Baiting McCain: "Say It To My Face"

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 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    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?

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

    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.

    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.

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

    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.

    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???

    The results. (5.00 / 2) (#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.


    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.


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

    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.


    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.)


    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.


    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...


    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.  

    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...


    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.

    It Actually Works on Another Level (5.00 / 0) (#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.

    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.


    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.


    I'd like Obama to (1.00 / 0) (#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.

    Ha. There is some credibility (2.00 / 0) (#168)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 09:06:24 PM EST
    in your theory.

    McCain sending out Cindy McCain (5.00 / 0) (#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.

    It is somewhat refreshing to (5.00 / 1) (#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.

    Except she was full of s$%t (5.00 / 2) (#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.

    I'm not admiring the content. Just (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 03:20:13 PM EST
    the show of spunkiness.

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

    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.


    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.

    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

    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.

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


    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.

    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....

    Guys always think that, huh? (1.00 / 1) (#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?


    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!


    Well... (5.00 / 0) (#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.


    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?  


    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.  

    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.


    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.


    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.  

    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 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 honorable man abandon the crippled mother of his children for a hot young thing?"

    "John McCain says he's an honorable man- Does an honorable man hire the man who attacked his kids?"

    "John McCain says he's honorable man- how come half his friends are crooks- list Cunningham, AZ Congressman who was his state chair, Keating, etc."

    "John McCain claims to be an honorable man, yet
    he associates with felons who tried to overturn democracy in America, and called for the death of federal agents) play Liddy clip- the actual audio is very striking)."

    If McCain goes Rezko: "John McCain claims to think getting money from Rezko is wrong, yet he himself lives off the funds of a Mob Felon (Cindy's dad convicted Felon and Chicago Mob associate- seriously its kind of wierd but its very, blatant and very confirmed)"

    And frankly if we were as ugly as McCain we'd run this ad with the footage:

    "John McCain says he's an honorable man, does honorable man denounce America: [Footage of McCain in North Vietnamese propaganda videos]"


    Whoops (none / 0) (#35)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 12:07:30 PM EST
    This was supposed to be under the oculus comment above this one.

    More Effective (none / 0) (#154)
    by kaleidescope on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 07:24:06 PM EST
    If McCain himself is afraid to bring up Ayers in the next debate, Obama can simply say, "Hey, I noticed your womenfolk talking trash about me.  Is there anything you yourself would care to say to my face?"

    The moderator will bring it up (none / 0) (#165)
    by Salo on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 08:44:23 PM EST
    McCain will not have to.

    By the time of the next debate the RW pundits will be screaming about Ayers and Obama will be asked a few questions about Ayers here and there and he'll blow them off.


    Womenfolk? (none / 0) (#184)
    by sj on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 10:34:30 AM EST
    McCain and Liddy (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Nevart on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 11:54:02 AM EST
    I asked this before but perhaps I was deleted.

    When is some good person going to do a Web ad about McCain's close connections to G. Gordon Liddy of Watergate infamy who, among other things, has advocated the assassination of Federal law-enforcement officials.  And is completely unrepentant about it.

    I'd add his relationship to Henry K... (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 11:59:20 AM EST
    ...to the list.  Some consider him to be war criminal.  



    Oh, but all the candidates are (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 12:05:34 PM EST
    citing the "good" Dr. now.  Amazing.

    And its on tape (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 12:09:34 PM EST
    Of Course there's also the fact that Liddy did far more to destroy our country than Ayers ever did (sorry, but when you get right down to it, nutters setting off bombs doesn't threaten America as a nation, breaking into DNC headquarters in order to subvert Democracy does.)

    You've got to be kidding. (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 03:26:52 PM EST
    Was anyone physically harmed, much less killed, as a result of the Watergate break-in?  

    No (none / 0) (#123)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 04:18:30 PM EST
    Was America as nation ever threatened by the Weathermen? (And yes Watergate did threaten us as a nation-- the attack against democracy that it wasa part of strikes at the very core of our Democracy.)

