Dirty Politics Works

So John McCain is being bashed for his mendacious ad about Obama not visiting the troops because he could not bring cameras. Whoop dee doo. The problem is for three days that ad got run on free media. Dirty politics works and McCain has now shown who will go as far down in the gutter as it takes.

And why not? Dirty politics works. The Gallup tracker now has a once 9 point gap Obama held down to 4. Rassmussen has its Obama 7 point gap down to 2. Three guesses how that happened.

Keep waiting for the "new" politics and see where it gets you. Here is where Obama has lost his way - not in the positive side of his campaign, that's worked well. It is in his negative branding, or lack there of. When is the last time you have heard the Obama campaign use the words Bush and McCain together? This ain't rocket science. If the Obama campaign is not saying "Bush's third term" half the day, it is not doing its job. That's politics folks. Wishing won't make it not so.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< DOJ Asks FISA Court to Review New Law in Secret Without Amicus Briefs | Cheech and Chong to Reunite for Comedy Tour >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I keep waiting for Obama to go negative (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 12:44:24 PM EST
    Surely some of that must be necessary.

    If not himself then his campaign.... (5.00 / 8) (#4)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 12:51:05 PM EST
    ...his surrogates had no trouble going mega-negative towards Hillary. Maybe they calculated it was easier to go negative with her because no one would defend her and they are afraid of setting the Republican smear machine in motion. But its coming anyway, no matter what Obama does so I hope they are ready for it.

    100% correct (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:29:07 PM EST
    Shoot, Just Watch TV News (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by flashman on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 03:02:47 PM EST
    MSNBC is still pretty much a 5-hour nightly Obama For President infomercial.  Although not quite as transparent, CNN does pretty much the same thing.  Why does one need to go negative when he has all the might of the MSM to do it for him?

    BTW, I don't believe the report that Obama is getting worse press than McCain.  Once, during the primaries, Olberman read a media report, on air, that 'proved' that he gives Hillary equal treatment on 'countdown.'  Yeeeaaaa, suuuurrrreee.


    I want Obama to drop his (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 12:55:12 PM EST
    flower power act and hit these scumbags with the all the force of Hurricane Katrina. But I know why: the "Angry Black Man" and "Uppity" meme. Would have been the same for Hillary or any other woman:"B**h" and "B*lbuster". Maybe they could get away with it in the end, but let's not kid ourselves. We have already heard subtle references to them "knowing their place"

    It's a job for Super Surrogate! (5.00 / 0) (#30)
    by Fabian on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:12:46 PM EST
    Yup, the time has come for moderate white Democrats to don their capes and fire up their (figurative) flame throwers and start letting fly.

    Didn't we see a great example of that with GWB's speech in Israel when Dems rallied fiercely to defend Obama?


    Biden could do it with style (5.00 / 0) (#86)
    by MKS on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:58:18 PM EST
    My dear friend John McCain is not the same John McCain I used to know....The John McCain I know would never stoop to using wounded troops as pawns in a campaign, or use untruths in television commercials....He's losing it...

    Interestingly enough. . . (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:04:16 PM EST
    Hagel has basically said this already.

    who was it that said (none / 0) (#101)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:08:29 PM EST
    "a hit dog howls"?

    He may not want to (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Lahdee on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 12:56:14 PM EST
    but maybe our 527s could. Oh wait, Obama won't allow 527s. Maybe he'll want to rethink that.

    It's already happening (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by dianem on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:01:02 PM EST
    Every time McCain contradicts himself or makes a mistake the "McCain is senile" promoter's pop out of the woodwork. Do you think that is just happening spontaneously? Bill Clinton's every word was parsed by the Obama camp for "racist" implications, to the point where he was afraid to say anything that hadn't been vetted. McCain is getting there. He has already cut back on his town hall meetings and spontaneous conversation with people and the media. The right wing perfected the art of spreading lies until they become conventional wisdom and spread themselves. Axelrod is simply using their own tactics against them. Obama won't say a word of derision about McCain, except maybe a bit of "damning with faint praise". He has to maintain his squeaky clean, above it all reputation.

    Also (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by tek on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:24:23 PM EST
    the MSM runs headlines everyday that tout Obama and cast aspersions on McCain.  Obama's choosing his VP while McCain is having a piece of skin removed (i. e., he's not healthy enough to be president).  Everyday, same stuff.

    They totally should've slammed McCain (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by lilburro on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:08:33 PM EST
    over the comments of Gramm.  

    Well now (5.00 / 0) (#45)
    by tek on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:22:29 PM EST
    I have to say, I can't stand Phil Gramm.

    HAHAHA.. I wish it were as dry here (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by MarkL on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:56:53 PM EST
    outside as your humor.

    Or even counter the McCain negative ads (none / 0) (#54)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:28:11 PM EST
    During the debates Obama was asked time after time what he would do when the Repubulcans came after him 'swift boat style', and he either talked tough or brushed it off as old politics that people were tired of - like the Republicans will ever get tired of it.

    Well, now is the time to asnwer that question for real, and all I'm hearing is crickets.  Maybe he'll send Hillary out while he is on vacation in Hawaii.


    This is my impression also. (5.00 / 0) (#61)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:35:45 PM EST
    Thus far, to say I'm underwhelmed with the counter "attacks" would be an understatement. The bulk of O's campaign, though, has been impressive, but it could implode any minute of course.

    It has been good optically (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:47:41 PM EST
    But it's almost like a TV show made to run on HBO when everyone is watching NBC.

    Or some better analogy (none / 0) (#76)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:49:07 PM EST
    for mis-connecting with the target audience.

    Playing the race card ISN'T dirty politics? (5.00 / 8) (#6)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 12:53:53 PM EST

    Of course it is! (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by oldpro on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 12:57:58 PM EST
    And look how well it worked in turning the AA community against the Clintons!

    It helps when folks WANT to believe the propaganda...whatever it is.

    Believerpeople, of course, are the easiest to fool.  Once you can believe one wacky, farout flimflam, easy to believe the next one...and the next...


    Too true. Allow me to renew (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by Cream City on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:19:05 PM EST
    yet again, my previous request for anyone to explain the first wacky, farout flimflam against the Clintons: that "fairy tale" is racist to say.

    And after that, it seemed that the gullible who bought that also bought that anything Bill said was bad, bad, bad, and racist.  It was the perfect (if most appalling I've seen) example of what you say.  As Sean Willentz also said so well -- but as a historian, he didn't avail himself of the apt communication theories on such mobthink by the gulliblots.


    Well, cream... (5.00 / 0) (#92)
    by oldpro on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:03:00 PM EST
    I'll take a stab at it:

    "Fairy tale" was racist because black people said it was and they are the ones who get to define racism...no matter what.

    It's wearing thin, this time ...

    Like the boy who cries "wolf!" once too often...it loses it's attention-getting effectiveness after a while.

    I actually think ''race fatigue is starting to set in.  I thought about it a lot as I watched CNN's "Black in America" and thought about my own reactions...talked to others about theirs.  Pretty interesting.


    I understand it wasn't (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by jpete on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:16:26 PM EST
    a big hit in the black community either.  So CNN decides its time for race fatigue and manages to bore us all with a program on black life in America?  

