Getting Shot Down Means You Don't Cheat

After the Obama campaign tossed General Wes Clark under the bus for stating the obvious, that getting shot down in an airplane is not command experience, they better get used to this

[McCain spokeperson] Nicolle Wallace: ""The insinuation from the Obama campaign that John McCain, a former prisoner of war, cheated is outrageous."

Sure it's stupid, but stupid works when you don't push back.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Don't Worry, Be Happy | "Preppy Murderer" Gets 19 Years for Non Violent Drug Offense >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    When I first saw that this morning (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:32:16 AM EST
    I laughed for about ten seconds.

    I guess someone could bring up his sterling performance at the Naval Academy. . .

    Cut him a break (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:21:34 AM EST
    He was trying to get the Naval Academy into one of the top party colleges spot and here you are hacking on him.

    wow (none / 0) (#145)
    by Jgarza on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:41:10 AM EST
    that was funny

    You'd expect a former prisoner of war to (5.00 / 0) (#5)
    by halstoon on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:34:39 AM EST
    remain true to his principles, too, but John McCain has disavowed nearly his entire catalogue of past positions. Obama's team should bang that drum every time Mac's team tries this kind of horsecrap.

    Be careful now (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Lahdee on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:35:01 AM EST
    we don't want to upset all those endangered republicans. That would be so partisan and we all know partisan is bad, bad, bad.

    That chortle you hear...that's republicans thinking about a nice, soft, chewy Democrat.

    I am a vet.. (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Richard in Jax on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:36:05 AM EST
    Of the same war as McCain. I think the man is a jerk.He sat back while Kerry's service was being craped on by a bunch of draft dodgers (no that tepid response didn't cut it)and now submits his service on a daily basis. This creep hugged the man that disparaged is daughter and wife. John McCain is a rotten guy..

    Selective memory (none / 0) (#11)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:40:02 AM EST

    He sat back while Kerry's service was being craped on by a bunch of draft dodgers

    Kerry's fellow officers were not draft dodgers.


    As I recall, there was (none / 0) (#18)
    by Radix on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:49:13 AM EST
    just one officer, who was near Kerry, making those claims. Odd fact, this guy received his Bronze Star for the same engagement he said Kerry didn't deserve his.

    must be bad memory (none / 0) (#174)
    by Ford Prefect on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:19:21 PM EST
    John McCain whatever his fault is, is one of the few republicans or democrats who defended Kerrys service as honorable, although he did put in the obligatory "President Bush's service was honorable too". We may not like his policy proposals. But he did show character when defending Kerry in the middle of the heated campaign and while on the campaign trail with Bush. There is no doubt about that.

    And yet (none / 0) (#198)
    by tlkextra on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 03:43:37 PM EST
    Kerry defended McCain's service recently.

    Me think (5.00 / 0) (#9)
    by JThomas on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:39:41 AM EST
    that the McCain camp doth protest too much here.
    Once again, pulling out the POW card at the mere suggestion from the media that he was actually listening to the Faith Forum in his car via sattelite radio rather than being in the ''cone of silence''?

    I think that POW card is already wearing thin with independent voters...time for the Keating 5 card?
    hey, if you are going ancient history,lets open up all the books.

    the media???? (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:47:06 AM EST
    I thought it was the Obama camp that put that theory into the media's ear....

    Actually the annoying Rick (none / 0) (#41)
    by brodie on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:11:36 AM EST
    Sanchez of CNN reported yesterday that in CNN's own newsroom they had been made aware, in RT, that McC was not in fact in the Cone of Silence but instead was in transit for a full 1/2 hr as O was getting questioned.

    These facts, and others, undisputed because verifiably true and acknowledged by Pastor Rick, are all that need to be put out there.

    And people will draw their own conclusions.

    The McC camp's attempt to distract from this matter by waving the POW red flag look suspiciously like they have indeed been caught on cheating.

    And we all know how darn strange it is that Repubs, of all people, would be found to be cheating in an election ...


    Transcript (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:19:49 AM EST










    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by CST on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:28:58 AM EST
    Don't let the facts get in the way of an Obama bash-fest.

    Glad to know he's still John McCain, the "maverick" of the republican party.  Except when it comes to actual policies...  Did you hear his list of justices he didn't want on the court?  Impressive.


    McCain's judges were predicatible (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by zfran on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:37:51 AM EST
    as were Obama's. The fact that he almost voted for the confirm. of John Roberts also says alot about Obama. Notice how he now covers the fact of that vote with saying that seeing Roberts now on the bench he voted correctly doesn't "coverup" the fact that he was "talked out of voting for him", again, judgement on judges?"

    Of course they were predictable (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by CST on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:44:10 AM EST
    Thats my point.  McCain gave the predictable right-wing answer.  He is not a maverick.  He is a neo-con.  People like to say he will be less of a right-winger than Bush.  I think he will be more of one.

    I would much rather have a president who will be "talked out of voting for Roberts" than one who would nominate him.  That's just me though.


    McCain, altho' he is right leaning, (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by zfran on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:56:36 AM EST
    is also somewhat center, gee, just like Obama is somewhat left, but leans to the center. And, as he was talked out of voting for Roberts, how has his anti-Iraq stand withstood his time in the Senate? Did he vote against the war in the Senate at any time. How about his FISA vote. Was he talked out of voting against this bill. When you compromise, at least come down on the side of the "people" not yourself, imo. I believe this country needs the "brilliance" of both a dem and a repub. to meet somewhere in the middle to be the best for this country. I believe we've had enough vile partisanship over the last 8 years. But, hey, that's me, ms. idealistic.

    I first saw the discussion of this (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:20:57 AM EST
    centered around Andrea Mitchell's reporting on Sunday that the Obama campaign made this complaint that McCain had heard the questions beforehand.

    And, I'm amazed at how having possible access to something now has turned into HE ACTUALLY DID LISTEN.


    He claimed (3.00 / 2) (#74)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:31:52 AM EST
    to be sequestered when in fact he was not.  Most would call that lying and make anything he says suspect.  

    I find it suspect that he was late in the first place.  He was supposed to be there at a specific time but instead was 30 minutes late?  I find that incredibly unlikely.  would he have been late if he had to speak first?  


    He, McCain, didn't "claim to be (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by zfran on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:38:37 AM EST
    sequestered" Rick Warren did in the "cone of silence."

    he said (3.00 / 2) (#97)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:47:07 AM EST
    he was listening through the wall.

    He made a joke and the (none / 0) (#110)
    by zfran on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:58:29 AM EST
    audience laughed! He also said he hoped the questions don't get harder and then acknowledged that they did. Rick Warren gave each candidate a heads-up at the subject matter he would be asking about. They both even knew the first question. How did they both fare answering the first question?

    Well (5.00 / 0) (#123)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:07:29 AM EST
    there are quite a few people who believe that McCain was plagiarizing Solzhenitsyn.

    I thought that Obama's answer was quite good.  


    Obama's answer was just that, (none / 0) (#153)
    by zfran on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:44:48 AM EST
    his answer and it was fine. I hope his grandmother isn't too hurt after being under that bus for so long as now he wants to consult with her.

    based on what I've seen reported (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:46:35 AM EST
    it was the Rev who "claimed" that McCain was sequestered not McCain who made that claim.  Although I did see a report where after the Rev made that claim, McCain made a joking comment about the cone of silence as well.  Which could have easily been a reference to the fact that at some point mCCain was actually in the green room.

    So, if McCain actually DIDN'T HEAR any of the broadcast while in his vehicle, and then was in the green room, McCain was just fine in his response.


    Right, (5.00 / 4) (#112)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:59:32 AM EST
    McCain must be a liar because we all know that Obama is a paragon of virtue.

    The Obama camp was lying when Michelle Obama claimed Bill Clinton said Obama's entire campaign was a fairytale.

    The Obama camp wasn't being dishonest when they mailed out campaign fliers about Hillary's position on NAFTA with erroneous quotes on them and continued to do so after they were made fully aware of the misquotes.

    The Obama camp wasn't being dishonest when saying they weren't painting the Clinton's as race-baiters and then were confronted by Tim Russert with their SC campaign memo

    etc, etc, etc.....


    Non sequiturs (5.00 / 0) (#132)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:18:50 AM EST
    We aren't talking about Obama's past transgressions and they don't invalidate the accusations that McCain is lying in any way.

    I find it telling that your defense of McCain mentions McCain onec and Obama six times.


    i find it telling (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:31:38 AM EST
    that so far you have not shown one shred of eveidence that McCain actually heard any questions and answers that Obama gave.  So far the only proof is that he HAD ACCESS.

    Right (5.00 / 0) (#144)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:38:11 AM EST
    the only proof is that we know that he did not follow the stated rules.  

    Other than that we have no evidence.  Sure there was deception but we have no reason to believe he used that deception to his advantage right?


    And, how is saying Sen. McCain (5.00 / 9) (#14)
    by zfran on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:43:39 AM EST
    "cheated" going to make Sen. Obama's performance any better. Only Sen. Obama could have accomplished that!!

