The Hanoi Hilton Defense

Unlike the entire Left blogosphere, I could not care less how many homes John McCain's heiress wife has purchased for him. I worry about McCain's tendency to react like a madman regarding foreign policy issues (see the Russia-Gerogia conflict). But I do find it amusing that McCain's "reluctance" to discuss his prisoner of war experience does not extend to responding to silly charges about houses. Via TPM:

This is a guy who lived in one house for five and a half years -- in prison," [McCain] spokesman Brian Rogers told the Washington Post.

Aren't you glad Obama threw Wes Clark under the bus for saying getting your plane shot down was not commander in chief experience? I'm telling you, convicted felon former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, a Vietnam war ace, got a raw deal.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Gene Upshaw, RIP | Texecution Stayed >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    It's amazing (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:04:28 PM EST
    McCain came into this election with the one biographical item that was completely untouchable, and his campaign is going to make it into a complete joke through overuse, just like Giuliani's references to 9/11.

    When the late-night comedians start cracking one-liners about it, we'll know the breaking point has been reached.

    I think (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by lilburro on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:06:57 PM EST
    Giuliani's spectacular failure deserves serious consideration on the part of both Obama and McCain.  

    Somehow.... (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by trillian on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:10:10 PM EST
    I don't see the comedians cracking one-liners about his POW experience. I think voters would feel it's in bad taste

    But I could be wrong


    I don't know... (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by trublueCO on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:14:32 PM EST
    I can definitely envision Jon Stewart having fun with the many possible non-military uses of the POW defense.

    Cringe worthy (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by trillian on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:24:39 PM EST
    speaking only for myself

    If McCain continues to overplay his (none / 0) (#177)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:55:01 PM EST
    POW hand, it will happen organically - just like it did with Giuliani and 9/11 - it isn't like anybody finds 9/11 funny - but when someone insists on making it so ubiquitous in their commentary it becomes a joke.

    Only Stewart could slice it though (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:26:51 PM EST
    making it fit for public consumption, most other comedians probably couldn't do it.

    Colbert (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by CST on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:29:13 PM EST
    Although whether it will be "fit for public consumption" is debatable, it will be "funny as he!!", and probably a bit offensive.  But that's just his style.

    Well (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:21:36 PM EST
    That's sort of my point, you see, that McCain would have to seriously overuse the POW trump card before people would feel comfortable making a joke out of it.

    The joke would go something like this (none / 0) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:29:57 PM EST
    "Hey, did you know John McCain got his plane shot down in Vietnam?"

    Delivered by a McCain look alike.


    This brings up another reason (none / 0) (#42)
    by MarkL on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:33:36 PM EST
    why Kerry was such a failure---he made it impossible to use the footage of the 2000 SC debate with Bush and McCain.
    McCain was almost in tears over Bush's bullying.
    I don't know exactly how Obama could use it, but  showing McCain as a weakling is what Obama needs to do.

    seeing McCain being (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by ccpup on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:41:25 PM EST
    bullied into tears by his own Party and a now-despised President may not necessarily get the reaction you think it would.

    No better way to get revenge on Bush than to elect the man he and the Republican Party tried to destroy in 2000.

    Sure beats putting the inexperienced driver behind the wheel, especially in light of how he and HIS Party treated his experienced, intelligent and now beloved Opponent in the Primaries.


    Well, according to Tom Daschle (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by zfran on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:52:08 PM EST
    on the CNN special last night on the 2 candidates, after the 2000 campaign, McCain talked to Daschle about becoming a democrat. McCain now says there was some talk, not alot and Daschle said there was serious talk. Take it all with a grain of salt as he didn't do it. He, did, however, work with dems alot which I'm sure drove some repubs. nuts. All in all, most of what he's accomplished so far is pretty impressive stuff. I think it's his 5 years of hell in that camp and it is his to choose to use as he pleases.

    Maybe Obama's going to announce that (none / 0) (#101)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:58:13 PM EST
    his running mate is...John McCain, and McCain is going to announce that his is...Barack Obama; they can flip to see who gets the first year, after which they alternate.

    You would not be among those (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:46:14 PM EST
    who think that labeling the Republican as a Third Term of Bush would be the strategy, then?  Uh huh.

    This thread is rather desperate, I think, from my years in public relations.  What good ideas we've got here, from attacking a POW on the off-chance that there might be some of the millions of vets out there who might still be deciding whether to vote for Obama . . . to showing that McCain is not Bush.

    Fortunately, all of the advice here is free.  And worth every cent.


    Well, I think Kerry blew a chance to (none / 0) (#69)
    by MarkL on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:48:27 PM EST
    permanently damage McCain in 2004, by keeping that ad on the air. McCain was desperate to get Kerry to pull it, as you may recall.
    Face it, Democrats have kissed up to McCain for so many years, there's really no way to credibly attack him now.
    No, the McCain as Bush's 3rd term is a weak attack as well, but it may be the best Obama has.

    For crissakes (none / 0) (#141)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:18:00 PM EST
    If all your years in PR leads you to distort my post, then what's the point?

    BTW, Bush's Third Term, implicit or explicit, is what wins this election for Obama.


    Absolutely (none / 0) (#146)
    by BDB on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:24:19 PM EST
    Which is what's made Obama's ads so weird.  Tying McCain to Abramoff through Ralph Reed? Going after McCain's wife's houses?  

    Why not just show McCain hugging Bush and praising his policies?  This ain't rocket science.


    It's nothing more than an obvious effort (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:29:33 PM EST
    to get that pesky elitist title removed from himself. They appear to be jumping on anything, incorporating it into the stump speeches and getting an ad done before they can think it through properly.

    He has got to learn how to deliver these messages without the "eh ah oo" rapid-fire pauses.


    Why (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:38:12 PM EST
    not just forget about all that stuff and talk about why Bush's policy has been bad and the fact that John McCain would continue said policies? Talk about how conservatism has wrecked the country. Puleeze, I can't believe how inept the Obama campaign has been on the issue of policy. Well, I guess I can since they were just as inept during the primary.

    Phil Bresdens advice to Obama: Go to Wal Mart and tell the people who are shopping there how you are going to make their life better in ten words or less. It's that simple.

    Has it dawned on anybody that perhaps Obama really sees nothing wrong with Bush's policies? It's all just personal animosity toward Bush on his part? I mean if you can't make the case as to why his policies are bad then maybe you agree somewhat?


    That is not a bad point. (5.00 / 2) (#188)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 07:01:42 PM EST
    Really what we are seeing is a reactionary campaign at camp Obama.  McCain has all of his slander ads in the can right now.  They are ready to go - to be either launched based on something that Obama says or just launched on a slow news day.  Obama's camp (like Kerry before him) have decided to take the high road which relegates them permanently to a defensive position.  If the Obama camp was really clever they would have been doing ads about Bush's third term AND taken advantage of this housing question - they would have been building the case on their own time and based on their own plan rather than relying on McCain to give them openings.  You create opening in politics and sports - you don't wait for the other team to make a mistake.

    That is being done (none / 0) (#181)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:57:31 PM EST
    I see the "hug" photo in most ads....We of the blogoshoere like words....Pictures make the most impact....But the ads do say that McCain has the same economic policy--I see more of this coming out in serial form.

    Obama said that his VP will be a fighter for the middle class, and someone to spar with.....

    Obama said at the Saddleback religious inquisition that his Grandma is a person who he would look to; he visited Grandma in Hawaii; he was deciding on VP in Hawaii; Grandma was early feminist becoming first VP of Bank of Hawaii; Grandma said publicly awhile ago she likes Hillary; Obama has no problems dragging this out and being coy.

    If is not Hillary, Obama should not have let  this rumor get started....Halperin is getting all wound up over this now.


    Please check "Parent" function (none / 0) (#147)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:26:14 PM EST
    My reply was to Mark L.

    My apologies (none / 0) (#175)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:53:43 PM EST
    And then you will see (none / 0) (#148)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:27:39 PM EST
    by reading it in the correct context, that I am saying that the Third Term strategy is what would work.

    For Chris'sakes, yourself.


    Suggestion: keep your day job or (none / 0) (#155)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:33:06 PM EST
    stick to blogging.  

