LOLOL!!

Um... what?

His quote was:

Incorrect, but don't let that get in your way. In the first instance, I cited that the lack of leadership was troubling. That has nothing to do with the second comment I made, where JPhillips assumed that I was OK with the 6 years that the Republicans were in power. I was not. There's no contradiction there.

In the second example, I said that Pelosi and Reid were the worst leaders I had every seen in Congress. Given that I was born in 1974, I certainly see no contradiction in saying that anything before my kindergarten years in 1980 is likely something I wouldn't have seen. There's no contradiction there either.

I would say having read about something or watched a documentary counts as 'seeing'.

For the record, as one of the resident liberals, I don't see Obama as a saviour. I agree that his resume is a bit light. But I like his intelligence, and I think his thoughtful nature and measured responses will be a breath of fresh air after 8 years of the "let's just do this without worrying about consequences or planning ahead" attitude that Bush has given to us. Surely, Obama will at least surround himself with bright people and listen to what they have to say, rather than appointing people who are unqualified to do their jobs because they are his friends.

And honestly, if Obama ends up being merely an average President, that will still be a huge step up from what we've had.

I remember when I was in kindergarten, there was a lot of talk in congress about a pretty restrictive crayon ban. A bunch of us made signs and pretended that the jungle gym was a courthouse to stand outside of. Those were wild times.

Tip O'Neill & Robert Byrd are the pair I like to bring up when someone suggests that GOP White House + Democratic Congress (or vice versa) = gridlock. Sure, great leaders if you like pork.

How about this cast of winners:

1997 - 1999: Trent Lott (Senate Majority Leader), Dick Armey (House Majority Leader), Newt Gingrich (House Speaker) - also known as "The Lewinsky Three"

2003 - 2005: Bill "I can diagnose people on TV" Frist (Senate Majority Leader), Dennis "I hope people don't notice I'm not doing anything" Hastert (House Majority Leader), Tom "Corruption" Delay (House Speaker)


Pelosi and Reid aren't the greatest, in terms of statesmanship, but as partisan operators they aren't bad. And let's face it, our future leaders in Congress are going to be nothing but partisan. The days of these roles being filled by great statesman are gone.

I don't disagree with you (yay, double-negative!). Frankly, what concerns me (and I'll admit that this is only my perception and I'm hoping it's way off base) is Obama is all about "change". The last president who used that podium was Jimmy Carter. Mind you, they come from different areas of the country, but I think there are a few parallels between the campaign, experience, party, etc. I'm 5 yrs older than MMBF, but my political ideologies owe a great deal to my remembrance of the Carter years (just as this this generation's will remember Bush as a "you-know-what") and the craptastic economy, gas shortages (remember odd and even gas days?), Iran hostage fiasco, etc. He was a "good guy", just like I think Obama is. He has proven himself as a great negotiator for peace (referring to Carter) and that's great. Unfortunately, the whole country got hosed in the process.

As I mentioned earlier on this page, I can certainly agree with you on Frist/Hastert/Delay. I'm a fan of Newt, so I'll disagree with you on that first one. O'Neill wasn't that bad, but Byrd is someone I didn't like as a leader. I still don't think any of those as a group reach the level of Pelosi/Reid. Let's be honest here. If Obama wins the presidency, the true winners are Dodd, Frank, and Schumer. They will be the defining face of the next 4 years because they will be the ones pulling the strings. If that is the case, you won't see all that much change.

Yeah, good times. I'm amazed you even knew what recess was given how many times you had to stand on the line all recess long. :D

Since there hasn't been an Obama/Pelosi/Reid combo yet, it HAS to be an assumption that it will turn out the way you say. You are basing your statement on the ASSUMPTION that a Pelosi/Reid Congress will function the same way under an Obama administration as it has under the Bush administration. It might be a strong assumption, but still an assumption.


Maybe you need to expand your knowledge outside of 10% of American History then.

Here's a list of the Speakers during the timeframe:

Tip O'Neill
Jim Wright
Thomas Foley
Newt Gingrich
Dennis Hastert
Nancy Pelosi

And Majority leaders in the Senate:

Robert Byrd
Howard Baker
Bob Dole
George Mitchell
Bob Dole
Trent Lott
Tom Daschle
Bill Frist
Harry Reid

O'Neill, for one, was able to work with the person from the other party in the WH. He and Reagan had a very good partnership from all that I've read. I also like Gingrich, and think he got a lot of good things done (committee chair term limits being one that comes to mind immediately), even though he was at loggerheads with Clinton the whole while. Frist/Hastert/Delay has been horrid though.

