Another Reason Why McCain's Whine Was A Mistake

The only chance, imo, McCain has to win this election is to go nasty, via third parties if possible, on Barack Obama. Eric Boehlert reports on one of the planned assaults:

The notorious [Swift Boaters'] group also remains a hot topic because the same publisher of the anti-Kerry Swift Boat book, Regnery Publishing, is planning to release an August book on Sen. Barack Obama called, The Case Against Barack Obama. The book's roll-out will be pushed by the same well-connected conservative public relations firm, Creative Response Concepts, that was behind the Swift Boat blitz. Conservatives hope to catch lightning in a bottle again and derail the Democratic nominee with the release of this sensational book, but in order to disrupt Obama, the publisher will have to do more than lob all sorts of wild accusations. It will have to enlist the help of the Beltway media.

(Emphasis supplied.) After using the Beltway Media to whine about General Clark, McCain has boxed himself in on the necessary dirty attacks that he would need to be made on Barack Obama for McCain to win in November. And for what? For three days of early July coverage? More . . .

Even the most ardent of the Obama, um, let's call them skeptics, at this site must admit that the McCain strategy has to be to question Obama's readiness to be President and to raise questions about Obama's character. And the REAL dirty work has to be done by "independent" groups. McCain has really undercut their ability to do this with support from the Beltway Media, who was not going to be eager to do it to Obama anyway.

Strategically, and I believe tactically frankly, McCain blew it on this issue. He has muzzled one of his best weapons - using the crazy Right to make wild attacks on Obama. Now he has to denounce it and the Media will follow suit.

The more I think about it, the more I think McCain may have lost all chance to win the election this week.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Moving To The "Middle" On FISA | McCain Denies Assaulting Sandinista >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I disagree (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 05:58:38 PM EST
    All these groups need is one outrageous and half-credible ad. Anyone can go negative and be effective. Heck, Hillary Clinton successfully went negative in Texas.

    Nope (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 06:00:23 PM EST
    the Media coverage will be "Swift Boat!" from the word go.

    McCain has killed this avenue imo.


    Hope you're right (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 06:03:12 PM EST
    but I doubt it.

    Yeah, like they did with Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by myiq2xu on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 06:13:35 PM EST
    They never called Obama on going negative and jumped on Hillary if she complained about it or said anything negative about him.

    Actually (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 06:23:17 PM EST
    You buttress my point in two ways.

    the Media will NEVER treat anyone as bad as they treated Hillary.

    the Media will certainly not treat Obama badly, he is the Media Darling and remains so now.


    Yeah (none / 0) (#61)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 07:48:47 PM EST
    but they'll be running the ads because they are newsworthy all the while "tsk tsking it". Frankly, I think the media darling stuff is not helping him. It's hurting him because it's creating resentment.

    We'll see if any of this proves to be true in Sept.


    The media has no interest in.... (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 06:23:38 PM EST
    ...swiftboating Obama even though they were happy to go after Clark. McCain will find that out the hard way.

    Ding! Ding! Ding! (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 06:25:10 PM EST
    And now, they have the storyline to shut it down right away. Heck, they'll blast McCain for it if it happens.

    That would almost make me feel... (none / 0) (#34)
    by Alec82 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 06:27:18 PM EST
    ...sorry for McCain.  All of those years honing is relationship with the media...to be trounced by someone who is not nearly as buddy buddy with individual reporters but enjoys favorable coverage.

     Almost. It's still McCain, after all.


    Are you saying that since McCain whined (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by g8grl on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:42:33 PM EST
    about Clark going negative he can't go negative himself or let surrogates do it?  If so, I think you're wrong.  All McCain has to say is he's just stating facts about how unprepared Obama is.  Or how talking about Wright, Rezko, et al is about judgement and patriotism.  

    Additionally, the media has an out.  Watch them narrowly define "swift boating" as attacking a candidate's military service.  Thus this episode is "swift boating" and, McCain can rightly complain, while any attack on Obama wouldn't be swift boating since Obama's service is non-existent.  

    McCain and surrogates can still go negative and the media won't call him on it.  Also, I think your underlying premise is that the media has a sense of shame about being two faced...I don't agree, they'll do whatever they want, once they decide who they want as President.

    If that doesn't convince you that


    I agree with you 100 percent (2.00 / 1) (#100)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 11:38:10 PM EST
    sorry, meant to delete that last line. (none / 0) (#94)
    by g8grl on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:45:09 PM EST
    You are wrong on so (none / 0) (#85)
    by talex on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:50:57 PM EST
    many things you said in your post. So many.

