MyDD :: Why are we not wrecking this guy?

Why are we not wrecking this guy?

by AlexScott, Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 11:47:59 PM EST

So let's see.

John McCain:

-Has an ad out blaming Barack Obama for the gas prices.

-Has an ad out saying Barack Obama had time to go to the gym, but not go visit the wounded troops. Even though, hilariously, the footage they use of Obama at the gym is the one in Kuwait.

-Has said Barack Obama would like to lose a war.

Barack Obama:

-Has remained silent. Except giving a generic, and very disappointing response to McCain's ridiculous assertion of his patriotism.

The guy is barely 5 points ahead of McCain in national polls, and losing ground quickly in swing states. There are 1.2 billion ways to absolutely obliterate McCain and his campaign, and I have seen ZERO effort to do so thus far. They are letting themselves be attacked, and attacked, and attacked some more. The idiots that put GWB in power truly aren't smart enough to see through the bullshit. Not at all. Does anyone have any idea about what gives?

This is the second diary I've made about this issue, about Obama not hitting back at all... but the stakes are way higher than before. John McCain is saying some insane shit. Yet there's nothing coming out from our camp, and there is damn well enough ammo just in the past week to last until November.

But none of it is being used. I don't get it. And I'm a bit pissed at them.

Tags: john mccain obama attack (all tags)

Permalink :: 80 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Why are we not wrecking this guy? (2.00 / 4)

patience grasshopper.

1. let him get back stateside and catch some zzzs. he will be better able to slam him when he's not busy meeting with world leaders.

2. he bought a huge amount of ad time during the olympics. i expect great things.

3. relax about the polls, especially those that reference "likely voters." with all the voters he has registered recently, they don't count as "likely voters," because they haven't voted before. let's see what the polls look like after the convention...

3.5. furthermore, mccain hasn't moved all that much in the polls despite his huge ad buys and obama has received a bounce in daily tracking polls since his trip overseas.

4. he's not doing nothing. he is busy amassing the largest volunteer army ever to descend on american politics.

5. speaking of... why don't you get involved? there were hundreds of events in my state today to mark 100 days to the election. canvassing and voter registration drives are in full swing. it is really awesome to be a part of. and it might relieve your fears a litte...

by elie on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 12:02:30 AM EST

Re: Why are we not wrecking this guy? (none / 0)

Obama was abroad all week , it would have been inappropriate for him to be attacking him from there .

Obamas trip seemed like a success to me , outside of the Berlin speech , I didn't see much not to deem it a success.

That said Mccain is getting by on his biography and character , the election is not going to be easy .

If the republicans had nominated someone else it would most likely have been a blow out.

Its hard for Obama to go after him on Iraq because he failed in his judgement on the surge in my view and Mccain is not letting up on it .

And the fact that he says he would still have voted against the surge despite the success of the surge would be used against him all election season from ads to debate .

He is still the frontrunner , but no one shoud be dancing at the end zone just yet.

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 12:02:46 AM EST

you could also say the surge is a failure (2.00 / 1)

because Americans are still dying there, and the surge IS a failure. The media has manufactured it "succeeding" so as to avoid always "not talking about the good news." THERE IS NO good news there. Obama was right to go against the surge, because it is consistent. If he had went with it, he'd be a flip flop.

by Lakrosse on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 12:05:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you could also say the surge is a failure (2.00 / 2)

i actually like Obama's position because it is the same as mine. I have always been against the war and will always continue to be, but it is not a who is right contest with me. A lot of my friends have served in Iraq or are still there, and for it has always been about getting them home in the way that is the safest to everyone involved, including the Iraqis.

Maybe the surge worked, but it does not change my views on the conflict as a whole.

by Xris on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 12:10:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you could also say the surge is a failure (2.00 / 4)

the PURPOSE of the surge was to provide the iraqi govt with the space and time to crate a viable working government. considering that has been slow and somewhat superficial, i would say the surge is a failure.

there is no military solution to iraq, there is only a political solution. any situation where american men and women die so that iraqi factions can continue to spar and score political points is a failure.

by elie on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 12:16:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you could also say the surge is a failure (none / 0)

it is difficult to realistically argue that the surge has been or is a failure when the evidence is as clear as it is .

