TM Connect


Use "My TM" for log in & register.

Taylor Marsh has been writing on line since 1996, with the archives provided here a representation of that work.

Archive | July, 2008

Nobody Takes PUMA Seriously but PUMA

By on 31 July 2008

Guest Post by: Christina Cedeno


Acceptable.
[taken from PUMA site]



Unacceptable.
[taken from PUMA site: blog.pumapac.org]


This is why nobody takes PUMA seriously. The above is just a perfect example of why all the emails, faxes, phone calls, and constant repining doesn’t seem to be remotely effective (see the Wisconsin delegate who still got rightfully stripped and replaced with another Hillary Delegate after PUMA went to work for her). The above is a perfect typification of PUMA lying about their claims of simply being a coalition standing up for Democracy.

Don’t the photos above smell a little of say… hypocrisy?

PUMA isn’t standing up for Democracy. They aren’t trying to “reclaim” it. They are just trying to get their candidate elected- which they have every right to do- but let’s not beat around the bush. They are engaging IN Democracy, not setting out to “reform” it. They should be THANKING America, not saying that this country is going to hell (exact words from a PUMA- the people mad that Reverend Wright challenged the audacity of America).

I tracked down the creator of the Hillary “Bitch” poster, “Von dada” and I asked him two questions via email. I got extremely straight answers. It turns out this poster wasn’t about offending Senator Clinton, it was about using the term “Bitch” as a strong female empowering noun ala Tina Fey on Saturday Night Live (why wasn’t it bad when Fey called Senator Clinton a bitch).

Here is what he had to say:

Q: What inspired you to create this poster?

A
combination of factors. The ubiquitous paste-ups of the Shepard Fairey
Obama “Hope” posters all around Los Angeles and Tina Fey’s “Bitch is
the New Black” rant on SNL. One thing came to mind: “Where’s Hillary’s
propaganda poster?” Coming from an extremely Liberal upbringing and an
even more Liberal “Liberal Arts” education, I thought I could use
“Bitch” as an empowering word like Tina Fey did. Then I remembered I
was a male and you can’t do that, apparently. No matter how much Mary
Daly I’ve read. It’s like Blacks using the N-word. If you’re not in
the culture, you can’t use that culture’s words. I’ve gotten some hate
mail that speaks to that topic. Whether you love the poster or hate
the poster, you’re right. In the end, all I wanted to do is get a
response out of people, good or bad. Oh, and get paid for it. I still
have some for sale at vondada.com if anyone’s interested.


Q: Are you an Obama supporter?

I’m
a dyed-in-the-wool, Union-card-carrying Liberal. So, of course I’m an
Obama supporter. I’m pro-Democrat and anti-Republican. If Hillary had
been the Democratic candidate, I’d vote for her. I just hope Obama
picks a Southern Democratic for the ticket or we’re all f*cked.

What is the inspiration behind the “snob” photo? Anything empowering? Anything positive-based, River Daughter? No, didn’t think so. It’s just something used to bash the Democratic front-runner. Something “used to rile up your base right, GB? Something to get a little more hits, a few more “you rock” comments.

Strange. It seems Americans don’t really know who they want in a President. We want an intelligent, courageous, intellectual, and confident candidate, but when we get that, then he’s a “snob” because we want all of that but we also want him to be just a regular Joe, which is what gets your George Bush, just a guy you’d like to have a beer with, remember?

This is why nobody can take this call-it-whatcha-will group (a “movement,” a “coalition,” a “counter-movement,”) seriously. PUMA isn’t concerned about making the roll call truly official, they aren’t concerned with counting every vote, they aren’t concerned about “keeping the Democratic party Democratic.” They are concerned with seeing someone they don’t want as the nominee elected via Democratic process. The tricky part is, it’s ten times harder to “win” that debate when you’re not the majority. Instead, more often than not, it just comes across as quixotic pontification.

Maybe in 2012 the DNC should just have a football game to decide the nominee, because apparently voting isn’t “Democratic” enough ( make it a game of two-hand touch, as to not offend women who will undoubtedly feel the game wouldn’t be fair while simultaneously exclaiming that women can do everything men can do). Hey at least we know it will be 100% American.

Question: If these PUMAs were so passionate and motivated, and if they are truly life-long Democrats why not use their “inspiration” to try and improve what they may feel are Senator Obama’s weak points? Why does Darragh Murphy say in this interview that “people won’t vote for Obama-” why does she imply that he can’t win? So instead, she, and many others, seem to think since Obama can’t persevere they should further damage the nation and go against their supposed “principles” by voting for the Republican. In an essence, what Darragh is uttering is that PUMAs will vote for the candidate who they feel is going to win. Is that what is going on? PUMA just doesn’t want to vote for the loser? That is called identity voting, PUMAs are chocked full of them (hence some of those racial undertones ala Harriet Christian’s “I can’t call you black” comment).

It’s just another reason nobody can take them seriously. Every email that is sent, every fax, every thing that reaches the hands of some secretary who works for anyone tied to government isn’t taken seriously. The first one is read, the second one is read, the third, fourth, fifth, and so on are ignored. Because it isn’t an unbiased source, it isn’t a real Democratic cause. I doubt those on the receiving end of the calls even tag this “coalition” “PUMA.” Every news media outlet that has covered this bunch has introduced them first and foremost as “angry (disgruntled) Hillary Clinton supporters.” Now, who does THAT hurt? Obama? McCain? Or the Clinton brand? I’ll go with the latter.

PUMA has turned into something much worse than the rogue dead-ender Ron Paul crowd. It is no longer about electing a president, it is no longer about an election, a primary, or even about Hillary Clinton. It’s just about hatred now. PUMA has no real solid agenda like strong and effective organizations (i.e. MoveOn.org, media matters, etc.). Instead, PUMA has turned into a fringe-wing group tapping into the ring with all other right-wing 527′s whose only message is hate. “We hate Obama.”

The kicker? if the nominee were Hillary, PUMA would be fleeing from the ring as to protect themselves from the 527 sharks who would then be clamoring, “we hate Clinton.” the right is not your friend PUMA, they lie just as much now as they did then.. the difference is now the lies are what you want to hear.

It has turned into a witch hunt, “what dirt can we find on Obama today?” and the vitriol that goes into their emails, faxes, and phone calls wreak of it. So by the time their “call[s] to action” reach the recipient, by the time the secretary reads three or four of these messages, they turn from being something constructive to just a higher form of hate mail, and nobody responds constructively to hate mail.

While PUMA has long begun their crumble into the likes of “swift boat veterans for truth” and the infamous 527 organizations they have claimed themselves something so transparently false- Democratic. PUMA is anything but. It may contain an ample amount of “Democrat In Name Only” constituents, but certainly they lack “ideals” voters. Their crumble has taken them to a lower plateau of disingenuousness, a cesspool of something darker, an organization brimming with GOP shills. And the more this happens, the more it will likely become nothing more than an institution for all things Anti-Democrat.