    Really? NOT a big hit (5.00 / 0) (#119)
    by oldpro on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:31:12 PM EST
    in the black community?  Any links?

    Wonder why, if true?

    I don't think CNN wants 'race fatigue' or planned to bore us all to death...I thought they were both pandering to a black/liberal audience, jumping on the current 'fascination with Obama bandwagon' by programming a 'comeon' to that audience.

    I don't think it worked.  In fact, it may have backfired, for that audience is not the ONLY audience watching CNN.  By 'race fatigue' I meant people like me who found the progam poorly done and not always 'on topic.'  Didn't even come close to PBS' "Eyes on the Prize."

    You're right.  It was boring...inconsequential...irritating in its cluelessness sometimes.

    And, I kept wonder what Hispanics were thinking, if any watched.  They certainly saw it promoted far and wide...when will be see the CNN version of "Hispanic in America?"  Or, "Asian in America?"  or even "Native-American in America!?!"

    Paying attention to blacks...in America...may be wearing thin with others as it is with me.  Still a fascinating subject, tho.


    I found parts of it fascinating (5.00 / 1) (#213)
    by Cream City on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 03:47:30 PM EST
    and I happen to have worked in the black press and since specialized in African American history, so a lot of it was not new to me.  But I still gained from it.

    However, allow me to second your thoughts on something similar on Hispanics -- with, for starters, a primer for the American people and politicians about just how abd why we stole a third of the country of Mexico . . . as the why ties back to slavery, of course.  So much does in this country.

    And so few people realize that much of "our" country where most Hispanics live was their country, for those who are Mexican Americans.  And too few people really seem to realize that Puerto Ricans are not immigrants!  And . . . etc.

    We finally seem to be teaching African American history at the K-12 level.  My college students come with a good grasp on slavery, the civil rights movement, etc.  But they don't seem to be taught or quite grasp the story of the Mexican-American War and the Spanish-American War.  

    And there are lessons about our imperialism to be learned -- and that have application today, in many ways.


    Here's the ACTUAL comment in its entirety (none / 0) (#208)
    by cmugirl on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 03:44:29 PM EST

    Please explain what is racist.


    And, they repeated it over and over (5.00 / 0) (#125)
    by zfran on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:36:20 PM EST
    and over!

    And. over. (5.00 / 0) (#192)
    by oldpro on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 03:20:09 PM EST
    BTW, (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 12:58:28 PM EST
    McCain's new attack ad is really about as nasty as they come. If Obama doesn't respond, he's going to have a problem.

    That's nasty? (none / 0) (#14)
    by nycstray on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:00:45 PM EST
    yes (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:03:00 PM EST
    I mean, sure, there's worse. But generally not at the presidential level. I don't think there's going to be an ad, as there was in a West Virginia judicial race a few years ago, about Obama harboring child predators.

    Seems fairly standard to me (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by nycstray on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:13:58 PM EST
    and truthful in some aspects.

    Is he extremely popular? Yes
    Are there questions on his readiness to lead? Yes
    Did he speak out against off-shore drilling? Yes

    Not sure on the tax issue the spot raises, but otherwise I don't see the ad as nasty or a blatant lie.


    Brittny Spears? Paris Hilton? (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:44:19 PM EST
    Sheesh. Some of you are just well . . .

    Not even close (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by oldpro on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:10:02 PM EST
    to nasty.

    I thought I was losing it there for (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by nycstray on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:22:03 PM EST
    a sec!

    Really? Did you watch it? (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:26:18 PM EST
    Why do you think he's being compared to Paris Hilton?

    Yeah, andgarden... (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by oldpro on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:39:55 PM EST
    I watched it twice...just watched it again in response to your question.

    "Biggest celebrity in the world" is nasty?  A quick clip of Paris Hilton is 'nasty?'

    C'mon...that's not even mean.  It's just silly.  Trying to undermine his celebrity status is all.  And well they should unless we want elections for pretty important offices to simply be popularity contests...sort of like junior high school.

    This 'rock-star celebrity' crap is annoying...in Obama's case no less than in Bill Clinton's...but at least Clinton earned his.  Obama?  Not yet.  And that is what the comparison to Paris Hilton's celebrity is all about.

    Yes, it is demeaning to Obama.  Rightly so, I'd say.

    Celebrities.  Always in the line of fire.  But at least Madonna can sing/entertain and Marilyn Monroe and Cher can/could sing and act.

    What can celebrity Obama actually do that I should care about?


    yep, i always like it when the Obama camp (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:46:20 PM EST
    claims something the opponent does is "demeaning" to Obama.  That was Donna Brazile's explanation for her trashing Bill Clinton over the fairytale comment.  She said, it may not have been racist, but that Clinton was trying to demean or belittle Obama.

    Of course, just a few weeks later we all saw Obama on his "comedy" tour doing his one-liners about Clinton making fun of her drinking shots and claiming she was Annie Oakley because she said her father taught her about guns.  That wasn't demeaning to Clinton at all though....


    Seriously, a white woman fading (3.00 / 2) (#67)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:43:57 PM EST
    into Obama?

    I think this is clearly race baiting.


    It has to be a white woman that is (5.00 / 4) (#74)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:48:51 PM EST
    actually desireable, andgarden. I see what you're driving at though. Like that H. Ford "call me" ad. I fully expect that hidden message stuff is coming, but this ain't it.

    Oh. My. Gawd. (5.00 / 4) (#89)
    by nycstray on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:00:08 PM EST
    She does NOT "fade into him". If they wanted to do that they would have. Paris and Brit are POPULAR and lack substance. Sound familiar? He ran his campaign like an American Idol instead of a Democrat with solid issues/plans. Heck, the dude even books "opening acts" and is raffling off backstage passes.

    Be careful saying that (5.00 / 4) (#90)
    by samanthasmom on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:00:28 PM EST
    an ad like this is "race baiting" because if you say it often enough when it's not likely to be true, people will just yawn when the real thing comes along. Paris Hilton is a celebrity with no talent that got her there.  That's the slam. Not remotely racial.

    It seems an attempt at it (5.00 / 0) (#134)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:41:14 PM EST
    If you can give a plausible explanation for choosing Brittny Spears and Paris Hilton, then you might have an argument.

    Media darling status... (5.00 / 2) (#164)
    by tree on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:59:09 PM EST
    That's the connection. McCain's ad is trying to play up the "empty suit" celebrity meme about Obama by comparing him to Hilton, who is a celebrity merely because the media follows her around, not because of anything concrete or important that she has done.

    Brittny Spears and Paris Hilton (5.00 / 4) (#165)
    by samanthasmom on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:59:32 PM EST
    are devoid of talent or substance - yet they draw crowds and the media's attention wherever they go. McCain is saying that Obama lacks talent and substance, too, but he attracts crowds and the media. Do you want a President who has shown his only talent is that he can attract a crowd? I didn't think this ad's message was obscure, but maybe it's because it has a message that resonates for me.

