McCain Goes Dirty

The Washington Post reports on the smear campaign on multiple fronts Sen. John McCain has launched against Sen. Barack Obama. Most are clearly swift-boating.

Take this one. In the Illinois Senate, Obama voted for a bill that allowed school boards to determine appropriate sex education courses. It didn't specify what kind of program or what ages would receive it.

Kindergarten teachers were given the approval to teach about appropriate and inappropriate touching to combat molestation.

The McCain advertisement calls it "Obama's one accomplishment" in education: "legislation to teach comprehensive sex education to kindergartners." "Learning about sex before learning to read? Barack Obama, wrong on education, wrong for your family," the ad concludes.

So, John McCain opposes teaching kindergartners how to recognize molestation. John McCain doesn't care about preventing sex assaults of children? If I were a parent of a kindergartner, he wouldn't get my vote based on that alone.

Let's face it. These attacks only matter in the swing states. McCain already has the evangelicals, the radical right and Republicans.


Obama may fight for the independents by staying above the fray. Politically, that may be what he needs to do. But I'm not a politician or a strategist. I'm a voter, a citizen and a Democrat. I want competent leadership. I don't want to have to worry that an unqualified VP, chosen for political expediency over the good of the nation, is a heartbeat away from the Presidency.

I'm not trying to reach independents or republicans. I'm not trying to reach women who still feel bruised that Hillary is not the nominee.

My goal is to reach as many Democrats as possible to get the message out that McCain/Palin is a disaster for our values and our democracy and they must not stay home in November.

Voter turnout among Democrats in the swing states could decide the election. It's really whether there are more of them or more of us. They are now energized, due to Palin.

If you are pro-choice, pro-stem cell research, want universal health care and to preserve your social security benefits, want your child to be able to afford college, don't want your child to be at risk of having to go to some foreign land and die in an ill-advised war, if you care about new jobs and the housing crisis, about the high cost of gas and groceries, about the preservation of your constitutional rights, about reducing our over-reliance on incarceration for non-violent crimes, and have any sense of environmentalism, you can't stay home. And you should be spreading the message.

< Big Ten Country Will (Mostly) Go Blue | Late Night: Matt Damon on President Palin >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    100% right Jeralyn (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 11:01:42 PM EST
    Did you see Matt Damon's interview where he discusses Sarah Palin?

    When the Hollywood types can see it, it's pretty obvious.

    Yes, I think it's what got me going on this (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 11:02:51 PM EST
    tonight. In fact, I'll add the clip to a late night post.

    Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by G Davis on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 11:46:33 PM EST
    I have to say you hit the nail on the head here Jeralyn: It's really whether there are more of them or more of us. They are now energized, due to Palin.

    Everywhere I go on the blogs I tell people I pray there are more thinking people that can see how desperately we need serious leadership.

    However one feels about Obama, people must open their eyes to what a disaster McCain would be, let alone when combined with Palin.

    Thank you for your reason.


    Follow up on suppression of AA vote... (5.00 / 0) (#24)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 11:39:04 PM EST
    LINK from Steve M dealing with GOP tactics to disenfranchise AA voters:

    The chairman of the Republican Party in Macomb County Michigan...is planning to use a list of foreclosed homes to block people from voting in the upcoming election as part of the state GOP's effort to challenge some voters on Election Day.

    The Macomb County party's plans to challenge voters who have defaulted on their house payments is likely to disproportionately affect African-Americans who are overwhelmingly Democratic voters. (emphasis added)

    The 2000 election was rife with suppression of Democratic voters, particularly AAs. I've been wondering, for some time, what 'new and improved' tactics the GOP will use to suppress the black vote in this '08 election: where the black vote is more critical to the Dems than it's ever been.

    The GOP's use of the home foreclosure crisis for political profit is unimaginably heinous. This needs to light up the blogosphere, big-time and ASAP.


    By the way (5.00 / 0) (#36)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:06:30 AM EST
    There is little doubt that minorities will be among those affected most flagrantly by the GOP plan, I think it is a political mistake to make race into the focus.  This is not "just" the GOP pulling their typical shenanigans in an inner-city neighborhood, the sort of thing that ought to outrage everyone but somehow gets ignored.  This is the GOP going into an ordinary middle-class suburb and indiscriminately challenging the votes of people of all races who had the misfortune to receive a foreclosure notice.  By downplaying the racial issue, it becomes a personal affront to everyone.

