Mike Murphy Could Be Obama's Salvation

Who is Mike Murphy? Well you have seen him bloviating on Meet the Press all the time as the GOP operative though he has always operated as sort of a "maverick" GOP operative. So why do I say he could be Obama's salvation? Because the NYTimes says he advised McCain to do this:

Mr. Murphy urged him to tone down his attacks on Mr. Obama and stop coming across as so angry. He recommended that Mr. McCain concentrate on running as a reform candidate to strip that issue from Mr. Obama . . .

More . .

Of course Murphy gave the DUH advice that McCain should distance himself from George Bush. But the toning down his attacks on Obama part is terrible advice for McCain. McCain needs to make Obama the issue in the campaign, just as George Bush made John Kerry the issue in the last Presidential campaign.

And as for "reform" as the magic bullet issue, this is the biggest shibboleth in the history of politics. Reform NEVER wins an election. EVER. And this one is no different. Obama will argue day after day that McCain is running for Bush's third term. McCain should argue that Obama is running for Jimmy Carter's second term. That Obama is Carter, Kerry, and Dukakis in a better package. But Mike Murphy does not get that. Mike Murphy thinks he is Bruno Gianelli.

In the end, most people vote against a candidate, not for one. This is a Democratic year. John McCain needs voters to vote against Barack Obama if he is going to have a chance to win.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me as a political pundit only. I hope fervently McCain brings Mike Murphy on to steer his ship. Murphy is the Republican Bob Shrum, he never wins elections.

Comments closed

< Full Body Scanning Comes to Denver Airport | Indiana Jones Movie and Karen Allen >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    As far (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 24, 2008 at 12:43:50 PM EST
    as the advice goes from Murphy he could be giving McCain the right advice. The 527's could handle everything else. And they are already starting and they are very rough on Obama.

    It's going to be a repeat of 2004, imo, with Obama. He's going to be Kerry with more baggage. The GOP thinks they have a very good chance of an EC college blowout against him. Even the simulations only give Obama a very slim chance of winning in Nov. Remember demographics are destiny and Obama doesn't have those.

    that is not how I interpreted Murphy;s advice (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 24, 2008 at 12:54:29 PM EST
    and the article does not say leave it to the 527s.

    Fair enough (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:17:33 PM EST
    However, I think that it could have just been left unsaid in the article.

    Obama on the other hand (none / 0) (#77)
    by talex on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:20:30 PM EST
    is discouraging Dem 527's. Smart eh?

    527's (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by cmugirl on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:25:24 PM EST
    Do you think Obama is really discouraging Dem 527s? I mean honestly - am I the only suspicious one?  

    I believe there are hush-hush conversations in the background.  It gives Obama plausible deniability, all the while, he's actually calling the shots.


    Move on (none / 0) (#108)
    by CognitiveDissonance on Sat May 24, 2008 at 02:25:53 PM EST
    There are already dem 527's running against McCain. I just saw an extremely sleazy one by Move-on.org a couple of days ago equating a very tenuous connection someone on McCain's staff supposedly had with the Kmer Rouge (sp?). Quite frankly, it outraged me and I'm no McCain supporter. This ad was far worse than the Swift Boat ad run against Kerry. I can't help but think this is going to backfire big time. If I'm outraged, I can just imagine what the wingnuts will be saying about it and how it will rally their disillusioned supporters. Particularly since most people are turned off by Move-on anyway.

    Move On (none / 0) (#128)
    by Emma on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:34:35 PM EST
    Move On have always seemed like amateurs to me.  It's why I never joined.  So I'm not suprised to hear you don't think much of their attack ad.  How does Obama ever win on biography?  And, who really cares about the Khmer Rouge at this point?

    Also, I thought Obama had dissed Move On more than once?  Or might that just be political cover?  Or are my conspiracy theories overwhelming my brain?


    Link (none / 0) (#178)
    by delandjim on Sat May 24, 2008 at 05:01:31 PM EST
    Do you have a link to see it? I looked on their website and didn't see it.

    I'd Like To See A Link Too (none / 0) (#180)
    by daring grace on Sat May 24, 2008 at 05:10:15 PM EST
    Or is it their ad about McCain operative (and lobbyist) Charlie Black and his ties to corrupt dictators who torture their own people?

    That was the only ad that looked relevant.


    The Article Doesn't (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by talex on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:19:29 PM EST
    have to mention 527's. GOP 527's are a given - they are going to happen and they will be coordinated in one way or another.

    I think McCain has been effective. (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by masslib on Sat May 24, 2008 at 12:48:54 PM EST
    He doesn't come across as too harsh on Obama.

    As mentioned... (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Marco21 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:01:55 PM EST
    McCain took a nasty swipe at Obama regarding veterans and his vote on the benefits bill and it seemed effective to me.

    McCain is going to use his service record to deflect any attacks in this area and the press is going to let him get away with it every time. It won't matter if Obama is right. Barack's campaign needs to take a new road or find a way to level the playing field in this area. Maybe bringing up the overwhelming support he (and Hillary, too) has among servicemen in Iraq and Iraqi war vets will do this.

    I dunno?

    I thought (none / 0) (#129)
    by Emma on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:36:21 PM EST
    McCain was against the benefits bill.  How does he win a fight with Obama over that?  Details, please?

    He was for another version. (none / 0) (#182)
    by Marco21 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 05:17:06 PM EST
    I want to say Lindsay Graham's but honestly not sure. The bill he supported was weaker but it's not as if he didn't weigh his partisan options and cannot argue he didn't "support the troops."

    As much as it makes me gag, that's his argument and his slams against Obama over the vote have been all over the news.  


    Yeah, I think McCain (none / 0) (#193)
    by Emma on Sat May 24, 2008 at 06:12:19 PM EST
    beat him on this one.  McCain's response hits all the high points:

    McCain's service to country
    McCain's experience in combat
    Obama's lack of patriotism
    Obama's tendency to lecture
    McCain as independent political maverick
    Obama practicing attack politics from the safety of the Senate floor


    When McCain is up against either Dem (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Dadler on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:13:19 PM EST
    He will be revealed for the utterly empty, uninspiring, hypocritical, unimaginative, malevolent person he is.  This is a man who has said he's happy for us to be in Iraq for a hundred years (oh, yes yes, he amended that to mean as long as Americans weren't fighting and dying...WTF is he talking about???).  Only fraud or utter incompetence will grant McCain a victory.  Now, that could very well be the incompetence of the American people, as well, but I'm not quite that cynical yet.  Let McCain do whatever he wants, none of it will save him from the bullying anti-intellectual he is.  McCain's own words and actions speak loudly, are ready ammunition for Hillary or/and Obama, and all the Dem nominee needs to do is, gasp, address the needs OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.  And, first and foremost, the American People need this useless war to be over IMMEDIATELY.  Without that, there is no money for ANYTHING.  Period.  A smidgen of genuine creativity, humor, quick intellect, will bury McCain.  Bury him.

    Then again, as to the fraud part of the electoral equation, I sadly am that cynical, and we really have no reason to trust our votes will be accurately counted and recorded, so this voting nonsense could all be moot.  Go to BlackBoxVoting and get the info and donate to help.

    Who's going to do the revealing? (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:15:10 PM EST
    McCain & Murphy (none / 0) (#73)
    by squeaky on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:19:18 PM EST
    And the big BushCo target on both their backs.

    BIll Clinton. (none / 0) (#79)
    by oculus on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:20:51 PM EST
    No, he has been marginalized by Obama. (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by alexei on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:47:35 PM EST
    You would be right if Obama had not done that.  Now, no one will be able to do it.  Why do you think the GOP is already salivating about a "blow out" in the EC?

    Dems are lemmings if they go down the path of Obama.


    During 2004 (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by Josey on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:27:08 PM EST
    Obama was on the campaign trail railing against Congress funding the war. A few months later he was in the Senate voting to fund the war.
    True - nothing much can be done about health care until war costs are decreased. But I see no urgency from Obama on health care since he's used rightwing talking points to discourage it.

