I know many of you, like myself, have been disappointed with a few of the votes cast recently by Barack Obama; specifically FISA. To some extent, the bloom is off the rose a bit. However, chalk me up in the group of people that believes this is actually a good thing. I've never been too big a fan of placing all my eggs in one basket. Barack Obama is the leader of the Democratic Party, which means his success translates to the implementation of a Democratic Party political agenda. As of now, that is a political agenda that is vastly more popular than the initiatives being pushed by Republicans. It is imperative that we provide Barack with the means to effectively respond to the upcoming ad blitz.
I've seen this movie before and I don't particularly like the ending the first time. The Republicans are gearing up for a massive August ad blitz that will be used to "define" Sen. Obama. One of the disadvantages to being relatively new to the national political landscape is that Barack is more susceptible to being biographically "defined" by the Republican Party. Here's a rundown of how the Republican ad blitz will unfold; I can name that tune in about five notes:
HUSSEIN!!
PATRIOTISM!!
DOESN'T SHARE YOUR VALUES!!
SCARY BLACK PREACHER!!
SECRET MUSLIM!! Let's not lose the forest for the trees. If you, like myself, have been disappointed with Barack's recent specific votes, I'd ask you to consider donating to the following causes instead: 1. Securing universal [or, at a minimum, near universal] health care. 2. Securing [or frankly, even caring about & movings towards] energy independence. 3. Veterans Benefits [Veterans are quickly becoming the new Republican Party version of a fetus--they care about you from conception to birth, but after that, you're on your own]. 4. Ending the war in Iraq [as opposed to the hallucinatory idea that we should maintain a large, long-term presence ala Korea/Germany]. 5. Not instigating a war with Iran. 6. Progressive taxation. 7. Women's reproductive choice. 8. Bringing back some semblance of government regulation [as opposed to the ridiculous, Phil Gramm, 'let-the-free-market' dictate everything form of conservatism]. 9. Allowing poor John Paul Stevens to retire [for the love of god, the man's about 673 years old--can we please elect a Democrat? I think he'd might like to step down]. 10. Fiscal responsibility [some might say sanity]. There are obviously many others, but I'm sure that everyone gets the drift; especially if you're either a registered Democrat or Independent. Please use the link below to donate [or go to the website itself if not comfortable using mine]. Thanks. Hope everyone has a fantastic weekend. Take care and, as always, keep up the good work. http://my.barackobama.com/page/outreach/view/main/JeffCronin Sincerely, Jeff Cronin
Deborah Powell, the Washington Post's ombudsman, responded to criticism the Post had received for its article concerning Barack Obama's home mortgage.
The story that originated the criticism ran on page A3 of the July 2nd paper & was titled: "Obama Got Discount on Home Loan."
Where do I even begin with both the story and Howell's analysis of the story? Neither of the articles are exactly moving targets.
I won't even dissect the original WaPo article, which was a gutter-level smear through innuendo masquerading as investigative journalism.
Howell provides some context under which the original story was written, but gets to the meat of her analysis near the end of her critique. The circular logic is simply priceless.
In the second to last paragraph, Howell states:
Readers deserve to know everything pertinent The Post can find out about Barack Obama and John McCain's finances. In that context [the public deserving to know everything pertinent--brackets mine] and in the context of the home mortgage crisis, the story had news value.
Moving to the last paragraph, Howell concludes:
Still, the story had a negative cast to it. It also lacked the important context that other wealthy and savvy borrowers could have done as well under similar circumstances.
Let me attempt to wrap my noodle around those two statements. Think about those sentences for a moment.
I, the reader, as a member of the public, deserve to know everything pertinent about public officials getting sweetheart deals, specifically, I assume, because of the home mortgage crisis. In that context, Howell writes that "the story had news value".
Howell then pivots off of that statement to conclude that "other wealthy and savvy borrowers could have done as well under similar circumstances" [could have done just as well=no sweetheart deal].
So, unless I'm completely dense, Howell has just admitted that "the story had a negative cast to it" while maintaining its newsworthiness. Ostensibly, Howell admits that the condition that needed to exist [Sen. Obama receiving a sweetheart deal] for the story to be pertinent did not, in fact, exist.
This article was a hit piece.
I'm sure that it wasn't meant to be a hit piece. I'm sure that everyone involved had the best journalistic intentions, although I'm not sure what is worse: the smear by innuendo nature of the article or Howell's insistence that it was "newsworthy".
I was reading through a message board of a Jake Tapper story the other day concerning Sen. McCain and his Pittsburgh Steelers comments. There were multiple posts in which the posters trotted out all the greatest hits: "Rezko", Bitter-Gate", "Lapel Pin" & "Michelle not Proud of America" to diminish Sen. Obama.
