McCain: "Obama's Word Can Not Be Trusted"

So I am watching MSNBC and they run a tape of McCain stating his campaign's theme of the day - Obama is a liar. After yesterday's contretemps, I find this incredibly amusing.

It seems McCain is the one bringing a gun to a knife fight. See how nice Obama was to McCain yesterday? And see how "nice" McCain is being to Obama today? I really have to laugh - this is the game every time and Dems always fall for it.

Thank Gawd George Bush has ruined the GOP brand because otherwise the Democratic Party would be capable of blowing even this election.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Every 37 Years We Learn Something New | Erroneous AP Report: Obama to Support "Hiring And Firing Based On Faith" >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I dunno... (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Thanin on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 08:26:07 AM EST
    Im not even sure we have a knife.

    Obama is far from a shoo-in! (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by crabbydan on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 08:26:27 AM EST

    It really is funny (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 08:43:33 AM EST
    See how nice Obama was to McCain yesterday? And see how "nice" McCain is being to Obama today? I really have to laugh - this is the game every time and Dems always fall for it.

    So true. How many blog posts have been written on this exact phenonemon in the last 8 years? It's almost like the candidates don't pay attention.

    Obama's penchant for packing (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by ccpup on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 08:50:06 AM EST
    the underside of any buses in the vicinity with those he's used and now discarded or has no use for makes me distrust him.

    His throwing the last Democrat President to the racist wolves makes me distrust him.  Add to that using a known homophobe to campaign for him and throwing his Grandmother -- a successful woman in her own right who he owes his education to (via the scholarships her bank gave to him) -- "a typical white person" under the bus, and there's no way I'd trust this man.

    Every day in every way he appears to be taking the Left's vote for granted as he trends and tracks stronger and stronger toward the Republican Evangelical voters ... who won't in a million years vote for him in November.

    I think Obama's Democratic mask has slipped so far that it's now swinging around his knees.  Perhaps the SDs will wake up and get Hillary back in the game come August?

    God, I hope so.  This is going to be a nightmare in November.

    This (5.00 / 6) (#31)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 08:55:18 AM EST
    is what happens when you preach post partisanship. You bascially concede that you cannot attack Republicans because that would be partisan right?

    None of Obama's responses surprise me. I knew that he was wimpish from the primaries.

    Obama has a cap gun (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Salo on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 10:14:09 AM EST
    Mccain brings a JDAM.

    What country has Obama inhabited (5.00 / 5) (#33)
    by HenryFTP on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 08:57:24 AM EST
    in which Republican political discourse has been civil over the past 15 years?

    Did Obama simply miss the 2004 election campaign, for example?

    As some of the comments here and elsewhere suggest, apparently there are reasonably significant numbers of Democrats who still don't understand that General Clark's observations about McCain's lack of real command experience are true.

    It is now beyond exasperating that Democrats can have their backgrounds exhumed and examined in minute detail, whereas the very public career of a man like John McCain gets a whitewash.

    Everyone respects McCain for the horrible sacrifice he endured on our behalf as a POW -- a point General Clark makes repeatedly, referring to McCain unabashedly as a "hero". Heroism, however, does not necessarily translate into executive ability or skill. John McCain's naval career was effectively ended by the cruelty and length of his captivity. It likewise propelled him into politics, as the Navy made him a congressional relations officer. But McCain was never an admiral, never, indeed, a senior Naval or Joint Staff officer. From the perspective of his military career, he is less qualified, for example, than Joe Sestak, the freshman Congressman from Southeastern Pennsylvania (Joe could refer to himself as "Admiral", but never does).

    The real debate should be about the relative merits of the two candidates' political careers. But Obama has now acquiesced in the conflating of McCain's military heroics with his less exemplary record as a politician.

    This is truly the revenge of the PT-109 hagiography on Democrats. But only because Democrats are so frightened of Village Elder disapproval that they dare not tell the American people the truth.

    In my view, we will never break free of this self-defeating cycle until we have the guts to nominate a candidate who has the audacity to take on the Village Elders directly, to challenge the American people to vote for accountable Government to replace the unaccountable permanent Washington Establishment.