    Amazing how (none / 0) (#48)
    by Jjc2008 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:37:24 PM EST
    no one thought that republicans at their convention in 2004 wearing purple bandaids to mock John Kerry's purple heart was insulting.  I thought the commentators and the comedians were silent to the point of being supportive.

    Vets heard about it and were p*ssed (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:48:06 PM EST
    believe me.  They have their own networks.

    But sure, let's p*ss 'em off again and go with this great attack-the-POW strategy.  

    There is so much more to go after Republicans about.  But Dems don't seem to want to win on issues like the economy, I guess.  Well, then, they won't win.


    I think it stinks the way (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by Jjc2008 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:50:43 PM EST
    Obama through WES under the bus.  Clark never attacked McCain for his service....he made a statement of fact.  Being a soldier does not necessarily mean you are a great leader or suited for politics.  Neither does being a POW qualitfy you.  I had uncles who were POWs in WWII.  Good guys, one ended up dying youngish from alcoholism, one lived a long healthy life.  

    There is no woman in my age group who has military experience so does that rule us out.
    It is stupid for Obama to defend and/or admire McCain because he served in the military.  It is a  fact in McCain's biography.  If McCain wants to repeat it over and over, let him.  The rethugs love  the "hero mentality."


    Fortunately, (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:12:12 PM EST
    Obama set the rules that the candidates cannot be held accountable for everything their surrogates say.

    I'm not real impressed with whomever might have thought it was funny to send an envelope with white powder and a death threat to the Denver McCain campaign headquarters. This sure has the potential of overshadowing the big news that McCain doesn't know exactly how many houses/properties Cindy's trust owns.

    Obama is doing what caused him so much trouble during those later primaries....spending too much time with petty insults against his opponent and none on his policies.


    the Republicans (5.00 / 5) (#25)
    by ccpup on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:25:31 PM EST
    are going to run circles around Obama with this.

    What's the juicier bit of water cooler gossip:  the fact that McCain has a lot of houses or that Obama's mansion was purchased with the help of a convicted felon?

    Obama and his nothing-but-left-feet Scooby Gang have opened a hole big enough for McCain to drive his Straight Talk Express through.  He**, they brought out those hand-held airport lights and directed him in like he was a 747!

    So, people learn McCain has a lot of houses.  Big deal.  Does it detract from his 26 years as a Senator?  Does it detract from his years as a POW?  Were they purchased with funny money rerouted through Swiss accounts from known terrorists?  No, no and no.

    What the American people DO learn is that Obama made $4.5 million last year, that he went on vacation to a private beach in Hawaii just last month (and where did YOU go, Average American?) and that he bought his mansion with help from a convicted FELON who, conveniently, will be sentenced right before the Election.

    McCain laughs off another inept Obama attack and performs a bit of political jujitsu in return.  Or, as one headline said, Obama brings a knife to a gunfight.



    Do they just not examine the potential blowback? (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:34:51 PM EST
    What the American people DO learn is that Obama made $4.5 million last year, that he went on vacation to a private beach in Hawaii just last month (and where did YOU go, Average American?) and that he bought his mansion with help from a convicted FELON who, conveniently, will be sentenced right before the Election.

    And, that vacation was timed when the candidate should have been working overtime to get his message out to the democratic voters who still aren't convinced his potential up ahead is more substantial than his historical resume.


    I think his vacation was timed perfectly. (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by indy in sc on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:41:11 PM EST
    Just at the start of the Olympics.  People are/were very focused on that and frankly, were ready for a break from politics.  His message would have been drowned out (no pun intended) by Michael Phelps et al.

    As for the $4.5 million, according to McCain, that's not even rich ;).


    wrong (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by ccpup on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:44:12 PM EST
    his Media message might have been drowned out, but to be out there shaking hands, talking with people one-on-one, listening to their concerns and offering ways to fix it ... that's what he should have been doing.

    A campaign isn't always about the coverage one may or may not receive on the Nightly News.  And shots of him body surfing on the beach may come back to bite him (see, windsurfing, John Kerry).


    Is "Body Surfing" (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by indy in sc on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:53:56 PM EST
    just a fancy term for swimming?  I honestly don't know--I am water phobic and know nothing of water sports.  The picture that went along with all the body surfing buzz looked like he was swimming in the ocean--no equipment involved (hence the "body" part of the body surfing, I guess).  

    All of that aside, had Obama been out on the campaign trail, the media would have been out there covering it, so the campaign and the coverage are intertwined.  A vacation during a campaign is always risky, but if he had to take one, this was the time.  Hopefully he did recharge his batteries because it is obviously going to be a tough campaign.


    As far as I know (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by CST on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:58:20 PM EST
    Yes... Sure looked that way to me.  Which is why it's not a "wind-surfing" type of charge.  Unless they want to say "look at Obama, he won't drown in the ocean" and make it elitist somehow...  They did try to go after him for a snow cone...

    I think he played his vacation as well as he could've, if he was gonna take one then.  Burgers, movie, and the beach are pretty standard.


    Not private (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:07:52 PM EST
    beaches. Those aren't the norm.

    I think most of you are missing the point about the vacation. We had a major foreign policy issue come up and Obama was on vacation. It makes him look really bad. It was happenstance but it allowed McCain to get out in front of an issue and Obama again to look weak.


    Not private (none / 0) (#134)
    by CST on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:11:36 PM EST
    The beaches that is.  They were public apparently.

    I am not saying his "Hawaiian vacation" was  a good thing.  Just that he didn't provide any bad photo-ops ala John Kerry.


    Yeah (5.00 / 0) (#149)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:29:06 PM EST
    he did provide bad photo ops.

    Well the latest McCain "The One" ad (none / 0) (#137)
    by nycstray on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:14:49 PM EST
    has him body surfing. I think we all predicted ahead of time that vacation footage could work against Obama. McCain got a twofer with the Georgia issue.

    this Hawaii vacation (5.00 / 3) (#113)
    by ccpup on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:02:47 PM EST
    followed on the heels of an earlier vacation he took in the Caribbean in late-May/early-June.

    If he needs to recharge his batteries every two months or so with surf-and-sand vacations, we're in trouble.


    "Hawaii vacation" (5.00 / 2) (#154)
    by p lukasiak on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:31:31 PM EST
    "Hawaii Vacation" is by definition a luxury -- its something you win on Wheel of Fortune or The Price is Right.  

    The messaging of this was all wrong.  If it had been about "taking his children to see their gramdmother" and "spending some quality time with his family before the campaign gets underway".  But the emphasis wasn't on family -- on was on Obama and body surfing....


    it wouldn't surprise me (none / 0) (#165)
    by ccpup on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:43:23 PM EST
    if the Obama Campaign attempted those narratives (grandma and quality time with his family) and the suddenly not-so-compliant Press refused to play along.

    But, compliant Press or not, the body surfing shots are gold for the McCain Campaign.


    Easter weekend (none / 0) (#133)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:11:35 PM EST
    His encounter with a reporter was priceless.

    This vacation, he made sure to bring his own journalists along so no intrusions.


    Maybe (none / 0) (#65)
    by CST on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:46:43 PM EST
    To the first half.  But "body-surfing" doesn't compare to "wind-surfing".  Mainly because it doesn't require moola.  I bet the average American "body-surfs" to some degree if they are in the ocean.  It just looks like swimming with less effort.

    perhaps (5.00 / 0) (#73)
    by ccpup on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:49:55 PM EST
    but footage of Obama body surfing juxtaposed alongside what McCain was doing at the same time (meeting voters, shaking hands, listening to concerns, sharing a laugh or two) could be just one more straw on the camel's back for some people.

    Good Idea (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:53:48 PM EST
    Hey you think Obama could run ads of what he was doing during Katrina (wroking in congress) with what McCain was doing (eating Cakae with Bush), I mean as long as were using juxtapositioning in ads and all.

    sure, why not (5.00 / 5) (#108)
    by ccpup on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:00:58 PM EST
    as long as you can actually find footage of Obama working in the Senate.

    I'd start looking on the shelf where you find footage of the Loch Ness monster, Big Foot, the Tooth Fairy and perhaps the Keebler Elves.



    "Swimming with less effort" (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:50:21 PM EST
    is a perfect image of the Obama campaign lately.

    It's barely afloat.  And of course, the less effort they put into getting into the swim of things, they more they sink.


