Sunday Talk Open Thread

I am switching between Meet the Press and ABC's This Week, Charles Schumer is on MTP and Claire McCaskill is on ABC's This Week.

In the first few minutes, we can see the difference between a good surrogate and a bad surrogate. Schumer is talking about how McCain/Palin is running for Bush's Third Term and ticks off the issues, the economy, foreign policy, energy policy, etc. Schumer's line "McCain/Palin is NOT change from George Bush." Pitch perfect.

McCaskill (going against Carly Fiorina) spent the top of the show attacking Sarah Palin. She is awful. Just awful. She has to be taken off the surrogate circuit.

This is an Open Thread.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< SNL: Palin (Fey) and Clinton (Poehler) | 9/14 - The Polls >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    In "It's a Wonderful Life" (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by tootired on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 08:18:27 AM EST
    every time a bell rings, an angel gets its wings. In this life every time Claire opens her mouth, another woman votes for McCain.

    In my opinion, there are three (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by andgarden on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 08:26:05 AM EST
    Americans who have successfully won a national American election in the modern political climate: Bill Clinton, Karl Rove, and Chuck Schumer.  

    Schumer ran against Bush in 2006 (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 08:29:57 AM EST
    I made this point in my post about Kos' reaction to the "concern trolling.".

    Schumer got a candidate as uninspiring (none / 0) (#7)
    by andgarden on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 08:32:55 AM EST
    as Jim Webb over the finish line in Virginia. I think it would be great if David Axelrod would listen to him.

    I'm fascinated that you think (none / 0) (#29)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 10:05:44 AM EST
    that Jim Webb was uninspiring given the times and the area of the country he was elected in.

    Like watching paint dry (none / 0) (#34)
    by andgarden on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 10:16:32 AM EST
    and he hates to campaign.

    I thought he was a good choice for (none / 0) (#40)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 10:27:46 AM EST
    Virginia and the issues of the day but I do agree that there isn't a lot of imagination to him.  I didn't know that he hated political campaigning but he didn't look like he was having a field day.  He is very soldierly still, I loved how he went in alone to bang the gavel and shut down Bush's recess appointments.  It was a hoot, Jim's our warrior every single day still standing on that wall mostly alone.  He isn't the stuff of dreams.  He won't be inspiring us to make any lunar landings but who else could they have talked into to doing that so the rest of them could take off? :)

    I judge a Dem's success in part by how much (none / 0) (#45)
    by ruffian on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 10:38:30 AM EST
    my Republican co-workers hate them.  They actually spit when talking about Schumer.

    Thanks For The Heads-Up (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by JimWash08 on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 08:48:45 AM EST
    I was going to tune in to ABC This Week, but I'd rather stick BBQ skewers in my ears than hear McCaskill speak. She is such a disgusting person through-and-through.

    I'm watching Fox News Sunday, though I missed the full debate between the Ala. Lt. Gov. and the Former Ala. Dem. Gov.

    I'll be tuning in to Late Edition though.

    • Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R),
    • New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson (D),
    • Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA),
    • Republican strategist Alex Castellanos,
    • Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen, and
    • Washington Times' editorialist Tara Wall

    Though I see an imbalance in surrogates there, but what else can you expect from CNN these days. Pfft.

    Better save a skewer (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by ruffian on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 10:20:11 AM EST
    for when Bill Richardson is on!  

    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by sas on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 01:10:34 PM EST
    while you are rightfully skewering McCaskill, please skewer Richardson.

    These are two people the Democrats should never allow out in public.


    But...but...isn't Claire Obama's political soul (none / 0) (#75)
    by hairspray on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 09:12:47 PM EST

    The whole thing amazes me (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 09:21:43 AM EST
    By whole thing, I mean the primaries, the labels, the blogs, the distortions.
    Why is it that the so called "liberal left" LOVED and adored Blue Dog Dems like Webb and McCaskill and hated Hillary?  Can anyone explain this to me?

    I mean I don't get it. I did not agree with Hillary 100% of the time on 100% of the issues.  I believe however, she is the smartest of the ones that ran, had the best work ethic and could multitask better than all her opponents put together.  But the so called "liberal left" trashed her for being a "war monger", too far to the right and yet they tripped over themselves with their adoration for those much more to the right of Hillary.  