    Except (none / 0) (#52)
    by JAB on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:32:30 AM EST
    Macomb County is almost 92% white, so if they are targeting AA's whose houses have been forclosed there, that will not be very many people.



    I don't think anyone said (none / 0) (#56)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:33:53 AM EST
    that they were targeting African-Americans.

    I was reading this (none / 0) (#60)
    by JAB on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 09:17:12 AM EST
    The Macomb County party's plans to challenge voters who have defaulted on their house payments is likely to disproportionately affect African-Americans who are overwhelmingly Democratic voters. (emphasis added)

    I did. He was great! (none / 0) (#4)
    by coigue on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 11:03:02 PM EST
    Too bad his words will be minimized because he is a celeb.

    wrong link, I'm looking now (none / 0) (#6)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 11:04:04 PM EST
    Correct link is (none / 0) (#8)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 11:08:36 PM EST
    here and I jut put up a new thread on it.

    Matt Damon's interview. (none / 0) (#53)
    by nancywest25 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:38:26 AM EST
    He Is Sooo..RIGHT! Unfortunately there are many people in this world, THAT JUST DO NOT GET IT.
    No, I myself am scared about any McCain ticket.
    I could say a lot on this subject, for many things come to mind. My Bigest complaint is, I do not trust him. I do not trust Palin either.

    NAMBLA John? (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 11:03:46 PM EST
    Seriously, its amazing that John McCain doesn't think children should report sex abuse, you really have to wonder what someone with such odd views truly believes in.

    heh (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by connecticut yankee on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 11:11:41 PM EST
    NAMBLA John.

    Now that is an ad.

    Closes with..

    "John McCain, right for pedophiles, wrong for America".

    Run it two hours before the debate and hope his cork pops.


    Does this REALLY shock ANY of you? (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 11:07:51 PM EST
    Gasp!  The republicans are playing "dirty" politics!  NEWS AT ELEVEN.

    This from the party that had "terra alerts" during the 2004 elections,  had republicans jamming phone lines with GOTV efforts in NH, not to mention the letters being sent out to voters in rural states that John Kerry was going to have the bible banned.

    There is NO shame in the republicans' tactics to win an election.  They know how to win, they just don't know how to govern.

    hm (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by connecticut yankee on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 11:09:31 PM EST
    Andrea Mitchell noted that over the past 36 hourse things were getting mean.  But we all knew it was coming. Republicans run on this stuff every time, not issues.

    IMO, Every day this week Obama should rope the media with a killer attack line while he talks policy.  The media won't pay attention without the drama, you look tough, and you get a policy point across.  You need to pound the medicine down.


    Obama response ad could be... (5.00 / 0) (#11)
    by KVFinn on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 11:12:41 PM EST
    So John McCain is attacking Obama for a bill to protect kindergarters from child predators.  

    Obama response ad: "John McCain defends child predators!"

    Too dirty?  Or fair play in this case because it's a direct response to an attack?

    And it could end with (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 11:17:19 PM EST
    Obama reminding everyone he supports the death penalty for child predators.(Wrongly, in my view, but since he believes it, he might as well own it.)

    An Obama response ad would (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 11:54:15 PM EST
    need to take a purely SOMBER tone. i.e.

    "Perhaps John McCain was 'mistaken'...Senator Obama cares about children. Senator Obama knows that every year in this country x number of children are molested and murdered. That's why Senator Obama passed legislation to protect children; by giving children tools that they can use to help protect themselves from sexual predators. Make no mistake about it, Senator Obama also wants to make the world safe for children through his firm support of the death penalty for child predators...etc."  

    No digs at McCain here: the issue is too serious for political stunts. That's the right tone and message.


    Sorry to say (1.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Miserere mei on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 11:46:23 PM EST
    that you don't have all the facts. The bill was not just about child molestation as Obama is trying to make it seem. The bill was going to teach sex ed that was for 6-12 graders to 5 year olds.

    In Obama's own words he said: "'If they ask a teacher 'where do babies come from,' that providing information that the fact is that it's not a stork is probably not an unhealthy thing."

    Well I disagree. It is up to the parent if they want the child to know where babies come from at 5 years old and when and how to tell them.

