John McCain’s Strategy

-

mccain strategy briefing.jpg
Rick Davis, John McCain’s campaign manager, sent out this link today to a McCain strategy briefing. It’s fascinating as Davis recognizes the terrible political environment (for Republicans) they have to operate in. He also recognizes that the economy and the war in Iraq are the two biggest issues in the campaign.
This is important to watch to get an understanding of why McCain remains a compelling and competitive candidate.
— Steve Clemons

Comments

48 comments on “John McCain’s Strategy

  1. connie navarro says:

    URGENT!!This is message to MCCAIN campaign manager:: PLEASE change your political strategy it is not working.
    I would like to suggest the following:
    1. First campaign adviser should focus on the weak experience in leadership of OBAMA. Just please emphasize that his record in office has not proven any legislation passed supported by OBAMA. This will shake up our undecided voters or democrats to think twice about voting for him.
    2. Focus on that Looks alone or looking presidential is not going to bail us out in our current economic crisis. So far he has not present any concrete plan to take out our economic problem. MCCAIN plan is good to give our citizen a $7,000 tax credit which will help our economic situation. I think MCCAIN camp is missing the point to emphasize what every citizen will get if he will be elected president.
    Please emphasize that MCCAIN will give them $7,000 in their pocket.
    3. Stop the negative campaign, it is not working.
    Focus more on attacking the DEMOCRAT causes our economic condition today not GEORGE BUSH. When even they emphasized 8 years of GEORGE BUSH, stress out the fact that the DEMOCRATS supported by SHUMER led to FANNIE MAE destruction and triggled into wall street. The mortgage melt down was supported by DEMOCRATS not George Bus!!\
    4. I am very concerned for the american people if OBAMA will win this election. We will be suffer for 10 years economic crisis if he will raise taxes. This is in our history when HOOVER raised taxes during the depression, the american people went to economic crisis for 10 years. THIS should be stress hard in your campaign.
    5. OBAMA overall does not know anything. He is just a college kid that knows how to talk but could not lead. I cannot imagine a president like OBAMA who do not have foreign affair experience and no actual record to prove that he can lead or passed any legislation. HOW COULD we trust our country to this man. OBAMA is wrong for AMERICA.
    6. Please emphasize that MCCAIN and PALIN are good combination. MCCAIN an experience reformer and PALIN will help middle class americans as an outsider he will work for women of AMERICA. This is really the good combination that you should send messages to AMERICAN people.
    OBAMA and BIDEN is wrong because they will bring old politics as before in the WHITE HOUSE no change from before.
    PALIN is a good leader because she was able to change and clean ALASKA. This is a credible proof of her leadership.
    Wake up AMERICA, we should appreciate our MCCAIN and PALIN ticket to help us get through rough times. THEY are genuine, really care about AMERICAN people and should be very effective leadership together.
    ALSO, please emphasize MICHELLE OBAMA lack of love for AMERICA. I can not imagine her to be our first lady who is not proud to be an AMERICAN….
    Should I say more…. Please wake up and vote for MCCAIN and PALIN.

    Reply

  2. Rick says:

    Get your facts straight. Watch the Hopper video and you will see that the man is a liar and being coached from Jerry Kiley.