However, now they had a new one--"Sweetheart Deal". Short. Easy to understand. Encapsulating multiple problems and themes into one word.
You can't put the genie back into the bottle now, WaPo [not that you're even trying]. Howell should be ashamed of this story and the implications it has for the quality of journalism at WaPo in that it was able to make it to press. This story should have been killed.
And it's, frankly, the type of hit-piece that someone needs to lose their job over. And people wonder why readers are abandoning newspapers in droves.
VOTE. VOLUNTEER. DONATE.
Ridiculing the McCain campaign for their performance this week is a bit akin to being set loose at a pinata, except with a big club and no blindfold. The McCain campaign is the political equivalent of low-hanging fruit.
That said, one thing that I have never criticized John McCain for is the use of his former POW status to promote his campaign. It's gripping, unusual stuff that works as a narrative bridge for Sen. McCain to connect with voters that often seem riveted by the tales. As far as I'm concerned, Sen. McCain has every right to exploit his former POW status for political gain. Frankly, I wouldn't expect anything else; it's good politics.
However, we are long past the time where the McCain narrative that he is "reluctant" to talk about his experiences should receive any coverage in the media. That train left the station a long, long time ago.
In fact, I'd be willing to bet that there isn't a single day on the campaign trail when Sen. McCain does not bring up his former POW status completely unprompted.
The problem isn't that he repeatedly invokes his experiences unprompted, but rather, that he does it in such a crass politically pandering way. And then when he gets called on it, he recoils into his cocoon of "reluctance". For example, when a reporter on the "Straight-Talk Express had the temerity to ask Sen. McCain how his experiences were relevant to his present job pursuits, McCain reacted thusly:
McCain became visibly angry when I asked him to explain how his Vietnam experience prepared him for the Presidency. "Please," he said, recoiling back in his seat in distaste at the very question. McCain then collected himself and apologized for his initial reaction. "I kind of reacted the way I did because I have a reluctance to talk about my experiences," he said, noting that he has huge admiration for the "heroes" who served with him in the POW camp and said the experience taught him to love the U.S. because he missed it so much. "I am always reluctant to talk about these things," McCain said.
McCain became visibly angry when I asked him to explain how his Vietnam experience prepared him for the Presidency.
"Please," he said, recoiling back in his seat in distaste at the very question.
McCain then collected himself and apologized for his initial reaction.
"I kind of reacted the way I did because I have a reluctance to talk about my experiences," he said, noting that he has huge admiration for the "heroes" who served with him in the POW camp and said the experience taught him to love the U.S. because he missed it so much.
"I am always reluctant to talk about these things," McCain said.
This is the typical McCain dodge; using his POW status as a shield. He invokes it, along with the flash of anger, whenever he doesn't care to answer a question. And he does it often.
I mention this because McCain had the flap over recounting his experiences incorrectly in an interview in Pittsburgh this week. Sen. McCain was simply asked what came to his mind when he thought of Pittsburgh and somehow turned that into a story about being a POW [but he's reluctant to talk about these things]. This is how the encounter was reported:
Asked Wednesday by KDKA-TV's Jon Delano what first comes to mind when he thinks of Pittsburgh, Mr. McCain said, "The Steelers. I was a mediocre high school athlete and I loved and adored sports but the Steelers really made a huge impression on me, particularly in the early years." Sitting by his wife Cindy, the senator then told a story about his 51/2 years as a POW. "When I was first interrogated and really had to give some information because of the pressures, the physical pressures that were on me, I named the starting lineup -- defensive line of the Pittsburgh Steelers -- as my squadron mates."
Asked Wednesday by KDKA-TV's Jon Delano what first comes to mind when he thinks of Pittsburgh, Mr. McCain said, "The Steelers. I was a mediocre high school athlete and I loved and adored sports but the Steelers really made a huge impression on me, particularly in the early years."
Sitting by his wife Cindy, the senator then told a story about his 51/2 years as a POW.
"When I was first interrogated and really had to give some information because of the pressures, the physical pressures that were on me, I named the starting lineup -- defensive line of the Pittsburgh Steelers -- as my squadron mates."
Of course, the story wasn't true. According to McCain's previous tellings, it was the offensive line of the Green Bay Packers [a story he has recounted on numerous occasions, including in his most recent book and HERE]. It was basically a crass pander to a political swing state audience. Much like Hillary and sniper fire, Sen. McCain simply changed the story to fit present circumstances. However, unlike Hillary, McCain seems to think of himself as the last honest man in politics and above this type of crass political pandering.
This is McCain using his former POW status as a sword; bringing up his experiences unprompted to fit a campaign narrative that he wishes to push.
But what makes this story especially maddening is not that McCain brings up the experiences unprompted; or even that he occasionally fudges the stories to fit present political circumstances [a charitable conclusion, I think]. No, it's that when he's called on it, he attempts to crassly use the same experience as a shield from criticism.
