The Obama campaign says "It's on like Donkey Kong!"
Keating Economics - a video released by the Obama campaign on McCain's role in the Keating 5 scandal.
Trump Parade Cancelled to Save Money
7 years ago
Monday, October 6, 2008
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Guilt by association - a losing strategy for McCain
So, the McCain campaign has announced that it plans to launch more fierce attacks against Obama's "character." The first shot they fired in their new offensive was having Sarah Palin claim that Obama has been "palling around with terrorists that would target their own country" at a rally yesterday.
Of course, that would be false. Also known as untrue. Also known as yet another McCain-Palin bald-faced shameful lie.
Of course, if one fact check showing Palin to be lying isn't enough for you, you can also check this one at factcheck.org. Corsi already tried smearing Obama with the "Ayers guilt-by-association" paintbrush. Factcheck.org reported:
This smacks of a desperate campaign. One that knows it absolutely cannot win the election with its chosen message on domestic or foreign policy. One that knows it has less than a month to somehow distract the voting public from the reality that is comprised of two ongoing (and apparently endless) wars and an economic recession.
Unfortunately, this strategy could seriously backfire on McCain and make things worse than they already are. Obama's campaign has already released an ad pointing out that McCain is trying to distract voters from the economy. (Have I mentioned that I love how the Obama campaign doesn't just sit on this kind of stuff like Kerry did?)
But even worse for McCain is that he and Palin are not safe from guilt-by-association smears - not safe by a long shot. I predict that the Obama campaign itself will not be making those sorts of attacks, but organizations like MoveOn or other 527s very well might take the gloves all the way off.
Starting with Palin - and her ties to the AIP. Her husband was a member of the Alaska Independence Party. A party pushing for a vote for Alaska to secede from the United States.
And there's McCain and the Keating 5 scandal.
And then there's McCain's connections to the anti-semetic and racist World Anti-Communist League. As discussed on Meet the Press this morning:
Of course, that would be false. Also known as untrue. Also known as yet another McCain-Palin bald-faced shameful lie.
Of course, if one fact check showing Palin to be lying isn't enough for you, you can also check this one at factcheck.org. Corsi already tried smearing Obama with the "Ayers guilt-by-association" paintbrush. Factcheck.org reported:
"Other chapters offer more of the same regarding Obama's well-known connections to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, to former Weather Underground fugitive (and now longtime professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago) William Ayers, and Obama's friend Tony Rezko, recently convicted in a celebrated corruption trial. Nowhere does Corsi demonstrate that Obama agrees with what Wright or Ayers have said or done, or that he broke any laws as Rezko did. Corsi completely ignores what Obama actually says about both Wright and Ayers. Nowhere in the book will be found Obama's March 14 statement rejecting Wright, when Obama said, "I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country," or Obama's April 16 comment on Ayers, whom he said "engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago when I was 8 years old." Nor does Corsi offer anything new connecting Obama to Rezko, a relationship we've addressed twice in earlier articles.Of course, the McCain campaign is planning on bringing up Rezko too. Of course, there's no evidence Obama did anything improper with Rezko.
Attempting to discredit Obama because of an association with unsavory people rather than with actual proof that Obama shares their views is an instance of a logical fallacy that philosophers call guilt-by-association. Corsi uses the technique to fill chapters three through seven. "
This smacks of a desperate campaign. One that knows it absolutely cannot win the election with its chosen message on domestic or foreign policy. One that knows it has less than a month to somehow distract the voting public from the reality that is comprised of two ongoing (and apparently endless) wars and an economic recession.
Unfortunately, this strategy could seriously backfire on McCain and make things worse than they already are. Obama's campaign has already released an ad pointing out that McCain is trying to distract voters from the economy. (Have I mentioned that I love how the Obama campaign doesn't just sit on this kind of stuff like Kerry did?)
But even worse for McCain is that he and Palin are not safe from guilt-by-association smears - not safe by a long shot. I predict that the Obama campaign itself will not be making those sorts of attacks, but organizations like MoveOn or other 527s very well might take the gloves all the way off.
Starting with Palin - and her ties to the AIP. Her husband was a member of the Alaska Independence Party. A party pushing for a vote for Alaska to secede from the United States.
And there's McCain and the Keating 5 scandal.
