). His casual use of the word “sweetie” is a particularly offensive example of this. He has the wrong views on many issues I care about (such as NCLB, social security and health care) and I do not believe he would be able to work across-the-aisle or be particularly effective in getting his programs passed. His comments on foreign countries have horrified me (he doesn’t know the difference between Cuba and Venezuela). His privileged upbringing in prep schools and ivy league colleges has made him entirely unsuited to appreciate problems of working class people, and if he thinks that he can borrow experience from his mother and grandparents (or grand uncle) and then casually abandon them when he wants to use them as an example of bigotry, he impresses no one who values family loyalty.

    I have strong objections to McCain also but McCain has earned his shot at the presidency whereas Obama has not. I will not vote for McCain, but my objections to him are to his programs and platform, not to his character.

    You keep suggesting that this is just about pique. Calling Clinton supporters angry or bitter ignores that we all chose Clinton for actual reasons. If Obama fails to address those reasons, he is not going to gather Clinton supporters into his fold. He doesn’t automatically inherit people simply because we are Democrats. Calling us names, as you do me above, helps nothing whatsoever.

  • Charles, Obama cannot connect with women, older people, working class people, Hispanics and Asians, K-12 teachers, and those with less education. That is a whole lot of people to be unable to inspire. I believe his problems arise because every time he turns around he treads on a value that is important to those groups.

    On the other hand, his coalition includes young and first-time voters, independents and cross-over voters, college-educated and African Americans, and some of the unions (many others went to Clinton). Among those, the kids are notorious for having a short attention span and may not turn out in the huge numbers anticipated (they didn’t in the last election, although equally highly touted as an influence in the election). The cross-overs may go back to McCain when they get a good look at Obama. That leaves the college-educated and the African Americans. Unless Obama can expand beyond that, he is in trouble.

    How does he expand his reach when he does not know enough about Hispanic voters to appeal to them? Their values are very different than his and he doesn’t know what they are. The same can be said for Appalachians, Asians, and for working class people. When Obama talked about the latter as frustrated and bitter, clinging to God, guns, and religion, he showed his ignorance. All his college-educated buddies chimed in and said he was right, but he really needed to go back and find out how these people think and what they believe is important, something Clinton spent a great deal of time doing herself. Obama will never appeal to women with his sweetie remark. There have been whispers about misogyny in his campaign throughout this election. He has done nothing whatsoever to address that. You can’t show empathy for the problems of working class people by talking about the cost of arugula or how hard it is to find a nanny (as Michelle did), or by bragging that the secret service drives you around so you don’t have to worry about the price of gas, as I heard Obama do. It is no wonder working class people have no use for the guy.

    How does he start appealing to others? By learning something about them. By respecting them and their values and concerns. I believe Obama is one of the most ill-equipped people for doing that I’ve ever seen in politics. He will spend the summer alienating more folks who will turn around and vote for McCain. He’s already doing it with older voters (typically very loyal voters) each time he takes a swipe at McCain’s age. McCain’s cross-overs will return and we’ll see state after state go to McCain when this should have been a shoo-in for the Dems. McCain will successfully demonstrate that he is not Bush (because he is not) and voters will believe Republicans have reformed (which they have not) and it will be too bad for us.

  • Mary,

    You left started, a few comments back, in a relatively rational frame of mind, but this latest comment is just incoherent and illogical. I again point out that you have no real evidence for what you are claiming.

    Thanks. You answered my questions.

  • I don’t read Mary’s trolling anymore. Has she seriously revealed herself as a republican McCain supporter?

    Not that I find it surprising, if true, but I’m still finding it difficult to believe that any (apparently) self-respecting woman who (claims to have) supported Clinton could ever vote for that frothing conservative extremist.

    How is it that some people are so moronic as to so graphically cut off their own nose to spite their face?

  • For all those capable of taking in new information (Mary, you can skip this and continue chewing off your own leg), Clinton’s key constituencies have moved significantly toward Obama:

    Obama is ending this primary season leading Clinton among women and Hispanics. He ties Clinton among non-Hispanic whites and people with a high-school education or less. His leads among men, those with more education and younger voters have deepened.

    In fact, the only major demographic in which Clinton leads–and she barely cracked 50 percent in it–is women over 50.

    The Gallup poll doesn’t measure Asian Americans, but this recent poll of buyers’ remorse in California is significant. Though Asian Americans backed Clinton 49-46 in their Super Tuesday primary, if they could have revoted they would have chosen Obama 54-37. (It’s only fair to note that the same California poll, in contrast to the national Gallup poll, shows little movement toward Obama among California Hispanics.)