Quote of the thread so far.

By what measure?

Reagan: I want tax cuts.
O'Neill: I want lots of pork.
Reagan: I can live with that.
O'Neill: Sounds good. Where do I sign?
Reagan: Can you do anything about Byrd?
O'Neill: Sorry, we don't like him either.


That's putting it mildly. He, Lott and Armey spent the better portion of two Congressional sessions doing little else than trying to find ways to zing it to Clinton. Retributive politics at its best. To be fair, of course, Clinton did little else during this period as well.

I expect a 'leader' to make bold moves. Pelosi and Reid have had no bold moves in regard to legislation. In addition, they can't even play the game of politics very well, often having to backtrack on statements that they made without thinking about the ramifications of those statements.

I would note in regard to leadership that I'm STILL pretty pissed off about McCain's decision to vote for the bailout bill last week. To pay all that lip service during the campain about earmarks needing to be called out only to vote for that bill full of earmarks was disingenuous at best. He painted himself in a corner IMO with that vote. His only choice now is to go heavily negative, because he lost a lot of campaign leverage with that last vote.

Media's circling the wagons for Obama. Tough criticism on Obama? Play the race card:

OK, so because Palin is bringing to light Obama's "potential" relationship with Ayers and McCain didn't support a state holiday 20 years ago, the McCain-Palin campaign is racist. Makes perfect sense and a great example of the quality reporting we can expect from the associated press around election time. :rolleyes:

Arles,

so one article = the media?

Is this the same biased organization that wrote this?

AP already has a "questionable" reputation when it comes to fairness down the stretch in political elections and this article doesn't help that cause much. You can post articles in support/opposition of a candidate, but resorting to the race card when nothing is there is silly and hurts the AP's credibility.

It makes me sad when people think that these kind of ads are substantiated. It's truly disgusting (and not surprising that McCain doesn't do it himself, but sends his new semi-popular crony) that somebody who has attempted to serve his country is being called un-American and dislikes his country so much that he pals around with people who try to destroy it from the inside.

You can't blame Obama that Ayers is free, or even for what he did in the 60s. But when all evidence shows that the two are barely even acquainted except for a few chance meetings and you insinuate that it's a meaningful relationship and shows how unpatriotic he is...truly gutter politics. I'm not even a fan of Obama, but these kind of tactics strike me as truly disgusting, glad to see people like Arles just think it's the media and still defend these.

God bless the information age... when 13 minutes is so long that we need to have it summarized for us.

Not only that, but it appears that we're entering similar territory to what Hillary Clinton had to deal with during the primary season. She and her campaign tried to steer clear of the race issue when it was brought up by the Obama camp and the media rather than attacking it. McCain's campaign has already created a release sharply attacking the injection of race into the campaign. The AP isn't doing Obama any favors in this situation, which is the opposite of what the writer was trying to do, which was portray Obama as the victim.

It goes beyond that.

There have been psychological studies that prove that the damage done by a negative ad (or a forwarded e-mail, or a rumor, etc) will stick with the listener even if they later find out that the allegation was false, in cases where the listener was already leaning towards the viewpoint in the first place.

In other words, if you tell a Republican that Obama is a secret muslim, the damage will stick to him even if you later tell the same Republican that it was a lie. Not that it was unsubstantiated or that there's some dispute over the facts -- you can straight out reveal that you lied, and the damage still sticks. Same with telling a Democrat that Palin wants to burn books, etc.

They don't run ads like this because they think they can get away with it. They run them because they know they work even though they won't get away with it.

Depressing.

:D

SI

Chance meeting? Michele Obama invited Ayres to speak in a forum that she organized. Is that now considered a chance meeting? Also, she didn't appear to have any problems to his inflammatory comment regarding racism, which were on display even in this article promoting that forum way back in 1997..........

Close-up on juvenile justice

Somewhat off-topic rant...
So does every media organization, because these days everyone plays the "biased media" card. It's generally BS and most people know that, but it works. And the right wing is the worst offender by far (although they learned the trick from the Clinton era left).

Not only does this anti-media crap cause even deeper divides between partisans, but its resulted in a US media that's so terrified of being called biased that they water everything down to the point where they're practically useless. And they still get accused of bias.

It's at the point where one candidate could say the sky was green, and the other could say it was blue. CNN would have a campaign hack from both parties on to recite sound bites, then Anderson Cooper would turn to the camera and say "well, we've given you both sides, that's all we can be expected to do because we're certainly not biased".