    Of course all this discussion (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:31:46 PM EST
    is relevant if Obama is the nominee.  

    Lets hope this is a fruitless discussion (none / 0) (#95)
    by ajain on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:47:38 PM EST
    But McCain's weakness (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by eleanora on Sat May 24, 2008 at 02:15:21 PM EST
    is his temper, even the media admits that he gets riled up and a bit unstable now and then. If our side can spark it without getting caught, we might get somewhere. McCain can only go angry against Obama in response to an attack, imo; he can't go too much on the offensive without bringing up the temper question. Calling McCain names, like McInsane and McNasty and McOld, is going to be seen as an attack and is just stupid, because that gives him permission to return fire.

    He needs to be welded to Bush and the 100 years war, until no one can see him separately. But carefully, gently, respectfully, "Oh sure, he's a Great Guy, Honorable Opponent, but he's got the wrong ideas for this time," with just a hint about his temper. Attacking him personally will just solidify the public and the media behind him. Very dangerous time for us, and I hope Obama's got moves we haven't seen yet if he's our nominee. I'm not sure McCain can convince voters to vote against Obama by going angry, but I am sure Obama can.

    Googled: McCain and Obama (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by Molly Pitcher on Sat May 24, 2008 at 02:41:06 PM EST
    But The Politico writes this morning that "many top GOP strategists believe (McCain) can defeat Barack Obama -- and by a margin exceeding President Bush's Electoral College victory in 2004."

    Some Republican strategists can envision a scenario in which Obama wins the popular vote but loses in the Electoral College -- he might galvanize Southern black turnout, for example, but still fail to switch a state in the region.

    McCain's advice (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by norris morris on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:18:09 PM EST
    It's bad advice to shut down aggressive challenges to Obama's ties to Ayers,Wright,Farrakhan,Rezko, Rashid,and any subject he has been vulnerable on.

     Obama made remarks on the stump last week that Afghanistan was lost  partly because our Arabic Translators were all in Iraq. Obama obviously  doesn't know that Arabic is NOT spoken in Afghanistan at ALL. He should be challenged to state Exactly what languages are spoken. That his foreign policy expertise is sorely lacking is a no brainer.  He should be seriously challenged on his distortions in creating puffed up Kennedy history to further his own image.

    Kennedy met Krustchev without preparation, and was accompanied to Russsia by Dr. Feelgood who was at the ready with his injections of celebrity amphetamine. Dr. Jacobson was later  in a pack of trouble with the law. Jacobson was responsible for hooking Eddie Fisher [and others]
    with his amphetamine/vitamin shots. Kennedy's debacle with Mr. K. was a lesson he couldn't forget.

    The  Cuban Missile crisis, and the Bay of Pigs were other debacles arising from Kennedy's inexperience.

    With young voters who have no sense of the past these distortions work if unchallenged by historical fact. Obama is puffing up his ability to lead ala Kennedy, and making facts out of total untruths.

    There is a lot to challenge, and if McCain can't get first rate strategy advice on how to differentiate himself and expose Obama's weaknesses, he will lose.

     He should also demand inquiry into BO's thin Bio and exaggerated claims of experience where almost none exist. His behavior on his own Chairmanship of European Affairs where he convened nothing and did less need to be called out. When last asked, BO said, "Well, I was spending my time preparing to run for Pres."  ?????

    He has been allowed to get away with "it was boneheaded" when confronted with his dirty dealings with crook/donor Tony Rezko. And calling a reporter "sweetie", "I'll get to you later" should Never be tolerated.

    The kind of advice McCain is getting is a loser.
    Lacking inquiry,challenge, and aggressive fact seeking with an experienced and resilient campaign team against Obama is a serious mistake.

    It's ripe for plucking.

    OK (1.00 / 2) (#186)
    by squeaky on Sat May 24, 2008 at 05:25:10 PM EST
    It is always a sure test of character to see how someone acts when they are given power, even minimal power. Most abuse it, and you seem to be no exception.  

    is not self restraint a form of power? (none / 0) (#188)
    by english teacher on Sat May 24, 2008 at 05:28:08 PM EST
    please use yours.  you are clearly off topic and violating the comment limit.  thank you and have a nice day.  

    So who was behind McCain's (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Sat May 24, 2008 at 12:42:14 PM EST
    statement smacking down Obama on the veterans' benefits bill?  Quite effective, I thought.

    This is (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 24, 2008 at 12:44:54 PM EST
    depressing. McCain always gets the better in an exchange with Obama. Obama throws something out there and then tends to slink off the state.

    He still hasn't given an effective response to the Hamas lob.


    If McCain Sees His Way Is Working For Him, (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:46:16 PM EST
    I sincerely doubt he is going to change tactics.
    If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

    Has McCain rushed to Clinton's (none / 0) (#5)
    by oculus on Sat May 24, 2008 at 12:46:25 PM EST
    defense yet on the June/RFK issue?  

    Not that (none / 0) (#49)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:09:21 PM EST
    I know of.

    How is any glimmer (none / 0) (#15)
    by jondee on Sat May 24, 2008 at 12:54:13 PM EST
    of hope that we may not have another 4 years replete with loathsome secret-energy-meeting Enron-humpers, neocons and divinely inspired Rapture-Me-Up types "depressing", pray tell?

    Perhaps (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by ChiTownDenny on Sat May 24, 2008 at 12:56:52 PM EST
    a Democratic Pary that controls Congress, in more numbers than today, will give you peace, if in fact there is a McCain Presidency.

    the problem... (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by p lukasiak on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:07:31 PM EST
    of course is that if Obama is the nominee, every GOP congressional candidate can run against HIM, rather that his democratic opponent.

    People forget that Childers had to act like he'd never heard of Barack Obama in order to win --- when your opponent says that you've been endorsed by the "inevitable" democratic nominee, and you have to put out an ad saying that your opponent attacked you by saying that Obama had endorsed you, there is big trouble.


    And a lot will (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:08:48 PM EST
    But this is a Dem year. We ware going to win the Congress in a landslide.

    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:13:53 PM EST
    McCain could help downticket Dems more than Obama.

    Iraq you mean (none / 0) (#68)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:16:31 PM EST
    No (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:19:26 PM EST
    I mean that there's probably an amount of Dems that will vote for McCain for President but will vote downticket dem. I frankly don't see where Iraq helps Obama much because it also brings up the Commander in Chief issue which he seems to have a real problem with according to the polls.

    CinC (none / 0) (#124)
    by WelshWoman on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:23:17 PM EST
    I can understand the problem over the CinC. Obama is running on good judgement as he does not have the experience. Leaving Rezko, Ayers and Wright to one side, not overly keen on guilt by association.

    My question is simply if he has good judgement to believe the case for the Iraq war wasn't made, then why when it matter did he vote present 130 times. I can understand a couple of decisions like that but 130, where is the evidence of his judgement.


    A Dem year that will not be as big as it should. (none / 0) (#141)
    by alexei on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:52:34 PM EST
    The reason is Obama; McCain will get his base sorted and if enough Dems stay home - not good for pick-ups.

    Stay at homes are more danger to down ticket Dems than McCain or write-in Hillary voters because most likely, those two sets of voters will go back Dem after the President.


    What you freaks some of (2.00 / 4) (#44)
    by jondee on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:08:06 PM EST
    you out so much about Obama -- other than the fact that he's usurped Our Lady's rightful place -- that so many seem to be leaning to McCain?

    Are you worried he's going to give cabinet posts to Bloods and Crips?


    The party is split in two. (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by ChiTownDenny on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:10:58 PM EST
    There's the "new" party and the "old" party.   That's what "freaks" us.  How does any Dem win under those circumstances?

    Mm, just the prospect of 8 more years (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by MarkL on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:11:09 PM EST
    of a Republican in the White House.
    Obama can ruin the party for a generation.

    This si (5.00 / 6) (#66)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:15:32 PM EST
    something that people need to understand:

    There are plenty of voters who have a problem with Obama regardless of Hillary. They don't think he's qualified for POTUS etc.