    Socratic, for sure. I totally (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 04:24:03 PM EST

    well (none / 0) (#190)
    by connecticut yankee on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 04:46:50 PM EST
    LIddy was unstable and is a convicted felon. He plotted all kinds of bizarre attacks on americans for the Nixon administration.  He was only given the green light for a few but he's a thug.  Only a thug would support him.

    You haven't been watching Olbermann, (none / 0) (#29)
    by scribe on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 11:58:13 AM EST
    then, have you?

    McCain will have . . . (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Doc Rock on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 01:12:54 PM EST
    . . . yet more late October progressive-sounding surprises to spring--of course they all will have gimmicks hidden for ripping off the US taxpayer to even further enrich the filthy rich at the cost of the working class.

    We're nearing the endgame... (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by mike in dc on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 01:17:22 PM EST
    ...and Obama has two rooks and a queen to McCain's bishop-rook-knight combo.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    stoooopid. (5.00 / 1) (#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."

    What a suprise (5.00 / 3) (#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.

    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?

    Finally (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by robrecht on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 01:35:27 PM EST
    Obama grows a pair.  Maybe he'll even start talking about HOLC and be man enough to credit Hillary et al.

    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.

    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.


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



    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.

    Who? Link? (none / 0) (#179)
    by Steve M on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 08:11:22 AM EST
    Let's think about THIS (1.00 / 4) (#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??

    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....


    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.

    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.


    I am so glad patriotgames (5.00 / 0) (#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!


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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....


    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.


    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.....


    "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

    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?

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

    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.

    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.

    Um the Death Toll is a major difference (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 01:43:01 PM EST
    That and the modus operandi- Its like asking what's the difference between, Osama Bin Laden, and Richard Reid.

    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."  

    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....


    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.

    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?

    Ayers has admitted making (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 03:28:29 PM EST
    explosive devices for WeatherUnderground, whose members killed people with explosive devices.  Some of those killed were law enforcement officers.  

    What? (none / 0) (#109)
    by CST on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 03:40:23 PM EST
    I heard from various sources that one police officer was injured, and 3 weatherunderground members were killed making bombs.  What police officers were killed?

    By various sources (none / 0) (#110)
    by CST on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 03:43:26 PM EST
    I mean my parents, people here, and things read online.  So if you have real sources I will believe yours over mine quickly.  There is just a lot of stuff being thrown around right now it's hard to know what to believe.

    Google and watch (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by oldpro on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 04:14:14 PM EST
    Weather Underground documentary...it's a beginning...

    And I recommend Cathy Wilkerson's book "Flying Too Close to the Sun" about her days in the Weather Underground.  You can read an account from the book on NPR's website...she was in the house which blew up and killed 3 of her compatriots, including Bill Ayres girlfriend, and miraculously escaped with one other woman.

    It is compelling reading.


    NYT: (none / 0) (#113)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 03:52:32 PM EST
    Didn't know about the one death (none / 0) (#117)
    by CST on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 04:05:52 PM EST
    Although it appears they weren't involved in the later bombing.  And it's not entirely clear what happened with the others.

    I get it though, he was rich so he probably got away with orchestrating a murder.  That being said, since he got away with it, we don't know how guilty he really was.  I am a little bit wary of assigning guilt to an assumption or to his intentions - the difference between a murder and manslaughter.

    All that being said, I agree that Ayers is a bad guy, I don't agree that he is as bad as Tim McVeigh (oldpro - I get that's not what you meant, just saying there is still a big difference in my mind).


    Well, I guess Ayers is succeeding (5.00 / 3) (#120)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 04:16:37 PM EST
    in the court of public opinion, at least at Talk Left.  Amazing.

    How? (5.00 / 0) (#127)
    by CST on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 04:34:34 PM EST
    Because I don't presume guilt?  I don't presume innocence either.

    I don't agree with what he did, I don't agree with what his intentions were, whether they were blowing up buildings or killing people.  I don't agree with false equivalency either, and I don't think the difference between the two men is marginal.  That doesn't mean I support Ayers.


    A general observation--not (none / 0) (#137)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 05:07:29 PM EST
    specific to you.

    Public Opinion? (none / 0) (#194)
    by squeaky on Sun Oct 12, 2008 at 12:18:00 PM EST
    Well not all prosecutors hold as harsh judgements as you apparently do. Ayers own prosecutor is pleased that Ayers is a productive citizen today.