How about opening the window and looking outside, and then telling us who's lying? You know, like real journalists used to?

Yes, it quite obvious this makes him un-American and blatantly buddy-ing up with Ayers, perhaps to strike again. I bet they even secretly went to dinner and had a slumber party to plan the revolution. Let's all fear him and vote McCain, otherwise he may make Ayers his secretary of wrecking havoc.

The problem as I see it is that the liberal-leaning media is dishonest in that they refuse to admit any political leanings when their work indicates otherwise. I'd be floored if you could find a Conservative/Republican support who won't admit that FOXNews leans right and the network itself is pretty open about those leanings. The left-leaning media tries to mask their bias rather than embracing it. As I said before in this thread, the liberal media would be a whole lot better off if they just came out of the closet. Denial just furthers the media conspiracy card play.

Feel free to overexaggerate, but you made the claim that it was no more than a chance meeting, which simply was not even close to accurate.

Seems like Michelle Obama just picked people that would have some expertise on that subject, and he had written a book on it. It's still quite a reach to say that Obama had a relationship with Ayers, and it's a flat out lie to say he "pals" around with him in the present tense.

But maybe you can tell me why John McCain think it's patriotic to tell people to shoot federal agents in the head.

I haven't asserted any of that. You'll have to chat with the people that made those assertions. I merely pointed out that it was more than a chance meeting as miked asserted.

I'm not over exaggerating, it's clearly the implication that the McCain camp wants to get across. It's fear 101 and just as bad as the swift boat people. He is also a distinguished professor at Univ. of Chicago, so does anyone who takes his class also fit the bill of not liking America?

I don't think any of that personally. With that said, it was more than a chance meeting and it's obvious that this was not the only meeting between the Obamas and Mr. Ayres. At best, it was a poor choice of connections by the young Obama family. My guess is that Barack probably regrets it in hindsight.

The media, in general, does tend to lean to the left when it comes to social issues. For whatever reason, it's a job that seems to attrach more lefties, and I think you could make a good case that social reporting tends to drift left. Bernard Goldberg's "Bias" was a good exploration of this.

But when it comes to political reporting, it boggles my mind that right-wingers can argue with a straight face that they're getting a rough ride. The media has become so weak-kneed post-9/11 that Bush has had a practically free ride. A real media would have torn this guy apart, but with a handful of exceptions the media has embarassed themselves over the past seven years.

That may not be a pro-right bias -- it may be a pro-government bias that will be just as bad when/if Obama is president. But as someone who doesn't have a dog in this fight, right-wingers sound ridiculous when they complain about the media.

Chance was a bad word, and I'm sure Obama regrets it 100%. That being said, it's clearly not a case of him being un-American and paling around with terrorists.

I'd agree in regards to the 2-3 years after 9/11, but I'd totally disagree after that. There's been nothing even remotely weak-kneed about their coverage since then. Some criticism was warranted, some was not.

My problem lies not with those assertions, but his judgement in regards to any association with this guy (Ayres). Had their only meeting been this forum organized by Michele Obama, there wouldn't be much of a story.

Why isn't your problem with the assertion that he pals around with terrorists? Don't you think that is a rather forced and disingenuous claim to make, given the evidence?

I may have not stated it clearly. I don't buy into those assertions. I agree with you. My problem with the situation is that he continued a relationship, personal or not, with this guy. Obama should have steered clear of this guy, and I'm sure he regrets that decision.

I feel the same as NoMyths. I am not surprised with the fact that Obama has gone negative now. He's been pretty much pushed into a corner by Palins latest verbal non-sense. They have put out some very distasteful ads that have been very incorrect. He can't spend all his time defending himself against false ads.

It always amazes me that in a country of 300 million people, we can't find any truly great leaders.

:) OK.

I'm just saying its funny saying you are voting for someone because he won't run a negative campaign when the big political story of the day is that that candidate is going to get into the muck and go negative big time.

Wow. Not only has this thread passed the Maximum-Football thread, it's [edit]over 10% ahead of it.

If no one here actually buys into those assertions, then why is it even a topic worth discussing?

It's amazing how much attention in this thread is given to the media-generated non-issues. (e.g. how many homes McCain has, Palin's verbal gaffes, Obama's radical friends). After 138 pages, how many posts have actually focused on the candidates real issues?

I don't follow politics at all, and consider FOFC to be populated with the smartest people around; so I have this vague hope that I can use fofc to educate myself on these political topics. But this thread doesn't deliver in this regard.