But the more I learn about this fringe-wing group, the more I begin to think that was the original intent all along.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Ad Wars II: Obama v. McCain

By on 31 July 2008



Open thread.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Ad Wars

By on 31 July 2008

BY TAYLOR MARSH
–bumped–



The gloves are off. Watch and listen to Andrew Mitchell and Rick Davis go at it in the clip above. It’s extraordinary. Via
The Swamp:


“Barack Obama has played the race card, and he played it from the bottom
of the deck. It’s divisive, negative, shameful and wrong,” Davis said
in a statement.

Specifically, McCain’s campaign cited remarks that Obama made in which he
accused the Republicans of trying to make the public “scared” and
portray him as “risky.”

“You know, he’s not patriotic enough,” Obama said, according to
a transcript cited by the McCain camp. “He’s got a funny name. You know,
he doesn’t look like all those other presidents on those dollar bills, you
know. He’s risky. That’s essentially the argument they’re making.” …
..

So today, Obama’s team launched the “Low
Road Express” website.

McCain and his team know that they have to take Obama down, tarnish the luster
and the image. That’s what summers are for during general election season. They want to define Obama, since he hasn’t done it himself, as a celebrity and nothing
more. Will it work? It’s all they’ve got and they’re giving it their all.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Prayer-Gate?

By on 31 July 2008

Guest post by Linfar
–updated–

Did you ever have this argument when you were a kid:



You did too. I did not. Yes, you did. I did not. You did! No I didn’t! Did toooooo!!!

And then there is this saying by Sir Walter Scott told to kids who either may have already or are about to Lie their way out of something:



Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.

Like kids the two sides on this story have been hurling insults back and forth for days. But it is the quote by Sir Walter Scott which may rule the day.

It began with shocked headlines announcing Presidential candidate Barack Obama’s sweet little prayer had been swiped from its niche in the wailing wall in Jerusalem and then printed in Maariv, Israel’s second largest circulation newspaper.

Shame was heaped on Maariv, a Hebrew-only daily.

Then a spokesman, who said he worked for Maariv, reported that the Obama campaign did give a copy of the prayer to Maariv. This spokesman said the prayer was also offered to four other newspapers.

These four other Israeli newspapers published on July 28 the statement from the unnamed Maariv spokesman who said:



Barack Obama’s note was approved for publication in the international media even before he put it in the Kotel [Western Wall], a short time after he wrote it at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem.

One of the newspapers cited,Yediot Aharonot, the country’s most popular daily, published an article Friday saying it had also obtained the note, but decided not to publish it, to respect Obama’s privacy. The paper did not say how it received the note.

Other Israeli media outlets initially ignored the story, or picked it up only after the initial publication had triggered a controversy. The note or prayer reads:



Lord – Protect my family and me.Forgive me my sins, and help me guard against pride and despair. Give me the wisdom to do what is right and just. And make me an instrument of your will.

One full day afer the first spokesman from Maariv came forward, a second spokesman for Maariv went back to all the major Israeli newspapers and said he didn’t know who was speaking for Maariv, but it certainly wasn’t a legitimate official. He said in no uncertain terms the Obama campaign did not give them the prayer.

Then someone released a video made by chance at the wailing wall which showed a member of the Obama entourage—or several– clearly swiping prayers from the wailing wall minutes after Obama left his offering. It also showed one Obama campaign associate walking off with a piece of paper—ostensibly Obama’s prayer.

You can doubt me. You can attack the sources for this story. But I dare anyone to say this is not amazing footage:

According to Reuven Koret of Israelinsider, Israel’s daily news magazine:



The videographer identifies himself as David Cohen, ‘a freelance photographer/videographer currently living in Jerusalem.’ He reports that ‘Seconds after Obama left the stones, some of his entourage stepped up to the wall (dressed in suits) and I recorded a young man gathering notes in his hands in what appeared to be the search for Obama’s freshly placed personal note. He is joined by others who unwrap notes and read them. One person [is shown] walking away from the wall with a note that he unwraps as he tries to aggressively block the camera lens.’ There is a continuous stream of images and sounds which links to the visible departure of the remaining Obama entourage.

Also from the Insider:



If Maariv is now contradicting itself, the Obama campaign, characteristically has been acting coy, refusing to confirm of deny that the prayer note even comes from the hand of Barack Obama. An AP report notes: ‘Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs would neither confirm nor deny the note was Obama’s [but] the handwriting appeared to match a message Obama inscribed Wednesday in the guest book at Yad Vashem, Israel’s official Holocaust memorial, and was written on stationery from the King David Hotel, where Obama stayed while in Israel. Obama signed the Yad Vashem message. The note from the Western Wall was unsigned.’

Obama spokesman Bill Burton flatly denied the contention that Obama’s prayer, in the form of a note slipped into the Wailing Wall, was “approved for publication,” adding: ‘That didn’t happen,’ he said in an email cited in Ben Smith’s Politico blog. ‘We have neither confirmed nor denied the prayer to anyone.’

In an earlier Insider piece, this time by their combined staff, this thought was advanced:



If the Maariv statement about pre-approval of publication of the note is true, it would mean that the Obama campaign had managed the event brilliantly, if deceptively, getting the double benefit of appearing to be victimized by the invasive Israeli press and prayer-thieving Jew while at the same time leaking out his humble Christian plea to the Lord.

Already by the weekend, a (relatively) slick video appeared on YouTube that blended Obama’s Western Wall prayer with various church scenes, crosses aplenty, a dove of peace, and a soundtrack based on Amazing Grace. The video closes with a “vote” button and an invitation to visit the official campaign website

Here is the video:

Did Barack Obama intend for his “private prayer” to become public knowledge?

The possibility is gaining currency. James Taranto at the Wall Street Journal’s “Best of the Web” column says:



Obama’s so-called prayer was at best an open letter to God–a sentiment intended for public, not divine, consumption.

Taranto also cities Israel’s leading Hebrew-to-English translator Hillel Halkin, who writes in the New York Sun that the content of Obama’s note strikes a false note. Halkin writes:



Frankly, I’d feel a bit better about Mr. Obama if his prayer had simply said, ‘Lord, help me to be president.’ It’s perhaps churlish of me, but the suspicion lurks that that’s what he would have written had he felt sure it would not have ended up in the newspapers.

Halkin concludes:



Now, maybe men tend to pray more high-mindedly than women do, or maybe Obama’s is an unusually elevated soul…If Obama is insincere about his religious faith, that does not speak well of his character. Then again, it is reassuring in a way, given that wacko church he belonged to for 20 years.