    Hillary was trashed for "triangulating"....while Obama and his blue dog supporters constantly "reach out."  

    I KNOW...the primaries are over.  But why the heck do we get surrogates like McGaskill as spokesperson for Obama on the tube.  She's awful and if she represents the left, then all I cam say is HUH????

    The blue dogs got us into (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 10:15:24 AM EST
    some reddish spaces, it does excite me to see that happen when it does.  Many lefty blogs wanted out of what they perceived as the Clinton machine.  It seems that we will all accept the triangulating of others when it works in ways we deem beneficial to ourselves and our belief system.  Bill did some triangulating though that made many Dems furious.....welfare reform and NAFTA some of the biggies.

    In a democracy (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 10:48:32 AM EST
    "triangulating" is a necessary evil.  One cannot get things done without figuring out what can get passed and what has no chance.  When the Clinton's did it, the left called them evil.  When Obama or Webb or McCaskill did it, it was smart politics.
    Double standards on the right are hard enough...when it comes from the left, it is disgusting.
    I had no problem with the blue dogs..I understand they are a better alternative than their red, conservative competition.  My problem is with the adoration of the left for politicians to the right of a democrat they openly trashed. Hypocrisy stinks.  Sanctimonious hypocrisy from the left was nauseating.

    Bill's welfare reform came about because the media machines of Reagan convinced Americans overwhelmingly that "welfare cheating" was the norm...while ignoring the cheating of the big business.  More people got angrier about some poor person using Food Stamps for the "wrong" things, or selling them than they did over the S&L cheating of the Bush family, or the Enron mess.  

    As for NAFTA, I won't blame that all on the Clintons.  There are problems with free trade but the reality is that genie is out of the bottle.  Bill and/or Hillary have admitted that they made some mistakes and that there needs to be more regulation with world trade.  But BUSH  has sold our debt to China and India. How to we regulate with countries that own our debt?


    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 11:16:49 AM EST
    Didn't BTD used to call that Clinton Derangement Syndrome?

    Yea he did (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 11:23:50 AM EST
    I do too....
    I just thought before the primaries CDS was a disease of the neocon and/or evangelical right wing.  Turns out many "lefties" are afflicted also.

    Don't scapegoat Liberals for indulgent RW Dems (5.00 / 5) (#67)
    by Ellie on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 03:26:26 PM EST
    ... including Obama and his supporters, who would rather extol the virtues of Ronald Reagan and denounce core Dem values and Dem successes than support a longtime loyal Dem like Sen Clinton when she was being hit with a barrage of unprecedented bigotry and misogyny.

    Obama is not a Liberal, nor are those who assisted him during one of the ugliest and longest sprees of untrammeled sexism I've ever witnessed. It will be a long time before I forget it, no matter how many female Dems get trotted out to give Obama the thumbs-up.


    I'm wondering what makes you think (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by lizpolaris on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 09:33:07 AM EST
    that McCaskill wasn't explicitly directed to go on the show and attack Palin?  We heard a few days ago that the Obama campaign intended to use female surrogates to 'take her on' or whatever the euphemism was.  I think her attack is Obama campaign strategy.  It's hard to imagine McCaskill going on a national Sunday show as a surrogate and winging it with her own opinions and agenda.

    An incident (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 09:36:22 AM EST
    So yesterday I was at the grocery store and ran into an acquaintance with her mother and her aunt.  They are all Obama supporters (mostly because of Iraq).  So they asked me how I was feeling. I told them I was still angry with the democratic party but that I was not clueless and would never vote for McCain. I then reiterated succinctly about my disgust for the democratic party's refusal to stand up to the sexism Hillary faced and for the DNC's unfair behind the scenes machinations.

    So the man behind the counter where I was headed overheard part of our conversation.  When I got to him to do my business, he said "Finally they get a woman and all they can do is use sexism against her...I can't believe how she IS being insulted by the democrats."  So I looked at him and said, "Do you mean Hillary or Sarah Palin?" ( I just intuitively knew he was talking of Palin).  
    He responds "Palin"...somewhat shocked by my question.