    Reply

  3. Kathleen says:

    Meanwhile, back to the topic of this thread… another vietnam Vet’s perception of McPain..
    Subj: This would make a good book signing
    Date: 6/14/2008 10:27:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time
    From: Rainymtn9
    To: NANCYGENEVIEVE@sbcglobal.net, noatway@sbcglobal.net
    From Glory Boy to PW Songbird
    John McCain: War Hero or North Vietnam’s Go-To Collaborator?
    By Douglas Valentine
    13/06/08 “Counterpunch” — — If you have no idea what war is about, thank your gods. It is not what you see in Mel Gibson movies, nor is it hidden within the Big Lie Big Brother tells you about Pat Tillman’s heroic “Army of One” in Iraq and Afghanistan.
    When my father was in New Guinea with the 32nd Division in 1942, his fellow American soldiers would point their long Springfield rifles skywards and shoot at American pilots flying overhead.
    “Glory Boys,” the long-suffering ground troops called them.
    The pilots had comfortable quarters beside the airstrip in Port Moresby. When orders for a mission came down, they’d climb in their planes, rattle down the runway, and soar over the Owen Stanley Mountains with the clouds in spotless uniforms, breathing fresh clean air. The Glory Boys weren’t trapped in the broiling jungle, in the mud and pouring rain, their skin rotting away, chewed by ghastly insects, bitten by poisonous snakes, stricken with cerebral malaria, yellow fever, dysentery, and a host of unknown diseases delivered by unknown parasites.
    If the Fly Boys perished, it was in a blaze of glory, not from a landmine, or a misdirected American mortar, or a Japanese bayonet in the brain.
    One day my father and his last remaining friend, Charlie Ferguson, were walking through the jungle up to the front line. One the way they passed a group of bare-chested Aussies in khaki shorts sitting round a grindstone sharpening their knives. Every once in a while one of the Aussies would hoist his rife and casually put a bullet into a Japanese sniper who had tied himself into the top of a nearby tree. Not in any place that would outright kill him, but some place painful enough to make the point.
    A little further toward the front line, my father and Charlie came upon Master Sergeant Harry Blackman, an adult man in his forties, regular army, a grizzled combat veteran. A few days earlier in a fight with the Japanese, a young lieutenant, a “90-Day Wonder,” had curled up in a fetal position when he should have been directing mortar fire. As a result, US mortar rounds landed on several US soldiers. Blackman, in front of everyone, took the lieutenant behind a tree and blew his brains out.
    As my father and Charlie waked through the jungle they saw Harry Blackman perched on the lower limb of a huge tropical tree, babbling incoherently among the butterflies and flowering vines, driven stark raving mad by sorrow and jungle war with the Japanese.
    Several days later my father was sent on a patrol into Japanese held territory. He was the last man in a formation moving single file through the jungle. Plagued by malaria and exhaustion, he kept falling behind. Around noon, a group of Japanese soldiers sitting high up in trees dropped concussion grenades on the patrol. As he lay on the ground, unable to move, my father watched the Japanese slide down the trees. Starting with the point man on patrol, they pulled down the pants and castrated each man, before clubbing him to death with their rifle butts or running a bayonet into his gut.
    War. If you’re a Glory Boy like John Sidney McCain III, you really have no idea what it is. You drop bombs on cities, on civilians, maybe on enemy forces, maybe on your own troops. Glory Boys like John McCain rarely get a taste of the horror they inflict on others. Their suffering rarely extends beyond the high anxiety that they might get shot down and that some bombarded mob on the ground might take its revenge.
    Magically, my father was spared that day when his patrol was slaughtered. Against regulations, he had stolen a cross-swords patch and sewn it on his shirt sleeve. At the age of 16, he thought it looked cool. On the morning of the patrol, when the new “90-Day Wonder” told him to take it off, my father said “Sure.” He and the lieutenant stared at each other for a while and then the lieutenant moved away. Insubordination was the least of anyone’s worries. No one expected to survive the patrol, anyway.
    When the Japanese who had ambushed the patrol got to my father, they stood poised to mutilate and kill him. Then they saw the cross-swords patch. They apparently felt that dear old dad was an important person with inside information about American forces. Instead of killing him, they took him prisoner. When they realized he was just a stupid kid, the Japanese sent him to a POW camp in the Philippines.
    Being a POW is what my father and John McCain have in common; although their experience as POWs was as different as their class and their character.
    Class indeed has privileges, and while the government refused to provide my combat-veteran father with medical benefits for his malaria, McCain, who spent ten hours of his life in mortal danger, was decorated with the Silver Star, Legion of Merit, Distinguished Flying Cross, Bronze Star Medal and the Purple Heart.
    And thus the “war hero” myth was born.
    McNasty
    In the fall of 1967, Navy pilot John McCain was routinely bombing Hanoi from an aircraft carrier in the South China Sea. On October 26, he was trying to level a power plant in a heavily populated area when a surface-to-air missile knocked a wing off his jet. Banged-up John McCain and what was left of plane splashed into Truc Bach Lake.
    A compassionate Vietnamese civilian left his air raid shelter and swam out to McCain. McCain’s arm and leg were fractured and he was tangled up in his parachute underwater. He was drowning. The Vietnamese man saved McCain’s sorry ass, and yet McCain has nothing but hatred for “the gooks” who allegedly tortured him. As he told reporters on his campaign bus (The Straight Talk Express) in 2000, “I will hate them as long as I live.” (1)
    Americans have to hate people, and dehumanize them as “gooks” or “rag-heads” in order to drop bombs on them. Stirring up such hatred is the forte of the US government, as witnessed by its Israeli-driven PR campaign against Arabs and Moslems. That’s why Bush and his media minions tied “brutal dictator” Saddam Hussein to 9/11 – so Americans would hate Iraqis enough to kill and abuse them in a thousand ways, everyday, for five years. Or, according to McCain, for 100 years if necessary.
    The flip side to the equation is that people generally hate those who drop bombs on them. When the Germans dropped bombs on London, the Allies called it Terror Bombing. The French resistance especially hated the Germans, especially after the Gestapo set up shop in occupied France in 1940.
    Likewise, Iraqi and Afghani resistance fighters hate the Americans (who more and more resemble the Germans of 1940) for occupying their countries. They especially hate our Gestapo – the CIA – and its torturers. But that’s War for you, and John McCain is lucky the locals didn’t eat him alive – like Uzbek nationalists trapped in a horrid prison camp in Afghanistan nibbled on CIA officer John “Mike” Spann shortly after Spann summarily executed a prisoner. Spann was killed in the ensuing riot, shortly before the CIA and its Afghan collaborators massacred the remaining Uzbek prisoners on 28 November 2001.
    The Vietnamese had good reason to hate McCain. On his previous 22 missions, he had dropped God knows how many bombs killing God knows how many innocent civilians. “I am a war criminal,” he confessed on “60 Minutes” in 1997. “I bombed innocent women and children.” (2)
    If he is sincere when he says that, why isn’t he being tried for war crimes by the U.S .Government?
    In any event, the man who rescued McCain tried to ward off an angry mob, which stomped on McCain for a while until the local cops turned him over to the military. McCain was in pain, but suffering no mortal wounds. He was, however, in enough pain to break down and start collaborating with the Vietnamese after three days in a hospital receiving treatment from qualified doctors – something no other POW ever enjoyed.
    War is one thing, collaborating with the enemy is another; it is a legitimate campaign issue that strikes at the heart of McCain’s character…or lack thereof.
    There are certainly degrees of collaboration. As a famous novelist once asked, “If you’re a barber and you cut a German’s hair, does that make you a collaborator?”
    Being an informant for the Gestapo, or its stepson the CIA in Iraq, and informing on the resistance and sending them to their death, is different than being a barber. In occupied countries like Iraq, or France in World War Two, collaboration to that extent is an automatic death sentence.
    The question is: “What kind of collaborator was John McCain, the admitted war criminal who will hate his alleged torturers for the rest of his life?”
    Put another way, how psychologically twisted is McCain? And what actually happened to him in his POW camp that twisted him? Was it abuse, as he claims, or was it the fact that he collaborated and has to cover up?
    Covering-up can take a lot of energy. The truth is lurking in his subconscious, waiting to explode. A number of US officials, including Andrew Card, have commented on McCain’s inexplicable angry outbursts.
    In a July 5 2006 NewsMax.com article, former Senator Bob Smith (R-NH), was quoted as having said about McCain: “I have witnessed incidents where he has used profanity at colleagues…. He would disagree about something and then explode.” Smith called it “irrational behavior. We’ve all had incidents where we have gotten angry, but I’ve never seen anyone act like that.”
    So, you say, McCain has a short fuse behind the plastered TV smile. So he calls his colleagues assholes and shit-heads. In high school they called him “McNasty.” That’s just how he is. Always was, always will be.
    Well, maybe. And maybe it’s not a quality we want in a president. And maybe that repressed anger actually has its roots in a Vietnamese POW camp, where John McCain betrayed his forefathers and his country.
    The Admiral’s Bad Boy
    In the forced-labor camp where my father was tortured by the Japanese, the POWs killed anyone who collaborated. Indeed, the ranking POW in my father’s camp, an English Major, made a deal with the Japanese guaranteeing that no one would attempt to escape. When four prisoners escaped, the Major reported it. The Japanese sent out a search party, which found the POWs and brought them back to camp, where they were beheaded on Christmas morning 1943.
    The POWs held a war council that night. They drew straws, and the three who got short were given a mission. A few hours later, under cover of darkness, they crept to the major’s hut. My father had gotten one of the short straws and kept watch while the other two POWs strangled the Major in his sleep.
    That’s how it happens in real life.
    McCain, in his carefully prepared statements, claims he was tortured while in solitary confinement, and that is why he signed a confession saying, “I am a black criminal and I have performed the deeds of an air pirate. I almost died and the Vietnamese people saved my life, thanks to the doctors.” (3)
    However, on March 25, 1999, two of his fellow POWs, Ted Guy and Gordon “Swede” Larson told the Phoenix New Times that, while they could not guarantee that McCain was not physically harmed, they doubted it.