Finally, from the Israelinsider there is this:



Cohen’s testimony provides new evidence that suggests that the alleged pilferer, dressed in the garb of a seminary student, may in fact have been a member of Obama’s entourage. If so, there would not need to have been an official authorization by the campaign to publish the note. The actual “pilferer” may have been working for Obama. This possibility would go a long way to account for the mixed messages emanating from both the Maariv and Obama spokesmen.

It is important to emphasize that the alleged thief has not been publicly identified, and that any connection between him and the Obama campaign, or with Maariv, has not been proven.

Moreover, a yeshiva student has appeared on Israel’s Channel Two, his face concealed, identified only by the Hebrew letter “Aleph” who confessed to the theft:



“I am asking for Obama’s forgiveness. If he was offended by it … of course he was, this is not a nice thing to do. It was sort of a prank. I hope he will forgive us, and we hope that he will win the presidency.

But is this really the guy who leaked the prayer?

And was the Obama campaign involved somehow– as the video clearly shows?

I think as of this writing, it would be safe to say that nobody knows.

TM.COM UPDATE: From Slate:


(A spokesman for Maariv says that the Obama campaign submitted the note to the newspaper, in which case the senator would indeed have forfeited all legal protection to privacy.)
Read full story · Comments are closed

VEEPSTAKES: VoteBoth Shuts Down

By on 31 July 2008



…zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz…. Oh, sorry, wake up.

Reality
bites.


Thank you for your continuing support as we have worked together to build
the strongest Democratic ticket possible. Since April, tens of thousands of
Vote Both supporters have petitioned, called, and written letters to the Obama
campaign. And Senator Obama heard your enthusiasm and arguments for Senator
Clinton and her leadership.

Because of your work, Senator Obama asked Hillary to be his keynote speaker
at the Democratic National Convention! We hope you are as pleased as we are
that he has tapped Senator Clinton to deliver one of the most important messages
of that crucial week—the very role that Barack Obama had four years
ago.

Regretfully, this means that Senator Hillary Clinton is no longer under consideration
as Senator Obama’s running mate….

(from VoteBoth website)

I don’t know if any of you saw Tim Kaine last night on “Charlie Rose,”
but he sure didn’t look like any “smokescreen”
to me. Of course, I have no idea what Obama and his team are thinking, nor does
anyone else. However, last night Kaine talked like someone campaigning to be
on the ticket. However, he’s been a loyal booster for Obama from the start,
so it isn’t outrageous to think he’s trying to throw everyone a curve for the
team.

The latest scuttlebutt is Gov. Sebelius. First, she can’t deliever Kansas,
so it’s got to be about something else if she’s the one. She also didn’t accumulate
18 million votes either. Talking to people in her state and also in Missouri,
the only thing I came away with from everyone is that watching her is like watching
paint dry. Hey, but she’s competent. Can’t have everything. Obama can more than
supply the flash.

Let’s just understand that if Sebelius gets the nod it’s unlikely that Clinton
supporters will react positively. However, the anti Obama zealots won’t be happy
with anyone, because they’re still in fantasyland of Clinton being the nominee.
It must be exhausting.

So, what are your thoughts about Sebelius? Serve it up.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Ludacris: Hillary is an ‘irrelevant b^$&%*’

By on 31 July 2008



Obama's iPod playlist will likely not include this screed. Nice lyrics, Ludacris.


I'm back on it like I just signed my record deal
yeah the best is here, the Bentley Coup paint is dripping wet, it got sex appeal
never should have hated
you never should've doubted him
with a slot in the president's iPod Obama shattered 'em
Said I handled his biz and I'm one of his favorite rappers
Well give Luda a special pardon if I'm ever in the slammer
Better yet put him in office, make me your vice president
Hillary hated on you, so that b^$&%* is irrelevant …

The Obama campaign responded quickly.


“As Barack Obama has said many, many times in the past, rap lyrics today too often perpetuate misogyny, materialism, and degrading images that he doesn’t want his daughters or any children exposed to,” said spokesman Bill Burton. “This song is not only outrageously offensive to Senator Clinton, Reverend Jackson, Senator McCain, and President Bush, it is offensive to all of us who are trying to raise our children with the values we hold dear. While Ludacris is a talented individual he should be ashamed of these lyrics.”

“Is not only offensive to Senator Clinton…” then the Obama team quickly moves on to immediately include all the males involved too, acknowledging the slam against McCain as unconscionable. But the statement blithely skips over the main message Ludacris is sending, not to mention the slur against Hillary Clinton that is preceded by a special shot at her for not knowing her place. Male rap artists have a creative history of promoting misogyny and all out disrespect of women. Does the Obama team really not get it? Lumping Jackson, McCain and President Bush into what was said about Hillary misses the moment completely. Then they make matters worse with a finish that sends a wink to Ludacris, slapping him in the next breath, making sure to have it both ways. Can't offend friends. Well, with friends like these…

Why is it every time the Obama campaign has a chance to elevate themselves on women's issues, especially where Hillary is concerned, they manage to trip over their inclusive kumbaya, lump everything into the same sink, sprinkle it with magic O rhetoric, then call the situation clean?

Where's Mary J. Blige when you need her? And as I've stated before, I love good rap. But there is a lot of garbage out there, with Ludacris a prime culprit for this junk.

Obama met with him in 2006. “We talked about empowering the youth,” said Ludacris. Well, the last time I looked, young girls need empowerment too. So to call the first viable female candidate in U.S. history an “irrelevant 'b^$&%*'” is disavowing what she means to young girls, because she broke the barrier of all barriers, which affects all females in this country, whether they like Clinton or not. That's what historic pioneers do. They change things for people who don't even appreciate it. But obviously, “empowering the youth” for Ludacris doesn't extend to girls.

Senator Obama has been terrific in talking about young men in his community needing to stand up and be fathers. But he missed a chance to take a real stand against this stuff by giving a nod to his idea of a “talented individual” that actually makes trash talking “b^$&%* is irrelevant” lyrics a part of his financial bottom line.

When it comes to what Hillary Clinton means to women, their daughters and the general role she continues to play in politics, but also in leadership for women in general, team Obama still doesn't understand that Hillary is different. They don't understand how important she is, either that or they're in denial. She's the first woman ever to come so close to winning the nomination of a major party and so close to being considered the first female commander in chief. However, she's also a pioneer symbolizing new groundbreaking opportunities for all women. She isn't in the same category as Jackson, McCain and Bush. She's a first for women, breaking new ground for all women, not just people who respect her.

Why is it that Obama can see his own historic symbolism through his candidacy, but cannot see that Hillary Clinton represents the exact same thing in her own right, regardless of her not prevailing in the primaries?