    Imagine, then, the number of people ... (none / 0) (#157)
    by Tortmaster on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:13:53 PM EST
    ... who think that Hillary is not qualified to be POTUS.

    Personally (5.00 / 8) (#86)
    by Dr Molly on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:26:19 PM EST
    one thing (and there are others) that freaks me out about it is having to listen to more commentary like  yours that seems to go hand-in-hand with the Obama movement. I can only speak for myself but I can't stand to listen anymore to silly stuff like 'Our Lady's rightful place' and 'bloods and crips'.

    I think there are a lot of ... (none / 0) (#158)
    by Tortmaster on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:15:10 PM EST
    ... "Operation Chaos" Republicans out on the blogosphere having fun. Just my opinion.

    Why? (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Dr Molly on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:59:21 PM EST
    You don't like honest answers to questions posed?

    Oh, sorry Palomino! (none / 0) (#105)
    by Dr Molly on Sat May 24, 2008 at 02:19:03 PM EST

    Cabinet posts to Bloods and Crips. No (5.00 / 5) (#102)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 24, 2008 at 02:14:32 PM EST
    Possible VP, Sec. of Defense and State to Republicans. Yes.

    Put long held Democratic values on the table to "play nice" with Republicans. Yes

    I would prefer a inclusive Democratic Party that fights for Democratic values. I am not interested in an Obama party that throws women, senior and the working class under the bus to make room for Republicans. If I wanted an Unity08 party, I would have gotten behind that effort. If I wanted to adopt Republican values, I would be a Republican.

    Also, don't be surprised if the AA community finds itself under the bus with the rest of us if Obama becomes president. He can't make the effort to attend AA functions now. Do you really think he will make any effort later?


    Did You Complain (none / 0) (#110)
    by squeaky on Sat May 24, 2008 at 02:29:10 PM EST
    Or not vote for Bill Clinton who had Bill Cohen as his Secretary of Defense?

    Les Aspin (none / 0) (#111)
    by cmugirl on Sat May 24, 2008 at 02:32:55 PM EST
    was his first Sec of Defense - a DEMOCRAT

    Sure I Complained About A Republican (none / 0) (#112)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 24, 2008 at 02:35:35 PM EST
    as Sec. of Defense. Had Clinton selected a Republican as VP and filled both Sec. of Defense and State with Republicans, I wouldn't have voted for him either.

    Do You Have A Problem (none / 0) (#122)
    by squeaky on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:19:02 PM EST
    Do you have a problem with Hillary's participation in The Fellowship's weekly breakfast prayer meetings. The only other  Dems attending besides Hillary are Lieberman, Nelson and Prior.

    Or With this:

    WASHINGTON - For many years, whenever a Republican senator looked for a Democrat to cosponsor a bill, one name popped immediately to mind - Hillary Clinton, according to South Carolina's senior senator, Lindsey Graham.

    Or this?

    "I'm going to reach out to Republicans, all kinds of Republicans, because I think it's important that we try to have a bipartisan foreign policy," [snip]

    "I have very strong convictions about what we should do, but I'm going to listen to and enlist Republicans, as well as Democrats, not only elected ones but distinguished Americans of both parties."

    [snip] "We need to try to have a bipartisan government. We've got to restore confidence and competence to the American government."

    Google Is Your Friend (5.00 / 3) (#135)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:47:17 PM EST
    Evidently The Fellowship prayer meeting is an Obama approved function.

    Coe's group, "the Fellowship," reportedly shuns publicity while focusing on ministering to those in power in the United States and around the world.  In Washington, D.C., Coe sponsors a weekly Senate prayer breakfast and an annual National Prayer Breakfast regularly attended by U.S. presidents.

    But if Clinton has a Coe problem, then it seems Obama would also: a quick call to the Obama campaign elicited a confirmation that the junior senator from Illinois had also attended "a couple" of Coe's meetings.  And, like Clinton reportedly has, Obama spoke at one of the meetings about his faith, spokesman Bill Burton confirmed. ABC

    So far I haven't seen fliers of Clinton with heavenly light shinning behind her acclaiming that she has been called to serve. Or supporters stating that Obama lead him to Jesus (search DKos).


    I DId Not Ask You (none / 0) (#145)
    by squeaky on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:55:00 PM EST
    Whether or not The prayer meetings were a Obama approved function, although since you bring it up I doubt that Obama would ever be allowed to step foot in that super exclusive and lilly white Republican sect.

    I asked whether or not you had a problem with Hillary consorting with Republicans and the fact that she is also considering appointing Republicans to her cabinet.


    Are You Calling Bill Burton, Obama's Spokesman (none / 0) (#150)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:03:26 PM EST
    a lier? He confirmed that Obama attended and spoke at those prayer meetings. So either Burton is a lier or Obama is allowed to attend what you describe as a lilly white sect.  

    No (none / 0) (#154)
    by squeaky on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:07:12 PM EST
    Big difference between the general yearly meetings and the one that Hillary is a member of.

    And (none / 0) (#151)
    by squeaky on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:04:11 PM EST
    Many attend the yearly Fellowship prayer breakfast where they cull their exclusive, and mostly right wing members from. But I guarantee you that Obama has never stepped foot in the super secret and super exclusive weekly DC prayer meetings, and, imo, he never will.

    Not That He Would (none / 0) (#153)
    by squeaky on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:06:14 PM EST
    Not give an arm and a leg to get invited into that American power center, which is akin to the illuminati.

    Not quite the same thing. (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by eleanora on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:48:51 PM EST
    I understand your point about being fair to Obama, squeaky, but he is talking about putting Hagel and Lugar in for Defense and State right away, basically ceding those territories to the Republicans. Clinton is saying she'll work with and listen carefully to Republicans when elected, not that they have better ideas or are more competent than Democrats. That's the part that sticks in most longtime Dem's throats.

    And the prayer breakfast thing isn't going to play with the voters, since Obama as well as other prominent Dems attend them on occasion. Many, many Americans attend Bible Study groups, fundies and non-fundies alike. Unless you have video of something outrageous going on at those prayer breakfasts, people are just going to assume they're mild, polite meetings where people talk about Jesus loving us all, read a bible verse or two, and chat about how good the pancakes taste.


    Nooooo (none / 0) (#148)
    by squeaky on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:59:14 PM EST
    Hillary is saying that she has no problem with appointing Republicans to her cabinet. From the article linked above:

    Democrat Hillary Clinton says she might include Republicans in her cabinet if she is elected US president, on the eve of a crucial primary against rival Barack Obama in Pennsylvania.



    Again, not the same thing. (none / 0) (#152)
    by eleanora on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:05:35 PM EST
    "she might" is a far cry from naming the two she will, especially in areas where Repubs have hit Dems the hardest, like National Security. We can't afford to give McCain any further ammunition to hit us on that front, no matter who our nominee is. He's got the best creds on security, and that's where the Repubs will try to keep this election focused. We have to stand strong against him on that front, not just cede the territory and say, "I'll have Republicans to do that for me." If voters want that, why not just elect the Republican in the first place?

    Sorry (1.00 / 1) (#156)
    by squeaky on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:12:41 PM EST
    Neither candidate has announced a cabinet. Both have said the same things. The fact that Obama mentioned specific Republicans means nothing.

    I could give a sh*t about either of their choices, both are exactly the same in their bipartisan leanings as they are in most things.

    Whether you like it or not Hagel's position on the war is pretty much identical to both Hillary's and Obama's.

    You are splitting hairs here. Being in love with either candidate can lead to temporary blindness.


    I guess I didn't state my point (none / 0) (#165)
    by eleanora on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:29:09 PM EST
    well enough. IIRC, this thread started with Clinton Dems talking about why Obama will be hard to support if he's the nominee. I'm not saying he's a bad person, I'm saying he needs to talk like a Democrat, strongly support Democratic ideas and ideals, and let people know in no uncertain terms that Democrats are the best choice to run our government. Everything he does or says that pulls him away from that pulls Clinton Dems away from him.