    I answered, "Understand this...I resent sexism against any woman, democratic or republican.  But I was talking about Hillary.  As for Palin, she is a woman but she is no feminist and I will not be voting for any candidate, male or female, who thinks my right to choice, whether in my beliefs or over my body, can be dictated by her beliefs.
    Anyway," I continued, "as a lifelong democrat, it will be a cold day in hell before I would ever vote for McCain."

    Now this guy was about my age and caucasian.  My friends with whom I spoke were Native American and Caucasian and both female.  I think it was funny because he assumed I was a republican....and I think he expected a totally different response.

    Then he finally asked.  "What do you mean by choice?"
      So I explained a little after he said, "You know she made a choice to have the baby even after knowing about the Downs..."
    "And that's great," I smiled as I retorted. "Unfortunately I don't think the republican party wants me to have the same choices since I do not have their same belief system."

    He said nothing. We did our business and I left.

    I love that story more and more ... (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Ellie on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 03:33:43 PM EST
    ... each time I hear it.

    Now this guy was about my age and caucasian.  My friends with whom I spoke were Native American and Caucasian and both female.

    Clearly you covered all bases.


    Women like me (5.00 / 5) (#22)
    by Bourges on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 09:42:28 AM EST
    whose hearts still belong to Hillary Clinton but who are determined to vote for and support Barrack Obama for all the "right" reasons are faced with a hard choice when seeing Carly versus Claire.  Initial reaction:  Claire is utterly worthless as an advocate and inspires the opposite of what she wants to achieve.  Carly on the other hand was forceful and convincing.

    Brokaw: Jesus Christ was a community organizer. (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by karmadillo on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 10:01:26 AM EST
    I hope I misheard this, as I was messing with the computer while listening, but Tom Brokaw apparently pointed this out when reprimanding Giuliani for speaking disparagingly of Obama's community organizing background. Of course, Jesus Christ didn't abandon community organizing for law school and the opportunity to hook up with the likes of Tony Rezko and million dollar houses, but I guess that's just quibbling.

    And how does comparing Jesus to Obama Help? (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by GeekLove08 on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 10:04:44 AM EST
    oh yeah, he's THE ONE.

    Hope Tom did not remind us that Jesus was killed (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by ruffian on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 10:29:21 AM EST
    He would not like to be the object of a Very Special Comment.

    Susan Sarandon went one idiot-point further ... (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by Ellie on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 03:49:52 PM EST
    ... and said that Jesus was a community organizer but Pilate was a governor. Wow, well that settles things.

    BUT WAIT!! Jesus believed in tax cuts and Peter was a fisherman. (Oh, and Judas was a redhead.)

    I guess we're back at square one.


    Jesus's attitude about taxes... (none / 0) (#74)
    by Pol C on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 05:00:46 PM EST
    ...was that people needed to shut up and quite whining about them, as God didn't care about their taxes. "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's."

    Chuck Todd works for Obama, correct? (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by kenosharick on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 10:20:18 AM EST
    On MTP, he talked about the "good news" that Obama was holding steady in the West, and the "bad news" that Wis and Mich have moved from the Obama column to toss-up. Any day now I expect the NBC/MSNBC "news" teams to start wearing Obama buttons.

    Booted up the laptop specifically (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by ruffian on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 10:26:56 AM EST
    to comment on McCaskill - glad BTD saw it too.

    Did she gain Obama even one vote in the primaries? Why is she still out there?  She hurts him.  A lot.  Especially when paired up with Fiorina who has a clear grasp of the latest news, trends, and talking points, such as the statistic about McCain v Obama's Senate staff pay.

    Like a commenter above, I have worked very hard to 'get over it' and support Obama. McCaskill takes me a few steps backwards.

    Sorry I missed Shumer - I'l catch the replay on cspanradio later.

    Glad I'm not alone. I turned on the computer (none / 0) (#46)
    by Teresa on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 10:45:47 AM EST
    for the first time since Thursday, I think (I'm sick as a dog) just to see if I'm still just bitter.

    I plan on voting the way you are but Claire only brings back really bad memories and I found myself going back to the primary and feeling very anti-Obama.


    I just have to remind myself that I love (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by ruffian on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 10:59:34 AM EST
    the Constitution more than I am disappointed in  Obama.  Even then, when he voted for FISA he almost lost me again.  But McCain and his Republican cabal would be worse.