Obama's team giving Ludacris any cover at all, calling him a “talented individual,” sends a message to Hillary supporters that Obama cannot afford. They couldn't possibly be making my job harder if they tried. The anti Obama zealots are going to love it. The wingnut decency police are going to jump on it. It will play great for them in Missouri.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Obama Responds to McCain in ‘Low Road’ ad

By on 30 July 2008

BY TAYLOR MARSH

We’re having some technical problems.
A new post will be up as soon as we get this sorted out.



Well, it’s better than silence.

However, it doesn’t do it for me.

I don’t like when our candidate is responding. Attack. Attack. Attack. So, I’d rather have seen Obama unload an issues ad talking about McCain’s voting record on veterans issues and how bad it is. Frankly, I’m not sure what this ad says. It sure doesn’t define McCain, or Obama, for that matter.

What happened to tying McCain to Bush?

Open thread. Whatever is on your mind.

Read full story · Comments are closed

The Case Against Obama-Clinton

By on 30 July 2008

Guest post by Psychodrew

For many a Clintonista, the headline in yesterday’s New York Times was disturbing: Chance of an Obama-Clinton Ticket is Seen as Increasingly Unlikely. But for this Clintonista, it was a relief. An Obama-Clinton presidency would be a setback for Hillary, her supporters, and her agenda for changing America.

Diminishing Her Power

In the Democratic Party, save for the nominee, there is no politician more popular than Hillary Clinton. Her primary fight not only expanded her support among Democrats, but it further endeared her to her loyal supporters.

She began the campaign as a second term senator and, let’s face it, a former First Lady. Democrats who knew her for nothing other than being a Clinton became enthusiastic supporters of Hillary. She reached out to blue-collar Democrats, people long ignored by the “Let Them Eat Arugala” wing of the party. And she inspired millions of women.

Now Hillary is certainly not the only Democrat on Capital Hill with a large base of support. Senator Kerry must certainly have a large database after his 2004 presidential bid, but how many of those people will pick up the phone or write emails for him? The 3% who wanted him to run for the presidency in 2008? The other 97% have moved on. But for Hillary, the long primary battle only intensified the loyalty of her supporters. How many people do you know who began the campaign fond of Hillary and by the end had become a passionate admirer? The depth of Hillary’s support–as demonstrated by the PUMA movement, if nothing else–is unrivaled.

What happens to this political capital if she would become vice-president? It goes to waste. A President Obama would not tolerate a second major power base in the West Wing. HillPAC will fold, and she will be expected to use her database to further the goals of the administration (read: President Obama). How many of you are looking forward to the Action Alert email asking us to call our representatives and senators to urge them to support a President Obama’s not-so universal health care bill?

Sacrificing Her Agenda

We all know Hillary’s signature issue–universal health care. It is the cause of her life. Her work on health care dates back to her time as First Lady of Arkansas, when her husband asked her to chair a healthcare reform panel. Even after the failure of the health care reform in 1993, she played a key role in the creation of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. And who can forget the primary, when she was attacked by her opponent using right-wing talking points.

What happens to universal health care if Hillary is vice-president? When Hillary runs for the presidency in 2016, her signature issue will again be universal health care.

If Senator Obama hasn’t made it clear, allow me. This is his party. It’s going to be his presidency. It’s going to be his agenda. He made that very clear on May 31st when he stole four of Hillary’s Michigan delegates at the meeting of the Rules and Bylaws Committee. He talks a great game about being inclusive and party unity, but we’ve seen little more than “get over it” and running in “heels.”

Hillary will be expected to adopt his agenda, including his plans for nearly universal health care. If she were put in charge of health care–and as the foremost senate expert, she should be–and she pursued her own health care agenda, Senator Obama would be overshadowed. The stories would be about the experienced Hillary Clinton’s influence over the rookie Senator Obama. And Senator Obama’s ego could not take that. She would have to pursue his agenda of universal health care lite.

Without Hillary, who will fight for universal health care? From the Senate–and only from the Senate–Hillary Clinton can hold Obama’s feet to the fire and push for truly universal health care. Only a senator of her stature, with her base of support, can do that.

A Future Presidential Bid at Risk

Early in the campaign, Hillary Clinton was seen more as Clinton and less as Hillary. Remember Obama’s line from the South Carolina debate? “Well I can’t tell who I’m running against sometimes.” She didn’t fully shed Hillary the Clinton until the run-up to the Texas and Ohio primaries when Hillary the Populist Warrior finally emerged. I am fond of Bill Clinton, but let’s face it. He was a drag on her campaign and he will ultimately be part of the reason that Senator Obama does not offer the vice-presidency to Hillary. Her opponents tied her to the less popular elements of Bill’s legacy–such as NAFTA–and dismissed the role she played in its successes.

If Hillary becomes vice-president, Barack Obama will become her new Bill Clinton. In 2016, she will be running as Barack Obama’s vice-president. Because she spent eight years championing his agenda, she won’t be able to escape it. Unless Senator Obama is wildly popular in 2016, she will be dogged by the mistakes of another president.

In the Senate, Hillary can continue to improve her profile. She will be the most sought-after fundraiser in the Democratic Party and co-sponsor in the Senate. With her new base of support and public image, she can carve out her own agenda a la McCain. In 2016, she will be ready for another run for the presidency, with a record and a public image independent of her husband and the sitting president.

This was a tough primary. Hillary and her supporters were treated with disrespect and our support for the nominee has largely been taken for granted. But the answer is not putting Hillary on the ticket. Putting Hillary on the ticket will diminish her and silence her agenda. She would make history, but for Hillary, this has never been about the history books. This is about health care for poor families. This is about peace in the Middle East and prosperity at home. This is about those Americans who have been invisible to the ruling class for the last seven years.

The best scenario for all is for Senator Obama to offer Hillary the vice presidency and for her to respectfully decline. This will give her the respect that she is due and Obama will be free to choose a vice-president that will shore up his foreign policy credentials (Biden), emphasizes his message of change (Kaine, Sebelius), or unites the party (Bayh). That Hillary satisfies all of these goals is not lost on me, but the best thing that we can do for Hillary–and I realize this is not easy–is rally behind the nominee and let Hillary get back to the Senate.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Show Me the Money, Barack

By on 30 July 2008

Guest post by Linfar

Okay. Look. I am not all impressed by the Obama Grand Tour. There was a movie a few years ago with Sandra Bullock who plays a grungy cop made over by Michael Caine to go undercover as a contestant in the Miss Universe Contest. One of the running jokes in that movie is that each contestant for the Biggie Prize ends her speech with “And I am for World Peace.”

So I just don’t get how this 2 continents in a handful of days with photo ops, little prayers leaked to the press and Biggie speeches on World Peace makes Obama a better candidate for President.

I mean this is supposed to be shore up his foreign policy credentials? Frankly, I was embarrassed.