Hence, this inexplicable statement put out by the McCain campaign when called on the lie:
The senator's mixup with the Steelers "was an honest mistake," a campaign spokesman said yesterday. "If bloggers want to make fun of John McCain because he forgot which team he used under torture, that is their right."
WOW!
Where do you even begin with that statement and its sheer audacity. So, it's not John McCain's problem because "he forgot" the team he used [which is almost impossible]. Rather, it's the bloggers that "want to make fun" of Sen. McCain, which, I assume means, asking legitimate questions about his retelling of the story and how he could have mixed up the teams.
Notice also, that the statement throws in the phrase "under torture" in an attempt to demonize anyone that deigns to question Sen. McCain's recounting of his experiences.
And by the way, how pathetic and weak is it that the presumptive Republican Party nominee can only muster a 'the bloggers are picking on me' response?
Frankly, this use of John McCain's former POW status as both a sword and shield is borderline unconscionable. And, it's not that different from how President Bush and Karl Rove used patriotism as a bludgeon to keep the MSM at bay in the run-up to the Iraq War.
At long last, is there ANYONE in the MSM that will have the guts to call the McCain campaign on their rank political opportunism?
I certainly hope so; before it's too late.
John McCain has basically turned into a used car salesman. I mean, he already has the comb-over; all he needs now is a good plaid sports coat to complete the deal. I would suggest this one for Grampy McSame.I've basically given up on the notion that the media will challenge McCain on his statements about issues such as social security, let alone his brazenly deceitful bait & switch on economists' support for his "economic plan" [which I feel compelled to place in quotes].So, Sen. McCain is running around the country touting his "Jobs for America" plan & his promise to balance the budget by 2013 thusly:
And I am convinced that we can do that. Our economic plan has beensupported by 300 economists and five Nobel laureates. Now, they havesupported our economic plan. There are those who don't agree with it ordon't believe it, who don't believe our economy can improve, who don’tbelieve that ingenuity and entrepreneurship of Americans can beunleashed. I do.
First, about the only thing the McCain economic plan will unleash is about $4 TRILLION of new debt to saddle future generations with over that time-frame. Second, there's a problem with those 300 economists and five Nobel laureates that support the plan. They don't! The McCain campaign has engaged in a classic form of bait & switch. The scam goes something like this:The 300 economists were given a 403 word statement of extremely broad economic principles, such as support for free trade, and signed on in support. Their signatures were then attached to the 15 page "Jobs for America" proposal. McCain then goes out on the stump and touts the economists support for his "Jobs for America" plan.So, what's in the 15 page proposal that is not in the 403 word statement? How about the gas-tax holiday? No, that wasn't in there.The promise to balance the budget by the end of his first term [which, by the way, is one of the centerpieces of the 15 page plan]? Nope--that's not in there either. In fact, one of the signatories that McCain cites stated [when actually informed that his signature was being used to tout McCain's entire plan]:
"He's not going to balance the budget," Albrecht said.
One of the 300 economists and five Nobel laureates that support the plan stated:
"I would describe myself as an Obama supporter," he explained. "Maybe I shouldn't have rushed into signing the letter."
Perhaps, although it's a bit difficult when the McCain campaign is so actively engaged in hiding the ball. So, I have no allusions that the media will cover the fact that a jaw-droppingly cynical fraud is being perpetrated on voters. Why would they? It's not as if the national economy is in shambles and this is a presidential candidate's economic plan. I mean--hey . . . we only just suffered through the worst June economically SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Why talk about blatant deceit when you can flog the 'Straight-Talk Express', 'maverick', 'putting the country first' narrative? I mean, Sen. McCain's honor is beyond reproach to his base [the media]. Because if we looked into facts, we might just strip away some of the fantasy narrative and see a disingenuous political opportunist blatantly lying about the most important issue facing the country.But hey, he was a POW so . . . . never mind.
Hello All:
A quick thought before the holiday.
Barack Obama has a growing enthusiasm gap. Not with John McCain mind you; his support would have to completely flat-line before it would sink below the enthusiasm of McCain's supporters; who have the collective enthusiasm of a group going for a root-canal. No, the enthusiasm gap is with his own supporters [myself included]; and our view towards Sen. Obama during the primary campaign compared to their view of him at the moment.
Sure, I don't think anyone has abandoned Sen. Obama. I still write the occasional blog in support of Barack and will certainly cast my vote for him in the fall. However, the frequency with which I'm donating to his campaign and expending energy on his behalf has markedly decreased. I've been disappointed with Sen. Obama's rightward tack since clinching the nomination. I understand why he's doing what he's doing [although I disagree with the political effectiveness of the strategy and strongly believe he is doing incredible damage to his political brand].