    You need waves to body surf (none / 0) (#164)
    by nycstray on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:42:48 PM EST
    and not all beaches are good for it. Heavy undertow areas are downright dangerous. IIRC, South Beach, FL waves sucked (in comparrison to west coast waves). But the water was sure pretty (work, not vacation ;) )

    A majority of the US is land locked, so body surfing, while not nec elite, still requires traveling a distance for many.


    The new 'One' ad already included (none / 0) (#176)
    by Valhalla on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:53:56 PM EST
    body surging shots.

    Nice One (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:52:18 PM EST
    How many McCain points was that worth?

    Seriously, I mean if your going to parrot RNC talking points at least have the courtesy to use the AP's corrections, you know the ones that point out the Obama was at a public beach, and that there aren't any private Beaches on the Big Islands (the water access laws are similar to those used for River access in some Mountain West States.


    oh, that makes it better (none / 0) (#111)
    by DandyTIger on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:01:23 PM EST
    as many americans are having no vacations and losing their homes, I'm sure the fact that Obama lowed himself to be with the bitter people on a public beach will make it all better. :-)

    Someone correct me on the actual (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by zfran on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:06:09 PM EST
    verbage, but did Michelle at the beginning of the primaries say something to the effect that Barack can only run for Pres. one time, because after that, if he loses, they'll be too rich by then to connect with the average person in this country? And, exactly how has he tried to relate to the average person in this country? What grade would you give him? How's that for relating to the common person's problems!

    Houses (5.00 / 0) (#156)
    by christinep on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:35:23 PM EST
    I also believe that there is the potential that this whole "house(s) area" may cut several different ways. So much depends on who gets the upper hand (or whatever) on who is richer or who deals with what dirty SOB. In some ways, it almost looks like a sucker punch with McCain's group being quite ready to jump in with their Rezko ad. (I suppose the Rezko matter itself is up in the air since it never gained real traction in the primary. But, this is a different group. The "your pal is a crook" routine may or may not cause gossip.) Who knows? I really think that--beyond this--the real aim for Repubs is to make the ties with a number of Chicago types, especially Ayers (sp)?

    That point was (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by 0 politico on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 07:29:03 PM EST
    apparently missed by some, but not by ABC News.  A McCain spokesman was able to bring up Obama's one home that was purchased with the help of convicted felon Tony Rezko.  I don't know about the BO campaign, but that is not what I would want lingering on the viewer's/voter's mind.

    Was dissin' McCain for not automatically spitting out how many homes he and wife own (mostly, her and her family), but maybe hoping eh would sound elitist if he did, thinking it was a free shot, worth it?  Not if people tie you to a convicted felon that you tried so hard to be disassociated from.


    I dunno (none / 0) (#63)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:46:24 PM EST
    Is Hawaii seriously beyond the reach of the average American?

    I mean, my secretary just got back from a week in Jamaica.


    what? (5.00 / 4) (#81)
    by ccpup on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:52:04 PM EST
    this Summer has been rife with stories about Americans who are having to forgo vacations due to job insecurity, gas prices, etc and so on.  In fact, the percentage of people on the roads is down some 20% or something.  People are being forced to stay home because they can't afford to leave.

    So, yeah, THIS year -- and perhaps last -- Hawaii (or anyplace in the continental US, it seems) IS out of reach for most Americans.


    Wow (none / 0) (#95)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:56:04 PM EST
    My secretary must be a member of the upper crust, I guess.

    Well (none / 0) (#105)
    by CST on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:59:57 PM EST
    I think Jamaica is cheaper than Hawaii, at least if you're on the east coast.

    Last time (none / 0) (#131)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:10:06 PM EST
    I checked, HI was very expensive. Maybe your secretary got a good deal but I haven't been able to afford to go there. Like CST above says, Jamaica is a real value right now as is Mexico. The rest are pricey.

    Heh (5.00 / 0) (#178)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:55:13 PM EST
    Maybe I should look into Jamaica, mon.  Personally, we could barely afford the Jersey Shore.

    I just get the sense that some of my fellow members of the latte-drinking club are making their judgments about what the common man is doing this summer not from personal observation, but from reading sad stories in the New York Times.  I could be wrong.


    My personal (5.00 / 2) (#185)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 07:00:06 PM EST
    experience is that people are either skipping vacation this year or cutting back on vacation. People who would have normally gone to the beach for a week, now go for a few day or go somewhere closer to home that's less expensive. It's a sort of downsizing of vacation so to speak.

    Yeah, I know about that "barely afford situation" too.


    Jamaica (none / 0) (#197)
    by CST on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 07:12:22 PM EST
    I actually went there this year for 2 weeks very cheap.  Probably less than a week on the Jersey shore.  Airfare and food only.  But I stayed in Kingston with friends.  Just the fact that it is so close to Florida makes flying there that much cheaper for an east-coaster.  And if you are willing to be a scrub, you can stay cheap too!

    I guess I'm in the minority (none / 0) (#163)
    by shoephone on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:40:52 PM EST
    I'm not bothered by Obama's Hawaii vacation. If I recall correctly, isn't that where his grandmother is living now? and isn't she in ill health? He should have spun the trip as a family obligation trip and that might have dulled some of the "elitist" criticism.

    As for the energy level of Obama's campaign -- he needs to step it up and soon. The petty attacks on the McCains' houses won't register with the Regular Joe and Jane voter. Isn't every single Senator except for Bernie Sanders a millionaire?

    I reiterate BTD's point: tie him to Bush's policies. And yes, the photos of him hugging Bush are like campaign gold, if only the Obama camp would use them.


    Maybe, but there's footage of Obama (none / 0) (#169)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:48:05 PM EST
    speaking well of GWB's handling of that war Obama uses to define his good judgment level.

    Well (none / 0) (#172)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:51:20 PM EST
    he didn't put it out there as visiting his "sick grandmother" who just happens to live in HI.

    I agree about the houses. I didn't care about Kerry's and I don't care about McCain's. The reason people buy into Obama's an elitist is because of the way he talks to voters. I mean "it's above my paygrade" says that he can't deem to put an answer to the concerns of voters.

    You can't rely on dislike of Bush to win the election. That's only going to get you so far. I haven't seen it ever work. The GOP tried it with Clinton and it didn't work and it didn't work for Kerry in 2004. The Bush/McCain angle will be negated by the Pelosi/Obama angle. Voters dislike Pelosie EVEN MORE than they dislike Bush. The problem is conservatism. Bush has been a bad president because he's a conservative. McCain would be a bad president because he's a conservative. Leave the personal stuff alone.


    I agree with all of that (none / 0) (#190)
    by shoephone on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 07:07:09 PM EST
    I was trying to say that it wasn't the vacation spot that was bad, it was the way he spun it. Or didn't spin it, to be precise.

    the hawaii vacation (none / 0) (#174)
    by christinep on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:52:48 PM EST
    Like yourself, Steve M, I didn't think much of taking a vacation in Hawaii. Then, as luck would have it, I heard a contemporaneous comment on Stephanopolous that pointed out that "maybe a vacation in Myrtle Beach" might help the voter identification problem (i.e., not exotic.) Interesting, I thought. And, then, I heard some people comment about where "regular" people take trips.  I don't know. One comment I would make--not in a negative sense, but in my own identification way--is that you referred to your secretary and her vacation destinations. As a person somewhat similarly situated in having had secretaries in my employ, I relate to the comment. Yet, standing back a bit, it is important to repeat Obama's perceived problem with "blue collar" workers." That demographic group does not relate to having secretaries; most of my family--blue-collar workers--dream of Hawaii as a one-time, very special visit. I keep forgetting that.

    Cokie Roberts made that dumb comment (none / 0) (#196)
    by shoephone on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 07:10:18 PM EST
    about how he should have gone to Myrtle Beach instead. For cripes sakes, Regular Joe and Jane American cannot afford to vacation at Myrtle Beach either.

    It's all in the framing...


    I'm a bit astonished that you're using (5.00 / 3) (#194)
    by Valhalla on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 07:08:49 PM EST
    a single person to gauge the working class.

    Is your secretary the only person you know who could be considered working class?  (actually, I don't know tht secretaries are demographically included in wc, but close enough).