    As Larson said, “My only contention with the McCain deal is that while he was at The Plantation, to the best of my knowledge and Ted’s knowledge, he was not physically abused in any way. No one was in that camp. It was the camp that people were released from.”
    Guy and Larson’s claims are given credence by McCain’s vehement opposition to releasing the government’s debriefings of Vietnam War POWs. McCain gave Michael Isikoff a peek at his debriefs, and Isikoff declared there was “nothing incriminating” in them, apart from the redactions. (4)
    McCain had a unique POW experience. Initially, he was taken to the infamous Hanoi Hilton prison camp, where he was interrogated. By McCain’s own account, after three or four days, he cracked. He promised his Vietnamese captors, “I’ll give you military information if you will take me to the hospital.”
    His Vietnamese capturers soon realized their POW, John Sidney McCain III, came from a well-bred line of American military elites. McCain’s father, John Jr., and grandfather, John Sr., were both full Admirals. A destroyer, the USS John S. McCain, is named after both of them.
    While his son was held captive in Hanoi, John McCain Jr., from 1968 to 1972, was the Commander-in-Chief of U.S. Pacific Command; Admiral McCain was in charge of all US forces in the Pacific including those fighting in Vietnam.
    One can only wonder when the concierge at the Hanoi Hilton started taking calls from Admiral McCain. Rather quickly, one surmises, for the Vietnamese soon took John Boy McCain to a hospital reserved for Vietnamese officers. Unlike his fellow POWs, he received care from a Soviet doctor.
    “This poor stooge has propaganda value,” the Vietnamese realized. The Admiral’s bad boy was used to special treatment and his captors knew that. They were working him.
    For his part, McCain acknowledges that the Vietnamese rushed him to a hospital, but denies he was given any “special medical treatment.”
    However….two weeks into his stay at the Vietnamese hospital, the Hanoi press began quoting him. It was not “name rank and serial number, or kill me,” as specified by the military code of conduct. McCain divulged specific military information: he gave the name of the aircraft carrier on which he was based, the number of US pilots that had been lost, the number of aircraft in his flight formation, as well as information about the location of rescue ships. (5)
    So McCain leveraged some details to get some medical attention. That’s not anything too contemptible. And who among us civilians is to judge someone in the position?
    On the other hand, according to one source, McCain’s collaboration may have had very real consequences. Retired Army Colonel Earl Hopper, a veteran of World War II, Korea and Vietnam, contends that the information that McCain divulged classified information North Vietnam used to hone their air defense system.
    Hopper’s son, Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Earl Pearson Hopper was, like McCain, shot down over North Vietnam. Hopper the younger, however, was declared “Missing in Action.” Stemming from the loss of his son, the elder Hopper co-founded the National League of Families, an organization devoted to the return of Vietnam War POWs.
    According to the elder Hopper, McCain told his North Vietnamese captors, “highly classified information, the most important of which was the package routes, which were routes used to bomb North Vietnam. He gave in detail the altitude they were flying, the direction, if they made a turn… he gave them what primary targets the United States was interested in.” Hopper contends that the information McCain provided allowed the North Vietnamese to adjust their air-defenses. As result, Hopper claims, the US lost sixty percent more aircraft and in 1968, “called off the bombing of North Vietnam, because of the information McCain had given to them.” 6
    The Psywar Stooge
    McCain was held for five and half years. Collaborating during the first two weeks might have been pragmatic, but he soon became North Vietnam’s go-to collaborator for the next three years. Given the quality of the military information he allegedly shared, his situation isn’t as innocuous as the pragmatic French barber who cuts the hair of the German occupier. McCain was repaying his captors for their kindness and mercy.
    This is the lesson of McCain’s experience as a POW: a true politician, a hollow man, his only allegiance is to power. The Vietnamese, like McCain’s campaign contributors today, protected and promoted him and in return, he danced to their tune.
    Not content with divulging military information, McCain provided his voice in radio broadcasts used by the North Vietnamese to demoralize American soldiers.
    Vietnamese radio propagandists made good use out of McCain. On June 4, 1969, a U.S. wire service headlined a story entitled “PW Songbird Is Pilot Son of Admiral.” (7)
    The story reported that McCain collaborated in psywar offensives aimed at American servicemen. “The broadcast was beamed to American servicemen in South Vietnam as a part of a propaganda series attempting to counter charges by U.S. Defense Secretary Melvin Laird that American prisoners are being mistreated in North Vietnam.”
    On one occasion, General Vo Nguyen Giap, the top Vietnamese commander and a nationalist celebrity of the time, personally interviewed McCain. His compliance during this command performance was a moment of affirmation for the Vietnamese. His Vietnamese handlers thereafter used him regularly as prop at meetings with foreign delegations.
    In the custody of enemy psywar specialists, McCain became what he is today: a professional psywar stooge.
    It is impossible to prove exactly what happened to McCain short of traveling to Vietnam and tracking down his captors, and picking up thee trail where it begins. According to The Vietnam Veterans Against John McCain, McCain says he only collaborated when he brutally tortured by his Vietnamese captors and a wicked Cuban he referred to as Fidel. (8)
    He says his confession led him to a suicide attempt.
    “In the anguished days right after my confession,” McCain said in his autobiography Faith of My Fathers, “I had dreaded just such a discovery by my father.”
    But as McCain discovered, dear old dad did know.
    “I only recently learned that the tape I dreamed I heard playing over the loudspeaker in my cell had been real; it had been broadcast outside the prison and had come to the attention of my father,” McCain said. “If I had known at the time my father had heard about my confession, I would have been distressed beyond imagination, and might not have recovered from the experience as quickly as I did.”
    But wait! McCain did not commit suicide. In fact, he’s alive, running for President on the “war hero” ticket, and promoting more war everywhere. The new McCain feels no distress at having been a collaborator or a war criminal – if he ever did.
    According to Fernando Barral, a Cuban psychologist who questioned McCain in January 1970, “McCain was “boastful” during their interview and “without remorse” for any civilian deaths that occurred “when he bombed Hanoi.” McCain has a similar recollection, writing in his [autobiography] that he responded, “No, I do not” when Barral asked if he felt remorse.” (9)
    McCain told [Barral] that he had not been subjected to “physical or moral violence,” and “lamented in the interview that ‘if I hadn’t been shot down, I would have become an admiral at a younger age than my father.’”
    “Barral said McCain boasted that he was the best pilot in the Navy and that he wanted to be an astronaut.” The Cuban psychologist concluded that McCain was [a] ‘psychopath.’” (10)
    “He felt superior to the Vietnamese up there in his plane, with all his training,” Barral recalled.
    Psychopath McCain emerges, now, as a contemptible elitist, stewing in the crucible of his class conscience, the ultimate right wing psywar stooge.
    McJekyll and McHyde
    There are no public records from other POWs to confirm McCain’s self-aggrandizing claims, but his detractors, like fellow POWs Ted Guy and Gordon “Swede” Larson, and Colonel Hopper, have yet to be discredited or silenced by McCain’s PR team.
    Hopper, Guy and Larson are part of a larger movement concerned with the fate of the 2,000 American veterans still missing in Vietnam. They’ve been pressing McCain to own up to his POW experience, drop the “war hero” posturing, and do more to provide a full accounting of the POWs and MIAs who were not as fortunate, privileged, or willing to collaborate as the would-be president.
    McCain’s supporters are trying to quiet detractors by ignoring them. “Nobody believes these idiots. They’re a bunch of jerks. Forget them,” said Mark Salter, McCain’s chief mythologist. Salter is credited by casting McCain as a modern Teddy Roosevelt, “the war hero turned domestic reformer.” (11)
    By in large the Salter strategy has worked. The American media accepts McCain’s “war hero” myth as gospel and, in so doing, bolsters the “straight talk” image so essential to his success in politics. In a recent TV interview with John Kerry, victim of the Swift Boat Heroes for Truth Movement in the last election, another “fortunate son,” Chris Wallace, actually took umbrage when Kerry criticized McCain. Son of media admiral Mike Wallace, Chris made Kerry admit that McCain was a hero.
    When it comes to psywar, the Vietnamese have nothing on the good old USA.
    McCain learned his lesson well from the Vietnamese propagandists who used him for their psywar projects. But it’s not the collaboration that makes John McCain unfit for office; it’s the fact that he has managed to rewrite his collaboration into political capital. “He’s a war hero, respect him, or die.”
    As a pedigree, the McCain family’s stature rests on the status and prestige of its achievements in the military: rank, medals, and most importantly to John McCain’s presidential campaign, the image of warrior masculinity: the straight talking maverick of the Republican Party, the 21st century rendering of Teddy Roosevelt.
    Not exactly. In his current presidential campaign, he’s cozying up to the hate-mongering Christian right he once criticized. He’s reversed positions on so many issues that his Democratic rivals have assembled his contrasting statements into “The Great McCain Versus McCain Debates. (12)
    Underlying the Jekyll-Hyde reversals is McCain’s hidden past of collaboration. Somewhere in the unplumbed human part of John Sidney McCain III, he knows his POW experience contradicts the war hero image he projects. This essential dishonesty, this lie of the soul, is a sign of a larger lack of character – like the major in my father’s POW camp, but without the come-uppance.
    McCain is not some principled leader, not a maverick cowboy fighting the powerful. He’s a sycophant. He believes in nothing but power and will do anything to attain it. He explodes in anger when challenged because, when a criticism hits to close to home, it goes to straight his deep-seeded shame.
    McCain’s handlers have turned his unspeakable reality into a myth worthy of Teddy Roosevelt. No wonder the Glory Boy has stuck around Washington so long.
    Doug Valentine is the author of The Hotel Tacloban, the story of his father’s experiences in a Japanese POW camp in World War Two. The Hotel Tacloban is available at Mr Valentine’s websites http://www.DouglasValentine.com and http://valentine.sb2.authorsguild.net
    Brendan McQuade assisted Mr Valentine by providing timely research for this article.
    Mr McQuade can be reached for interviews about this article at:860-334-3661