    I would just repeat (5.00 / 3) (#91)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:02:42 PM EST
    my suggestion to reserve the allegations of race baiting to actual race baiting.  which no doubt is coming but no one will take seriously if people keep saying stuff like this.

    dday Agrees (5.00 / 0) (#127)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:36:47 PM EST
    There's no reason to include Britney Spears and Paris Hilton in this ad. None. It hangs on the word "celebrity" being included, which means it could have just as well been Brad Pitt and George Clooney. Anyway, all the footage is from Obama's Berlin speech, not the red carpet. This is absolutely meant to juxtapose images of white women with images of a black man. They even dissolve into one another!

    Miscegenation Dogwhistle Watch


    No...it COULDN'T (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by oldpro on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:41:18 PM EST
    just as well have been Brad Pitt or George Clooney...they are TALENTED.  They are celebrities for a reason...not just people who are 'famous for being famous!'

    What is the male equivalent...preferably a male of color...who is the empty-headed, talentless equivalent of Paris Hilton, etc. etc.?

    Name some, somebody.  I can't think of any...


    your inability to think of either (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:43:56 PM EST
    the male counterpart or any black couterpart to Paris and Britney is EXACTLY why they used Paris and Britney.  Because, anyone not looking for racism everywhere, will immediately get the point.

    Really? (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:50:00 PM EST
    You CAN'T think of ANY?

    Not one?

    You doth protest too much.


    Nope. Can you? (none / 0) (#163)
    by oldpro on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:58:17 PM EST
    Well....name some, then.

    I'm not saying there aren't any...I'm saying I can't reaily think of any and I bet most people can't...which is why the two clueless little twits in the ad were chosen.  Ask anybody...their names come reaily to mind as clueless, talentless celebrity famous-people who you wouldn't put in charge of ANYTHING!

    I think that's the message.  Raises the question..."OK, you're famous.  What else ya got?"


    Fabio? (5.00 / 2) (#171)
    by samanthasmom on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 03:01:46 PM EST
    that would actually have been better (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 03:03:59 PM EST
    that is anyone besides us remembers him.

    THAT would have (none / 0) (#201)
    by oldpro on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 03:37:24 PM EST
    been hilarious!!  I am laughing and laughing out loud as I type this.

    GOOD ONE!  (If I'm thinking of the right guy...not a person of color, tho, hmmm?  White guy?)


    great minds (none / 0) (#151)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:49:23 PM EST
    you too tim

    except for the fact (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:41:57 PM EST
    that Pitt and Clooney are actually TALENTED.   And, Britney and Paris are (like Obama) empty-suits.

    you really love you dog whistles (5.00 / 6) (#148)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:47:47 PM EST
    dont you.
    heres a thought:  Brad Pitt and George Clooney are actual talented celebrities.  the point is that the two mentioned are vacuous twits who are only celebrities because they are celebrities.
    honestly, does anyone think this manufactured outrage is going to help Obama?  if you do you are sadly misguided.  people are going to be so sick of this that, as I have said many times, when actual race baiting starts no one will care.

    I think it is an attempt at (3.50 / 2) (#83)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:56:07 PM EST
    race baiting but it fails. the ad seems to make no sense to me.

    I think the intent is to create an aura (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:59:59 PM EST
    of ditzy celeberdom. And by the way, glitzy Obama is a part of it, and tangling with white women.

    Yeah. I get what you're sayin (5.00 / 0) (#98)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:07:08 PM EST
    andgarden. A WAY, WAY more effective dogwhistle would have been Scarlett Johansson. She actually has a connection to Obama. My face went pale when the story came out of her bragging how she talked to Obama. I'm glad and was heartened that she was so oblivious to her own statements, but jeez...

    I see your point (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:41:57 PM EST
    It just does not work.

    I think I am just going to ignore it.

    Because the ad is incoherent.


    I see your point (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by Coral on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 03:18:25 PM EST
    The celebrity, glitzy stuff with the direct message that Obama ignores economic problems hitting ordinary people reminds me of the Republican strategy of attacking your opponent's strength.

    Obama's popularity/charisma is being turned on him. Sort of the way Kerry's military service was turned on him by the Swiftboaters, which I still see as far nastier.

    Obama's campaign must counter these charges and insinuations. So far I haven't seen too much from them attacking McCain and putting him on the defensive.

    Unfortunately, the fact that an ad or a media theme is an outright lie (the attack on Obama's tax & energy policies) does not limit its effectiveness.


    Not clearly race baiting. (none / 0) (#105)
    by oldpro on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:14:15 PM EST
    You may be right that it was such an attempt, although I don't think so.

    But if it was....BAD JOB!  Try again...

    I think the message was:  "clueless, no talent celebrities...oh, great...another one and this one is running for president!  He's about as ready to lead as these silly girls are...yeh, they're well-known and popular but so what?  You want to put any of THEM in charge of solving problems?  And we've got big problems.  Like oil."


    So we only call them out (5.00 / 0) (#109)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:19:46 PM EST
    when the attempt succeeds? That's not how I play.

    how about (5.00 / 6) (#115)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:28:26 PM EST
    you only call them out when it is TRUE.  There is nothing race-baiting about this.  The point wasn't white / black.  It was no talent celebrity and fame.  It was the empty-suit argument.  If you can't see that, then you are LOOKING for race-baiting and able to conjure it up anywhere.

    Of course it's an attempt at it. (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:34:00 PM EST
    well (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:39:43 PM EST
    if the ad had contained two generic white women "morphing" into Obama, you might be able to justify your position.

    But, these are two very famous women (who just happen to be white) with very specific reputations of being famous and not having any talent to back it up.  That's the point to the ad.


    Um (none / 0) (#132)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:40:17 PM EST
    You really are not making this argument are you?

    yep, what I'm saying here (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:55:35 PM EST
    is that the ad used against Harold Ford was race-baiting.  This one is so far from it, that anyone who tries to claim that it is race-baiting is damaging their own credibility.

    If you can't even admit that the only thing Paris Hilton is known for is "being known", then you just aren't being honest about this.


    See, now I (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by samanthasmom on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:48:29 PM EST
    will write off every time you say something is race-baiting, andgarden, because I think you are hoping to find it even if it isn't there. The "race fatigue" is setting in. There are so many ways to criticize Obama that are legitimate, and the only response is that the criticism is racist or race baiting. He doesn't get to hide behind the color of skin.

    I disagree with you (5.00 / 0) (#131)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:39:49 PM EST
    Choosing Paris Hilton and Brittney Spears really makes no sense. the only half way rational reason is to race bait.

    but the ad is incoherent.


    Nah (5.00 / 2) (#169)
    by TheRealFrank on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 03:01:02 PM EST
    Britney Spears and Paris Hilton are two celebrities who have been in the news for doing dumb things and being surrounded by typical "celebrity drama".

    That's why they were picked for an ad like this. They are the celebrities everybody knows in a negative way. Too incompetent to even get their own life in order. The message is "being a celebrity does not make you a good president", and Britney and Paris fit that perfectly.

    I certainly think that the McCain campaign will race bait if they think it will help them, but I don't think that this is such a case.


    thank you (none / 0) (#172)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 03:01:52 PM EST
    for being more articulate than me

    I could not disagree more. (none / 0) (#143)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:44:26 PM EST
    the ad is about silly celebrity.  if the as had used black celebs it would have been called race baiting even sooner.