    If Obama hadn't agreed (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by standingup on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:06:00 AM EST
    to a forum tailored for the Republican nominee to chase after evangelical votes he has little chance of receiving, he wouldn't be in this position either.  I simply don't see the "judgement" at work in even taking part in these exercises of futility.

    Obamanation wants to divert attention (5.00 / 5) (#42)
    by myiq2xu on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:11:38 AM EST
    from Obama's lackluster performance.

    We saw this same pattern during the primaries.  Whenever Obama stumbled, they attacked Hillary.


    That's the problem in a nutshell..... (none / 0) (#72)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:30:38 AM EST
    ...no one was paying that much attention to that forum. I don't understand why they want to bring it up again. This only underscores that Obama underperformed. But I don't think that the Obama campaign really wanted this to hit the airwaves. I think they were just griping in front of reporters and this is what you get.

    Exactly, the whole line or complaints from (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by Matt in Chicago on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:19:37 PM EST
    the Obama campaign will just continue to highlight the fact that they think Obama lost as well.  They would be better off just shutting up and moving on,  rather than dragging this out.

    Moreover, I am not sure that the majority of American's are ever going to believe that McCain cheated simply on the word of a rival political campaign.  

    Bad move Obama campaign... just prep better for the next outing.  Just because you lost, doesn't necessarily mean the other side cheated... unless of course you're starting to believe your own hype.


    Speaking as a vet (5.00 / 5) (#17)
    by cawaltz on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:47:07 AM EST
    I really just don't care. Then again when I left the military I became working class. That's "old" coalition. I'd imagine at least some of the vets feel the same as me. Wake us up and let us know when Obama gets done talking about himself, hope and change and starts working on specifics though.

    Does anybody else besides me NOT CARE (5.00 / 7) (#19)
    by cawaltz on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:52:32 AM EST
    if McCain heard the questions or not? This is pretty lame. Why doesn't Obama concentrate on criticizing the CONTENT instead of sounding like some schoolboy who wished he had a chance to crib notes before the exam.

    Given the fact that a lot of people (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:33:46 AM EST
    are convinced that Rick Warren is fundamentally different from the Fallwell, Roberts and Dobson type Evangelicals, I think that it is instructive to note that Warren's much touted "cone of silence" was a big fat lie.

    He's not fundamentally different... (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:05:39 AM EST
    just packaged a little more slickly.

    Yes he still smugly thinks you're (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:12:47 AM EST
    going to hell.  He just doesn't tell you like those others do.

    But his letter to 136,000 members six days before the 2004 election about the five "non-negotiable" issues for his flock makes it pretty clear to me that he is no different from the rest.

    I don't fault the Obama camp for challenging McCain and Warren on this issue.  I fault them for being so completely naive that they would think that this thing would not have been rigged in McCain's favor.  Obama should never have agreed to do this, but he is so full of himself that he really believes that he can reach these people.  People who are clearly just using him and will throw him under the bus so fast he won't know what hit him.


    Agree about the Pastor Rick (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by brodie on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:32:14 AM EST
    imaging.  He's a lot more likable Mr Backyard Every Guy in the Hawaiian Shirts and a lot less seemingly judgmental than some of the more obnoxious televangelists who made the big time starting in the 80s.

    But he's still, ultimately, in his own every guy way, just another strongly judgmental evangelist preacher who pretends to preach the gospel of Jesus but who fundamentally misrepresents Jesus' exemplary message of nonjudgmental understanding and forgiveness of others.

    As for O's decision, there were a few political objectives here -- to further the O as Christian, not Muslim biographical message, and to possibly peel away just enough semi-sane evangelicals nationwide to make a difference here and there.  

    It does appear though that they failed to appreciate the several ways in which Game Host Rick Warren and  John "Van Doren" McCain could quietly rig the proceedings.

    Cheater John did everything but dramatically pause to wipe his brow ...


    I think you people ought to read a little more (none / 0) (#155)
    by Upstart Crow on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:48:00 AM EST
    before you shoot your mouthes off about Warren.

    Adam Gopnik (or was it Malcolm Gladwell?) did a major profile of him for the New Yorker a few years back -- surprisingly favorable, especially for the New Yorker.

    95 percent of the proceeds from his book has gone to charity -- as I recall, his notable work with AIDS in Africa. He has very much taken evangelicals to task for not doing enough in the AIDS crisis.

    I'm no evangelical, but he's done more for humanity than any of you on your best day.


    Obama: I will win (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Josey on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:02:05 AM EST
    And Pelosi gives God's Seal of Approval -
    >>>He was warmly received by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who called him "a leader that God has blessed us with at this time."

    Politico -

    Perhaps the convention will be more of a revival meeting than a convention?


    Isn't he talking about Pelosi here: (none / 0) (#160)
    by MichaelGale on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:56:38 AM EST
    "The fact of the matter is, at a certain point, when government has not been serving the people for this long, people get cynical. They tune out. And they start saying to themselves, a plague on both your houses. They are willing to consume negative information more frequently than positive information, for good reason. They've seen how promises haven't been kept," he said.

    Bingo! (none / 0) (#179)
    by Josey on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:26:38 PM EST
    That's certainly how most Dems feel about Pelosi's leadership.

    Yes, particularly since his comment (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by Nike on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:09:14 PM EST
    only reminds us that in the debate format, what Obama often did was say, right after Hillary, "what she said..."

    Partly, he seemed off his game. What I noticed in watching the interview was that he did not have, or express here, any sense of humor (this really hurts you since it is often a theater of the absurd) and he was not able to convey a sense that he had strong core beliefs and that he was confident that others shared those beliefs.


    McCain in a Nutshell (5.00 / 0) (#21)
    by Ed Drone on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:52:39 AM EST
    A noun, a verb, and "P.O.W. (©Joe Biden)


    Heh (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by cawaltz on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:06:04 AM EST
    Yeah because you won't need the military community and veterans in Virginia(and boy are they gonna lurve having someone who never wore a uniform criticizing).

    The answer is to get someone who does have credibility with the military community....someone who wore a uniform...someone who the media likes and will give air time to........oh wait.....didn't the Obama TEAM throw someone like that under the bus and just tell him his services wouldn't be needed for the convention? D'oh.


    Well (5.00 / 7) (#25)
    by nell on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:59:27 AM EST
    It's stupid for the McCain campaign to inject POW status into this issue, one has NOTHING to do with the other.

    That being said, it is absurd that Obama's camp accused McCain of cheating with zero proof. It is stupid politically, and it is just poor sportsmanship. McCain had a great night, Obama should learn from him and improve his performance instead of whining about it. Both candidates were given the first two questions and McCain still had stronger and more focused answers than Obama. They also knew the general topics that would be covered, it isn't like there were any surprise questions.

    McCain's camp is hitting back not just at Obama, but ALSO at NBC. I read an article at Politico about a very strong letter sent to NBC from the McCain campaign about their biased report

    They should hit back.. (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by jb64 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:10:10 AM EST
    The cheating claim, even if true, is stupid.

    but see, it's never Obama's fault.

    I don't know if getting shot down in Vietnam means that you don't cheat, but calling a POW a cheater is really stupid.


    Heh. (5.00 / 7) (#31)
    by chel2551 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:04:49 AM EST
    Mr. McCain's performance was well received, raising speculation among some viewers, especially supporters of Mr. Obama, that he was not as isolated during the Obama interview as Mr. Warren implied.

    If Obama is complaining about McCain's well-received performance, because the audience liked his answers, then I guess he'd better come up with better ones himself.  

    It's a continuing problem for him.  I keep waiting for some firm positions on important issues.  I know that his supporters keep excusing
    his lack of specifics, but it only makes him look weak and inexperienced to those that aren't on board yet.

    really because we all recall (5.00 / 5) (#43)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:11:50 AM EST
    just how often in the primary debates that Hillary needed to hear Obama's answers FIRST before being able to answer a question herself.



    Yep. (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by chel2551 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:19:08 AM EST
    Surprisingly, Obama seems to have remembered her answers, because many of them have now become his.  :)

    Why, if the Obama campaign (none / 0) (#53)
    by zfran on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:19:33 AM EST
    cites McCain for cheating, are they not going after Rick Warren for lying/misstating that McCain was in the "cone of silence" while Obama was on the stage? Rick Warren said he knew McCain hadn't arrived yet. Seems to me, if you accuse one of some nefarious stunt, why not accuse the other?

    I like the McCain camp letter to NBC (5.00 / 7) (#35)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:06:31 AM EST
    and think that the Obama camp ought to call out media on any idiot like Andrea Mitchell on this, too.  The media have been tampering with this election for too long, and Mitchell went far beyond the facts to turn her musings into insinuations.

    To the Obamans here, remember that it takes no more than a millisecond for media fans to turn it into a media frenzy against your guy.  If he was to play this smartly, Obama would be backing up McCain in saying that NBC is disserving the voters -- since everybody hates the media -- and that all that Obama needs to win is a fair-and-balanced blah blah.

    that is the bigger point here (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:14:46 AM EST
    Why does the media keep getting away with reporting "claims, rumors and innuendo" without actually checking to see what can and can't be confirmed?