    Reply

  4. Tahoe Editor says:

    Exactly right, WW. I took great interest in watching Donna Brazile raise her hand in support of the One-Half Compromise.
    Campaign Absurdity Of The Month, c/o Ms. Brazile:
    “No matter which way the winds were blowing, Barack Obama has stuck with his message of Changeâ„¢.”

    Reply

  5. Kathleen says:

    A job is what you make of it.. presiding is more than simply standing there with a gavel…most of what our founding father included in the
    Constitution we do observe and I think a close presence of the veep in the Senate is an important psycholgical link betwen the two branches of gov’t.

    Reply

  6. WigWag says:

    Presiding over the Senate is a non-job. 90 percent of the time the chamber is empty except for the Clerk of the Senate and his/her staff. If Senators are present there are rarely more than 2 or 3 on the floor at the same time unless they are in the process of voting.
    There is simply no substantive reason for a Vice President to preside over the Senate unless a tie vote is anticipated. And presiding means nothing other than recognizing who will speak next or announcing what the parlimentarian has told you.
    There’s a reason no one since John Adams has spent much time presiding. It’s a waste of time and contributes nothing to the nation’s welfare.
    By the way, the founding fathers suggested alot of things that we don’t follow today. Like, for example counting some people as three fifths of a person for purposes of enumeraton. No one believes in this any more. That is except for the Democratic Party when counting Florida voters.

    Reply

  7. Kathleen says:

    I said I didn’t know you, so I couldn’t say what you were by your words here.

    Reply

  8. Tahoe Editor says:

    This is my final word on “ignorant sluts”:
    http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2008/06/obamas_fangs_gi/#comment-108382
    Continue to bring it up, and it only highlights your sanctimoniousness.
    I asked if you were calling me a racists. Omitting to answer says a lot.
    Night night.

    Reply

  9. Kathleen says:

    I’m not an Obama supporter… I’ve always wanted Russ Feingold. for prez and then when he decided not run, for VEEP. I supported Dennis Kucinich because he did run and I agreed most closely with his positions on the issues.
    In the current mix of presidential candidates, Ralph Nader best expresses my positions on the issues, especially impeachment. But in my book, it’s all moot because I think we’ll have Martial Law before Nov. I promised my friends I’ll have a huge party if I’m wrong.
    Took me a moment to figure out what being 7 in 1980 had to do with anything and then said Oh yeah, too young to vote for the Gipper. But you sound so conservative, you seem older. Tuckier Carlson probably was too young to vote for the
    Gipper, but he would’ve if he could’ve, kind of thing?
    Then, not to belabor this, but paying tribute to one woman by calling another an ignorant slut, seems twisted, so I get a cigar chewing Rush Lambone Crossover, whistling Dixie kind of picture. Not knowing you, of course, I couldn;’t possibly say.. you could be jiving us all for laughs.
    WigWag… I’m well awar that VEEP’s have not been adequately fullfilling their dual duty to preside over the Senate. in fact not since John Adams.What’s your point? That because they haven;t been, Hillry shouldn’t, if she’s VEEP?
    I think our Founding Fathers gave the VEEP this role because they felt it was important to do exactly what the office calls for the VEEP to do. I happen to think it would be a wise example for Hillary to follow John Adam’s example and actually do exactly that,… Preside over the Senate.