(*...now 3..2..1 for the post chiding me for trying to get intelligent political discourse on a sports messageboard*)

Did you read his entire post? It's a pretty spot on synopsis of the type of coverage we get these days.

Why would a truly great leader want to be president? Half the country will hate you based on which party you choose and the 4-8 years in office will make you a shell of the person you once were. Plus, you have about a 5% of chance of doing anything meaningful given the state of congress and who they bow to.

Most of the great leaders are smart enough not to get involved with the bullshit we call politics and are great leaders in endeavors other than politics.

Your first mistake is trying to seperate media and blog-created issues from the campaigns. Both sides generally latch onto those bits of information and quickly create ads surrounding those issues. If you want to know their policy choices, you're much better off going to their sites and reading them for yourself.

ahh screw that. can i sell my vote on eBay?

much like obama's lipstick on a pig comment, right?

As its already be stated in the thread, the negative and false ads from the other camp sparked his response. Those ads will sway voters despite them being unfounded and factually incorrect. I liked the fact that he tried to stay away from running a negative campaign for the most part but at this stage I agree with the fight fire with fire mentality, even though I don't like negative ads. I guess what I am saying is that I can understand why he would hit back.

hence their tagline of Fair and Balanced that can only be explained by the right wing fans as Sarcasm.

This is what John McCain said previously about the Rev. Wright issue:


I only post it here as a point of reference, noting that it is now October, and John McCain is 7 points behind.

Remember how Obama dealt with the Wright issue (even when Wright went crazy)? That's what he needs to do now with the Ayers/Rezko stuff. Him flying off the handle and going all negative makes it look bad for someone who basically tried to say he was above the fray (a post-partisan).

Obama can't be afraid to go negative like John Kerry and Michael Dukakis were. We see what that got them.

Kerry's problem is that he never dealt with the swiftboating until it was waaay too late, not that he didn't go negative. I fear people have taken the wrong lessons from that election.

Let's not pretend he's above the fray though. The fact is that Obama apparently has an edge in the polls. If the normal chain of events continue, he'd end up being president, so he doesn't need to do anything other than what he had been doing. McCain is going into attack mode because he's hoping to change the normal course of events. If Obama was the one down 7 points, I think you'd see the two sides swap places as far as initiating attacks (heck, it wasn't that long ago that Obama gave the green light to the 527's).

I agree to a point, but I think there's a point where you have to fight fire with fire. If he doesn't, then the criticism will be that he didn't fight back (see: Dukakis). I mean, John McCain has built his reputation on being above the fray as well, so why does he get a pass for going negative? What happened to the John McCain that ranted against this stuff in 2000, 2002, and 2004? This is just more proof that the "maverick" John McCain that I used to have a ton of respect for is not the same person that is running in 2008.

Furthermore, I don't think tying McCain to a Savings and Loan scandal will be seen in quite the same way as saying Obama pals around with terrorists, especially since it seems more relevant to what is currently affecting voters. Still, I actually welcome McCain to go negative with these kinds of attacks. If he keeps that up instead of hammering home important economic recovery messages, then he will suffer the same fate as Herbert Hoover and George Bush Sr.

Well, he SHOULD fight against the allegations. And he SHOULD say McCain is trying to deal with stupid shit instead of the issues. Going after McCain on Keating is dumb, dumb, dumb though.

First and foremost because McCain's response to Keating scandel is probably one of the most powerful stories of his political career. He was down and out as a result of a scandel and decided that politics was messed up and that's when he decided to become a reformer and change politics so something like that would never happen again. It's kind of a "born again" story and people tend to like those.

I disagree. There are plenty of issues where a real media, let alone a biased one, would have at the very least asked some tough questions. Torture and telecom immunity come to mind. Bush got virtually a free pass on both.

(And yes, I realize that has as much to do with the media deciding that the public wouldn't be interesting in boring stuff like privacy rights. That's still not the behaviour of a biased media.)

I agree. Plus, it shows his ability to reach across the aisle, and work with members of the opposing party! :D

Look, I'd certainly be happy if he didn't go negative, but I guess what I'm wondering is why you're giving free pass to McCain? This whole discussion started based on the idea that it was a mistake for Obama to go negative because he's a different kind of candidate that is above those kinds of tactics. However, isn't that also McCain's MO? I mean, he's the "maverick" and has even tried to co-opt Obama's change message.

McCain campaign announcing Medicare cuts.

Is he trying to lose the election?