    But instead of listing them and why they are wrong I will just bookmark this post and get back to you in a month or so.


    Heh (5.00 / 6) (#3)
    by Steve M on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 06:01:20 PM EST
    Hillary's brand of negative is fluff compared to what McCain will have to unleash.  I mean, an ad with a sleeping kid that implies the other guy isn't ready?  Not exactly Lee Atwater material there.

    I think something that mild (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 06:02:52 PM EST
    might well be enough. The best antidote is this "McCain is unstable" narrative, actually.

    Yup. Just keep pounding on (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by scribe on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 06:26:42 PM EST
    "Do we really want an angry, ranting old man whose temper erupts at the slightest (or no) provocation to have his finger on the nuclear button?"

    I'm telling you, quite seriously, that that's the ticket.

    Pincus picked it up in an article today, only a week after it hit the Euro media, that the Euros are extremely concerned about the presence of US nukes in NATO bunkers on their soil, and the crappy security being provided to the warheads.  Pincus' article is pretty thin on how strong the reactions were to the "bad security" report.  To put it bluntly, the German grand coalition government almost (but not quite) came apart over the issue.  The SPD made serious noises about taking a run at forcing the couple hundred US nukes stored in Germany to be removed.  This issue is not nearly over, but putting into the WH a guy with no judgment-governing-emotional reaction and a promise of diverting all US defense attention to consolidating in Iraq will not engender any confidence abroad, and likely result in worse than already exists.


    The Polish... (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 07:23:14 PM EST
    ...people like Americans (roughly 68% hold a positive view), but not our pResident.  Especially now that the wingnuts have been replaced by a more Centrist coalition.

    If I had a zloty for everytime I have been scolded about the evil that is W, I could retire to Krakow is fine style.


    My oczywi&#347;cie... (none / 0) (#73)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 08:20:59 PM EST
    ...nie okazywałby życzliwość Niemcom albo Rosjanom!

    Co do chuja!? (none / 0) (#74)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 08:27:52 PM EST

    Polish to english (none / 0) (#102)
    by waldenpond on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 12:22:48 AM EST
    Google Co do chuja, indeed. What the f^ck, indeed.

    Swój ciagnie do swojego here at TalkLeft. Same kinds attract here at Talkleft.....

    I suppose you mean intelligent, witty, attractive people?


    I agree. (5.00 / 5) (#60)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 07:45:28 PM EST
    Thinking that the media will protect Obama is a huge mistake. The GOP knows how to bypass the media and make it story. Then after it's been around they feel pressured to report it. Does no one remember how it has been done previously? The Willie Horton ad had Dukakis dropping double digits almost overnight. I don't know why Dems completely underestimate these people time and again.

    Willie Horton (none / 0) (#87)
    by anydemwilldo on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:01:49 PM EST
    Was a real issue though.  While there were some nasty racial undertones to the ad, it was fundamentally factual: the guy really was serving a life sentence, really was furloughed, really did rob and rape a woman, and Dukakis really did veto a bill that would have kept him locked up.

    Especially in the crime-paranoid environment of 1988, this was a perfect storm.  Yes, the ad itself and lots of the coverage was pretty shady too, but it was a hugely damaging story nonetheless.

    The republicans can't simply "decide" to run another Willie Horton ad.  If they could, they'd do so for every election against every democrat.


    Heh (none / 0) (#90)
    by Steve M on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:14:50 PM EST
    Notably, the "real" part of the issue was brought up in the primaries, but Democratic voters apparently decided it wasn't a problem.

    Remind me again how Hillary went negative in Texas (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by bridget on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:46:11 PM EST
    what happened?

    Clark rattled McCain (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Salo on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:39:07 PM EST
    keep goading McCain and he'll blow his freaking stack.



    Way to close to it (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by sarahfdavis on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 06:09:37 PM EST
    This analysis seems like you're way to close to the game. There's no set of rules or fairness written in stone anywhere. Why do you think us Hillary supporters were so enraged all the time? Obama and his posse attacked Hillary in the most outrageous manner all the while self righteously accusing her of doing anything to win. The witch even wanted Obama assassinated! There are no rules. Just constant outrage and drama created by the media and exploited by the candidates.