    As the lead federal prosecutor of the Weathermen in the 1970s (I was then chief of the criminal division in the Eastern District of Michigan and took over the Weathermen prosecution in 1972), I am amazed and outraged that Senator Barack Obama is being linked to William Ayers's terrorist activities 40 years ago when Mr. Obama was, as he has noted, just a child.

    Although I dearly wanted to obtain convictions against all the Weathermen, including Bill Ayers, I am very pleased to learn that he has become a responsible citizen.



    OK....got your message. (none / 0) (#121)
    by oldpro on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 04:17:43 PM EST
    "as bad as" could make for an endless discussion of ranking the bad people...not the best use of my time, since at 72 and somtimes ailing, I don't know how much of it I have left!  Hate to waste it except in short, entertaining timeouts.

    The people (none / 0) (#124)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 04:21:28 PM EST
    that were killed by the Weather Underground bombings were exclusively members of the WU, the other person the WU killed was an off-duty police officer in a robbery that occured after Ayers turned himself in.

    Bill Ayers (3.00 / 2) (#57)
    by eric on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 01:33:55 PM EST
    is a well respected college professor, and a one time Chicago Citizen of the Year.  Ayers never killed anyone.  Ayers was a radical leftist who belonged to a group that acted out of a concern for racial justice and opposition to the Vietnam war.

    McVeigh was an ignorant right wing nut-job who sympathized with other right-wing nut jobs who were in a cult in Waco.  McVeigh killed a bunch of innocent people in Oklahoma because he was mad that the ATF raided the Waco cult.

    Pretty big difference.

    Ayers was lucky! Had the caper gone down (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by hairspray on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 01:45:59 PM EST
    a little differently, he might be sitting in jail now and never met Obama. OTOH just because he was a lefty radical bent on fereting out injustice does not make him a hero. What I don't understand is how he got the job in Chicago.  There are an awful lot of petty criminals who try to turn their lives around and cannot because the system denies them opportunities to do so.

    He may not be a hero (5.00 / 0) (#67)
    by CST on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 01:48:30 PM EST
    But he is no Timothy McVeigh.  Two completely different ball games.  I don't know how anyone who saw the pictures after Oklahoma City could argue otherwise.  It is essentially saying that the lives of those people were not as significant as the building they were in.

    Bombing is bombing. it was easy to say (none / 0) (#146)
    by hairspray on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 07:01:03 PM EST
    that he didn't intend to hurt anyone after the caper fizzled.  Not only is he not a hero he is a terrorist.  It is just the degree of damage. And Timothy McVeigh is not relevant here.  How about the people who bomb abortion clinics?  What are they?

    Gimme a break (5.00 / 0) (#71)
    by eric on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 02:01:18 PM EST
    Ayers was lucky and had his charges dropped.  But the other members, including his wife, that turned themselves in got probation and fines.  (BTW, his wife is a law professor at Northwestern).

    Trying to make Ayers into some kind of "terrorist" on par with McVeigh is ridiculous.


    McVeigh was an unconnected bum. (5.00 / 0) (#75)
    by Salo on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 02:06:32 PM EST
    Ayers had his wealthy dad to hide behind. I continue to think that Ayers merely struck the pose of a radical--in order to bed attractive looking counterculture women.  To impress Dohrn for example.  That's why the whole thing with Ayers and Obama is so Ironically funny.

    Few were more radical or (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by oldpro on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 02:16:45 PM EST
    ready to 'kill the pigs' than Dohrn.  She only became Ayers' girlfriend and wife after the NY bomb killed Ayers' then-girlfriend and two others...by mistake, of course.

    No one is trying to compare him with (none / 0) (#147)
    by hairspray on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 07:03:49 PM EST
    McVeigh.  They were both terrorists. Just different kinds. One was extremely effective at killing innocent people and the other, not.  Actually I wonder why the right wing wants to use this guy to skewer Obama.  Rev Wright is more recent and to me a more harmful person.