I also don’t like grandiose and soaring hyperbole. I don’t trust it. I feel as if I am always screaming in my head: but what the hell are you gonna do? Jeeze, as long as I am doing this I may as well say that for me, anyway, Obama’s speeches don’t touch Jack Kennedy’s. Now that guy could give a speech.

Ok. OK. I know. I am out of sync with half the democrats in the country. And this is probably when I should say I am going to vote for the guy. But I am nervous about it. I don’t want to bring up unpleasant subjects, but FISA totally jammed up my personal little drive to get on the Bus.

Will he take out the troops in a year or won’t he? Will he pick a Republican Vice President or won’t he? Will he support gay rights and gay marriage, let alone repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell or won’t he? For every person who tells you he will do all these things, there is another one with evidence who says he says he won’t.

Obama has left a trail of misdirection, half-truths and pandered positions that makes my head swim. And I don’t like it.

So maybe now you are wondering why I am going to vote for the guy. I hate John McCain. And I hate the Republican Party. I fear the election of John McCain the way some people fear snakes. And the Republican Party is the elephant in the middle of America’s living room. So I am I guess the loyal opposition. And I want to see people here hold Barack Obama’s feet to the fire on basic Democratic Party principles.

I don’t wanna hear about a Republican Veep because this creep could become President. I wanna hear about repealing the Patriot Act and FISA. I want to hear about bringing back the Fairness Doctrine, so we can begin to restore the reality–as opposed to giving lip service to the ideal– of a free press. I want a President who is friendly with the press and does not manage it in the interest of image control. I want a President committed to Social Security, raising the minimum wage and universal health care. I want a doer–not a talker. I want a President who understands the value of a civil service with appointments across the board who are the best at their job. Bush has gutted this bedrock principle–a bedrock of our democracy and its ability to serve our citizens well and fairly.

Sure I want all the bells and whistles in terms of a forward looking thinker about global warming, about moving us away from fossil fuel dependence, about solutions to our shrinking water supply, about our cities built in deserts, and about our over population.

So here’s the deal. I am taking Obama on faith in the Democratic Party. Because this guy, himself, ain’t doing it for me. Will he be another Carter, as President? I dunno. Ok. I know some of you love Carter. I didn’t. Now there’s a guy who could talk you to death. I myself do not think we would have ever gotten to where we are today in the Mideast if we had acted to free our hostages in Iran Immediately. And I don’t think the party would have sunk so low with the American people.

So, the bottom line is this. Dear Barack Obama, stop with the soaring and get down here in the trenches with us little people who need healthcare and assistance with aging parents, who are losing their homes in the mortgage fiasco and money in banks that are failing, who want to drive cars with better gas mileage and who know the time for mass transit is Here. We don’t care about fancy speeches. But we do care about vision and commitment and honesty. Show us the money, Barack. OK??

Read full story · Comments are closed

McCain Hits Obama on his ‘Celebrity’

By on 30 July 2008

BY TAYLOR MARSH





“I’d love to think John McCain is a big international celebrity, but he isn’t.” – Rick Davis

“Obama has become the biggest celebrity in the world. … But is he ready to lead yet?”, asked Steve Schmidt, when joining the call a bit later. That’s the point the McCain team hopes to drive home with the ad.

Rick Davis and the McCain campaign had a media call earlier today to talk about their new ad “Celeb.” This post offers liveblogging notes on the call.

Davis started the call by explaining the ad back and forth between the campaigns. “This ad also addresses a unique facet” of the campaign, “an enormous image of celebrity status.” Going on: The point we’re making is that these images of celebrity status and the way he’s conducted his campaign… owe more to the development of an international celebrity status” than a traditional presidential campaign. Other celebrities are woven into the ad, making the point that celebrity is taking front and center. “A man who’s got fans all over the world,” said Davis. “It shows a contrast on who is ready to lead.”

McCain message: Adoring fans v. having a political movement that offers solutions. McCain is talking to average Americans.

Dana Bash of CNN asked about Sarkozy’s response to Obama, talking about Obama “releasing a movie.” Since Sarkozy talked about looking forward to when Obama is president. Davis called it Obama’s “world tour.”

Kelly O’Donnell of NBC news asked about the polling and focus group work done on words like “celebrity” and “presumptuousness.” Davis said it doesn’t take much introspection or focus group work to get this conclusion. “This stunt” is the type of campaign Obama is running, focusing the world on the “magnificent crowds” he’s getting. They do a “wonderful job” in placing their candidate in the most positive light. We’re just using their own imagery to enforce the point. Is it about “celebrity” or who “the leader of the free world will be.” Obama has “more fans than Britney Spears does.”

David Wright of ABC news asked why these particular celebrities were chosen? Aren’t folks going to see this as more negativity? They tried to find the top three celebrities in the world. “It’s the most entertaining thing I’ve seen on TV in a while. … This is the event he put on.” There is a difference between McCain’s solutions v. what Obama is against.

A reporter from the NY Post asked about the celebrities chosen not being the most positive role models. These celebrities are “frivolous and irresponsible.” Are you saying Obama is both? This is “apples to apples,” the McCain team responded. McCain team again said: “Just because you’re celebrity doesn’t mean you’re ready to lead.” They’re point, McCain is ready to lead.

As for the negativity tag, according to the McCain camp, Obama attacks McCain every day on the stump. Obama launched the first negative ad. McCain’s team is going to define the race as it is.

Why isn’t Obama winning by more? Bottom line from the McCain camp: Do the American people want to elect the biggest celebrity in the world or a war hero?

Here’s the Obama team’s response to the ad:


“On a day when major news organizations across the country are taking Senator McCain to task for a steady stream of false, negative attacks, his campaign has launched yet another. Or, as some might say, ‘Oops! He did it again.’ Our dependence on foreign oil is one of the greatest challenges we face. In this election the American people have a real choice — between Obama’s plan to provide tax rebates to American families while creating a renewable energy economy in America that frees us from our dependence on foreign oil, and Senator McCain’s plan to continue the same failed energy policies by handing out nearly $4 billion in tax breaks to oil companies while investing almost nothing in the new energy sources that represent our future,” said Obama campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor.

Excuse me, but that’s it? Team Obama will have to do a lot better than this response to combat the imagery laid down by McCain’s team. Memo to Obama & Co.: They’re defining your candidate. They’re also laughing at him, while inviting the American voter to do the same. Wake up.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Who Will Channel Hillary?

By on 30 July 2008


The economy is issue number one for Americans. So who in the general election
will speak to it for Democrats? Barack Obama can speak about the policy side of things, but who will reach the people?

Tim Kaine?

Evan Bayh?

Nice guys. Fughettaboutit.

Joe Biden? No, but at least every single foreign leader respects the man. I
doubt if the same can be said for Mr. Kaine. They’ll eat Mr. Bayh for breakfast.

Seriously folks, what are we doing here? Are we trying to win, or just simply
putting up Mr. America, whose campaign seems to be under the illusion that all
the Democratic candidate has to do is show up to win. That symbolism is all.