    And finally, contrary to reports of his flopping among Jewish voters, Obama has gotten 45 percent of the Jewish vote in all primaries excluding Florida and Michigan. (He will need to do better with Florida Jews, although even there there is a distinctive older-younger split.)

    The idea that Obama’s constituencies are limited to the young, the highly educated and the black is something that the Clintons have been pushing hard. Like the rest of their arguments for her being the superior candidate, it’s just not reflected in reality–which is just as well, since this race is over.

  • Unlike Mary who seems to be as easily led about as her sheep, the enduring thing about Obama that endears him to me, even beyond his EMPATHY, listening skills, ability to project hope and empowerment,and the most brilliant, poragmatic intelligence we’ve probably ever had in a chief executive, is his simple and humble HONESTY. Go Barack!!!

  • “I am waffling between writing in Al Gore or Hillary Clinton.” -Mary

    It’s funny how when you are spewing endless paragraphs railing against Obama, you sound so sure of yourself. When it comes to voting, it’s all the sound and fury of a waffle.

  • Mary

    The only dishonesty here is your twisting of the facts.

    McCain wants to have his cake and eat it too by straddling both sides of the fence (we’re in enormous difficulties / there’s been great progress economically / some families in pain / the fundamentals of America’s economy are strong). What a load of muddled horse-shit. And he’s going to improve the situation by continuing with the same policies…? Because after all the fundamentals are ‘strong’…???

    Obama was EXACTLY right to call him on his BS and point out that, contrary to what McCain says, every indicator shows that the fundamentals are NOT strong. In fact they’re dangerously weak!!

    As for not being able to ‘connect’ to various voters, coming from a CLINTONISTA that’s just laughable. Hillary fought a good fight, but – underhanded tactics and all – she LOST!!! And you’re free to vote for whom ever you want but please spare us the brain-addled, pop-pyschology analysis of who connects to whom and why.

    At the very least go post that drivel over at LGF or Red State; I’m sure they’ll sympathise.

  • Obama won’t have to push much to push McCain over the edge…I am waiting for Obama to say some little, timed just right, slightly derogatory remark, during the debates, that will cause McCain to physically attack Obama in front of God and every body…or at least cause McCain to turn “red in the face” and start screaming obscenities

  • Anyone who supported Hillary Clinton and now will vote for John McCain is either a racist, a fool or both.

  • Annoying and irritating John McCain is a very smart tactic. He is notorious for his short temper and it is, therefore, inevitable that he will lose it inappropriately. Thus, he reduces his stature and the public’s confidence in him.

  • mcbush is ALREADY batty.

    Obama merely needs to expose it.

    And as we saw on Tuesday, how difficult is THAT?

    mcbush is too stoopid to lead with anything but his chin.

    Obama’s only challenge is to is to prevent being seen as clubbing mcbush to death with a baby harp seal.

    Case in point- mcbush challenged Obama to apear on stage with him, no less than 10 times.

    1 time will prove to be too many, and the fact that mcbush is too stoopid to know that, well, see above for Obama’s only challenge.

    Hell- That dipshit is almost making the shrub look smart.

  • MCSAMEis toast. He still thinks he’s in Vietnam. What a piece of crap he is.
    Obama will bury Grampa Munster…. and I can’t FN wait!!

  • Mary-O-Mary were did your logic go?
    You said “the most unsuitable personality, and I believe he would be a disaster in office because he doesn’t know what he’s doing and he doesn’t know enough to ask for help when he clearly needs it. I do not even believe he has good intentions, since I am unsure what lurks behind his Rezko connections and his odd funding sources. I do not admire his identity-politics and I believe he has done many dishonest and ugly things in his campaign.” Mary, these are all just feelings you have with nothing to substantiate them. As far as Resko goes. They just finished a 22 week long trial and not one thing came up suggesting unsavery or illegal lurking things about Resko’s dealings with Barrack Obahma. If it was there, Patrick Fitzgerald would have found it. You remember Patrick Fitzgerald, the very capable and proficient prosecutor that nailed “Scooter” traitor Libby.
    Why, or what makes you not believe, Barrack has good intentions? He is trying to help us save this country from itself and this neo-con designed implosion. Are these not good intensions? If he wanted to harm this country and be dishonest, he would be running as a ResmutLican.