    There are articles all over the news sites or on google. Try reading a few to get a balanced look at what McCain said which again sorry to say was correct and the spin Obama came back with - again the bill was not just about molestation.

    Personally I don't think it is the schools place to talk about such things to 5 year olds. It's the parents place. If the school wants to send parents information on how the parent might to talk to their child about such matters then fine, but for a virtual stranger, not a family member, to do so is wrong in my opinion.

    BTW the bill never passed but Obama voted for it in committee.

    Here is the link to an ABC News Article

    The spin coming from both sides is sickening and there is a place for objective truth about what is being said imo.


    Forget Something (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by WillieB on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:01:21 AM EST
    Of course you conveniently forgot to add the next sentence. Local communities and school boards will determine the program.

    And unless you are home schooling your children to protect them from the evil godless world your kids will more than likely know that babies don't come from storks before you tell them.

    "'If they ask a teacher 'where do babies come from,' that providing information that the fact is that it's not a stork is probably not an unhealthy thing. Although again, that's going to be determined on a case by case basis by local communities and local school boards.'"


    I forgot nothing (1.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Miserere mei on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:08:43 AM EST
    I provided the link so you and others could read it. And I pointed out and suggested that there were a lot of other articles available if people would google so they could get a balance view. What more do you want?

    Teachers Are Professionals (none / 0) (#54)
    by liberalone on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:57:21 AM EST
    Telling children that babies do not come from storks is not a dangerous thing.  Kindergarten teachers would use language their students can understand.  Something to the effect of "Babies come from mommies."  Rarely will kindergarten students continue to press further than that response.  If they do, teachers can say something to the effect of "Those are lessons for the future.  Let's concentrate on learning today's lessons."  

    Most teachers genuinely care about their students and most know how to provide information that is factual and appropriate.


    I was shocked (none / 0) (#29)
    by G Davis on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 11:55:37 PM EST
    When my daughter was in middle school years ago, I was shocked to learn there were sexually active kids in her school of about 300 in a very moderate, middle income district.

    I gathered some of her friends around and we had sit downs where we talked about anything they wanted, which was mostly sex or drugs.  I even lost my temper when one of them chimed up that oral sex (she used much more graphic terms) was not sex and you couldn't get anything from doing it!

    It would be great if society could depend on parents to enlighten their children, but they don't.  Then the kids are left with the scars of abortion or disease because their parents are ashamed or inconvenienced or what ever by the problem.

    Also, every school has an opt out for parents that believe as you do.  Your children will be well cared for and tended, not all are.  Should we let them suffer because of how we feel we should parent OUR children?


    OK, but surely the bill has (none / 0) (#30)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 11:57:46 PM EST
    some parts that are incontestably good. Wouldn't that outweigh the parts some people find iffy?

    My personal opinion (none / 0) (#35)
    by Miserere mei on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:05:25 AM EST

    5 years old is too young for any kind of sex ed in school imo. I would not want my five year old daughter being told where babies come from from a female teacher and certainly not from a male teacher. That would be very inappropriate. Nor would I want them to talk about inappropriate touching. A parent can do that just fine.

    I suppose there was a reason it never went to the floor for a vote. My guess is that they received a lot of negative feedback from the parents themselves. They sure would have from me.


    Again (5.00 / 0) (#37)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:07:59 AM EST
    You were shown several times in the other thread how the bill contained an opt-out provision if you really have a problem with your child receiving any information at all.

    The fact that you would be opposed to other people's children receiving information to protect them from sexual assault is just freaky.  But in any event, stop ignoring the facts that you find inconvenient.


    Listen (1.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Miserere mei on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:14:17 AM EST
    I myself posted the fact that it had an opt-out provision so you pointed out nothing that I did not post myself. I purposely included the fact that it had the opt-out provision as part of the partial article I posted along with the link to the entire article as I did here.

    I also pointed out that Obama's response to the McCain add was misleading and disingenuous because it was.

    I also said in this thread that I am tired of the spin from both sides.

    Now quit misrepresenting what you pointed out when what you are claiming was pointed out was something that I in fact posted. Or can't you read?


    You are just lying (none / 0) (#40)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:21:49 AM EST
    and your obsession with repeating your position, over and over and over again, that you don't believe kids should be taught how to avoid sexual predators is very scary.  I'm just going to ignore you and hope you go away.