    How much extra work would it have been for Andrea and the rest of them to check to see if while McCain was enroute did he or did he not actuall listen to the first questions and answers by Obama?


    Because it's all being driven by the internet (none / 0) (#157)
    by Upstart Crow on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:52:31 AM EST
    every second is a deadline on the 'net, and if you wait to "prove" something, you are likely to be scooped by someone else.

    Also, senior reporters all over the nation are being laid off or bought off. It's rookie season.


    I like your thinking! (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Fabian on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:17:58 AM EST
    That's brilliant! It's like when McCain stood up for Hillary (can't remember what for) one time.  He looked like a stand up guy, even if he was pandering.

    There's many a way to pander and some are less obvious than others.


    Excellent points... it would go a long way (none / 0) (#178)
    by Matt in Chicago on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:23:26 PM EST
    to defuse a lot of the criticism against him... even if the media still treated him favorably.

    The "cheater!" cry (5.00 / 8) (#40)
    by Fabian on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:11:13 AM EST
    makes Obama look "weak" and "whiny".  

    That's not a push back, that's a self inflicted wound.  What will they do for the three debates?  Cry "Cheater!" each time?  Or "Media Bias!"?

    Get Obama to do his da**ed prep work.  

    Um (5.00 / 0) (#154)
    by Jgarza on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:47:16 AM EST
    Actually of Obama's two opponants he is the only one to not whine about media bias.  But my guess is in your world Obama can do no right.

    True (5.00 / 3) (#159)
    by cmugirl on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:53:52 AM EST
    When the media is in your back pocket, you don't need to claim "media bias."

    Campaigning is "hard werk" (none / 0) (#166)
    by Fabian on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:04:23 PM EST
    and Obama best get to it.

    Strangely enough, all that "experience" really does come in handy from time to time.


    To me, this just smacks of the usual (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:17:47 AM EST
    Obama whine when he is not automatically the recipient of adulation for the performances he assumes will be regarded as stellar - I mean, what could possibly explain that McCain was better prepared - surely not that he actually prepared - so, that means he must have cheated, right?  

    McCain's people are right to complain that Andrea Mitchell did what so many at NBC do - she trotted out the Obama talking point without bothering to do any verification - giving millions of people the impression that it was true.  We know this is how they do things - we saw it over and over again in the primaries, for heaven's sake.

    Read Rick Davis' letter to NBC - there is no invocation of McCain's POW ordeal in it; Wallace was stupid for invoking it when they had a legitimate complaint against NBC - that's her mistake, not McCain's.

    I'm now waiting for all the follow-up (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:27:31 AM EST
    investigation that takes place

    1. McCain was enroute in a vehicle during this time period.

    2. In that same time period, Obama answered these specific questions.

    3. McCain answered those same questions in this manner as compared to Obama's answers.

    4. These other questions were asked while McCain was in the "cone of silence" and could not have been affected.

    5. we checked and the vehicle McCain was in did/did not have access to sattelite radio.

    6. we checked and cannot verify whether the vehicle's radio was tuned to the broadcast.

    7. we checked McCain's cell phone record and can/cannot confirm whether he was receivin text messages during Obama's performance.  

    8. We know based on Obama's support of FISA, we will soon be able to dump all of the text messages sent or received by McCain during that time.  Stay tuned for the details.

    On my way to work this morning, (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:40:59 AM EST
    POTUS 08 was replaying the forum; they had played Obama's portion in the previous hour - between 6-7 am - and starting about 7:15, they played McCain's.

    With a preface that I do not agree with most of McCain's positions, his performance was good.  He answered the questions - the ones I heard, anyway - and didn't waste a lot of time with nuance and hemming and hawing; people had to come out of there with a solid idea of what McCain's positions are.  Since I haven't heard Obama's remarks - have only read parts - I know that he talked everything to death.  If Warren had said, "Excuse me, Barack, could you tell me what time it is?" Obama would have answered by giving Warren the history of time and timepieces, and then step-by-step instructions on how a watch is made.

    So, Obama didn't wow the assembled, which means either there was something wrong with them, or someone didn't play fair, right?  It's always the same thing with Obama - it's always someone else's fault.  Given that McCain wanted to be on the same stage with Obama, getting the questions at the same time, it strikes me as ludicrous that McCain would have been so afraid that Obama would have an advantage that he would need to cheat.

    McCain has Obama's number, make no mistake.  I will never forget the letter he sent to Obama in connection with some bipartisan legislation they were involved in; he ripped Obama a new one with surgical precision.


    you're right (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by ccpup on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:57:59 AM EST
    Obama's failures are never, ever his fault.  It's McCain's for "cheating", it's the Voter's for being "racist", it's ours for "not understanding what he meant to say".  But it's never his fault.  Ever.

    I strongly suspect the American People will become tired of Obama's excuses and his inability to take responsibility and eventually just give up on him and tune him out.

    No matter how they try to spin it, McCain isn't Bush and I believe the American People will find themselves warming to him as we edge closer to November.  

    Heck!  Based on the Polls, they're warming to him NOW and ALREADY tuning Obama out!


    Actually... (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:30:07 AM EST
    Not only would it not surprise me if McCain saw/heard the first Obama segment, it would also not surprise me if Warren colluded with McCain in cheating.

    I watched the whole thing, and it smacked of a right-wing set up to me. It's why I thought Obama should never have gone in the first place. These people are the enemy to progressives - and should never be trusted. I don't think Obama should engage on the evangelical front at all, but I know that's not a popular opinion.

    I mean, come on, Warren said: "since Roe v. Wade, 40 millions abortions, some people see that as a Holocaust"... Yup. A Holocaust. We've witnessed an actual Holocaust since the passage of Roe v. Wade.

    On the contrary, (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by chel2551 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:34:56 AM EST
    I don't think Obama should engage on the evangelical front at all, but I know that's not a popular opinion.

    it's more popular than you think.

    We're being told he's trying to appeal to evangelical voters and get them to vote dem.  I'm afraid that's just another fairy tale written by this campaign.


    I guess (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by CST on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:36:40 AM EST
    You get what you came for.  I agree Obama should've known better.

    This whole lying thing is funny.  I mean, maybe he lied, maybe he didn't.  But obviously he CAN and DOES lie sometimes, regardless if he was a POW or not.  Just ask his ex-wife.  Or factcheck.org.


    Yes, it is funny (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:55:48 AM EST
    As if there is a magical cloak of honor surrounding every POW, making it logically so that they can never lie, cheat or steal! They're overusing the POW thing now. Clark's comments were right, he needs to come back.

    Has Obama ever "lied," have you? (none / 0) (#121)
    by zfran on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:05:52 AM EST
    My answer is I really don't know if you've lied, I've never met you nor heard you.

    Umm (5.00 / 0) (#141)
    by CST on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:32:10 AM EST
    I have definitely lied.  Obama has too.  My point about the liar is not to paint McCain as an evil person.  Just that he's human, of course he's lied at some point, so the whole meme about the POW who can't lie is a joke.  I have never met a person who has never lied in their entire life.  Frankly, I don't really care if McCain is lying about this or not, doesn't make a difference to me.  It just all seems kinda silly.

    I agree that is was a setup. (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:42:34 AM EST
    ...I thought that from the beginning.

    Can't you just SEE the sterling (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:54:13 AM EST
    performance Hillary would have given in that setting?!

    I suspect.... (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by p lukasiak on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:02:39 AM EST
    ...that Clinton would have been forthright, and engaging -- something like what she did with O'Reilly, but without the combative element.

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Wile ECoyote on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:05:14 AM EST
    I agree.  Obama needs to stick to the teleprompters, very friendly, adoring, almost worshipful crowds.  

    I don't think (none / 0) (#79)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:36:35 AM EST
    that Warren was involved.  

    McCain willfully came late.  Warren probably was unaware.  McCain was sequestered for some of the Obama portion.

    It is reasonable to believe that Warren was unaware.  


    um.... (none / 0) (#111)
    by p lukasiak on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:59:21 AM EST
    how could Warren have been unaware that McCain hadn't shown up by the time the forum started.

    I suspect that there was an agreement between all concerned that McCain would show up when he did -- he's not a game show contestant, after all, and I can't imagine his campaign agreeing to have him be treated like one.

    The bottom line is that, as others have said repeatedly, McCain didn't need to hear the exact questions in advance.  He campaigned in front of this kind of audience for well over a year during the GOP primary -- and he's already honed his answers to the kinds of questions he knew would be asked.

    What this forum was really about was getting back aboard the Straght Talk Express -- McCain's people doubtless watched Obama's performance in various other "challenging" settings (like his FoxNews interview0 and wanted to draw a contrast.  In addition, McCain's direct answers were useful in terms of the whole "age" thing --- "thoughtful" answers would look hesitant, so he kept his answers snappy.


    It just seems too much for me..... (5.00 / 4) (#119)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:05:39 AM EST
    ...to assume that McCain could have possibly benefited from hearing Obama's questions. I just don't give him enough credit to have been able to craft "good answers" with such short notice. I mean isn't he supposed to be old and all? </snark>

    I doubt (5.00 / 0) (#125)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:09:07 AM EST
    that he was listening to the questions himself.  