    This is not a pipe dream -- it actually happened in both the 1998 and 2006 mid-terms. But our Party Leadership is too cowardly and unimaginative to take advantage of that popular sentiment.

    Well (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by g8grl on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 09:47:55 AM EST
    in which Republican political discourse has been civil over the past 15 years?
    Did Obama simply miss the 2004 election campaign, for example?

    No, Obama dislikes partisanship and seems to blame Reps and Dems. equally.  It's a problem.  Republicans partisans calling Dems traitors and Dems partisans saying they're not...it's just not the same.  But that's the viewpoint Obama has taken.


    You Don't Remember (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by AlladinsLamp on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 09:49:54 AM EST
    You must not remember that W. pledged, in his first inaugural address, to restore civility and dignity to our public discourse.

    Sure I remember -- (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by HenryFTP on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 10:40:02 AM EST
    that's why Dubya's administration began the very first day with the canard that the outgoing Clinton White House staff had "trashed" the offices. To say nothing of the Republicans holding Conference Committees of the two houses of Congress on pending legislation where they excluded Democrats.

    I was thinking about this just the other day (none / 0) (#94)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 11:16:10 AM EST
    I thought it was that Clinton's staff had removed all the Ws from the keyboards, which I did think was rather funny.  (yes, in a juvenile sort of way)

    Wasn't true (none / 0) (#101)
    by HenryFTP on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 01:47:43 PM EST
    Radio guys this morning (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by kredwyn on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 09:18:30 AM EST
    were playing clips of Reid announcing that our using fossil fuels was bad for our health as well as the environment. They tacked on the crybaby sound clip at the end.

    This election is far from a sure thing...

    theme for yesterday was (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by g8grl on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 09:33:21 AM EST
    Obama won't stand for his patriotism to be questioned....That bluff is going to be called.  What will Obama do when it is questioned?  After each of his lovely speeches people are going to ask "then what?"  Everytime he gets attacked it's all just a "distraction" but no true responses to the attacks.  Unfortunately his only reponse is that it's not hopey, changey to get involved in distractions.  At some point, people are going to hear these distractions and realize they have more than a grain of truth to them.  And the way they keep throwing the people who are on their side under the bus...Obama's going to run out of defenders.  Why stick your head out when tomorrow you could have tire tracks on your back.  

    exactly, this was apparent yesterday (none / 0) (#41)
    by english teacher on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 09:38:15 AM EST
    obama has no experience that he can point to in order to blunt this charge on "patriotism".  obama has to make the campaign about concrete issues and what he is going to do now going forward.  clarke gave him an opening to do that, and he blew it.  

    Candidates have had to defend (none / 0) (#76)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 10:36:10 AM EST
    many things, but I don't know when I've seen such headlines about having to defend his patriotism, his basic loyalty to this country.  It's startling.

    Just one simple point (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by frankly0 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 09:38:43 AM EST
    What objective, dispassionate observer might find any good reason to disagree with McCain's assertion that "Obama's word can't be trusted", after the events of the last number of days?

    On its merits, isn't it obviously both true and fair to say?

    So why exactly is it a problem for McCain to say it?

    (Yes, McCain has his own problems with the truth, and there's the glass house problem. But, this being politics, it's hard to argue that some measure of hypocrisy is an insuperable impediment, if the accusation being hurled is itself entirely just.)

    LOL (none / 0) (#57)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 10:10:01 AM EST
    So it is fair to be a hypocrite?  

    not the point (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 10:14:54 AM EST
    yestereday we were hung up on Clarks words about how being shot down does not qualify you to be president.
    it is undeniably true.  so is "Obamas word cant be trusted".

    No it is not (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 10:18:24 AM EST
    "Obama's word cannot be trusted" is a purely subjective claim.  It is most certainly NOT undeniably true.  

    in fact (5.00 / 3) (#84)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 10:41:36 AM EST
    its no more, and in fact less subjective than Clarks statement yesterday.
    for many people being shot down does in fact qualify you to be president.  it is arguable but subjective depending on what qualities you value in a future president.
    Obama, on the other hand, has shown over and over and over his word can not be trusted.
    nothing subjective about it.

    Well, yes, it's (none / 0) (#69)
    by frankly0 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 10:25:19 AM EST
    fair as politics goes.

