McCain’s meandering mendacity

May 16, 2008

Following up on the last item, Barack Obama hit back quite aggressively this afternoon in response to George Bush’s “appeasement” smear, and John McCain’s applause for it. Shortly thereafter, the McCain campaign responded to the response.

“It was remarkable to see Barack Obama’s hysterical diatribe in response to a speech in which his name wasn’t even mentioned. These are serious issues that deserve a serious debate, not the same tired partisan rants we heard today from Senator Obama.

“Senator Obama has pledged to unconditionally meet with Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — who pledges to wipe Israel off the map, denies the Holocaust, sponsors terrorists, arms America’s enemies in Iraq and pursues nuclear weapons. What would Senator Obama talk about with such a man?

“It would be a wonderful thing if we lived in a world where we don’t have enemies. But that is not the world we live in, and until Senator Obama understands that, the American people have every reason to doubt whether he has the strength, judgment and determination to keep us safe.”

I have to admit, given the quality of Obama’s remarks today, I had hoped the McCain would bring its A game, challenging Obama on a more substantive level. We’re entering the general-election phase, so I kind of expect the McCain gang to pick it up a notch, and this afternoon’s statement is tired and forced. It’s rather disappointing these 137 words of inanity are the best they can do on short notice.

But as long as they went to the trouble of issuing a weak response, we should go to the trouble of highlighting how foolish it is.

* “It was remarkable to see Barack Obama’s hysterical diatribe in response to a speech in which his name wasn’t even mentioned.”

I found Obama’s remarks to be rather powerful, so “hysterical diatribe” seems a little silly. As for the notion that Obama’s name wasn’t even mentioned, McCain’s buddies at the White House admitted, over and over again, to multiple news outlets, that the president’s speech was directed specifically at Obama’s foreign policy. Has the McCain campaign neglected to keep up on the news? It seems like an odd time for detachment.

* “These are serious issues that deserve a serious debate, not the same tired partisan rants we heard today from Senator Obama.”

Indeed, there are quite a few serious issues that deserve a serious debate, and Obama outlined a whole bunch of them — the failure of Bush’s Iraq policy, the fact that the policies McCain favors has made Iran stronger not weaker, the fact that al Qaeda is stronger not weaker, the fact that the Bush/McCain approach has strengthened Hamas, and the fact that McCain was for negotiating with Hamas before he was against it. The problem isn’t that Obama is avoiding the “serious issues,” it’s that McCain isn’t even trying to answer the call for a “serious debate.”

* “Senator Obama has pledged to unconditionally meet with Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — who pledges to wipe Israel off the map, denies the Holocaust, sponsors terrorists, arms America’s enemies in Iraq and pursues nuclear weapons. What would Senator Obama talk about with such a man?”

Obama has not called for “unconditional” talks; he’s repeatedly explained the kind of conditions necessary for negotiations. The McCain campaign presumably knows this, and is counting on voters not knowing the difference. As for why Obama might want to talk with Iran, maybe it has something to do with the fact that McCain’s approach has only left Iran stronger? And that Obama doesn’t see the utility in repeating a failed policy?

I’d add, by the way, that Bush’s own Defense Secretary and Secretary of State have indicated that they favor an Obama-like approach. McCain, for some reason, hasn’t denounced them, or asked them what they would want to talk to Iran about. (Here’s a line for the Obama campaign: John McCain is one of the few people in America who believes the Bush-Cheney administration isn’t conservative enough on foreign policy.)

* “It would be a wonderful thing if we lived in a world where we don’t have enemies. But that is not the world we live in, and until Senator Obama understands that, the American people have every reason to doubt whether he has the strength, judgment and determination to keep us safe.”

So, now the argument is that Obama doesn’t believe we have enemies? Really? That’s what the McCain gang comes up with on short notice?

Note to the McCain campaign: Obama knows we have enemies, and he knows they’re better off now thanks to the policies McCain embraces.

hysterical diatribe?!?!?!?!?!

Surely someone has some video of mclame throwing a temper tantrum or calling his wife the c-word.

By all accounts, hysterical diatribes are “par for the course” (or maybe I should not use that golf lingo since chimpy seems to think giving up golf honors our troops).

To all those that have give tweety kudos – do you think he will smack down mclame over this?

  • It would be a wonderful thing if Iraq could be the new Switzerland by 2013 by envisioning it so, but that is not the world we live in, either.

    This *is* their A game. We are big and tough and strong and they are terrorist appeasers and probably Muslims, too.