    However his staff was and they came up with the appropriate responses to the question.  


    which makes McCain... (5.00 / 3) (#133)
    by p lukasiak on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:18:55 AM EST
    ...a really quick study.

    I mean, seriously, the whole thing is a joke.  The idea that McCain actually could memorize his answers to a half hours worth of question in that amount of time actually is a positive in my book, given the questions about his age.

    (and IIRC, the candidates were told not to answer with snippets from their stump speeches, and McCain was admonished for doing so.  Does that sound like someone who prepped for specific questions?)


    Of course (5.00 / 0) (#136)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:24:59 AM EST
    he didn't memorize anything.  

    He was given the questions and how to best respond to the question.

    Do you seriously believe that knowing the questions beforehand doesn't help?  Even if you are told the question a minute beforehand, it allows you to prepare your answer.  

    Look at the transcript.  The early questions were answered decisively and with relevant anecdotes.

    Then look at the later questions.  When asked about the right to privacy competing with national security he gives a response about secret union ballots?  WTF?  When asked what wealthy is defined as he says 5 million dollars and then almost immediately tries to come back from it amid mocking laughter.  


    Yeah, no need to be a "quick (5.00 / 0) (#146)
    by brodie on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:41:20 AM EST
    study", that's just silly.

    Once his team had a 1/2 hr's worth of Qs, all they needed to do was remind him of how he'd addressed these matters in previous campaign settings.

    CBS News did a piece yesterday about this, iirc.  Many of McC's answers, contrary to the admonition not to engage in campaign stump speeches, in fact almost literally came word for word from previous campaign responses.

    So it would have been a very easy matter, a few minutes tops, to remind McC of how he previously answered and with all the added toppings of the real or fictitious personal anecdotes.

    What a sham this whole event is turning out to be.


    Actually, (none / 0) (#87)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:41:19 AM EST
    If Obama gets into the WH, he will be dealing with rightwing setups all the time. Remember the Clinton years?

    The Clinton thick skin and republican smears are part and parcel of any democratic administration.


    I think you should read the New Yorker piece (none / 0) (#161)
    by Upstart Crow on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:57:17 AM EST
    on Rick Warren before you slander someone, Dr. Molly.  You have no basis for your suppositions, except that Warren is, predictably, against abortion.

    Slander? (none / 0) (#193)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 02:14:05 PM EST
    That's not slander, it's an opinion in a comment on a blog. Jeezus. If you want slander about Rick Warren, I can do a whole lot better I promise you.

    And it's not abortion he's against, it's other people's individual rights to choose whether to have an abortion that he's against. He's also against gay marriage and pro-Terry-Schiavo-type interference in other people's personal matters about life and death.

    I don't care what the New Yorker said about him. It's great that he's contributed to the fight against AIDS but that doesn't mean he doesn't have other seriously anti-progressive viewpoints nor does it mean that he doesn't offensively sell his religious views to the masses and make tons of money through his mega-church. The guy's made millions with this stuff. You can like him, I don't have to.


    Millions... (none / 0) (#199)
    by Upstart Crow on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 04:08:51 PM EST
    ...and given it all to charity.

    My opinion of him is immaterial. But to accuse someone of lying, sneaking around, and being in cahoots to deceive someone (and the public) is, in my opinion, a serious charge to throw around.


    Wrong (none / 0) (#200)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 04:12:23 PM EST
    He has not given it all to charity, he's a multimillionaire due to Saddleback Church.

    This "cheating" allegation (5.00 / 5) (#78)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:35:22 AM EST
    is the sort of thing that worked great back when Hillary Clinton was the opponent.

    Against an opponent who isn't automatically presumed guilty by the media, it's kinda risky to throw allegations like this out there with no evidence.  Yes, McCain's invocation of the POW card is laughable, but the bottom line is that they're not going to take it lying down.

    I think it looks pretty darn whiny, to tell you the truth, when McCain has a decent performance and instantly everyone is complaining about how he must have heard the questions in advance.  I suspect I won't be the only one to have that reaction.

    Right. (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by chel2551 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:39:23 AM EST
    I suspect I won't be the only one to have that reaction.

    Just read this thread for verification.


    Heh (5.00 / 0) (#91)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:44:28 AM EST
    Well, I'm not sure the TL commentariat is always a perfect cross-section of the electorate... :)

    No, but (none / 0) (#102)
    by chel2551 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:54:04 AM EST
    the electorate seems to have formed an opinion of Obama, at least the ones involved in the primary.

    yes because (none / 0) (#156)
    by Jgarza on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:49:31 AM EST
    the commenters on this website are a perfect sample of the voting electorate.

    Only Losers accuse their opponent of cheating (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by OxyCon on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:55:16 AM EST
    Guess that means it's official that Obama lost that round.

    This is getting ridiculous (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by ks on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:55:18 AM EST
    Is the Obama camp seriously arguing that McCain either could have "cheated" or did cheat in order to what?  Cover for Obama's mediocre performance and downplay mcCain's good one?  I guess so but the diversion tactic, much like the one they used against the ABC debate moderators, is pretty transparent and weak.  The McCain camp's POW reply is silly but it's really silly that the Obama camp is using this angle.  

    when in doubt (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by ccpup on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:02:31 AM EST
    point the finger at the other person and start yelling loudly.  Especially if it was YOU who stumbled.

    Confident campaigns and candidates don't do this kind of stuff.

    Thank God I'm not a Superdelegate who switched from Hillary to The One.  

    Or, if I was, at least let me have stock in Maalox and Advil.  Lots and lots of stock.


    disagree... (5.00 / 3) (#127)
    by p lukasiak on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:11:53 AM EST
    Confident campaigns and candidates don't do this kind of stuff.

    of course they do -- the Obama campaign was quite confident in the late primaries, and did this kind of thing all the time (remember the RFK smear?).

    The Obama campaign is used to getting away with this kind of crap -- and they certainly aren't used to being held to account for it.  They don't expect this stuff to blow up in their faces -- and certainly not so quickly.

    The Obama campaign was confident that it could get away with this low-ball 'cheating' accusation -- just like they were confident that Obama could play the race card against McCain.  Team McCain was ready for both tactics, and not merely fired back, but did so in a way that is extremely savvy in terms of perception management.


    I meant a campaign (none / 0) (#196)
    by ccpup on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 03:09:15 PM EST
    or candidate who is confident about their chances of winning not that they could get away with the same sh*t they've been effortlessly pulling for months against Clinton.

    I truly believe there's a growing sense of true terror in the Obama Camp as they see where they SHOULD be (on their nifty spread sheets) in no way reflected in where they actually ARE when it comes to the Polls and fundraising.

    In fact, once the "racism" charge against McCain sank like a stone and now the "he cheated" media chorus is being called out for their unbelievable ridiculousness, there's probably a round table meeting of Top Obama Advisers trying to figure out what to pull out of the ol' hat next to throw at McCain.

    I fear they're all out of tricks, though.

    But I don't get the sense they're now confident about their "inevitable win" in November.  Arrogantly trusting that it's his, yes.  But no longer confident it'll be a cake walk.


    This is the difference (none / 0) (#126)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:09:44 AM EST

    Ego with hubris
    Ego with confidence.


    Not a single (1.00 / 1) (#131)
    by JThomas on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:14:00 AM EST
    Obama surrogate or rep has said that McCain cheated. Now, they pointed out that he was not in the cone of silence as it was represented by Rick Warren and McCain himself. Warren has come clean and admitted that is true.

    Speaking truthfully is still allowed in America ,I believe.

    But everyone can draw their own conclusions.
    Anyone that thinks that McCain would sit in that car with a cell phone and surrogates watching the Obama session and not communicate with them also believed that Nixon was not a crook.


    Heh (5.00 / 4) (#134)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:19:12 AM EST
    Most people see it as overly cute when all the Obama supporters are screaming "he cheated, he cheated," and the campaign itself is like "oh, we never said he cheated, we just decided for some reason to point out the fact that he wasn't in the cone of silence."

    Anyone over the age of 6 understands that the reason for pointing out McCain's whereabouts is to suggest that he cheated.  Look, if you're so certain he did cheat, why doesn't the Obama campaign just come out and say it?  Speaking truthfully is still allowed in America, isn't it?


    Heh Indeed (5.00 / 4) (#135)
    by ks on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:22:43 AM EST
    It's absolutely remarkable that they think that tactic goes unnoticed.

    Remember (5.00 / 3) (#124)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:08:28 AM EST
    Obama had trouble answering the "why do you want to be president" question, asked by a child.  

    Having the questions ahead of time doesn't guarantee that he'd have answered them well anyway.

    Who cares? (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by cmugirl on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:52:43 AM EST
    Not about the subject, but who cares whether McCain colluded with Warren, or was studying Obama's insightful answers in the car? My guess is that besides the Netroots and evangelicals no one was watching this "debate". The Olympics were on and Michael Phelps was going for the record-breaking 8th gold medal.  It was Saturday night in the summer and people were out or on vacation.