“It has become increasingly clear in my travel, the campaign — that the crowds, the enthusiasm, 200,000 people in Berlin, is not about me at all. It’s about America. I have just become a symbol.” – Barack Obama

Are you sensing it? You know, that feeling that Senator Obama is going through
the motions of actually trying to win this thing, without believing he has to convince anyone that he has any answers to earn it. Presumptive nominee has already morphed into “presumptuous”, which is actually being discussed on all over cable TV.

Someone in McCain’s team has already sensed it. The nonchalance of the Democratic nominee who hasn’t even bothered to define himself or his mission. Though the latest
story in the Times doesn’t help their cause. We can only hope they’ll cave to the clamoring.


The old happy warrior side of Mr. McCain has been eclipsed a bit lately by
a much more aggressive, and more negative, Mr. McCain who hammers Mr. Obama
repeatedly on policy differences, experience and trustworthiness.

By doing so, Mr. McCain is clearly trying to sow doubts about his younger
opponent, and bring him down a peg or two. But some Republicans worry that
by going negative so early, and initiating so many of the attacks himself
rather than leaving them to others, Mr. McCain risks coming across as angry
or partisan in a way that could turn off some independents who have been attracted
by his calls for respectful campaigning.

The drumbeat of attacks could also undermine his argument that he will champion
a new brand of politics….

History lesson. Who was the last candidate who won the presidency by running
a “respectful campaign”?

Gotcha.

In the middle of it all lies this humongous gulf. Obama can speak in long
sentences that rap around dreams, visions and enough rhetorical cotton candy
to make his primary season word fogs look coherent. But the man cannot connect.

What is he going to do for my neighbor who has been laid off? Or the other
neighbor who is about to lose his house and his life savings?

Hillary would have an answer. She would reach inside these voters and talk
to their deepest despair and desperation, telling them that she can’t work miracles,
but she can offer solutions that provide a road map to find the way out.

Can Tim Kaine do that with voters? Can Evan Bayh?

Barack Obama seems to be under the grand illusion that he can do this alone, with simply a side kick to support his stardom. Or that he can do it with any old guy who can get his back. He’s wrong. What
Obama needs is someone who talks a language he doesn’t speak or understand. Speaking of problems he knows but can’t capture.

Suffice it to say there’s an empathy gap.

For the first time in decades a Democratic candidate reached down into voters’
anxieties and talked to the issues most on their minds. No Democrat has
done it in recent election cycles. That is, make lunch bucket, Reagan Democrats believe that a
Democratic candidate not only knows their plight and their challenges, but also gets them and has a solution and a road
map to lead them out. That person was not Barack Obama.

When thinking of the team that can lead Democrats to victory in November only
one stands out. It isn’t matching Obama with Evan Bayh, and it sure as hell isn’t serving up Tim Kaine.

We all know who can make this trek to the White House not only easier, but a road of mission and purpose on which every American would be proud to walk, because their best interests would be served. But the truth is that the people involved don’t seem willing to call it up.

So much hope wasted on the alter of ego. Our best chance of winning spurned in the balance. Because contrary to popular belief, we haven’t won this thing yet.

Read full story · Comments are closed

‘W.’, the Movie

By on 29 July 2008

BY TAYLOR MARSH



Who’s got the popcorn?

It’s scheduled for release on October 17th. Failing upwards made into an art form.

Open thread. Floor is yours.

Read full story · Comments are closed

All McCain’s Lobbyists

By on 29 July 2008

BY TAYLOR MARSH



What’s up with McCain’s lobbyists? We know some have had to resign. We also know he gets plenty of cash from them.



So far, Mr. McCain, who has locked up the Republican presidential nomination, has received more than $181,600 from lobbyists and trade groups, while Mr. Obama has received just over $6,000. – The New York Times

Katic Couric sat down with Rick Davis tonight for CBS Evening News. She asked a simple question. As you see from the video above, Rick Davis makes a pretty clear declarative statement.


Couric: How many lobbyists work here?

Davis: We don’t make it a litmus test for employment at the McCain campaign. It goes without saying that some people who are involved in the lobbying profession do it because they are interested in that side of the equation. They’re interested in government, they’re interested in congress, they’re interested in public service.

The Obama camp caught it immediately, sending out an email on the discrepency.

What does McCain’s campaign policy state? Via Time a two months ago:



MCCAIN CAMPAIGN POLICY

The Campaign policy with regard to lobbying by individuals affiliated with the Campaign is as follows:

1.) No person working for the Campaign may be a registered lobbyist or foreign agent, or receive compensation for any such activity. …

Which is it? You can’t have it both ways. Though it’s true, John McCain often does.

Read full story · Comments are closed

VEEPSTAKES: Is Clinton Out?

By on 29 July 2008


This
is the strongest reporting yet leading to evidence that Clinton is out. It’s also incredibly dismissive of Senator Clinton, not that this surprises me, no matter where it originates. Mainly because I have a feeling that’s exactly how many feel now that she’s gone from the race. The line in bold below is the kicker, regardless of the fact that Hillary has been around the political arena long
enough so that Obama’s team knows what she brings, good and bad. But still,
in my estimation, there is no way they wouldn’t vet her through his committee.


Mrs. Clinton has told associates in recent days that she thinks there is
little chance Mr. Obama will pick her and that she views the public pronouncements
by some of Mr. Obama’s aides that she is under review as nothing more
than a courtesy.

She has not been asked to provide written documentation to the committee
vetting the background of candidates for Mr. Obama. Although Mrs.
Clinton probably needs less flyspecking than almost anyone else in the field
— considering how long she has been in public life and how intensively
her past has been examined — the silence from that corner is being taken
by Mrs. Clinton’s advisers as evidence of where she stands on Mr. Obama’s
vice presidential list. …

… But the Obama camp has done little in public to prepare Clinton supporters
for the increasing likelihood that she will not be on the ticket. There is
no shortage of speculation among Mrs. Clinton’s supporters that she
is very much in the running as Mr. Obama begins closing in on a decision.

No one, certainly not me, is suggesting Senator Obama doesn’t have every right to pick
whomever he feels melds best with him in order to win in November, then govern. It’s also not like I had real hopes Senator Obama would pick Clinton. But
a couple of lines in Nagourney’s piece not only rankle, but offer harbingers
of trouble after his choice is made and the vetting saga leaks out.


The feeling goes both ways. Mrs. Clinton has told associates in recent
days that she thinks there is little chance Mr. Obama will pick her and that
she views the public pronouncements by some of Mr. Obama’s aides that
she is under review as nothing more than a courtesy. … ..

But his associates describe that as unlikely, saying that for a variety
of reasons, Mr. Obama is not looking to have her as a running mate or serving
with him in the White House.