    Reply

  10. WigWag says:

    Kathleen, very few modern vice presidents preside over the Senate every day. As a matter of fact, if they show up 5 days a year, it’s alot.

    Reply

  11. Tahoe Editor says:

    Are you calling me a racist? Lovely. And you say you’re not a BO supporter.
    I was 7 years old in 1980.
    You’re saying Hillary will be picked for political reasons. I’m saying she won’t be picked for political reasons, and a white guy will be picked for political reasons.
    Lay off the aspersions and generalizations.

    Reply

  12. Kathleen says:

    bwaaahaaahaaa all you want.. I’m not HOPING Hillary will be picked… I’m saying I think she will be for political reasons. I was neither a Hillary or obama supporter.
    Thanks, but no thanks on the drinky-poo. but I don;’t drink Coke or Pepsi or KoolAid.
    Your money is on the white guy??? Quelle surprise!!!! You’re probably. one of those Reagan Demz who don’t have a Republican bone in your body because you don’t want to belong to the party of Lincoln. I bet you can even whistle Dixie.
    .
    WigWag, as VEEP, Hillary would not be a competent woman serving as #2 under an incompetent man… As VEEP, she should follow John Adam;’s example and be a competent woman presiding over the Senate every day as #1 in the Senate.
    Think out of the box. It’s painless if you just let go out tired outworn concepts.

    Reply

  13. Tahoe Editor says:

    Bwahaahahaha. I admire your Hopeâ„¢. I’ll buy you a drink if he does. All my money’s on a white guy.

    Reply

  14. Kathleen says:

    Yes he can. Yes he will.

    Reply

  15. Tahoe Editor says:

    He wasn’t bashing the Clinton Years when she campaigned for him. He can’t choose Hillary.

    Reply

  16. Kathleen says:

    Wow, Tim russert just died today, 58 years old.
    Yes he does have the WHOLE Kennedy clan behind him… those few who were supporting Hillary are now fundraising for Obama…. What that does for him is make him “not on his own'” as you stated he was.
    I disagree that Obama’s past using Clinton power. .. she campaigned for him when he ran for the US`Senate…As I said in another thread, Obama wants to win and Hillary wants to be the next nominee. Her staying in the race validated Obama’s win, while validating her right to be on the ticket. Had she withdrawn there would be a perception that she was pushed out and he was chosen by the supedelegates. Not good.
    Caroline Kennedy is on the VEEP search team because Teddy is who put the presidential bug in Obama’s ear in the first place. Back at the very beginnning of the process, Teddy was urging Kerry to say if he would run again because he said he wantd to support someone else, if Kerry wasn’t going to run. When Kerry declined to run, Teddy was oddly silent for a long time, while Ted Sorenson worked on Obama’s speeches. Then surprise, surprise, Teddy and Caroline endorsed Obama and Caroline is on the VEEP search team.
    Judging by Teddy;s mocking tone when he endorsed Obama as ‘”ready on Day One” and his remark when asked if Hillary should be chosen for VEEP, that Obama would need someone who would ACTUALLY help the ticket, I’d say Teddy is opposed to Hillary for anything. His recent medical condition sidelines him somewhat, and niow that Obama has the delegate votes, he can choose whomever he wants, regardles of what Teddy thinks.
    As for what I think having the Kennedy clan behind him can do for Obama, he’s the nominee, isn’t he? All of which just goes to show, it’s all politics, all the time, for all of them.

    Reply

  17. Tahoe Editor says:

    First, he didn’t and doesn’t have the WHOLE Kennedy clan behind him. But if he did, do you think that does it? What’s up with putting Caroline Kennedy on the VP search list? I don’t get that.
    He’s past the point of using Clinton power. Bashing it throughout the primary makes him look like a fool now — see his Wal-Mart-lovin’ economics advisers.

    Reply

  18. Kathleen says:

    Tahoe Editor… Obama is not alone… he has the whole Kennedy clan behind him….. Past what point of no return???

    Reply

  19. Tahoe Editor says:

    Obama is past the point of no return. He’s up against the past 20 years now — he wants to turn the page on Bush-Clinton-Bush, so he has to do it on his own.

    Reply

  20. Kathleen says:

    Hillary will be picked for VEEP, but good luck trying to vote in Nov. I see Busholini and Capt’n Ahab saying So? when their term expires.

    Reply

  21. Tahoe Editor says:

    Yeah, I don’t really care much about the Judas thing, but he is an idiot. Did you see his debate performances? He won’t be picked.

    Reply

  22. WigWag says:

    TE, he may be a Judas but he is very popular with Latinos. And he is a capable person. His behavior was tawdry though. I doubt he will get selected. It is widely rumored that he might have problems with sexual harassment that might come out. I even think Steve posted about this on the Washington Note once. I have no idea if any of the rumors are true. They could easily be vicious rumors and nothing more. Many Clinton supporters are deeply angry with Richardson; so his selection would be a double edged sword. Popular with Latinos, not so popular with many Clinton supporters.
    Obama’s best choice (who I have not even heard mentioned) would be Bob Graham, the former Governor of Florida. He’s extremely popular in Florida, he ran the Senate Intelligence Committee, he’s no older than McCain and unlike Obama, he knows what he’s doing. His health hasn’t been great, but then, neither was Cheney’s.

    Reply

  23. Tahoe Editor says:

    I’d like to see BO make a play for Hispanics and The West by tapping Bill Judas Richardson. That man is a full-on idiot.

    Reply

  24. David says:

    Adele,
    I’ve got to admit that I honestly cannot comprehend how a lifelong Democrat could vote for McCain. Assuming you are a Hillary supporter (and you’d better believe I’d be enthusiastically supporting Hillary if she’d been the nominee), did her speech on Saturday not move you?
    To vote for McCain is to reject what Hillary has stood and fought for for her entire adult political life. I just don’t get it.