    The Obama camp is making this a brou-ha-ha when no one was paying attention in the first place.

    leave it to Obama (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by ccpup on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 03:11:19 PM EST
    to turn a basic non-event watched by few into yet another opportunity to highlight for those who mingle at the water cooler not only how insecure and petty he can be, but also how poorly he performed in comparison to his opponent.

    Even if he did (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by Bluesage on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:09:22 PM EST
    Hear Obama's answers he probably just tuned out like the rest of us after 1,000's of words and er's, ah's and um's. There just doesn't seem to be enough words in the english language for him to get to an answer.

    Cone of silence? (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by Emma on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:22:12 PM EST
    Who cares about the "cone of silence"?  It's too d*mn hard to figure out what was going on and who did what and when and what the d*mn "cone of silence" even is, was, or whatever.  There's no WAY that narrative sticks.

    You want to know what sticks?  The "Obama called a war hero a cheater".  That's the sound bite that sticks.  Well played McCain camp.  Poorly played Obama camp.

    Honest. to. god.  It's like Obama's running for 6th grade president sometimes:  "He CHEATED!!!"  Who the frick cares?  Nobody cared that Bush was carrying a WWII radio on his back in the 2004 debates.  Nobody cares about the "cone of silence" now.  

    Let's make this all about character.  McCain loves that.  Because, like or not, he's got character and honor coming out of every pore.  His refusal to leave the POW camp links him firmly with the "greatest generation" of vets from WWII and brings honor and glory to veterans from a dishonorable war.  Does his POW experience mean he's more qualified to be President?  Only if you think that being President requires one to be a leader in tough times.  And McCain has that in spades.

    Couldn't agree more! Obama is (none / 0) (#184)
    by Matt in Chicago on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:32:51 PM EST
    playing to McCain's strengths... and it is costing him.

    Would the whole "cheating" mess have (5.00 / 2) (#181)
    by Matt in Chicago on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:31:25 PM EST
    even come up if: (1) Obama and McCain were on stage together as McCain had originally wanted? or (2) McCain hadn't done better than Obama?

    Yeah, I didn't think so.

    I don't agree with McCain on a LOT of issues, but find it hard to believe that he is so afraid of Obama that he would feel the need to cheat.  The risk is far outweighed by the reward.

    Obama didn't do well in this forum.  Stop looking for a conspiracy to explain it and just move on and prepare for the next one.

    Seriously (none / 0) (#185)
    by nell on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:35:39 PM EST
    And don't forget

    Both candidates were given the first two questions. Obama prepared for those questions, just as I am sure McCain did, and he still did a WORSE JOB than McCain, even with preparation.

    Both candidates knew what the topics would be, at one point Obama even referenced researching a specific plan on adoption that he thought Warren would ask about. If he knew to prepare for a question as obscure as abortion, would he have really been unprepared for questions about abortion, his personal faith, and the supreme court? I think not.

    None of the questions were a surprise, and even when Obama had the exact question and prepared he still had a less clear and more long-winded answer than McCain did.

    Instead of acting like a crybaby, he should learn from his performance, make it better for next time, and move on.


    Just got in... (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by kredwyn on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 02:20:51 PM EST
    There are reports out there that Rick Warren gave both of the participants the first two questions beforehand...as a possible ice breaker. And also talked to them about generalized topics that he'd be addressing in the rest of the questions.

    Also he apparently gave gave Obama the question on adoption ahead of time...but wasn't able to give it to McCain...

    This is just boneheaded, (4.71 / 14) (#13)
    by Radix on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:42:46 AM EST
    Obama's part. You don't go around suggesting people cheated without some proof. They're going to get called on this, if they can't prove it, they will be hoisted on their own petards, as cry baby whiners and liars.

    Really (2.80 / 5) (#20)
    by Jgarza on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:52:33 AM EST
    Lying about your whearabouts is just you know par for the course.

    Really, you're calling Rev. Warren a liar (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:00:39 AM EST
    since he was the one who said McCain was in the "cone of silence."  McCain's camp were the ones who said he actually was still en route.

    But sure, don't let the facts bother you.


    does the fact that McCain (5.00 / 4) (#30)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:02:41 AM EST
    was in a vehicle and had access to hear the first few questions mean that HE DID IT?

    Does the Obama camp or the media have any PROOF that McCain ACTUALLY HEARD OBAMA answering any questions?  Do they have some sort of records showing that the radio in his vehicle was TUNED IN to the broadcast?  Do they have records of cell text messages being sent to McCain during that tinme period?

    Or, is Obama just throwing crap out there to see what sticks in order to cover up a performance that wasn't as good as he had hoped it would be?  Do you suppose what Obama is really trying to do is change the topic from his performance to have the discussion about McCain's possible cheating instead?


    Yes, (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by chel2551 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:15:44 AM EST
    Do you suppose what Obama is really trying to do is change the topic from his performance to have the discussion about McCain's possible cheating instead?

    and voters are going to get pretty sick of it.  He did the same ting with debates during the primaries.  Of course, the excuse was that theyre had been too many debates.  Funny that the voters in those states didn't think so though.  

    Obama's on the defensive.  Not a good place to be.


    Does seem like another scratch of the cheek (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:31:06 AM EST
    Considering the state of the world, the condition of the country, and the two candidates we are having to deal with, the more debates we can get, the better it will be.

    Keep Obama off the campaign trail where he tries to control the beliefs of his audience with his "poor me, McCain is talking about me" tactics. In the first place, if he's McCain's opponent, who does Obama think McCain should be talking about instead?


    And who the heck cares anyway? (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:44:13 AM EST
    Good grief, what a tempest in a teapot!  What was this, a Rick Warren interview or "20 Questions"?  The whole "cone of silence" thing is idiotic to begin with.  Nothing either man was going to say was even slightly unpredictable.

    So what?


    Ad homs (none / 0) (#48)
    by Fabian on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:15:47 AM EST
    often reflect more on the accuser than the accused.  

    Depends on the audience's mood.


    Except McCain didn't lie about (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Radix on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:26:32 AM EST
    his whereabouts now did he?

    Well (none / 0) (#23)
    by cmugirl on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:55:18 AM EST
    It worked for the Swift Boat Vets.

    Now I'm not going to argue that (4.69 / 13) (#22)
    by frankly0 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:54:58 AM EST
    McCain couldn't or wouldn't "cheat" in politics because of how he responded when he was imprisoned in North Vietnam as a POW.

    But think of the plausibility of the argument from the standpoint of most people.

    The thing that always showed character in McCain in his ordeal as a POW was that he steadfastly refused to be released by his captors as some kind of special treatment that would distinguish him from his fellow POWs.

    It is a little hard to see that such a person doesn't have a very powerful sense of honor.

    Now, again, I hardly think that sense of honor necessarily generalizes to his conduct in politics.

    But if the Obama campaign really believes they can get away with calling McCain a liar and a cheat without a particle of evidence, they are as crazy as loons.

    Such a politician will always enjoy the presumption of honorable behavior in the eyes of the public, unless an overwhelming case can be made against him.

    I think that the Obama campaign has found it so easy in the past to get traction for its smears that it can't yet comprehend that sometimes even the media can't carry its water.

    Hint to Obama campaign: the media doesn't hate McCain the way it hates Clinton. Smear attacks are going to be harder to get to fly.

    exactly (5.00 / 5) (#68)
    by p lukasiak on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:27:36 AM EST
    Hint to Obama campaign: the media doesn't hate McCain the way it hates Clinton. Smear attacks are going to be harder to get to fly.


    Moreover, the McCain campaign isn't going to let any opportunity to hit Obama with the "dirty campaigning" accusation pass it by like Clinton did for over a year.   Mitchell did exactly what she did all primary season -- repeat disparaging/negative 'private' remarks from Team Obama about Obama's opponent.  The difference is that it look like Team McCain studied how Team Obama operated, and was ready to jump on the opportunity to hit Obama for this kind of lowball tactic.

    If McCain's people are as smart as I think they are, they're gonna play this to the hilt --- first, make Obama deny the charge, then demand that Mitchell identify the source of her "false" reporting meant to smear McCain.   Mitchell will, of course, not budge, and instead talk about how reliable and 'highly placed' her source is, reinforcing the "Obama's campaign tried to smear McCain" meme.


    it appears as if (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by ccpup on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:44:30 AM EST
    McCain is turning the Public's distrust of the Media -- heightened during their Tear Down Hillary Primary Season -- up a few more notches and making it that much more difficult to do Obama's dirty work for him.

    If McCain can make the Public distrust the Media's reporting of All Things Obama even more than it already does, he's kneecapping Obama beyond all repair.  

    As I said earlier, with Obama being unable to paint McCain with the same brush they did Hillary in response to criticism and with Obama's Big Rallies now bringing up memories of the Celebrity Ad -- and therefore more of a detriment to those voters Obama needs rather than an asset --, if McCain then goes and makes the Media even the slightest bit gun shy when it comes to favorably reporting on The One, Obama is going to have to dip into his bag of tricks for something else.