    I'm sure, for example, that McCain could make out the argument that Obama has flip flopped on far more issues than has McCain, relative to Obama's very short political history. Think of how many flip flops Obama has undertaken simply in the last month. It's really rather breathtaking. I'm not sure I've ever seen so many flip flops performed so quickly. It's really like the quadruple axel of flip flops.

    And given how little of an independent record of reliability in his positions that Obama can offer -- he hardly has any record at all -- it's fair for McCain to highlight these flip flops. No one knows how far Obama will go in his about-faces. With McCain, given his long record, one has at least a concept of the limits of his pandering.


    Oh please (none / 0) (#73)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 10:32:04 AM EST
    let McCain make the flip-flop argument.

    Abortion, immigration, torture, gay rights, and just about every other social issue will be a dead loser for McCain when it comes to flip-flops.

    Yes, McCain should definitely talk about Obama's flip-flop on FISA.  Sounds like a great idea.


    Oh please (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by frankly0 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 10:40:03 AM EST
    did you just conveniently forget about Obama's flip flops on campaign finance reform, on NAFTA, in addition to FISA, just to mention a few others in recent weeks?

    Some of these McCain might want to talk about, and some he might not. But they are all of them flip flops.

    Proportionate to Obama's rather absurdly short relevant political life, that is a lot of flip flops to pack in.

    I wonder if it isn't a record. Call Guinness?


    And just to add to my point (none / 0) (#74)
    by frankly0 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 10:33:45 AM EST
    and maybe to clarify it:

    It is fair for someone to say that Obama's word can't be trusted, because, on its merits, it's entirely true and in no way a unjust distortion of the larger picture of who Obama is.

    Is it fair for McCain to say this, though, given his own issues? Well, since the accusation is in its own right fair, I think we have to say that it remains fair even if the source has his own issues.

    But beyond that, is it right (as opposed to fair) for McCain in particular to hurl the accusation? Well that depends on whether McCain has a problem equally as bad as Obama's on this score. My take is that Obama has, relative to the length of his political career, been untrustworthy in far more cases. So I would judge the accusation as right for McCain to make.


    Fairness is completely irrelevant (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 10:37:44 AM EST
    I could care less about fair.  Being fair is not how people win elections.  It has NEVER been how people won elections.  

    I care about the political impact of the actions of the candidates.  Of course the Obamaphobes are all cheering on McCain's claim that Obama is not trustworthy.  I'm RedState is cheering his comment on as well.

    But who is he convincing that wasn't already convinced?  

    Arguing about trustworthiness is a loser argument for him.  


    Obamaphobes (none / 0) (#87)
    by daring grace on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 10:50:44 AM EST
    Good one.

    trustworthiness is a loser argument for him (none / 0) (#89)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 11:00:20 AM EST
    well thats something we agree on.
    I dont see anyone cheering.  what we are trying to do is inject a little consistency.
    yesterday Clark said something that, in the opinion of many, is true.
    yesterday McCain said something that, in the opinion of many, is true.

    "Obama's Word Can Not Be Trusted" (5.00 / 4) (#48)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 09:47:12 AM EST
    I really dont see how anyone who have lived through the primary could argue with this.

    Obama's Best Response... (none / 0) (#54)
    by santarita on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 10:08:13 AM EST
    Well, McCain's words can't be trusted either.  Let's look at his record.  

    It's a branding game, right now.  The early memes start to establish the character, at least where the media is concerned.
    Unfortunately, the candidate needs the media media needs to assist with the favorable branding and I don't think Obama can count on that help, except for Olbermann, of course.  Clark's exchange with Schieffer shows the protected zone around McCain.  Anything other than reverence towards the military career will be questioned as symbolic disrespect for all military people.


    that is exactly correct (none / 0) (#59)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 10:12:25 AM EST
    it was a very telling episode for what is to come.
    I hope we were all watching the coverage last night.
    "Obama smears McCains military record" (thats pretty much word for word) led every newscast and the his speech on patriotism, if mentioned at all, was in the 50 minutes after the hour segment.