It seems to me that the Obama campaign, which to now has been quite forward thinking, has allowed itself to be drawn to the "center" based on what constituted the "center" in previous elections. Unfortunately, the "center" in American politics has drifted increasingly rightward over the past thirty years; which means it's somewhat of a false floor. And the only way to have the debate on Democratic Party turf is to strongly advocate progressive positions and pull the "center" back to a more traditionally center place.
Prior to this year's campaign I was a fairly apathetic [at least politically] registered independent that leaned towards the Democratic Party, although I did not always cast my votes for a Democrat. I gave money [for the first time] to the DCCC in 2006; a whopping sum of $50. This year I have given the maximum $2300 during the primary campaign, blogged, did volunteer work and raised an additional $1500 through my Obama Fundraising Page.
In short, I have expended a considerable amount of time and energy; time and energy that could easily be allocated to any number of other endeavors in my life. I did this [such as making some contributions on my credit card--I know, I'm not a smart man, but that's for another diary] because Barack was able to tap into the general dissatisfaction with the political process that many people genuinely held. I think there are millions of others out there that were there for the political taking, but just didn't see anything worth getting excited about. Barack expertly tapped into that dissatisfaction with Washington in general, and, politics specifically.
I started my Obama page in January. This is what I wrote then:
Barack Obama and I are committed to changing the political process with a campaign built on a broad base of support from ordinary Americans. We believe the only way to bring about lasting and needed change in our government is by rejecting the typical Washington-style slash and burn politics; by seeking to inspire voters by highlighting our possibilities rather than preying on our fears; and, by tapping into the hard work and ingenuity that has served us so well. But this can only happen with your help.
Today, I ask you to stand with me and believe that government can be more than driving up your opponent's negatives; that government can be more than lowest common denominator partisanship. Our government is a direct reflection of who we are. Our elected leaders represent us. It is not enough to merely replace a president with an "R" next to their name with someone with a "D" next to their name.
Those words seem kind of overly simplistic and, frankly, silly now. Maybe that's for the best. Maybe the old adage that 'Democrats fall in love & Republicans fall in line' is correct. I certainly wouldn't take any pride in some dreamy, wide-eyed idealistic losing campaign. The most important thing is to win. However, I have quite a bit to do during my day.
Like most people, I'm quite busy. I also have about $100K in law school loans and can't really afford to give any more money away. So, it's not too difficult to find an excuse not to donate to Sen. Obama's campaign. And not that I'm a harbinger by any stretch, but I think there are a lot of people out there like me. Sen. Obama isn't going to lose our vote. But he can lose our enthusiasm. In the end, that might be just as bad because it was the enthusiasm that allowed Barack to prevail over Sen. Clinton in the primary.
Maybe I'm wrong; perhaps it was inevitable at the end of a long, hard-fought primary campaign to lose a little steam. I certainly hope so. However, if I were with the Obama campaign, I'd be concerned.
Sincerely,
Jeff Cronin
It seems to me that the Obama campaign, which to now has been quite forward thinking, has allowed itself to be drawn to the "center" based on what constituted the "center" in previous elections. Unfortunately, the "center" in American politics has drifted increasingly rightward over the past thirty years; which menas it's somewhat of a false floor. And the only way to have the debate on Democratic Party turf is to strongly advocate progressive positions and pull the "center" back to a more traditionally center place.
Prior to this year's campaign I was a fairly apathetic [at least politically] registered independent that leaned towards the Democratic Party, although I did not always cast my votes for a Democrat. I gave money [for the first time] to the DCCC in 2006; a whopping sum of $50. This year I have given the maximum $2300 during the primary campaign, blogged, did volunteer work and raised an additional $1500 through my Obama Fundraising Page. In short, I have expended a considerable amount of time and energy; time and energy that could easily be allocated to any number of other endeavors in my life.
I did this [such as making some contributions on my credit card--I know, I'm not a smart man, but that's for another diary] because Barack was able to tap into the general dissatisfaction with the political process that many people genuinely held. I think there are millions of others out there that were there for the political taking, but just didn't see anything worth getting excited about. Barack expertly tapped into that dissatisfaction with Washington in general, and, politics specifically.
Barack Obama and I are committed to changing the political process with a campaign built on a broad base of support from ordinary Americans. We believe the only way to bring about lasting and needed change in our government is by rejecting the typical Washington-style slash and burn politics; by seeking to inspire voters by highlighting our possibilities rather than preying on our fears; and, by tapping into the hard work and ingenuity that has served us so well. But this can only happen with your help. Today, I ask you to stand with me and believe that government can be more than driving up your opponent's negatives; that government can be more than lowest common denominator partisanship. Our government is a direct reflection of who we are. Our elected leaders represent us. It is not enough to merely replace a president with an "R" next to their name with someone with a "D" next to their name.