    Lord only knows what that will be as it appears he's a two or three note candidate and he's basically played his full scale by now.


    Maybe we should go at this from the other side (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by Upstart Crow on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:03:26 PM EST
    If McCain did "cheat," what does Obama think he would have answered differently? Which of his answers would he have changed? How many of the questions could McCain possibly have heard?  And were those the ones Obama feels he fumbled?

    The coverage I saw (left) criticized McCain for reiterating canned stump speeches.  

    You can't have it both ways.


    Andrea's competence (none / 0) (#75)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:32:57 AM EST
    takes a hit when all she reports is what soneone "claims" without doing any checking to see if it is actually true or not.

    The media has moved that direction (5.00 / 3) (#100)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:52:42 AM EST
    pretty consistently.

    It's either someone claims, or people close to you say (and when called on it, can't name even one of those people).

    Americans are giving way too much license to the influence peddlers and the decision makers.

    There are a whole bunch of elected SD's who are counting on people forgetting this primary by the time they have to run for re-election next time.


    Or she is trying to make the Obama (none / 0) (#81)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:37:45 AM EST
    camp sound like whiners.

    But I would say that MSNBC and CNN have a vested interest in making sure that this forum was as promised.  Warren made a big deal of the cone of silence - brought it up in just about everything I saw in the previews of the event - so if there wasn't a cone of silence at the very least those news organizations are going to feel a bit stupid having touted that aspect of this thing themselves the way they did.  


    Not only that, but (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by brodie on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:45:21 AM EST
    according to CNN's Sanchez yesterday, the failure of McC to actually be in the Cone of Silence for a 1/2 hr as O was questioned was known to people in its newsroom in RT.

    It's relevant here that, afaik, this fact known to CNN at the time was NOT reported the night of the event and especially in the post-game analysis, almost all of which was highly favorable to McCain's performance.


    NOT being in the (none / 0) (#104)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:54:17 AM EST
    "cone of silence" for 1/2 hour is not the same as ACTUALLY LISTENED TO THAT 1/2 HOUR OF OBAMA'S QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS.

    But when Warren (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:00:31 AM EST
    asked McCain how it was in the cone of silence McCain didn't let on that it didn't it exist.  That simply does not reflect well on Senator McCain.

    Did you watch the forum and the pre-show coverage?  Because I did and I also read about this thing and everything I saw referenced this freakin' cone of silence.  Then it didn't really exist.  Warren and McCain brought this upon themselves imo and they deserve to be questioned on this front.  It was an obvious attempt at deception whether or not any questions were previewed or not.


    well, now you are just (none / 0) (#128)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:12:15 AM EST
    confusing me.  Are you saying that McCain was NEVER in the green room prior to going out for his portion of the interview?

    Because my understanding is that the "cone of silence" was a reference the the green room where you wait before going on for your turn.  And, that this room had no access to hear what was going on.  And, that McCain was in a car for the first 1/2 hour, but was in the green room with no access to what Obama was saying after that first 1/2 hour.

    Are you now saying that even if McCain was not 1/2 hour late and was actually there on time, he still would have heard everything that Obama was saying?


    I am saying that this "cone of silence" (none / 0) (#138)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:31:11 AM EST
    was a deception.  It did not exist and yet Warren made much of this device in order to make the viewing public thing that this thing was set up in a fair way.  

    From the Times after the event:

    Despite Assurances, McCain Wasn't in a `Cone of Silence'


    Here is an article previewing the event:

    ABC News

    "A lot of people expect me to ask softball questions," Warren said. "They will not be softball, they will be fair. In fact, I'm going to ask the identical questions to both candidates. We flipped a coin and Obama goes first for one hour, and then John McCain will be in a cone of silence for an hour."

    "Oh, he won't hear it?" I asked.

    "He will not hear it," Warren said. "To be fair."

    "Just like a game show?" I said. (Thinking of "Family Feud.")

    "Just like a game show," Warren said.

    It was NOT like a game show.


    Well, as I alluded to above, (5.00 / 0) (#143)
    by brodie on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:34:55 AM EST
    it really was like a game show -- the "21" of Quiz Show infamy ...

    yes, the cone of silence did exist (none / 0) (#151)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:44:31 AM EST
    it's just that McCain was not in it for the first 1/2 hour.  But, he was in it for the last 1/2 hour, which is why he could say he was trying to hear through the wall and be telling the truth.

    Come back to me when you have proof that McCain was really listening to the broadcast while in his vehicle.

    Then tell me which questions you thig McCain would have answered differently.


    The cone of silence existed and McCain (5.00 / 0) (#162)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:58:29 AM EST
    wasn't in it the whole time as it was stated he would be is your defense of this attempt at deception?  

    You don't think there is the slightest sleeze factor in neither Warren nor McCain owning up to the fact that the cone of silence they advertised was at best half a cone until someone else called them on it?


    what I don't understand (none / 0) (#170)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:11:49 PM EST
    is why you keep attributing this to McCain.

    You claim in this post that McCain "advertised" the cone of silence.  When did that advertising take place?  And, where?

    Isn't it quite possible that McCain DID NOT hear any of the questions while in his car and then was in the cone of silence for the last 1/2 hour and just was willing to jokingly play along with Warren's "cone of silence" description since in reality he had NOT HEARD anything Obama said?


    Did you read the NY Times article? (none / 0) (#188)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:04:17 PM EST

    More important question is... (none / 0) (#148)
    by rdandrea on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:42:24 AM EST
    Was McCain in the green room alone, or with with Blackberry-wielding staff?

    So now McCain (none / 0) (#150)
    by Jgarza on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:44:11 AM EST
    criticism have a standard of proof unheard of in politics?  Because he is the vietnam victim?  Give me a break.  He has evidence of cheating ask wife one.  

    Calling Warren a liar won't win over his flock (4.63 / 11) (#2)
    by myiq2xu on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:31:28 AM EST
    Does the Obama campaign not understand this?

    It didn't work when they called the Clintons racists either.

    It could after Obama throws whoever said it (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by mogal on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:37:03 AM EST
    under the bus and apologizes to JM.

    Is McCain's use of POW (4.55 / 9) (#24)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:56:56 AM EST
    any LESS irritating than Obama's use of "Community Organizer" to prove his love of country and concern for others?  He's always talking about how he could have have been a high powered RICH lawyer for any firm he wanted, but chose to go to Chicago and become a community organizer, blah, blah, blah...

    Politicians use the story they have.  Or in Obama's case, the story that was carefully created.

    Really, what did he ACCOMPLISH as a community organizer other than to gain some "street cred" for his upcoming run for ILL state senate?  Same reason he joined Trinity Church, right?  See, and be seen with the right people.

    Seriously (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by nell on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:01:02 AM EST
    anyone who has worked as a community organizer, as I have, knows how ridiculous it is that he touts this as something that qualifies for presidential experience....community organizing is meaningful work, and hard work, but I don't think it qualifies me to be president...

    It doesn't (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by americanincanada on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:05:48 AM EST
    I was a communtiy activist for years, still am in some ways, but all it did was frustrate me and make me a little bitter sometimes; along with the joy I got from helping people.

    It ertainly isn't something I would use to get any job besides that of another position as a community organizer.


    What were Lincoln's credentials (none / 0) (#149)
    by DemForever on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:43:56 AM EST
    for President?

    We could have done worse.  


    Oh please (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by Upstart Crow on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:06:40 PM EST
    Retire that old chestnut.

    Lincoln came to the fore 150 years ago, during a much simpler, pre-globilization time.  


    Does a couple of terms as Governor (none / 0) (#173)
    by DemForever on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:17:38 PM EST
    of a small state qualify you to be President during the current period of globalization?

    In terms of experience, Richard Nixon was probably the best prepared President of the last 50 years.

    That turned out well.  


    c'mon (none / 0) (#180)
    by Upstart Crow on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:30:41 PM EST
    I have a prejudice towards congress members as candidates, for precisely that reason.

    And, actually, as an administrator, Nixon was said to be an effective president. I know people (Democrats) who worked in and with his administration, and they said he took a lot of Johnson's ideas and made them work. The same person said that Carter, a governor, "couldn't administrate his way out of a paper bag."

    But the Lincoln thing ... really, retire it... Obama is no Lincoln.


    And yet we would probably both agree (none / 0) (#186)
    by DemForever on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:38:29 PM EST
    that Clinton was a pretty good President

    My point is that there is no formula that determines who will make a good President.  


    Unproven?? (5.00 / 0) (#101)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:53:54 AM EST
    From the NY Times article:

    Despite Assurances, McCain Wasn't in a `Cone of Silence'

    Mr. Warren, the pastor of Saddleback, had assured the audience while he was interviewing Mr. Obama that "we have safely placed Senator McCain in a cone of silence" and that he could not hear the questions.


    Mr. Warren started by asking Mr. McCain, "Now, my first question: Was the cone of silence comfortable that you were in just now?"

    Mr. McCain deadpanned, "I was trying to hear through the wall."