    I suspect they have something concrete. (none / 0) (#161)
    by Salo on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 08:34:56 PM EST
    Or more concrete to base accusations on. They really might have something that links to the two in some odd fashion that we have not yet heard about--literary style for example (snark).  The entire Rightwing Wurlitzer is starting to gear up and they reckon they can sink Obama with this story somehow.

    Frankly I think it is too late (none / 0) (#175)
    by hairspray on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 12:11:01 AM EST
    The financial mess has really hit the fan now and there can be no doubt that the GOP really is much more culpable than the Dems in this.  Personally the Democrats aren't exactly pure as the driven snow, but the GOP has had all three branches of the gov't for a long enough period to have their fingerprints all over everything.

    He was fortunate enough to have (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 03:30:20 PM EST
    a well-connected, wealthy father who forgave him.  Not sure what Univ. of Illinois-Chicago was thinking, but, then again, Angela Davis taught at UCSD>  

    It seems to me (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Steve M on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 04:02:51 PM EST
    that most of the prominent radicals from the 60s had the good fortune to come from means.  It's kind of ironic, in that you'd expect the have-nots would be the one seeking to tear down the institutions of society... then again, I'm led to believe that the fundamentalist Islamic terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda get most of their recruits from the middle class of the Arab world, so maybe it's not so unusual.

    I frankly have no idea how a guy like Ayers gets mainstreamed and readmitted into polite society without ever repenting his radicalism, but it's pretty clear to me that he has in fact been mainstreamed.  I mean, Mayor Daley doesn't seem to be embarrassed in the slightest by his association with Ayers, and the good Mayor is no left-wing radical.  So I guess it's one of society's little oddities.


    bin Laden's family is also (none / 0) (#122)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 04:18:29 PM EST
    extremely wealthy.  Maybe Ayers' Dad was a big donor to Dem. causes in Chicago?  Who knows.

    and Bin Laden's family (none / 0) (#138)
    by of1000Kings on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 05:08:50 PM EST
    has spent time at Bush's ranch...

    I guess that makes Bush a terrorist..but we already knew that considering what he's doing in the middle east..


    Well no, the idea is that ... (none / 0) (#162)
    by Salo on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 08:37:03 PM EST
    ...they want the public to think that Obama is a socialist or even a Trotskyite.

    America does not elect openly socialist pols very often.

    It's a fairly solid bet they are making in broad ideological terms.


    sounds a lot like our (none / 0) (#108)
    by of1000Kings on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 03:33:57 PM EST
    current President...

    Three Reasons (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 04:26:13 PM EST
    1. He was never convicted-- he was obviously guilty, but without a conviction he didn't suffer the attendant employment consequences.

    2. He's from Money, its the same way a guy who was a drunk until he hit 40, can become a millionaire governor by 50 or so, money's like an unending stream of second chances.

    3. He actually seems to be a decent scholar, brains can get you a ways in life even if you were scum at one point, they're like a lesser version of money. (see: Virtually every 60s radical who didn't trade directly on their cachet for a Prof. slot, oh and Von Braun).

    He was a poseur radical. (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by Salo on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 02:04:16 PM EST
    But that's also the problem with Obama too.

    It looks right-on and radical but it was counter productive stuff.  You could argue that assasination is meaningless too in the modern world but what they did looked even more pathetic. Suppose they'd actually gunned down Nixon or Kissinger in 1969? Suppose for a moment they had actually acted like Lenin or Trotksy in real time?


    Good questions, Salo. (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by oldpro on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 02:10:23 PM EST
    And...it doesn't get much more counter-productive than one of your bombs killing your own girlfriend.

    Talk about bad karma. (Hers.  Not his).


    I see your (none / 0) (#84)
    by eric on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 02:19:32 PM EST
    point.  It also makes it especially ridiculous considering the outrage that people have about this terribly dangerous terrorist, Bill Ayers!

    Well, no....actually (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by oldpro on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 02:25:43 PM EST
    'the point' is more complicated than that:

    While Ayres may have been a poseur as a radical, Bernadette Dohrn wasn't.  You can look it up.


    Bernardine...not Bernadette (none / 0) (#100)
    by oldpro on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 03:11:22 PM EST
    sheesh....more coffee...