I hope politicians seeking the highest office in the land would do what is right for our national security especially when it comes to issues of war and peace and not make policy or decisions based on being " political consistent " .

Because of the surge and the heroic efforts of the military , America is no longer on the doorsteps of defeat in Iraq and our military would not have to withdraw from Iraq in humiliation.

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 12:45:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you could also say the surge is a failure (none / 0)

Frankly, I think the surge is a joke, and the violence ended because the Shiite militias stood down.

As far as 'defeating al qaeda," it was always just a franchise (Sunni) operation that was going to get whipped as soon as the Shiites turned their attention to it.

by Bush Bites on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 09:59:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why are we not wrecking this guy? (none / 0)

it is still close because we nominated Obama. People think he's a risky choice and many Dems don't trust him yet. Problem is that many of the type of Dems who don't trust Obama are not the type who'll auto vote for him, as they are the Appalachian and white working class Dems. If Hillary had been the nod, we'd be ahead right now by a mile, as those Dems would all be back in the fold, the Obama people woulda licked their chops and got back on board. But Obama's the nod right now, so Hill on the ticket is the next best thing.

by Lakrosse on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 12:07:38 AM EST

Oh please (none / 0)

quit with this OMG Hillary was a sure thing business. Kerry and Gore got working class Dems in the primary also.

by JJE on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 12:18:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

those were not contests, (none / 0)

they were sweeps. Obama-Clinton was actually a contest, where they contested the actual races. Kerry and Gore were simply coronations.

by Lakrosse on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 12:26:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

But the point is (none / 0)

you can't extrapolate from primary results to GE results. Is it your hypothesis that working class Dems voted for Gore and Kerry in the primary but did not vote for them in the GE?

by JJE on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 12:51:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: But the point is (none / 0)

Didn't you know that African Americans would have instantly voted for McCain as well if we had went with Clinton?

I am being a smart ass and agreeing with you btw. Basing one's GE predictions on primary results is hilarious to me, but it happens all the time on here.

by Xris on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 12:53:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

when a primary is a contest (none / 0)

as opposed to a coronation, and the voting trends which occured in the primary are continuing into the general, then yes you can extrapolate. The 2000 and 2004 primaries were coronations where everyone knew who the winner was and just wanted to get it over with. The 2008 primary was a legit primary fight in which certain intra-party demographics voted in certains patterns. In polling for the GE, many of those same Dems who voted for Hillary, or at least a sizable portion of them, enough to make a difference still feels the same about Obama as they did in the primary. Its not like Bill Bradley voters who knew he was gonna lose anyway, or Wesley Clark voters who knew he was gonna lose anyway, who just figured whatever, I'll vote for the nominee. The 2008 race showed real ideological and generational and cultural differences which must be patched up.

by Lakrosse on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 12:56:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

ok then (none / 0)

so then Clinton would not have had problems with African American voters, educated voters, urban voters, amd young voters in the GE, according to your logic. Right?

by JJE on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 01:43:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

god you don't get it, (none / 0)

many of her voters are voters who are Democrats, but would rather vote for her than a black guy. I've been trying to subtly say this, but after you not getting the message, I'm saying it outright. These are not Democrats who hate blacks, or who would never vote for one in a general, but are hesitant to do so and trust blacks less. YES race plays a role in this election because it is such a volatile issue. Of course she'd win those voters you mentioned. The types of voters Obama lost are voters who are nervous over his race. If you cannot see that, you are blind.

by Lakrosse on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 01:59:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: god you don't get it, (none / 0)

Not necessarily true becuase plenty of Obama's supporters would not automatically back Sen. Clinton. I don't think that you can make generalizations about the young, AA's, etc. Lot's of my friends and members of my political organization in good old bluer than blue DC were going to sit out the presidential race if Obama had lost the primary. Not me because I would have voted for the Democrat regardless. So, it cuts both ways. Some people for Obama took it just a personally as Clinton's voters did. I just don't think a person can generalize either way. Whatever Democrat one, it was going to be a hard fought race (even Hillary says this in her speeches). People forget that Bill Clinton did not run away with the race his first time around and he was from the South with a very working class background.

by smgreene on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 08:35:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

you're not following (none / 0)

you're just jumping all over the place. First you said that we could rely on the primary as predictive of GE demographic outcomes, due to the closeness of the election. Faced with the implications of extending that logic to Clinton rather than Obama, now you're saying that much of her primary support consisted of racists.