    It didn’t work in ’06, they just don’t have anything better. What, didja think they were going to tout their successes?

  • About Obama?

    Responding to McCain’s “hysterical” jibe, the Obama campaign sends over a couple of pretty clear indications that senior Bush staffers said he was talking about Obama before they officially walked the suggestion back.

    Here’s NBC’s John Yang:

    Speaking on background, a senior administration official says the president’s language to anyone — the official specifically mentioned Obama and former President Jimmy Carter’s suggestion that the U.S. talk to Hamas — who has suggested engaging with rogue states or terrorist groups without first getting some leverage.

    And CNN’s Ed Henry:

    Although the President didn’t name names, administration officials are privately acknowledging this was a shot at Barack Obama and other Democrats.

  • The McCain response was geared towards low-info voters (in other words, Republicans). People who possibly heard about Bush’s comments about those who want to “appease” Iran, and then POSSIBLY heard about Obama’s response, and are now MAYBE just hearing about McCain’s response to Obama’s response. But if you’re a low-info voter who leans right, you’re going to tend to trust the right-wing spin machine anyway. So if McCain’s people tell you Obama was acting like a screaming-meemie whiny-ass tittie baby who had his widdle feelings hurt and isn’t talking about the actual issues voters care about, you’ll probably spot some of your tobacky out your kitchen window at a passing sistercousin and guffaw “yup, that sounds like a librul all right.”

    Pleasing that base has worked wonders for the GOP in the past, but let’s hope this year it fails them

  • Obama’s best response to what’s-his-name? – “Pipe down. I’ll let Bush speak for himself.”

  • You know, Obama is going to do very well by attacking Bush and then McCain every time. I suspect that’s his strategy.

    If I were on the Obama team, I would count on Bush’s not being able to keep his mouth shut when taunted. All Obama has to do is imply that Bush is too chicken to come out and answer his charges, and Bush will open his mouth. That will let Obama attack Bush directly, as if he were running against Bush.

    Time and again, McCain will be put in a position where he has no choice but to align with Bush — if he doesn’t, he’s agreeing with Obama, and that helps Obama; if he does, he’s Bush’s second banana.

    This won’t work if Bush lays low, but Bush responds very well when poked with a stick.

    Taunt Bush
    Have Bush make deranged statement
    Attack Bush’s statement
    Wait for McCain to support Bush
    Attack McCain
    Lather
    Rinse
    Repeat

  • What would Senator Obama talk about with such a man?

    How about, “Sorry about the coup. We had no idea the Shah would be such a jerk. Let’s try to start off on the right foot by finding those areas where we have common interests.”

    Y’know, leadership-type stuff.

  • If this is the best they can do then November is going to be brutal on the party of morons. “Barack Obama’s hysterical diatribe in response to a speech in which his name wasn’t even mentioned”???

    How hard is it to find the video and see that Obama wasn’t “hysterical”? How hard is it to find out that Bush was definitely talking about Obama, so harping that Bush didn’t “mention his name” is as childish as it gets? I’m sure that level of sophistry plays great inside the bubble, but do they really want to insult the intelligence of the average American that much?

    It looks like McBush’s entire campaign can be summed up by what Steve said;

    The McCain campaign … is counting on voters not knowing the difference.

  • zmulls has a good plan. Bush is the target, and what a fine target he makes.

  • I know this is far, far too involved for the average American voter who couldn’t find Iran on a globe in three tries even if the country names were showing. But it seems to me that a very correct response to Bush would be that we wouldn’t have to argue about whether to talk to a raving looney like Ahmedinejad had Bush had the sense to talk to his vastly more reform-minded predecessor. It so happens this is not a theoretical issue: we have real-world test results on Li’l Bush’s “I’m not talking to you!” strategy. It made things decidedly worse in Iran. Heckuva job, Bushie!

  • McCain: “Senator Obama has pledged to unconditionally meet with Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — who pledges to wipe Israel off the map, denies the Holocaust, sponsors terrorists, arms America’s enemies in Iraq and pursues nuclear weapons. What would Senator Obama talk about with such a man?”

    What would Senator Obama talk about with such a man? Hmmmm…let me think. How about Ahmadinejad’s pledges to wipe Israel off the map, denial of the Holocaust, sponsor of terroristism, arming militias in Iraq and pursuit of nuclear weapons.

  • Wait, what?

    Paragraph 1: We have NO IDEA why Obama would even think he was the subject of that speech . . .