    Hope you are feeling better - turn off the computer if politics just makes you sicker ;-)


    Paul Begala gets it (5.00 / 4) (#44)
    by ruffian on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 10:34:54 AM EST
    Running against Palin instead of McCain the wrong approach for Dems. He points of that Dems beat Agnew and Quayle , but not Nixon and GHWB.

    Feinstein not much better than McCaskill (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by ruffian on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 11:17:58 AM EST
    In case anyone thinks I am only picking on the Obama primary supporters.

    It is clear that the female surrogates were sent out to attack Palin. Dumb, dumb, dumb.  San Francisco has more people than Alaska.  Great point, Diane.  good lord.

    I'm beginning to (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by ccpup on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 11:20:53 AM EST
    get writer's cramp typing "flat-footed" and "tone-deaf" while assigning adjectives -- and hyphenated ones, at that! -- to Team Obama.

    Ugh, ugh and double ugh.


    Agreed (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by chrisvee on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 11:25:29 AM EST
    She took a discussion of Palin's position on drilling and turned it to an attack of Palin's qualifications/character. I walked out of the room. I would have stayed for a discussion of the issue or an attempt to refute Palin's points.

    Even now (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by rooge04 on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 12:35:39 PM EST
    Hillary supporters are the only ones saying the right things. Schumer, Begala etc.  How come they know how to go after McCain and Obama surrogates like that dope McCaskill cannot stop themselves from attacking Palin. It boggles the mind.

    Schumer wasn't so great (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 12:52:34 PM EST
    He threw those same idiotic talking points at Palin during MTP, and he sounded as petty and narrow as everyone else playing the Palin is dangerous game. Even his delivery was approaching that hyperventilation level that is enough to make people tune out and decide this is more about fear for Obama than fear of Palin.

    As (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by sas on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 01:17:23 PM EST
    a former Hillary supporter, and political Independent, people are interested in obtaining my vote.

    I have to tell you that it GALLS me to no end, that the Obama campaign is sending out women to trash Sarah Palin.

    It also galls me that he is depending on Hillary and Bill to campaign for him.

    Is he such a weak candidate that he cannot speak for himself, or carry his own water?  Does he or does he not have the issues on his side?

    That is precisely what it looks like (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by lizpolaris on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 04:38:46 PM EST
    to independent voters.  Once again, Obama sends out others to trash talk a woman he can't face alone.  How would he stand up to McCain?  Not well - since he's ducked direct debates or town halls.  Talk about looking weak-kneed.

    When is this guy going to stand up?  I'm embarrassed for my party.


    Rant alert (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 01:24:08 PM EST
    Going through the stacked up email and Ted Kennedy sent out an email about the spirit of service and joining him and Orrin Hatch in their intro of the "Serving America Act".  NO Teddy, NO Orrin......no Serving America Act until the Congress you both belong to gets its Act together and everyone comes home from Iraq.  Lots of people have been serving America and both parties have used them and used them and used them (some of them completely up) for their own political gain and nothing more.  Many tax payers have served you and served you and served you and now there is no IRA to retire on because we have all been robbed blind.  NOPE.........you guys serve first and we'll see about returning that serve!!!!!!

    I sort of wonder who's in charge here. (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by lilburro on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 02:19:52 PM EST
    I don't know how much coaching the surrogates receieve before they go on, but if someone in the Obama campaign is telling McCaskill to attack Palin, and someone is telling Schumer to do otherwise, that reflects poorly on the whole Obama campaign no matter how great Schumer is.  Two messages, two channels?

    How is the Obama team going to get media attention if they can't stay organized?

    McCain surrogate... (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by prose on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 03:46:00 PM EST
    today said, without blushing, that Obama has lobbyists in his campaign too.  He also said that lobbyists aren't really that bad and it would be silly for anyone to make a big deal out of lobbyists (does the McCain campaign just think America isn't paying attention?).  

    I think this is going to be a GREAT week for team Obama.

    A little research (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 04:48:03 PM EST
    They may have an argument:
    PACs and lobbyists aided Obama's rise

    The claim was that he had lobbyists (none / 0) (#76)
    by prose on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 09:20:19 PM EST
    in his campaign committee - implication was that lobbyists were advising him.  This is not true.