Except McCain seems to now be changing his story. In a call this morning his lawyer now alleges that the whole investigation was a partisan witchhunt. It's a very starnge turn when the redemption story was pretty powerful. From Mark Halperin:

Cause McCain, if he stands pat, loses big. It's an attempt to throw whatever at Obama and hope that it sticks. I think those that ask isn't McCain also has problems with these attacks aren't looking at the polls... and how you act depending on where the polls are trending.

Or more likely, he's making sure his mouth isn't writing checks that his ass can't cash. Obama would be wise to do the same and admit that the current situation makes it very unlikely that universal health care would have a chance of becoming reality.

Actually I didn't think there was much in the post worthy of my time or attention, with one exception that I needed to think about before I answered. However, I'll go ahead and respond point by point, though I really do think that the level of political discourse on this board has fallen way off from 2004. I may not have ever agreed with JohnGalt, but at least the guy made me think. There are a few others still posting who can make me think, but the vast majority of this thread has been taken up with people who think their original contribution to the political debate is to repeat the talking points they take in throughout the day. The main problem I have with this thread is that you make a serious and substantive post, but you may have to spend a page and a half responding to morons before someone makes a substantive rebuttal to your original post. I have better things to do with my time, including playing with my kids, talking politics with my neighbors, taking my wife out to dinner, and watching "Forgetting Sarah Marshall" (which is what I did yesterday while not responding).

Be that as it may, here's your point by point substantive response to Larry.

Larry says he wasn't trying to introduce moral equivalency into the discussion by bringing up Liddy in response to Ayers. I think Larry's either an incredible moron, or being completely disingenuous. I'm going to go with option #2, but again, why should I waste my time responding to someone who's going to completely ignore any reasonable point I make? I acknowledged Larry's point, but he wasn't willing to offer me the same courtesy. At that point discussion can only devolve into argument, and we all know how satisfying arguing on the internet can be.

Larry says McCain appearing on Liddy's radio show after Liddy's comments about shooting federal agents in the head reflect poorly on McCain, but he's not willing to make the same statement about Barack Obama appearing in William Ayers home after Ayers had signed his name to a declaration of war on the United States, and had participated in a movement that led to the death of a San Francisco police officer. Again, on the one hand we see Larry bringing up Liddy as a counter-example of McCain, but only to bludgeon McCain while refusing to hold Obama to the same standard, and without any compelling logical reason why it is fair to do so. If we're going to begin saying that a politicians appearance on a talk show implies affirmation of the host's opinion, we're going to see a radical change in the make up of guests on shows across the country.

Larry says since McCain is a "maverick" and "different from your usual Republican", he's supposed to be better than making an attack on the Obama/Ayers connection. I just don't buy it. I think Obama has had a friendly relationship with a guy who I find reprehensible. Obama was 8 when Bill Ayers was setting off bombs. I wasn't even born, but I wouldn't be chums with a fella like that.

Larry says he's excited about Obama because:

1) He's exciting (and he's exciting because he's a great candidate)

2) He represents a much better chance to get things done that Larry thinks this country needs.

That's Larry's opinion, and considering how well thought out and articulated it is, I won't try to sway him.

The one interesting bit in Larry's post was the last remark he made, about not being sure you can claim that Ayers "lost".


I originally thought this was more along the lines of what my original post was all about (when I faulted society more than Obama for rehabilitating Ayers' image), but realized Larry was speaking only of the outcome in Vietnam and not the "Revolution" at home. It's another indiciation that Larry doesn't know a thing about Ayers or the Weather Underground. Vietnam was the catalyst, but not the Cause of the WU. From their Port Huron statement:


One petty little war was chump change compared to the radical societal changes Ayers and his buddies hoped to bring about. While it's true that Ayers, his wife, Tom Hayden and others have successfully rehabilitated their image, they've done so by placing themselves in ultra-liberal enclaves in which their views are perfectly at home. Bill Ayers fits in well in Hyde Park (as does Obama). He wouldn't fit in so well in Weatherford, Oklahoma. That's ultimately why Ayers matters. Hell, we still argue over the Confederate flag... why wouldn't some of us be concerned about any type of association between an unapologetic domestic terrorist and a presidential candidate?

Finally, I don't think it's become "common" for me to respond to a substantive post with dismissive comments. I think I've done it twice in this thread, and apologized for one statement. I think you're actually overestimating the number of truly substantive posts in this thread. This really has become a political circle jerk, and there are much better places online and in the real world to have a political discussion with Obama supporters who still have their heads screwed on straight. I need to remember that when I'm tempted to read this thread. :)

Even more interesting is the fact that Obama finds McCain's activities in the Keating 5 to be disgraceful, yet he is happy to have another one of the Keating 5 (John Glenn) on his side campaigning for Obama. It makes it blatently obvious that it's politics as usual rather than any sincere outrage at the situation. Very inconsistant message being delivered.