    Appointing Repubs to your cabinet before the election has even been won is a big mistake. And considering a Repub for VP (if true, which I hope not) is a huge, huge error. I'm a trueblue Dem and after the convention when things are settled fairly, I expect to be in the nominee's corner. BUT if Obama has a Republican VP, Hagel or Bloomberg or anyone like that, all bets are off. I wouldn't have supported Kerry/McCain in 04 either. If we can't win with two Democrats on the ticket, the Party is done.


    PS (none / 0) (#184)
    by eleanora on Sat May 24, 2008 at 05:23:18 PM EST
    I reread the thread, and I think what I haven't been saying right is that we trust Hillary to do right by Democrats, but we don't know Obama well enough to tell yet. People can't just yell at us that they're exactly the same and force us to trust him, he's got to earn that with what he says and does. Her biggest experience argument is our experiences with her over the last fifteen years or so. Senator Obama hasn't been in the public eye very long, so he has to tread more carefully.

    Yes (none / 0) (#189)
    by squeaky on Sat May 24, 2008 at 05:40:05 PM EST
    That is the argument. I spent some time with cousins last week only to find that they are all Obama supporters. Their argument is the same except framed differently. They argue that Hillary's experience is a liability, in that she is old school and more of the same. When I argued that Hillary and Obama are the same they pointed out that he will talk to US enemies without conditions and that was a big plus. When I pointed out that he will not talk to Hamas, they did not know that. My cousins are all Jewish.

    I agree that Obama is more of a risk technically, although for me I am not too worried that he will shift more to the right of where Hillary is. Both are ok by me and a unity ticket might put an end to most of this nonsense.


    She Said She MIGHT Where As Obama Said He Was (none / 0) (#155)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:08:18 PM EST
    was considering Hagel at Defense and Lugar at State. Maybe he will have to consider another Republican at Defense since Hagel is said to be on his short list for VP and polls are being conducted on that option.

    OK (none / 0) (#159)
    by squeaky on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:16:39 PM EST
    Do you have a problem with her consorting with Republicans as both the Mother Jones and Boston Globe article report? Or do you have a problem with her considering Republicans for her cabinet?

    You have said that you would not vote for someone who does this sort of thing, is Hillary an exception?


    Crickets? (none / 0) (#133)
    by squeaky on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:45:52 PM EST
    Double standard anyone?

    Ain't hardly the same thing (none / 0) (#161)
    by zyx on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:23:42 PM EST
    When Bill Clinton was president and appointed Bill Cohen, we were not ALREADY deeply enmeshed in two Republican-created wars.



    How Rude (none / 0) (#101)
    by squeaky on Sat May 24, 2008 at 02:04:16 PM EST
    Jondee is a loooong time TL commenter and has contributed far more to TL over the years than your one note johnny fanclubbing for the last month or so. Who are you to tell him to find somewhere else to go?

    Huh? (none / 0) (#106)
    by Dr Molly on Sat May 24, 2008 at 02:19:57 PM EST
    Are you talking to me? I never told him to go anymore. You've got it backwards I think.

    woops (none / 0) (#107)
    by Dr Molly on Sat May 24, 2008 at 02:20:17 PM EST
    'anywhere' not 'anymore'

    Language Police? (none / 0) (#115)
    by squeaky on Sat May 24, 2008 at 02:45:57 PM EST
    Really, if you think calling Obama names is criticism your comment is typical of the low level comments that have passed through the radar in the last few months.

    And yes I do believe calling Obama narcissistic and arrogant are quite synonymous with calling him uppity.

    If anyone is playing police it is you asking jondee to leave TL, which you seem to believe has become your personal Hillary fan club.

    I voted for Hillary and would be quite happy to see her clinch the nomination, but I am fine with Obama winning it as well. In fact,a big plus for me in Obama clinching the nomination is that commenters like you will never come back to TL again as we will be supporting Obama for POTUS.


    Stay classy (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by RalphB on Sat May 24, 2008 at 02:56:45 PM EST
    commenters like you will never come back to TL again

    Way to be inclusive, you two-bit martinet.


    Hahahahahah (none / 0) (#125)
    by squeaky on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:25:30 PM EST
    Yes, no surprise here.  It is typical for you to resort to name calling.

    Will you be commenting here if and when Obama is being supported as the Democratic nominee?

    Thought so.


    Jeezus, not this again (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by Dr Molly on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:28:33 PM EST
    Is this going to turn into another freakfest like the other night where someone says they think Obama is narcissistic and then the TL oldtimer gang goes on a fatwa and flips out because narcissist actually means uppity dontcha know and also everyone knows that uppity is actually a racial slur? So the commenter was actually a big racist and needed to be viciously assaulted. Well, f**k me, ain't this fun.

    I hope y'all do it again because, actually, it's the perfect example of the answer to the original question above from Johndee about why some people don't look forward to four years of this crap.

    Not to mention, it's exactly the dynamic manifested yesterday after Hillary spoke and her words were distorted so that we were all supposed to believe that she was looking forward to Obama's assassination so that she might become president.

    This is all what's just so appealing about Obama Nation.


    No (none / 0) (#132)
    by squeaky on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:44:12 PM EST
    So the commenter was actually a big racist and needed to be viciously assaulted.

    No one called anyone a racist. It is a huge difference to discuss or argue that some comments are racist, or perpetuating stereotyping,  than labeling someone as a racist.

    Hope that you can see that. Jumping to something like "you calling me a racist" shuts down any dialogue. The fact is that we live in a racist and sexist society. Most of us are neither racists or sexists but sometimes say things that are sexist or racist unintentionally. I believe that it is always prudent to err on the side of putting it on the table rather than letting it go under the table because that one of the ways that stereotypes racism and sexism are perpetuated.


    I don't want to argue with you squeaky (none / 0) (#144)
    by Dr Molly on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:53:16 PM EST
    but you are wrong when you say that no one called anyone a racist in that bizarre episode. they most certainly did called her/him a racist and they called her/him much worse than that as well.

    Please Then (none / 0) (#170)
    by squeaky on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:41:38 PM EST
    Provide a link. I followed and participated in the thread. I just reviewed it and no one called anyone a racist. Here is the thread.

    the comments (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by Dr Molly on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:48:31 PM EST
    from alex-whatever that were so vicious and over the top are not included for some reason. were they disappeared? in addition to those, all through those comments you can see the accusations that suggest 'narcissist' really mean 'uppity' which is 'code for racial stereotypes'. i'm not going to play stupid semantic games with you.

    and i'm not going to argue with you anymore. have a good evening squeaky.


    Sorry I Thought (none / 0) (#176)
    by squeaky on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:54:54 PM EST
    You would easily understand that calling a comment racist, and debating that,  is very different from calling a commenter racist. Guess not.

    As I Said (none / 0) (#127)
    by squeaky on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:32:43 PM EST
    I voted for Hillary and would be quite happy to see her clinch the nomination, but I am fine with Obama winning it as well.

    Whoever wins I would like to see a Unity ticket.

    Seems to me that for you and many others here supporting Hillary means trashing Obama. Sorry I am not for that, as it is waaaaaay to GOP for me.

    Both Hillary and Obama are farther to the right than I would like, and extremely similar on almost everything. My biggest problems with both candidates are their policies regarding the war and crime.


    I know this is OT (none / 0) (#160)
    by lilburro on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:19:16 PM EST
    but I saw this discussion briefly when it came up a few days ago and wanted to put in my few cents.  I agree that the description arrogant often errs into the uppity family; but I do not think the word narcissistic being applied to Obama is racist.  Obama has made his campaign about his life story, his unique judgment (running in a field of candidates that voted for AUMF).  Remember, we are talking about the guy that said this:

    And I would not be running, as aware as I am of my imperfections, as clear as I am that I am not a perfect vessel, I would not be running if I did not believe that I could lead this country in that new direction, that we have a unique moment that we have to seize.