A courtesy?

Marty
Peretz puts definition to the word obtuse, even after linking to Nagourney’s
piece.


I am glad that this finis to her ambitions is now agreed upon.

Agreed upon by whom? Not that anyone seems to have the
grace to let Clinton know what’s going on. After all, she only won many of the
last primaries, not to mention crushed him in the debates, while amassing the
same total votes as he. As I’ve said since Obama clinched the nomination, how
he handles the veepstakes matters. How this finally resolves matters as well and right now I’m not getting that warm and fuzzy feeling.

Hillary Clinton deserves more than courtesy, especially
if the second part of Nagourney’s piece above is correct. That the Obama team
already knows Senator Clinton is out of the running, but Senator Obama is going
on TV, along with his aides, making perfunctory statements to appease Senator
Clinton, but especially her supporters, basically leading everyone on. If indeed
Senator Obama is not considering Clinton, which the report says even HRC believes
is true, he should have the grace to tell her that to her face so she can have
the space to address it separate of him and prior to his selection being formally announced.

No one is saying he has to choose Clinton, though clearly I believe with Hillary
we’d increase our chances of winning by a significant margin. Strike that, I think we’d win in a walk, even though many of us believed Hillary was never really getting the serious consideration from the Obama camp she deserved.

However, if the Obama team has been leading on Clinton and her supporters, of which I
am a vocal and significant member, as this report hints, while simultaneously
the Obama team, including Obama himself, has been giving complimentary talking points
to the media when they know she’s out, they’re going to stir up fury barely buried, not to mention more bad blood, neither of which Democrats can afford if we’re to win in November. Because the truth is much of the support of Hillary’s former supporters is thinly based. It won’t take much to get them to skip the presidential part of their ballot.

I’m reserving
judgment on this one, but I can tell you that what’s swirling right now is not
a good sign and I’m not simply talking about Clinton not being his veep choice.

Disrespect of Senator Clinton from the Obama team like the sort that drips from Nagourney’s piece would be a very
bad sign for fall.

This would be another one.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Knoxville Shooter Targeting Gays

By on 29 July 2008

guest post by Linfar


NO. The shooter at a Knoxville Church yesterday didn’t open fire on a bunch of churchgoers killing two and injuring seven, because he didn’t like “the liberal movement.” This is inaccurate and it slides over the reality in a way that borders on falsehood.

The man who opened fire in a Tennesee church hated gays.

The church had just put a sign up welcoming gays! Yeah. The shooter left a 4 page letter in his car saying he didn’t like “the liberal movement,” but this is often code for a social agenda which fosters equal rights for gay people and that specifically was the trigger issue.

This is the headline that is more accurate:


Several people shot at gay affirming church in Knoxville. Shooter may have targeted church because of its support for gays.

Of course, this headline only appeared in a gay newspaper Out and About.

When Kitty Genovese in 1964 was stabbed to death 25 times by a man in Queens– while 38 bystanders looked on it and did nothing– the case was reported in the national media as the worst case of bystander apathy in American history. In all the media publicity and furor, nowhere was the fact that Kitty Genovese was a lesbian, who had been prone to loud fights with her girlfriend, ever mentioned.

The bystanders who refused to help her as she was stabbed to death refused to come to the aid of a lesbian.

Bystander apathy was a phony issue. However, it was widely believed because a) no one bothered to find out she was gay or b) if they did find out, refused to say so publicly.

As of 8 am today, two of the victims have died, two were treated and released and five remain in critical or serious condition at University of Tennessee Medical Center.

As a result of the shooting at the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church at its Sunday morning service, Linda Kraeger, 61, died last night at at UT Medical Center. Greg McKendry, 60, died when he confronted the gunman as he entered the church.

The shooter, Jim D. Adkisson 58, of Powell, Tenneessee, shot eight people with a 12 guage shotgun after firing 13 rounds. Of those shot, all were adults: four women and three men. Although at the time of the shooting a group of children were singing from a church production of “Annie.”

The FBI is assisting in the investigation which is required in a hate crime.

The church is the site of gay affirming activities. A member of the congregation wrote in a national blog that the church just recently put up a sign welcoming gays. One of the goals of the church’s long range plan is to:


Increase congregational participation in human rights programs forgay/lesbian/transgendered persons.

“Elrod,” who posted a comment on the blog The Moderate Voice says he is a member of the church. He said he was not present on Sunday, but did add:


all we know right now is that the suspect was not connected to the church in any way. I have no idea if the man had some sort of political or cultural agenda (TVUUC had just put up a sign welcoming gays to the congregation), or if it’s just some lunatic acting for no reason at all.

The church is home to Knoxville’s Spectrum Café, which is an eight year old social gathering place for Knoxville area high school youth who:


support the principles of diversity, tolerance, and the worth and dignity of every human being.

Teens who come to Spectrum respect each others’ ideas, religious views, race, sexual orientations, abilities, and ethnic backgrounds. The group welcomes:


self-identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender, or who are questioning their sexual or gender identity.

The Knoxville Monday Gay Men’s Group meets at the church each Monday from 7:30 p.m. to 9 p.m.

David Massey, who is one of the coordinators of Spectrum Café, also known as “Spectrum Diversi-Tea and Coffee House,” said recently in the Unitarian Universalist World Magazine:


We advertise it as a safe harbor for teens who identify as LBGTQ and their straight friends and allies, plus any other youth who are being harassed for religious beliefs, appearance, or abilities.

At least seven people were shot – Becky Thompson with UT Medical Center confirmed to NBC News that seven people were transported from the church to UTMC for medical treatment.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Ted ‘Tubes’ Stevens Indicted

By on 29 July 2008

BY TAYLOR MARSH



Lying, cheating crooks, sucking money into their own private world to make their lives better, while the American public sucks on it. That’s today’s Republican Party in a nutshell.

Here’s the indictment of Senator Ted Stevens.

Let’s get rid of these guys.

Obama – Clinton ’08.

Open thread. Have at it.

Read full story · Comments are closed

McCain’s Record on ‘Supporting the Troops’

By on 29 July 2008

BY TAYLOR MARSH



Robert Gibbs was in full push back mode all day yesterday. There’s more on “Fight the Smears.”

Keith Olbermann went straight at McCain’s voting record on veterans, as you’ll see in the clip above.

This stuff should have already been in an ad. That it isn’t is worrisome. Again, I understand the surrogate strategy, having them make the case, even though when Wes Clark did it he was basically cut loose. But if Obama’s campaign is not going to hit McCain on veterans issues straight on it’s a mistake. It’s not negative to point out his voting record. It’s making the case. It can’t all be kumbaya, punched up with McCain is “an honorable man.” That is, it can’t if you want to beat these guys.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Our National Nightmare…

By on 28 July 2008

BY TAYLOR MARSH



…is almost, well, about to end… we hope.