    Right at that moment when Warren asked about the Cone of Silence - McCain the former POW could have told people the truth about this non-existent cone of silence but he did not.


    McCain was in the green room (none / 0) (#137)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:31:09 AM EST
    before -- just before, for the second half of the Obama interview.  

    McCain just wasn't in the green room aka cone of silence for the full Obama interview.  And reports indicate that Warren didn't know that McCain had run late (surprise, surprise, candidates run late).

    McCain and Warren actually have logical cover on what they said -- except Andrea Mitchell with her insinuation.


    Here's the deal - McCain had an (5.00 / 0) (#147)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:42:04 AM EST
    opportunity to come clean and say that there was no cone of silence as it was promoted prior to the event by Warren and he did not.  He just played along with a deception.  Regardless of whether or not he heard any questions - the attempt to deceive the audience into thinking that there was this cone of silence for me is an issue.  Warren really played that aspect of this forum up.  If he couldn't deliver on his promise, he should not have made it in the first place.  Same with McCain btw - if he wasn't going to sit in a room for an hour without access to the outside world, he should not have agreed to the stated rules nor should he have pretended to have followed them when asked.

    It is just such an obvious attempt at deception and I think it is pretty gross.


    Assuming your worst conjectures are true (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by Upstart Crow on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:09:57 PM EST
    so what? McCain and Obama both gave predictable performances, and said the things we'd expect them to say, pretty much the way we expected them to say it.

    Obama full of ahhs and umms... McCain impressive because people consistently underestimate him.


    Again, your issue appears to be (none / 0) (#187)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:45:35 PM EST
    with the Rev. Warren.

    My issue is with both Warren and McCain. (5.00 / 0) (#190)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:09:54 PM EST
    And assuming that Warren really had no idea that McCain was late getting into the "cone", I probably have more of an issue with McCain for not answering the question about how the cone of silence was by saying that he was late right then and there.  

    If you asked your kid how English class was today and they told you it was great without bothering to also tell you that they missed half of it, would that not bother you?


    I disagree with all of you (4.50 / 8) (#12)
    by cmugirl on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:41:35 AM EST
    The POW stuff works.  People respond to it.  Those on this board may be tired of hearing about it, but people who are not on blogs don't.  It's a great story and since Obama has nothing that can compare, it's gonna be pulled out time and again.

    It's even MORE STUPID (4.42 / 7) (#15)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:44:16 AM EST
    for the Obama camp to be out there claimimg that McCain somehow heard the questions while Obama answered.

    I guess that while McCain was in a vehicle travelling to the forum, he COULD HAVE heard Obama answering some questions.  That doesn't mean that HE DID HEAR them.

    Isn't it far more plausible that the reason McCain had ready answers to the questions was that he has been answering these types of questions for this type of audience for YEARS and know what they want to hear.  He may not have always shared their views completely as when he called the far right as dangerous as the far left in 2000.  But, he surely knows the answers they want to hear.

    As for Andrea Mitchell's role in all of this.  Well it couldn't be funnier.  She reports what the Obama camp CLAIMS might have happened.  Then the NYT backs her up by saying, in effect, yes that is what the Obama camp said.  Well if all Andrea is reporting is what a campaign says, she could hardly ever be wrong, could she?  How about if Andrea actually investigate and find out if McCain ACTUALLY DID HEAR any of Obama's interview beforehand and complete the story instead of just reporting that McCain HAD THE OPPORTUNITY to hear since for a part of the time he was in a car and not the green room?  Oh well, that might have taken some actual WORK on her part.

    Maybe someone now should find out exactly the timing of McCain's travel to the event and see exactly which of Obama's questions and answers he had access to and which he did not.  Then let's compare McCain's answers to those specific quesitons and see if those are the only ones McCain did well on.

    Let's go back to the original thought that McCain knows very well how to answer those question whether he heard them ahead of time or not.

    Maybe he did hear it (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:00:54 AM EST
    maybe he didn't, what was reported was that he was supposed to be in a "cone of silence room" with dan akroyd i guess and he was on a motorcycle.  Obama is a poor debater, I had him winning ZERO debates.  McCain is a career politician who has answered these questions for decades.  I don't think it matters whether McCain heard them or not, Obama needs to spend 2-3 hours a day practicing debating.  He said um a record 297 times in one debate (ok that is a joke) but he acts like every question is a surprise and stammers often.  They are trying to address his debate deficiencies (sp) in any way they can instead of locking him in a room with a skilled debater to hone those skills.

    I think you may be showing your age (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:17:13 AM EST
    or maybe your "youth".

    the "cone of silence" is not a room.  And, it has nothing to do with Dan Akroyd.  The "cone of silence" comes from the TV series "Get Smart".


    I am 40 (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:21:37 AM EST
    and it was a play on words.  I know where it comes from, but I also read the story and the story from A Mitchell reports he "might" have heard it.   It also reports that depsite Rev Warrens assurance that McCain "could not" hear it, he "could".  so dan akroyd "could" have been in a cone of silence room but I doubt it.

    LOL (none / 0) (#70)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:30:03 AM EST
    Ummm, a motorcade, I think (none / 0) (#37)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:08:13 AM EST
    not a noisy motorcycle?  Just saying.

    I thought he was riding a harley (none / 0) (#59)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:22:16 AM EST
    But you are probably right  :)

    Obama's bad performance (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by angie on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:02:19 AM EST
    could also be due to the fact that he has to carefully parse each word into what he thinks people want to hear rather then what he really thinks. Seriously, this isn't the first time he has chocked without the aid of a teleprompter.

    Both candidates knew the topics (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Josey on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:25:38 AM EST
    Surely Obama knew he would be asked a specific question on abortion.
    Is anyone suggesting Obama wouldn't have answered "it's above my payscale" if he'd had the exact question?

    Obama (4.00 / 0) (#32)
    by pennypacker on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:05:21 AM EST
    bash Obama, defend McCain...this is basically all the comments. If Hillary was running, people would be in an uproar here about McCain not being in the cone of silence.

    I doubt Hillary (5.00 / 5) (#36)
    by cawaltz on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:07:15 AM EST
    would have been dumb enough to roll Clark under the bus.

    Hillary's (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by chel2551 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:09:55 AM EST
    answers would have been just as knowledgeable as McCain's, just as they were in the primary.

    Wrong (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by standingup on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:14:27 AM EST
    It is unlikely Hillary would have even agreed to put herself into the same position by participating in such a forum.  And if she had, she is a better extemporaneous speaker than Obama and wouldn't have had to accuse McCain of cheating to distract from her own poor performance.  

    by fly on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:59:52 AM EST
    When the little guy thinks he is being bested..he pulls out his favorite words.."Curang, curang!"

    Oh but i am sure he grasps what he says today..about a National War Hero..being a cheater?? oh please..


    Teachers, former playmates and friends recall a boy who never fully grasped their language and who was very quiet as a result. But one word Obama learned quickly in his new home was curang, which means "cheater."

    When kids teased him, Obama yelled back, "Curang, curang!" When a friend gave him shrimp paste instead of chocolate, he yelled, "Curang, curang!"

    Zulfan Adi was one of the neighborhood kids who teased Obama most mercilessly. He remembers one day when young Obama, a hopelessly upbeat boy who seemed oblivious to the fact that the older kids didn't want him tagging along, followed a group of Adi's friends to a nearby swamp.

    so this man is a cheater now..or Curang, curang!..by Obama's thugs...

    We best watch what we say Obama..since it was Kerry who begged McCain to be his running mate in 2004....and the Democratic party...and this is the man John McCain..that many of us in his generation well remember..and whose husbands and boyfriends and fathers and brothers .. fought the same war in.

    John McCain..
    "In 1968 he was offered early release, and when he refused, because others had been there longer, his captors went at him again; he suffered cracked ribs, teeth broken off at the gum line, and torture with ropes that lashed his arms behind his back and that were progressively tightened all through the night." Source Vanity Fair, February 2007

    "He spent two years in solitary confinement, suffered from dysentery and even tried to commit suicide by hanging himself with his own shirt.

    In 1968, the Vietnamese broke off many of his teeth at the gum and tortured him for hours on end. They offered him early release, knowing his value as an admirals son, but he refused, saying others had been held captive longer." Source Daily Mail, February 1, 2008

    I believe the only one doing the cheating is Obama..and about obama's performance  Saturday..seems the "choice question "is above his pay grade..how about national security ???????
    And Nuclear arms???????

    The people who find it offensive (none / 0) (#4)
    by myiq2xu on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:32:43 AM EST
    probably weren't gonna vote for him anyway.

    If things had been reversed and Sen. (none / 0) (#10)
    by zfran on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:40:01 AM EST
    Obama arrived later and said he didn't listen, would you believe him? Even if McCain had heard the first few questions, and, according to Rick Warren, both candidates knew the first questions (he had told them in advance to bring out the calm in them), they also knew, according to Warren the themes of other questions (without knowing the exact questions), Sen. McCain still imo, did a better job at answering them. As to his POW status, his adoption story, etc., I believe for people like my brother who is voting Dem no matter what, hadn't heard those stories and thought McCain came off amusing, imformed and knowledgeable, and thought Sen. Obama was "amusing and relaxed."

