Mon 15 Sep 2008
Eph Pundit: Advice For Obama
Posted by David under Eph Pundit at 12:17 pm
Mickey Kaus offers excellent advice to Obama.
1. Ignore Palin; 2. Get in McCain’s head the way McCain’s getting in Obama’s; and 3. Refocus on the economy in an accessible way.
And much more good stuff. Saying “Palin” does nothing but hurt Obama. Why does he keep doing it?
Print • Email| « Death of a Bank | Thank you, Ronit – for a break from the tedious and mind-numbing dissections on other threads … » |
65 Responses to “Eph Pundit: Advice For Obama”
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post
If a comment you submitted does not show up, please email us at eph at ephblog dot com. Please note that commenters are required to use a valid email address when submitting comments.
Rory says:
mccain just made it really easy to focus on the economy again with today’s gaffe. i hope obama takes it and runs with it.
September 15th, 2008 at 12:30 pmJeffZ says:
First, if you look, lately, Obama is barely if at all mentinoing Palin. His last three ads have, appropriately, noted that McCain is out of touch on economic issues, highlighted the McCain hypocrisy of running an anti-lobbying campaign run by lobbyists, and exposed the McCain campaign for the underhanded, sleaze-merchant infested machine it has become. In those three ads, Palin was I think mentioned maybe once, in passing.
Second, Obama couldn’t pull a John Kerry and just sit there while McCain and Palin sneered about community organizers, lied about their records on earmarks (especially Palin’s), falsely accused him of sexism, and sneeringly lecture a black man for his uppityness and insolence. The Obama campaign couldn’t sit silently in the face of these smears, and they couldn’t. Now that the intial shine has worn off the Palin bullshit machine, and the true narrative has gotten out there, and Obama has proven he is not going to just quietly steam when confronted with lies, I guarantee you will little about Palin going forward.
Again, if you look at the last few days, the message has been: McCain is out of touch (a pretty easy theme to put forward when McCain himself admits it!), and McCain and Palin will advance the failed Bush policies (again, pretty easy theme to put forward when their platform is identical to the last eight yaers). And the message is sticking. Obama and Biden have been on the offensive, and it’s about time.
September 15th, 2008 at 12:36 pmJeffZ says:
This is great stuff, by the way. I am really hoping some of this stuff starts to stick over the next week or so:
http://www.mccainpedia.org/index.php/Count_the_Lies
September 15th, 2008 at 12:43 pmhwc says:
four reasons:
1) Palin’s presence on the ticket severely challenges the Democrat’s chances of winning in November.
2) The presence of a strong, young, charismatic, female conservative on the Republican ticket potentially changes the political landscape for a decade.
3) Palin’s presence highlights the lack of a woman on the Democratic ticket
4) The Democratic nominee may have deep personal issues with women in politics.
September 15th, 2008 at 12:43 pmJeffZ says:
HWC, I believe the only explanation for your continued lies and vitriol about Obama is that you have “deep personal issues” with black Americans in politics. That is the only conceivable explanation. If you want to see what candidates think about strong women, why don’t you look at the most important choice they ever made — who they chose to marry. Michelle Obama is a brilliant, strong, independant woman. Their relationship, truly one of equals, tells me all I need to know about how much respect Obama has for women. By the way, Rory, I think this comment counts twice the normal rate …
Speaking of this topic, why don’t you count how many times McCain and Palin are each mentioned in Biden’s fantastic speech that he is delivering today:
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/biden_uncorks_tough_populist_h.php
September 15th, 2008 at 12:50 pmJeffZ says:
Also, if you are talking about the future of electoral politics, it is the GOP who should be worried — with McCain, the GOP has gone backwards in the modest steps they took in attracting minority voters, and the minority voting population is going to explode over the next 20 years. Moreover, there is a huge population boom among people 16-24, the vast majority of whom have been energized by the Obama campaign and will be supporting democracts in large numbers as they come of age. Once the combined black/latino/asian population approaches 40 percent or more of the population, as it will within the next few decades, we may be looking at a permanent Democratic majority unless the GOP does something to reach out of those voters, and fast.
September 15th, 2008 at 12:53 pmhwc says:
Sure. Play the race card.
Or, you could compare the lack of women in top positions in the Democrat’s campaign to other campaigns.
BTW, to give you an idea of how bad the polling numbers are, a new Siena Poll today shows the race in New York state tightening to a 5 point Democrat lead, down from 18 points in June.