Those words seem kind of overly simplistic and, frankly, silly now. Maybe that's for the best. Maybe the old adage that 'Democrats fall in love & Republicans fall in line' is correct. I certainly wouldn't take any pride in some dreamy, wide-eyed idealistic losing campaign. The most important thing is to win.
However, I have quite a bit to do during my day. Like most people, I'm quite busy. I also have about $100K in law school loans and can't really afford to give any more money away. So, it's not too difficult to find an excuse not to donate to Sen. Obama's campaign. And not that I'm a harbinger by any stretch, but I think there are a lot of people out there like me. Sen. Obama isn't going to lose our vote. But he can lose our enthusiasm. In the end, that might be just as bad because it was the enthusiasm that allowed Barack to prevail over Sen. Clinton in the primary.
Hello friends:
Here are a few clips of jaw-dropping reversals that would be a bit more comical if the consequences of electing the speaker of them weren't so dire. These clips aren't terribly negative or ominous; just Sen. McCain in his own words. I strongly encourage everyone to forward them to five friends that are not supporters of Sen. Obama.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnb2IrsU1Cg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=any3LY_zlqg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c
I actually like and respect John McCain. In a way, I feel for him. He's had to navigate a tricky course in order to secure the Republican Party nomination. Unfortunately, in gravitating to the right and embracing positions that he previously denounced, he has subsequently shredded his most positive attribute--his reputation as a 'straight-talking' 'maverick'; although I believe that was always more a media-driven fiction than reality.
Either way, the 'Straight-Talk Express' is more akin to the 'Pander Express' these days. Regardless of what John McCain truly believes, the mere fact that he is now fully beholden to the Bush-wing of the Republican Party is reason enough to do everything to support Sen. Obama.
As an aside, I encourage everyone to send their thoughts and prayers--or good kharma, to our firends in the Midwest. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated, I'm sure.
Also, if anyone should feel inclined to donate to Sen. Obama's campaign through my page, I will match your contributions up to $10 for the campaign and $10 for flood relief.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/outreach/view/main/JeffCronin
Hope everyone is having a wonderful weekend. Keep up the good work and, as always, take care.
TO: Democratic Party members in Congress that are interested in keeping their jobsFROM: Someone stating the obviousFor those of you that were too dense to figure it out earlier, the past few weeks should have made everything clear for even the densest among you to miss. That is, the Clintons are toxic for the DemocraticParty; and not just a garden variety of toxicity mind you--but rather anuclear winter form of 'there's nothing left but Keith Richards and cockroaches' toxic.Hillary's been singing an oldie but a goody[at least for the Republican Party] for the past few days. I can namethat tune in five syllables: triangulation.It's the old "third way" back with a bang. In its most recent iteration, I believe Hillary has referred to it as her "Goldilocks" idea with regards to the gas-tax holiday. She referred to her hare-brained scheme thusly:
"You know, Sen. Obama says we shouldn't do it and it's a gimmick. And Sen. McCain says we should do it, but we shouldn't pay for it," Clinton said. "I sometimes feel like the Goldilocks of this campaign: Not too much. Not too little. Just right."
This little nugget appeared Tuesday in The Indianapolis Star. It was titled "Hardcore Republicans Voting Democrat":
Jim Adams, 36, voted for Hillary Clinton to keep the race going beyond Indiana. He's a McCain backer and enjoys watching the Democrats fight.
"In the end, I think McCain is going to win," Adams said, and then referred to controversial statements by Bill Clinton and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama's pastor. "Bill can't keep his mouth shut, and the reverend can't keep his mouth shut."
IC 3-10-1-6 Eligible voters Sec. 6. A voter may vote at a primary election: (1) if the voter, at the last general election, voted for a majority of the regular nominees of the political party holding the primary election; or (2) if the voter did not vote at the last general election, but intends to vote at the next general election for a majority of the regular nominees of the political party holding the primary election; as long as the voter was registered as a voter at the last general election or has registered since then.
IC 3-10-1-6
Eligible voters
Sec. 6. A voter may vote at a primary election:
(1) if the voter, at the last general election, voted for a majority of the regular nominees of the political party holding the primary election; or
(2) if the voter did not vote at the last general election, but intends to vote at the next general election for a majority of the regular nominees of the political party holding the primary election; as long as the voter was registered as a voter at the last general election or has registered since then.
Yes, Jim Adams, 36; you just broke the law. By the way, aren't the republicans supposed to be the "law & order" and "family values" party?
It's time to start prosecuting the Jim Adams' of the Republican Party and hold them accountable for their willful violations of the law. Not only is this entire "Operation Chaos" nonsense completely ridiculous, it's frankly traitorous; and, attempts to undermine the exercise of the most important right in American life.
This is a right for which individuals have fought and died in order to obtain. This isn't funny or cute. It's illegal and traitorous; and should be treated as such.