    I don't know if this is currently true (none / 0) (#77)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 09:32:04 PM EST
    But a little research shows Obama campaign has had lobbyist on staff in the past.

    Honestly personally I think the whole lobbyist issue is a smoke screen. We are blaming the people who lobby for the decision lawmakers and others make. Its not like the lobbyist carry guns (well, unless they are NRA lobbyist!).


    The original argument from Obama... (none / 0) (#78)
    by prose on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 10:44:27 PM EST
    isn't really about lobbyists - its about McCain's hypocrisy.  Lobbyists are a McCain issue.  

    Oh, and Obama only raised $66M this month. (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 08:27:55 AM EST

    Not enough.

    Probably (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 01:07:48 PM EST
    why he's closing down shop in a lot of places. Kind of a bad state to be in at this late date isn't it?

    Not enough (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 08:29:15 AM EST
    I agree.

    I expected a $100M month (none / 0) (#6)
    by andgarden on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 08:31:30 AM EST
    I stopped expecting it (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 08:34:06 AM EST
    when they did not announce it the first week in September.

    Frankly, I was worried it was in the 50s again.


    Yeah (none / 0) (#9)
    by andgarden on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 08:36:15 AM EST
    I was not impressed that he had no announcement to break McCain's momentum.

    And of course, he would have raised much more had he put Hillary on the ticket.


    But if you read the comments, they think Obama (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by GeekLove08 on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 09:36:04 AM EST
    did great.  

    $66 million for Obama - $47 million for McCain
    = $19 million

    That then is offset by $84 million to McCain for public finance.  Also, let's not forget, McCain won the RNC nomination on a shoestring budget.  Hillary won OHIO and PA being outspent by Obama.


    And FWIW (none / 0) (#10)
    by andgarden on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 08:37:46 AM EST
    Ras says McCain 50, Obama 47.

    Who's ready to lead? (none / 0) (#11)
    by ctrenta on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 08:47:07 AM EST
    MTP also showed the latest pole on who's qualified to lead the country. McCain clearly lead Obama. Can't remember the difference but it was something like 12- 14 percentage points. I'm thinking the general public's attitude toward Obama (at least on this characteristic) is starting to stick with people. Not good for the Obama camp. They better think of something fast because this is an important qualification many people consider when they go to the voting booths. Am I right?

    big surprise (none / 0) (#13)
    by borisbor on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 09:09:56 AM EST
    you like the former hillary surrogate vs the obama surrogate.

    wow such big props for schumer for using the third term line. really? it was that impressive?

    Yes, because the surrogates (none / 0) (#18)
    by lizpolaris on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 09:35:21 AM EST
    and the Obama campaign are so rarely staying on message.

    Claire is just awful, Carly is doing a decent job. (none / 0) (#14)
    by GeekLove08 on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 09:18:13 AM EST
    The more Palin is discussed and the more the focus is on Palin, the less focus is on Obama.  And, I think that he does not perform well without the spotlight.  With all the focus on Palin, people are left to wonder why vote Obama?  Surrogates like Claire aren't helping.  Also, maybe because I was a Hillary supporter, but every time she speaks, I just roll my eyes.  Maybe having surrogates who were anti-Clinton out there now isn't going to help either.

    Watching the clip of Palin on Hillary again, I can't help but react angrily at the obvious derision on contempt on Charlie's face.  Ughh. There goes more votes to Palin.

    On another note, BTD- how did you see the interviews before the broadcast?

    Democrats/Obama's failure to address sexism (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by GeekLove08 on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 09:28:17 AM EST
    was a big mistake.  And using sexism against Palin an even bigger mistake.

    Claire: This is a ticket not good for equal pay for equal work.
    Clarly: McCain walks the walk.  Look at Senate pay. Woman are paid more in McCain's Office.  Less in Obama's office.
    Claire's response:  What about Roe v. Wade?

    I am getting tired of hearing the off-topic insertion of Roe v. Wade as the knee jerk response.


    So I Ended Up Watching ABC This Week (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by JimWash08 on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 09:37:43 AM EST
    But only to see McCaskill look like a complete fool.

    Fiorina wiped the floor with her, staying calm and collected and laying out the information for the viewers to digest. McCaskill looked so disorganized in her thoughts and oration, and seemed to be reaching for arguments ...