    Rhetoric like that kind of makes me gag.  Knowing this, I think it is a little unfair to say narcissistic is the same as uppity.  I know it can be used in such a context that would make the two words interchangeable, but I don't think that is necessarily the case.


    OK (2.00 / 1) (#167)
    by squeaky on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:34:18 PM EST
    But when you consider that the same ones are calling him arrogant, and that narcissistic as it has been used here is synonymous with grandiose, it is not a far cry from uppity, imo.

    And all who are in the race qualify as having a super sized ego, but somehow only the black guy is the one criticized for it. A little too close for comfort for me, to the most common racist term used to attack AA males when they reach for positions that are typically held by white men.


    I know some people (none / 0) (#175)
    by lilburro on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:53:40 PM EST
    have a line of attack here that says he should have waited, blah blah, how dare he, blah blah.  Which of course makes no sense; it's politics.  And I agree that is a little too close to uppity for me.  I know narcissitic has been used carelessly and strangely aggressively here.  It's dangerous to get at a point in your partisanship where the desire to bring the smack down to the opponent overrules your good sense; when the attacks use sexist and racist innuendo to be more devastating.  

    I don't know if your last paragraph is intended as a criticism of the commenters here or people in general.  Clinton coming into this race was portrayed as having a super size ego (ambitious, etc.); from the beginning, she was the one with the overriding desire for power.  Even the Obama camp inferred she'd been planning this for 20 years.  So in general, I think you are wrong that Obama is the only one criticized for having an ego.  In the media he isn't at all.  Here she is genuinely the favorite as you know, so that line of criticism (for HER) is infrequently taken.  

    Still, I do not think narcissitic = uppity.  I've never really been sensitive to the word arrogant (because I'm pretty arrogant myself), but I think the case for arrogant = uppity might be more soundly made.


    Last Paragraph (none / 0) (#179)
    by squeaky on Sat May 24, 2008 at 05:04:18 PM EST
    Is about Americans in general, time immemorial, since the slaves arrived no doubt. And to be clear, it is not pointing to a big ego, it is the actual term narcissistic. As for Obamamaniacs, I do not know if they regularly call Clinton arrogant and narcissistic, I do know that they use sexist code words all the time describing her, which is equally reprehensible.  It comes as no surprise, to me,  that Clintonmaniacs would use racist code words against Obama.

    Extremists are usually the same irrespective of what side they are on.



    I get your general point (none / 0) (#187)
    by lilburro on Sat May 24, 2008 at 05:27:05 PM EST
    and totally agree about extremists.  But, do you really think there is something about the term narcissistic that is off limits?  Is it about being more sensitive to the history of the word "uppity," or something else?  I'm thinking of Obama's "It's true I give a good speech. What can I do?"  For me, that's an eye-roller.  How I express that is obviously important though.  

    This primary is tough because we could not, literally, have two more different candidates (identity-wise):  a black male, and a white female.  If we can play this out right, we might actually learn about sexism and racism.  The media won't really help us with that, but hopefully blogs and leadership on the part of Clinton and Obama this summer will.  It's really quite typical:  two groups that have been sh*t upon by this country's power are now opposed.  Now THAT is old politics.  Hopefully we can work it out.


    That's the second time... (none / 0) (#183)
    by Marco21 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 05:21:42 PM EST
    I believe you've used the "bloods and crips" reference. I voted for Obama in 2004. The reason I did not this year is simply because I believe Hillary will be a better President.

    I know smearing everyone who doesn't believe in Obama as a racist is fun for his supporters, but it doesn't wash.


    The only problem is (none / 0) (#89)
    by Valhalla on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:35:46 PM EST
    we already have this and they've been remarkably ineffective so far.

    You Do Realize That Obama Voted In Favor (5.00 / 5) (#46)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:08:27 PM EST
    of Cheney's "secret-energy-meeting" Energy bill. Obama's committed Christian called to serve and testifying how people Came to Obama seem to be in the same divinely inspired Rapture-Me-Up category.

    crickets! (none / 0) (#168)
    by hellothere on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:37:11 PM EST
    How Idiotic (1.00 / 1) (#173)
    by squeaky on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:46:49 PM EST
    I am not an Obama supporter, and dislike many of the things that both Hillary and Obama have said or done. Why should I answer a non sequitur comment about stupid things Obama has done, especially when MOBlue has stated that s/he would never support someone that would appoint a Republican to her cabinet.....

    except, evidentially, unless it is Hillary.


    Well (5.00 / 6) (#56)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:11:31 PM EST
    considering that Obama voted for the Cheney energy bill I don't think that your enron humper statement is very valid.

    Besides, all indications are that Obama's chances are pretty slim for Nov.


    Obama's problem (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by Josey on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:43:48 PM EST
    is that McCain nor Bush sat in a church for 20 years absorbing "Rapture-Me-Up" sermons. Unlike Obama, those preachers were never their pastors and mentors.

    Obama has been indoctrinated with Wright's hatemongering for Catholics, Whites, Jews, America...and it's reflected in Obama's words and deeds.

    "Hillary ain't never been called a N----r!" - Rev. Wright, from the pulpit

    is similar to:

    Obama "brushing Hillary off" the bottom of his shoe and laughing along with the crowdS.

    And Wright's perpetuating "Blacks are victims" is reflected in Obama's overreactions to comments that aren't about him.


    BTD, I think you have 20/20 vision. (none / 0) (#3)
    by ChiTownDenny on Sat May 24, 2008 at 12:44:52 PM EST
    I may not often comment on this site, but I do often read it.  I think your political saavy is unparalled in the blogosphere.

    BTD is helping the GOP! (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Sat May 24, 2008 at 12:47:14 PM EST

    Sure (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 24, 2008 at 12:53:14 PM EST
    Because McCain and Republicans listen to me.

    Doesn't eveyone? ;) (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by ChiTownDenny on Sat May 24, 2008 at 12:57:56 PM EST
    Does anyone is the better question (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:00:57 PM EST
    Obama does not listen to you. (5.00 / 3) (#91)
    by felizarte on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:39:46 PM EST
    too bad for him.  

    HA! ; (none / 0) (#32)
    by ChiTownDenny on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:02:58 PM EST
    BTD is like (none / 0) (#116)
    by TomLincoln on Sat May 24, 2008 at 02:51:16 PM EST
    Reverend Farrakhan. When he talks, everyone listens. -- Rev. Wright

    You dont think (none / 0) (#31)
    by jondee on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:02:31 PM EST
    Obama more than enough ammunition to come back "hard" at McCain if he decides to take that tack?

    Or, is this all about "perceptions" and emotion now; where the public cant be trusted to not go all gooey and sympathetic when some one comes down
    too hard on a kindly, Grandfatherly, ex-war hero?


    Well (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:20:52 PM EST
    the preview hasn't been positive is all I can say.

    i think obama will try and come back (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by hellothere on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:45:58 PM EST
    hard at mccain. but as i have suggested already he has fired his most effective guns like racial issues. he has the aa voting block, so the only thing he has is anti bush. that will work for those already in his camp, but i don't see it for anyone else. whereas the repubs haven't even loaded their heavy guns. they are organized and well prepared which is more than i see in the dems.

    Sure (none / 0) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:06:14 PM EST
    The reality is this is likely to be an incredibly nasty campaign, more so than most.

    And that's saying alot (none / 0) (#50)
    by jondee on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:09:25 PM EST
    Im afraid you may be right.

    IMO, (none / 0) (#9)
    by ChiTownDenny on Sat May 24, 2008 at 12:49:39 PM EST
    he's observing the political landscape.

    My favorite week on MTP was when (none / 0) (#8)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 24, 2008 at 12:49:02 PM EST
    Mike Murphy and Bob Schrum were across the table from Carville and Matlin.

    Actually there's not much (none / 0) (#10)
    by MarkL on Sat May 24, 2008 at 12:50:48 PM EST
    contradiction between his advice and yours.
    What McCain is doing that's not helpful for him is personalizing the race. You didn't see Bush doing that in 2000 or 2004. The whole point is to be above the fray while your minions cut the other guy's reputation into ribbons.