Seems like a no-brainer to me. I throw my hat in with the "against" folks.
In case everyone hasn't already heard, Sen. Clinton--tired of co-opting John McCain's campaign material, dusted off one of President Bush's golden oldies during a campaign speech in Indiana the other night. The line was in reference to her gratuitously pandering "gas-tax holiday" idea.
Always one to double down on a bad bet, Sen. Clinton stated she would introduce legislation in Congress, which she framed this way:
I want them [meaning Congress] to tell us, are they with us or against us when it comes to taking on the oil companies?
Don't we already have enough experience with a president that refuses to admit they're wrong and plows ahead despite all evidence to the contrary? How's that been working out for us?
OK--put aside for the moment that the "them" to which Sen. Clinton refers is a Congress that is controlled by the Democratic Party; the party of which she is a member.
Put aside that the "us" to which she is referring are members of the Democratic Party that support her.
Put aside that the Speaker of the House, a democrat, has said the proposal is going nowhere.
Put aside that no one actually believes Sen. Clinton's proposal is a good idea, which more than likely includes herself. In fact, 150 economists across the political spectrum independently put out a petition stating what a hare-brained idea this is.
Putting aside all that, is there really anyone left out there--with the exception of the most dyed-in-the-wool Clinton supporters, that honestly believes Sen. Clinton is placing the interests of the country or her party ahead of herself?
The current Clinton campaign spin, which actually means the Clinton campaignitself, is that they have a political "winner" with regards tothe "gas-tax holiday" issue. Never mind that the McCain-Clinton proposal hasbeen universally panned as the crassest form of short-term pandering.
Sen. Obama has a put out a response ad that I believe is largely ineffectiveand walks right into a trap that has been set by the Clinton campaign. InSen. Obama's ad, he mocks the amount of money that the average driverwill save on gas and decries the McCain-Clinton proposal as typical Washington game-playing [which is exactly what it is].
However, Sen. Obama has exposed his flank with the ad. It allows the Clinton campaign to respond with the kind of mock-outrage and tsk-tsk'ing for which they have no peers. The Clinton campaign response, which I'm paraphrasing, goes something like this:
Well, Sen. Obama might not think that $30 is much money, but to working families struggling to make their mortgage payments and put food on the table it's a welcome break.
The response plays right into the perceived weakness of Sen. Obama [which I happen to think is ludicrous]; which is, that he doesn't understand the struggles of blue-collar workers and cannot connect with them.
The intrepid folks at Talking Points Memo reported the spin from the Clinton campaign in today's conference call this way:
Is Hillary gaining politically by her support for a so-called "gas tax holiday"? On a conference call with reporters just now, Hillary chief strategist Geoff Garin claimed that the campaign's internal polling shows that it is."We're seeing in our polling that working people appreciate the fact that Senator Clinton understands the incredible economic strain they are facing," Garin said.Also, Garin sought to spin one of the main arguments against the gas tax holiday -- the fact that it saves consumers a negligible amount on average -- as a further sign that Hillary's in touch with blue-collar workers."It may not seem like a lot to some people," Garin said, adding that "every penny counts."The fact that Hillary supports the gas tax holiday because she understands that the meager average savings involved do matter to ordinary folks is likely to be core Hillary spin as the gas tax argument continues to unfold.
Is Hillary gaining politically by her support for a so-called "gas tax holiday"?
On a conference call with reporters just now, Hillary chief strategist Geoff Garin claimed that the campaign's internal polling shows that it is.
"We're seeing in our polling that working people appreciate the fact that Senator Clinton understands the incredible economic strain they are facing," Garin said.
Also, Garin sought to spin one of the main arguments against the gas tax holiday -- the fact that it saves consumers a negligible amount on average -- as a further sign that Hillary's in touch with blue-collar workers.
"It may not seem like a lot to some people," Garin said, adding that "every penny counts."
The fact that Hillary supports the gas tax holiday because she understands that the meager average savings involved do matter to ordinary folks is likely to be core Hillary spin as the gas tax argument continues to unfold.
Sen. Obama needs to put out a response ad that basically squarely hits back on the jaw-dropping hypocrisy of the Clinton campaign spin. No one actually believes that Sen. Clinton thinks this is a prudent policy choice. However, because the Clinton campaign's internal polling shows that this is a good political issue, then Sen. Clinton is willing to crassly milk it for all its worth.
Never mind that no one actually believes that its a good idea. Sen. Obama should be hammering this issue because it plays right into the worst stereotype with regards to Sen. Clinton--and fairly, I believe. That is, that she is willing to do or say anything in order to win an election. That every decision she makes is not about what's best for Indiana, or North Carolina, or America; but rather, what is best for her.
She has the same position as John McCain on this issue.