    Excuse me (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 06:22:17 PM EST
    Obama was the Media Darling against Clinton and could do no wrong. Clinton was Evill Incanrate and could do no right.

    So far, I have been the only person who got it right on the Media Darling issue and Obama. I said this last fall long before the rest of you noticed it.


    I noticed it, too. Just saying ;-) (none / 0) (#82)
    by bridget on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:39:51 PM EST
    Nope you weren't the only one (none / 0) (#86)
    by talex on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:58:50 PM EST
    But you could be the only one who doesn't think the media will turn on Obama. In fact they already have.

    Paging Rev Wright.

    How many elections will it take before you begin to realize how the No Taxes media picks who they want to run against and then turns on them?


    Implicit in BTD's assessment of the (none / 0) (#88)
    by MarkL on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:10:23 PM EST
    race is that the result in November will turn on utter trivialities. It's very disheartening.

    Guilt by association (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Alec82 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 06:10:13 PM EST
    Manchurian candidate.  That, even if not a closet Muslim (and I think that will be restricted to the usual lunatic fringe), Rezko, Nation of Islam, Ayers, the flag issue, Michelle Obama's "proud of my country" absurdity, and spitting out his middle name as though it was slanderous.  There are plenty of quotes that can be torn out of his first book to give some more ammunition (i.e., he used to hang out with Marxists in college).  The drug use might be trotted out if they think it will have any staying power.  Basically, hidden beneath the layers of his candidacy is an alien, corrupt ideology with radical roots.

     That's the attack I anticipate.  Fox started it a long time ago.  

    here's the (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 07:53:13 PM EST
    deal: I agree with some of what you are saying that they will use. However, people don't have to actually buy into the story. All the GOP has to do is create enough doubt about Obama that people won't vote for him.

    That's always... (none / 0) (#71)
    by Alec82 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 08:10:50 PM EST
    ...the negative campaign strategy.  You seed doubt.  I think I read somewhere that there have been studies that show that once a hit has been made, the perception shifts, even if the lie isn't believed.  

     But...there are limits, and there are signs of oversaturation.  The right wing overplayed its hand with President Clinton with the "attack at all fronts" approach.  Furthermore, the GOP does appear to be headed for a congressional meltdown.  So we'll see.


    Alex (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 08:47:35 PM EST
    You have 62 comments today. Some of the ones from this morning were very rude to others.

    You are chattering. Please limit yourself to no more than 15 comments a day. Thank you.


    Very well (none / 0) (#101)
    by Alec82 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 11:45:50 PM EST
    I sent an email of my thoughts to you.  Good day.

    Yes but ... (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by Inky on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:12:11 PM EST
    At least a part of the reason that the right-wing attacks on Clinton didn't hold sway was that the country was booming and the deficit was shrinking under Clinton -- people had a reason to be grateful for his leadership so in the end he was unsinkable. Now perhaps Obama will be unsinkable simply because the Republican brand is so thoroughly damaged by Bush and his allies in congress. That seems likely right now, but perhaps McCain is laying low and will surprise us all with an effective campaign.

    But one thing that Obama does not have going for him that Clinton did have is a real reason for the public to rally around him if he is painted as someone other than what he has portrayed himself as.

    Also, the fact that the GOP seems to be in the midst of a congressional meltdown could actually help McCain -- many Americans actually prefer a divided government.


    Paul Lukasiak outlined the (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by MarkL on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 07:58:55 PM EST
    attack which I suspect they will use, which is to accuse Obama of using crack cocaine. After the charge is made enough times, Obama will have to clarify that he "only" used cocaine, which of course will sound terrible.
    We'll see.

    Surely you've heard nobody cares (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 08:06:09 PM EST
    whether Obama used any kind of cocaine.

    I heard about the tooth fairy too. (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by MarkL on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 08:08:56 PM EST
    The young won't care. The older folks will. (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by hairspray on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:21:46 PM EST
    I'm an... (none / 0) (#107)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 09:23:24 AM EST
    "older folk" and I could give a rat's behind.  

    Well that is a statistic of "one" (none / 0) (#108)
    by hairspray on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:25:40 AM EST
    Well, that... (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:29:31 AM EST
    ...just goes to show that when you make blanket statements, it only takes "one" to disprove them.

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:47:09 AM EST
    "One" also being the number of people who would take his statement to mean that "100% of older folks will care."