If that's what you meant you should have said it at the beginning rather than all this bloviation about close contests.

by JJE on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 08:58:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

i did not mean racists (none / 0)

as racists are people who hate blacks. I did not say her voters "hate" blacks. But many of them are old fashioned, in the sense that they trust blacks less than whites. That is how old fahsioned people, even the more liberal ones, are. They grew up in a different time with different attitudes around. Those are many of the voters who went for her, and even tho they didn't go Obama, they are still Democrats, people, and voters too, and a very sizable portion of them.

by Lakrosse on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 09:13:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: i did not mean racists (none / 0)

I agree with you completely about the racism. I don't see how anyone can deny that a lot of voters will either vote for McCain or not vote rather than vote for a black guy. But that is one thing Obama can't do a thing about and I still think he will win by a lot, just not a landslide like it would have been with a white Dem candidate.

by Becky G on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 10:12:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

but I was not talking about (none / 0)

voters who would never vote for a black, but voters who would simply be hesitant. There are many Dems like that, who voted Hillary, who Obama needs to win, which is why he should pick her, because he'd get those Dems back. The reason the polls are close is because he hasn't sewn up the base because of this issue.

by Lakrosse on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 10:28:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

He's up 9 (none / 0)

he's won them, the end.

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 01:42:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Dukakis was up 14 (none / 0)

and look how successful he was in his 1988 bid. He hasn't won anything yet other than the nomination.

by Lakrosse on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 01:49:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

When will you people be happy? (none / 0)

two days ago, I saw someone screaming that Hillary was up 8 points while Obama was tied.

Now he's up 9. When are finally going to admit that he's doing ok and does not need Hillary Clinton on the ticket.

Obama is up 9 points, which either means the party has unified or he's winning a hell of a lot of Republican crossovers. We know it's not the latter, so guess what, party's unified.

The end.

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 01:54:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

he was "winning by 9" (none / 0)

quite a few times, and his lead faded very quick. It is volatile, and the race will narrow up again. Just watch it. He got a bounce because of the good press. He is still seen as risky. He DOES need Hillary because McCain is gonna anounce his veep soon, and he'll get a bounce, and it will be close again. Hillary will bring back the rest of the party. She is also more popular with independents than the media and obamalites act.

by Lakrosse on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 02:01:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

and you know what (none / 0)

the fact that he was able to recover shows just how good of a campaigner he is.

Once again, Hillary does not need to bring back the rest of the party...the rest of the party is back...and no, she is not, and has never been, more popular with independents than him.

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 02:05:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

sorry that's racism (none / 0)

"hesitating" to vote for someone based on their race is still racism.

it is true that the bigoted attitudes of people who cling to their irrational prejudices is a significant obstacle that Obama will have to overcome.

by JJE on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 01:54:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

hesistating is different than (none / 0)

people who would flat out never vote for a black. The people who hesitate could either do it subconsciously, and consciously. Older people in general tend to be suspicious when talking to blacks in general, tho they don't wish for segregation and slavery. Many of the Hillary Dems were people like that. Obama needs those voters. They're not voters would would "never' vote black, but are not inclined to do so without some persuasion.

by Lakrosse on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 02:04:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

and even with Hillary on the ticket (none / 0)

they'll still be hesitant to vote for him. How does she on the ticket change that?

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 02:05:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: hesistating is different than (none / 0)

Not everything is about the Clintons.

Give it a rest.

No way. No how. No McCain!

by spacemanspiff on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 02:06:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

i agree, hesitating is different (none / 0)

than absolute refusal. But that doesn't mean it isn't still racist and wrong. Being a little prejudiced is better than being a lot prejudiced, but it's still prejudice.

by JJE on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 02:47:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: god you don't get it, (none / 0)

I assure you that there is more Clinton fatigue than you give credit to. Hillary has her supporters in the Democratic party but she has serious detractors as well. She is not well liked in the more libertarian West, where I live. She carries little weight in much of the midwest and outside of Arkansas, is massively despised in the south.

