"No Way, No How, No McCain"

From last night's speech:

No way, no how, no McCain. . . . Now, John McCain is my colleague and my friend. He has served our country with honor and courage. But we don't need four more years of the last eight years...


Senator Clinton: ... more economic stagnation and less affordable health care...


[More . . .]

Senator Clinton: ... more high gas prices and less alternative energy..


Senator Clinton: ... more jobs getting shipped overseas and fewer jobs created here at home...


Senator Clinton: ... more skyrocketing debt, and home foreclosures, and mounting bills that are crushing middle-class families...


Senator Clinton: ... more war and less diplomacy...


Senator Clinton: ... more of a government where the privileged few come first and everyone else comes last.


Senator Clinton: Well, John McCain says the economy is fundamentally sound. John McCain doesn't think 47 million people without health insurance is a crisis. John McCain wants to privatize Social Security. And in 2008, he still thinks it's OK when women don't earn equal pay for equal work. (AUDIENCE BOOS)

Now, with an agenda like that, it makes perfect sense that George Bush and John McCain will be together next week in the Twin Cities, because these days they're awfully hard to tell apart.


Some pundits think the way to gut John McCain is to talk about his seven houses and that he is old or to call him a flip-flopper. Which proves these pundits are so Republicanized, they do not understand how a Democrat can gut a Republican in THIS ELECTION. The way to do it is how Clinton did it - argue that McCain equals Bush's Third Term. It is that simple.

The Obama campaign should have had every speech in this Convention make these arguments. Hillary Clinton demonstrated how it is done.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Clinton On Why Obama Should Be President | Hillary's Speech: The Video >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    If they are reluctant to bash McCain.... (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:26:34 AM EST
    ....then they should at least go after the last 8 years with both guns blazing and tie McCain to that mess. Hillary did that with the twin cities reference. It's so easy to do, like taking candy from a baby. They MUST do this. Hopefully Biden will.

    Then Obama needs to change the platform (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by lambert on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:15:18 AM EST
    Here's the first sentence:

    "A great nation now demands that its leaders abandon the politics of partisan division...."

    Leaving (since policy is all going to be worked out in a post-partisan fashion after the election) personal attacks as the only way forward. Lucky us.


    Exactly (5.00 / 4) (#66)
    by Nadai on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:56:32 AM EST
    If you want a guard dog, you pick a Doberman, not a Chihuahua.  If you pick the Chihuahua, I can only assume you have other priorities than guarding the store.

    I watched the speech (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by chel2551 on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:39:03 AM EST
    and loved it.  Although she said what she needed to say about Obama, I also came away with the impression that she was not going anywhere, that she was definitely going to remain a force to be reckoned with.

    As I said the other day, it's going to be interesting (and exciting) to watch her as she continues her political journey.  I believe what she says, and I believe in her ability to make America a better place.  I continue to regret that she's not the nominee and agree that Obama made a huge mistake in not choosing her as Vice-President.  Biden has his good points, but he's not Hillary.

    Of course, she's not perfect, and I won't agree with everything she does, but compared to many other politicians, she's proven she's a fighter and isn't afraid of anyone.  

    I thought that's what we all wanted in a candidate.

    So bizarre. (5.00 / 6) (#44)
    by Landulph on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:00:15 AM EST
    I remember when the netroots wanted "fighting Dems" and a "politics of contrast" and opposed the "bipartisanship" of DLCers like Lieberman. Now, they have become a carbon clone of the original, late 80, pre-Bill Clinton Robb/Nunn incarnation of the DLC--opposing universal health care, pandering to evangelicals, trying to build a "New Party" without blue-collar voters, and spouting mushy "post-pastisan" pap. In the space of months, the netroots became everything they once despised. What happened?

    What happened? (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by lambert on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:12:23 AM EST
    We've been discussing that, and what to do, in a series of posts here.

    I'm honored! (none / 0) (#67)
    by Landulph on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:59:23 AM EST
    I'm actually a long-time (if slightly sporadic) Corrente lurker, and a big fan of your posts, Lambert! I'll definitely check out that thread.