She was with John McCain in voting to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.
She was with John McCain in voting to authorize this disastrous war.
Why? Because she believed it was the right thing to do? No--it was because it was the politically expedient thing to do at the time for her; damn the consequences for the country. Republican policies have been a disaster for blue-collar folks for the past eight years. The Democratic Party will not win this year simply by being republican-lite.
That's why today's conference call should be so damaging to the Clinton campaign. Chief Strategist Geoff Garin only stated what many folks already know: that the Clinton campaign is pushing this proposal because their internal polling tells them it helps Sen. Clinton now.
It's really this simple: Sen. Clinton is doing what she thinks is best for her; Sen. Obama is doing what he thinks is best for America.
Think about the question posed by TPM and the answer for America and states such as Indiana & North Carolina:
Is Hillary gaining politically by her support for a so-called "gas tax holiday?
When she wins; we lose.
As always folks take care and keep up the good work.
Cutting off your nose to spite your face is generally thought of as "an expression used to describe a needlessly self-destructive overreaction to a problem."
With Sen. McCain's recent--and borderline loony, comments that he will be "Hamas' worst nightmare;" it's becoming increasingly clear that John McCain will cut off America's nose to spite its face.
Sen. McCain made the comment while dishing out a little red meat on a conference call with conservative bloggers. The comment, made in the context of criticizing Barack Obama, is as follows:
All I can tell you is that I think it's very clear who Hamas wants to be the next president of the United States ... I think that people should understand that I will be Hamas' worst nightmare ... If Sen. Obama is favored by Hamas I think people can make judgments accordingly.
This statement is not just wrong-headed and foolish, but rather, incredibly dangerous and destructive. It's exactly the kind of foreign policy perspective that spends far too much time seeking to punish others for perceived slights and too little promoting our own bests interests.
Matthew Yglesias had an interesting, and what I believe should be the predominant, reaction to Sen. McCain's comments in his blog at the Atlantic yesterday:
As well as being kind of scumbaggy, this way of looking at the world reveals a seriously flawed foreign policy outlook. Consider Saddam Hussein. He's a bad dude. And which American president is his worst nightmare? Well, it's George W. Bush. Thanks to Bush, Saddam got booted from power and killed. Compared to George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, Dubya was a disaster for Saddam. But of course Dubya's Iraq policy has also been a disaster for the United States of America, whereas Clinton and Papa Bush ran policies that made us better off. International politics shouldn't be conceived of as some nutty zero-sum race to the bottom where our goal is to make Hamas cry -- the question is who are we trying to help and do we have ways to do it. Probably the worst thing that could happen to Hamas would be for it to be supplanted by some more radical group like al-Qaeda. But that wouldn't help Israel or the United States, any more than getting into a self-destructive conflict with Iran is a good idea just because it might make some bad Iranians suffer.
Unfortunately, Sen. McCain's loony comments seem to form the prevailing view over the past eight years. Everything is about retribution. It's about punishment. It's about taking an eye for an eye. What it's not about is taking actions that promote the long-term interests of the United States and its allies.
It's time for a little nuance. It's time for a little "turn the other cheek". What it most definitely is not time for, is John McCain's retributive views on dealing with the people that he doesn't like.
John. C. Reilly's police officer in movie "Magnolia" debates these issues aloud in a voice-over narrative near the end of the movie. John McCain could learn a thing or two from this statement:
And what most people don't see is just how hard it is to do the right thing. I have to take everything and play it as it lays. Sometimes people need a little help.Sometimes people need to be forgiven.And sometimes they need to go to jail.And that is a very tricky thing on my part . . . making that call.
And what most people don't see is just how hard it is to do the right thing. I have to take everything and play it as it lays.
Sometimes people need a little help.
Sometimes people need to be forgiven.
And sometimes they need to go to jail.
And that is a very tricky thing on my part . . . making that call.
Very tricky indeed.
By now everyone has heard the Clinton campaign's endless justifications for the attacks on Sen. Obama, regarding particular topics of national importance--such as flag pins and William Ayers, as necessary because that's what the GOP will do in the fall. I'm not even going to cite anything because it's such a commonly accepted paradigm of the Clinton campaign.
Does this make a lick of sense?
As I pondered this notion, it reminded me of conversations I used to have with my mom when I was eight. They unfolded roughly as follows:
Conversation #1
ME: Mom, can I [fill in the blank]? MOM: No ME [whining]: Butttt . . . Timmy does [fill in the blank] MOM: If Timmy jumped off a bridge, would you jump also?
Conversation #2
ME: Mom, can I [fill in the blank]? MOM: No ME [whining]: Butttt . . . Timmy's mom lets him do [fill in the blank] MOM: Then maybe you should go live at Timmy's house
I respectfully submit that perhaps it is time for Sen. Clinton to go live at Timmy's house.