    I know hardly anyone who has taken a flight-required vacation this year.  

    It's not just whether they can afford the cost right now, but whether that money will be needed in a few months to pay the gas or oil bills, or as cushion if a member of the family loses a job.  Maybe it's just because I live near 2 big summertime vacation/tourist areas (Boston and Cape Cod) but all summer it's been news how much tourism is down, and the ripple effect that has throughout the economy on locals.  So I'd say, whether most working class people or secretaries can afford it or not, they sure don't feel like they can.


    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 07:14:54 PM EST
    My secretary has payday loans, for crissakes.  I dragged her into this because I suspect she's a lot closer to being in the situation of the average American than my yuppie self.

    I'll say this, I have not heard one single comment from anyone outside the blogs about how they resent Obama taking a vacation in Hawaii this year.  Now, was it unfortunate that the Georgia thing happened while he was out of pocket, sure it was.  But I do not think the average Joe deeply resents the fact that presidential candidates and other hot-shots get to take vacations.  That's more of the Cokie Roberts view of how the average Joe thinks.  Heck, the average Joe re-elected Bush, and no one took more vacations than that man!


    according to one article I saw... (none / 0) (#171)
    by p lukasiak on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:50:54 PM EST
    accomodations fro the press were being arranged at a cost of $11,500 per person for the week.

    which is ridiculously high.

    So I checked Orbitz for vacation packages for a week starting tomorrow... the cheapest I found for seven nights in Honolulu was $1451 including airfare.  But it didn't include a car, or meals other than a 'continental breakfast'

    The cheapest I could find from Jamaica (arriving at Montego Bay airport, was $842 including airfare...but no meals at all and no car.

    I live on the east coast, so airfare is going to be cheaper to jamaica than hawaii, of course...


    Jamica is seriously off-season now. (none / 0) (#204)
    by honora on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 07:33:31 PM EST
    Reminds me of a quote from Little House on the Prairie books, when Pa tells Laura that the rich and poor are not so different, the poor get their ice in the winter and the rich get theirs in the summer.  Probably, meant more in the 1800's.

    Rezko was not a convicted felon (none / 0) (#157)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:35:24 PM EST
    when his wife bought the lot adjoining the Obama residence.  Rezko was under investigation.  

    Right (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by nell on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:58:23 PM EST
    and our dear Democratic nominee claims that he had no idea that Rezko was under investigation at this time, despite the fact that the Chicago Sun Times and Chicago Tribune were running story after story after story. It was just a foolish defense that he used. Everyone who reads the Chicago Tribune or Sun Times knew that Rezko was under investigation (and I am from the area and fall into this category)...Obama is trying to suggest that he had no idea? Even if he doesn't read the paper, no one let him know? Yeaaaaahhhhh right!

    Either he is so incredibly naive and foolish to not realize that his good friend was under investigation and thus should not be president due to mental deficit, or he lied when he said he had no idea Rezko was under investigation. Either way, it doesn't look good for Obama. Not to mention the fact that after claiming he barely knew Rezko, he later admitted that he took a tour of the house with Rezko...

    It never gained traction during the primary because he was up against Hillary, but if the Republicans want to go for the jugular on this, they certainly can. Beyond the issue of the house, there is the far more pressing issue of why Obama did nothing to help the constituents in his district who had fallen prey to Rezko...they went for weeks without heat and lived in horrendous conditions. Obama says he "may have known" but he won't release his state senate records, so we really don't know what he knew, when he knew it, and if he knew, why he did nothing. These residents were freezing at the exact same time that Rezko was writing big campaign checks to Obama.

    This is not the issue to hand the republicans.


    OMG! (none / 0) (#179)
    by Politalkix on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:56:21 PM EST
    Now even if the McCain campaign cries itself hoarse that Obama made $4.5 million last year, people will ask McCain whether that puts Obama squarely in the middle class because anyone making less than 5 million per year is middle class according to the Arizone senator :-):-).

    That is the tack the Obama campaign (none / 0) (#193)
    by cawaltz on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 07:08:05 PM EST
    ought to take the next time the MCCAin breaks out the arugala eating elite mantra. Not look at all John McCain's houses.

    Reminds (none / 0) (#5)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:07:06 PM EST
    me of Kerry.

    Kinda (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:09:45 PM EST
    But Kerry's service was never really untouchable because of the war protester angle.

    And I think the Swiftboat attacks would have had an impact whether or not he overplayed the whole "reporting for duty" theme.


    Well, when you think about it, (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:06:33 PM EST
    it's really all he's got. The POW thing, I mean. That's his most positive asset.

    Well that plus the entire Democratic (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by MarkL on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:12:07 PM EST

    Well that... (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by trillian on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:12:58 PM EST
    ...and his 26 years in Congress

    and campaign finance reform (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by oldpro on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:24:39 PM EST
    with.....um (checking)....yup....Finegold!

    Those 26 years (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:49:36 PM EST
    don't add many positive assets IMO.

    Well, I have a meta-prediction about (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by MarkL on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:07:55 PM EST
    the election, based on your recent posts.
    By the end of August/beginning of September, BTD will agree that McCain is a favorite.

    I don't think McCain's POW experience (4.00 / 3) (#13)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:14:47 PM EST
    will either help nor harm him that much.  obama seems intent on making sure the GOP has enough ammo to use against himself quite often, not to mention things in his past.

    And, someone should tell obama being coy does not suit him.  At least he didn't use the phrase..."that's for me to know and you to find out" :)



    BTD...you are a caution! (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by oldpro on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:21:54 PM EST
    I get the giggles every time you srart with the "Duke" Cunningham got a raw deal theme!

    Come on (none / 0) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:25:08 PM EST
    If getting shot down makes you Presidential material, then how come being an Ace does not merit special treatment?  

    He did merit special treatment (none / 0) (#30)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:28:48 PM EST
    but he used it all up and then wrote bad checks on the account.

    IF (none / 0) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:31:59 PM EST
    getting shot down makes McCain Presidential material, then Duke Cunningham could not possibly have used up all his special treatment yet.

    I don't think getting shotdown makes McCain (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:40:25 PM EST
    presidential material but surviving his POW experience, coming home and taking on life as he has achieving what he has is indicative of being made of the right stuff.

    Interesting (2.00 / 0) (#94)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:55:56 PM EST
    I take it you voted Perot-Stockdale in 1992?

    Nah (none / 0) (#92)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:55:00 PM EST
    I don't buy it.

    But it's something... (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by trillian on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:01:48 PM EST
    ...the voters will buy

    It offends me (none / 0) (#53)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:40:41 PM EST
    that anyone could suggest that Randy "Duke" Cunningham, who bravely flew dangerous combat missions in Vietnam, would cheat.

    Really, that should have been his defense at trial.  Better yet, the "I was a war hero" motion to dismiss!


    Which rule is that? (none / 0) (#91)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:54:36 PM EST
    I am not a criminal lawyer. I like it though - the "I was a war hero" motion to dismiss the indictment.

    Randy "Duke" has a clemency petition (none / 0) (#162)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:40:18 PM EST
    pending w/the Bush administration.  

    BTD, there goes your convention (none / 0) (#33)
    by MarkL on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:31:05 PM EST
    invite! Obama rulz say that McCain's service record is untouchable. You are only allowed to say nasty things about his lovely wife, or make fun of his wealth.

    His lovely wife's wealth (none / 0) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:32:34 PM EST
    you mean.

    Thank You (5.00 / 0) (#47)
    by BDB on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:37:18 PM EST
    I am so sick of Democrats acting like Cindy McCain doesn't exist.  It's her money, not her husband's.  If you want to question how her business holdings influence him, then that's fine, but she's not just an extension of the great man.  This, as you can tell, drives me crazy.

    It's actually (none / 0) (#86)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:53:38 PM EST
    good way to emasculate McCain, which is a sexist concept in and of itself, but it works poltically.

    I would talk about Cindy McCain's money if I was going to do this line of attack.

    But I think Bush's Third Term wins the election.


    Well, if Obama weren't running for (5.00 / 5) (#106)
    by MarkL on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:00:16 PM EST
    Reagan's 4th term, the attack would resonate a lot more.

    I don't know, McCain being Cindy's trophy (none / 0) (#119)
    by DandyTIger on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:05:32 PM EST
    husband might be a winner with women voters. OK, snark, snark. (ducking).