Polls out today:
PA Morning call daily tracker:
Obama 49
McCain 38

SUSA New Hampshire:
Obama 53
McCain 40

SUSA Virginia:
Obama 53
McCain 43

Suffolk Virginia:
Obama 51
McCain 39


The Ayers stuff, if it's going to work, needs to start soon to arrest the McCain slide

Would you mind posting the demographic data on those polls? I'd be interested to see the breakdown on those numbers. Thanks.

I can't really argue with that. But when people feel the need to post about every possible Obama/McCain news story and argue about it incessantly, it tends to turn into something like this. And it just so happens that there are a lot more vocal Obama supporters than McCain ones on the boards. I don't know how exactly you propose to turn that around. I haven't exactly done my part so far to keep it from devolving, so I'll try to increase my personal quotient of intelligent discourse as opposed to "Obama r0x0rs" posts.

I've always respected you as a debater, Cam, even when you've pissed me off beyond rationality. Your continued participation in the thread is greatly valued, at least by me. :)

The financial crisis is going to end up being a stroke of luck for Obama like the advent of the televised debate was for Kennedy. Its all about Image, and after 8 years of Bush and the financial crisis, many undecideds are probably willing to just vote the candidate who's image says "change." Obama would be that candidate even if he didn't use the word change ever other sentence. Without the financial crisis the image of Obama as too much of something different might have been what would sink him in the voting booth.

The PA & VA numbers seem a bit higher than I'd expect, but NH seems about right. I never quite understood why people thought McCain would really compete in NH. The NH of 20 years ago, maybe, but there's a large portion of NH's population who are just basically commuters from Boston.

Picked it up from 538.. I'll see what I can do.

edit: SurveyUSA Virginia (SurveyUSA Election Poll #14502)

and Suffolk Virginia: Suffolk University - October 6, 2008

And SurveyUSA New Hampshire http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2...hnson-in-1964/

My point was that while what Ayers may have done is worse than what Liddy has done, Obama's link to Ayers isn't nearly as strong as the link McCain has with Liddy. Furthermore, Obama has denounced Ayers while McCain has called Liddy a patriot. If Obama hadn't denounced Ayers, then I would agree with you.


Already dealt with Obama appearing in Ayers home. It was organized by State Senator Alice Palmer, and it is not even known that he knew about actions that Ayers committed when he was 8 years old.


Obama condemned Ayers actions. McCain has not condemned Liddy's actions or comments.


I wasn't trying to make any well thought out or articulated opinion. I was simply responding to the idea that you seem to think all liberals think Obama is some sort of hero. I don't think he's perfect, and I actually supported Hillary early in the primaries. I'm simply explaining why liberals are excited about him, because he's not dead weight like Kerry or Dukakis.


Because he, uh, denounced him. If he hadn't done so, then I'd understand. But there's absolutely nothing that supports any kind of notion that Obama shares the views Ayers held back then. The links between the two are very, very slight.


Look, I debated you point by point. You may not like what I had to say, but saying that I'm not making substantive posts as your excuse to ignore my rebuttal to you is really lame. I'm also not going to use your little cute debate tactic of presenting two options as the reason for my response, one of them being a direct insult, and then saying it's probably the other one. That's just weak. How about the fact that I simply disagree with you? And I gave the reasons why in a post that responded to everything you said.

Furthermore, I don't think it's accurate to say I can't see negatives with Obama. You may want to imply that because I don't agree that there is a connection with Ayers, but this is just one issue and your assu,ption is way off base. I participated in an exercise with ISiddiqui where we switched sides, and I made two substantive posts where I think I hit Obama pretty hard in a lot of different areas.

Well, I appreciate your response, Cam. I found it more thoughtful than your initial post on the subject, though I still disagree with you on the Liddy/Ayers comparison.


It does bring up an interesting question, though: can we believe in rehabilitation? Cam points out that Ayers has never apologies for his actions or recanted what he said and did, but clearly outside of this he's carved a role for himself in society that has (at least) probably done some good. After all, that's what his participation in the forum (linked by someone else) was all about. Should a politician necessarily avoid anyone like this, or are there gradations?

Likewise Liddy & McCain. Liddy's never apologized for what he did, although unlike Ayers, he did serve time. Unlike Ayers, his rhetorical flourishes have come significantly more recently. But perhaps they're obviously rhetorical. I'd have to imagine that the only reason McCain's appearance with Liddy (and calling him a "patriot") won't get more exposure is because most people would just view what he said as normal right-wing radio tripe. Perhaps it was.