    I disagree (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 24, 2008 at 12:52:38 PM EST
    I think Murphy is talking about his entire campaign taking it easy on Obama.

    They always say they are taking it easy. (none / 0) (#20)
    by MarkL on Sat May 24, 2008 at 12:59:04 PM EST
    And that the other guy is a wuss for not being able to take the gentle ribbing he's getting.

    Nice West Wing reference! (none / 0) (#11)
    by cmugirl on Sat May 24, 2008 at 12:50:49 PM EST
    Loved Bruno  - until he went to the dark side (although Sen. Vinnick wasn't really the dark side).

    West Wing references... (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by reynwrap582 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:26:01 PM EST
    Always make me swoon.

    I agree with BTD (none / 0) (#13)
    by ajain on Sat May 24, 2008 at 12:52:56 PM EST
    In fact, I think that is what the Republican strategy is at the moment.

    They have been after him for being "naive" and are trying to paint him as too exotic and inexperienced.

    I also would not trust any New York Times articles about the GOP or McCain campaign. I think McCain is giving NYT the cold shoulder. They weren't even invited to the medical records inspection. I think the McCain camp is preparing to not only hit Obama, but also MSNBC and NYT (which has increasingly been writing these crazy and petchulant editorials). Lets see what happens.

    I also wonder (none / 0) (#18)
    by ajain on Sat May 24, 2008 at 12:57:43 PM EST
    What is Obama's strategy towards McCain?

    I dont know if it is enough to just try to paint him as the 3rd term of GWB. I don't think that will really fly too far. But what do I know?

    Obama very much wants to turn (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by MarkL on Sat May 24, 2008 at 12:59:38 PM EST
    the race into a personality contest, rather than a discussion of issues or experience.

    Obama won't win that one (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by RalphB on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:03:43 PM EST
    then.  It's hard for someone with the "elitist snob" image to win a personality contest with anyone.  Let alone a "plain spoken maverick" like McCain.  :-)

    Disagree (none / 0) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:05:32 PM EST
    If you have been listening to Obama on McCain, the mantra is Bush's third term.

    Obama has built up some teflon so he can do it.


    McCain != Bush (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by RalphB on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:09:42 PM EST
    That's fully apparent to any sentient being.  IMHO this is a loser for Obama.

    you agree with Sid Blumenthal (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:12:41 PM EST
    and the both of you are utterly wrong.

    Maybe (none / 0) (#82)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:24:43 PM EST
    it won't work but Rove opined the point that Obama has been a reliable liberal vote while McCain has broken with his own party numerous times even being part of the gang of 14. And the media is promoting his "independent maverick" thing too though I'm less and less convinced that the media ends up helping much.

    McCain as Bush or Mcbush as bloggers call him (none / 0) (#130)
    by WelshWoman on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:38:15 PM EST
    does reasonate

    but so does Obama as Carter 2.

    That could be a problem for Obama especially giving Obama's recent statements on Foreign policy


    That (none / 0) (#22)
    by cmugirl on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:00:12 PM EST
    and that he's old.

    I think that's about it - I haven't seen any evidence that there is more to it...


    Well, that's because Clinton is (none / 0) (#29)
    by oculus on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:02:22 PM EST
    still in the contest.  Just wait until she is finally finished.

    That's a prospect you should not relish. (5.00 / 0) (#37)
    by ChiTownDenny on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:05:22 PM EST
    Plenty of Hillary supporters REALLY P.O.ed.

    I'd best heed Jeralyn's advice (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by oculus on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:08:10 PM EST
    and include a snark warning.  

    Simple (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:00:16 PM EST
    McCain is running for Bush's third term.

    I don't think that will fly. McCain is (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by MarkL on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:01:46 PM EST
    appearing very innovative---for example with his proposal to have the President answer questions in Congress like the PM does in Britain.

    100 Years In Iraq (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:03:35 PM EST
    Full endorsement of Bush's economic and energy policies. Scalia and Alito as his type of justices.

    There is plenty of ammo.


    100 years in Iraq (5.00 / 0) (#40)
    by RalphB on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:06:57 PM EST
    is a falsehood.  That was even fact checked in the NYT and found to be one of those lovely partial quotes similar to the ones used against Clinton.  

    All the GOP has to do is run the full video.  That dog won't hunt.  


    For crissakes (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:07:51 PM EST
    this is politics. Don't you clinton folks go ingenue on me now.

    Ingenue my @ss (none / 0) (#57)
    by RalphB on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:11:41 PM EST
    but if you're going to lie, it should be something that's not so easily blown out of the water.

    Blown out of the water (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:14:12 PM EST
    mt a**.

    Sorry, but you are sounding like an ingenue. Politics is stupid, unfair and mendacious.

    Let me tell you something right now. Hillary Clinton the nominee would NEVER stop talking about the 100 years comment. And Axelrod is smart enough not to stop either.


    It is McCain's job (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by ChiTownDenny on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:20:44 PM EST
    to prove that he is not running for Bush's third term.

    Both of them would use it (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by RalphB on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:56:25 PM EST
    but that better not be a central plank of any campaign.  The media has already shown that they won't let the statement stand.  If you really want to beat McCain, you better out-policy the guy.

    One little problem with that is in order for people to believe you on policy, they have to think you have the character to carry them out.  Clinton has character, McCain has character,  Obama  not.so.much at this point.


    The question for me is (none / 0) (#147)
    by Emma on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:56:50 PM EST
    do Americans want to get out of Iraq more than they want to "win" the war?  IMO, they want to "win" the war more, even if we're there for 100 years.  The surge, and press coverage of it, is McCain's friend.  Also the meme that "anti-war" = "anti-troops".

    I think, as between McCain and Obama, McCain is the one who can legitimately claim he'll get us out of Iraq with a victory.  I am not so sure w/Clinton and McCain, I think Clinton has anticipated that issue and her refusal to apologize for the AUMF vote was in response to that.  That might, however, simply be my Clinton-colored glasses.

    But, I don't think the war is really going to be the defining issue in this election.  At least not to Obama's advantage.  Too many people want to win rather than just "cut and run", as any Dem's position will undoubtedly be characterized.  And, after what the GOP did to Max Cleland, I'm betting they can get away with it.


    Except (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by cmugirl on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:08:06 PM EST
    The "100-year" comment and Obama's misrepresenting the actual statement and intent has already been torn apart by a couple of media outlets - the rest will catch on.

    Nah (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:10:11 PM EST
    It is tooo easy a sound bite. You guys are wrong on that one. 100 years is a devastating attack and Axelrod will NEVER give it up.

    True (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by cmugirl on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:14:59 PM EST
    But Obama referred the press to the soundbite on YouTube and the clip does not back Obama up.



    All McCain Has To Do Is Paint Obama As (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 24, 2008 at 02:27:52 PM EST
    someone who cannot be believed and that strategy is blown out of the water.  Obama has provided the Republicans ample footage to substantiate that form of attack. Two completely opposing views on Iran within a 24 hour time frame, conflicting statements about his associations with Wright, Ayers, Rezko and Khalidi are just a few areas where Obama is vulnerable.

    Painting Obama that way (none / 0) (#117)
    by RalphB on Sat May 24, 2008 at 02:52:20 PM EST
    will be too simple for words.  He's practically done  it to himself now.

    Its even better than (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:48:47 PM EST
    flip flopper with Kerry and we saw how effective that was.

    It's a devastating off the cuff charge that requires a 5 minute explanation.


    And once that line of attack (none / 0) (#140)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:51:46 PM EST
    loses its mojo, it is followed up with "Bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran"

    BTD, has there been any polling (none / 0) (#99)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:58:27 PM EST
    on the "100 years in Iraq" thing and McCain specifically?  I ask because it's not clear to me from the Republian types I know who support McCain that they took the comment in the least seriouesly.  They don't think it'll take him any longer to get out of Iraq than it would Hillary or Obama.