    Well (none / 0) (#14)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:42:18 AM EST
    that's not the "new" democratic party. What else can you say?

    Someone mentioned Barney (none / 0) (#33)
    by Fabian on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:09:35 AM EST
    The giant purple dinosaur who is always happy and loves EVERYBODY!

    You know what would happen to Bipartisan Barney if he was in Congress?  He'd be laughed at and ignored if he wasn't be played by one side or the other.

    Not afraid, willing to fight...or Bipartisan Barney?


    I knew it... (none / 0) (#60)
    by kredwyn on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:43:24 AM EST
    I knew that bloody stupid purple dinosaur was going to be trouble!!!

    He's also imaginary. (none / 0) (#65)
    by Fabian on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:52:45 AM EST
    There's a parallel there somewhere....

    Daschle is on Morning Joe..... (5.00 / 7) (#16)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:46:39 AM EST
    ...his approach is exactly the problem. He says the message is if you don't like what's been going on the last 8 years, we can do better. WTF? This is what you say in an ordinary year as the opposition party. This year you don't even say "if." OF COURSE YOU DON'T LIKE WHAT'S BEEN GOING ON FOR THE LAST 8 YEARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's been an unmitigated disaster. That's what you have to say.

    a great reminder (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:51:39 AM EST
    of how horrible Daschle was when he was in office. Much like Ried and Pelosi. And I fear this represents the approach of the Obama campaign. With friends like these...

    And (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by tek on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:55:55 AM EST
    why is Tom Dasche even on the talk shows, anyway?  Oh, yes, because he's one of the instruments behind Obama's candidacy.  If Obama is elected, we can expect four years of inept politics from the people running the real show.

    In a way, I'm so sorry to see Hillary and Bill doing this.  I know they think that she'll come back in 2012 and win, but not if these people are still in charge.  You can see that they're grooming Mark Warner to follow Obama, or Biden will get it in his head that it's his turn.


    I don't understand this for the life of me! (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by Landulph on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:41:10 AM EST
    I can understand, on a certain level, how the "compromise and split the difference" approach made superficial political sense in 2002, when Bush had sky high approval ratings and the GOP had a 50-point edge in national security (and even then it was a bad idea, as witnessed by a Dem congress' support for the Iraq war). But this mushy post-partisan nonsense just isn't needed in 2008. I've said it before: one of the things that turned me off Obama was the realization that he is Daschle with better speeches.

    Daschle is on the talk shows... (none / 0) (#46)
    by lambert on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:08:56 AM EST
    ... because he was a very early Obama supporter (and has been touted as Obama's chief of staff).

    and because he brought SoDak (none / 0) (#50)
    by DFLer on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:23:19 AM EST
    home to Obama in the primary! :)

    Yep (none / 0) (#71)
    by dws3665 on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 10:50:08 AM EST
    He's a winner all right!

    And he was an early supporter (none / 0) (#70)
    by standingup on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 10:45:02 AM EST
    because Obama targeted Daschle before he was even sworn into the Senate in 2005.  Obama was laying the groundwork by reaching out to Daschle (party leader - Dem establishment) by helping him with his 2004 campaign debt.  Grassroots, bottom up my arss.

    Saw that. (none / 0) (#61)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:44:24 AM EST
    I totally agree about the framing.

    "Unmitigated disaster" should be a phrase that every Democrat pulls out at every interview, in every conversation, everyday between now and election day.

    Primarily because it is TRUE.


    dems putting distance between McCain and Bush (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:48:45 AM EST
    One thing I noticed in one of the speeches last night though was a stupid mistake.