    Obama is a silly celebrity is the message? (3.50 / 2) (#160)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:53:18 PM EST
    All righty then.

    I think your comment sounds silly to me.

    How about saying the ad is incoherent. As an attempt at race baiting, it is incompetent. And let's leave it at that.

    I actually find the defenses of the ad in this thread more offensive than the ad itself.


    perhaps that was not prudent (none / 0) (#162)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:58:11 PM EST
    choice of words.  the point of the ad is that Obamas celebrity is far and gone from anything he has ever done in his life to deserve it.
    btw, just like the two blond twits that everyone is so excited about.
    I honestly dont get the outrage.

    off the top of my head (none / 0) (#195)
    by nycstray on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 03:24:34 PM EST
    I can't think of a comparable no substance talent that's as popular as Paris and Brit who's AA.

    His campaign is the one arranging the tours, mag covers etc. They wanted the media hype. Unfortunately they forgot to look at the downside.


    I dunno, andgarden.... (none / 0) (#128)
    by oldpro on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:37:57 PM EST
    I never can waste time on the petty stuff where I have to explain my complaint to people who just look puzzled, shrug and think I'm 'touchy.'

    Save your ammunition for a worthy target.

    If you turn over enough rocks, you'll eventually find somebody's house key...but not EVERY rock is worth turning over.

    Does that make sense?  Maybe not...more coffee...or a nap...


    Yeah, it makes sense. But I don't agree. (none / 0) (#136)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:41:36 PM EST
    Okey dokey. (none / 0) (#194)
    by oldpro on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 03:22:53 PM EST
    I guess I should call him out (none / 0) (#129)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:38:47 PM EST
    But since it was so inept it is not easy to call him out on it.

    Well, it's a little crude (none / 0) (#133)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:40:19 PM EST
    but I don't think it's as inept as you do.

    TV commercials don't need to be perfect, they just need to impart the right sense or feeling.


    the ad is very effective (none / 0) (#156)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:51:44 PM EST
    as I said uptread.  a hit dog howls.
    or is that a hit dog whistle?

    Roshomon. (none / 0) (#150)
    by oldpro on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:48:54 PM EST
    Maybe it's time we all rented the movie and renewed our acquaintence with the possibility that there could be more than one way to look at this ad.

    I have a feeling that's a reminder we're all going to need in the next few months...over and over.


    I think it's stupid, but (none / 0) (#94)
    by rjarnold on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:03:57 PM EST
    not really that nasty.

    Don't you know (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by tek on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:20:09 PM EST
    if anyone doesn't sing Obama's praises, they're being nasty (and racist, too).

    I don't think the ad is that nasty. (none / 0) (#21)
    by zfran on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:06:50 PM EST
    It is reflective of politics as usual kind of ad to me.  It also is reflective of his "rock star" personna. I know you've been around politics a long time, however, what is actually wrong with that ad. I also think Obama will respond with words.

    Ha. How can he respond? (none / 0) (#26)
    by Cream City on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:10:32 PM EST
    He wanted Obamamania, he got it.  He can get out a crowd, but he couldn't get the most votes in the primary season.  

    Or can he get out a crowd?  Maybe he can have bands and free beer and brats at every polling place?  However, some of us in some areas of the country -- especially my beer-and-brats part of the country -- would note that outdoor concerts in early November are a bit chancy.  And we're in the age bracket that has to work on Tuesdays, anyway. :-)


    Stock up on the Tums if you think that's nasty (none / 0) (#34)
    by davnee on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:14:57 PM EST
    Because you are going to probably need antacids to make it to November once the real attacks start rolling out.

    very true (none / 0) (#37)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:17:27 PM EST
    very very true

    I suggest Prilosec (none / 0) (#40)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:19:34 PM EST
    Tums might not be enough, if the current ad is considered nasty.

    Honestly (none / 0) (#43)
    by tek on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:21:07 PM EST
    I would have to say I can't wait!

    popcorn is ready (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:27:01 PM EST
    For me, the way Sen. Obama has (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by zfran on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:01:51 PM EST
    been talking, acting and acting out, he has already elected himself. He doesn't need to do anything because "it appears to be in the bag." Just look at the Dana Milbank article posted here today. It's amazing. There are streets being closed because his "motorcade" is travelling thru, he is meeting w/heads of state, he's already speaking of possibilities in other country's actions, etc.
    When he dons a long robe and a crown on his head, and all don't bow, including McCain, what will happen to us, the people?

    Ugly Milbank article (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by wasabi on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:22:19 PM EST
    These actions don't seem unusual to me.  The Secret Service is doing what they think is best.  I highly doubt that the Obama campaign is in charge of street closures for his motorcade.  The SS did the same for McCain last week.  As far as meeting with heads of state, I just heard McCain state that he's met with all the various heads of state numerous times and that's why he is the superior candidate over Obama.
    As far as quoting Obama, "This is the moment . . . that the world is waiting for," adding: "I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions." That's pure crap and taken out of context.  
    "It has become increasingly clear in my travel, the campaign, that the crowds, the enthusiasm, 200,000 people in Berlin, is not about me at all. It's about America. I have just become a symbol..." Obama said, according to the campaign.  So now it looks like he was attempting modesty, saying it really WASN'T about him, but a longing to return to normalcy in America, but Milbank sets the quote up so that it looks exactly the opposite.  It's a very cheap shot and we can expect more.  It creates controversy and controversy gets eyeballs glued to the media.

    I hate it when they did it to Clinton and I don't like it any better when they are doing it to Obama.


    It is a cheap shot but (none / 0) (#121)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:32:49 PM EST
    I suspect Milbank is trying to overcompensate for being in the tank for Obama. I've noticed this with a lot of the more absurd, over-the-top criticisms of Obama. Even Dick Morris wouldn't have made the ridiculous Secret Service comment.

    The symbol, imo, that Obama"s (none / 0) (#185)
    by zfran on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 03:14:38 PM EST
    "moment" is to me, only filled with half-truths (I'm being kind here), his FISA vote does not equate to the quote from him "but a longing to return to normalcy in America," injecting race into the campaign while saying he is post-racial, there is some dispute as to the 200,000 people who came in Berlin, his move away from reproductive rights, and many more I could state. Granted, voting in modern times has become a compromise, however, to take his words so literally, is quite astounding. He is a politician, a man, a candidate, perhaps a president. But that is all, speaking for me only.

    Well....those who don't bow (none / 0) (#29)
    by oldpro on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:12:21 PM EST
    will be those who are wide awake, pointing out that the emperor has no clothes.

    We won't be popular, of course.  That will be called a protest and we'll be arrested.

    Maybe even renditioned.


    Just how soft is Obama's lead? (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by davnee on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:04:48 PM EST
    If Obama's poll numbers are so vulnerable to junior league dirty politics like the troops visit kerfuffle then he's in a lot of trouble.  The R's big guns haven't even come out yet to start the sliming.  I'm not going to make too much out of this, since it is easy to read too much into tracking polls.  But it can't be good to be so poorly defined in the public's mind that a minor infraction like this could so easily feed the unpatriotic meme that you could lose 5 points practically overnight.  Then again he gained 5 points practically overnight because the national media chased him across Europe in heat.  So maybe this is just the stupid balancing itself back to the equilibrium of a slim Obama lead.