Since modern American politics is all about cherry-picking examples and then blowing them out of proportion to swing the electorate, it's not surprising that there's a lack of substantive debate on the issues, especially when most people are convinced that not much will change anyway. Sad, but true.

I agree that it clinches the election for Obama, but the same factors probably doom him in 2012. He can't deliver close to what he promises in this environment.

Yeah, it's an interesting problem to have. If things continue, it likely gives him the election while handcuffing his presidency to the point where he'll have to create a new record deficit if he actually wants to deliver on even half of his promises.

Of course, if the economy is out of a recession by 2012, that could conceivably be a big selling point.

A number of note was that the Suffolk poll had 45% of those polled listed as being Democrat. That seems extremely high. At best, you should see something in the 38-39% range. But I may be missing something in those numbers.

Thanks for posting those numbers.

That's true. It could be like 1984 or 1996 for him. Of course, things don't recover right away, which is why 1982 was a disaster for the GOP and 1994 was a disaster for the Dems. So the Dems should definitely be worried about 2010.

If Obama was elected and managed to do that in only 4 years, he would deserve 4 more years. It would be a minor miracle given the depths of this problem. It's not going to resolve itself anytime soon, no matter what the government does.

Whomever is president is going to have a tough initial 2 years. If it's Obama, it won't be quite as tough as I feel he will get atleast 6-8 months of "honeymoon" from most in the media. Still, the 2010 election will go against the party in power. So, whomever wins the White House will probably lose seats in the congress. The more I look at this, the more 1992 seems eerily similar to 2008:

1. Fresh, new upstart democrat going against a fossil republican having issues with the base (ie, read my lips).
2. Democrat promises middle class tax cut, health care reform, getting out of Iraq (although, it had been pretty much down by 1992).
3. We are in the midst of a recession (close to one in 08) and financial crisis (S&L ended a little earlier than the 92 election, but still there).
4. Republican in the White House and the democrats control both houses of congress.

What ended up happening is Clinton won, immediately realized there would be no middle class tax cut (and raised taxes more than he planned). The economy didn't rebound and set up a major win for the republicans in congress in 1994. I could see this happening in 2010 for the republicans after an Obama win (which I would put at about 80% likely right now). Outside of the Perot factor, everything seems very similar.

Now, Clinton went on to win re-election in 1996 and we had a very strong economic recovery. So, from that point, history could be kind to Obama if he wins re-election. But, the first two years of Obama will probably not look all that good (or McCain, for that matter if he wins).

As an Obama supporter, I have no problem admitting that I am disappointed in the campaign running the Keating Economics attack ad. I think its bad form and a poor strategic move. He wipes the floor with McCain on the issues that matter most right now and they should really just stick to emphasizing that.

I think you're right. Not to :deadhorse: but Obama is well ahead on the scorecard in the final round and he just needs to dance around the ring and take his victory. People trust him more on the economy and a lot of people like him. Why go toe-to-toe in the final 3-4 weeks when the status quo gives you the election?

All Obama needed to do was come out today and say "It seems John McCain is resorting to the swift boat tactics that republicans always seem to reach for at this point. It's disappointing given his earlier comments about staying out of negative attacks, but not all that surprising. I guess the "Maverick" is a lot more like the normal politician than we all thought."

Then, let the independent groups slam him on Keating. The best parallel is the Michael Moorer - Foreman fight. Foreman was done and all Moorer had to do was dance around him and win the title. Instead, he decided to give a disparate, flailing man a puncher's chance and go toe-to-toe in the final rounds. Now, one small gaff by Obama or Biden that elicits sympathy for McCain/Palin could swing a group of independents attracted to Obama's "change" mantra. It's a very dangerous (and somewhat pointless) game for someone who is in the lead to play.

If this ends up hurting Obama and McCain wins, the Palin "rope-a-dope" attack on Obama may go down as one of the more shrewd moves in political history. Many democrats are terrified of another "swift boating" and feel the need to go in swinging this time. As someone (I think it was Molson) said earlier, that's not the reason the swiftboat worked against Kerry.

I agree, and furthermore I would just hope for a higher road from team Obama. (Higher road as in focus on issues even in the face of personal negative attacks.) Although I still don't think they will come close to going as far as the Clinton/Carville team did in '92.