    First I've noticed that McCain is seeing the light and in some ways starting to put some distance between him and Bush. He's saying the last four years have had some serious problems, we're not doing as well, etc. That is of course a danger and has to be fought against. Instead,

    So the problems is when I heard a dem actually brag that McCain agrees that Bush wasn't good and that we have problems. That is, they gloated that McCain is now distancing himself from Bush, and reinforced that McCain does not equal Bush. Of course the proper thing to do there is to actually call him on his sea change, make it a flip-flop thing, and quickly reinforce that McCain didn't have a problem with Bush or these problems until last week.

    Jeez, do we have to spell everything out to these people. :-)

    Did you hear (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by chel2551 on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:53:44 AM EST
    that the repubs have now added the issue of global warming to their platform?

    So they're becoming dem lite and we're becoming...

    What are we becoming?!


    The short answer: (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by tek on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:57:10 AM EST

    We've been TRYING (none / 0) (#30)
    by Fabian on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:03:41 AM EST
    to spell everything out for them for months.

    But they know best because, well, because that's what the lobbyists tell them.  It's as good a theory as any.


    defining Obama by diminishing McCain (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Howard Zinn on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:56:34 AM EST
    is certainly necessary, but he also needs one simple theme to unite his policies.  The theme needs to be projected onto everything at the convention -- banners, signs, t-shirts, etc.  Every speech at the convention should touch on this theme.  Two things: simple theme and link McCain to Bush.

    I'd say that theme should be "looking to the future."  Obama is young -- instead of shying away from that quality, he should exploit it.  We're moving toward a new global dynamic, economically and politically. The answers of the past will fail miserably in this new environment.

    What Obama needs to do in his speech is this: "The problem is X.  McCain has floundered about in the senate for 35 years ignoring the problem or making it worse by voting for Y and Z.  My solution is A, B, C.  And this will strengthen the US and its position in the world.  McCain's way is the same as Bush's: the status quo, which hasn't worked in the past and certainly won't work in the future.  It'll cause more job loss, etc. (Insert misc. inspirational ending here)."

    This approach incorporates the progress theme, defines McCain as anti-progress and pro-Bush, and more explicitly defines the specifics of Obama's plan.

    The Obama "meme" that he is young (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by zfran on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:16:52 AM EST
    will not work anymore because of 66 year old Biden as veep. If he exploits his age which points out McCain's age, then how does he explain Biden and Obama's own lack of experience?

    Yup. (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Landulph on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:42:56 AM EST
    Bill Clinton reinforced a message of youth and (yes!) change in '92 by picking Al Gore as his Veep, and Gore was about 4 years YOUNGER than the Big Dawg.

    But Biden hasn't spent his (none / 0) (#64)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:50:45 AM EST
    time on the Hill being destructive and mean-spirited.  I don't think this is about "young" it is about being infintely better for the country.

    I think I first notice John McCain when he was lobbying against Martin Luther King Day.  He has a long record of both mean-spirited and very dammaging votes - we should use them against him.


    Biden's experience (none / 0) (#68)
    by Howard Zinn on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 10:12:12 AM EST
    doesn't negate the change meme.  Obama should present Biden as someone whom he will consult prior to enacting new legislation.  Framed in a specific rhetorical situation, Obama should say something like, "look, before I send sweeping energy bill to Congress, it will be invaluable to have Biden's perspective on securing buy-in from members of congress. I don't want to send in bills that will fall flat, and Biden has a good sense of what will work and what won't."

    I'm not suggesting that this is the ideal situation, but I do believe that the public will respond best to a convention that has a simple theme that leads to success for the US, coupled with a distinction between that theme and McCain's stances.


    2004 (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:07:44 AM EST
    Dem's wanted to "play nice" too and look what it got us. Unity is as shallow a concept as change is. Everyone wants change as long as it's someone else doing the changing. And unity is fine if you unite behind me.

    We will get more of this from Bill (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by standingup on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:11:16 AM EST
    in his speech tonight.  I just heard on CNN that Bill is going to do a little contrasting of his own.  He reportedly wants to show Obama a little of how he hopes Obama will go forward by showing the difference between Democrats and Republicans.  Clinton did this when he was running a change campaign in 1992 and it's so much more effective than the post partisan schtick.  