    Paragraph 2: . . . but he has a lot of explaining to do about his naive intention to appease our enemies.

  • Yeah, Obama should avoid “hysterical diatribes,” and give us some pie-in-the-sky visions about what a wonderful world it will be in 2013 after the Care Bears swoop down in their space ships, turn all the bad guys’ weapons into lollipops and give everyone a big old Care Bear hug. That’s what real leaders do.

    This election is going to be exactly like the Monty Python skit where the professional boxer goes up against the “little girl” in ringlets and a frilly dress.

  • B R E A K I N G N E W S

    Bush Once Again Fails To ‘Jawbone’ King Abdullah At His Horse Ranch Into Increasing Oil Production

    Maybe he is workin’ on the wrong bone – perhaps what he really needs is jeff gannon/guckert, the homosexual prostitute with fake press credentials doing the “jaw” work.

    What were all those overnights for anyhow?

  • Well, now everyone knows why I love kicking Goopers between the legs (not that there’s anything there to injure).

    These. Fucking. MORONS!!!!!!!

  • Guess we need to just be grateful greg isn’t spewing the lies about having to become racist shills to “save” the democratic party.

    He will never bring anything intellectually honest to the dialog here, not his purpose, but at least we are no longer seeing the endless lies promoting shillary.

  • Is anyone else looking forward to John McCain’s acceptance speech at the convention as much as I am? I hope its as good as his little fantasy speech.

  • The purpose of McCain’s response was a desperate bid to get the media to not listen to what Obama said, but instead to focus on how Obama said it. Rather than this being Obama’s forceful response, they want it seen as an angry response. And more importantly, they’re trying to convince Obama that he can’t have forceful responses or he’ll be punished as being “hysterical.”

    But in fact, nothing in McCain’s response should be taken as meaning that he thinks Obama did anything wrong. To the contrary, the purpose of McCain’s response was the typical grenade lob, where McCain tosses rhetorical grenades at the position he doesn’t want Obama to take, in hopes of chasing him into the wrong position, where he can actually attack Obama. But Obama has shown himself to be much too smart to play that game, and is going to stay exactly where he is. That’s one big reason I liked Obama: He knows how politics really works and how to step above it, rather than playing into your opponent’s plans.

    For as much as Rove and the Bushies perfected the Clinton model of campaigning, Obama really is playing a brand new game of politics which McCain and Rove will never understand. And the key to the Obama strategy is policy first. Rather than adopting the positions which are politically easy, you get the policies that people really want and explain what you’re doing in words that people can understand. People aren’t stupid and most of them want to do the right thing. Politicians really need to understand that new information age has made us too smart to be fooled, and that we’ll adopt the right policies if we’re given the choice. And with Obama’s brains and communication skills, it looks like we’re finally getting the policies we deserve.

  • the more things change, the more they remain the same. – Tom Cleaver

    I guess so.. Obama followers still don’t want to invite Hillary supporters to their big tent.

    Just like David Axlerod and Donna Brazille, you think Obama can win the GE without the support of the White working class, and continue to give a big F. YOU to the other half of the democratic party.

  • So far I’d say this is evidence that when/if Obama gets the nomination, he will cream McCain in the debates.

    What works is Obama doesn’t play McCain’s game – and he doesn’t cringe either. He strikes back and the Republicans literally can’t cope – except to resort to lies.

    We’ll see who’s hysterical. My guess is that this IS McCain’s A game, that’s all they got.

  • Politicians don’t “bring it up a notch” during the general election, they bring it down a notch. The level of vocabulary and complexity of sentences both decrease from midterm to general election statements. The lowest common denominator becomes the target. That’s why people here expecting general election voters to follow complicated ideas are being unrealistic. McCain is going to argue nothing substantive and Obama needs to combat that by translating his own positions into sound-bites and simpler language. McCain will crucify him if he approaches this election as an intellectual.

    You Obama supporters need to distance yourself from your own support for Obama and his issues in order to appreciate how Obama can be right and yet come off looking like the loser in an exchange like this one. In my opinion, Obama needs to sharpen his A game. McCain is doing what Republicans always do — and what enables them to win when they shouldn’t.