And then there's McCain's connections to the anti-semetic and racist World Anti-Communist League. As discussed on Meet the Press this morning:
MR. BEGALA: Well, no. Obama was—he was asked about this in a debate in a primaries with Hillary Clinton sitting there; George Stephanopoulos of ABC asked him about it. He answered it. He pointed out that the despicable acts this guy committed were committed when, apparently, Barack Obama was eight years old. And, and I think Governor Palin here is making a strategic mistake. This guilt by association path is going to be trouble ultimately for the McCain campaign. You know, you can go back—I’ve written a book about McCain. I had a dozen researchers go through him. I didn’t even put this in the book. But John McCain sat on the board of a very right-wing organization. It was the U.S. Council for World Freedom. It was chaired by a guy named John Singlaub, who wound up involved in the Iran-Contra scandal. It was an ultraconservative right-wing group. The Anti-Defamation League, in 1981, when McCain was on the board, said this about this organization. It was affiliated with the World Anti-Communist League, the parent organization, which ADL said, “has increasingly become a gathering place, a forum, a point of contact for extremists, racists and Anti-Semites.” Now, that’s not John McCain. I don’t think he is that. But, but, you know, the problem is that a lot of people know John McCain’s record better than Governor Palin, and he does not want to play guilt by association or this thing could blow up in his face.So yeah, I don't think McCain really ought to go there. Sadly, I think he's just desperate enough to do it anyway.
Friday, October 3, 2008
Additional thoughts on the VP debate
1) Proper English, please.
Why is it charming, cute, folksy, or "real" when white people don't speak proper English, but when black people don't speak proper English, it's lazy or worse?
I wonder what the reaction would be if Obama said something like this in a debate:
"You sho-nuff iz gonna hear some fear in dat momma's voice."
2) The issue of "looking back" on the Bush Administration.
Yes, Obama and Biden both often compare McCain to Bush. It's a legitimate comparison as McCain's current policy stances are, for the most part, the same as the stances of the Bush Administration.
Palin criticized Biden for "looking back" and "playing the blame game" last night whenever he brought up Bush.
I have a hint for the McCain campaign. If you don't want to be compared to Bush, stop supporting the same policies and philosophies that Bush supported for the last 8 years. Stop directing most of your tax cuts to the wealthiest people (and for God's sake stop lying about how it's really for the small businesses.) Stop trying to outlaw abortion via judicial appointments. And so on.
And PS - the McCain campaign claims it's going to bring reform and change to Washington. How are they going to know what reforms are needed, or what change is needed, if they refuse on "principle" to look to the past?
DOING THE SAME AS WE'VE BEEN DOING FOR EIGHT YEARS IS NOT CHANGE OR REFORM. DOING THE SAME AS WE'VE BEEN DOING FOR EIGHT YEARS DOES NOT MAKE YOU A MAVERICK.
(And PPS - let's just accept your claim that Obama votes with the Democrats 96% of the time. Guess what? That would suggest he's different (i.e., a CHANGE) from Bush.
Why is it charming, cute, folksy, or "real" when white people don't speak proper English, but when black people don't speak proper English, it's lazy or worse?
I wonder what the reaction would be if Obama said something like this in a debate:
"You sho-nuff iz gonna hear some fear in dat momma's voice."
2) The issue of "looking back" on the Bush Administration.
Yes, Obama and Biden both often compare McCain to Bush. It's a legitimate comparison as McCain's current policy stances are, for the most part, the same as the stances of the Bush Administration.
Palin criticized Biden for "looking back" and "playing the blame game" last night whenever he brought up Bush.
I have a hint for the McCain campaign. If you don't want to be compared to Bush, stop supporting the same policies and philosophies that Bush supported for the last 8 years. Stop directing most of your tax cuts to the wealthiest people (and for God's sake stop lying about how it's really for the small businesses.) Stop trying to outlaw abortion via judicial appointments. And so on.
And PS - the McCain campaign claims it's going to bring reform and change to Washington. How are they going to know what reforms are needed, or what change is needed, if they refuse on "principle" to look to the past?
DOING THE SAME AS WE'VE BEEN DOING FOR EIGHT YEARS IS NOT CHANGE OR REFORM. DOING THE SAME AS WE'VE BEEN DOING FOR EIGHT YEARS DOES NOT MAKE YOU A MAVERICK.
(And PPS - let's just accept your claim that Obama votes with the Democrats 96% of the time. Guess what? That would suggest he's different (i.e., a CHANGE) from Bush.
VP Debate - Impressions
Okay, again, I'm not going to post the debate video or fact-check it. I'm just going to write about some of my general observations and feelings about the debate.