    No sure that whatever (none / 0) (#37)
    by MichaelGale on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:20:13 AM EST
    Clinton does, it will be accepted.

    With HIllary and Bill speaking for the Democratic Party, as last night, I am not sure that's what the Obama campaign wants. G I hope so. Last night was really to the point about what Democrats are about and I think the delegates agree.


    Obama (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by standingup on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:39:28 AM EST
    had better make some adjustments.  The polls show the country wants a Democrat but not so sure about Obama.  I think the mistake has been to buy into this partisan gridlock crap that the pundits, media and Republicans have been pushing.  People want change in the form of a Democrat so running away from being a Democrat isn't working.  Reinforce that idea of why a Democratic administration will be better than another Republican.  Run as a Democrat.

    good point (none / 0) (#56)
    by DFLer on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:34:13 AM EST
    The polls show the country wants a Democrat but not so sure about Obama

    I guess I may be too old school, but the non-partisan thing was the first thing that made me question Obama's stances, way back when.

    Like krugamn said in a recent column, it's like bringing a knife to a gun-fight.

    Well, if he and his succeed in changing all this, more power to 'em.

    I however have yet to see the entrenched powers-that-be ever give it up without a bloody fight.


    One has to wonder (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by weltec2 on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:20:31 AM EST
    why Obama can be so easily put on the defensive by these issues. Is it because he, to varying degrees, agrees with McCain?

    These are major issues as outlined by Hillary. His position on NAFTA has been slippery and inconsistant. And then there is FISA... health care... faith based initiatives... SCOTUS appointees... gun control... foreign affairs... and on and on. We all know the problems. But why is he so secretive? Why has he been hiding from McCain all this time? My sense is that he is way more intelligent than McCain. Why did he run away from the small town meetings after saying he was willing to do them? What is he afraid of?

    My sense is that he knows he is not ready for McCain. It isn't a question of intellect. Obama is clearly more intelligent. It is a question of leadership and authority which Obama lacks... and he knows he lacks it. He's a poser, a strutter, and a stage performer who has never been tought to tap dance but who must now tap dance like his life depended on it in front of the whole world.

    Gov. Schweitzer (none / 0) (#1)
    by Lahdee on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:22:15 AM EST
    Did well, but up until his speech we haven't witnessed much good old fashioned red meat. (I swear this post partisan stuff is making me crazy.) Continue this measured, civilized, unpassionate approach to defining Obama and risk losing America's attention for lack of contrast and lack of excitement.

    Yes..liked the Guv too (none / 0) (#26)
    by DFLer on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:58:51 AM EST
    But if one watched MSNBC, one didn't "witness" it at all, as they talked over almost all of it. Complete coverage on PBS and CNN (almost)

    meant to add (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by DFLer on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:00:09 AM EST
    I love the media that won't show the speeches themselves, but will spend all that time telling me what to think about the speeches themselves.

    Well, that would be crazy. (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:23:40 AM EST
    They wouldn't be able to mislead you about what was actually said if you were able to see for yourself what people said.

    Scarborough, Mika and Pat Buchanan have worked their butts off all morning long to totally change the perception of Senator Clinton's speech last night - they had Andrea Mitchelle second guessing her own positive view of the speech by the time they were done with her this morning.

    Thank goodness for CSPAN is all I can say.


    Yes.."We pontificate.. (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by DFLer on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:28:02 AM EST
    and THEN you get to decide...to agree with us.

    I had to go to C-SPAN (none / 0) (#29)
    by chel2551 on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:03:31 AM EST
    to watch.  I couldn't believe the comments by the talking heads as I stopped briefly to listen -  NBC, CBS, ABC, and then the cablies.

    What tripe.


    loved it (none / 0) (#43)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:51:18 AM EST
    third best speech of the convention.  Guy is very likable.