by zadura on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 02:30:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

except that when she was in the race, (none / 0)

she was doing well in the midwest, and better in the south than Kerry, Gore and Obama. She was not only ahead in Kentucky, but over 50% there with a big margin, ahead a lot in Ohio, and winning West Virginia. Kentucky and West Virginia are two states George Bush won twice by a lot. However, unlike Utah, Idaho, and the Dakotas where Obama thinks he can win, WV and KY have gone for Democrats before. She was ahead in North Carolina by a good amount, more than Obama has ever been. And she was not gonna lose WI, and the states she coulda won woulda made up for iowa if she were to lose it. She was doing very well on the west coast, and winning Nevada out of the margin of error, something Obama isn't doing nor has he ever done. This is with everyone knowing everything about Hillary and the Clintons. Wow, she'd maybe lose Colorado and Montana. Too bad winning Florida and ohio make up for those states by a lot. The detractors of the Clintons inside the Democratic party are just jealous of them.

by Lakrosse on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 03:32:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The funny thing is that Hill (none / 0)

may be the last one standing. Each VP candidate besides Hill, with the exception of Bayh and Biden, has had something shitty come up with them in the past month. Kaine has become unpopular in Northern Virginia, Sebelius has come under attack due to her ties to the abortion doctor, and Reed, Clark, Strickland, Warner, Edwards, and Webb all effectively took themselves out of the running.

The final three seem to be Bayh, Clinton, and Biden at this point. Bayh and Biden may be too corporate friendly (they both voted for the bankruptcy bill) for Obama to wage any type of populist leaning-economic message, though Barack may want to make sure he doesn't get "overheated" again when discussing NAFTA with Hillary.

by Blazers Edge on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 12:19:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Biden is kinda old too, (none / 0)

as he is now 65, officially a senior citizen, and would be 66 for inauguration day. another problem is that he looks old, and looks are everything these days. I'd also be surprised after that "articulate" comment he made back in 1/07 about Obama. Bayh could be it, but he's got little name recognition. Edwards may be dead in the water because of the rumours going around about his alleged hooker. Hillary is the only choice. She has name rec, the qualifications and gravitas, debating skills, constituencies, and the "scandals" about the Clintons are so old and rehashed voters simply would not react, especially when Bush ones are brought up in contrast. She is the only Veep candidate. Plus, Kaine has no experience. While yea Hillary has only "elected" office since 2001, she has experience in politics, being involved in a hands on level for over 30 years.

by Lakrosse on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 12:36:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary isn't the only veep (2.00 / 1)

candidate. I would prefer either Gore or Big Daddy. Hell, I'm debating whether Elizabeth Edwards may be the best veep candidate. She could be the most "unifying" veep.

Imagine the narrative of voters hearing for four months straight that John McCain's own healthcare plan wouldn't cover her cancer or McCain's skin cancer. That's the type of shit that pulls right at your heartstrings. Obama seems reluctant to make these types of appeals.

by Blazers Edge on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 12:41:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Biden is kinda old too, (2.00 / 3)

Everything must be in the eye of the beholder because Biden does not look old to me. I am a big Biden fan so I have to admit to being incredibly biased when talking about him. My short list, which obviously means nothing in the universe, is Biden or Clinton. They are the only two that I actually think would help on the campaign and could actually do the job if something were ever to happen to Obama.

by Xris on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 12:46:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Biden is kinda old too, (none / 0)

i think he'll pick bayh or biden

i don't see him picking clinton which would be a big gift to mccain.

the mccain camp would be making offerings to the political gods obama doesn't pick clinton.

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 12:49:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Biden is kinda old too, (none / 0)

Man bayh is so freaking boring to me. Maybe that is what Obama wants in a VP, but its gonna kill me to listen to the guy all the time. Despite Biden's reputation for talking to much, at least I enjoy listening to him.

by Xris on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 12:52:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

because uniting our party (none / 0)

and putting a candidate who is popular and polled well on her own in Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and even West Virginia, a state Bush got twice, who has a ton of money, supporters, and machinery and who would wreck his veep in the debates would be such a "gift" to John McCain. Hillary on the ticket is NOT GONNA AWAKEN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. Hillary is the least of their divisions.

by Lakrosse on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 12:52:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: because uniting our party (none / 0)

The only remaining concern I have about clinton is that her selection will be spun as Obama "caving" to demands from her supporters. The media theme of Obama being a wimp is the last thing we need. Despite that, I will repeat what I said up thread and said that I think she would be a kick ass VP, but I don't like the feeling that some supporters seem to believe they can black mail the party into picking her.

by Xris on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 12:56:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: because uniting our party (none / 0)

i agree .

i am making the same point .