    Now I know what Obama meant (1.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Miserere mei on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:12:25 AM EST
    by silly season. He should have just held up a picture of you behind your computer, as I see you are almost 24/7, trying to try make yourself to be something by posting on blogs because you have noting else going. Pffft!

    Know what I think of little young children like you trying to act out your manly fantasies and lying about what people post?

    <insert picture of Obama dusting off his shoulders and scratching his nose>


    Nothing else going? (none / 0) (#65)
    by MyLeftMind on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:44:06 PM EST
    People are posting on blogs because they realize this is the most important election in our lifetimes.  Please don't insult other commenters here.  

    If you disagree with the curriculum for five year olds, then opt out at your school.  I teach my kids about their bodies and how to protect themselves from inappropriate touching, and I want the schools to present the same message, especially since some of those kids are sexually abused in their own homes.  


    I'm not surprised (none / 0) (#42)
    by Prabhata on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:44:52 AM EST
    What the hell? (none / 0) (#46)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:35:05 AM EST
    Good point I can see how having an option to learn about these things is uncontestably worse than child molestation.

    Is this the video under discussion? (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 11:19:46 PM EST
    I don't know whether TL linked to this particular McCain ad earlier today. In any case, here's the LINK for anyone who hasn't seen it.

    I found it particularly objectionable when the ad pictures Obama smiling during this voice-over:

    "Obama's one accomplishment [in education]: legislation to teach comprehensive sex education to kindergartners."

    That's pretty low but camp McCain can, and will, go a lot lower.

    yes,and thanks (none / 0) (#20)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 11:24:45 PM EST
    I just added the link to this post.

    Wrong again! (1.00 / 1) (#43)
    by hillaryisbest on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:49:21 AM EST
    The curriculum that was to be taught to the 5 year olds was more than how to avoid molesters.  It included masturbation, gay couples, and other things.  I'm not against sex education but the subject matter was inappropriate for the age level.  Can't Obama just be wrong?  People do make bad judgment calls including Mr. Obama.  Go read about the curriculum and then come back and tell me honestly that it is appropriate for 5 year olds.  A little common sense will go a long way.

    oh, give me a break (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by txpublicdefender on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:27:44 AM EST
    They were not going to teach 5 year olds about masturbation.  That is ludicrous.  It was all going to allow local school boards discretion.  And it was all about age-appropriate sex education.  And it always had a parent opt-out provision.

    This is getting ridiculous.

    And I agree with whoever else said it is absolutely crazy to say that the schools should not be teaching kids about inappropriate touching.  Only the parents should teach that?  Really?  What about the parents that are molesting their kids?  Are you expecting them to teach their kids about it?  And then what are you going to do when those kids start inappropriately touching other kids because this is what they know?  I'll tell you what happens because I have represented those kids in juvenile court.  They get charged with sex crimes and branded a sex offender, and, thanks to the Adam Walsh Child (Non-)Protection Act, they will have to register in a national registry of sex offenders for years.

    Yes, teaching 5-year-olds about inappropriate touching in school is just so terrible and over the line.


    hillaryis best (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:34:50 AM EST
    you are now over the top and suspended. You may not post false information here, and comments opposing the Democratic ticket are limited to four comments a day. You are clearly on the wrong site.

    Nice. (none / 0) (#2)
    by coigue on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 11:02:14 PM EST
    Well said.

    You want to get back on offense? (none / 0) (#12)
    by Steve M on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 11:16:18 PM EST
    This is the Republican outrage that every Democrat should be talking about tomorrow.

    Not likely (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by ChuckieTomato on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 11:20:13 PM EST
    Palin is giving ONE interview, so expect that to dominate the news for another week. Besides, no one cares about voting rights abuses. If they did Florida '00, and Ohio '04 wouldn't have happened.

    Republicans now have the news cycle for as long as they want it, and are playing it like a drum.


    Seriously? (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Steve M on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 11:23:11 PM EST
    You really think no one will care that the Republicans, who did nothing to prevent this housing crisis and have done nothing to help people through it, are now using foreclosure lists as a tool to help themselves stay in power?