    He was very endearing (none / 0) (#62)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:49:30 AM EST
    Mm hmm. (none / 0) (#2)
    by Pegasus on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:25:01 AM EST
    I remember in May and June, every time Obama mentioned McCain he mentioned Bush too.  Often he just hyphenated them.  And he'd say "Bush's third term" all the freakin' time.  

    Not sure why exactly they got away from that.  It sure was working.

    he was put on the defensive (none / 0) (#5)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:27:17 AM EST
    by the McCain campaign who turned things around to be about Obama. It was clever. The dems need to turn that around back to be about McCain (and Bush-McCain)  every time it happens.

    And in June he was doing it (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:27:23 AM EST
    They lost that easy narrative and I have no idea why.

    Because (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:37:34 AM EST
    first of all, his campaign is inept. Second of all, he never said WHY they are bad. Hillary made the point that that they are bad because of their stances. Obama wants to stick with personal attacks. Obama's campaign has not yet been able to pivot to the general election. They continue to run the same campaign they've been running since Jan.

    And the houses ad was simply a disaster. No other way to put it.


    Obama HAS to stick to personal attacks (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by lambert on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:10:36 AM EST
    When party affiliation doesn't matter, and you won't commit on policy, personal attacks are the only thing left.

    Hopefully, the Convention will (none / 0) (#53)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:30:41 AM EST
    show him the many benefits of being a part of the Democratic family.

    I loved that Hillary Clinton talked about Democrats - defined us - and contrasted us with the opposition.


    The prolem (none / 0) (#8)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:34:57 AM EST
    with Obama's delivery is that he doesn't say WHY Bush's third term is bad. He only states that it's bad and leaves it up to the voter to decide.

    I still (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by tek on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:03:06 AM EST
    believe Obama's been soft on Republicans so far, even extolling Reagan and Bush I against Clinton.  Now he's got a real problem.  If the Republicans have been the great presidents and the Democrats didn't bring any meaningful change, then how does he launch into a resounding condemnation of Dubya?  He created (or Axelrod, more like) this situation and now it's biting him.

    It worries me also that Obama (and surrogates) isn't going to stray that far from Dubya's policies so he doesn't want to hit them too hard. Then too, he's trying to get Republican voters since he divided his own party and if he trounces Dubya it will wipe out that possibility.

    My sister was ready to vote for Hillary, but she still says Bush is personally a good person and a Christian.  There ya go!


    At this point (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:36:41 AM EST
    I'll take even that.

    I understand (none / 0) (#13)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:41:05 AM EST
    where you are coming from on this. However, if Mark Warner's keynote speech is any indication, expect more hopey changey crap, evangelism and purple state crap.

    Warner was taken out of (none / 0) (#18)
    by zfran on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:51:22 AM EST
    "prime time" because he wouldn't give a "red meat" speech against McCain. So I guess they want those kind of McCain bashing speeches, but in a very nice and partisan way. Most of the speakers last night were soooooo boring, even Rendell. Hillary, I thought, blew them all away. Can't wait for Bill!

    Mark Warner is running (none / 0) (#21)
    by MichaelGale on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:54:40 AM EST
    for the Senate from VA.  Politically, it would not be wise to bash McCain.  Obama needs VA,

    I'm getting tired of hearing (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by chel2551 on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:57:56 AM EST
    about dems being too afraid to take a stand, because it might hurt their election chances or they're afraid of the media or the monster under the bed.



    I don't know much about Warner (none / 0) (#34)
    by MichaelGale on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:09:37 AM EST
    does he speak the non partisan message too?

    I agree that it would be nice if Democrats were Democrats and talked like Democrats.  Schweitzer did and he's from Montana.


    His was given the keynote (none / 0) (#58)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:37:45 AM EST
    for the sole purpose of advancing his Senate campaign in VA.

    I thought it was a bit of a waste mostly because Warner is incredibly popular in Virginia and he has the same last name as John Warner who is retiring.  I think his chances of winning are probably better than 90%.

    Warner does bring one thing that is useful to our party which is his interest in rural America - something the Obama campaign sorely lacks - and a constituency that without Edwards doesn't have an obvious champion in the Democratic Party right now.  So he did his job on that front.