I'm wavering in my support for Sen. Obama.
I've been leaning towards Barack Obama for a few months now. However, Sen. Clinton, in a speech today highlighting the importance of the Pennsylvania Primary on Tuesday, said the words that these ears have longed to hear:
Continue reading:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/04/sen-clinton-may-have-secured-m.php
Instead of posting the entire blog, I'm leaving a link to Talking Points Memo where the story is currently #4 on the reccommended reader list.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/04/jay-carsons-letter-to-tom-shal.php
Hope everyone has an opportunity to read it. Keep up the good work and, as always, take care.
Instead of posting the entire blog, I'm leaving a link to Talking Points Memo where the story is currently #2 on the reccommended reader list.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/04/why-nash-mccabe-makes-barack-o.php
What seems to matter to Sen. John McCain is not what something is, but rather what it is called.
In truth, why wouldn't he think that? Why wouldn't he believe that that he can repeatedly conflate Shiite militants with Al-Qaeda in Iraq? He is, after all, running to largely continue the policies of our current Conflator-in-Chief.
It's not that John McCain doesn't know the difference between the two sects; it's that he is willfully conflating the two to fit his desired political narrative.
If you'd like, continue reading the diary at Talking Points Memo at the following link:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/04/my-case-against-john-mccains-r.php
The state of being wise; possessing wisdom, is an incredibly abstract and elusive quality. It is also inordinately difficult to know whether or not someone has it. Even more difficult when you're looking for it in a political leader; someone that, in almost all cases, you don't know and have no shared personal experiences with which to make that judgment.
However, when I set out to find a candidate to support in the presidential primary, I placed wisdom, or at least making wise choices, at the top of my qualifications chart. After eight years of disasterous decisions, it seemed like a relative no-brainer that the ability to make wise choices would be at the top of the list.
The more important question, though, was how would I determine who had it? What would be the criteria with which I would judge the candidates?
All of this led to a relatively self-evident criteria; that is, I would look at what the candidates stated would happen concerning any given issue, look at what actually happened, and see who came the closest to getting it right.
Obviously, Sen. Obama was a strong contender on this front due to his stance against the Iraq War. His reservations and concerns, unfortunately, have been borne out in tragic consequences.
But maybe he was simply lucky on this issue? Perhaps it was a lucky guess?
But then I thought to myself: what about the letter that Sen. Obama sent in May 2007 to the chairman of the Fed warning of the impending housing crisis and the need to take immediate action before it exploded in all our faces?
Gee . . . seems as if he were right about that as well. Makes it a little bit harder to attribute to luck.
So, I went back and looked at a few of Sen. Obama's speeches. The speech he gave on January 26th on the night of the South Carolina primary again struck me for his ability to see exactly how difficult this process would be. That others would fight tooth and nail to ensure that the status quo remained intact. I've excerpted a relevant portion below. I hope you read it. Whatever it is that some people possess that gives them that certain something, Barack Obama has it in spades. Here's a protion of the speech:
"But if there's anything we've been reminded of since Iowa, it's that the kind of change we seek will not come easy. Partly because we have fine candidates in the field - fierce competitors, worthy of respect. And as contentious as this campaign may get, we have to remember that this is a contest for the Democratic nomination, and that all of us share an abiding desire to end the disastrous policies of the current administration. But there are real differences between the candidates. We are looking for more than just a change of party in the White House. We're looking to fundamentally change the status quo in Washington - a status quo that extends beyond any particular party. And right now, that status quo is fighting back with everything it's got; with the same old tactics that divide and distract us from solving the problems people face, whether those problems are health care they can't afford or a mortgage they cannot pay. So this will not be easy. Make no mistake about what we're up against. We are up against the belief that it's ok for lobbyists to dominate our government - that they are just part of the system in Washington. But we know that the undue influence of lobbyists is part of the problem, and this election is our chance to say that we're not going to let them stand in our way anymore. We are up against the conventional thinking that says your ability to lead as President comes from longevity in Washington or proximity to the White House. But we know that real leadership is about candor, and judgment, and the ability to rally Americans from all walks of life around a common purpose - a higher purpose. We are up against decades of bitter partisanship that cause politicians to demonize their opponents instead of coming together to make college affordable or energy cleaner; it's the kind of partisanship where you're not even allowed to say that a Republican had an idea - even if it's one you never agreed with. That kind of politics is bad for our party, it's bad for our country, and this is our chance to end it once and for all. We are up against the idea that it's acceptable to say anything and do anything to win an election. We know that this is exactly what's wrong with our politics; this is why people don't believe what their leaders say anymore; this is why they tune out. And this election is our chance to give the American people a reason to believe again."
Sounds about right to me.
Hope everyone is having a wonderful day. Keep up the good work and, as always, take care.