    Reply

  25. WigWag says:

    Linda, I don’t know if you’ve seen this, but I wouldn’t be quite so optimistic about those Latino voters. At least not yet.
    From: The Hill Thursday, June 12, 2008 (To See the Entire Article go to http://www.thehill.com)
    Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) must commit to helping illegal immigrants achieve citizenship or else risk losing the vital Latino vote in the general election, Hispanic Democratic lawmakers are warning.
    If he does not promise so-called comprehensive immigration reform, the lawmakers say, the only other way to win over Hispanic supporters may be to pick Hillary Clinton as his running mate.
    The Congressional Hispanic Caucus is meeting with Obama’s campaign this week. One member says:
    “Hillary holds the entire Latino community in the palm of her hand,” said. Rep. José Serrano (D-N.Y.), whose district went heavily for Clinton.”
    A vice president for the National Council of La Raza says:
    …whether McCain can win over large enough numbers of Latino voters is “still an open question.” “But Latinos are brand-loyal, and after the Clinton brand, the McCain brand is the second-strongest among Latinos because of his military service and his immigration record,”
    And many Republicans remember that it was in 2004 when 40 percent of Latino voters abandoned the Democratic presidential nominee, Sen. John Kerry (Mass.), to vote for President Bush, Munoz said.
    Munoz called 2004 the Democrats’ “low-water mark” in pulling in Latino support. The “high-water mark,” she said, came in 1996, the last time a Clinton was on the ticket.
    Linda, don’t get me wrong. I don’t want to see Hillary Clinton on the ticket. I don’t want a qualified woman playing second fiddle to an unqualified man. I know you don’t see it that way and, of course, that’s fine. My point here is that Latino voters are not even close to being locked up.

    Reply

  26. brooksie78 says:

    The burn rate data is idiotic. Obama was in the middle of an election in April and McCain was sitting on his hands….. I’m glad they are overestimating their position.

    Reply

  27. Linda says:

    Recent polls seem to indicate that Hispanic voters who were for Hillary are going much more to Obama than to McCain and morethan white working class men or women who supported Hillary.

    Reply

  28. Mr.Murder says:

    Again, Hispanic votes are the future of America.
    McCain has done well to observe their assimilation into the body politic, almost well as has Hillary in her efforts.

    Reply

  29. Linda says:

    “The Deer Hunter” was filmed in eastern Ohio and western PA around the border and is a very accurate portrayal of the kind of people with whom I grew up in Youngstown, OH where candidates of both parties go every four years and do nothing for them. Youngstown’s economy and the steel mills closed in the late 1970s, and neither party has done a thing for the people there. They didn’t prosper in the 1980s, 1990s, or 2000s.
    I do hope that we get to town hall meetings and debates about issues rather than daily “gotchas” where both campaigns spend too much time attacking and counter-attacking about “sound bites,” taken out of context on cell phones and by blog citizen reporters.
    The same woman from “Huffinton Post” was at the Obama fundraiser in San Francisco and got the “bitter, etc.” comment as well as Bill Clinton’s “Vanity Fair” tirade—and both by not revealing who she was.
    A lot of Obama’s comments in SF really were about “What’s the Matter with Kansas” ideas, i.e., why do working class and poor people vote for Republicans and thus against their own economic interests. Call their attitudes what you will “bitter, disappointed, angry, discouraged.” They vote against their economic interests because the Republicans were smart enough to get them to focus on the Second Amendment and religious right values and not on other more important issues. One can call that a fact or call it “elitist.” And that buzz word will be used over and over again.
    Sexism by media and pundits mainly was terrible in the primary, but it did not lose the nomination for Clinton campaign that had bad strategy, fighting within its ranks, and poor management and financial planning. Clinton and Obama are very close in all major policy issues including those that impact women. Time will tell about whether the Republicans will be able to persuade women to vote against their own interests just because they are “bitter, angry, discouraged.”
    The main message of “The Deer Hunter” is what happens to the good working class men (Women didn’t serve in combat areas in Vietnam except for nurses.) who we send to fight our wars–the loss of life, innocence, disillusionment. A vote for Clinton or Obama against McCain is a vote to end that kind of heartbreak, pain, and suffering.

    Reply

  30. dickens says:

    “Deer Hunter” is correct. I’m terrible with titles, plots, stars, everything.

    Reply

  31. WigWag says:

    Don S. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think your wife means the “Deer Hunter” a 1979 movie with Robert De Niro and Christopher Walken. The protagonists were from a steel town called Clairton, Pennsylvania. Quite a sad movie. I remember being very affected by it when I saw it.
    The DeerSlayer is a book by James Fennimore Cooper. It was turned into a movie a couple of times but it had nothing to do with Pennsylvanians. The only bitter people in the Deerslayer were Native Americans. Trust me, they had the right to be bitter.

    Reply

  32. DonS says:

    WW, thanks for you reply: “Now this doesn’t make Obama all that different from any other politician.” Yeah, but lets hope he can do a fantastic imitation of something new and inspiring.
    Let’s both just do hari kari, unless your not into depression, etc. Just kidding.
    It would be fatuous to believe he was THAT different. Hillary sure ain’t either.
    After all the licking of wounds is complete, we have not much left. Politics sucks, period.
    Thanks for the link TE. It doesn’t provide much substance to the question of context, intention and tone to the quote in question. But it is depressing enough in its own right.
    Finally, as to bitterness, my wife reminds me of the movie “Deerslayer” and how those Penna folks were used and abused.

    Reply

  33. WigWag says:

    Don S. I agree with you in one sense. The nominating fight is over and Obama won and Clinton lost. But the acrimony felt by many Clinton supporters (including me) is not over.
    As to your comment about context, Obama was responding to a question at a closed San Francisco fundraising event about why he had been so unsuccesful at attracting the votes of people in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, (we could easily add Kentucky, West Virginia). His response, that Senator Obama assumed would never be reported, was heard by a blogger for the Huffington Post who posted it on that site. He responded by referring to his opinion that the economic marginalization of these voters was responsible for their focus on issues like religion and gun control and yes he called them bitter. While this is awfully elitist, that’s not the part that bothered me the most. What irks me is Senator Obama’s tendency to blame everyone else for his own failings. So his failure to attract Appalachain voters has nothing to do with him, and everything to do with the racism or ignorance or bitterness of those voters.
    It’s just like the Reverand Wright problem and his speech on race that the press loved but many of us found absurd. The pastor of his church, the man who married him and his wife and baptised his children repeatedly made objectionable comments. Instead of owning up to it and taking responsibility, what does Obama do? He gives a speech to explain why everyone in American, black and white is responsible for the race problem. That may or may not be true, but it fails to explain Obama’s willful ignorance about who Wright was. His strategy, as usual, was to evade responsibility and shift the blame to others.
    Now this doesn’t make Obama all that different from any other politician. Certainly both Clintons, McCain, Bush, etc. would be inclined to do the same thing. But Obama based his campaign on his being something other than the typical politician, and many of his supporters acted like he was the new savior of American politics. This made his evasions particularly galling at least for those of us who don’t like him.
    While the anger felt by Clinton supporters like me is no longer relevant to who wins the Democratic nominatiaon, it could easily prove dispositive in the general election. That’s why it matters.