    It's also sexist (none / 0) (#93)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:55:55 PM EST
    But she's also.... (5.00 / 0) (#117)
    by trillian on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:04:41 PM EST

    She founded and ran a non-profit organization, the American Voluntary Medical Team, from 1988 to 1995 that organized trips by medical personnel to disaster-struck or war-torn third-world areas. She continues to be an active philanthropist and serves on the boards of several charitable organizations.



    Isn't she also the head of Operation Smile (none / 0) (#158)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:36:29 PM EST
    for children around the world with serious deformaties of the face?

    Yes.. (none / 0) (#166)
    by trillian on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:43:59 PM EST
    She is definitely not a 'stepford wife"

    Their daughter, Meghan, (none / 0) (#160)
    by Grace on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:38:29 PM EST
    has a blog that I was reading the other night.  She appears to have been raised with some decent values so I have a hard time equating their money with "bad people."  

    Come on yourownsenf! (none / 0) (#40)
    by oldpro on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:33:00 PM EST
    I was teasing you about the "Duke" reference.

    You know perfectly well that I agree with you re Clark and that getting shot down doesn't make you anything but unlucky or careless.  Besides....people seem to keep forgetting that Clark didn't come up with that line out of the blue...it was in the question he was asked.  He often makes the mistake of repeating the question in the beginning of his answer.


    I know (none / 0) (#80)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:51:38 PM EST
    Was snarking back atcha.

    I'd better check (none / 0) (#96)
    by oldpro on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:56:16 PM EST
    my snark receptor...it  probably needs new batteries.

    I don't think Clark's attack (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Inky on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:23:52 PM EST
    was very effective, given that McCain makes similar quips about himself, as when he joked on the Conan O'Brian show that "I was able to get shot down, intercept a surface-to-air missile with my plane." McCain's ability to be self-effacing (a talent that Obama doesn't seem to have mastered) is one of the reasons voters find him appealing, in spite of his repellent positions on almost every issue.

    BTD, I know that you are a big fan of Clark, but you make more sense when you stick to your best advice, which that Obama needs to attack McCain on policy, policy, policy, and stay away from the biographical crap.

    Was that a joke (none / 0) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:26:03 PM EST
    about the houses? As for who is better at politics, you or me, I pick me, surprisingly.

    I'm sure you are ... (none / 0) (#46)
    by Inky on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:36:46 PM EST
    That's one of the reasons I don't comment very often. If you'd prefer, I could avoid commenting on this this site entirely.

    I am indifferent (none / 0) (#78)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:51:16 PM EST
    to whether you comment or not.

    I'll leave ... (none / 0) (#114)
    by Inky on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:03:15 PM EST
    I don't know why I provoke your hostility as much as I do, but this is your site and you shouldn't have to deal with people who annoy you as much as I seem to.

    It's time for me to stop fixating on this sorry-ass election anyway.


    Do watcha feel (none / 0) (#126)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:08:09 PM EST
    I am indifferent.

    I saw no hostility (none / 0) (#128)
    by DandyTIger on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:08:28 PM EST
    in fact, indifferent is about has far from hostile as you can get.

    Well, at least BTD (none / 0) (#143)
    by Inky on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:18:46 PM EST
    didn't call me a liar this time. As I said, it's time for me to start ignoring this election. I won't vote for McCain, but I can't vote for Obama, and I'm sick of obsessing about the squandered opportunity that this election represents, or my disappointment with the soon-to-be-official Democratic nominee.

    If McCain really wanted to use his (5.00 / 5) (#35)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:31:56 PM EST
    POW experience to put this man-of-many-homes thing to rest, he could just say:

    When I was asked the other day how many homes I have, I responded that I didn't really know.  Senator Obama wants to spin that to mean that I'm not in touch with the lives of everyday Americans.  The reality is that, yeah, the McCains own a bunch of real estate, most of it because of the good fortune of my wife.  And it probably doesn't much matter whether I own the homes, or my wife owns them or some trust owns them; I know I am living in very fortunate circumstances and I am grateful for that.  

    But what I own is not a measure of how in touch or out of touch I am with everyday people.  When you've called a North Vietnamese prison cell home for over 5 years, you get up close and personal with problems.  And when you finally get your freedom, you realize that anywhere you can lay your head at night and go to sleep without fear for that freedom, is a place you can call home.  So, no, I don't spend much time thinking about what I own or how much I own; I spend my time thinking about how I can keep Americans from going to bed at night in fear for their freedom, so no one ever has to feel or live through what I did.

    Or, he could just lay it all off on Cindy; there's a certain demographic that will relate to the "whatever the wife wants is what I want, because when she's happy, so am I" explanation.

    Anne, you are always a (3.66 / 3) (#130)
    by zfran on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:09:44 PM EST
    delight (at least imo) to read your opinions here. I think your response here is so well written and thought out, you might consider sending it to the McCain campaign to use. It is a wonderful response to this nonsense with the homes.

    Do not forget (none / 0) (#183)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:57:46 PM EST
    to have McCain mention that his kids like the dog, and so he is keeping it.

    Stay away from Red State (none / 0) (#45)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:35:10 PM EST
    You will only help the idiots win.

    It just seemed so obvious to me, (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:43:08 PM EST
    and I suspect if Obama keeps hammering away at it, this is what the McCain campaign is going to come back with - McCain is very good at making people feel and look petty.

    Do you remember the letter McCain wrote to Obama after Obama essentially lied about some bipartisan effort he had been involved in with McCain?  It was really cutting and exposed Obama for what he is.

    [As an aside, not only have I never been to RedState, but I've said repeatedly that I think McCain is wrong on pretty much everything; that I can see a way out of this "gaffe" for him doesn't mean anything]


    Well (5.00 / 0) (#124)
    by nell on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:07:28 PM EST
    Obama better hope that McCain doesn't use it, because your response is pretty brilliant.

    I think TPM missed the point (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by nycstray on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:38:13 PM EST
    Also, Rogers made sure to play the anti-intellectual card: "In terms of who's an elitist, I think people have made a judgment that John McCain is not an arugula-eating, pointy headed professor-type based on his life story."

    They are using his time as a POW against charges he's elitist. Elitists are seen as weak. POWs, not so much. Elitsts don't suffer/sacrifice much, POWs, well . . . .  I personally think it's stupid to try and paint McCain as one and coming from Obama? HA! McCain just doesn't come off as an elitist no matter how many houses his wife owns. Heck, she doesn't come off as one either if you know anything about her. Obama and his wife are another story. You don't whine to working class voters about paying 10 grand a year for lessons for your kids!

    Using POW regarding the "cheating" charge also works because of his history as a POW/while he was one. Honorable.

    The Obama camp needs to attack him on issues. Not character. They will LOSE that one.

    hate to say it, but all this smacks (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by hellothere on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:46:30 PM EST
    of desperation to me.

    Smacks of stupidity to me (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:48:31 PM EST
    Look (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:47:59 PM EST
    they said he has 7 houses. Stupid attack imo. But they did not bring up his POW experience, he did.

    So stop the fake outrage please.


    lol!~ outrage?! far from it (5.00 / 0) (#87)
    by nycstray on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:53:40 PM EST
    But if Obama wants to win, he needs to lay off the stupid attacks and get down to biz. I happen to agree with you that he needs to go Bush3. He needs to figure out how to make it stick though and that's not houses or elitism. It's issues. Just saying a continuation isn't enough. He needs to lay out the info and how he's better (act like a Dem, perhaps?!)

    And have none of the Obama surrogates (none / 0) (#75)
    by MarkL on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:50:35 PM EST
    brought up McCain's POW experience?
    Oh yeah, Clark did.. lol.
    So, Clark gave McCain license to use his POW record as a brickbat, while at the same time Obama declared that one could not question the "POW =Presidential material" equation.

    Shoo-in anyone?


    Clark (none / 0) (#84)
    by CST on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:53:06 PM EST
    Did not bring it up.  He was ASKED.

    You're telling falsehoods again (none / 0) (#99)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:57:36 PM EST
    See if you can guess what you did not tell the truth about?

    Obama doesn't know (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:56:49 PM EST
    how to attack on issues.