September 15th, 2008 at 12:57 pmRonit says:
I have to agree with JeffZ. If you a are a lifelong Republican, or at least someone who has consistently professed conservative politics, then voting for McCain is completely legitimate and respectable.
If you are so-called “lifelong Democrat” who refuses to support Obama, the likelihood is much higher that identity politics is the main thing driving your decision. If you could have supported Hillary, but you can’t support Obama now, it is really hard to find a legitimate policy-based reason for that decision.
September 15th, 2008 at 1:06 pmRory says:
$210. (yes it counted double).
other polls out have the McCain convention bounce slowing and reversing. but nevermind that.
this has to be the single most laughably weak attack hwc has launched…the number of high ranking women in a campaign?!? Really? that’s the barometer now?
remember that list from bristol’s mom? oh you forgot it, hwc? here it is:
-the first female VP candidate
-the support of more woman
-the first serious female Presidential candidate in their primary
-the first female Speaker of the House
-more than twice as many female senators as the republicans
-more female governors
-and more than twice as many female members of the house of representatives.
which party has ^^^ on their resume. oh, its the democrats. oh, hwc’s being obtude. hey look–2+2 = 4!
September 15th, 2008 at 1:07 pmJeffZ says:
HWC, how many blacks are in top positions in the Republican’s campaign???? Yet I am not calling McCain racist. And I never would. You, however, continually call Obama sexist without explanation. All you DO is play the sex card — because Obama did not select Hillary (which he had very good reasons to do, which I have chronicled in great detail before), you insist he is inherently sexist. It is ridiculous and offensive. And by YOUR OWN LOGIC it must be racist because there can be no other possible explanation for your hatred, right??? Yet, despite being asked consistently, you refuse to defend (because you can’t) McCain’s littany of ACTUAL SEXIST BEHAVIOR, something there is NOT ONE EXAMPLE of in Obama’ past. You are either incredibly racist or incredibly stupid, because there is no other explanation for your continued assertion that Obama is a sexist while apologizing for McCain’s well-chronicled history of less than hospitable attitudes towards women. And don’t say “well he picked a woman for VP” — acting out of pure self-interest in a hail mary heave to secure his own aspiration, in other words using a woman (just like he used his wife’s money to advance his career in the past) does not qualify you as some sort of enlightened defender of women. Fortunately, the majority of women are not as stupid or as easily fooled as you are — in fact, you are the best argument for the inherent superiority of women to men.
Seriously, you tend to extol schools like Swarthmore, Smith, and Bryn Mawr as places that are intellectual power-houses (not to mention, in the last two cases, feminist bastions). Why don’t you go talk to the students there, many of whom are, unlike you, actually women, and see what THEY think about which candidate is more hospitable to women’s concerns. It’s Obama, and by a landslide.
The national polls are already turning around by the way as McCain’s wholly ordinary convention bounce fades.
September 15th, 2008 at 1:08 pmJeffZ says:
Strike one thing — I don’t think McCain is racist, but I do think he will play on racial fears in his advertising — as he demonstrated in his last advertisement snidely chiding Obama for daring to stand up to Sarah Palin’s lies. You don’t see Obama standing up and telling his friends in the GOP to stop calling Obama uppity, yet Obama made a strong stand against invoking Palin’s family issues.
September 15th, 2008 at 1:10 pmRory says:
oh, and that siena poll? the drop is explained by the switch to likely voters from registered voters. because democrats traditionally win in the younger and first-time voting population (and this year shows no reason to buck that trend at all), polls of “likely voters” are almost always republican leaning.
September 15th, 2008 at 1:10 pmJeffZ says:
Arghh, I meant McCain standing up … typing faster than I can think at this point.
September 15th, 2008 at 1:10 pmSoph Mom says:
Advice…
Well, of course recent circumstances give him the perfect opportunity to discuss the economy, and his approach. He is light years ahead of the GOP ticket in terms of a thoughtful, intelligent plan.
Also, I would really like to see him hit home the fact that the Republican party is counting on the stupidity of the American people. Their message, and their strategy, is dependent on ignorance. Once, and if, the voter becomes aware of that, the McCain/Palin ticket is toast.
The entire GOP, for that matter, uses, and then abuses, a huge majority of their voters. Many who support that party have absolutely nothing to gain and everything to lose, by voting the M/P ticket.
Also, Obama needs some zingers. Not outright lies as is the wont of McCain and Palin…but some fast and forceful lines that the press can easily use. He is such an intellect, a thinker, and ‘one-liners’ aren’t his style, but considering the attention span of the public…and the press, some quips would come in handy.