    And "Obama defends his patriotism" (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 10:39:06 AM EST
    while "Obama smears McCain's military record" -- two headlines that, in conjunction, just spell a stunning electoral disaster.  Or I'm so far out of the mainstream of this country that I don't know it anymore.

    ditto (none / 0) (#85)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 10:43:12 AM EST
    how can you claim that Obama is playing nice (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 10:38:28 AM EST
    with a straight face?

    First Obama goes to FL and plays the pre-emptive race card against McCain when McCain hasn't said anything racial about Obama at all.

    Then Obama sends out his surrogate Gen Clark to attack McCain and claims he doesn't agree with Clark afterwards.

    These are the same tactics Obama used against Clinton.  Send out surrogates to do your dirty work and pretend you had nothing to do with it and you are just a nice guy operating in a bad world.

    I hope Obama (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by lilburro on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 11:04:12 AM EST
    comes up with a strategy more suitable for this environment.  Right now Obama's strategy is to give speeches about his opinions while McCain attacks.  They aren't on the same page, and I think McCain's strategy has potential to be more effective.

    Right now, Obama is talking about faith.  Not really a contrast issue.  Right now, McCain is talking about how Obama can't be trusted due to taking back his promise about public financing.  A more effective contrast.

    Let's go Obama...

    Maybe liar is a strong word (3.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Slado on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 08:29:30 AM EST
    but Obama is not the candidate of "change" and "hope" anymore.  Just another democrat running to the middle as fast as he can now that he thinks he has the left base locked up.

    Maybe I'll vote for him since he's for FISA, doesn't like gun control, won't pull out of Iraq anymore, wants to up the troops in Afghanistan and is a man of deap faith.   I'm starting to remember why he was such a fan of Ronald Reagan.

    Well, he's busy slamming (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Fabian on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 08:32:04 AM EST
    the DFHs.  Reagan did that too.  It's important to have your scapegoats!  ("welfare queen" anyone?)

    It is a a strong word (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 08:31:14 AM EST
    the quotation marks in my title indicate what McCain said. To me that is calling him a liar.

    So if liar is off the table (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Slado on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 08:55:31 AM EST
    what word describes a new kind of politician who has had 5 to 10 major changes in campaign positions since he won the nomination?

    I'm tired of flip flopper.  What can we call it?


    What else can you call somebody (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by mikeyleigh on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 10:18:54 AM EST
    who reverses his position on just about every issue he campaigned on during the primary season.  Not to mention stating during the campaign that that there was no difference between the Clinton and Bush adminstrations or pretending to stand above the fray while letting his campaign staff and surrogates intimate that the Clintons were racists.  I could go on, but I reckon the point's made.

    Tilt-a-Whirl might be more appropriate (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by RalphB on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 12:04:04 PM EST
    He flip-flops so fast you have to hang on for the ride.  :-)

    do you think Obama's camp has (none / 0) (#1)
    by NJDem on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 08:24:26 AM EST
    to respond to Clark defending himself?  I think Obama is giving a speech today, but this story may overshadow it.  I'm not sure what will happen today...

    No (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 08:26:02 AM EST
    I think they have to respond to McCain calling Obama a liar. Don't you?

    It just makes their rejection of Clark yesterday look silly, doesn't it?


    Why can't Dem pols get it through their (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 08:46:24 AM EST
    thick skulls that the minute they start to walk away from a fight their Republican opponent will always come at them from behind and clock them?  And why do they keep thinking that anyone outside of Dem circles will feel sorry for their guy for an "unfair" punch much less even notice?  No people go - "Wow, that was some hit!  That Republican guy is tough stuff."

    I don't know... (5.00 / 5) (#37)
    by kredwyn on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 09:26:35 AM EST
    But at some point you'd think they'd figure it out and stop being Charlie Brown to the GOP Lucy.

    I've gotten to the point where I'm done feeling sorry for a bunch of adults who can't see this coming from miles away.


    Here's the rub....obama's word cannot (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 10:26:19 AM EST
    be trusted; and I think we have lots of evidence of that...

    Truth=defense? (none / 0) (#97)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 11:38:10 AM EST
    I know what will happen (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 08:26:53 AM EST
    It is a speech on faith - Obama will agree with the Republicans that Democrats have been godless heathens "in the past" and have not done enough to reach out to people of faith.

    I've seen this movie.