    "Oh, and you want to talk about honesty, George?" and she'd babble something before throwing out something new and so random and try to shape that up as some argument.

    Fiorina stuck a fork in McCaskill and told her she was done when she said women will not be allow the Democrats to take them hostage with issues on reproductive rights and Roe v. Wade.

    If Fiorina is coaching Palin on how to steer the debate as cooly and straightforward as she did with McCaskill today, Biden better be prepared on Oct. 2.


    Fiorina beat McCaskill like a drum on MTP (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by esmense on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 10:05:20 AM EST
    several weeks ago. I don't understand why the campaign thought it was a good idea to pair them together again.

    regardless of what the (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by ccpup on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 10:16:46 AM EST
    campaign thought in putting McCaskill out there to speak for Obama, I keep getting the overwhelming sense that Team Obama is flailing about and not really aware of what they're doing, why they're doing it and what the next step is.

    I suspect they locked up the Nomination and their next order of business was the Convention (which would explain Barack's Hawaiian vacation).  And, after the Convention, their next focus was on the Inauguration, for which I'm sure a speech is being written right now.

    But they seem to have forgotten that in the midst of all of this, though, is a real race against a Party which has no hesitation in taking the Low Road.  

    Thing is, Barack has been giving them so much ammunition with mistake after mistake and WORM after WORM they never need to TAKE the low road.  They just expound upon Team Obama's Flat-footed, Tone-Deaf Political Move of the Day and watch the poll numbers rise.

    Obama apparently bought his own spin and assumed the White House was his.  Now he's looking at the State Polls tilt in McCain's favor, the Electoral College numbers favor McCain and the real possibility that he might lose this and it appears as if he -- and his Team -- doesn't know what to do.


    yep. (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by rise hillary rise on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 11:20:10 AM EST
    it's hard not to see it that way, what with the "seal" and the headrest on the plane with the "president" embroidered on it.

    I think team O was expecting a cakewalk to the Coronation, kind of like his Senate race. he forced Alice Palmer out, then Ryan (still want to know how they got those divorce records unsealed btw) and then all the weeks of pushing Hillary to get out so he could cruise unopposed. Now he has a real fight on his hands.

    to me (not on the O train) this would be the true test of leadership. if he can turn this around and win on the merits by the GE, then I'll consider voting for him. I don't think that he's yet demonstrated the quality of leadership sufficiently, despite everything that he says about "running" his campaign. he's not running the campaign, he's the "product."

    "obama:not as bad as mccain" is NOT a winning strategy. if what we have in the next 8 weeks is more of this weak stuff, then Cynthia McKinney gets my vote.


    McCaskill (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by chrisvee on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 10:29:58 AM EST
    was awful and I agree with BTD that she needs to be taken off the surrogate circuit.  Fiorina cleaned her clock and I think that happened in large part because Fiorina sounded more in tune with the issues that concern women. She scored big points with her rebuttal on Roe v. Wade that women are just like men -- we aren't single issue voters.  

    The problem is that while the Democratic Party is better on the merits than the Republican on women's issues, there's a growing feeling amongst women that the party takes them for granted. If the Republicans can capitalize on that (despite their admittedly craven motivations in doing so) they may pry enough women away to matter in a close race.


    it's very sad to say (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by ccpup on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 11:18:51 AM EST
    that the "growing feeling" women have that the Democratic Party takes them for granted was borne out by real life actions with consequences in the Primary and still continues, more or less, to this day.

    When Democratic Party leaders insist that either they don't need our votes because they'll have new ones or we -- and, although male, I stand in indignant solidarity against stupidity in any form -- have nowhere else to go, then, yeah, the Woman Vote (and Gay Vote and probably even African American Vote) is being taken for granted.

    I predict this will be the LAST time the Democratic Party assumes their Base will follow along like good little lemmings and vote for whoever has a (D) behind their name just 'cause we were told to.

    Maybe they're realizing we're smarter than that and, maybe even, actually smarter than them!


    and, apparently, (5.00 / 6) (#23)
    by ccpup on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 09:42:33 AM EST
    the question of why women in Obama's office are paid less than the ones in McCain's office (as your excerpt indicated) goes either unchallenged or unanswered.  