    Reply

  34. Tahoe Editor says:

    He disparaged vast swaths of Americans because he thought he had a captivated and mesmerized audience that would buy everything he said without critical thinking — kind of like the raucous crowds at Trinity.
    Way too much information on the San Fran confab here:
    http://www.zombietime.com/obama_visits_billionaires_row/

    Reply

  35. DonS says:

    Puleeeeeze. Tahoe, this is not the time for the Hillary two step. I have addressed WW directly.
    If there is something “inside baseball” about all this, well then, suck it up, Hillary has more than emough of her contextual moments to argue over.
    Uh, and BTW, can you provide a link?

    Reply

  36. Tahoe Editor says:

    The only context that needs to be provided is the venue: a closed-door fundraiser with San Francisco liberals whose noses are too far in the air to see straight. Obama was telling them what they wanted to hear so he could raise money. End of story. Except someone recorded it.

    Reply

  37. DonS says:

    “. . . disparaging people who disagree with us by calling them bitter simply because of the color of their skin, their economic class or the region of the country they live in.”
    Wigwag, you ought to drop that one. Not just because its over, but because you know as well as I that it was taken out of context, twisted and misinterpreted.
    You should know that I am not a fan of Obama in any large sense. But I am a fan of debunking spin when I can. And you, it seems to me are pretty intelligent, but like a lot of us, use your intelligence as a sword to advance emotional attitudes.
    The intnetion of that phrase that Obama used and, dammit, the plain intention of that phrase when used by most intelligent people, is to evoke a sympathy for folks who have been overlooked, given short shrift, etc., etc. That is a VERY common Jewish trait — one of the better — to be able to relate to the underdog. But, blatantly, the phrase was twisted to connote a casting of aspersions, rather than empathy. How stupid would a politician have to be to do that!
    Please stop advancing this twisted interpretation. Its embarrassing me for you, if you can believe that. (I remember you once asked me if I would speak “that way” face to face with someone — so I feel entitled to return the favor of appealing beyond you rhetoric.)

    Reply

  38. WigWag says:

    This video from Rick Davis is circulating widely on pro-Clinton/anti-Obama blogs. Some of what Rick Davis says is malarkey. McCain has just about as much chance of winning California or Connecticut as Obama has of winning North Carolina or Virginia. In both cases the chances are near zero and Rick Davis knows it. Davis is also being disingenuous when he combines the moneny raised by McCain with the RNC and the money raised by Obama with the DNC. Why? Because much of the money raisied by the national parties needs to be devoted to congressional, senatorial and gubenatorial races. In each of these categories the Democrats are in a better position hands down. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committees are demolishing their republican competitors in fundraising.
    Like the last several presidential elections, three states will decide this one: Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio. That’s why Obama is pissing Steve Clemons and Washington Note readers off so much. The Jewish vote is huge in South Florida; big in Phiadelphia and small in Harrisburg and Pittsburgh; and very large in Cleveland and Columbus and not insubstantial in Cincinnatti and Toledo. Without this vote, Obama literally can’t win. He knows it. Hence his comments at AIPAC. It also explains his sponsorship of the 25 percent increase in US military aid to Israel next year.
    Here’s what Obama voters don’t get. Both Hillary and Barack made mistakes in their campaign, but we don’t think Hillary lost fair and square. The press hated her and Obama and his supporters unfairly called her and her husband racists. In our places of worship we don’t tolerate people who talk like Reverand Wright even if they are basically good people. And we don’t believe in disparaging people who disagree with us by calling them bitter simply because of the color of their skin, their economic class or the region of the country they live in. Disagree if you like, but that’s why many of us won’t be voting for Obama. We don’t like him and we have come to disdain many of his supporters. Whether we will vote for McCain, vote for a third party candidate or demur all together is still up in the air.
    After the Republican convention, McCain will be coming after Hillary voters hard. He will find a suspicious but receptive audience. I know that like Adele (above) I will be listening. What Rick Davis alluded to, but didn’t say, is that if Obama gets 90 percent of the Clinton voters in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida he wins those states and he wins the election. If Obama wins 75 percent or less of the Clinton voters in those states he almost surely loses those states and probably the election.
    From what I can see, the Hillary supporters I know aren’t returning to the fold. Many of us are getting angrier and angrier. I guess it’s only natural that Obama and Clinton supporters dislike each other so much. Each side views the other as apostates. And it’s human nature to hate apostates.
    The bottom line is that if you don’t think Rick Davis and John McCain have a fighting chance, you’re deluding yourself. Obama should win this election going away. The fact that he isn’t says alot about the weakness of the Democratic candidate, the idiocy of the nominating process and the obnoxiousness of Obama supporters.