First of all, I am absolutely livid at Sarah Palin. I was irritated and angry last night while watching the debate, but as time has passed and I've thought more about it, I've become even angrier. Why?
The damned winking.
I am a working woman. I know that based on statistics, it's likely that I earn less than most of my male colleagues. I know I've watched men at my workplace get promoted, over and over again, while women that are more competent are left behind. I've participated in meetings where men would interrupt women repeatedly, or be dismissive of their comments. The fact is, it is difficult being a professional woman. It's difficult to be taken seriously. It's difficult to be respected equally.
It's a lot better than it used to be. Back in the good old days (days which I particularly would not have enjoyed, being a mixed-race woman) the women who did have careers were often regarded as fair-game for sexual attention at work. Winks, shoulder rubs, a pat on the ass - secretaries, bookkeepers, clerks, and waitresses were expected to put up with this bullshit. And women certainly weren't going to be promoted to management or be given official responsibility.
One of the things that women have had to fight against in order to make the progress we have made is being sexualized in the workplace. We've had to struggle to be seen as colleagues and not office ornaments. We struggle with walking a fine line between being attractive/well-groomed and being suggestive/sexual.
On what essentially is the biggest job interview for any woman in the United States, Sarah Palin decides to wink and grin like she's in a bar and more than half drunk. More than once.
Governor, you're not running for VPILF. You're running for VP.
And before any Palin apologist starts running off with "Oh, that wasn't meant to be sexual. That was just cute/folksy/charming/pick-your-euphemism" I'd like to mention:
In addition, even if you want to pretend that it wasn't sexual, it was extremely juvenile. This country faces grave challenges. We have 2 wars going on. We have instability in Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, and Russia. We have a looming official recession (in addition to the unofficial recession that most of us have been feeling for some time now). We have a health care crisis. We have an exploding national debt and a growing budget deficit.
THIS IS NOT THE TIME FOR WINKING AND GRINNING. Governor, you're not 16. You're a grown, professional woman interviewing for the 2nd highest job in the nation. You're trying to show that you have the knowledge, judgment, and seriousness to be able to negotiate with members of Congress, meet with foreign leaders, and conduct business on behalf of this entire nation. And you ought to be embarrassed when the barista at Caribou Coffee acts more professional than you do.
Okay - with that aside....other debate impressions.
I thought it was obvious that Biden knows a great deal more than Palin. Biden was well informed on the issues last night, and made it a point to answer questions for the most part. Palin generally ignored questions that were difficult or potentially damaging. This was not surprising to me, or probably anyone. Her few interviews have shown her staggering level of ignorance on most national issues.
I was surprised about Palin's comments on benefits for same sex couples. I know that her voting record on the issue and her religious convictions on the issue don't really match up to each other. I was mostly surprised to hear her be so willing to provide benefits. I wonder what folks like Dobson are saying about that comment (if anything). I'll have to check later.
I was shocked and horrified to hear Palin agrees with Cheney on the role of the Vice President, and even worse, she seems to want additional "powers and flexibility." Umm.....no thanks.
Overall, I don't think this debate changed much as far as the race is concerned. The people that loved Palin still love her. The people that hated Palin still hate her. And the undecideds - most are still undecided. Those undecideds knew pre-debate that Biden would know more than Palin, but that Palin was more "folksy" than Biden, and they simply had that confirmed. Not a game changer.
I will probably add more to this posting later.
First of all, I am absolutely livid at Sarah Palin. I was irritated and angry last night while watching the debate, but as time has passed and I've thought more about it, I've become even angrier. Why?
The damned winking.
I am a working woman. I know that based on statistics, it's likely that I earn less than most of my male colleagues. I know I've watched men at my workplace get promoted, over and over again, while women that are more competent are left behind. I've participated in meetings where men would interrupt women repeatedly, or be dismissive of their comments. The fact is, it is difficult being a professional woman. It's difficult to be taken seriously. It's difficult to be respected equally.
It's a lot better than it used to be. Back in the good old days (days which I particularly would not have enjoyed, being a mixed-race woman) the women who did have careers were often regarded as fair-game for sexual attention at work. Winks, shoulder rubs, a pat on the ass - secretaries, bookkeepers, clerks, and waitresses were expected to put up with this bullshit. And women certainly weren't going to be promoted to management or be given official responsibility.
One of the things that women have had to fight against in order to make the progress we have made is being sexualized in the workplace. We've had to struggle to be seen as colleagues and not office ornaments. We struggle with walking a fine line between being attractive/well-groomed and being suggestive/sexual.