    Man, you must not know the same sort of people I know.  I don't think I could find a single person on my block who wouldn't be utterly outraged by this.


    yes (5.00 / 0) (#19)
    by connecticut yankee on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 11:24:19 PM EST
    I agree. It's killer.  

    It's not just about voting abuses, its tying it to the economy and it looks predatory.


    It's not going to stay in the news (2.00 / 0) (#22)
    by ChuckieTomato on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 11:33:10 PM EST
    long enough to have any effect. Palin's interview will dominate this week's news. Has Biden been in the news this week? Do you think he will make any news next week?

    I'll ignore the rest of your remark.


    Wow (none / 0) (#23)
    by Steve M on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 11:38:23 PM EST
    I saw Biden in the news just Wednesday (none / 0) (#51)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:12:54 AM EST
    It was a video clip of him explaining to a crowd that Hillary was completely qualified to be either president or VP and she may have even been a better pick for VP than he was.

    I've been wondering (none / 0) (#32)
    by G Davis on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:00:12 AM EST
    I kind of feel like you do and I've been wondering if there isn't a way to mobilize all these blog participants to bombard the media about their lack of coverage of the media.

    It would be an undertaking, but say TalkLeft joined forces with a couple of like minded blogs to phone, email, generally pester the media until they start doing the one thing the founders asked them to do...inform the electorate.

    Any ideas how to start such a mobilization?


    Sorry, I can't undertake (none / 0) (#41)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:22:47 AM EST
    that kind of thing. It's a good idea and you  might try the activist blogs. TalkLeft is really just a way for me to advocate the things I believe in and get my point of view on issues and candidates across.

    You probably know this, but all three writers here are full time lawyers. (And we probably spend too much time online as it is. )


    good call (none / 0) (#15)
    by connecticut yankee on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 11:20:04 PM EST
    That add writes itself.

    I just gave it it's own post (none / 0) (#17)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 11:22:04 PM EST
    just sickening.

    This issue (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Steve M on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 11:25:35 PM EST
    has virtually unlimited political mileage.  Even the Democrats cannot screw this one up, provided they start talking about it.

    Completely agree. It needs to be (none / 0) (#34)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:02:35 AM EST
    stressed that EVERBODY (black and white) is affected by this use of the home foreclosure list to deny people their ballot.

    Hey Steve (none / 0) (#64)
    by MyLeftMind on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:17:23 PM EST
    Next time I go off on an anti-Bill rant (which I probably won't do again, thanks to your and BTD's feedback) remember that commenters like me do actually contribute a lot to Talkleft.  In spite of our differences, I imagine we have more shared values than differences.  

    On Hannity and Colmes tonight (none / 0) (#31)
    by glanton on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 11:58:10 PM EST
    Sean Hannity went ballistic at the Obama camp's suggestion that McCain is running a dishonorable campaign.

    As we have said a lot recently, this is an important place to hit McCain.  Let them scream, as Hannity did, did you know he was a POW, as much as they want.  McCain has no issues.  He admits he has no issues.  But he does, undeservedly, have association with honor and integrity.  

    Challenge him on his "honor" in a big way, publically, do it in debates even.  Show the public you can back up the charge.  Make him answer for telling the American people he can win the Presidency without even acknowledging the problems they face.  Is he not spitting on this country with the campaign he is running?  

    It has gone beyond McCain=Bush, however so much some cry out that this is all that needs saying, again and again and again.  McCain is going to be Bush on steroids.  Forget Palin's polar bears.  Civil liberties and economic opportunity for the poor, now those will be endangered species.

    Why in God's name isn't Biden pounding away on McCain for the trash he is running, is what I want to know.  I think Obama's running a solid campaign and his handling of the fake outrage today was brilliant as well.  But, Biden needs to get WAY more aggresive.  

    I'm (none / 0) (#48)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 06:32:08 AM EST
    glad people like you are finally realizing that the Bush=McCain line is going nowhere.

    Not sure (none / 0) (#55)
    by glanton on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:07:09 AM EST
    what you mean by people like me.  I've been arguing that we can walk and chew gum at the same time.  It is others who have been arguing that the only thing that works for Obama is saying Bush=McCain.