    Did anyone else see this at Kos? (none / 0) (#58)
    by Dave B on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:21:44 AM EST
    I really need to go back to the "Kos free life" that I lived during the primary.  Many of the comments there enrage me.
    Kos Diary

    Thinking about it (none / 0) (#60)
    by Dave B on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:22:30 AM EST
    I should have said "diary on Kos" not "Kos Diary."  Don't want to be misleading...

    I find the site hysterical (none / 0) (#152)
    by cawaltz on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:44:38 AM EST
    in a pathetic sort of way. Talk about a bunch of passive agressives. I wandered into diaries on VPs whcih according to kos site folks is Kaine, Nunn, Biden and Clinton. The comments were pretty funny. They ranged from cheerleading, head exploding, to dirisive comments on why the diarist shouldn't have bothered writing the diary. I'd say that only 10% of Dkos diaries have more substance than speculation and I'm probably being generous.

    John McCain -- Prisoner of War (none / 0) (#61)
    by TKindlon on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:23:45 AM EST
    As a Vietnam combat veteran I believe that John McCain's got to stop boasting about his military service. It was a very long time ago and we've all got the idea now.  I'm afraid he's starting to sound like the loudmouth-from-central-casting down at the end of the bar at the local VFW hall. Terry Kindlon

    Why should McCain stop? (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by zfran on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:50:22 AM EST
    My brother heard McCain's stories at the forum and said he'd never heard them before and was impressed. It doesn't mean it's going to change any votes (my brother will vote dem for pres no matter what). I think it is part of his life and the question was "what gut-wrenching decision had you made you in your life and how did you come to make it." I thought his answer was great. Obama's answer had to do with making his anti-war speech while running for U.S. Senate. Unfortunately, the speech was in Oct.2002 and he chose to run in Jan. 2003. So which story holds more water?!

    My dad is a vet of WWII (none / 0) (#62)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:24:10 AM EST
    He lost his right arm in the battle of Palalu. It's part of his bio, but not his resume.

    I believe the same is true in my opinion of McCain. Having been a POW is part of his bio, his resume is of more importance to the job he is seeking.

    well (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:07:16 AM EST
    as to your father, you are right.  Losing his arm is part of his BIO.  But, part of his RESUME is how he reacted to that loss and what he was able to do with his life etc.

    As to John McCain, being a POW is part of his BIO.  But, surviving it for 5 years and how he purported himself while he was a POW are part of his RESUME.  To most of the public, McCain's time as a POW showed his courage, character and integrity.  And, those are qualities voters like to be able to judge in a presidential candiadte.

    If we are going to start limiting what McCain can use in his campaign, I think we better also look at Obama in the same critical manner.  And, if we do that, Obama will have NOTHING to use in his resume.


    Now, Obama has the use of (none / 0) (#130)
    by zfran on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:13:46 AM EST
    the "suggestion" that McCain "cheated" at this latest forum. It will become part of his rhetoric at some campaign stops for a short time. You know, he'll say how Obama was answering the questions, while McCain was "a funny thing happened (to McCain) on the way to the forum" kind of thing. Implying, ever so slightly, that he cheated. Wait for it, it's coming!~!

    Ah (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by nell on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:32:01 PM EST
    The real question is will he insinuate that McCain is a cheater while scratching his nose with his middle finger, wiping him off of his shoe (like dog shi*), and dusting him off his shoulder. It just wouldn't be as effective without all that...

    Maybe he can come up with a motion to replace the knife twisting motion that he used when talking about Hillary.

    Goodness, just thinking about that incident makes me feel ill and brings back the Obama campaign's horrendous behavior during the primary. Simply horrendous that he was able to give that speech with hardly a comment from anyone.

    His behavior was disgusting. And his accusing McCain of cheating with no proof is also disgusting. And childish.


    Not really (none / 0) (#171)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:14:06 PM EST
    A resume is a list of accomplishments, contributions, and achievements. Never in a million years would my father have included how many arms he had on his resume. It's his bio.

    Same with McCain. His life experiences have shaped his decisions, ambitions, and goals. He has worked and voted side by side with hundreds of people who have a different bio. You need to be able to tie that experience to how he's been more effective or better in his decisions if you are going to include it on his resume. How was McCain on torture? The war? Making sure the military had the best equipment? Did he contribute his experience to bettering how the US treats its POWs, or is he more into the "I lived through it" thinking?


    My brother-in-law (none / 0) (#164)
    by Bluesage on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:00:48 PM EST
    Was a fighter pilot in WWII and was shot down and captured.  He spent the next 18 months in a German camp before being liberated.  He traveled back to Germany many times after the war and adopted a young German boy from an orphanage. He never spoke of his time in the camp.  

    Do you ever remember a WWII (none / 0) (#172)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:16:15 PM EST
    veteran who spoke of the war? My father is 85 and has never, ever talked about it. Then, he survived one of the bloodiest battles the Marines encountered.

    Yes my Dad talked about WWII .. (none / 0) (#192)
    by fly on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:43:30 PM EST
    Yeah my dad who was in the South Pacific always talked about it...and hated Gen.MacArthur by the way...and my Father in law who was in Oahu when Pearl Harbor was hit and then joined the Army and was in a battle in Cherbourg France , talked about it all the time and stayed best friends with all his army buddies his whole life. Yes my dad talked about WWII all the time during the Vietnam war days..and what a mistake that was..yes my dad was angry about Vietnam and talked about WWII all the time. As did my uncles..one of whom landed on Normandy Beach..and one who was a Pilot and flew missions all over Europe..they would all be together and talk about it all the time and compare stories.

    Generalizations about war hero's ..just don't wash.


    The POW angle is of course ridiculous (none / 0) (#65)
    by ruffian on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:27:04 AM EST
    int his contest, but the McCain campaign's letter to NBC is great.  It is very specific about what Mitchell did, unlike the vague whining that usually takes place.  I wish the Clinton camp had been this on point about media treatment.

    I meant 'in this context' (none / 0) (#67)
    by ruffian on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:27:36 AM EST
    not contest.

    That was (none / 0) (#177)
    by Bluesage on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:22:41 PM EST
    An excellent letter to NBC from the McCain camp and it was right on the money.  NBC - MSNBC has acted shamefully in this entire election season.  It's been the CDS Clubhouse in this election and not a one of them has a shred of credibility left.  It's way past time that Ms. Alan Greenspan retire.  

    I imagine that the only way to survive (none / 0) (#84)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:39:02 AM EST
    a POW camp for five years is to be something of a cheater, but what do I know?

    just like I imagine (none / 0) (#99)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:50:43 AM EST
    that surviving for 5 years isn't any sort of measure of a person's character, strength and integrity.  And, that voters don't care about those characteristics in a presidential candidate at all.

    Stop your insinuations (none / 0) (#182)
    by kimsaw on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:31:39 PM EST
    and comparing POW survivors to cheaters.  POW's were PRISONERS OF WAR. It was life or death to them, and not some reality show provided for your entertainment.  If your offensive  comments are the kind of politics that Obama gives birth to he should lose. This much I know.

    My comment is not made in support (5.00 / 0) (#191)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:24:45 PM EST
    of Obama.  It is an honest observation of the components of human survival in adverse situations.  There are things people do in order to survive in extreme situations that they would never consider doing in their normal lives.  I did not say that McCain cheated against the US either btw.  But I find it hard to believe that any POW at the Hanoi Hilton did not lie, cheat or steal at some point in order to survive given the pernicious nature of their circumstances.

    What Rick Warren has said since then... (none / 0) (#93)
    by Pianobuff on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:44:59 AM EST
    A relatively short interview  in which question availability, eavesdropping, etc. is addressed by Rick Warren.

    POWs don't get "stuck in traffiic" (none / 0) (#95)
    by 1980Ford on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:45:47 AM EST
    Everyone knows that.

    According to Politico.com (none / 0) (#201)
    by tree on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 06:26:49 PM EST
    Warren gave both of them some of the questions ahead of time.

    EXCLUSIVE - PUNDIT PREP - TALK RADIO ALERT: So it turns out that Pastor Rick Warren, in an effort to increase the candidates' comfort level with his pioneering format, gave each of them a heads-up on several of the hardest questions he asked Saturday night during his "the Saddleback Civil Forum on the presidency."

    A source close to Warren tells Playbook that the candidates knew in advance they would be asked their own greatest moral failure, America's greatest moral failure, and the three wisest people in their lives.

    The source said Obama also knew he would be asked if he'd be willing to commit to an emergency plan for orphans, like President Bush has for AIDS. GIVE OBAMA CREDIT FOR ANSWERING CANDIDLY: "I cheated a little bit. I actually looked at this idea ahead of time, and I think it is a great idea."


    Boneheaded play, Obama campaign. Claim that McCain must have cheated cuz he heard the questions in advance when YOUR CAMPAIGN knew that you both got a heads up on the questions. Idiotic! Somebody tell me again, why are they people touted as canpaign geniuses?