I bet the Mccain camp agrees with all you have written and are praying he doesn't pick her even if you see the republican strategist saying they hope he picks her . I believe they are hoping he doesn't.

She is not the same politician she was when she started to the campaign .

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 12:57:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

sorry, but one line wasn't clear (none / 0)

"i don't see him picking clinton which would be a big gift to mccain."

it seemed to me like you meant 'picking Clinton" would be a gift to McCain, when you really mean "don't see him picking Clinton" which would be a gift to McCain. Obama def has gotta pick her. She would be to him what LBJ was to JFK. Hell, maybe Obama could even pick up WV or KY if the ticket runs strong enough. Hillary can turn out some appalachian women if she camps there.

by Lakrosse on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 01:03:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: sorry, but one line wasn't clear (none / 0)

WV and KT are states Clinton cannot help Obama win.

However tossup states like Fl , MI and Ohio which are just a couple of points apart are states she could help tip .

Obama is down 10 - 20 poits in staets in this neighbourhood . KT , TN , OK , WV , ARK .

Clinton could have picked up some of these states if she was on top of the ticket like WV ,ARK , KT but not as vp.

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 01:10:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Biden is kinda old too, (none / 0)

Biden certainly makes for a great attack dog. Lots of foriegn policy cred to boot.

Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove.

by fogiv on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 01:44:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why are we not wrecking this guy? (2.00 / 1)

He did manage to win the nomination, so there must be a few people out there who like him:P

I am almost to the point where I would clap if Obama announced Hillary as his VP tomorrow, and this is coming from a guy who did all he could to make sure she lost in my state. But it won't be because people think she deserves it or because I believe he can't win without her, its because I have grown to respect her and am growing excited about the prospects of her using her clout in an Obama administration to get some serious crap done.

The point of my rambling is that I have moved on and am now able to see why people supported her so strongly, maybe you could do the same for Obama.

by Xris on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 12:25:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why are we not wrecking this guy? (2.00 / 2)

I volunteer here in Missouri and laugh when I read these doom and gloom diaries. I don't know if he is going to win, but things in my area look a lot better than they did for Kerry.

All of the arm chair campaign managers need to volunteer, donate, and do what they can in their areas, and trust the guy who managed to come from no where and win our nomination. I am assuming he knows what he is doing based on the fact that he pulled that off.

This also seems eerily similar to last summer when my fellow Obama fans were freaking out that he wasn't nuking Clinton 24/7. His campaign stressed they were building a grass roots army and that they would step it up in December, and it looks like he is using the same plan again. Momentum is not a big factor in general elections, reaching a critical mass on election day is what matters.

by Xris on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 12:08:19 AM EST

Re: Why are we not wrecking this guy? (2.00 / 1)

what part of missouri? im in kc and massively impressed with the campaign here. this is my first election living in a swing state and i am determined as hell to see missouri go blue this time!

thanks for your time and effort, it is what is really going to win this thing!

by elie on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 12:13:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why are we not wrecking this guy? (2.00 / 1)

I live in the Columbia area. I keep getting recruited to go up to northern MIssouri, which is where I am from. The campaign actually opened an office in Kirksville today. I am not sure if a Democratic presidential candidate has ever even had staff north of I-70 in years.

by Xris on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 12:15:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why are we not wrecking this guy? (2.00 / 1)

Good to hear. I'd love to see Obama win Little Dixie. He'll win Boone County. But can he take Howard, Saline and Cooper County? How about Callaway? Those were hardcore Democratic counties until very recently.

by elrod on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 12:22:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why are we not wrecking this guy? (2.00 / 1)

Did you know Bush won Boone by .2% in 2004? An Obama fellow was showing me voter numbers from 2004 and Kerry just got pasted in some of these counties. Cole County (Jefferson City area) was the 2nd worst performance for him behind the cape girardeu area.

by Xris on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 12:27:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why are we not wrecking this guy? (2.00 / 4)

'We' ARE wrecking this guy. You can by tell the way he acts. He wouldn't be making a complete ass of himself if he didn't know he was up shit creek with a toothpick for a paddle.