    In your opinion (none / 0) (#112)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:57:31 AM EST
    Blanket statements supported by well known (none / 0) (#113)
    by hairspray on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 02:50:05 PM EST
    assumptions, not so much.  Reading sociology and demographic studes does give one some room to make some general assumptions about the population at large.

    Depends on whether he's still using it (none / 0) (#114)
    by laurie on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 03:39:02 PM EST
    Strikes me he's delusional at times...
    Wouldn't want that kind of finger on a nuclear button...

    IMO it will be fund-raising and election fraud (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Ellie on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:40:29 AM EST
    'We don't need the people. Just their checks.'

    Also, the thugging of various local leaders and congress critters who supported HRC.

    I don't want a Dem Boss machine with "our" version of Tom DeLay lording it from above the fray (and behind the curtain, as the NuDem leaders are jockeying to do).

    I'm certainly not behind this call to starve "issues" groups of their funds to turn over to Team Obama to burn through for self-glorification, amusement, and to be in a statistical dead heat with McCain.

    (Oh come on, what a pathetic performance and waste of 2x, 3x and 4x Hillary-Dollars.)


    I think you're right about that n/t (none / 0) (#62)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 07:50:01 PM EST
    From your keyboard (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by scribe on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 06:17:42 PM EST

    The more I think about it, the more I think McCain may have lost all chance to win the election this week.

    To (the reader's choice of) God's eyes.  Just so long as that does not result in the Repugs finding a way to replace the Cranky Ranting Old Guy with someone else as nominee.

    Don't know if anyone else (none / 0) (#104)
    by zfran on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 08:44:00 AM EST
    heard this, but someone told me they heard at Huffpo (about a few weeks ago) that in the end, the repubs will drop McCain, or he will drop out and a new candidate will emerge! Anyone else hear this?

    I don't understand how this works (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by dianem on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 06:24:42 PM EST
    How did anything McCain did prevent the media from using attacks from the right wing against Obama? I think you're being a bit optimistic. The media will suck up any dirt on Obama like a kitten laps up cream. Nothing McCain can do will prevent that.

    Then you do not understand it (none / 0) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 06:25:58 PM EST
    I think it is pretty obvious myself.

    Then please explain it (none / 0) (#39)
    by dianem on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 06:31:43 PM EST
    I'm pretty good at understanding things when they are clearly explained.

    McvCain had muzzled the ability (none / 0) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 06:36:26 PM EST
    of his Swift Boaters to go after Obama with nasty dirty attacks because he whined so much about being "Swift Boated."

    tyhe Media will attack McCain if they do.

    Ergo, the one way McCain has of winning, tearing down Obama, is now precluded.

    He has no campaign he can run that can win now.


    It (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 07:58:44 PM EST
    seems to me that he can do what Bush did. Talk about how they are independent groups and he can't coordinate with them. Just like Bush Sr. did too.

    absolutely laughable! (none / 0) (#76)
    by RalphB on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 08:47:34 PM EST
    I confess i don't understand this post (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by MarkL on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 07:35:19 PM EST
    or your optimism at all.
    I'm not sure what has happened in the last two days, but is it bad for McCain? Too early to say, IMO.

    Reading today that (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Cream City on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:51:42 PM EST
    the RNC begins a massive ad sweep for McCain this weekend, that the Repubs are sending in top pros to run the campaign, that the right-wing evangelicals are meeting this weekend to coalesce for him -- and then seeing McCain just happening to be in Colombia for the story of the night, so he gets face time on the plane back to modestly disclaim any credit (code: give him credit) while media extol his modesty for not even mentioning his years held hostage, etc. . . .

    Now it begins.


    Yep (none / 0) (#97)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 11:22:15 PM EST
    The McCain campaign dropped anchor and drifted for awhile.  Now it's time to sail.

    I really think we ain't seen nothin' yet.


    Enough tequila shots (none / 0) (#78)
    by RalphB on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 08:51:01 PM EST
    to float a small boat could account for it.  :-)

    After reading the posts on here (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Grace on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 08:12:34 PM EST
    regarding McCain's temper (his "snatching up" a Sandinista and his fist fight with a Congressman), I think McCain's best bet is to challenge Obama to either a duel or a wresling match during one of the debates.  

    McCain may be old, but I think he's pretty tough.  I think there is still a chance he'll win this election.  ;-)  

    Obama already backed down from (none / 0) (#75)
    by MarkL on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 08:28:09 PM EST
    one McCain challenge---the town hall proposal.