    Reply

  39. Mr.Murder says:

    Highlight your own frustrations with Bush from McCain’s perspective.
    Hard to do when you made a lot of line item votes in the previous Congress. It can be done still, to a great extent, were you to try and attach to the political capital of people like Richard Clarke and Paul O’Neill you might well position yourself as the anti Bush without having to directly state it. That is the best way to contrast your differences, attach new value to people who are loyal to the greater concerns of America and have a Republican backgrounds, who also had to differ with the President. It creates traction, and advances points for you that otherwise would require far more political capital to found.
    The biggest item in this race is the political future of America, which lies within the constituency of Hispanic American voters.
    McCain has actually been pretty fair to those voters, with Clinton out of the way he could well secure their trust for this and future contests.
    That would be exemplary of a strategic victory, regardless of the electoral outcomes in the short term.
    The fact remains that 527s will help the contest, Obama ‘s preacher gave you a ton of ammo. You’ve seen the internal polling, he’s losing ground there where he got an initial lead on Hillary, burned voters are the hardest to win back.
    The way you can pair the dual conflict of becoming more inclusive with new voters and helping rally the traditional conservative base(working class, privacy concerns, Goldwater territory).
    The Reagan Democrats are Clinton Democrats. You might not wish to address this, but it is true, Bill Clinton was a Rockefeller Republican, Hillary even more so. Those are the winning votes, the people who voted there, outside of party preference or across the party lines and even across many supposed pillar issues.
    My suggestion, you do less to run on the fundamentalist platform, instead leaving that to state candidates to focus upon. You be the security man with public service records, and claim to unite people with their local flavors under a broad banner of the commander’s position.
    That way the fundamentalist vote gets what it wants, reinforcing their turf. Leave the evangelical acclaim to them, that is what they do, part of their credo, you must surpass that.
    Were you develop more cohesive an approach, and decide to employ some of the nuance required, you
    would compare this struggle to the Cold War, that there are elements opposing America, but for the most part humans all value freedom and opportunity, and we can develop stronger ties with these allied philosophies to achieve similar goals.
    The Iron Curtain would not have come down without the help of people behind it who helped dismantle that structure and ideology, in concert with our efforts to promote greater transparency in world matters.
    The same way we cultivated the people who helped inspire ground roots support that would one day topple the edifice of Communism, we need to do in this new era.
    That doesn’t mean you wouldn’t act where you deem it required, it simply is a way of deflecting some of the conflict model, power is the most effective means of persuasion. Peace can be obtained through power, it was in the cold war. Power can shape outcomes to better result, this is something that must be addressed in SEATO and with the help of NATO. Let’s help regional clients develop the means to stabilize the overall fabric of strategically critical sectors.
    How you wield power is critical to development of future security. Few are fans of Bush policy, or how you mostly rubber stamped his authority, but most would agree you’d actually listen to Admirals and Generals and work with their views to better results than what we’ve seen from the Bush White House. This isn’t much different than the John Kerry line of argument, but Obama has his endorsement and has indicated he could change plans at a moment’s notice in Iraq and flip-flop. If this is any different, he would reduce troop levels but not withdraw fully, leaving us with too few in numbers to accomplish an objective but still in country? He would agree to fight a smart war in Afghanistan, and end up in Pakistan in a wider conflict, and talk just as bellicose towards Iran when it’s an AIPAC convention? This is change from the losing campaign of John Kerry in 2004 to what way? This is different from Bush policy now, yet Obama himself helped give Condi Rice the stamp of approval as Sec. Of State. Why has he yet to notice how he supported the person shaping the policy, he’s a rubber stamp for Condi Rice, who has been a rubber stamp for GWB, and somehow this six degrees of separation is different?
    In fact, the best way to make Obama become defensive is to address his own shortcomings in key areas. He’s yet to host a European Affairs subcommittee that he Chairs when our NATO membership is essential to the Afghanistan mission. Campaigning and raising money appears to be more critical an objective to him, than making certain our troops and national objectives work with help of key allies.
    The failure to deny that he’d take greater steps to deployment of troops in Africa is a likely indicator that he’ll do that as well. Who will we be allied with, Odinga? That’s a barbed topic for certain.
    Again, weld some policy statements to those like O’Neill who have solid Republican credentials as a way to differ in policy on fast track terms.
    Adhere your embrace of the wider spectrum of voters, including Hispanics, the right to petition the government for redress of grievance carries no tags with it today.
    For every time Barack Obama says you are George Bush, he’s claiming to be John Kerry. Only, Obama didn’t serve his country in time of war, you and Sen. Kerry did.
    Use your own familiarty with the service as a way to emphasize that you will get the Generals and Admirals what they need to succeed. That’s part of fighting a smart war.
    disclaimer: It’s quite doubtful I would vote for you, though I did vote for GWB’s father as POTUS and work the polls that same year, at the tractor store.

    Reply

  40. Linda says:

    Both campaigns have pros running them, know what the top issues are, know their candidates strengths and weaknesses, have strategies,and know this will be close election and not a cakewalk for either candidate, and can make a good PowerPoint presentation.

    Reply

  41. Zathras says:

    Rick Davis is a pro, no question about it. He understates McCain’s fundraising problem and glosses over deficiencies in McCain’s campaign organization, but his assessment of the political environment and McCain’s place in it is acute.
    No Presidential election should ever be assumed to be a cakewalk ahead of time. I happen to think that by November the margin between Sen. Obama and McCain will be substantial; George Bush has just left McCain with too many disadvantages. Obama, though, does have some weaknesses as a Presidential candidate running in a general election; actually, these include not only the (correct) perception by many Americans that Obama is very liberal and the (also correct) perception by some Americans that Obama is much better prepared to run for President than he is to be President, but also one thing Davis doesn’t mention. Besides John McCain, the strongest Republican candidate Barack Obama has ever had to run against is Alan Keyes. So though I don’t believe McCain is likely to win, I can see why his people would think they might have a fighting chance.

    Reply

  42. Carroll says:

    I don’t think there is any strategy that could convince me to vote for McCain.
    My instinct about MCain is the same gut reaction I had to Bush Jr. when he first appeared on the scene.
    As the kids say..”he’s creepy.”
    I am not even going to pretend to have an open mind or listen to either campaign from here on out. I have heard all I need to hear. I am going on instinct alone, that has never failed me, campaign rhetoric as we all know is meaningless.

    Reply

  43. Adele says:

    You have got to give these guys credit for being honest about the challenges. The polls are looking better for Obama now. However, I am a lifelong democrat and plan to vote for McCain in the fall. The Obama folks better watch out. They are taking too many Hillary supporters for granted. A fair amount of arrogance there. And don’t throw the Roe V Wade argument out again. The war is a burden on McCain, but the fact that he is traveling all over the world says a lot about him. His trip to Europe earlier and now to Columbia is compelling.

    Reply

  44. jeff says:

    Talk about wishful thinking.

    Reply

  45. Jake says:

    Steve,
    Couldn’t agree more. Not going to be a cake walk at all. This will be an extremely difficult fight. I’m still not sure I understand the brilliance of this. Is it in the fact that they are talking so candidly about his struggles? In admitting that it will be an uphill fight because, well, John McCain has flip-flopped on multiple issues and now takes a position on Iraq (which is contrary to what a majority of the public believe, and we still, aren’t, clear, on exactly what Sen. McCain believes about Iraq) or the economy (which he clearly admits he knows next to nothing about). I enjoy your writing but again, don’t understand this post or the praise of the McCain campaign for it.

    Reply

  46. Steve Clemons says:

    jake — the data that rick davis shows in the briefing is not contrived. it’s strong in some parts for mccain and weak in others. I think it’s very important for the Obama supporters to be aware of the realities that are out there and not think that this is some sort of cake walk. you don’t have to like or even agree with davis, but you should keep an open mind and listen to how they are talking to the public about their own challenges, weaknesses, and strengths.
    i think that mentioning the economy and iraq war so directly is interesting because these are weak spots for mccain inheriting the mantle from bush who is responsible for our current circumstances.
    best, steve

    Reply

  47. Spunkmeyer says:

    McCain 2008: It Was His Turn This Time.

    Reply

  48. jake says:

    How so? I couldn’t disagree more. John McCain might be a compelling and competitive candidate for a couple of reasons but not because his campaign managers sends out a link for a strategy briefing. If his campaign manager didn’t realize that the economy and the war were the two biggest issues then he would clearly be the dumbest campaign manager around. Duh!

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *