home

Baiting McCain: "Say It To My Face"

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 10:04:57 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Steve Benen discusses Barack Obama's goading of John McCain to "say it to my face":

I suspect Obama is baiting McCain for a reason -- he wants McCain to lose his cool, make personal attacks, and try to change the subject away from the economy. Obama isn't afraid of this scenario, he'd welcome this scenario.

No doubt. The alternative of course is to get McCain to back off of the smear campaign. Either way, Obama wins. If McCain goes there in the third debate, no doubt Obama has a well planned reply along the lines Bill Clinton used in 1992. If the McCain campaign backs off, that's good for Obama too. A good, and dare I say it, obvious tactic.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Obama v. McCain on Family Planning | Judge In Stevens Case Will Tell Jury that Prosecution Knowingly Presented False Evidence >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Baiting McCain: "Say It To My Face" | 194 comments (194 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    The "big announcement" (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 10:09:51 AM EST
    hyped by Politico yesterday is that supposedly McCain has an Ayres web ad. OH NO!

    (When Strategic vision says that you have a 14 point deficit in Pennsylvania, I guess you gotta try something. . .)

    PA polling has been kinda crazy (none / 0) (#4)
    by Faust on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 10:23:15 AM EST
    lately. Don't you think?

    [ Parent ]
    Confirmed by multiple sources (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 10:25:14 AM EST
    but still unbelievable. . .

    [ Parent ]
    It's up on HuffPost. (none / 0) (#22)
    by Christy1947 on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 11:33:15 AM EST
    And it's the usual cheezy "I didn't say that, I said and meant only this. Ninety seconds most of which is about association and good friendship and working together on radical education programs (no mention of Annenberg or Ayers being a Chicago Man of the Year), but then McCain says seventy five seconds in that Ayers is not the issue, the truthfulness of O's statement that 'he's a guy in my neighborhood," is the issue. We know he's a phony, but this is seriously tacky. At least if it's limited to the web, only the wonky will get it, until the MSM starts broadcasting it as a basis for more silly commentary. One hopes, usually futilely, that they will have better sense.

    [ Parent ]
    Why would Obama want to change the (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by tigercourse on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 10:30:04 AM EST
    subject from the economy? That's the main reason he's beating the tar out of McCain.

    You misunderstand (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Demi Moaned on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 10:36:03 AM EST
    He wants McCain to be seen to be trying to change the subject away from the economy.

    [ Parent ]
    Okay, that makes more sense. (none / 0) (#9)
    by tigercourse on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 10:39:50 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I just had to log in from work to for a sec. (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Teresa on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 10:30:08 AM EST
    First, I read a good analysis of what is going on...Obama had a good groundwork set up for his 50 state strategy but the economy busted this race wide open. Almost 70% say it's most important. We will never know what would have happened without the economy going in the tank.  I know this is not news to anyone here but it was a good article and when I get home, I'll try to find it again.

    Also, I just spoke to a lady in Fairbanks, Alaska on the phone. They need to order something from us and she sounded like Sarah Palin. I was thinking of Jeralyn so much it was hard for me to concentrate!

    Last paragraph: ha. (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 10:50:45 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Moreover, the "say it to my face" gambit (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by scribe on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 10:58:03 AM EST
    works on McCain on two levels.

    First, this is pure basketball court competitiveness at work.  McCain is one who can't back down.  Obama's telling him to bring it and let's see who's tougher.

    Second, this works on McCain's self-image.  In reading some the comments from McCain's former pilot colleagues, particularly about how McCain went straight in on the target which resulted in his being shot down, one of his fellow pilots remarked, explaining McCain's actions, that "no one ever broke off a bombing run.  It was a matter of manhood."  So, too, here.  Obama is directly challenging McCain to come straight at him - disregard that anti-aircraft radar warning buzzer and go for the target, lest you be thought less of a man, Johnny - and setting him up to get shot down again.

    If. during the debate McCain won't come at him to his face, Obama can paint McCain in the press (as he did with Gibson on TV) as cowardly.  The paint job Obama applied was in pastels - he will allow surrogates to use the fully saturated words.  If McCain comes after him - McCain is trying to change topics from issue #1 - the economy - and opening himself up on his own tawdry history.

    Johnny's boxed in here.

    this characterization, (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by coigue on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 11:21:28 AM EST
    if applied to his governing as CinC, would be REALLY scary for the country. Because he would take the country with him into the anti-aircraft fire.

    [ Parent ]
    That's how he flew (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by scribe on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 11:29:21 AM EST
    and how he came to be shot down and a POW.

    [ Parent ]
    ahem (5.00 / 0) (#21)
    by coigue on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 11:31:20 AM EST
    what's the diff between courageous and foolish again???

    [ Parent ]
    The results. (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by Fabian on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 11:48:27 AM EST
    If you fly into enemy fire and get shot down - that's foolish.

    If you fly into enemy fire and return triumphant - that's courageous.

    Mostly it's just spinning a catchy story out of carefully selected facts.  Every politician does it.  Obama was raised by a single mother - except when she was married.  McCain was a maverick - except when he voted in lock step with the GOP.  Palin is just an ordinary mother and wife - except when she plays a mean game of politics.

    If someone wins, it will because they were so awesome, not because they were marginally better than their opponents.  Spin, spin, spin.


    [ Parent ]

    well most pilots did get killed. (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Salo on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 01:58:40 PM EST
    If they flew for long enough.

    How many of the original Battle of Britain pilots were left after a few months?  Not alot.

    [ Parent ]

    LOL (none / 0) (#31)
    by coigue on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 12:00:30 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Yosarian got it right. (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by Salo on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 08:30:43 PM EST
    Colonel Cathcart's trying to kill me!

    [ Parent ]
    Almost correct. (none / 0) (#42)
    by Blowback on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 12:58:00 PM EST
    "If someone wins, it will because they were so awesome, not because they were marginally better than their opponents.  Spin, spin, spin."

    Let's not forget 2000; W "won" but was he "awesome"? Probably in his own mind.

    Please, really, do not forget this. The Repubs are planning today for such a scenario, an "awesome" win. "You bet-cha!'

    I worked for the RNC in DC in '98.

    Good post, Fabian.

    [ Parent ]

    Yah, the incredible Bush Mandate. (none / 0) (#45)
    by Fabian on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 01:09:42 PM EST
    What a load of hooey.

    Well, at least now the pols in D.C. know that The Economy(, stupid) really is a concern for the voters.  I never doubted it was, but the pols often think that I might be more concerned about some gay guy marrying my brother.  (I wouldn't be cuz a) He's gay.  and b) He's not the marrying type.)

    [ Parent ]

    There are old pilots (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by scribe on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 01:51:47 PM EST
    and bold pilots.  But there are no old, bold pilots.

    In any event, it seems that great minds think alike. Josh Marshall's going after McCain's cowardice issue, too.  

    'Bam's inside Johnny's head, and owns him.

    And McCain knows it.

    [ Parent ]

    Sigh...guy talk.... (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by oldpro on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 12:49:49 PM EST
    And to think we could have avoided this entire subject by nominating a different candidate.

    Of course, my candidate was accused of killing a lover...not of hanging our with terrorists.  Not good but still, defensible...

    [ Parent ]

    An alleged lover. (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by scribe on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 01:29:41 PM EST
    Let's not forget that part.  

    [ Parent ]
    True. Good point... (none / 0) (#91)
    by oldpro on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 02:31:39 PM EST
    I misspoke, as I sometimes do!

    Those incomplete thoughts can get one in a lot of trouble...

    [ Parent ]

    This is so ridiculous... (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by Thanin on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 05:37:58 PM EST
    women talk trash to each other all the time.  This isnt "guy talk", this is trash talk.

    [ Parent ]
    It Actually Works on Another Level (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by kaleidescope on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 02:19:12 PM EST
    The courtier media is fixated on a high school (or jr. high school) approach to narrative.  Obama challenging McCain's manhood and setting up a confrontation is precisely the kind of conflict the media loves to focus on.  So it turns the bright lights on to the box McCain has put himself in.

    [ Parent ]
    Excellent point - and now Biden's really (none / 0) (#99)
    by scribe on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 03:07:18 PM EST
    going after him.  Today, in St. Joseph, MO:

    "All of the things they said about Barack Obama in the TV, on the TV, at their rallies, and now on YouTube ... John McCain could not bring himself to look Barack Obama in the eye and say the same things to him," Biden said this morning. "In my neighborhood, when you've got something to say to a guy, you look him in the eye and you say it to him."

    Meanwhile (continuing the Jr. High School analogy), McCain's sending out the girls to do his fighting for him.

    [ Parent ]

    Georgie Porgie Puddin Pie (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by kaleidescope on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 05:45:51 PM EST
    Kissed the girls and made them cry
    When the boys came out to play
    Georgie Porgie ran away

    That's basically what McCain has set himself up for.

    [ Parent ]

    I'd like Obama to (1.00 / 1) (#167)
    by Salo on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 08:50:33 PM EST
    suggest that Ayers is a dopey guy that he previously used to get ahead in the Chicago arena and... No: I'm not Ayers understudy and long planned for revolution. I'm way too conceited for that gig.

    [ Parent ]
    Ha. There is some credibility (2.00 / 1) (#168)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 09:06:24 PM EST
    in your theory.

    [ Parent ]
    McCain sending out Cindy McCain (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by WS on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 11:12:21 AM EST
    as attack dog is cowardly and frankly, is a mark of a desperate man.  Who's next, Megan McCain?  McCain's son in Iraq?  

    Megan McCain: "The day I saw Obama's book on the store shelves sent a cold shiver through my spine!  Why can't Obama's book be on my side and not in my way!"

    I watched Cindy, (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by coigue on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 11:19:29 AM EST
    She is taking on some affectations of Sarah Palin. It's like she watched Sarah and thought, I can do that...and she is.

    [ Parent ]
    When Cindy was attacking Obama (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by MKS on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 12:58:33 PM EST
    Sarah was looking on impatiently.....

    There's a competition there between the two....

    [ Parent ]

    Guys always think women want (4.00 / 3) (#55)
    by hairspray on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 01:31:38 PM EST
    to wrestle the other women and that they hate each other.

    [ Parent ]
    Look at the footage (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by MKS on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 02:44:31 PM EST
    Palin claps, smiles and is engaged when others bash Obama.....When Cindy does it, she hardly reacts at all and is looking around at others with a bored/impatient expression....

    [ Parent ]
    Guys always think that, huh? (3.00 / 2) (#101)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 03:12:55 PM EST
    I'm sure you have some studies to back that up?

    Or was there an election that I missed where we elected you to speak for all of us?

    [ Parent ]

    MileHi Hawkeye (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by lilburro on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 09:27:52 PM EST
    I like you, so I will hopefully be respectful.  But, explain to me the simultaneous popularity of jello/mud wrestling, the expression "oh, women" ["it's just women talking" "let the women talk" "let the women bicker"] and the archetypal story arcs of movies like "Mean Girls," and you may have a decent point.  Aside from our current election psychodrama of "Does Hillary want to claw Sarah Palin's eyes out?"  Or the very funny skit of Amy Poehler and Tina Fey playing a game of tennis that turns into an exchange of sexual sighs?

    After all, it doesn't even take a majority to win an election sometimes.  Occasionally, all you need is a plurality.  

    "All men..." is rarely a literally true statement.  But it usually gestures at powerful social forces that relate to the gender orientation of our society as a whole.

    Heck, the Virgin Mary and Mary Magdalene having the same name is an archetypal female-female conflict!

    [ Parent ]

    Well... (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 10:33:02 AM EST
    I didn't realize that jello/mud wrestling was that popular.  I've certainly never witnessed such an event.  Would that be any different that the wildly popular Chippendale "dancers" that I've heard about?  

    I've never used that expression, so I can't comment on it.  

    I've never seen Mean Girls, so I have no idea. Would the same thing apply to something like Juno?

    Don't Tina and Amy have some (if not all) creative control over their skits, if not write them?  

    If I could explain all of these things you bring up or the reasons for them, I would write a book and go on the lecture circuit.  Then I wouldn't be as worried about the tanking economy.

    My point was--and is, it is equally as offensive to me to be lumped into a stereotypical "all men think this way" category as I'm sure it would be to you if the situation was reversed.  

    Some people seem to think it is OK to do that to men, but scream "sexist" at the top of their lungs if they feel they are being generalized as women.  I don't like that double standard.

    [ Parent ]

    My point is that (none / 0) (#187)
    by lilburro on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 11:39:00 AM EST
    aside from the offensiveness of making generalizations about men and women, there are obviously cultural situations being played out over and over again that reinforce and respond to our expectations about gender.  Like most crap, it doesn't draw from real life, where some people aren't embracing these attitudes.  These people deserve to be documented too, because by not embracing these attitudes they can help us create the social changes we need.

    Jello wrestling is popular in some colleges as a party event.  At my school, it was organized by men as a women-only fighting event.  It turned out to be a very big party.

    Mean Girls wasn't like Juno, the thrust of the movie was the competition between the girls.

    And yes Tina and Amy have control over their skits (this wasn't SNL).  They were trying to be funny by turning a game of tennis into a goofy porno scene.

    It is sociology stuff...  Of course it is inaccurate to say "all men think this" and I apologize if you are offended.

    Still, attitudes and consumption are not strictly our free choices.  1 in 1000 men, maybe 1 in 10000 men in America, wear dresses as often as the average woman, for better or worse.  Is that the way we want it to be?  


    [ Parent ]

    If pornography is any indication of (none / 0) (#145)
    by hairspray on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 06:54:34 PM EST
    what guys really want, I would have to say...YES!

    [ Parent ]
    You realize... (none / 0) (#156)
    by Thanin on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 07:35:57 PM EST
    that women watch porn too, right?

    [ Parent ]
    Not so much. The industry is a male (none / 0) (#157)
    by hairspray on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 07:47:43 PM EST
    dominated one.  They own it lock stock and barrel. They create the narrative for men.

    [ Parent ]
    But you acknowledge... (none / 0) (#159)
    by Thanin on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 08:11:53 PM EST
    that women watch porn right?  So the porn they do watch, can we rightly make stereotypical assertions about a womans mindset based off of what they watch?

    [ Parent ]
    Women commit crimes too. But they (none / 0) (#176)
    by hairspray on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 12:22:34 AM EST
    are a small number compared to men.  Just ask the a Vice Department about where the pornography comes from, is controlled by and is largely consumed by.  Pornogrpahy is made by men for men and the content is to titilate them.  That a some women enjoy it doesn't change those facts. End of story.

    [ Parent ]
    Whats your ultimate point anyway? (none / 0) (#188)
    by Thanin on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 04:14:23 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Look upthread and see what MileHi.. (none / 0) (#189)
    by hairspray on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 04:38:38 PM EST
    said to me when I said.."men love to see women wrestle and hate each other."  It was in response to someone saying that Cindy McCain and Michele O were dissing each other (something like that)  Anyway, MileHi asked since when did I know what men wanted ( i presumed in the sense of the mud wrestling, etc) so I said, if pornography is... and you know the rest.  Make sense?

    [ Parent ]
    I know the back and forth... (none / 0) (#191)
    by Thanin on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 04:48:24 PM EST
    but what Im asking is, what is your ultimate point?

    [ Parent ]
    My point was to challenge the (none / 0) (#192)
    by hairspray on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 04:54:46 PM EST
    rather prevalent belief that women are natural enemies, as constantly described by the media and some here.  It takes the form of overanalyzing the tension between the political women and wives.  Michele said on the Daily Show that most of what was reported in the news on that score was overanalyzed and off point. I believe her.

    [ Parent ]
    So just say that... (none / 0) (#193)
    by Thanin on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 05:03:07 PM EST
    What you said here drives that point so much better because its sincere and doesnt bring you down to the level youre railing against.

    [ Parent ]
    Ah porn (none / 0) (#169)
    by lilburro on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 09:12:29 PM EST
    that industry driven by women!  Companion to maxipads and tampons!  

    [ Parent ]
    Sadly youve missed the point. (none / 0) (#170)
    by Thanin on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 09:18:14 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    If the point was (none / 0) (#172)
    by lilburro on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 09:29:10 PM EST
    1 out of 1000 men do not respond to sexual fantasies that involve women combatting each other, no, I didn't miss it, and no, I'm not going to hang my hat on it.

    [ Parent ]
    Why use an arbitrary ratio... (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by Thanin on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 09:52:54 PM EST
    to try and make a point when youre not even going to stand behind the numbers?  

    The thing is generalizations about women, men, homosexuals, race, etc. are a crappy way to try and make a coherent argument.

    [ Parent ]

    Indeed. (5.00 / 2) (#181)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 10:17:27 AM EST
    Generalizing what "all" men think or want is not a good thing.  Especially if you are going to base it on something as outlandish as the porn industry.  

    I can only imagine the # of 1's that would be thrown my way if I had made the same generalization about women.  (Dr. Molly aside since she loves to throw 1's around for no apparent reason)

    You can't have it both ways.  If you don't know me, don't lump me in with "all" men.  It is equally offensive as it would be if the shoe was on the other foot.    

    [ Parent ]

    It's good for Cindy (none / 0) (#47)
    by coigue on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 01:17:11 PM EST
    she is a Wallflower, and this got her out of her shell.

    [ Parent ]
    It is somewhat refreshing to (3.50 / 2) (#32)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 12:04:18 PM EST
    hear Cindy McCain is exhibiting some ferve, as opposed to standing silently by her husband's side and smiling vacantly.

    [ Parent ]
    Except she was full of s$%t (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by magster on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 12:45:41 PM EST
    McCain voted against funding too, with a timetable.  There's nothing refreshing about dishonesty and false outrage.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm not admiring the content. Just (3.50 / 2) (#103)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 03:20:13 PM EST
    the show of spunkiness.

    [ Parent ]
    Lying trumps spunkiness (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by Thanin on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 05:39:18 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Man, this is a very feisty (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 05:44:00 PM EST
    group today.

    [ Parent ]
    He didn't vote on it (none / 0) (#177)
    by andrys on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 05:19:05 AM EST
    but he did ask Prez Bush to oppose it because of the timetable for leaving.

      They all have their justifications ready of course.

    [ Parent ]

    If MO (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 01:37:00 PM EST
    Was as agressive as Cindy's being we'd never here the end of it.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree (none / 0) (#37)
    by coigue on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 12:11:16 PM EST
    I think Palin's presence has emboldened her somewhat

    [ Parent ]
    On the Other Hand (1.00 / 1) (#149)
    by kaleidescope on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 07:13:32 PM EST
    It could be that McCain has slapped her around a bit, letting her know that things could get much worse if she doesn't get out there and start slinging some mud.

    [ Parent ]
    heh (none / 0) (#186)
    by coigue on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 11:10:53 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Well, in this election alot of spouses (none / 0) (#23)
    by tigercourse on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 11:37:11 AM EST
    came out as attack dogs. Michelle, Bill, and Elizabeth off the top of my head.

    [ Parent ]
    Please point to an instance of Michelle Obama (5.00 / 0) (#115)
    by JoeA on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 03:58:27 PM EST
    being an attack dog in this campaign?  I know she has been a surrogate, and headlined her own events,  but I don't remember her doing anything that could be characterised as that.  

    Cindy McCain's attack is despicable, by her standards she should be accusing her husband of voting to cut off funds for her son as well.

    [ Parent ]

    She said that you couldn't be a President (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by tigercourse on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 05:51:38 PM EST
    if you couldn't run your own house. An obvious dig at Hillary. Bill used the "rolling the dice" line and Elizabeth was clearly the worst when she said Hillary wouldn't be as good for women as John because she acted too much like a man.

    [ Parent ]
    Not So Obvious (5.00 / 0) (#144)
    by daring grace on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 06:26:59 PM EST
    Media Matters traced the evolution of this interpretation of Michelle Obama's comments here.

    And they further documented how this was a media generated interpretation that, apparently, persists even though the Obama campaign denied it was Ms Obama's point in her comments, and despite the fact that there was no reference to the Clintons (or anyone else but the Obamas themselves) in the statement.

    [ Parent ]

    Gotta tell ya (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by Steve M on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 07:06:18 PM EST
    I'm sure she said it in many different contexts, but I have seen a video which makes it EXTREMELY obvious what she meant.  Personally I wouldn't invest too much in defending this one.

    [ Parent ]
    I'll have to agree with Donna Brazil (5.00 / 0) (#158)
    by WS on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 07:55:51 PM EST
    What happens in the primaries, stays in the primaries.  The Democratic Party is one big happy, dysfunctional family.  

    [ Parent ]
    Not me (none / 0) (#182)
    by sj on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 10:22:49 AM EST
    Not anymore.

    What did Biden say about the past?  Past is Prologue.

    DNC behavior was wrong.  No automatic reward for it.  My vote is there to be earned.  It doesn't automatically go to anyone more.  

    I've had way too many years of sucking it up and voting for the lesser of two evils.   I'm no longer voting for any level of evil.

    And I will never, ever again believe a word that comes from Donna Brazile has any value whatsoever.  Except maybe as an example of what to watch out for.

    [ Parent ]

    You're Probably Right (none / 0) (#180)
    by daring grace on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 09:17:16 AM EST
    about not investing too much in defending this, or in wading back into the archives of perceived insults and smears.

    During the primaries, I was struck by the (mis?)perceptions on both sides about who was racist, sexist or mean, and just how (predictably) subjective all of our views could be depending on where we were standing or which candidate we supported.

    There was an awful lot of cagey, under the radar stuff being alleged and maybe it was all true or more of it than I saw, again, on both sides.

    [ Parent ]

    ya (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by connecticut yankee on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 11:17:47 AM EST
    The next debate might be armageddon.  But that would be good for clearing the air for the final 3 weeks.  

    Off-topic, but concerns two friends. (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 11:42:20 AM EST
    It saddens me to report that L.A. County authorities have identified the bodies of Henry Sanchez, brother of Congresswoman Linda Sanchez (D-Cerritos) and Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez (D-Garden Grove), and his companion, Penny Avila.

    Both were reported missing while on a trip to Santa Catalina island, after their 26-foot boat had apparently collided with a barge that was being towed out of Los Angeles Harbor in San Pedro.

    My condolences to the Sanchez family for their tragic loss.

    I'm still troubled by Obama's (5.00 / 0) (#26)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 11:52:14 AM EST
    sleight of hand on his relationship w/Ayers.  Also do not condone Palin's comments on the subject.  Bringing up McCain's relationship w/Keating brings to mind Obama's relationship w/Rezko.  So--leave it all where it lies, I'd say.  

    I'm still troubled by a lot of stuff about Obama (1.00 / 4) (#44)
    by patriotgames on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 01:09:16 PM EST
    Obama has lied about being the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review. What else is he lying about?
    http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2008/10/09/obama-the-myth-the-harvard-years/


    [ Parent ]
    site violator:patriot games (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by coigue on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 01:18:33 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    really, why? (1.00 / 1) (#72)
    by patriotgames on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 02:01:56 PM EST
    Because I'm not mindlessly following the path YOU dictate?

    [ Parent ]
    It would help (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by CST on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 02:12:57 PM EST
    If you actually bothered to engage people and refute some comments.  Instead you just throw out a smear to see what sticks instead of backing up your word.

    [ Parent ]
    Riiight (none / 0) (#87)
    by patriotgames on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 02:23:55 PM EST
    I put up an article published today about the ObamaMyth, in a thread talking about things that Obama and McCain could/should fight about face to face and the FIRST reply to my comment was coigue (As he has done I believe two times before) calling me a Site Violator. THAT IS NOT enagaging, any more that the idiot who posted "Palin should admit to the affair!!!!111!!!)"

    [ Parent ]
    That article is (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by coigue on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 02:42:12 PM EST
    really really dumb. Obama was the first black president, not the first black member (= editor). He made an error. BFD. It was an error that actually demoted him, now why would he do that on purpose?

    [ Parent ]
    heh (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by connecticut yankee on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 04:47:34 PM EST
    A quick review of your posts can see what you are.  

    [ Parent ]
    Gimmie a break (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by CST on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 01:18:43 PM EST
    Wouldn't being the first president be more impressive than being the first editor?  I mean, if anything he understated his accomplishment.  And it was probably a typo.

    Frankly I find the "affirmative action" insinuations to be pretty disgusting.  There is nothing to suggest he didn't earn the spot in his own right, people assume he was given privelages just because he's black.  His grades and academic record were excellent and plenty good enough to earn him this position.

    I have seen how these insinuations affect people in real life, it is ugly, unfair, and completely ignores the reason affirmative action was there in the first place - to help those who were at an unfair disadvantage.

    [ Parent ]

    Well (5.00 / 0) (#150)
    by kaleidescope on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 07:17:42 PM EST
    The members of the Harvard Law Review elect their president.  Harvard administration doesn't.  If you know HLR people, how competitive and hyper-ambitious they are, you know how ridiculous the idea is that they would elect someone president just for affirmative action purposes.

    [ Parent ]
    Aparently he's also (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by jondee on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 01:22:41 PM EST
    incredibly stupid -- to "lie" about a factoid that could be checked out by a middle schooler. Or maybe there's another explanation.

    Great Puckering Up to McSame's As* site, btw.

    [ Parent ]

    stoooopid. (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by coigue on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 01:33:55 PM EST
    She said, "Members of the Harvard Law Review are referred to as editors. Each year there are many editors, but one person is elected president. The first African-American to serve on the Review was Charles Hamilton Houston, who graduated from Harvard Law School in 1922. The second African-American to gain admission to the Review was William Henry Hastie who earned an LL.B from the Law School in 1930 and an S.J.D. in 1933. Barack Obama was the first African-American president of the Review; he graduated from the Law School in 1991."


    [ Parent ]
    What a suprise (5.00 / 4) (#61)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 01:40:13 PM EST
    Huh, what do you know Riverpuma stirring up something where nothing exists, man next thing you know Sean Hannity will accuse a Democrat of hating America.

    [ Parent ]
    shocked...i am shocked (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by coigue on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 01:46:02 PM EST
    and appalled to, did i mention that?

    [ Parent ]
    Um, (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 01:38:53 PM EST
    Actually, I've never heard him say he was the first black editor, honestly I've never heard the media claim that either, I've heard the media (but not Obama) say he was the first black president of the Harvard Law Review.

    [ Parent ]
    First black editor (1.00 / 1) (#81)
    by patriotgames on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 02:15:43 PM EST
    and, in 1990, became the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review.

    http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/January-1993/Vote-of-Confidence/

    the first African American editor of the Harvard Law Review in 1990.

    http://uk.news.yahoo.com/blog/political_perceptions/article/3/

    [ Parent ]

    Ok (5.00 / 0) (#86)
    by CST on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 02:22:58 PM EST
    Well neither of those show that Obama said that about himself, just that others said it about him.  So if anything, I would think you would have a problem with their reporting rather than with Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    my problem with Obama (1.00 / 4) (#90)
    by patriotgames on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 02:27:43 PM EST
    stems from the fact that the media has been spinning this myth for months and he has said nothing about it. The same with the misogony agaist Hillary Clinton, and he said NOTHING.

    Obama will let ANYTHING be siad as long as he benefits from it, as soon as he gets no benefit he attack it.

    I would have more respect for him if he would come out and criticize the media for the spin/lies. But he can't/won't.


    [ Parent ]

    Let's think about this (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by Steve M on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 02:35:34 PM EST
    These sources claim that Barack Obama was the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review.

    In fact, Obama was not the first black editor, but he WAS the first black editor-in-chief, or what the HLR calls its "president."

    So actually, the truth is much more complimentary towards Obama than the misstatements you complain of.  Obama was the first African-American to head up the entire law review, not merely the first one to serve as a member of its editorial board.

    So I think the suggestion that Obama left "this myth" out there because it benefited him is rather silly.

    [ Parent ]

    There was a previous black editor-in-chief (5.00 / 0) (#178)
    by andrys on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 07:26:41 AM EST
    but they changed the title to President, and Obama was the first President of the Harvard Law Review.

    [ Parent ]
    Who? Link? (none / 0) (#179)
    by Steve M on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 08:11:22 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Let's think about THIS (1.00 / 5) (#98)
    by patriotgames on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 03:04:10 PM EST
    every other Pres. had PUBLISHED articles. every other pres. got a clerkship in the courts or jobs for prestigious law firms. Obama did not. Why? Obama's written output amounts to three autobiographies. I have two master's degrees, and I have several articles and book chapters. Most grad students have the same written output, but not the Editor in Chief of the most elite Law Review in the country? Why? And why do people defend him for this??

    [ Parent ]
    You apparently don't know about Law Reviews (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by MKS on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 03:30:52 PM EST
    Getting a Note published, albeit without a byline, is nothing to sneeze at....Mine never made it...Law Review Editors (and law students generally) don't publish very much--they "edit"--get it?

    You were wrong in your first accusation, so now you move on to another?

    As to not getting a clerkship, this is actually what catches my attention and makes me think very highly of him.  As the President of the Harvard Law Review, he held the single most presitious position for a law student in the country....Lawrence Tribe, the renowned legal scholar and longtime Harvard Professor called him one of the two brightest students he ever taught...

    Obama in short could have had any legal position or clerkship in the country that he wanted.....I know of what I speak.  I used to be a partner in a top 10 AmLaw 100 law firm responsible for  a lot of recruiting efforts. I was usually designated as the Partner to do (along with various associates) the on-campus interviews of local SoCal schools and coordinate the follow up (meaning I was nice, respected and had no power)....That Obama decided to go back to Chicago was termed "inspiring" by Tribe....

    You are uninformed and it shows...your, ahem, bias....

    [ Parent ]

    Tribe said that? (2.00 / 0) (#132)
    by coigue on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 04:58:19 PM EST
    I read some Tribe during my Con Law class (way back when), I still remember it and respect him.

    [ Parent ]
    Laurence Tribe link (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by MKS on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 07:20:55 PM EST
    Here is what Laurence Tribe said according to Rolling Stone:

     

    Laurence Tribe, the renowned constitutional scholar, considers Obama one of his two best students ever: "He had a very powerful ability to synthesize diverse sources of information."

    He has also said Obama was flat-out the best student....See Wikipedia entry on Tribe.

    [ Parent ]

    I am so glad patriotgames (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by coigue on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 11:00:20 AM EST
    started this discussion, so that I could learn how respected Obama was with Lawrence Tribe.

    Thanks PatriotGames!

    [ Parent ]

    I really wish (5.00 / 4) (#114)
    by Steve M on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 03:53:38 PM EST
    that you could acknowledge you were wrong about something before moving on to a different argument altogether.  Sorta makes me think there might not be much point in discussing this with you.

    [ Parent ]
    I have wondered about some of the (1.00 / 1) (#155)
    by hairspray on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 07:24:39 PM EST
    things patriotgames asserts and having been an academic (not at an Ivy league) I know there are some common themes.  For example, we were required to hire minorities and had to really stretch to do so.  Some of the applicants really looked good on paper and we scratched our heads when they arrived and settled in.  Back in the '90's the pipeline wasn't very full. On the other hand I have no doubt that Obama was above the average in intelligence.  But I am not convinced from my experiences that doors weren't opened for him.  We see that in Chicago politics they certainly were. So the fact that the criteria was changed the year before Obama was chosen gives me pause.

    [ Parent ]
    Harvard has a lot of students. (none / 0) (#166)
    by Salo on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 08:46:48 PM EST
    it's a huge (quantitatively) law school.

    [ Parent ]
    Not at all (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by MKS on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 02:58:59 PM EST
    The freakin' photo of the Law Review shows more than one African American member.....

    The story I remember is that the conservatives on the Law Review decided to back Obama for President (students typically pick their own law review leaders) because they feared a more strident liberal as President....Obama would at least hear out the conservatives....This story comes from Carol Platt Liebau, a conservative commentator who was Obama's classmate on the Harvard Law Review....She wrote a nice article about him a couple of years ago--who knows where she stands now....

    If Obama did not say it, don't blame him for someone else's misstatement.....I have never heard anyone say Obama was the first African American member of the Harvard Law Review.....Maybe someone confuses "editor" with "President."  Most law reviews are headed by an "Editor-in-Chief;" whereas, Harvard has a "President."  So showing other Black "editors" might cause confusion....But every law review has more than one Editor:  Notes Editor, Articles Editors, etc....