    I think if someone less familiar and less avuncular than McCain had said it, you'd be right.  But I'm not confident it will really stick to McCain in any serious way.


    true that! but obama has given (none / 0) (#169)
    by hellothere on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:40:22 PM EST
    mccain ten times as many sound bites.

    More than enough Ammo. (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Marco21 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:08:41 PM EST
    Can he use it effectively? We'll see and I hope so.

    If he keeps McCain defending Bush policy, it'll go a long way. I think we need to use fear as the GOP did but in a new way. Fear that the next 4 years under McCain will yield the same results we're currently living with. More war, higher gas prices and a crumbling economy.


    You are forgetting (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by cmugirl on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:12:27 PM EST
    The October surprise we all know is coming - some foreign policy crisis just big enough for people to get a little scared and want to stay with the devil they know as opposed to the devil they don't.

    That, and I believe gas prices will start coming down at the end of September (through Thanksgiving - and then will go back up).


    Ding! Ding! Ding! (none / 0) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:10:49 PM EST
    The problem is (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by dk on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:21:31 PM EST
    that General Elections are not won or lost over foreign policy.  So, sure, the 100 years in Iraq line hurts McCain, but it won't be a dealbreaker for voters.

    2004 (none / 0) (#139)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:50:16 PM EST
    was lost to us over foreign policy.  It will be a significant factor.  It would be the dominant one if it weren't for our current economis straights.

    I agree that Obama's only (5.00 / 4) (#85)
    by dk on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:26:08 PM EST
    possible winning strategy would be the whole third term of Bush thing.  But that probably won't end up working because of McCain's media darling status.  The media spent years building the image of McCain as the non-Bush.  Even if it were the case that McCain = Bush (which I think is facile, to be honest, and another reason why the left blogosphere is losing credibility), the media won't allow it, because it would make them look like they've been wrong all this time.  The egos in media won't accept admitting such a thing.

    Obama's supporters... (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by Marco21 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:39:22 PM EST
    don't seem to be prepared for that fact. McCain is the media's favorite. They still call him "maverick" every single day.

    As so many have noted, Obama's press honeymoon is effectively over the minute it's down to those 2 and if they think Clinton has been harsh (laughable at best) wait till the GOP gins up and goes full speed.


    Nothing is scarier... (none / 0) (#69)
    by Marco21 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:16:36 PM EST
    than our current reality. If Obama can balance that with his hope and dreams stuff, it can work.

    But he'll have to be a politician to do that, something his supporters can admit he is.  


    he'll have to be more than a politcan (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by hellothere on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:42:29 PM EST
    than we have seen so far. division won't work! racial dog whistles won't work. anyone but mccain won't work! what's he got? the answer isn't much! he played most of his big cards, and no one believes the hope and lack of racism spin anymore.

    I meant to say.. (none / 0) (#72)
    by Marco21 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:18:41 PM EST
    his supporters CAN'T admit he is - re: a politician.

    my bad.


    I'm one. (none / 0) (#143)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:53:15 PM EST
    And I think he is a talented one . . . else he would not be where he is right now.

    That would be interesting (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by WelshWoman on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:53:02 PM EST
    Over here in the UK they have rules so when you insult someone you normally have to start with "Is the right honourable gentleman aware that xxx have detailed a policy position against your recommendation on xxx" and then they hit them with the whammy.

    Wait for rebuttal and then jeers and cheers from the chamber.

    You also get the suck ups which usually start, "I refer to my learned colleague X and was interest in their comments on XX, I believe that the£ (PR bit. Chamber groans and cheers, then learned colleague answers.  

    Complete theatre but you to be able to take and give a hit.

    Also makes the prime minister very accountable which is why McCain suggested it that's a big departure from Bush.


    On a platform of immig. reform. (none / 0) (#25)
    by oculus on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:01:29 PM EST
    Nope (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:02:14 PM EST
    on a platform of staying in Iraq for 100 years.

    Keating Five (none / 0) (#64)
    by MichaelGale on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:15:06 PM EST
    is not off limits according to Obama.

    Keating Five

    a threat in re Wright.


    Rezko (none / 0) (#67)
    by oculus on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:15:50 PM EST
    Rezko is dead (none / 0) (#71)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:17:40 PM EST
    and the Keating thing is just stupid. Obama endorsers are among the 5.

    NYT article made it clear (none / 0) (#76)
    by oculus on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:20:18 PM EST
    McCain dodged a bullet on Keating 5.  How, I don't know, but he did.  

    Obviously (none / 0) (#30)
    by Edgar08 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:02:25 PM EST
    It's the apparatus that will polarize Barack Obama turning him into a martyr for the congregation, and an unacceptable candidate for everyone else in the world.

    The advice to McCain himself is fine.

    If that is all the advice meant then (none / 0) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:04:24 PM EST
    DUH! Not worth even giving that advice.

    WSJ already profiled (none / 0) (#36)
    by kredwyn on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:04:41 PM EST
    some guy who is already working for McCain.

    Why would they bring someone new on?

    3rd Term (none / 0) (#120)
    by Kevin on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:04:29 PM EST
    If you don't think they have plenty of ammo for that, and that it won't work, you are just not paying attention.  First, they have the fact that McCain, for all his "maveric" talk, votes with the Republicans over 90% of the time (including voting for torture for crying out loud).  

    They have him talking endlessly about continuing the same economic policies as Bush (don't know if you noticed, but over 70% of the population says the country is on the wrong track.  this is big).

    And the 100 years.  You can say he meant it as in a non-combat role all you want, but it still hurts him.  First, Iraq isn't Korea.  The war is still going.  People are still dying.  So he is saying that he isn't ending that at all, and that once the killing is eventually over (if it ever is, the army will still be there for 100 years.  You have the democrats talking about a phased, measured withdrawal vs McCain's "Stay the course, we'll win eventually".  That is Bush 3rd term to a friggen T.

    I don't know, I bet a lot of Americans are wishing Kerry won right about now.  So McCain can try to make him kerry II, but the fact is, Kerry never destroyed the country, Bush did.  And tying McCain to Bush is so damn easy.  

    Barn dancing to win? (none / 0) (#121)
    by Politalkix on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:10:15 PM EST
    US elections: 'Scots-Irish hillbilly' can make Barack Obama's White House dream come true

    By Tim Shipman in Washington
    Last Updated: 8:48PM BST 24/05/2008

    He speaks with an accent as thick as treacle, he has a confederate flag for a bedspread and one of his close friends played Cooter in the Dukes of Hazzard, the ultimate tribute to redneck America.
    But Dave "Mudcat" Saunders, a self-described "Scots-Irish hillbilly", may just be the man to make Barack Obama's White House dreams come true.

    The Democratic presidential frontrunner suffered another landslide defeat to Hillary Clinton last week in the Kentucky primary, further proof of his failure to win over working class white voters in the Appalachian mountain region, whose support he will need if he is to beat Republican John McCain in November's election.

    Mr Obama has lost the hill country vote to Mrs Clinton by wide margins in a swathe of states from the Carolinas, north through Virginia and West Virginia and into Pennsylvania and Ohio, all key election swing states.

    As the Democratic Party's leading strategist on rural affairs, Mr Saunders believes Mr Obama should ignore those who say a black man can never woo what he calls the "Bubba" vote, when a little light barn dancing might do the trick.

    "I think it's a bunch of crap," he told The Sunday Telegraph with characteristic relish. "People ask: 'What do you say to these people who won't vote for a black man'. I say: 'To hell with them'. They are going to vote for a Republicans anyway."

    Instead, Mr Saudners says that if Obama is to win, he will need to emulate Mark Warner and Jim Webb, white Democrats who won senate seats in Virginia, the gateway to the South.

    Mr Saunders - nichnamed Mudcat because he enjoys fishing the mudflats near his home in Roanoke - ran both of those campaigns.

    "You must respect our culture," he said. "If you show disrespect for rural culture, we ain't going to vote for you; it's just that simple. "He needs to go see Bubba and be himself. Mark Warner did it in 2000 and won in Virginia. Mark said clearly: 'I'm not from your culture, but your culture is cool and I'm having fun with it.'

    "You could take Mark Warner to a barn dance and he might get up there and look stupid, but I tell you what: a lot of people liked him because they could tell that he was enjoying himself."

    Mr Obama alienated many poor rural white voters with his ill-judged comments about how they are clinging to God and guns in times of economic hardship.

    Mr Saunders believes it is not too late for Mr Obama to turn the corner, so long as he ignores "what I call the Metropolitan Opera wing of the party" - those Democrats who think that "down here we go to meetings at night and talk about who we're going to lynch, and which gay guy we're going to beat up."

    He says winning the support of those white voters who once backed Ronald Reagan is vital to Mr Obama's hopes of victory over Mr McCain.

    "Barack Obama is very capable of expanding the base with first time voters, particularly the young people," he said. "That's wonderful. But if we get a Reagan Democrat to come home, we get two votes because we just took one away from the Republicans and gave one to us."

    His word is highly valued in Democrat circles: he was recently called in to brief Democrat senators, and has worked for John Edwards, the former candidate for the nomination who has recently endorsed Mr Obama. The likely nominee is now making overtures to him as well.

    He says: "I'm the best Democratic rural strategist in America. I'm also the worst because I'm the only one." Mr Saunders thinks Obama must devote time, resources and a message that embraces his faith, respect for gun rights and tax breaks for companies that relocate in rural America, if he is to be successful.

    "He's going to have to get the right message. He's going to have to be out in rural America so people can get to know him. He's going to have to put the resources in. If he does that, he's going to beat John McCain's ass. And you can quote me on that."

    Mr Saunders also urges Mr Obama to resist what insiders say is now intensive lobbing by Bill Clinton to persuade Mr Obama to pick Hillary Clinton as his running mate.

    Despite her success with blue collar voters, he thinks she would be a disaster. "The 51 per cent of Americans that don't like her, they don't come from New York, they don't come from California or Illinois or Massachusetts - the traditional Democratic states. They're all in red (Republican) states and swing states. I wouldn't put her on the ticket."

    Well the last paragraph (none / 0) (#166)
    by lilburro on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:30:51 PM EST
    doesn't make a lot of sense but otherwise an interesting article!  Much more respectful, sensible, and HOPEFUL than the b.s. spewed by the media on the subject.

    when did saunders make that comment. (none / 0) (#172)
    by hellothere on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:44:28 PM EST
    i mean really that anyone would make that after wv and the bitter comments would make me question his thinking.

    yeah, isn't this einstein the guy (none / 0) (#185)
    by english teacher on Sat May 24, 2008 at 05:23:18 PM EST
    who did so well with edwards' campaign?  i mean, where he actually had a legit candidate to appeal to the "scots irish hillbilly" contingent and didn't.  

    also, btw, any grown person who would refer to themselves as "mudcat", much less an apparently influential political operative i think speaks for itself.  the guy is a phoney.  


    It's nice to see BTD giving ... (none / 0) (#123)
    by Tortmaster on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:20:22 PM EST
    ... advice to the Republicans on how to win in November. Good for party unity. Republican Party unity.

    oh GOD. (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by lilburro on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:27:41 PM EST
    The Dem version of McCarthyism - "Are you helping Republicans?  Did you say something that could be used as ammunition for Republicans?  I heard you!  I saw you!  You can't say that!"

    The McCarthy corollary to ... (none / 0) (#192)
    by Tortmaster on Sat May 24, 2008 at 06:10:45 PM EST
    ... Godwin's Law. How ordinary! There are two sidelines in every game and most political contests in this country. You can lead cheers on either sideline. But, if you are going to cheer on the Republicans in November, I don't see how that helps push through the platform that your candidate -- Hillary Clinton -- is seeking to push through. In fact, it seems grossly ounterproductive, especially since Obama has only 56 delegates to go to win the nomination.  

    Well, this is a heckuva cheer (none / 0) (#195)
    by lilburro on Sat May 24, 2008 at 06:40:55 PM EST
    to be screaming on "your own team's" sidelines.  "YOU. ARE. AN I-DI-OT!  I-DI-OT!  YOUR ADVICE IS STUPID!  YOU DON'T GET REAL-I-TY!"  GOOOOOOOOOOO Mike Murphy?

    Regardless of delegate counts, I think this is a general issue.  Criticism of Obama is not counterproductive to anything.  Criticism is not poison to Democrats, unless we turn it into something personal and ugly.  But despite BTD's disclaimer:

    "By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me as a political pundit only. I hope fervently McCain brings Mike Murphy on to steer his ship. Murphy is the Republican Bob Shrum, he never wins elections."

    You saw fit to make a snide comment.  In the vein of "right-wing talking points."  "Helping Republicans."  This post doesn't do jack sh*t for Republicans.  Who I am SURE speak about TalkLeft when they're not listening in on us.

    Give me a break.


    GOoPerz strategy will be elemental. (none / 0) (#146)
    by wurman on Sat May 24, 2008 at 03:56:43 PM EST
    Why isn't Rove on Sen. McCain's staff?

    Because he handed Saint John the GOP Playbook & went to pontificate in a well-paid, easy job with the media so he can enjoy some time as a cheerleader.

    There are 3 fundamental, basic, continuous plays in the GOP book: 1) guns, 2) god, 3) gays.  There are also 2 counterplays: pro-life & warmongering.

    Sen. Obama is waffle-y (pun intended) & weasel-y on all 5.  His stance on guns will not work well in about 40 of the states; he is especially weak on handguns & his signatures on some forms turned in to anti-gun groups will sink him.

    His stance on god is an absolute negative.  When the GOoPerz finish with the endless videotapes, everybody in the USA will think Rev. Wright was actually the Democratic Party nominee.

    The Obama campaign will probably not ever be able to find a workable stance on gay, lesbian, bi-sexual & transgendered issues.  If the IL senator leans toward support for those groups, he will endanger his base in the AA communities, a large percentage of which have religious & cultural dislike for the GLBT folks.  If Sen. Obama leans away from marriage & civil unions & the intended, or hoped-for, local, state, federal tax benefits for such couples, there goes the mega-liberals & a lot of generally nice folks who want some sense of equity on these matters.  The wingnutz will spend $million$ on this issue & win it because about 70% of the USA public opposes the idea of same-sex unions.

    If the Obama campaign leaves the abortion & Iraq war issues alone, it's likely Sen. McCain will also.  A touch on either issue, though, & the response will be precisely out of the George xliii rhetoric on both.  Right-to-life & down with Roe v. Wade will fill the media spaces as a purity issue with the GOP voters.  On the war, the first & foremost cry will be "cut & run" & it will play well because Sen. McCain will explain his "nuanced" stand simultaneous with the steady flow of regiments rotating home (already known to be in the works).  Also, the war hero image can be burnished here to a degree that will astonish Obama's supporters.

    About 26% of the USA folks support Bu$hInc at the present time.  Exactly 100% of them will vote.  And Sen. McCain will pick up about another 10% who have sort of drifted away out of Bu$h fatigue.

    In my opinion, Sen. Obama will not do as well as either V-P Gore or Sen. Kerry because Sen. McCain will win every state that George xliii won in 2004 & may also pick up one or two from NH, MI, MN, PA & Wi

    The Obama campaign may have already painted the whole process into a corner that can only play directly into the 3 core issues of the Republican Party & Sen. McCain.

    I disagree (none / 0) (#177)
    by Exeter on Sat May 24, 2008 at 05:00:26 PM EST
    Almost everyone knows John McCain and most either like hime or used to like him. If he can remind people that that used to like him(conservative Dems and independents) why they liked him, he wins.

    Even as polls show just the ... (none / 0) (#194)
    by Tortmaster on Sat May 24, 2008 at 06:12:31 PM EST
    ... opposite?