    Can you explain more about... (none / 0) (#135)
    by prose on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 05:04:25 PM EST
    what you mean by "but that's the problem with Obama too..."?

    I think Obama has... (none / 0) (#163)
    by Salo on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 08:39:32 PM EST
    ...hoodwinked the left in the US. He's only in this for the fat book deals and speaking fee's he knows are coming his way.  Ayers was all about nailing hot hippy chic ass and showing off how smart he was.

    Oh, I can play too (none / 0) (#174)
    by prose on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 11:46:07 PM EST
    let's try this - you aren't really a serious political thinker or blog participant - you are just in it for the PUMA recs.

    See, I don't really know that that is true either, but its fun to just say shallow crap, isn't it?


    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?

    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.

    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.  

    and McCain should say (none / 0) (#1)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 10:08:15 AM EST
    Talk about the Keating 5 to my face.  

    He should (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 10:13:26 AM EST
    and Obama should say it to his face if challenged.

    That would be quite entertaining (5.00 / 6) (#10)
    by scribe on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 10:46:03 AM EST
    b/c first, you can be sure Obama has internalized a good chunk of the chronology (particularly as McCain's dealings with Keating were one of the proximate causes of the last great banking meltdown) and McCain's behavior patterns haven't changed a bit.

    Second, b/c in replying to a Keating 5 chronology, McCain will either dodder and start reconfiguring history, or outright lie.  Either one of those will redound to his detriment and Obama's benefit.

    Moving along - I want to know why OBama and his campaign haven't picked up on a very simple and easily communicated concept, vis-a-vis McCain's deregulatory fervor.  It is one of the things drilled into middies at Annapolis (among other places):

    "[Safety] Regulations are written in blood."

    Anyone who's ever been in the military knows that safety regulations are written in the blood of people who, ignorantly or intentionally, went and did something which proved unsafe.  The regulations are there to prevent further bloodshed from repeating the same stupidities.  

    The same principle (the blood being more or less metaphorical) applies to banking and economic regulations.  They exist because we found out during past economic downturns that, if we allow X to go on, bad things will happen.  People will be starving in the street and so on.  When we take those regulations away, we are guaranteeing (greed being what it is) that people will go into those economically-unsafe areas and hurt themselves and others.

    Simple concept.  Easily understood.  No reason not to use it.


    I couldn't agree more. (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by indy in sc on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 10:48:50 AM EST
    I'm not a big fan of the Keating Five line of attack, but at least it is an actual part of McCain's legislative record involving the misuse of his office.  I would put that up any day against a line of attack that involves the supposed "bad judgement" of sitting on a board with a college professor.

    I would like to see the argument as well (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 11:07:11 AM EST
    because it is apropos.   Being that McCain is maverratic, I hope he does.

    Yep. (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by coigue on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 11:17:38 AM EST
    And it could be very effective in reminding older people about the last meltdown during a Republican administration.

    For the life of me, I cannot understand why Reagan is not remembered more for this.

    Oh yeah, the effective Republican noise machine.

    (I almost forgot, seeing as the media seems to favor us, for once)


    Intent is very important (none / 0) (#53)
    by CST on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 01:28:19 PM EST
    And as far as I am aware, it was never Ayers' intent to kill anyone.  All the buildings blown up were empty.  I would say that was very intentional.

    And yes, the scale and targets matter a lot.

    Intent...I agree, it's important. (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by oldpro on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 02:00:31 PM EST
    I don't know for sure what Ayer's intent was re killing Amerians with the bombs the Weathermen planted but I'll take Dorhn at her word...yes, she intended to kill Americans to teach us a lesson about the Vietnamese who were being killed in the war.  (See the documentary on The Weathermen)

    The only deaths attributed to the Weathermen (for sure) were the three Ayers/Dorhn compatriots in New York, working on another bomb.  One of them was Bill Ayers girlfriend at the time...Diana Oughton.

    Those of us in the anti-war movement who lived through those years did not empathize with Ayers and the Weather Underground's tactics re violence in overthrowing the government.

    We were in the opposite camp with Martin Luther King.  Still are.