    Clumsily inserting Roe v. Wade as a distraction instead of answering the question won't erase that "factoid" -- and I only put it in quotes because I don't know if the disparity in pay is true or not -- from most people's memories.


    "Obama's female staffers shortchanged" (5.00 / 6) (#24)
    by GeekLove08 on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 09:56:49 AM EST
    per Boston Herald 9/13/08:

    on average, Obama's female staffers earn just 83 cents for every dollar his male staffers make.

    On average, according to these data, women in McCain's office make $1.04 for every dollar a man makes.

    In short, these statistics suggest that McCain is more than fair with his female employees, while Obama - at the expense of the women who work for him - quietly perpetuates the very same pay-equity divide that he loudly denounces.
    Of all people, the Democratic standard bearer should understand that equal pay begins at home.

    This story has been out.  There is a National Review Article from 9/12.  If Obama or his surrogates are going to bring up equal pay, they need to be prepared to answer why this disparity.


    thank you (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by ccpup on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 10:05:01 AM EST
    for the clarification.  I so rarely read or watch anything political these days -- save for occasional shots of BTD on TL -- I was unaware this was an ongoing story.

    It's more than embarrassing to have a Dem candidate running for President who pays less to his female staffers than the Rep candidate.  It's even worse when it makes the headlines and any change in pay on the Dem side will look like political expediency and an avoidance of continuing embarrassement than actually doing the right thing.

    And Obama still wonders why women are drifting en masse to the McCain column?


    Exactly. And what about Roe v. Wade is not working (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by GeekLove08 on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 10:15:53 AM EST
    It's more than embarrassing to have a Dem candidate running for President who pays less to his female staffers than the Rep candidate.

    And for the Hillary supporters, overlooking Hillary as VP.  By the way, Hillary's stats on paying female staffers are in line with McCain's. (Can't find link right now, but this fact should come as no surprise.)

    Also, here's a link to an article from June 30, CBSNews.

    And I still do not know if Obama or his surrogates have addressed this disparity.  I'd like to know the answer.


    My husband just reminded me (none / 0) (#30)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 10:09:26 AM EST
    that the one time I did attempt to listen to Sarah Palin she said nucular and I fell over on the sofa seizing.  I'm not a Palinpaloozaer, but I just couldn't beleive that this could happen to me twice in a lifetime on national television.

    It's irritating, but sadly she's not alone (none / 0) (#36)
    by GeekLove08 on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 10:19:42 AM EST
    U.S. presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush have all used this pronunciation.



    I can understand how (none / 0) (#43)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 10:32:54 AM EST
    Southerners end up making the pronunciation, it goes with the vernacular.

    Don't blame this one on the South. (none / 0) (#73)
    by lizpolaris on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 04:52:07 PM EST
    I heard that the pronunciation is acceptable considered a variant!  GAH!

    I guess I'll pay a visit to my "relator" (realtor).


    LOL of the day (none / 0) (#49)
    by ruffian on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 11:00:57 AM EST
    ABCs new ad touting Charlie Gibson as the political reporter of the year.

    thanks, I needed that.

    The McCain MO Regarding Lying (none / 0) (#53)
    by john horse on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 11:19:31 AM EST
    By now we know the MO of the McCain campaign regarding the true charge that they are lying and running a negative campaign.

    Their response is to point the finger at Obama and make some counter-claim about something that Obama supposedly did.

    As most parents know, pointing the finger at others is the tactic used by children to get out of trouble when caught red-handed.

    And of course McCain's pointing the finger at Obama does not excuse McCain's behavior and whenever they use this tactic they should be called on it.  A person of honor does not let the actions of others affect what he or she does.

    As in (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by sas on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 01:35:29 PM EST
    Obama's response after using the "lipstick on a pig phrase"....

    "Well, McCain used it too, when he was talking about Hillary's health plan"?  

    You mean that kind of argument?


    Matt Damon's mockery (none / 0) (#58)
    by ding7777 on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 11:28:42 AM EST
    Had Damon mocked Muslims (7 virgins awaiting you in heaven) or mocked Christians (Virgin birth) there would have been a huge outcry but his mockery of Creationists and dinosaurs 4 thousand years ago vanished quickly...