    I agree 1000% davnee (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:06:49 PM EST
    at first (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:14:22 PM EST
    I was a little shocked that McCain was doing the dirty work himself but then I saw a segment on FOX where the resident wingers explained that he needs to prove he is a tough guy.
    talking about his captivity wont do it, they said, he has to prove he is willing to do nasty things.
    you are very right though, it works and you are only seeing the tip of the iceberg.

    Of course dirty politics works. (5.00 / 5) (#68)
    by OrangeFur on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:44:22 PM EST
    It's always worked.

    The McCain charge about skipping a troop visit is low.

    The Willie Horton ad was low.

    What happened to McCain in South Carolina in 2000 was low.

    The Swift Boat ads were low.

    The Cleland/bin Laden/Saddam Hussein ads were low.

    And of course, repeated hyperventilating charges about Hillary Clinton being racist or hoping that Obama would be assassinated were low as well.

    There aren't any angels here.

    bocaleff's comment was deleted (none / 0) (#79)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:53:23 PM EST
    because it trafficked in falsehoods.

    Stick to the facts please.


    Ive been saying this for a while. (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by TheRealFrank on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:07:48 PM EST
    Since Obama became the presumptive nominee, his campaign has dropped the ball.

    McCain's ads portraying himself as a maverick (and even an environmentalist) went unchallenged. McCain's attack ads were not responded too. Also, Obama allowed himself to be painted as a flip-flopper in the media.

    The Obama campaign was apparently too busy organizing big rallies and photo ops.

    This kind of ad is entirely predictable, and they knew it was coming. It's also well-coordinated; pretty much every Republican candidate out there this week have been using the oil drilling talking point.

    Sadly, I have to give props to the McCain campaign: they knew that their best shot was to come out swinging straight away, and they did. Whereas the Obama campaign apparently still believes that media events with big crowds are the only thing they need to get him to win.

    you want to talk about the ads (5.00 / 3) (#103)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:11:11 PM EST
    that are really going to work?

    the bitter clinging to guns and religion ad.

    the Obama thinks we should all speak spanish (or French) ad.

    the Ayers ad.

    I could go on. it is what some would call a target rich environment.

    Wait (none / 0) (#166)
    by tek on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:59:38 PM EST
    what do you mean, Obama said we should speak Spanish or French?

    here ya go (none / 0) (#180)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 03:11:18 PM EST
    btw (none / 0) (#183)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 03:12:56 PM EST
    when you click on the link look over to the right to the little "list" thing and check out the top selection.
    its a mashup of something like I was talking about.

    I think part of the reason for the Obama (5.00 / 4) (#111)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:20:40 PM EST
    campaign's failure to hit back or hit at all can be found in Dana Milbank's column in the WaPo today: not only is Obama acting like he's already president (which I guess he thinks he needs to do in order for people to be able to see him in that role), but he's being treated like he's already the president.  

    I think he's bought into his own hype to the point where he's forgotten there hasn't been an actual election yet.

    Lawyers have a saying: (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by tek on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 03:01:41 PM EST
    When you start believing your own BS, you're in serious trouble.

    Like you said, that's part of the reason. (none / 0) (#114)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:27:05 PM EST
    But the biggest reason is that Obama's ahead and McCain's the underdog. The loser is always on offense. Expect calls for meaningless debates and forums, and the "he's running scared" meme, as well as other tactics. What Obama's doing is a classic frontrunner move: running out the clock, making minimal/no gaffes along the way.

    Yah, but in the primaries (none / 0) (#117)
    by dk on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:30:08 PM EST
    Obama had some out of proportion red state caucus delegates, and a whole lot of CDS and sexism as his sword and shield when he was running out the clock.  He doesn't have that luxury for the GE.

    of course there are talentless famous men (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:53:16 PM EST
    but the two most famous talentless celebrities in the world are in the ad.

    Obama has made himself the issue, the focus of (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by jawbone on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 03:33:28 PM EST
    voters' decision making--not Bush and McCain's similarities to Bush's policies. Per Steve Lombardo at Pollster.

    This link from my morning comment fits this topic pretty well.

    Problem is people don't believe that McCain's (4.50 / 2) (#65)
    by vicndabx on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:40:59 PM EST
    gonna be Bush III.  He's got enough history disagreeing w/the president to rebut that line of attack - which is why, IMO team Obama ain't using it too much.  Also, any ad that talks about Bush III invariably leads to thoughts about leadership, which leads to thoughts about experience - which I don't think Obama wants to focus on too heavily.  Some other line of attack needs to be used, what that is I don't know, but I don't think Bush III is gonna carry weight w/anyone other than Bush-hating dems.

    Exactly right (none / 0) (#100)
    by Truth Sayer on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:08:19 PM EST
    to think that Bush III is a winning message is just not realistic. There are many ways for McCain to differentiate himself from Bush while still being able to hold his base and win over enough independent voters to win the election.

    OK, someone explain (3.00 / 2) (#66)
    by frankly0 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:43:55 PM EST
    to me exactly how McCain's ad is "mendacious".

    As I understand it, Obama could have visited the injured troops if he had wished to do so, provided that he was not accompanied with any political staff.

    Somehow, according to his campaign, that would still render it a "political" visit in Obama's eyes, and, so, supposedly, not something he wished to do.

    But why would such a visit indeed be "political"? What kind of sense does that even begin to make? If he conducts such a visit, and there is no reporting on it, and it is effectively quite private, and no political staff is accompanying Obama, how is somehow magically rendered "political"  -- except of course in the spin of a campaign desperate to find retroactively some excuse, however weak? Wouldn't one be inclined to say that it was far more plausible that Obama refused to do the visit precisely because there would be little political payoff? Doesn't that explanation make far more sense?

    Maybe McCain and his campaign were wrong to treat Obama's failure to visit these troops as if it were an established, certain fact that Obama simply couldn't be bothered, and was "snubbing" them. But the reality is that Obama and his campaign could not come up with an explanation that made a lick of sense for his canceling the visit.

    So I come back to where I started -- what, exactly, was "mendacious" about McCain's ad? Simply the fact that it acted as if were a certainty that Obama "snubbed" the injured troops, rather than merely suggesting that it was the most plausible explanation?

    From Businessweek (sorry for the length) (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by CCinNC on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:03:56 PM EST
    Obama's cancellation of a visit in Germany to visit wounded U.S. troops has been adequately explained: that his campaign was advised by the Pentagon that since Obama was on a campaign trip and spending campaign resources, it would be viewed as using the wounded as props whether cameras were allowed in the hospital or not.

    This ad asserts a McCain campaign talking-point that Obama wouldn't make time for wounded troops unless cameras were allowed to follow him, but did make time to work out at a gym. This, of course, is a lie. It's a blatant lie. Steve Schmidt, a disciple of Karl Rove's who worked on George W. Bush's 2004 ad/communications effort, though, is playing the Rovian playbook that says that it doesn't matter if it's true as long as your target audience (non-college educated white working class voters) won't bother to find out the actual truth, and believe that it "sounds like it might be a true."