BTW, Jeff,
Did you see the little ‘gift’ I left you on the “Bush Doctrine” thread? Comment # 43
September 15th, 2008 at 1:24 pm;-)
Rory says:
Biden’s speech is great. this part especially:
Senator McCain has confessed, quote, “It’s easy for me to go to Washington and frankly, be somewhat divorced from the day-to-day challenges people have.” And he’s right, if all you do is walk the halls of power, all you hear are the wants of the powerful.
I believe that’s why Senator McCain could say with a straight face, as recently as this morning, and I quote “the fundamentals of our economy are strong.” That, “We’ve made great progress economically” during the Bush years. But friends, I could walk from here to Lansing, and I wouldn’t run into a single person who thought our economy was doing well, unless I ran into John McCain.
September 15th, 2008 at 1:24 pmSoph Mom says:
Oh…and per HWC’s ridiculous assertion that he is voting the GOP ticket because of Palin?
I said it before and I will say it again: Anyone who claims they are a Dem, but now asserts they are voting for the (glaringly weak) McCain/Palin ticket because of what it does for women, is bullshitting to an enormous degree.
What a crock!
September 15th, 2008 at 1:30 pmhwc says:
How many years has Joe Biden walked the halls of power as a US Senator? Thirty-six years, you say?
Interrupted only by his multiple failed runs for the Presidency in even numbered years when he hopes the voters have forgotten about his plagiarism.
September 15th, 2008 at 1:33 pmDick Swart says:
Palin’s possibility brings us one step closer to the view eloquently expressed in the national anthem of one of our close allies:
“Kazakhstan greatest country in the world.
All other countries are run by little girls.”
And our once-mighty potassium industry is foundering!
What does McCain have to say about that!
September 15th, 2008 at 1:37 pmRory says:
Did Biden say the fundamentals of the economy are strong? No? then you should stfu.
September 15th, 2008 at 1:39 pmSoph Mom says:
Rory, Jeff, he is baiting you. Don’t get sucked into the HWC abyss of hate and lies.
He tries to derail each and every conversation into a platform for his vomit. It has to do with his desperate need for attention as well as his need to denigrate others. Classic BULLY syndrome.
Walk away, ignore him.
September 15th, 2008 at 1:41 pmhwc says:
I didn’t assert that. I am voting the GOP this year because:
a) My requirement that candidates have the experience to be commander in chief, narrowed the field.
b) I am open to voting for McCain because, on balance, he has been a stand-up guy willing to take political heat for principled posisitons over an extended career.
c) Having narrowed the field to McCain or a write-in, the willingness of McCain to nominate a women to one of the top two spots on the GOP ticket addresses a major issue for me and, thus, makes me willing to cast a somewhat enthusiastic vote.
The presence of a woman on the ticket is not sufficient in and of itself. For example, I would not have voted for an Obama/Clinton ticket because the Presidential nominee fails to cross my commander-in-chief threshold.
Likewise, I would not vote for a Republican ticket with Sarah Palin as the Presidential nominee. Although she has a bit more experience than the Democratic Presidential nominee, she hasn’t yet crossed the Commander-in-Chief threshold. She might cross it during the next four years as Vice-President, just as I always felt the Democrat would if he knuckled down and spent the next four or eight years as a Senator, VP, or Governor of Illinois.
September 15th, 2008 at 1:42 pmSoph Mom says:
LOL, Dick!
TERTTLFY!
September 15th, 2008 at 1:46 pmRory says:
new poll in virginia has obama up 4. 50-46.
also, the man behind the latest obama smear re: Iraq? the same guy who falsely claimed Iran was going to force Jews to wear yellow patches . Reliable source, eh? the NY Post column by a discredited “journalist”. lol.
September 15th, 2008 at 1:50 pmhwc says:
BTW, I don’t claim to be a Democrat, only to voting for the Democratic candidate in most elections.
I’ve been a registered independent since the late 1980s. In Massachusetts, registering as “unenrolled” gives you more flexibility in voting in either party’s primary.
For example, I voted for Pat Buchanan in the 1996 Republican Primary. I was a very strong Clinton supporter. The outcome of the Democratic primary was not in doubt. Hot off the heels of his win in New Hamphsire, I thought that Buchanan would be the Republican’s most divisive (and therefore weakest) nominee — much like Obama this year is proving to be divisive to the Democratic Party.