    McCain's Swift Boat would sink quickly (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by wurman on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:45:37 PM EST
    There are nutball websites already set up & running that go much farther than "swift boat."  There are stories, with video, of (then) LCmdr McCain on the USS Forrestal & the events of July 29, 1967: YouTube (link).  There are crew members who blame the senator for that disaster, falsely for certain, because it was well-established that his A-4 was hit be a rocket from another aircraft across the flight deck.

    But the McCain campaign has to watch the whole backside because if they go dirty on Sen. Obama this phony crap will surface quickly.

    This website, "judicial-inc" (link) is a complete fraud because there was no aircraft behind McCain's A-4; his burner was hanging over the flight deck out toward the ocean.  Even so, this stuff is just below the surface & will hit the lame stream media IF the McCain gang strikes at Obama.

    Finally, to see the genuine hatred of some rightwingnutz toward McCain, check out rumormillnews (link).  This is totally bogus, but it's out there & would come to the forefront in a negative campaign counter-attack.

    Big Tent is correct.  IF McCain plays the down & dirty on Obama & IF the most reactionary of the media run some of it, then all of these insane anti-McCain websites will go viral all across the internet & on to the major sources.  Pardon the sea service pun, but it's all just under the surface.  And McCain knows it.

    Game, set, match.  Way to go Gen. Clark.

    I think it's too early to know what the media (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by WillBFair on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:13:41 PM EST
    will do. On the one hand, their support of Obama could have been strategic, to get rid of the Clintons. But they also know that public opinion has swung our way, and they probably won't flout it too openly. My guess is they'll try to chip at his lead in the polls. One thing is sure, once they settle on a strategy, it will be obvious. They entire media will follow orders, as they always do, but each venue in its own way. This last time, even the New Yorker was doing puff pieces on Obama and regular insults for Hillary.

    Big Tent whiffed on this one, (5.00 / 0) (#98)
    by Green26 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 11:30:11 PM EST
    in my view. The argument makes no sense. Clark wasn't swift-boating McCain. Clark just make a very dumb statement, which was dispectful and made little sense because his candidate Obama has zero military credentials or experience. McCain isn't boxed in at all.

    BigTent, I will say that I very much enjoyed all of your material on the Hillary v. Obama race. It was very helpful and well done.

    While I agree that Clark wasn't (none / 0) (#105)
    by zfran on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 08:50:57 AM EST
    swift-boating McCain, all he was doing was answering a question, which he couldn't have anticipated he'd get (or could he?). He also said in subsequent interviews that he had said this about McCain for months. I don't think the answer was dumb. As a military person, why not ask Clark a military-type question.  

    O/T - A Crime Story in WSJ Today (none / 0) (#7)
    by catfish on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 06:09:49 PM EST
    about de-segregating cells. It's pretty fascinating.

    California is about to begin desegregating its prison cells, and that worries inmates and prison officials alike.

    For years, the state's prison system used race as a criterion when initially designating cellmates. Prisons paired incoming white inmates with white, black with black, Hispanic with Hispanic. The unwritten policy aimed to avoid interracial tensions among gang members.

    But in 2005, after a 10-year legal battle, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that California's prisons can't use race to determine cell assignments. So, in coming weeks, California plans to start desegregating cells in the largest state-prison system in the U.S. Among the first ...

    The rest is behind subscription firewall. An African American inmate sued because he kept getting AA cell mates, and he said it forced him to join AA gangs for survival.

    Watch, wait, listen.... (none / 0) (#8)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 06:10:11 PM EST

    "Swif Boat!" (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 06:12:09 PM EST
    you are right most of the time (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 06:19:05 PM EST
    but I really think your faith in the stalwart support of the MSM for Obama is misplaced.
    I think they will turn on him like the rabid wolverines if given half a chance.
    also, I dont think McCain denouncing the right wing attacks will dull them much at all.
    I think that was the plan all along.  they attack he denounces, media talks for days about both. rinse, repeat.

    Nope (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 06:20:50 PM EST
    Heck they only stuck with McCain on this for a couple of days.

    Obama got no flak at all on this today.


    Still knocked his speeches (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by waldenpond on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 06:50:43 PM EST
    out of the media.  The topic was off of Obama's message.  I watch little cable media lately but I turned in at the beginning of the hours yesterday and today.... Obama's speeches are not the lead.

    Currently....4:47 CNN McCain camp shake-up. MSNBC: Obama Patriotism gap (Wright and wife's comments.

    I note a change in RCP also.  Used to be multiple positive Obama leads morning and afternoon.  (I keep trying to track the media darling theory.)


    Fox news was questioning (none / 0) (#106)
    by zfran on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 08:53:39 AM EST
    why Obama has a speech everyday, or a new message of the day, or a new initiative of the day and McCain goes to S.America instead of visiting state-side and campaign.

    So why the adoration? (none / 0) (#64)
    by sarahfdavis on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 07:57:25 PM EST
    Why do you think they love him so much? Did they love George Bush like this in 2000? Is it just random?

    The media (4.66 / 3) (#70)
    by nell on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 08:09:00 PM EST
    LOVED Bush and made it nearly impossible for anyone to question him. I think part of the reason for that is they thought he was a cool guy they could drink with, they hated Gore and then later Kerry, and Bush, like Obama, had an angry mob behind him that would call and complain about bad coverage.

    I think they love Obama because he is a new story, I think the media loves the idea of Obama making history, and to be frank, I think they are afraid to criticize him because they fear accusations of racism.


    Haven't you heard of double standards? (none / 0) (#10)
    by myiq2xu on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 06:11:49 PM EST
    They get to play dirty AND whine if we hit back.

    Show me a political race without double standards (none / 0) (#14)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 06:15:06 PM EST
    and I'll show you a TV show.

    Not now (none / 0) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 06:20:14 PM EST
    What makes you believe that? (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by dianem on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 06:29:41 PM EST
    Obama certainly isn't immune to being attacked, and the media do not have a record of being consistent. Right wingers have been hypocritical and whined since the beginning of, well, at least the Bush Jr. era. The media have given them every break. Why expect it to be different this time? The media have held off on attacking Obama because they aren't sure how they can do it without being labeled racist. As one women said on Salon, since Obama is a black man, any time you attack him it seems racist - whatever the issue. But the media have shown a willingness to attack him when they could get away with it - like over the Wright issue.

    Maybe not now (none / 0) (#23)
    by myiq2xu on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 06:22:46 PM EST
    But in September and October you can bet the rent on it.

    Don;t bet it (none / 0) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 06:23:53 PM EST
    You'll be out on the street.

    Sez Miss Cleo? (none / 0) (#29)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 06:25:50 PM EST
    Jeez, I really doubt you're right, but I'll be pleasantly surprised if you are.

    You all doubted me (none / 0) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 06:27:08 PM EST
    when I told you Obama was the Media Darling.

    Keep doubting me. Folks have been doubting me for years. On Iraq. On 2006. On Politics of Contrast.

    I am a living breathing Cassandra.


    We still really haven't had a demonstration (none / 0) (#37)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 06:30:21 PM EST
    of the politics of contrast.

    You're not bipolar , are you? (none / 0) (#44)
    by dianem on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 06:38:22 PM EST
    That isn't an insult, by the way, but a serious question.  Many intelligent and creative people are bipolar, and people who are manic often make spectacular claims which seem to be completely clear to them but are incomprehensible to others. I know more than I'd like to about bipolar disorder. I'm a fascinating person when I'm not medicated  Well, some of the time, anyway. By the way, you've never met that person. All of my emotions nowadays are based on normal, rational anger. Well, as normal and rational as anybody else here. Hmmmmmmmm.

    Not that I know of (none / 0) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 06:41:46 PM EST
    Please feel free to delete this (none / 0) (#50)
    by dianem on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 06:44:56 PM EST
    It occurs to me that in our society it is not acceptable to discuss such things. I'm pretty open, and I'm used to dKos where others are also quite open. I should never have asked. I'm sure you aren't, and if you were it would be none of my business.

    Just A Gardenvariety Self Declared Ego Maniac (none / 0) (#46)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 06:41:57 PM EST
    Personally I think he exaggerates this claim, but what do I know.

    Indeed (none / 0) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 06:43:20 PM EST
    As you say, self diagnosed.

    I Agree (none / 0) (#13)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 06:14:50 PM EST
    McCain's temperment and greed did him in. Had he held off he would have been in a much better position, but then again, had he showed restraint he would not be McCain.

    It is ironic that he showed his poor character in this episode.

    BTD... (none / 0) (#16)
    by Alec82 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 06:17:46 PM EST
    ...do you think this is in any way related to the shake up they just announced?