On what essentially is the biggest job interview for any woman in the United States, Sarah Palin decides to wink and grin like she's in a bar and more than half drunk. More than once.
Governor, you're not running for VPILF. You're running for VP.
And before any Palin apologist starts running off with "Oh, that wasn't meant to be sexual. That was just cute/folksy/charming/pick-your-euphemism" I'd like to mention:
- You don't see Biden winking.
- You don't see Obama winking.
- You don't see McCain winking.
- You didn't see Bush winking (either one, including the charming, folksy W.)
- You didn't see Hilary Clinton winking.
- If you watched the post-debate coverage, you probably saw several male and female journalists, campaign staff, pundits, spinners, etc. NOT A ONE OF THEM WINKED.
In addition, even if you want to pretend that it wasn't sexual, it was extremely juvenile. This country faces grave challenges. We have 2 wars going on. We have instability in Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, and Russia. We have a looming official recession (in addition to the unofficial recession that most of us have been feeling for some time now). We have a health care crisis. We have an exploding national debt and a growing budget deficit.
THIS IS NOT THE TIME FOR WINKING AND GRINNING. Governor, you're not 16. You're a grown, professional woman interviewing for the 2nd highest job in the nation. You're trying to show that you have the knowledge, judgment, and seriousness to be able to negotiate with members of Congress, meet with foreign leaders, and conduct business on behalf of this entire nation. And you ought to be embarrassed when the barista at Caribou Coffee acts more professional than you do.
Okay - with that aside....other debate impressions.
I thought it was obvious that Biden knows a great deal more than Palin. Biden was well informed on the issues last night, and made it a point to answer questions for the most part. Palin generally ignored questions that were difficult or potentially damaging. This was not surprising to me, or probably anyone. Her few interviews have shown her staggering level of ignorance on most national issues.
I was surprised about Palin's comments on benefits for same sex couples. I know that her voting record on the issue and her religious convictions on the issue don't really match up to each other. I was mostly surprised to hear her be so willing to provide benefits. I wonder what folks like Dobson are saying about that comment (if anything). I'll have to check later.
I was shocked and horrified to hear Palin agrees with Cheney on the role of the Vice President, and even worse, she seems to want additional "powers and flexibility." Umm.....no thanks.
Overall, I don't think this debate changed much as far as the race is concerned. The people that loved Palin still love her. The people that hated Palin still hate her. And the undecideds - most are still undecided. Those undecideds knew pre-debate that Biden would know more than Palin, but that Palin was more "folksy" than Biden, and they simply had that confirmed. Not a game changer.
I will probably add more to this posting later.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Palin - well, she knows Roe v. Wade
And good for her! After all, Joe Six-Pack knows about Roe v. Wade, right?
Katie Couric then asked her what other Supreme Court decisions she disagrees with. Unfortunately, she couldn't name a single one. Not even Plessy v. Ferguson (upheld "separate but equal" laws). Not the Dred Scott case (saying slaves and their decendants could never be American citizens, but instead, would always be considered the personal property of whites.) Not the Korematsu case, which upheld the right of the government to imprision its citizens in concentration camps without due process.
She couldn't name Exxon v. Baker, which was decided this year. The Court cut punitive damages from the Exxon oil spill from $2.5 billion to $500 million. This decision was very unpopular with Alaskans and Alaskan politicians. Well, apparently some Alaskan politicians....
Not even Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (said Bush's military commissions were insufficient) or the ruling this year that the prisoners at Guantanamo should have some teeny bit of due process. You know....one of the rulings where McCain backed up Bush's "disappointment" in the outcome, just like a true maverick would. She could have said she disagreed that flag burning was protected speech. She could have said that she disagreed that child rapists should not be eligible for the death penalty. These are all easy, meat-and-potato, stock conservative positions. No one would have expected her to know the actual name of any court case - she would have gotten kudos for appearing even remotely informed about the Supreme Court.
When Couric asked Joe Biden the same question....surprise! He actually could name a specific decision, and provide context behind his reasoning.
Watch CBS Videos Online
Funny....even though Couric asked them the same questions, somehow, Republicans are claiming that it's Couric's fault that Palin couldn't answer the questions in an intelligent and informed manner.
And now the Republicans are out in droves, crying that the debate tonight cannot possibly be fair because Gwen Ifill has published a book about African-American politicians. Of course, the debate moderators were chosen well after the announcement about Ifill's book. Oh, but the McCain campaign couldn't possibly be expected to know that....I mean, they're not professionals or anything, right?