    From another thread (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 08:32:51 AM EST
    by tek on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:39:32 AM CST
    but as I said over and over, Obama announced today he will EXPAND Bush's Faith Based Initiative--our tax dollars going to the likes of Jeremiah Wright and Pat Robertson.

    Not voting for McCain, but voting for Obama would mean I would be voting for what I had considered Republican policies that I strongly object to.

    It is worse than that much worse (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 08:41:31 AM EST
    See my latest post.

    He's straining the lead (none / 0) (#26)
    by Lahdee on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 08:43:45 AM EST
    isn't he? Over at Great Orange Satin this AM I came across a someone who's demoralized by the whole thing. Poor dear, I advised that he should keep his chin up cause he's ours now.
    Are the supers sleeping well now I wonder?

    no, the SDs are NOT sleeping well (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by ccpup on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 08:54:58 AM EST
    Even counting the money they got from Obama for their support isn't making them happy anymore.  And I trust the threats from Dean and Brazile to not bolt are holding a lot less water these days.

    I would not be surprised if there are frantic, hush-hush, under the radar phone calls between them discussing the possibility of getting the Candidate who can actually win this damn thing back in the Race at the Convention.

    The candidate he was and promised to be is nowhere to be seen.  Now we Dems are stuck with a Republican-light wannabe running with a (D) after his name.



    My goodness! What are you smoking? (none / 0) (#102)
    by Upstart Crow on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 02:16:47 PM EST
    well, I do know that he's (none / 0) (#14)
    by NJDem on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 08:30:34 AM EST
    going to introduce his plan to expand Bush's faith based initiatives.  link

    (sorry OT)


    I just received an e-mail (none / 0) (#27)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 08:44:49 AM EST
    Outlining what he will say today. Absolutely Scary

    CHICAGO - Reaching out to evangelical voters, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is announcing plans to expand President Bush's program steering federal social service dollars to religious groups and -- in a move sure to cause controversy -- support some ability to hire and fire based on faith.


    Clark's remark was really dumb (none / 0) (#6)
    by Josey on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 08:28:13 AM EST
    since his military cred was about all Clark had going for him when he was a presidential candidate.

    Once you are out of the race... (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Fabian on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 08:29:53 AM EST
    it doesn't really matter anymore.

    It's wonderful.  About the only Dem candidate who has to walk on eggshells anymore is Hillary Clinton.  Everyone else can do what they like.  (Go Dennis!)


    No, he was very careful (none / 0) (#8)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 08:29:13 AM EST
    to include his kind of military experience in the kind that does qualify one to be C in C.

    Please do not respond on this issue (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 08:30:06 AM EST
    I am declaring it off topic to this thread.

    Darn it all... (none / 0) (#52)
    by kredwyn on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 10:06:31 AM EST
    Ha. (none / 0) (#98)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 11:39:57 AM EST
    Hmm (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 08:29:43 AM EST
    I see you do not know what you are talking about.

    But I will let that fight go.

    I guess I can not say you are off topic since I mentioned the contretemps yesterday but I will ask you to refrain from reopening that discussion in this thread.


    Dig deeper (none / 0) (#46)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 09:44:05 AM EST
    What are some substantive differences between clark's and mccain's military experience?

    While the rest of the country might not make such a distinction I think we should.


    He sent the guy with the Howitzer packing (none / 0) (#7)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 08:28:20 AM EST
    Unilateral disarmament in politics is a very bad idea.

    Neither can polls...my personal experiences... (none / 0) (#13)
    by SunnyLC on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 08:30:28 AM EST
    "Musings on Pollsters: Confessions of a Former Gallup Study Director..."


    As a former Gallup study director, I view the polling of Zogby and Gallup in non-technical terms...and recount some of my own experiences witnessing manipulation of data...

    It sounds like an interesting piece (none / 0) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 08:32:36 AM EST
    But it is off topic and for me at least the link did not work. Can you hold off on it until an Open Thread?



    And now Atrios sez (none / 0) (#19)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 08:37:55 AM EST
    that "as expected, the Clinton rules of journalism have become the Obama rules of journalism."

    Well, I think the jury is out on that, but it seems like McCain is going to push for it.