     I noticed they nixed that 11 regions idea right away...

    Interesting (none / 0) (#18)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 06:20:08 PM EST
    Democrats have been running very regional campaigns for the last couple of cycles. Al Gore, for instance, was a very different candidate in Pittsburgh than he was in Philadelphia.

    This was a little unusual for... (none / 0) (#47)
    by Alec82 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 06:42:00 PM EST
    ...a Republican organizational scheme, but it was along the lines you suggest:

    The 10 different campaign offices will run, in essence, 10 different campaigns, region-specific and constituent-specific, tailorable to fit around McCain's unique coalition.

    The campaign's staff - less than 100 in total - gathered in Arlington this weekend and was briefed on the plan.

     Now that Steve Schmidt has taken over I don't know that he'll find that strategy as appealing.


    Well, then there's this (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 06:44:33 PM EST
    Still, other Republicans said that Mr. Schmidt was, for all intents and purposes, now in charge of the campaign and that Mr. Davis would work on more longer-term projects. They said they had been trying to make this change quietly to avoid another round of news reports about a campaign in chaos.
    Republicans in disarray!

    hehe (none / 0) (#51)
    by Alec82 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 06:49:45 PM EST
    It was inspired by that rather timid photo op moment...that's when they decided McCain had an image problem.

      They were planning a very decentralized campaign, from all appearances....maybe too decentralized to stay on message.  

     After seeing the fumbles he has had I wonder how this man was ever elected to the senate in the first place.  


    His media shop is doing a decent job (none / 0) (#53)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 06:52:29 PM EST
    That plus his reputation is keeping him afloat.

    I'm waiting for someone to register (none / 0) (#21)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 06:21:08 PM EST
    I thought (none / 0) (#31)
    by standingup on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 06:26:03 PM EST
    this was Obama's election to lose, not McCain's to win?  

    I think people will be paying more attention to what Obama does than McCain.  He has to keep from making any big mistakes and hope the Republicans don't come up with some deal breaking October surprise.  

    It was (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 06:28:13 PM EST
    Now Obama can not even lose it imo.

    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 06:30:59 PM EST
    I feel as though I should bookmark that one!

    It's over (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 06:34:52 PM EST
    I call ballgame.

    Ok, then this is going to be fun (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 06:36:26 PM EST
    and it's time to get serious about pressuring about Obama.

    Thank goodness! (none / 0) (#54)
    by standingup on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 06:59:07 PM EST
    Now we can move onto pushing the issues where Obama needs to improve.

    Sssssh! (none / 0) (#55)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 07:14:23 PM EST
    Do not reveal my true motives . . .

    I am pessismistic at best. (none / 0) (#57)
    by Marco21 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 07:24:55 PM EST
    From my casual viewing on MSNBC today, they were really into Obama's "patriotism" contrasted with that of McCain's. They still love their "maverick."

    Boehlert's piece is great. Perhaps this was mentioned already but insofar as swiftboating goes, Obama's best chance is that our lazy media, who now pretend they had nothing to do with aiding the swiftboating of Kerry, will try to deflect any new criticism in this area by ignoring or actually investigating the new book sb-ing Obama.

    Guess we'll have to wait for its release to find out.

    I watched (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by nell on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 08:06:57 PM EST
    for the first time in a very long time and I noticed a few things. They absolutely kept talking about Obama's unfavorables over the patriotism issue and the Wright thing was mentioned over and over again, they mentioned that the campaigns were doing this mock outrage thing over the Clark comments, but they didn't really blame McCain for it, they just said this is what campaign's do. But then they also said that this was just an awful year for republicans again, and again, and again...so advantage Obama, but it wasn't as much about HIM as it was about it being a Dem year. Also, compared to the kind of coverage he got for his campaign speeches when HRC was in the race (constant, while she would get none), there was little media enthusiasm for his latest string of lectures. Nobody referred to them as the best speech evah or anything like that.

    nope (none / 0) (#96)
    by Radix on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:51:55 PM EST
    It's because McCain has made these early denouncements which will give his lack there of, later, it's seeming credibility.

    no problem for mccain & media (none / 0) (#103)
    by pluege on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 04:39:04 AM EST
    why would anyone assume that there are some sort of standards or consistency applied by the "beltway media". If there is a democrat to trash and burn, they're there no matter what went down before. mccain's campaign will have no problem getting the beltway media on board with going nasty against Obama.