  • One thing Obama needs to do, in no small part because he actually can, is hold open press conferences with frequency. Small risk of slip-up in that setting, but very worth it given that he is good enough to minimize the risk and because it will be a great way to neutralize the MSM’s love of McCain. McCain may give ’em BBQ, but what is even better is access. Oh sure they can ride McCain’s bus, but most of it is off the record. If Obama starts doing press conferences, they’ll love him – and it will put pressure on McCain to do some as well, and I have every faith that he can’t handle it. If Obama makes the press folks feel important, and gives them good content, McCain’s only real base will flit away like a bee in a field of clover.

  • I guess so.. Obama followers still don’t want to invite Hillary supporters to their big tent.

    Huh? Wha?

    Gosh I must have missed the memo that states people who support one candidate must receive engraved invites, a dozen roses and a box of candies from the supporters of another candidate before they can vote.

    No one ever tells me nuthin.

  • greg said:
    “Obama said explicitly that he would meet with the leader of Iran and other hostile nations without pre-conditions..”

    wow greg, did you find that link all by yourself?
    of course he said it, he’s not denied it ever, and as a matter of fact, he repeated it again today during his press conference. what, you think by ignoring other countries they will go away? should we just shake our big d!cks at them till they get frightened? no, we need to talk to them.

  • tAiO –

    its much worse than that. i, for one, have announced plans to list myself on eBay, and if you Obama-ites want this former Clinton supporter’s vote, you’ll have to outbid McCain, Nader, Bob Barr and Alan Keyes.

    and even then you’ll still need to send the flowers and chocolates. but no chocolate-covered-ginger. thats just nasty stuff.

  • Mary,

    Yeah Obama needs to speak in soundbites but I thought he was pretty effective today. By calling the Republican policy towards Iran naive and irresponsible he was turning the tables on them. The only thing that Obama needs to be careful is to not appear cocky especially that he may be running against McCain.

    He also needs to talk about domestic policy as well because that is where McCain is very weak. This story I am going to recount is anecdotal but it conveys the point I’m making. I have two co-workers who are pro-Hilliary but will proabably vote for Obama in the general because they have the impression that McCain is out of touch when it comes to the economy. If Obama can talk about conservative incompetence in both arenas, then I think he would have an easier time fighting McCain.

  • With the power invested in my by the, erm, tooth fairy, I hereby invite Hillary supporters to the big O tent. Let’s all go and laugh at Republicans together. Yes we can. And yes, she will, he will, we will kick ass.

    How’s that?

  • Bush says that there’s no argument that will make our enemies change their minds. And yet he thinks he can bomb them into changing their minds. I have a hard time following that “logic.”

  • Mary – Americans aren’t stupid. They HATE Bush and the Republicans, and Dems didn’t have to say a thing to make that happen. Beyond that, a big reason why Obama is so popular is because he CAN communicate to people in terms they can understand. I’m not sure what you think is so intellectual about what Obama says, but the words seem pretty simple to me.

    I think a big problem you’re having here is trying to reconcile why low information voters preferred Hillary. But it wasn’t because Obama was too intellectual or Hillary had the policies they preferred. It’s because they didn’t know who he was. “Low information” doesn’t necessarily mean dumb. It means they don’t really pay attention to political news. They liked Hillary because they already liked Hillary and didn’t know much about Obama. But come November, they’ll vote for him because they hate Republicans.

    McCain never stood a chance, and the Republican Establishment has no real plan to see him win. They just want to cripple Obama before he gets into the Whitehouse; but they certainly don’t want a Republican to have to clean up Bush’s mess. They want a weak Democrat to clean up Iraq, raise taxes, cut spending, and all the other things Bush could never do. And at the end of four years, they want him so wasted that they can easily step in and get the Whitehouse back. That’s their plan. And the only way we can stop it is if we give Obama the support he needs, and that means that the Hillary supporters are going to have to stop telling people he’s an elitist intellectual and understand that he’s our candidate. I’m sorry, but that’s what needs to happen. Republicans want to cripple Obama the way they kept trying to cripple Bill, and we need to make sure that doesn’t happen.

  • “What would Senator Obama talk about with such a man?”

    Gee, I can’t figure it out … hmm, maybe the clusterf**k in Iraq? Geez McCain and his staff are a clueless bunch.

  • And what’s this “mendacity ” word, anyway? Commenter Mary says we need to get to the lowest common denominator. You won’t reach Joe Six-Pack (that’s PBR, not Abs) with these big ol’ elitist words.

  • Can someone explain why they get so hysterical because Ahmadinejad doesn’t believe the Holocaust happened? There are a lot of things I don’t believe happened- like Bush being elected and the world functions quite well. Anything to get in a lather about. And if McCain wants to see a rant I can certainly show him one that will rival anything he though was a rant from Senator Obama.