    John checked the script (none / 0) (#20)
    by Lahdee on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 08:38:39 AM EST
    this morning and found it comfortable; attach, dissemble, evade and distract.
    Oh and that bi-partisan stuff, that's just for use when it suits him or he forgets the script.

    Weak (none / 0) (#21)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 08:38:49 AM EST
    As long as the Democrat's continue to play by the Republican game plan they're in trouble. It's time for them to fight back on what "security" really is. Inflaming half the world and isolating ourselves from the international community may provide red meat for hardcore Neocon's but the Dem's need to point to the folly of it.

    The money we've poured down the drain in the middle east could have gone a long way to improve the quality of life in that region.

    They are all liars (none / 0) (#22)
    by nellre on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 08:39:53 AM EST
    The more I get to know Obama, the less I think of him.
    McCain? There is no there there.

    What did McCain say that was incorrect? (none / 0) (#24)
    by myiq2xu on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 08:42:57 AM EST
    I don't think Obama can be trusted either.

    McCain on Obama's Patriotism (none / 0) (#34)
    by bison on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 09:06:54 AM EST
    Didn't McCain question Obama's patriotism when he didn't answer the question put to him about Obama's patriotism during the  press conference yesterday?  Where was MSM with a follow up question?

    Does anyone have (none / 0) (#36)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 09:19:09 AM EST
    a transcript of the exact words McCain's said?

    If he straight up called Obama untrustworthy then he will regret it.  It serves absolutely no purpose.  Anyone who believes him was already voting for him.  

    A lot of people get turned off by that sort of negative rhetoric.  And they find it more than a little hypocritical, since most Americans feel they can't trust ANY politicians.

    Here ya go... (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by kredwyn on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 09:35:12 AM EST
    "I certainly don't think (his word) can be trusted in the case ofa very, very important factor in the conduct of our campaigns. He said repeatedly in writing and verbally that he would take public financing in the general election if I did. I mean that's just a matter of record, I could give you many quotes of his and commitments. And things that he's signed. And obviously he reversed his position on that issue," McCain said. "That's a fundamental issue as far as campaigns are concerned. You make a pledge to take a certain course of action, particularly as fundamental as that is, then obviously there's a question about trusting someone's word." link

    Ahh (none / 0) (#43)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 09:38:55 AM EST
    He's whining about the public financing issue.  

    More of a non-issue than I thought.  

    I don't see Obama responding to this.  Why even waste his time?  No one really cares about this issue.


    public financing (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by kredwyn on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 09:44:30 AM EST
    as one example of how the candidate can't be trusted.

    It's the beginning of a "define your opponent" frame...


    And there is a long laundry list (none / 0) (#53)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 10:07:39 AM EST
    of thing's McCain's said that is a complete flip-flop of his stated beliefs.

    Regardless you let surrogates take these shots.


    really? (none / 0) (#58)
    by kredwyn on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 10:10:57 AM EST
    When the shot is aimed right at you for your decision? The best response comes from a surrogate?

    You misunderstand what I meant (none / 0) (#62)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 10:15:52 AM EST
    I think that McCain should have let a surrogate make this charge.  

    I don't think Obama should even respond to this.


    He didn't... (none / 0) (#65)
    by kredwyn on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 10:19:38 AM EST
    He took it on himself.

    And you don't not respond to challenges to your character...

    Inaction==action and tacit acceptance of the frame. (See Kerry v Bush 2004)

    I cannot believe this is something that has to be pointed out...again.


    Ugh (none / 0) (#67)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 10:23:04 AM EST
    Kerry didn't lose because of attacks on his character.  

    What exactly should Obama say "Yes you can trust me!  The person you can't trust is McCain!"?


    ugh... (none / 0) (#71)
    by kredwyn on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 10:28:35 AM EST
    I didn't say that's why he lost.

    Kerry's inaction with regards to the swift boaters seriously weakened his argument.

    "Senator McCain--the same guy who supported the Bush admin whil it lied to the people on X, Y, and Z--wants to talk about trustworthiness? Okay...let's do that."


    Kerry lost (none / 0) (#75)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 10:34:08 AM EST
    because he had no consistent message and was a completely uncompelling nominee.  

    The only reason the Swift Boaters were effective is because Kerry used his Vietnam experience as the justification for his being President.


    ::sigh:: (none / 0) (#77)
    by kredwyn on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 10:36:50 AM EST
    You don't get it.

    What presidential candidate runs w/o trustworthiness as a foundational argument?


    I do get it (none / 0) (#81)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 10:39:37 AM EST
    Which Presidential candidate was able to convince people that the other guy is untrustworthy?

    Was Bush trustworthy in 2004?  Was Clinton trustworthy in 1996?

    People trust politicians based on their perceptions of their actions, not based on the accusations of their opponents.


    What actions? (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by kredwyn on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 10:45:38 AM EST
    You have a candidate who is quite literally all over the place:

    1. says one thing, does another re: public financing

    2. doesn't vote for legislation, says he opposes the legislation, and then changes his mind re: Iran's Republican Guard

    3. claims to oppose FISA, votes that way during the primaries, and appears to shift his position towards the capitulation

    4. stands up for his minister then drops him under the bus 2 weeks later

    Hmm (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 11:11:11 AM EST
    In between the two elections that you mentioned, there was another election where the losing candidate was quite effectively smeared as a guy who lies about everything, including inventing the Internet.

    There was virtually nothing in Gore's actual record to suggest that he was an untrustworthy politician.  The entire narrative was constructed by the GOP, the media, and of course Bill Bradley.


    Yup (none / 0) (#95)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 11:36:04 AM EST
    But that was more a case of Gore making a few mis-statements and Karl Rove smearing them.

    I'm not suggesting that Obama allow the Right to smear him.  But I don't see how this battle is worth fighting.  Let McCain make dumb comments like this.  Let surrogates take shots at him.  


    LOL (5.00 / 0) (#44)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 09:39:10 AM EST
    yes I get turned off by that kind of rhetoric and that's why i will not vote for obama.

    Good for you (none / 0) (#55)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 10:08:18 AM EST
    Have fun with McCain.  Or maybe you are going with Bob Barr or Cynthia McKinney.  Good luck with that.

    no (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 10:24:38 AM EST
    I'm voting "present".

    I understand that's a "no" vote for everyone.


    Yeah, (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by frankly0 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 09:42:20 AM EST
    people get turned off by all this negative rhetoric about not being trustworthy.

    President Kerry is testament to that fact.

    Look, Obama can't be trusted to keep his word. As McCain points out, campaign finance reform is a perfect example of that.

    The Truth sucks sometimes. With regard to Obama, maybe often.


    Yes I know (none / 0) (#56)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 10:09:03 AM EST
    he truly is awful, isn't he?

    Heh (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 10:21:33 AM EST
    Yeah, now that Obama is done attacking Hillary's honesty and character, time to cue the self-righteous speeches about how terrible negative attacks are.

    Were people turned off by the claims that Hillary would "say and do anything"?  Did they find them more than a little hypocritical?  Well, actually, yes!  But I don't recall many people pointing these things out at the time, and more to the point, apparently all these things can happen and you can still win.


    WTF are you talking about? (none / 0) (#72)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 10:28:55 AM EST
    Where did I say anything about negative attacks being terrible?  

    Negative attacks can be effective, but they can also bite back if done improperly.

    McCain is trying to create a new message about Obama, that he is not trustworthy.  IMO, using the campaign finance reform argument as evidence won't float.  It is pretty easy for Obama to toss that aside.

    Is there anything Obama can do that you people would find acceptable?


    Hmm (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 11:07:31 AM EST
    Considering the only thing Obama did that I made reference to was his negative attacks on Hillary's character during the primary, I'm a little puzzled by your closing rhetorical question.

    Frankly, I can't really square your last two posts at all.  First you said that a lot of people get turned off by negative rhetoric and that they view it as more than a little hypocritical.  Now you're all indignant, wanting to know how I could POSSIBLY think you were saying negative attacks are a bad thing.

    Let me offer something constructive.  You are mistaken to believe that the campaign finance debate provides the sole context for the attacks on Obama's honesty, even if that provides the basis for whatever he's saying today.  McCain has been attacking Obama's honesty for a long time, going all the way back to their famous dust-up in the Senate.  I'm confident the McCain has a long, long list of issues where they argue that Obama has been dishonest and shown that his word can't be trusted.  I'm pretty sure most of that list would be BS, but there you have it.