    For the second time in a week the non-partisan www.factcheck.org takes McCain to task for a false ad [false, btw, is another word for lie].

    And USA Today wrote an editorial about last week's ad scam from McCain, blaming Obama for higher gas prices. The paper wrote: "Even by the elastic standards of political ads, this is more than a stretch. It's baloney. It's also a marker on the path toward the kind of simplistic, counterproductive demonizing that many expect will poison the fall campaign."

    What the McCain campaign doesn't want people to know, according to one GOP strategist I spoke with over the weekend, is that they had an ad script ready to go if Obama had visited the wounded troops saying that Obama was...wait for it...using wounded troops as campaign props. So, no matter which way Obama turned, McCain had an Obama bashing ad ready to launch. I guess that's political hardball. But another word for it is the one word that most politicians are loathe to use about their opponents--a lie.

    Whether he could take cameras with him (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by zfran on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:43:04 PM EST
    or not, however, it was perceived if he
    just went in by himself, it would have looked better and that he cared more about them, then cameras and political gain. They have changed explanations some and so it doesn't sit right. As for your other comment about factcheck.com..this is such a political tool, utilized by both sides for quite a while now (and in past elections). They both use it and both as politicians try to seize on whatever opportunities arise. They all lie, stretch the truth, massage it, teeter around it, etc.

    At least you do not dispute (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:46:42 PM EST
    that McCain lied.

    it would have only LOOKED political (3.66 / 3) (#146)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:47:17 PM EST
    if he went by himself if his campaign decided to PUBLICIZE IT.  

    He could have gone by himself and never said a word to anyone and no one would have ever had to know.

    Oh wait, that would have defeated the purpose, wouldn't it.

    Kind of like "officially" leaking the content of his prayer note he placed in the wailing wall while in Israel.  He turned that into a political event as well.


    I'm not sure I buy this (3.00 / 2) (#108)
    by dk on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:18:34 PM EST
    completely.  Obama is a sitting U.S. Senator.  Am I really supposed to believe there's no way he could have gotten in to see the troops without cameras?

    I'm not saying Obama has to visit the troops, and I'm also not saying that McCain is certainly trying to paint the most negative possible spin on the situation...but I think there is probably more to the story than what you quote here.


    I agree with you. It's preposterous (5.00 / 3) (#176)
    by MarkL on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 03:06:33 PM EST
    to think Obama couldn't have visited the troops privately.

    The outrage is preposterous (5.00 / 0) (#186)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 03:16:26 PM EST
    he meet with troops privately just days before.  He's had several meetings with no cameras.

    I agree, its preposterous (none / 0) (#197)
    by blogtopus on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 03:27:37 PM EST
    No snark here. However, try convincing a bunch of people in the reddish swing states (and some bluish) that it is a complete fabrication. Sound Bytes rule the world, not wordy debunkings.

    McCain is learning. It may take him a few weeks / couple of months, but he will get it soon and when he does, Obama has to be prepared or else he's going to find come Jan 20 that his keys to the White House don't work.


    what would be the point of that? (none / 0) (#177)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 03:08:33 PM EST
    He's visited the troops (5.00 / 0) (#184)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 03:14:14 PM EST
    several times and didn't bring the cameras.  He had done so just two days before. The issue was campaign staff couldn't come.  The earlier part of the trip was done as a senate fact finding mission.  The European leg was all campaign.  Abandoning his staff probably would have meant making different travel and security arrangements.

    Dogwhistle 101 (1.00 / 0) (#190)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 03:19:03 PM EST
    Just in case anyone needs a brush up, or crash course, digby provides cliffnotes

    We the people... (none / 0) (#2)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 12:47:52 PM EST
    need to put our money where our mouths are.

    We say we hate dirty politics as usual, but keep electing the usual dirty politicians.

    We say Congress sucks...except for our reps, they're cool.

    We have the power to forge a new politics...but have consistently refused to excercise it.

    There IS no "new" politics. (5.00 / 10) (#7)
    by oldpro on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 12:54:24 PM EST
    There also is no "old" politics.

    There is only politics.



    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 12:57:56 PM EST
    Maybe there aren't any new politics (none / 0) (#51)
    by tek on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:26:41 PM EST
    but why can't we get some EFFECTIVE politics?

    Effective politics...yep... (none / 0) (#85)
    by oldpro on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:57:16 PM EST
    that's the trick.  And the goal.

    Bill Clinton.  Twice.

    Jimmy Carter.  Once...sort of.

    That's it for the last 40 years at the POTUS level.

    Three for ten.

    Pathetic, huh?


    You're probably right... (none / 0) (#18)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:03:18 PM EST
    which is why anybody with half a brain knows better than to want to get into politics.  A dirty, dirty business.  

    Don't know if I wanna believe that it has to be that way though...even if thousands of years of history says so.  Theoretically, if we refused to vote for mudslingers, cheats, and assorted sc*mba...it could be cleaned up within a generation.

    But I'm a dreamer...


    Don't know that it is any dirtier (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Truth Sayer on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:45:47 PM EST
    than the real world. People stab each other in the back all the time. Family feuds - workplace harassment and favoritism. Lies and stinking lies told. Innuendos to try to discredit people that even happens on this blog little on than on virtual every street in the nation. People (cliques) teaming up on others. On and on...

    The only difference between dirty politics and dirty real life is that politics is played out in the press and is played with big money and more people team up against another. Other than that it is the same as all of us experience almost every week in our lives.


    I see your point.... (none / 0) (#97)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:07:02 PM EST
    I know I work for a bunch of thieves...but yet I see plenty of selfless acts of kindness in "real life" that I never see in "politics".  Big media and big money can only be part of the reason for the stench that rises from our political system.

    If you never see (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by oldpro on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 03:16:38 PM EST
    selfless acts of kindness in politics, perhaps you are too far away from political people to see the forest for the trees.

    Up close and personal, I could give you a hundred examples.  From a distance...just one...

    Try googling Axelrod and Hillary and look for the story of Hillary's fundraising and personal involvement in Axelrod's wife's charity...at a time when it cost Hillary a lot to do it at all, much less with grace.

    There are a million stories in the naked city...this is just one of them.


    that would mean (none / 0) (#46)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:23:49 PM EST
    lots and lots of write-ins

    Nope... (none / 0) (#52)
    by oldpro on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:26:44 PM EST
    The quality of the people who get into politics determines the quality of the politics.

    Really, it's quite simple.

    Politics is not the problem.  Ever.

    People are 'the problem,' when there is one.

    The wrong people are the problem...and 'getting in with' the wrong people is a problem.  Unskilled, unsavvy, frightened people with closetsful of bad news are a problem, politically.

    Unethical, personally selfish and corrupt people are a problem.

    Liars are not a problem.  Not in politics.  Lying is a skill and a necessary one.  Being discovered lying badly is a problem for 'trust' is also an important issue and lack of trust is a problem.

    Politics is actually a fascinating pasttime and an honorable calling.

    Without it...ummm, we're doomed.

    Of course, we may be doomed anyway, given the current politics.  But you're right...it doesn't have to be that way.