  • Interesting that even though Senator Clinton joined the rest of the Democrats in denouncing Bush’s statement and McCain’s agreement, her supposed “supporters” are still looking at this as Obama somehow being in the wrong.

    Makes me wonder if “Mary” and “Greg” have been Rethug operatives all along….

  • I sure am grateful that the folks involved with Obama’s campaign know better than to take advise from the shillary-bots that think they know it all.

    Hey – he beat her. She lost. Not even help from rush limpballs could help her.

    And now, our concern troll mary wants to tell us how Obama needs to run his campaign.

    just too damn funny

  • short fuse They are concern trolls, come here and undermine the dialog, pretending to share liberal/progressive values, and then proclaim we need to throw them all out the window for our own good.

  • Here is one anyone is free to use:

    McCAIN ain’t ABLE

    It has 3 different interpretations:
    Cain and Able
    McCain is unfit to be president
    and the 3rd one is a bit too cruel to mention, so I will leave it you … well it has to do with …

  • Well we can argue about whether Obama or Hillary’s stance here is better … The bigger problem here is that Bush and McCain are misrepresenting history (McCain forgets who Reagan talked with … USSR and Iran), and McCain is flip-flopping (he voiced support for talks with Hamas and Syria, even while acknowledging Syria was a state sponsor of terrorism). They’re just hypocritical, lying, senile retards.

  • BARACK is the bomb, but lets stay honest. Mr Crackerbarrel/Verylameduck did not mention anyone by name and very few people paid attention to the speach in Isreal until Barack’s campaign made it an issue. And all this about somebody at Barack’s campagian heard from the guy at the corner store who heard from an interin in the Bush White house, who heard it from a real Bushie….. is just old fashion “got ya” politics and in this case a tenuous “gotya”. For sure trying to interject Bush into the campaign is a good political strategy, but not a straight forward completely honest one built on integrity and a love for the truth. We need to beware: If you want to become like Rove, act like him.

  • McCain:

    “And I believe that the success will be fairly easy” and “There’s no doubt in my mind that… we will be welcomed as liberators.” [3/24/03]

    “I think we could go in with much smaller numbers than we had to do in the past… I don’t believe it’s going to be nearly the size and scope that it was in 1991.” [9/15/02]

    “There’s not a history of clashes that are violent between Sunnis and Shias. So I think they can probably get along.” [4/23/03]

    “Overall, I think a year from now, we will have made a fair amount of progress if we stay the course.”  [12/8/05 (Exactly one year before violence in Iraq peaked)]

    “By January 2013, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and -women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom.” [05/115/08]

    McDENIAL

  • Bush says that there’s no argument that will make our enemies change their minds. And yet he thinks he can bomb them into changing their minds. I have a hard time following that “logic.” — Franklin, @33

    It comes from the same philosophy textbook as “I’ll teach you bastards democracy, if I have to kill every last one of you”

  • You keep using that word “concern troll”. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    (with apologies to Inigo Montoya)

  • As leader of our country George Bush is a sad disgrace. Obama would make us proud.
    * He is intelligent and makes intelligent statements which are spoken in proper English.
    * He gives you the feeling he has a thought process which goes along with his statements.
    *His point is well taken that we should talk with not only our friends, but with our enemies. Such dangerous activites from parts of the world makes it far too dangerous to have a non talking policy.
    * He understands the basic concept shared by so many throughout history that successful foreign policy is achieved when you engage the enemy. To conduct talks is not appeasment, that is an ignorant and irresponsible remark. It is not appeasment, to conduct talks, and negotiate. That is diplomacy.
    * He would be a diplomat, an intelligent partner for peace. A statesman.

    George Bush, and now John McCain, are not apart of the peace process. They wield old ideas which have made the US occupiers of a country which has caused us to be in debt, and at the same time, have lowered our respected place in the world. George Bush just lowered that a bit further in his recent statements in Israel.

  • Obama is a hypocrite. He likes to blast an out-going president who probably doesn’t care what he says, and he blasts his rival for speaking the truth. Sounds like the so-called old politics he says he is not about. He talks about change, but he doesn’t specify what change is. Maybe by the time, he and Mccain have their debates, the real Obama will surface for the country to see. He is naive, inexperienced, and he doesn’t have a clue about economics. Raise taxes, Obama! It’ll solve all of out problems. Yeah, right.