    McCain is quite obviously trying to win this election on character because he has little else in his quiver.  Is it a mistake for him to go there?  Maybe, maybe not, but what else is he going to do?  It's not like the voters are hungry for another four years of Republican policies.


    lol (none / 0) (#38)
    by english teacher on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 09:32:27 AM EST
    what the hell? (none / 0) (#51)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 09:54:08 AM EST
    when did axlfraud start working for mccain?

    Obama is in deep doo doo (none / 0) (#88)
    by g8grl on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 10:56:09 AM EST
    He's gonna have a tough time trying to redefine McCain.  McCain has been a "maverick", "war hero" and lifelong patriot for decades.  Whereas Obama has come out of nowhere and can easily become framed as a great salesman who gives great speeches but isn't trustworthy.  

    I hope childish euphemisms for excrement doesn't violate site policy.

    we can't possibly be (none / 0) (#93)
    by cpinva on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 11:11:23 AM EST
    occupying the same planet BTD:

    Thank Gawd George Bush has ruined the GOP brand because otherwise the Democratic Party would be capable of blowing even this election.

    should sen. obama be the actual dem nominee, they most surely will have blown even this election. the willful blindness displayed, with regards to sen. obama, by yourself, jeralyn, the "obamanatics" and the entire suicidal DNC notwithstanding, sen. obama is imploding as we speak.

    of course mccain is going to attack sen. obama, that's his job! geez, i sit in awe that anyone even feigns surprise at this.
    perhaps it's time you all hied thee to an optician, and got those eyes checked. i think corrective lenses are in order for all of you.

    Obama has ruined the Dem brand (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 11:36:48 AM EST
    so what's the difference?  None can be trusted.  Pols are pols.  Why vote?  That's where this is headed -- and it might even be a deliberate ploy for voter suppression, at least of some voters, with the plan to win some states based on turnout of others.

    This is so true (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by g8grl on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 12:26:21 PM EST
    and I don't understand how Obama is so obtuse as to not understand what he did.  How shortsighted do you have to be to run as a Democrat when you've painted the the party as one led by race baiters and "monsters".  If you listen to Obama, Democrats want to garnish your wages to pay for healthcare and our only two term President in decades was ineffective and really no different than the two Bushes he was sandwiched by.  Obama's point being that being Democrats or Republicans is passe, only being Obamacans can save us.  

    He has conflated Republicans and Democrats so often that all of these young followers, who don't have a historical understanding, have no reason to become Democrats.


    Way to give up! (none / 0) (#103)
    by mrmobi on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:16:29 PM EST
    None can be trusted.  Pols are pols.  Why vote?

    How shortsighted do you have to be to run as a Democrat when you've painted the the party as one led by race baiters and "monsters".

    After reading comments like these, I've become convinced that there is an alternate universe, and some people have the ability to exist in it for brief periods of time. As far as voting, I vote because it's a privilege people have given their lives for, and, if you don't vote, you really have no right to complain about pols being untrustworthy and other such defeatist crap. Please, stop the whining.

    Fact is, as BTD says above, George Bush has ruined the Republican brand. Don't know if you guys have noticed, but Obama continues to trend upward, despite the blogosphere's circular firing squad.

    Obama gave a great speech on patriotism yesterday, any of you who still have an open mind might take a read, or a look. It's ok, even Bill likes him now!

    Big Tent D, I now believe that it's possible that this whole kerfluffle with Clark was started deliberately by the Obama campaign. McCain is now venting about comments made by Jim Webb. It looks like the strategy might be to try to take him off message and get him to spew and make yet another gaffe. The man has a temper, and I'd love to see him have his "Dean" moment. The big question is, would the media even notice, or do "Dean" moments only happen to Democrats?

    I've never seen a worse candidate than John McCain, or a Republican campaign this poorly organized at the start of the general election. This election won't be close. PUMA members notwithstanding (I'm convinced they are not significant in numbers, certainly not more than a few thousand, and that's counting untold numbers of Republican Ratf*ckers preying on the willfully ignorant), most Democrats get how important this election is, and understand that the way to win is to vote for the Democratic candidate.