I think they're scared of being swiftboated at the end and I think the Keating stuff is more a clarion call to McCain's people in effect saying "you don't wanna go there on the shady dealings, because if you wanna go, we'll go toe to toe."

Not voting for either and while I don't like it, I think they probably have to make sure they never looked like they're getting punk'd in the media for fear of letting the story turn away from the economy to something more favorable to McCain's turf.

Swift boating worked because the war was the main item and Kerry was A) extremely unlikeable and B) never handled it well in a response.

This McCain-Palin attack on Obama with Ayers/"air-raiding villages" has either already been handled or is meaningless in this economic climate. People like Obama and I think a lot want to root for him. Why give them a reason to start disliking him and feel all his "change" and "politics of hope" comments are just lip service?

By responding they've just done that. Having a "who's skeletons are worse" debate when the economy is a mess and democrats are winning that debate is extremely stupid. Now, the next week it's going to be the right-leaning media slamming Obama on Ayers/Wright/killing civilians comment and the left will be all about Keating. Why do this when the economy is a big winner for Obama right now? Like a former likeable democrat presidential candidate said, "It's the economy, stupid".

As long as Obama doesn't devote his speeches to Keating this is fine. The video is designed to force the media to say, "but McCain's got his own problems..." when discussing McCain's attacks. If it becomes the central focus of Obama's campaign I think he's made a big mistake, but if it's just a one day web event it seems pretty smart to me.

I would have thought one of the major reasons for the Keating ads would be to take advantage of the current issues with Wall Street. Just as people are a bit annoyed with Wall Street fat cats, remind them of McCain's association to them.

Basically the same reasons Arles gives for Swift Boat above make sense for "Keating-Boat" right now.

Dude, McCain's health plan is some of the scariest crap I've heard in a long time. He's going to tax worker-plans to give a $2500 health care credit.

a) $2500 does not come close to paying for health insurance. You are going to be paying a whole lot more than that

b) Private (non-group) health insurance sucks bad. They will not pay for anything, and drop you in a heartbeat if you get too expensive. Without the protection of a group (where they'd lose a lot more than your single policy), you better never get sick.

c) Companies (like mine I'm sure) are going to stop paying for insurance all-together because it is already very expensive. Add to it taxes and the fact that you now can supposely get your own with this health credit, there is no reason for small-medium size businesses to continue providing coverage.

d) McCain has already bragged to the insurance companies how he plans on deregulating them "like we did banking." Who-hoo! No regulations on an already crooked industry while giving us even less and less power by removing us for group coverages!

The good thing about this I guess is once more and more people get dropped from work coverage and learn how crappy indiviual coverage is, then maybe there will be enough outcry to actually help people instead of lining the insurance companies pockets.

BTw, if Obama wants to make attack adds, he really does not have to alter the truth at all. Just tell people what McCain wants to do to thier healthcare. I can't believe anyone would think his plan is a remotely good idea.

Research 2000 has a new poll out for the Georgia Senate race which shows only a 1 pt lead for Saxby Chambliss. This confirms the SurveyUSA poll that showed a 2 pt lead for Saxby. Chambliss was up by 18 in mid-September so this is very encouraging.

Completely agree.

Wouldn't this be more a confirmation of the complete uselessness of these polls more than an encouraging sign that goes either way?

I don't have any connections or particular following of Chambliss or the race he's involved in but how else would you explain losing almost a pt a day except for complete random polling?

Wild jumps in polling aren't unheard of. The immediate aftermath of 9/11 probably cemented George Bush's polling numbers almost overnight. Even under more normal circumstances, an erosion of support that is being seen here, while probably unusual, wouldn't be inconceivable.

If the polling showed wild swings in both directions, then that would be an argument for problems with the polling. If there was a consistent trend in one direction, then it would be a somewhat useful indicator.

When the first poll came out that showed a close race, I said it was an outlier and didn't want to get my hopes up. But now we have two polls showing a close race. Now it's possible that both polls are wrong, but less likely than when it was only one poll.

Now if the polls were +17 and +1 a couple weeks ago and then +18 and +2 today, then I would say they are completely random. But there were two polls int he 17-18 range a few weeks ago and today there are two polls in the 1-2 point range.

As for the reasons, it could be Obama's recent surge (both polls also show Obama getting much closer in GA than he had been for a while) due to the economic crisis, more people finally getting to know Martin, or it's certainly possible the earlier or recent polls could be wrong. The last part seems unlikely because the polls have followed both national and local trends.

+2

It seems to me that part of the strategy is also to get Obama down in the muck and hope to tarnish some of his "above the fray" reputation.