    Issues? (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by cawaltz on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:21:21 PM EST
    What are those?/snark

    We continually lose because the Democrats don't focus where they can win, which of course, is issues. We're too busy trying to one up the GOP on cult of personality politics.


    I was disgusted when the Republicans (5.00 / 5) (#56)
    by sarahfdavis on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:41:19 PM EST
    mocked Kerry's service. The image of the bandaid with a purple heart on it sickened me.

    I get the same bad taste listening to liberals mock McCain-about his age and his service.

    I disagree with almost everything he supports but there is a line of decency I always expected that progressives wouldn't cross. Watching so many "progressives" burn the witch at the stake shocked me into a whole new perspective of our own party.

    And now that ugliness, even when it's against republicans, is shameful. How does it help? We trash and demonize each other to the point of hatred. It angers and depresses me.

    NO one (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by CST on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:44:23 PM EST
    Here is "mocking" his service.  We're mocking his "reluctance" to use his POW service as a campaign issue.  And stating that it doesn't qualify him to be president.  It doesn't, there's no "mocking" in that.

    Whatever (none / 0) (#62)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:46:16 PM EST
    You seem intent on willfully misunderstanding the point.

    Does not matter to me frankly if you are "offended."

    IF you do not want to read what I wrote, that is on you.

    But let's be clear, you really do NOT want to read what I wrote. You chose not to.


    Didn't Kerry throw his medals (none / 0) (#167)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:45:08 PM EST
    as part of his protests at the WH? That might be considered the more egregious mockery of his purple heart?

    I've never watched the Republican convention, so that image isn't etched in my memory, though.


    The whole thing about the houses (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by Jjc2008 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:00:54 PM EST
    of McCain is stupid for the dems....we have Kennedys and Kerry in our party.  Kerry's wife is one the Heinz heiress and those people LIVE BIG.

    People in glass houses need not bring up this issue.

    Instead they need to talk about how CEOs have gone from making 10x their lowest employees to making 300x the lowest salary.
    And we need to imprint the words of Jusice Louis Brandeis somewhere for all to be reminded:
    "We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."

    The guilded age of robber barons seems to have returned: ie, the wealth of the period is highlighted by the American upper class's opulent self-indulgence.  Is this not familiar??  It's here again and pointing it out about McCain seems redundant to me. If people still do not get that it is unfair to tax the rest of us for our work, our winnings if we win money, but not to tax the people who win the DNA lottery, then it will probably take another revolution like the one in France....

    Here's a real life example. I was one of the people who DID NOT get the stimulous rebate...not a penny.  WHY?   Well I worked while retired putting my income too high....
    NOW, understand I would not complain.  I am a retired teacher with a better than average retirement income.  But as a single woman who had no inheritance ever, I have worked for everything I have, still have a morgage since I refinanced often to pay for fixing up the old house I bought years ago.  Again, no big deal EXCEPT for this:
    almost every one of my friends got the FULL REBATE.  Most of them are also retired teachers.  But they are wealthy enough (most of them from inheritance) that they have all their money in stocks and bonds, and whatever.  
    *One couple owns three places...a regular house (much more expensive and bigger than mine).  25 acres of mountain property with a home on it.  An RV trailer with two bedrooms in the town where they keep their boat.
    Another couple owns their home, a million dollar structure and probably have a couple million in the market.
    **Another has a home in the mountains and one on the beach in FL.  
    I could go on and on and on.  I was stunned when I found out I did not qualify.  I work extra so that I can do extra things......or fix things, or get a roof.  They don't because they have inheritances.

    Does anyone see how unfair this system is????  And just by moaning about McCain's houses is not the answer.  Let's talk about a system that is gamed to favor ANYONE whose family happens to be wealthy; anyone who is already rich gets rewarded......sort of like the idiocy of when they give $10000 bags of goodies at the Academy Awards to people who in no way, shape or form needs it.

    The rest of the response... (4.40 / 5) (#14)
    by kredwyn on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:15:12 PM EST
    had an interesting bite:
    "We're delighted to have a real estate debate with Barack Obama," said spokesman Brian Rogers, adding that the press should focus on Obama's house. "It's a frickin' mansion. He doesn't tell people that. You have a mansion you bought in a shady deal with a convicted felon."

    That's the smart part of the response (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:17:28 PM EST
    The POW stuff? I mean, come on.

    Heh... (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by kredwyn on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:21:44 PM EST
    It's also the part you ignored to hype the silly part ;-P

    It says on my blogging card (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:28:13 PM EST
    that I am supposed to shill for Obama.

    Seriously, this POW crap really bothers me. And I really do not give a flying frying pan about how many houses McCain has. It is a stupid attack imo.


    it IS a stupid attack (5.00 / 0) (#49)
    by ccpup on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:38:03 PM EST
    and one Obama is going to follow a familiar pattern on:  first defend it, then walk it back and then finally pass off the blame to an underling or something.

    When Obama should be owning the nightly news with policy or his VP Pick -- c'mon already! --, he, again, is looking ham-handed, petty and foolish.  And his remarks about forming his foreign policy team from the "best and the brightest" will be lost in the unnecessary back-and-forth over McCain's homes and Obama's convicted felon friend.

    And McCain, in return, has the perfect opportunity to inform Americans about Obama's private beach vacation, his $4.5 million as well as buying his "mansion" with the help of a convicted felon who's sentencing is scheduled right before the Election.

    Did NO ONE on the Obama Campaign think this line of attack through before trotting it out?  It's OBVIOUS what the response would be.



    I don't recall shilling (none / 0) (#36)
    by kredwyn on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:31:56 PM EST
    being part of your MO before.

    I read a codicil somewhere...that says when it comes to stupid strategies, BTD can come out and say that it's a stupid strategy.


    Last time I checked (none / 0) (#116)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:04:15 PM EST
    I'm still doing it.

    Just laughing at the idea that I am shilling for anyone.

    Hell, I ripped the one person I admire most in politics, Wes Clark, on Russia the other day.

    If I ain't shilling for him. who the hell would I shill for.


    lol, love the blogging card bit (none / 0) (#77)
    by DandyTIger on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:50:46 PM EST
    and extremely good point. They had an excellent come back that brought rezko into the conversation, and they still felt the need to play the POW card. OK, by the way, playing the POW card is now TM by me. :-)

    Yeah (none / 0) (#136)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:13:29 PM EST
    but you are right about Obama ceding this issue to McCain when he threw Clark under the bus.

    Hard To Believe (5.00 / 0) (#43)
    by BDB on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:34:17 PM EST
    that McCain would want to bury his lead, which in this case was Rezko.  But then it's also hard to believe the Obama campaign wants to talk about houses.

    Meanwhile (5.00 / 3) (#115)
    by cawaltz on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:04:15 PM EST
    while the two candidates debate about who is more super elite millions of Americans are LOSING their houses. Do you think the two candidates might find it in their hearts to focus?

    I have a hard time relating to all of this (none / 0) (#16)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:20:11 PM EST
    Living in Seattle means $1M buys a nice home, but a mansion will set you back many more millions. I can't fathom a mansion at $1-2M being much of a mansion.

    But, I know nothing about the IL housing market.


    I don't... (none / 0) (#28)
    by kredwyn on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:27:40 PM EST
    You need to come to East TN. By ex-boss (none / 0) (#51)
    by Teresa on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:38:21 PM EST
    lives in what I consider a mansion on the best lot on the lake. 1.5 million.

    The McMansions (we call them Knox Boxes) where the normal upper class folks live are around $300,000.


    Sounds appealing (none / 0) (#79)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:51:30 PM EST
    $300,000 will get you a 2-3 bed, 1 bath, fixer upper under 1500 sq ft. in Seattle.

    In Los Angeles, (5.00 / 0) (#153)
    by Grace on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:30:15 PM EST
    $300,000 will buy you a one bed/one bath in a bad part of town, maybe, if you get really really lucky.    

    Maybe in Medina, (none / 0) (#54)
    by oldpro on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:41:05 PM EST
    Mercer Island, Bellevue, Kenmore or Capitol Hill it buys you a nice house...in the rest of Seattle it still buys you a mansion...sometimes with a view.

    I don't do the linky thing (yet) but you can goole for Obama's house and make the comparison...not just the house but the setting and protective properties owned by Rezko's wife, last I looked.