    Obama by all accounts was the first African American President of the Harvard Law Review, i.e, the head guy, not just a member or ancillary editor.

    [ Parent ]

    This is what Liebau (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by MKS on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 03:13:29 PM EST
    had to say about Obama in 2007 before the venom flowed:

    Barack is a deeply committed liberal, and I am a proud conservative. Even so, he possesses five qualities that are genuinely praiseworthy -- political ideology aside:

    He's intelligent. Clearly, his achievements reveal that Barack Obama possesses intellectual credentials that would impress even the snootiest resume snob. But (perhaps more importantly) he also possesses street smarts. As Hillary Clinton can testify, he knows how to throw a punch as well as how to take one. He is able to size up people accurately. What's more, he respects "real world" intelligence, a quality that's all-too-rare among those with stellar academic records - but one that's vital to someone in public life who must rely on the assistance of an extensive staff. ...

    He's colorblind. When Barack became the first African-American President of The Harvard Law Review, it was big news. More radical black Review editors urged him not only to take controversial stands on a whole host of racial issues - they also pressured him to use his discretion to elevate black students to leadership positions within the organization. Barack declined to do so; though his choices were often left-wing (as, in fairness, was much of the Review's membership), they weren't race-conscious.

    From an arch-cconservative before the knives came out....

    [ Parent ]

    but (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by connecticut yankee on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 04:45:54 PM EST
    But why should anyone respect your opinion? Youve been trolling this site spewing anti-obama hate for some time.

    I mean, I'd get more accurate info from my dog.

    [ Parent ]

    I have? (1.00 / 1) (#133)
    by patriotgames on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 04:59:45 PM EST
    I started coming to this site less than a month ago...

    "For some time" implies a long time.....

    [ Parent ]

    "For some time" means (none / 0) (#136)
    by coigue on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 05:05:24 PM EST
    you have managed to make yourself a reputation in a trollish sort of way...since you first came here

    [ Parent ]
    Wait the media (none / 0) (#119)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 04:16:00 PM EST
    Also said Hillary was the first woman to win a presidential primary, but this lie stood unchallenged as well-- or were you just as angry about the media making that one up?

    [ Parent ]
    Well (none / 0) (#129)
    by Steve M on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 04:46:19 PM EST
    that was actually true.

    [ Parent ]
    yeah, if he was the first black (none / 0) (#66)
    by coigue on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 01:47:22 PM EST
    editor as late as 1992 (or whenever), then the HLR would be a pretty racist rag, no? Given that MEMBERS are called editors.

    [ Parent ]
    Actually (none / 0) (#151)
    by kaleidescope on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 07:19:48 PM EST
    Obama himself says he was the first black HLR president in the introduction to his autobiography, Dreams of My Father.  He does so in explaining how it was that he was asked to write the book.

    [ Parent ]
    Healthy Skepticism (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 02:09:02 PM EST
    After clicking on the link you provide, I just wanted to share some thoughts: Obama's campaign website indicates he was the first President of the Law Review, not editor. Many -- both pro & con Obama --  have been confusing the two for months -- perhaps because they haven't had the pleasure of going to law school.  In addition, the linked article claims Obama wrote only one "heavily edited" and "unsigned" note. Almost all law school students' articles for law reviews are heavily edited, as are many articles accepted for publication from experienced professionals and faculty; and, to my knowledge, notes written for law reviews are not signed.  If there is a practice at some law reviews that notes are "signed," I am unaware of it. Perhaps what is meant here is that authorship of the note was not attributed to Obama? I'm not saying there is no reason to be a skeptic, just that healthy skepticism should rest on a fair assessment of the "information."  

    [ Parent ]
    No bylines for "Notes" (5.00 / 0) (#97)
    by MKS on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 03:03:21 PM EST
    Articles do have bylines--but then again most of them are penned by law professors, etc....

    All "Notes" are heavily edited....That is what a "Notes" editor does....

    [ Parent ]

    Actually (none / 0) (#153)
    by kaleidescope on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 07:22:19 PM EST
    Students never write articles for law reviews.  They edit the articles written by professors, judges and other legal professionals.

    [ Parent ]
    I didn't like the macho goading... (5.00 / 0) (#27)
    by magster on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 11:53:32 AM EST
    until now.  It does look cowardly to release an attack like this less than two days after a debate when everyone knew McCain was going to make this an issue.  This makes McCain look like someone who throws sucker punches from the safety of his hate rallies.

    Alternatively (none / 0) (#34)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 12:06:46 PM EST
    Obama could go as gutter as McCain and just hit him on honor (he'll blow his top if we do I'd guess)-

    "John McCain says he's an honorable man- Does an honor