    It's fine to dislike Ayers (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by CST on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 02:10:18 PM EST
    Or even think of him as a bad person.  But I'm sorry, he is not in the same league as those other guys, no matter how you frame it.  If it truly was their intent to kill people they did a pretty terrible job of it and also bombed the wrong buildings at the wrong times.  Whatever they were going for, it wasn't a pre-school.

    I understand why people dislike Ayers, he was bad for the true movement, and his tactics were deplorable.  But you can't equate hundreds of people to a building.


    No one is 'equating' (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by oldpro on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 02:21:02 PM EST
    anything...no one but you, anyhow.

    By my raising questions, the intent is to make you think...and perhaps even do some research on a topic about which you evidently know little, but assume much.  Too much.


    You were equating (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by CST on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 02:27:05 PM EST
    By asking what the difference was, I just answered what the difference is.

    What do I not know and assume?  What have I said that was false?  Please correct me where I am wrong but don't insinuate that I am without backing it up.  I admit this isn't my area of expertise, but I have been asking questions in an effort to inform myself.  If I am mistaken I want to be corrected, but I am not making these assumptions based on nothing.


    CST....when I ask a student (none / 0) (#111)
    by oldpro on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 03:47:39 PM EST
    to tell me the difference between 'hot' and 'cold' or 'hot' and 'too hot,' I am NOT equating them.

    RE informing ourselves, good for you for asking.  It's pretty complex but you get get a glimpse of history or a good look via feature-film-length 93 minutes of documentary on the Weather Underground by googling the Weather Underground documentary...you can watch the 10 min into or the 93 min feature-length film which brings it all back...for me at least.

    You get to decide...as we did back then...choose a side:  MLK or smug radicals with bombs, money and connections but little else...although some like Ayres and Dohrn had phenomenal luck, as it turned out.


    how long is it before (none / 0) (#92)
    by of1000Kings on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 02:33:21 PM EST
    just protesting America's policies makes you a terrorist..

    the slippery-slope argument that the Repubs like to use so much (as Palin used it in her debate re: gay civil rights)...


    Actually, they're (none / 0) (#112)
    by oldpro on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 03:51:58 PM EST
    photographing my friends and neighbors right now when they demonstrate at the local US Navy ammunition depot...(which, BTW, I actually CAN see from my house!  Can I run for VP?)

    Is a difference the goal? (none / 0) (#74)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 02:06:18 PM EST
    The goal of the Weather underground was never to destroy the uS (I think).  I thought it was to fight for minority rights, against Veitnam.  McVey's goal was to start some sort of revolution to destroy the US (I think).  

    But in truth who cares.  The thing that matters is to stop the decline of this country and the unemployment rates so we don't have more people joining crazy organizations like above.

    Yes they were interested (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by Salo on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 02:09:26 PM EST
    in overthorwing the US government.  If they had attracted a mass following like Lenin they 'd have probably tried a coup of some sort eventually.  On the whole Dohrn and Ayers and their group looked a bit unconvincing as a Bolshevik type organization ready to take power.  They were quite unserious people if you look at effective revolutionaries.

    well (none / 0) (#131)
    by connecticut yankee on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 04:51:20 PM EST
    Ayers was never convicted and the weathermen were a joke, they tried to avoid killing people and blew themselves up.

    Also, dont forget convicted felon G Gordon Liddy, McCains good buddy.  He did more to undermine american democracy than any of those folks.

    From our point of view of course... (none / 0) (#164)
    by Salo on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 08:40:53 PM EST
    ...liddy was a devil. He helped give Nixon a second term.

    Historical perspective... (none / 0) (#134)
    by prose on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 05:02:49 PM EST
    Honestly, that's it.  When judging the ethics of violence just about the only filter that you can use is one of historical perspective/context.  

    Objectively we can put Ayers, McVeigh, Bin Laden, and George Washington in the same category if we ignore filters like scope, intent, and outcome.  If we do take those things into account, than we have to judge each category by our particular historical perspective.  

    Ultimately it all takes us to the same place.

    Deconstruction FTW!

    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.

    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!  

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

    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.


    Indeed. (5.00 / 1) (#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.    


    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.

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

    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?

    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.

    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.