Let's just pretend for a moment that there is a vast, organized, EVIL conspiracy in the media against conservatives. (Cue fairy tale music here.) Couric and Ifill don't like Palin. Here's my question:
SO WHAT?
Seriously. The best argument that the Palin apologists can come up with is that it is unfair for Palin to be expected to have an intelligent, coherent, and consistent answer for any question unless it is asked by someone that likes Sarah Palin, and preferably, given to Palin before-hand so that someone else can write up the answer for her and she can read it off of a teleprompter.
Katie Couric then asked her what other Supreme Court decisions she disagrees with. Unfortunately, she couldn't name a single one. Not even Plessy v. Ferguson (upheld "separate but equal" laws). Not the Dred Scott case (saying slaves and their decendants could never be American citizens, but instead, would always be considered the personal property of whites.) Not the Korematsu case, which upheld the right of the government to imprision its citizens in concentration camps without due process.
She couldn't name Exxon v. Baker, which was decided this year. The Court cut punitive damages from the Exxon oil spill from $2.5 billion to $500 million. This decision was very unpopular with Alaskans and Alaskan politicians. Well, apparently some Alaskan politicians....
Not even Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (said Bush's military commissions were insufficient) or the ruling this year that the prisoners at Guantanamo should have some teeny bit of due process. You know....one of the rulings where McCain backed up Bush's "disappointment" in the outcome, just like a true maverick would. She could have said she disagreed that flag burning was protected speech. She could have said that she disagreed that child rapists should not be eligible for the death penalty. These are all easy, meat-and-potato, stock conservative positions. No one would have expected her to know the actual name of any court case - she would have gotten kudos for appearing even remotely informed about the Supreme Court.
When Couric asked Joe Biden the same question....surprise! He actually could name a specific decision, and provide context behind his reasoning.
Watch CBS Videos Online
Funny....even though Couric asked them the same questions, somehow, Republicans are claiming that it's Couric's fault that Palin couldn't answer the questions in an intelligent and informed manner.
And now the Republicans are out in droves, crying that the debate tonight cannot possibly be fair because Gwen Ifill has published a book about African-American politicians. Of course, the debate moderators were chosen well after the announcement about Ifill's book. Oh, but the McCain campaign couldn't possibly be expected to know that....I mean, they're not professionals or anything, right?
Let's just pretend for a moment that there is a vast, organized, EVIL conspiracy in the media against conservatives. (Cue fairy tale music here.) Couric and Ifill don't like Palin. Here's my question:
SO WHAT?
Seriously. The best argument that the Palin apologists can come up with is that it is unfair for Palin to be expected to have an intelligent, coherent, and consistent answer for any question unless it is asked by someone that likes Sarah Palin, and preferably, given to Palin before-hand so that someone else can write up the answer for her and she can read it off of a teleprompter.
An extremely pleasant sight this morning
I took a peek at the Current Electoral Map from www.electoral-vote.com this morning. Based on the latest state-by-state polling data, Obama is leading the electoral college 338-185, with North Carolina (15 electoral votes) listed as a complete tie. To give you a little perspective, at this point in 2004, Kerry was losing 238-296 at this point in the race.
(For those of you who are interested, there are a series of links on the electoral-vote.com website that explain their methodology, show their predictions about prior elections, and discuss their historical accuracy. I've read through some of this, and I was pretty impressed.)
Obama seems to have picked up Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, and Virginia (again, compared to 2004 results.)
I think Chuck Todd summed up the situation really well this morning on MSNBC. Chuck said:
(For those of you who are interested, there are a series of links on the electoral-vote.com website that explain their methodology, show their predictions about prior elections, and discuss their historical accuracy. I've read through some of this, and I was pretty impressed.)
Obama seems to have picked up Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, and Virginia (again, compared to 2004 results.)
I think Chuck Todd summed up the situation really well this morning on MSNBC. Chuck said:
“All the trend lines are pointing in Obama’s direction …. This should really scare the McCain campaign. This thing -- it’s at a tipping point. And this debate, frankly, is coming at GOOD time for McCain because he needs something – anything – to stop this Obama momentum. … The pressure is all on Sarah Palin, not just for her own persona, but to SAVE THE McCAIN CAMPAIGN. … I think Virginia, frankly, is a trailing indicator of the national numbers. … John McCain is campaigning in Missouri later this week. That’s not a good sign. You shouldn’t have to be worrying about Missouri at this point.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)