  • Its truly depressing to see what choices we have in the end. McCain shouldn’t worry about Obama leaving Israel to fend for itself however. The money will keep flowing, our troops will never leave the region no matter who wins. Obama and McCain ultimately work for the same interests, despite how they appear on the surface. The con is that these interests run candidates “against” one another so you have the illusion of choice.

  • pre-conditions — is a ‘term of art’, as Obama said. It has specific meaning in the context of diplomatic relationships. Pre-conditions means a condition which one side considers to be the subject of the negotiation. If you demand pre-conditions, you are essentially saying that you don’t want to negotiate. That is the point of demanding them.

    The Bush/McCain duo like to take a term and take it out of the correct context. They are not illiterate, the are arrogant, elitists who assume that most of their supporters are too dumb to figure out what the words mean.

  • short fuse – guess you have proclaimed yourself the final word on this, but most of the rest of us rely on other sources – check out urban dictionary.

    Yeah – I know, you already know and you are so much more knowledgeable than everyone else on the Internet…

    Geeeeezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

  • Here’s an example, McCain calls Obama hysterical while Obama calls McCain naive and irresponsible. Which set of terms will resonate more with people on an emotional level? Lots of people don’t know what naive means (in foreign policy or political terms) and don’t like being called irresponsible themselves so it will create empathy with McCain, especially when Obama seems to dress him down from a one-up position (authority figures tell us we are being irresponsible but Obama has not earned the right to disrespect or patronize someone who is both older and more experienced). On the other hand, being called hysterical (a term related to women and hinting at excess emotion and lack of self-control) is something people do understand and something supported by Obama’s own finger-waving in the short segments appearing on the nightly news. It isn’t an exchange that plays well at the surface level. His messages have got to work at both levels and this one, at least, didn’t. He’s messing up.

  • Um, Mary, have you taken your meds today?

    You thought Obama was hysterical? Really?? Frankly I don’t know how Obama didn’t flip out a hell of a lot more– Bush called Obama a NAZI APPEASER WHILE TALKING BEFORE THE ISRAELI PARLIMENT. You really don’t get much lower or disgusting than that.

    On top of that you don’t seem to realize that “naive” and “irresponsible” are the exact words that have been used against Obama from McCain– he’s simply turning them back on him. Do you not realize that those terms completely undermine McCain’s whole experience shtick?

    I know this all seems too complicated to you and you’d prefer it if Obama kept everything as dumbed-down as Bush has all these years, but that is what we actually LIKE about him. He talks to us like we’re grown ups who can understand words with more than 5 letters.

  • My point exactly. The average voter is not going to follow the intricacies of “who struck John” but will go for the surface, so there must be a clear message on the surface. Obama doesn’t do superficial. If he doesn’t learn, he will lose.

    Maybe you feel flattered by the way he talks to you, but he loses a lot of the other voters and he needs them in the Fall. He can’t speak plainly. The point of the debate is entirely lost — from his remarks we don’t know why he is criticizing McCain or what the fight is about. McCain may be stupid, wrong, or deceptive, but McCain is clear. That’s what Republicans are good at. Obama needs to find a way to be equally clear without sounding stupid or lying. As long as he focuses on nuance, he won’t get through to enough people. While he is busy being “clever” and turning McCain’s words back on him, McCain is scoring points against him — the points Obama thinks he is making are lost and he does appear somewhat hysterical because people don’t know what he is upset about. All the Republicans have to say is “We never mentioned your name” and Obama looks ridiculous because the average person wonders why he is making a fuss when no one even mentioned him. Obama needs to sharpen up. He wasn’t a good debater and he isn’t winning these exchanges.

    This is the reason why I still think Clinton is a better choice.

  • This is the reason why I still think Clinton is a better choice.

    Clinton agrees with Obama in case you missed her statement. But then, she’s a grown up and will be a responsible member of the Democratic Party.

    Mary, not so much.

  • Mary.
    The average voter may not be too smart…
    But there’s no way in hell they’re as dim/insane as you.

  • We really have jumped the shark when Clinton and Obama are on the same page and Clinton’s least bright supporters are still maintaining Obama’s in the wrong. It’s entertaining, though.

  • the last thing I would call Obama is hysterical. I’ve never seen the guy be anything other than calm, cool, and collected. Even when he’s mad. Please.

    That label just doesn’t ring true, especially coming from the candidate of the famous temper tantrums and curses.

    • Comments are closed.