    What gets me, is so many women for Hillary claim to be feminists. Yet they keep reenforcing the steroetype that “women are so irrational because they let their emotions control their decisions” Everything you stated above is all feelings and conjecture with no substantiating facts. How does that disprove the steroetype? How can, you mutiplied by the aprx 2500 emotional wrecks blogging on Hillary’s website not set the womens movement back 50 years? You should be furious with Hillary! I would be ashamed of myself, for letting her play on my emotions to extort monies from me and all my fellow supporters. Using us to pay herself back for the bad financial decisions she made in the last half of her campaign. I felt soooooooooooo (many of the women would spell it this way) sorry for all those Hillary supporters who put everything they had into that campaign and were lied to Tuesday night in that speach of Hillary’s. Before she gave that speach she already knew Barrack had 56 more deligates than he needed yet Hillary still asked all her “18million” (1million imaginary) to go to her website and give more money. How disingenuous.
    Now, I’m admiting that what I”m going ask is conjecture. But why would Hillary pick a hall that was so far underground that nobody could contact the outside world with their cellphones to recieve the results of the primary. Even the reporters couldn’t use their blackberry’s to contact their home offices. Coincidence? I don’t think so.

    Hillary’s main job now is to reunite the party. It is all our jobs too but Hillary must lead the way for her supporters. Listen, if we take ourselves back to the begining of the primary we will remember the whole purpose was to put a Democrat back in the White House. To get rid of the resmutlicans and bring LAW and JUSTICE back to our great young country. This is what every one of our candidates was stressing. Even and especially Hillary. I remember when I saw all our candidates together on one stage I was so elated because of all the intelligent and experienced people we had running. Compared to the other party it was like putting a champion chess player up against a salamander. (not trying to insult a good, reptile) Everyone on that stage knew the rules going in, Hillary more so because she has been through this exact same process before. To be nominated you have to get to 2025 deligates. She new quite well about the caucus states and how they worked.
    She blundered big time thinking she would have the primary sewn up after Super Tuesaday. It showed a huge lack of judgement that caused people to take a second look and say maybe she doesn’t have what it takes to be president. Then when when she signed the oath to take her name of the ballots in MI and FL and left her name on in MI she was decietful. She did not honor her oath. That is not very Presidential seeing one must take an oath of office.Then she started fudging on the number of votes she said she was ahead by, but not counting the votes in the caucus states. She was decieving her supporters. Voters that were not so attached to the Hillary campaign could see all this and so did the press. They started talking. This is the job of the press and it is also the job of the voter to fact find. Granted the MSM in this country has an alterative motive but most voters don’t. That being said anybody with a brain could see a pattern forming, Hillary was being disingenuous to her supporters and was blaming all her problems on the press and the talk show hosts. Her followers were so emotionaly and financialy involved by this time they didn’t have a clear picture. Remember, this primary was to pick a Democrat to send to the White House. Hillary turned it into a crusade for women to not be second class citizens or ??invisible?? and she had her supporters believing she was the only women that could do it. She needs to fix this. She has encouraged her followers to call the FCC, all networks, all the prgressive talk show hosts all the cable news shows. To tell them what? They are all lying rotten men. Then it was terrible what they did to Randi Rhodes. Calling her up screaming and calling her a traitor to her gender. A backstabber.
    Randi was just stating the truth. That the math showed that Hillary needed to get 65 or 70% of all the votes in all the remaing states just to tie Barrack. Your going to tell me that Hillary didn’t play the sexist card.

    Getting back to the begining of the primary, we were trying to put a Democrat in the White House not specifcally the first women or the first black man . When you hear people say the Hillary supporters will fall back in line they are not making you, or coercing you to do somenthinh you don’t want to do. They just mean once the sadness of your candidate not getting the nomination has passed you will come to realize the original goal is to get the lying murdering neo-cons out of our goverment. Our great United States of Americans can’t withstand any more of their criminal behaviour. We need to apply the skills and the drive, we have aquired during this extended process and use them to complete our goal of electing a Democrat to the White House. Not use them to destroy our almost certain victory.

  • Barack Obahma is a statseman and a leader. He states what we as a nation and as a people need to accomplish and how we need to do it. He doesn’t take polls of the people and then try to appease them. He speaks his mind, not what he thinks you want to hear. He is a true leader NOT a pollitician. When he is asked a question he answers it. He doesn’t give that no answer answer. Iv’e noticed some of the uneducated blue collar workers are so used to being lied to they don’t know how to deal with the truth. They can be so ignorant that they feel if you don’t lie and try to scam them, somehow your not playing fair.

    I’m old enough to remember RFK’s speaches and Barrack Obahma brings back that good feeling. It’s so refreshing to hear an intelligent candidate again who is on the side of whats wright and decent. We all need to pay attention and watch this mans back. If you have a sense that somethings not wright, confront it. He is going to need all of us to keep him safe. I see in Obahma an exceptional human being.
    GO DEMOCRATS GO BARRACK

    • Comments are closed.