    Not true (none / 0) (#85)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:53:11 PM EST
    I live here, and we're researching the market right now.

    Where do you live (none / 0) (#110)
    by oldpro on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:01:18 PM EST
    and what are you looking for?  A nice house or a mansion?  Budget?

    Check out West Seattle.


    Isn't Magnolia a good area? (none / 0) (#129)
    by MarkL on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:08:31 PM EST
    Parts of Magnolia are magnificent ($1 mil+) (none / 0) (#173)
    by shoephone on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:51:43 PM EST
    especially if the house overlooks the Sound and the mountains, or is anywhere near Discovery Park. I painted all four corner houses at one intersection in Magnolia and the prices are not really going down there, it's just taking a little longer for the properties to sell.

    West Seattle is totally out of reach for most people now as well. White Center maybe? Renton? Tukwila anyone?


    We'll remain eastside (none / 0) (#142)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:18:29 PM EST

    I think my definition of a mansion is different than many. I expect servants quarters in a mansion.

    Thanks.... (none / 0) (#201)
    by oldpro on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 07:20:24 PM EST
    that response clears up a lot.

    Good luck in your search.


    Our Seattle area real estate market (none / 0) (#88)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:53:44 PM EST
    was imported from California.

    We're not as high as there, but we're elevated due to the "California migration".


    Heck (none / 0) (#168)
    by shoephone on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:47:05 PM EST
    Even with prices declining slightly, a two-bedroom/one bath Ballard bungalow will still set you back nearly $400,000.

    Noun, Verb, POW. (3.00 / 0) (#21)
    by scribe on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:24:31 PM EST
    Lather, rinse and repeat.

    Or, one can look at what his fellow POW - who also lived across the hall from him at Annapolis, wrote on military.com a while back:

    I furthermore believe that having been a POW is no special qualification for being President of the United States. The two jobs are not the same, and POW experience is not, in my opinion, something I would look for in a presidential candidate.

    Most of us who survived that experience are now in our late 60's and 70's. Sadly, we have died and are dying off at a greater rate than our non-POW contemporaries. We experienced injuries and malnutrition that are coming home to roost. So I believe John's age (73) and survival expectation are not good for being elected to serve as our President for 4 or more years.

    I can verify that John has an infamous reputation for being a hot head. He has a quick and explosive temper that many have experienced first hand. Folks, quite honestly that is not the finger I want next to that red button.

    No, I don't want it there, either.

    Of course, with McSame we also have the further worry that, if the phone should ring at 3 AM, it might be the Ambien (R) talking, and not him.

    My brother's on Ambien... (5.00 / 0) (#68)
    by kredwyn on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:48:14 PM EST
    Thank goodness he's finally found something that'll help him sleep.

    Isn't it true (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:57:57 PM EST
    that Obama hasn't released his medical records.  Are you certain you want to go there?

    using the Obama Playbook (4.25 / 4) (#34)
    by ccpup on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:31:26 PM EST
    -- eg. McSame, allusions to ambien, etc. -- isn't very effective and just makes you look like an inept, juvenile fool.

    If Obama wants to attack McCain's POW status, he's going to have an uphill battle.  His story runs deep in Americans' minds and it will be nearly impossible to redefine him on that score.  Best to stick to policy and cut out the childish nicknames.

    This is United States President we're talking about.  Not President of the Glee Club.


    Stop the BS (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:50:39 PM EST
    Obama did not attack McCain's POW status.

    In fact, he attacked Clark for saying the obvious.


    no BS, BTD (5.00 / 0) (#98)
    by ccpup on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:57:34 PM EST
    sorry if I stepped on your long toes, but Obama's Supporters sometimes DO attack (or make fun of) McCain's POW experience and I suspect it's a losing battle.

    And I said so in my post.  If Obama sticks to the issues, he may have a chance.  If he continues flailing away at McCain's houses or whatnot with his Supporters calling McCain "McSame" and bringing up Ambien, it's a lost cause.

    And in that regard, I don't find my post deserving of you calling it BS.

    Oh well.


    OH, "Obama's supporters" (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:59:11 PM EST
    Well, in that case, "Clinton supporter" said a lot of racist things, and I read some of them here in Talk Left comments before I deleted the comments.

    Sorry, to step on your toes with a little truth telling.


    whatever (none / 0) (#118)
    by ccpup on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:05:16 PM EST
    Indeed (none / 0) (#122)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:06:49 PM EST
    okay (none / 0) (#127)
    by ccpup on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:08:19 PM EST
    Does it matter? Obama is held (none / 0) (#121)
    by MarkL on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:06:20 PM EST
    accountable for what Clark said, and for how his surrogates have attacked McCain's POW years (as the other commenter suggests).
    What is the relevance of you or I thinking that those links shouldn't count? I don't get it.
    Likewise, you're right that Clark didn't bring up  McCain's POW years, but that is a distinction without a difference.
    YOU seem to think that Obama can win the election without discussing McCain's war hero status.
    I disagree. Obama must defuse that qualification.
    I don't mean that he has to slime McCain, simply that he has to make clear that McCain's war hero status does make him ready to be President.
    If he can't convince voters of that point, then he will not only lose---he will lose by historic margins.
    The public will see a beloved war hero ready to take on the ultimate public service versus an ingenue with almost no record, a bad attitude and no clear agenda.

    Actually he isn't (none / 0) (#135)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:13:23 PM EST
    held accountable for what Clark said because he threw Clark under the bus.

    He is held accountable for throwing Clark under the bus and shaking in his boots and NOW McCain uses the Hanoi Hilton Card with complete impunity.


    He's accountable to Democrats for his (none / 0) (#138)
    by MarkL on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:15:06 PM EST
    stupidity. Anyway, we are not really disagreeing.. except about the "shoo-in" theory.

    Bingo! (none / 0) (#161)
    by trillian on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:39:14 PM EST
    Clark was the only Dem with the gravitas to counter McCain's obvious advantage in this.....and Obama chose not to go there.

    probably not the ONLY (none / 0) (#182)
    by cawaltz on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:57:39 PM EST
    That said, throwing a Dem who does have credibility with the uniformed community definitely wasn't one of the brighter moves.

    I've been on Ambien (1.00 / 0) (#38)
    by Upstart Crow on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:32:03 PM EST
    It really doesn't make you scary. You wake up sharp as a pin -- it doesn't leave you woozy and drugged and zombie-like.

    But it does give you kind of a strange sleepiness the next day. Not woozy, just instantly sleepy at points.

    It's pretty clean, and beats insomnia.


    And it's really nothing compared (1.00 / 0) (#41)
    by Upstart Crow on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:33:04 PM EST
    to the range of drugs JFK was on!

    Oh... (none / 0) (#71)
    by kredwyn on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:49:33 PM EST
    and I'm not sure using 1s to respond is such a great idea.

    Who cares? (none / 0) (#103)
    by Upstart Crow on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:58:25 PM EST
    Responding with "1"s is so childish it's kind of hard to get worked up about it.

    It's not like my paycheck will be docked over it.


    Wow. (none / 0) (#1)
    by lilburro on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:03:12 PM EST
    They are really going to take this to the bank.

    Maybe we should start a viral email campaign about McCain having spent time in actual [US] prison.

    How to attack McCain (none / 0) (#123)
    by Dadler on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:07:21 PM EST
    The POW connection becomes very interesting if (ever) McCain is asked why, after being tortured and held in horrid conditions there, he supported normalizing relations with the Vietnamese?  And why then, with Cuba, a country who has done NOTHING to him or the U.S., does he still support pointless isolation, embargoes, and demonizing?  

    The lack of logical and humane consistency here is obvious.  And McCain's stammering answer to the question will be, as well.  

    The guy makes no sense, and his personal demons run his life.

    Terrible idea, IMO. (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by MarkL on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:10:50 PM EST
    My thought is that the best way for Obama to defuse McCain's POW credentials is to mention them himself, often, and deferentially.
    Make McCain into a living fossil by referring to his great service of 40 years ago.

    Wow. You're hot. (none / 0) (#140)
    by Upstart Crow on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:16:24 PM EST
    And what is Obama's response (none / 0) (#145)
    by zfran on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:22:17 PM EST
    each time McCain comes back with, and yes, it's been 40 years and in that 40 years I've given my country my service with this, and that, and on and on?