Those who are behind take the low road and attack like Mac is doing. Those who are ahead stay on the high road as Obama is doing.

And the reason front runners don't attack is because it wears thin really fast and exposes the attacker as having no ideas worth campaigning on.

Obama is doing as he should, showing voters that he is the presidential candidate while parrying and counterpunching Mac's attacks to devastating effect.

So don't overconcern yourself about Obama talking the frontrunner's high road and instead help him by countering the GOP smears that you find planted on this blog and others.

by Pepe Le Pew on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 12:13:22 AM EST

McCain has really hurt his brand (2.00 / 2)

these last two weeks; his behavior may have the short-term benefit of aligning his Republican base behind him and reducing the number of "Obamacans." However, independents and Dems may get behind Obama in the long-term the more McCain's attacks resemble those of the Swiftboat variety (e.g. attacks on another's patriotism).

Keep in mind too that McCain is not half as talented a politician as Bush was in 2004. Obama would have quite a challenge if he was facing that guy. The trip may have given Obama some breathing room; let's see if the bounce keeps him in the six-seven point lead, which would be the same margin of victory that Big Daddy had over Bush 41.

by Blazers Edge on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 12:16:41 AM EST

as talented a politician as Bush was in 2004 (none / 0)

It's a mistake to express Kerry's utter lameness as Bush's talent.

by Beren on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 01:25:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Heh (2.00 / 1)

We are wrecking him, and he's wrecking himself.

Obama's up by five or so, pretty reliably. I've seen exactly one tracking poll, with leaners, that was tied. Other than that one outlier Obama is up in every single poll I've seen since he locked it up. Every single one.

A five point win would not be a small one.

Wait for after the conventions. Then we'll see what's what.

by Reaper0Bot0 on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 12:23:37 AM EST

Re: Why are we not wrecking this guy? (none / 0)

you mention mccain's new tough add that talks about how obama "had time to go to the gym but didn't visit the troops..." yet the footage in the actual ad show obama playing basketball with troops in kuwait!

maybe...just maybe... the reason were not "wrecking this guy" is because you and others are using this site as a place to whine about obama not doing enough, rather than slamming mccain for his lying incompetence!

priorities!

barack's been on an international flight. what's your excuse?

by elie on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 12:34:13 AM EST

Re: Why are we not wrecking this guy? (none / 0)

In the sentence right after the one you mentioned with the basketball, I pointed out the exact same thing.

Plz Readz b4 criticize.

by AlexScott on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 05:09:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why are we not wrecking this guy? (none / 0)

i know! i mentioned that you mentioned it. my problem was that instead of focusing your effort on mccain's lies, you are whining about obama not doing enough.

what are YOU doing?

whining.

by elie on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 09:29:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

i would be disappointed (none / 0)

if Obama picks Bayh. Biden is my favorite.

by highgrade on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 01:25:39 AM EST

Re: i would be disappointed (none / 0)

Obama is going to pick Kaine from VA. He is catholic and speaks fluent spanish.

by Spanky on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 09:04:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: i would be disappointed (none / 0)

I hope he's learned to control his eyebrow.

Seriously, the guy looks weird when he speaks on TV.

by Bush Bites on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 09:46:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: i would be disappointed (none / 0)

Obama is already beating McCain 2-1 among Hispanics. Why do we need a Spanish-speaking Catholic?

If McCain picks Romney then Michigan comes into play for him. There is only one Dem under consideration that can help Obama in Michigan - Hillary. Michigan has been struggling for 30 years, except when Bill Clinton was in office. Hillary would cancel out any boost McCain might get from Romney in Michigan.

"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson

by MS01 Indie on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 10:49:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

How would she help? (none / 0)

She wasn't polling very well in Michigan against McCain either.

I don't think Romney helps McCain all that much in Michigan, but it will be a close state.

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 01:46:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How would she help? (none / 0)

I know a little something about Michigan, I spent most of my life there. Romney has goodwill there from his father's memory. He is remembered as a decent governor. The last decent economic period in the state was during Bill Clinton's presidency. That gives Hillary a bit of a boost. She is also seen as fairly pro-union, which is also a help.

"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson

by MS01 Indie on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 02:50:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well then (none / 0)

I guess he has to put Hillary on the ticket then, doesn't he?

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 05:15:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well then (none / 0)

Who knows? Since McCain hasn't picked Romney yet and probably won't until after or during the Democratic convention, I'd say it's a guessing game. Hillary would help him in Michigan. McCaskill would help him in MO. Kaine would help him in VA. The campaign will have to weigh all the plus and minuses before they make a decision.

"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson

by MS01 Indie on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 05:20:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: i would be disappointed (none / 0)

I can't see Obama picking any Democrat who voted with McSame to invade Iraq. It would flush his judgment argument right down the toilet to have a VP who agreed with Bush/McSame.

by Beren on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 01:28:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Half the party (none / 0)

supported McSame on Iraq. I think it's not only likely, but that he will pick someone who voted for the war. Remember, Chris Dodd even voted for the war. His cabinet is probably going to have plenty of members of the party who supported the war.

That issue is not a huge one anymore and quite frankly, if his supporters are going to abandon him for THAT reason, then we were doomed from Day One.

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 01:49:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Half the party (none / 0)

so you admit that the only reason Obama made that an issue in the primary was to hurt the Clintons then. Cuz it sounds like you are admitting that.

by Lakrosse on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 01:51:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Duh (none / 0)

that's how you win elections. He used the issue to differentiate his judgment from hers.

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 01:56:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Half the party (none / 0)

didn't vote with McSame. And that is the smartest and best half for Obama to choose from.

by Beren on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 02:04:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Some of his best choices (none / 0)

come from the half that did though.

He's not going to use that as a deciding factor on his running mate.

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 02:08:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

He's not going to use that as a deciding factor (none / 0)

It will be A deciding factor if not THE deciding one. How could Obama not consider the impact of underming his strongest response to McLame's charge that he's inexperienced?

Perhaps Obama sees himself in such a strong position that it won't matter. But he must consider carefully before throwing away the judment argument.

by Beren on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 02:28:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Because he's the candidate (none / 0)

his Vice President is chosen on a multitude of other issues, including effect on electoral math, not on issues. I'm not sure any of the top names on the short list voted against the war or opposed AUMF.

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 02:31:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why are we not wrecking this guy? (none / 0)

Alex:

"Has remained silent. Except giving a generic, and very disappointing response to McCain's ridiculous assertion of his patriotism"

Actually Obama's response to this bs was superb. Measured, intelligent and cool. There's going to be lots of time for him to deal with this tripe.

by ottovbvs on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 08:25:15 AM EST

Re: Why are we not wrecking this guy? (none / 0)

He will.

I was surprised that Obama didn't jump on McCain's "Social Security is a disgrace" gaffe but you have to trust that Obama & Co. know what they are doing. Maybe they are saving such things for the final stretch. Who knows? The important thing to remember is that these guys know what they are doing.

Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius

by Blue Neponset on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 08:56:46 AM EST

Re: Why are we not wrecking this guy? (none / 0)

I hope you're right.

Tactically, a new charge every week starting after the conventions would be better than firing all our bullets now.

But, you know, I wish I could at least see some evidence of blood-lust coming out of the Obama camp so I know they have something like that in mind.

by Bush Bites on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 09:44:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Agree. (none / 0)

If being passive worked, we'd all be working on President Kerry's reelection right now.

by Bush Bites on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 09:41:59 AM EST

Obama passive? (none / 0)

Only if you've been living in a cave and getting your news from smoke signals.

by Beren on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 02:32:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

McCain Is Losing Credibility (none / 0)

We will see the campaign aggressively respond to these insane charges today on the morning shows. We have already seen the media take issue with McCain's tactics. Joe Klein called McCain's charges "scurrilous." On a local political show in VA commentators laughed at the McSame ad claiming Obama was responsible for high gas prices. More dangerous for McCain are the comments that he is not "presidential" and and may not be mentally fit. I believe that is why the Obama camp has been slow to respond. Let McCain go so completely over the top that he loses the respect of the media.

I also think McCain is pushing Colin Powell toward endorsing Obama with this nonsense.

by PabloZed on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 09:48:22 AM EST

Re: McCain Is Losing Credibility (none / 0)

I think the fact that Colin Powell hasn't endorsed or supported McCain speaks volumes.

Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove.

by fogiv on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 01:48:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.