However humorous this new MoveOn.org ad, people don’t vote on hope. In fact, this actually mocks what many of us are searching to find: someone who can offer solutions to the nations problems. It also takes a lot for granted.

Obama’s now been on the defensive for days over his canceled military hospital trip. If you’re explaining, you’re losing.

Frankly, this ad is way too laid back for where Barack Obama stands today with the American voter. We got the “hope” message. Where’s the beef? More importantly, where’s the laser targeted hits on McCain’s voting record, on veterans and womens issues? Relentlessness wins. Humor does too, but only when directed at your opponent.

Open thread. Yackity-yak. Whatever is on your mind.

TM NOTE: It’s tough out here for everyone during these summers months. Please support our advertisers by clicking thru on the ads. Seriously, every day, once, whenever you can. It matters a great deal to this site. Also see the BlogAd over on the far right. These smaller blogs need your help and your traffic. Please visit if you possibly can. Again, it’s tough out here for everyone right now. Your support is vital to us all. Thanks.

Read full story · Comments are closed

AdNags Revenge

By on 28 July 2008


The lastest USA
TODAY/Gallup poll should have John McCain flying high.


The Friday-Sunday poll, mostly conducted as Obama was returning from his much-publicized overseas trip and released just this hour, shows McCain now ahead 49%-45% among voters that Gallup believes are most likely to go to the polls in November. In late June, he was behind among likely voters, 50%-44%.

No, not just the numbers, but how competitive this race is. On George W. Bush’s failed presidency alone, the Democrat should be winning by a mile.

On the end of Obama’s rousing European tour, which was a success by any measure, but… no one is yet completely convinced. People are still asking: Who is this guy? From a distance just won’t do it.


It is a question that has hovered over Senator Barack Obama even as he has
passed milestone after milestone in his race for the White House: Why is he
not doing better?

It shadowed him as he struggled against Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in
many states through the primaries, results that sometimes stood at odds with
the huge, enthusiastic crowds that turned out to see him. It was there in
the exit polls that suggested that many Democrats were uncomfortable with
Mr. Obama, putting an asterisk next to some of his biggest primary victories.

And it is back again as he returns from an overseas trip that even Republicans
have described as politically triumphant….

Where’s
the Bounce?

Sorry to nag, but they don’t seem to be getting the message.

Oh, and if you don’t get the headline of this post you need to catch
up on your summer reading.

What Obama needs is some good old fashion gravity, a tug to bring him back down to earth. You know, like a townhall meeting where he screws up badly. That would likely help Obama at this point.

See, for those who haven’t been paying attention, American voters don’t cheer for the champ or the smarty pants who seems full of himself, no matter how right, no matter how good the policies he’s pushing. The do-gooder who can do no wrong. See Gore 2000, or Kerry. We’re underdog lovers. We don’t like the guy above it all. We like the one who’s down in it, imperfect, you know, like William Jefferson Clinton. That’s where McCain is getting his political life preserver. From the people who like to root for
the sinner or the under-achiever. You know, someone like them.

Read full story · Comments are closed

McCain Works to Define Obama First

By on 28 July 2008



Senator Obama didn’t like the Access Hollywood story, saying it was a mistake to put his kids out front and center. However, this type of thing is more important to his chances in November than any number of photo ops with big shot leaders in Europe. It’s also why the cancellation of the hospital visit to see the troops is so devastating, especially since the push back has been so lame. Robert Gibbs on “Morning Joe” saying the “McCain is an honorable man, but increasingly running a very dishonorable campaign”? Then Gibbs cites a Republican as proof? It might have been ugly, but ugly sometimes works.


McCain does seem to have gotten some traction on this attack, even if the facts aren’t clearly on his side.

Frankly, the only thing I took away from Gibbs’ statement is that the Obama team seems afraid of going after John McCain directly. They freaked after Wesley Clark did it. Is it because of his hero status? If that’s true we’re sunk, because people don’t know Barack Obama, the man. Against John McCain, “the honorable man” and war hero, people won’t vote for Obama in November unless they do.

With emails flying about the upcoming convention, I started asking questions
about what type of convention will it be. A Kerry kumbaya? Or will Barack Obama
take aim at John McCain? Whatever the decision one thing is clear, Obama’s team
needs to reveal who their guy is, what he stands for and what he can do for average
Americans. The guy needs to be brought back down to earth. However, right now
I’m getting a very queasy feeling that we’re going to be treated to the first
option, Kerry kumbaya. If you remember, when Kerry did that in the ’04 election,
it was followed by a brutally ruthless evisceration of John Kerry and all things
Democratic at the Republican convention that followed. There are signs right now that Obama
may be heading for the same type of trap.

Did anyone listen to Big Blowhard Ed today? That would be Ed Schultz. His show,
including sit in guest hosts, long ago became Clinton bashing central, but today
it was taken down a different road. Where is Hillary and why isn’t she campaigning
right now for Obama? Evidently, she doesn’t plan to work as hard as she said
she was, so says Ed. Then Ed got down to business taking aim at Obama’s rapid
response team, focusing on John McCain’s character ad against Obama. Where is
team Obama’s response? Why aren’t they going after McCain’s voting record? Then
Ed went further. If Obama and his surrogates, including Senate Democrats, don’t
get more aggressive and show outrage over ads like McCain just unloaded, we’re
going to lose this election. Finally, someone besides me is feeling it, but also saying it.

Frankly, this is one consideration most ardent Obama fans never consider. I’ve
even been asked in the comment sections around here whether I doubt Obama will
be the next president. Anyone predicting that Obama is a slam dunk for November
is missing a major point. He still hasn’t defined himself for Americans. He
and his team are making the colossal error of letting McCain do that for them.

National polls don’t mean anything right now. If they did I’d be writing posts
questioning why Obama wasn’t ahead by 20 points, given the disaster that Dubya
has been for this country.

And as much as people say they hate negative ads, they work. They stick. They
move minds and votes.

I’m all for Barack Obama getting back to the economy. But it’s another policy
issue moment that doesn’t say anything about him.

McCain wants to do townhalls, lots of them. That’s because he’s good at them.
These also give voters a window into the candidate and who he is. It’s why townhalls
should be more important to the Obama campaign than they’re currently making
them.

Less than 100 days left. Obama needs fewer photo ops and more moments where
voters get to see who he is. Mysterious men don’t win general elections. Obama
needs to obliterate the enigma quotient. McCain’s doing it on his end, to devasting affect. Obama
will lose if McCain’s version sticks. But in the absence of a counter narrative that defines Obama, the man, beyond issues and policies, where else can the voter go for information?

If Obama doesn’t start defining himself on a personal level, something he is horrible at doing, come November we could be asking: How’d we lose yet again?

Read full story · Comments are closed