    40 checkered years (5.00 / 3) (#152)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:29:41 PM EST
    I personally do not agree with (2.66 / 3) (#139)
    by zfran on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:16:20 PM EST
    a lot of McCain's positions. But I know that I could not have survived as he did in that camp. Maybe he supported normal relations with Vietnam so that no one could ever suffer the abuse and torture he did. Maybe his "personal demons" as you call them, has shaped his life, just as Obama's indecisions about his life has shaped his. We are all, imo, a product of where we come from and life's experiences. What we do with those experiences, good or bad, points us in the directions we take. At least that's what I've observed. McCain may have different answers to your quieries, but he's given a life of service in one way or another. Some of his policies may be different from where I'd like him to be, but he appears not afraid to state them.

    Honestly (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:29:17 PM EST
    So McCain's life experiences matter?

    So we SHOULD talk about his infidelities, failed marriages, corruption with the Keating 5, temper, 7 houses, etc?

    I mean you like talking about the PW stuff, do you want to talk about his affair with his heiress wife as part of his life experiences?

    At this point, the inane hypocrisy of the Obama hate is getting absurd. Now McCain is some God striding the Earth?

    For crissakes, snap out of it.


    Yes, it does.... (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by p lukasiak on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 07:01:31 PM EST
    I think it says a lot about McCain and his feelings for this country that he turned down early release because he knew it would be used for propaganda purposes -- that he was being offered early release because of the high profile the release of an Admiral's son would have.

    But I do think that his personal life is off limits, especially his first marriage.  The fact that McCain did not react well after being released by the North Vietnamese to the fact that his wife was no longer the woman he had married (and had doubtless been thinking/dreaming of) is understandable, if tragic.  Under the circumstances, moralizing about it is inappropriate.  


    I'll tell you (none / 0) (#191)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 07:07:14 PM EST
    that story about the first wife may be off limits, but it definitely has traction, even notwithstanding the POW sympathy factor.  I've given it a test-drive.

    Making it though five and a half (none / 0) (#180)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:56:26 PM EST
    years as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam shows one is able to cope in the face of isolation, torture, injury, and not knowing if and when one will again be a free person.  The fact Sen. McCain did exhibit these coping skills is just one fact, but it does seem relevant to acknowledge this fact.  

    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by cawaltz on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 07:05:25 PM EST
    all it tells me is that he liked living better than the alternative(dying). One does what one must when faced with a bad situation.

    Do I respect his service? Sure. Do I think that he should be allowed to shamelessly use it to plug himself for President? Not so much.


    I'm sorry, (5.00 / 3) (#200)
    by ccpup on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 07:17:59 PM EST
    but that's really cold.

    Liked living better than the alternative?  When they broke his arms and legs repeatedly and removed his teeth from the gums?  Living with that kind of pain ain't no picnice.  In fact, death would have been a release.

    But he stayed.

    Again, this isn't a game Obama or his supporters should try to win.  Stick to the issues and he might have a chance.


    A question (none / 0) (#192)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 07:07:57 PM EST
    You say Obama threw General Clark under the bus. In fact, isn't it the job of a surrogate to take the heat while the candidate ducks it and reaps the benefits of the attack? It was that fool Kerry who did both the throwing under the bus and the throwing out of the benefits.

    Here's what Obama actually said, which sounds more like distancing than repudiation:

    Asked whether General Clark should apologize, Mr. Obama said: "I guess my question is why, given all the vast numbers of things that we got to work on, that that would be a top priority of mine? I think that right now we're here to talk about how we can make sure the kids in Zanesville and across Ohio get the kind of support that they need in communities that are impoverished can start to rebuild.

    "I'm happy to have all sorts of conversations about how we deal with Iraq and what happens with Iran, but the fact that somebody on a cable or on a news show like General Clark said something that was inartful about senator McCain, I don't think is probably the thing that is keeping Ohioans up at night."

    For the record, I liked what Clark said and that he wouldn't back down even under pressure from the whole Village. I think the fact that it was spontaneous and not coordinated with the campaign though left them flatfooted on taking advantage of it. Evidently the Obama campaign has been preparing a rope-a-dope strategy - waiting for the idea that McCain is the one running a negative campaign to get firmly entrenched in the public mind, which it now has according to polling - 29% see M as negative, 5% see O as negative - before they were ready to go negative themselves.

    Actually (none / 0) (#199)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 07:16:06 PM EST
    Obama expressly repudiated what Clark said.

    Doesn't much sound like it (none / 0) (#202)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 07:21:46 PM EST
    It was an "inartful" comment and not something he's concerned about? Sounds like normal distancing and not what I'd call repudiation, but YMMV.

    A little housing crisis math (none / 0) (#195)
    by RonK Seattle on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 07:09:08 PM EST
    It's not surprising McCain couldn't come up with a number right away. Partisan and media sources have no consensus. It's 7, or 8, or 9, or 11, or 12.

    Let's see what we're counting. (We should note that McCain doesn't own any homes, or houses, or residences - they're all held by Cindy or by business entities on her side of the family,)

    McCain, like Obama, has a primary residence ... Obama's in Chicago, McCain's in Phoenix. That shouldn't be an object of controversy.

    McCain, like Obama, has a DC area residence. No controversy there either.

    The La Jolla condo Cindy's aged aunt lives in shouldn't count as one of McCain's homes, should it?

    The one they bought in Phoenix for daughter Meghan shouldn't count, should it? Really? Does it still count if she's gone and it's for sale?

    How about the extra unit in the same building as the McCains' primary residence. I don't know if they use it as guest quarters, or business-guest quarters, or staff-guest quarters (saving on hotel expense), or just picked it up as an opportunistic investment ... but it's not "house or home" to McCain, who never stays there.

    The Sedona ranch is a big fancy spread ... rich folks stuff. One fancy house ... or five, depending how you count structures on the compound. (It would be a tad surprising if the Obamas, by the time they reach similar age and attainments, don't have the Chicago equivalent -- lake property somewhere, with more than one cabin.)

    That leaves a pair of beachfront condos in San Diego, held as investment property for the heirs and used heavily by Cindy's side of the family. John's not much for the beach, they say (and with his melanoma who can blame him), though I assume he stays in one of these occasionally.

    So McCain's "home" count -- places he ever lays his head -- is 2 like Obama has, 1 like Obama will have, and occasional use of 1 that Obama hasn't and maybe won't.

    Desperate (none / 0) (#205)
    by Prabhata on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 07:50:11 PM EST
    That's all I can say when the blogs make an issue of McCain's desire not to discuss his experience as a POW.  I don't think it's an issue, and definitely very understandable.  I'm the type that does not like to discuss bad experiences.  It's enough to know he survived those bad years and went on to serve the US.  His temper might be an issue, but no one has accused McCain of hitting anyone or doing anything shameful.

    McCain houses means... (none / 0) (#206)
    by Rashomon66 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 07:55:32 PM EST
    When I saw the ad it seemed that what Obama was saying was that McCain is so rich he is out of touch with the average American. It's not about being rich; most politicians who run for the Presidency are rich. Instead, it is this theme about how McCain doesn't understand how bad the economy is, doesn't understand what middle class is, doesn't know what regular folks are going through. I think on the surface it is an effective ad. If one delves deeper it might not be as effective. But that's true of most political ads. They are meant to be quick partisan punches.

    Two issues: temper and houses (none / 0) (#207)
    by Prabhata on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 08:29:57 PM EST
    On the temper issue, I don't think it's a problem for McCain.  I just read an article from Klein about Obama not showing passion. Time I think Americans don't mind a president showing some anger.  Bill Clinton has definitely demonstrated his anger often.

    On the houses, I think Obama just got into deep trouble.  McCain just tied Obama's attack to the purchase of the house with Rezko. WPost

    When will you people STOP making Obama a God (none / 0) (#208)
    by dlkincaid on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 09:38:29 PM EST
    This man throws people under the bus and he is praised. He is a African American not a god, he doesn't even know he's black and you people praise him. If he wins this thing with the MEDIA's help - He still will not be the end and be all that you people pretend he is.

    I am a Black female who will never vote again and will not vote for him.