    He does say Bush=McCain, and he's right, and I believe it does resonate with an electorate hit hard by economy and weary of foreign policy based on bluster and mendacity.  But Americans also need to be told again and again what is particularly mendacious about McCain and about Sarah Palin, since they stand on the cusp of getting their hands on the power; these people at the top of the GOP ticket are dangerous, period.  Obama is doing well on the McCain/no honor front, and he neds to ramp that up.  Biden did good when he said Palin represented a step backwards for women, and we need more of that, too.

    None of this means they can't do all thepositive messaging they want to do.  We could think of it as walking, chewing gum and listening to the IPod all at the same time.  


    Okay (none / 0) (#59)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 09:05:27 AM EST
    then I was mistaken about you. I agree with the "walk and chew gum" idea.

    How You Run Your Campaign (none / 0) (#47)
    by john horse on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 06:14:50 AM EST
    is related to how you will govern.  For example, George Bush ran a dirty campaign and he turned out to be a lying, deceitful President.  Its sad to see McCain sell out like this.

    Some may say that McCain is really a good guy.  That he is only doing what it takes to get elected.  But I say elected to do what?  He has already sold out on almost every one of the positions that he used to differ from his party.

    How you play the game is important.  It defines who you are.  McCain's use of smear tactics may be a matter of necessity but they are also a matter of choice.

    No (none / 0) (#49)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 06:33:48 AM EST
    how you run your campaign does not relate to how you will govern. It tells you a lot about the personality and morals of the person though.

    Schools Should Have had these Laws (none / 0) (#50)
    by nancywest25 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:03:24 AM EST
    I only wish schools had a law, like this law when I was a child. Its hard to get parents to teach you these things, especially if the father is the abuser.
    Maybe Barack Obama, has good common sense.I sure believe he has.

    As usual, Obama's followers (none / 0) (#57)
    by ChrisO on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:50:00 AM EST
    are negating his response to the sex ed ad by making it about race. Over at TPM they're showing a frame from the ad that's an unflattering picture of Obama with the line "Learning About Sex." So what is the predictable response? "They're trying to make him out as a scary black sexual predator." When are these idiots going to learn? The racism charges worked in the primaries because Dems are sensitive to such things to a ridiculous degree. But in the GE, painting Obama as a victim of racism is a loser's game. Apparently, using an unflattering picture of Obama in a campaign is racist, because the picture reminds people that he's black.

    This isn't a complaint about the Obama campaign. To their credit, I don't hear Obama's surrogates (many of whom were the worst assassins of Hillary's character) saying anything about race. I mean, isn't the ad offensive enough without dragging such a loser argument into it?

    How can Obama's supporters complain about the lipstick comment when they see everythng through the prism of race? How is seeing Obama's comment as sexist any different from these stupid racism charges?

    I'm seeing this repeatedly at some of the most widely read blogs, including TPM and HuffPo. I know it's just blog commenters, but the reality is that blogs are where much of the in-depth conversation about politics now takes place, and where the press gets its cues. The response to any criticism of Obama is "why don't they just come out and call him a n*gger?" I hated it when they did it to Hillary, but at least it was a sleazy tactic that worked. Now they're just dragging him down.  

    i agree with the interpretation (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by txpublicdefender on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:10:43 AM EST
    When they show a picture of wolves in the background, and then show a picture of Obama smiling as they say that Obama wants to teach your little children about sex, they are most certainly trying to convey an image of Obama as some kind of creepy predator who wants to sexualize children.  And they are perfectly happy to let the fact that he is black play into that hysteria.

    I think it's only realistic to say that that is the impression they are trying to convey.  Look at this black man who creepily wants to teach your little children about sex.  It's very similar to the ads against Harold Ford in that way.  Make people afraid that the powerful black man is trying to get with your white women.


    Sorry, but there no wolves (none / 0) (#63)
    by tootired on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:13:19 AM EST
    in this ad. The wolves are in the ad about Obama sending lawyers and opposition researchers to Alaska to dig up dirt on Palin. I think the wolves are supposed to be the lawyers. Anyone here offended? ;^)

    ME! (none / 0) (#66)
    by DancingOpossum on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:55:09 PM EST
    I'm offended...but only because wolves, in reality, are not aggressive and do not attack humans. And I happen to love wolves and I hate the perpetration of stupid myths about them which have been used to justify killing them. So I'm offended, yes, but I may be the only person on earth takign that position :)