    Quality of people.... (none / 0) (#102)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:10:17 PM EST
    Vonnegut had something to say about that....

    "There is a tragic flaw in our precious Constitution, and I don't know what can be done to fix it. This is it: Only nut cases want to be president."

    Not sure I agree about lying being a good thing, or about politics being noble...but you make a lot of sense.


    Don't know if I agree w/this, to use (none / 0) (#140)
    by vicndabx on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:43:09 PM EST
    another term from the DSM-IV, we may be "projecting" a little bit too much on our politicians.  Me personally, I'd like ethical folks, who don't need to lie, who start from a desire to improve our lot to be politicians.  In other words, they should be BETTER than us.

    Two politicians (none / 0) (#154)
    by tek on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:50:01 PM EST
    come to mind immediately of the few I've known personally.  My state rep in IL who changed parties to run as a Republican when the district listed red and is an appallingly stupid man from a disfunctional family.  They had millions, though, people knew his name, and he got elected.  He's still in office, can't even speak proper English.

    The other politician I've known personally was Senator Paul Simon and not enough good can be said about him.  He said he resigned because Washington had changed, politics was mostly about raising campaign funds and he didn't feel comfortable in it anymore.  That says that the really good people probably dropped out a few years ago and we're left with the chaffe.


    Yes and no.... (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by oldpro on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 03:11:28 PM EST
    agree about Paul Simon as one of the good guys.  That it wore him out and he quit before he had to doesn't mean there aren't any good people in politics...it means there aren't enough.  He wasn't the first and he wasn't the last.

    From my state I could name along list of good people elected to office.  Frankly, some of them were Republicans...tho not lately.

    But let's keep beating up on ALL politicians.  That'll larn 'em...


    My unity pony (none / 0) (#3)
    by Lahdee on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 12:48:50 PM EST
    came home battered and bruised this morning.
    "Oh my goodness," I said. "What happened to you?"
    After licking clean the tire marks from it's back the pony said, "Some old guy in a bus ran me over. Gosh, I didn't see that coming!"

    They're looking for a way (none / 0) (#5)
    by oldpro on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 12:52:31 PM EST
    to make it racist to support McCain/Bush.

    Someone in the VP thread suggested Bloomberg as VP for Obama.  It was a brilliant suggestion in many ways, not the least of which is that it could go a long way toward restoring the AA/Jewish coalition of the civil rights years, so badly damaged thereafter.

    Unity that would really matter.

    And then he wouldn't need Hil's fundraisers...

    What a strange year this is...and getting more strange all the time.

    Playing the "race" card against McCain (none / 0) (#62)
    by stefystef on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:37:11 PM EST
    would be disastrous for Obama.  We already saw in the late primaries that many Dems dismissed the primaries in WV, KY and PA as people voting against Obama because they were racist.

    That didn't go over well.

    Bloomberg would be an awful choice for VP.  First off, outside of NYC, Bloomberg isn't know.  Second, NYC barely tolerates the man (and I've lived here my entire life).  He's been a decent mayor.  Also, if you remember, Libermann did nothing for Gore's campaign and that's way before Liebermann defected.

    So Obama needs a southerner or a midwestern to round out his ticket.  And if it's not going to be Hillary, then no woman should be offered the spot.


    I'm not suggesting Bloomberg (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by samanthasmom on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:48:08 PM EST
    for anything, but he is well known outside of NYC. Sometimes that's a good thing for him, and sometimes not.  ;^)

    Feh. (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:54:22 PM EST
    Second, NYC barely tolerates the man (and I've lived here my entire life).

    Check the spelling.  Is that maybe Nu York City you live in?  Because here in real world New York City, Bloomberg won a huge majority in his reelection including 50% of the African American vote.  He's very popular.

    I very much doubt he'll be the VP nominee, but he is popular in New York.


    Disagree re the race card (none / 0) (#78)
    by oldpro on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:52:25 PM EST
    and re Bloomberg.

    As you said:  "many Dems dismissed the primaries in WV, KY and PA as people voting against Obama because they were racist.
    That didn't go over well."

    Didn't go over well with DEMS who already supported Obama.  Let's remember that Dems are only a third of the voting population...give or take.  It's the swing, independent, middle third who must be appealed to in the POTUS race...and they are a very different animal.


    The only (none / 0) (#9)
    by sas on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 12:55:36 PM EST
    real Democrat, imo, is not in the race anymore.

    The only one speaking for the people, caring about the people is out of the race.

    As far as I'm concerned we have a race now between a Republican lite and an independent leaning Republican.

    I say let them tear each other to shreds.

    Ditto (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by tek on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:19:03 PM EST
    Obama cannot ever complain about dirty politics because he's now the master of that game.  Nothing could be lower than turning on your own party and trashing your own constituency because you don't have a winning platform.  Obama is the heir to Bush because that's what Bush/Rove did to John McCain in 2000. McCain has bounced back.  I doubt he's going to let a freshman senator get in his way.  

    (Bill will bounce back too, eventually).


    Well that sounds attractive. (none / 0) (#22)
    by oldpro on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:06:57 PM EST
    So, do you watch what my grandma used to call 'boxfighting' with relish, waiting to see somebody hit the deck and not get up...not just 'down for the count?'

    Pro wrestling, maybe?  Nah...that's fake...garage fighting has possibilities, tho.

    OK...I'll watch 'tear each other to shreds.'  Should be a short series...they're both already pretty well shreded.


    I simply (none / 0) (#69)
    by sas on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:44:27 PM EST
    don't care if either gets knocked down for the count or if either ever gets up.  I don't even care enough to watch them.

    They are both awful candidates.  Each deserves wht he gets.


    I hear ya. (none / 0) (#107)
    by oldpro on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:17:08 PM EST
    Somehow, I can't stop watching the spider racing toward the moth caught up in the web right outside my window.

    Yup.  Got him.  Knew she would.


    It's also worth noting (none / 0) (#24)
    by Maize on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:08:39 PM EST
    that the right has far better message discipline than the left.

    If you look at liberal blogs, you will find people regularly complaining about Obama's stance on whatever the issue de jour is. Not so for the other side.

    Back when McCain won the nomination, the right side of the blogosphere freaked out - he wasn't their candidate and they disagreed with him on immigration, etc. But now? Pick some conservative blogs, head over and try to find a single post critical of McCain. You won't. These blogs are all anti-Obama, all the time.

    They know how to win a campaign. I've yet to be convinced that the left does.

    Ha! (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:13:20 PM EST
    This comment is too funny.

    Yep, that blog message discipline is the key.


    Funny comment.


    Maybe (none / 0) (#57)
    by tek on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:30:41 PM EST
    the Democratic Party should have thought about all that before they handpicked the candidate and FORCED him on the voters.  you see that lockstep in the Republican Party because they are droids.  Democrats think and they don't like having their civil rights tramped on.

    Lots of Republicans still don't like McCain, but they have been afraid of Obama from the very beginning, and the ones who aren't afraid are racist, so of course they are united against Obama.  Why do you think some Democrats are going to vote McCain?  People are afraid of Obama.  The Democrats should have thought of that.


    Why are people shocked? (none / 0) (#27)
    by stefystef on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:10:58 PM EST
    Did you really expect something better from McCain and the Republicans?  They were not going to roll over and let Obama take over because some people  think he's the "second coming".  Obama got "free" press for the last 8 months and at the expense of everyone.  

    It is going to get uglier and meaner.

    That's why it's called "politics".

    No I am not surprised (none / 0) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:11:56 PM EST
    Why do you ask?

    Some seem outraged by Republican tricks (none / 0) (#88)
    by stefystef on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:00:04 PM EST
    even after all this time.

    The Republicans want to keep that White House, especially since they are going to lose control of the congress.  And they will do anything.


    on O going negative (none / 0) (#36)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:15:49 PM EST
    he wont sully himself.  he will let the 527s do it.
    but by then it may be to late.

    He said he wouldn't accept 527s (none / 0) (#42)
    by nycstray on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:20:45 PM EST
    He has been using the "disappointed" line against McCain. Not sure if his campaign is putting out daily negatives on McCain like they did wih Clinton. If they are, the press isn't flying with it in the same fashion as they did with the Clinton BS.

    um, yeah (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:24:38 PM EST
    probably the same way he doesnt accept pac money.

    But 527s are more obvious (none / 0) (#56)
    by nycstray on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:29:55 PM EST
    I suspect they'll run them and after the news cycle is flooded with talk about the content, he'll come out (prediction: 24hrs) and do his normal slam and above it all dance.

    Or he could just flip on it and say that by using them from non-special interest groups (these will be grassroots 527 ads!)he's practicing the new politics and it's the voters who have control of his campaign!


    also (none / 0) (#50)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:26:22 PM EST
    if you want to talk about not necessarily dirty but at best misguided ads, I think you have to include the "you cant have my baby" ad.
    I agree with the sentiment and it still cracks me up every time I see it.

    how long has it been since (none / 0) (#58)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:31:39 PM EST
    I've heard McCain and Bush in the same sentence?

    It was just last night on CNN where they played some tape from a recent Obama event where they reported that Obama linked McCain to Bush at least 12 times in about 15 minutes in his speech.

    then they need to feature that (none / 0) (#81)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:54:32 PM EST
    The media sure cuts both ways.... (none / 0) (#59)
    by SunnyLC on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:33:15 PM EST
    If we had had a real media covering Obama from the beginning,we might not have had such a problem with our candidate.  We might have had someone with substance instead of mere image...and ego.

    Let's Face It, PUMAs--Uninformed, Conforming Voters are Our Worst Enemy....No Matter How Smart They Are (Updated 1X)


    I don't know how wide spread or (none / 0) (#60)
    by tigercourse on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:35:17 PM EST
    effective this ad is, but isn't it possible that the recent slide is just the loss of the bump created when Obama toured Europe?

    I actually think (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:38:10 PM EST
    it may partly be because of the Obamapaloozer tour.

    I agree (none / 0) (#113)
    by jb64 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:24:58 PM EST
    The tour made Obama look like he was auditioning for the job of President, in fact the whole campaign at times seems like its one big screen test. I understand that he is new to the political stage, but it occurs to me that these stage managed events he does are designed to prop up the idea of what an Obama President would look like. All the sizzle, none of the steak. The Paris/Obama ad is brilliant because it juxtaposes a "celebrity" with no apparent function or talent with a Presidential Nominee with no apparent substance or gravitas. The laundry list of no drilling, more taxes etc seems out of place with the beginning of the ad, but I suppose that's the message the GOP plans to run on.

    racist? hardly. Dirty? absolutely.


    how is it dirty? (none / 0) (#120)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:31:38 PM EST
    isn't it legitimate for the McCain camp to say that Obama doesn't have the experience to match the celebrity status that he has attained?

    Sure... (5.00 / 0) (#144)
    by jb64 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:46:07 PM EST
    But to compare the presumptive Democratic nominee to a talentless nothing starlet is kind of hitting below the belt don't you think?

    no i don't think so... (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:49:51 PM EST
    especially when Obama himself went out in the primaries and compared Clinton to Annie Oakley all for her audacity of saying her father taught her about guns.  Obama has no idea whether Hillary's father taught her to use a gun or not.  But, it didn't stop him from trying to belittle her over it, did it?

    No (none / 0) (#167)
    by jb64 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 03:00:22 PM EST
    But he didn't make an ad doing that either.

    Not Just A Talentless Starling (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 03:10:59 PM EST
    They are the female children of the GOP. Britany Spears, and Paris Hilton is the child of all that is GOP. Remember the Paris Hilton Lobby?

    and your point would be? (none / 0) (#193)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 03:21:16 PM EST
    Ugh (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:47:24 PM EST

    In case you folks have not noiticed (none / 0) (#123)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:34:04 PM EST
    Falsehoods are deleted at this site.

    I can't think of any off the top (none / 0) (#158)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:52:40 PM EST
    of my head who have that reputation as much as Paris does.  Would you care to offer up an example who is as well known for it as Paris is????

    Now THIS is what Obama's opposition (none / 0) (#168)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 03:00:24 PM EST
    really Remember that one? I don't think they will actually be this overt in GE, but it is an indicator.

    whoops. can't get the link. It was the (none / 0) (#173)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 03:02:25 PM EST
    "Obama Willie Horton Ad" on youtube.

    Is this it? (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by samanthasmom on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 03:09:47 PM EST

    This one is nasty.


    Yep. Thank you. (none / 0) (#182)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 03:12:25 PM EST
    This is republican tactics/attitudes in a nutshell.

    yep (none / 0) (#188)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 03:16:39 PM EST
    pretty nasty

    Doonesbury is on this aspect of Obama (none / 0) (#191)
    by blogtopus on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 03:20:09 PM EST
    Has been for a while... knocking his celebrity / jesus status. Or should that be celebrity jesus (all in one)?

    I'm your own... celebrity... jesus... (h/t Dmode)

    well (none / 0) (#202)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 03:38:47 PM EST
    that didnt work.
    try this

    Zigzagging also has an effect. (none / 0) (#222)
    by lentinel on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 05:35:01 PM EST
    Let's assume that McCain's ad had an impact on Obama's numbers.
    It demonstrates how thin Obama's support is.
    This is largely Obama's own doing.
    He is abandoning his base, and it could be that his base is in turn abandoning him.
    In a discussion about FISA, BTD boiled down Obama's worthiness for the Presidency in terms of whether or not he believes his own bullsh-t.

    But there are many who don't care whether he believes it or not.
    We, after all, are the ones being bullsh-tted.

    This will take a toll.

    Politics (none / 0) (#223)
    by jeffhardy on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:10:21 PM EST
    HI, Johan McCain. It is even harder to work with people that are not good and avoiding dirty politics does not mean to close your eyes. I hate dirty politics work.
    Florida Treatment Centers

    Or it could be... (none / 0) (#224)
    by AX10 on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 08:21:24 PM EST
    that we are in troubled times and the people are
    looking for solutions this time around.
    Like it or not, McCain is offering them
    while Mr. Obama gives us the infamous speech filled with vague platitudes.
    That could be part of the reason they are tied.