    I am glad he went for Senate rather than the presidency this year - because we really would have been overwhelmed by the post partisan stuff with him in the race too.


    I'm really (none / 0) (#31)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:04:43 AM EST
    not complaining about Warner per se. I'm really thinking that his "tone" is what Obama wants--republicans have good ideas too. Republicans really aren't bad, their ideology really isn't bad, they're just misunderstood and were taken in by Bush/Cheney.

    Now, I live in a red state and I realize what Warner is doing is what he has to do to win there.


    I don't tink that will (none / 0) (#15)
    by chel2551 on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:42:36 AM EST
    be enough.  Obama has to prove to voters that America will be better off with dems in charge by being specific, so that his relative inexperience doesn't become the issue.

    loved that part (none / 0) (#3)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:25:38 AM EST
    of the speech. And I agree completely with the approach against McCain. Dead simple.

    I may have my issues (none / 0) (#7)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:33:41 AM EST
    with Obama. And like I've said, I can be convinced. But I absolutely want to see dems shred repubs in every way they can. It should be made clear in the minds of every American how amazingly destructive to this country they have been.

    Of course that will mean McCain would then have to go back to the maverick meme and distance himself as well. Which is possible. And of course none of this will work if Obama can't connect to the 50% of the country we learned from him was Appalachia (snark). But for the love of g*d, please let's have the bushies totally trashed as they deserve.

    I still remember one of Clinton's farewell speeches were he said if you don't think there's much of a difference between the parties, just wait and see what happens. Hmm, that would be a great youtube to put up if it's out there. And of course a great thing for Bill to bring up today as well.

    or where... jeez I hate when that happens (none / 0) (#9)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:35:25 AM EST
    Irony (none / 0) (#54)
    by Angry Black Guy on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:30:48 AM EST
    Clinton fans stating that Obama doesn't know how to run a campaign.

    Now that's funny.

    ABG-how's the campaign doing in the polls lately? (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by DFLer on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:35:36 AM EST
    we will see if those gurus in the Obama (5.00 / 5) (#63)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:49:50 AM EST
    campaign can win a general election.  we know they know how to sling slime for the purposes of winning a primary.  
    yeah, the Clintons did not expect to be called racists by democrats it true.  it caught them completely unprepared.  
    but that wont happen again.  dont worry.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#74)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:19:56 PM EST
    we get it by now.

    Some people (no need to specify who), implied that some people in Amercia are racist. How dare they. It's a completely outrageous allegation that all McPumas need not and should not ever forgive.

    Blacks in America should appreciate how good they have it, Besides, this election is all about giving relief to the middle class (which, despite what some may believe, isnt any kind of code).


    she was great (none / 0) (#59)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:40:41 AM EST
    while she was speaking I really thought we had a chance.

    Powerful in Content, Spellbinding in Delivery-- (none / 0) (#69)
    by KeysDan on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 10:34:22 AM EST
    a truly masterful speech.  It is always interesting to me to listen to the talking heads afterward to "learn" what I saw and  to "know" what I should think.  Several of the Republican commenters acknowledged its cleverness and effectiveness (albeit with an intended maelstrom), while Harold Ford seemed to begrudgingly assent to its greatness, stating that Mrs. Clinton needed, like Mrs. Obama in her address the previous night, to rehabilitate herself as well as indicate her support for Senator Obama.  The congratulatory phone call from Mr. Obama to President Clinton reportedly saying how proud he must be of his wife, just as he was of Michelle's speech, was, to me, a little odd for equating his spouse's performance with the runner-up primary candidate.

    I found a t-shirt site with No Way No How Shirts! (none / 0) (#73)
    by ryanshibbydude on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 01:51:08 PM EST
    I've all ready ordered my t-shirt and sticker!

    This site has plenty of shirts, bumper stickers, buttons, magnets and more proclaiming No Way, No How, No McCain.