Being a free agent independent, as opposed to a “yellow dog Democrat” gives the flexibility of strategic voting in any given election.
September 15th, 2008 at 1:51 pmJeffZ says:
Soph Mom, you’re right, it’s just so hard to resist … re the Biden comment, for instance, totally fair for him to call McCain out of touch when McCain was flying between his wife’s seven homes on his wife’s private jet while Biden was taking the train home from D.C. every night. Also, if you want to talk about hypocritical statements by candidates, you have to start with the laughably inexperienced and out-of-her-depth Palin snidely denigrating Obama’s experience.
Oh, and thanks for the Koch link. I think Florida is still a long shot, but the Palin nomination definitely gives the Dems a big leg up with Jewish voters, which was looking shaky prior to that point.
September 15th, 2008 at 1:57 pmRonit says:
hwc – If your primary criteria is experience and qualifications, then make the argument on those grounds. Right now, your vile smears against Obama make you sound like a slimy, incoherent, crypto-racist nutjob.
September 15th, 2008 at 2:01 pmRonit says:
by the way has anyone else seen the latest from those Communist liberal anti-American sexists at the WSJ?
September 15th, 2008 at 2:05 pmSoph Mom says:
Wow! Just a slight stretch. What unabashed liars.
See TPM, (my new favorite site, thanks to Rory) for an assessment that the press is starting to step up to the plate re the continuous lies from McCain/Palin.
September 15th, 2008 at 2:12 pmhwc says:
Here’s the money quote from the WSJ article cited above:
In fact, in the current fiscal year, she is seeking $197 million for 31 projects, the records show.
But, of course, Ronit already knew that. I posted them from an Anchorage Daily News article last week. Of course, acknowledging the truth that Palin has reduced earmark requests each year in office would be admission that she walks the walk.
BTW, I have cited commander-in-chief experience as my number one issue each and every time I am indignantly asked here how I could vote for McCain against The One.
September 15th, 2008 at 2:13 pmhwc says:
$197 million versus $350 million. That appears to be a 44% reduction in earmark requests since Governor Palin took office.
September 15th, 2008 at 2:15 pmRory says:
reducing earmarks is like switching from heroin to cocaine. yeah, its better, but it’s not something to base your campaign on!
you could make the case based on CiC (i’d think you horribly wrong, but fine) but you don’t, hwc. you post every last smear about Obama without ever verifying/checking them.
don’t hide from what you are doing.
September 15th, 2008 at 2:19 pmRory says:
and to me, this is the money line:
“It is difficult to compare Sen. Obama’s earmark record with Gov. Palin’s — their states differ in size, for instance, and the two candidates play different roles in the process. But using the same calculation that the McCain campaign uses, the total amount of earmarked dollars divided by the number of working days while each held office (assuming a five-day workweek, every week, for both), Gov. Palin sought $980,000 per workday, compared with roughly $893,000 for Sen. Obama.”
i can only imagine if they compared it by per constituent basis instead…lol.
September 15th, 2008 at 2:21 pmhwc says:
As a daily reader of TPM going back to 2006, I would caution you that Josh Marshall has about as much journalistic integrity as Rush Limbaugh. His reporting, even when I agree with it (such as the Justice Department probes), definitely falls into the tin-foil hat, wingnut category.
September 15th, 2008 at 2:23 pmhwc says:
Puhleeze. You want some real smears? I don’t post a fraction of them.
September 15th, 2008 at 2:25 pmSoph Mom says:
Thanks, HWC.
Your ‘advice’ means so much to me. After all, you are so credible yourself.
LMAO!
September 15th, 2008 at 2:27 pmSoph Mom says:
“Right now, your vile smears against Obama make you sound like a slimy, incoherent, crypto-racist nutjob.”
More than ’sounds like’….
September 15th, 2008 at 2:31 pmJeffZ says:
Well, Obama has had a 100 percent reduction in earmarks, since he has requested none for 2009. By every standard: earmarks per day, earmarks per capita, reduction in requests, or more importantly, how about ACTUALLY PASSING BI-PARTISAN LEGISLATION THAT SHEDS LIGHT ON THE EARMARKING PROCESS, Obama has a better record on earmarks than Palin. But really, that is besides the point — Obama isn’t basing his entire campaign on an anti-earmark platform. Palin/McCain are. I don’t see anything inherently wrong with either Obama or Palin seeking earmarks — they were, after all, only acting in their constituents interest. I do have a problem with the hypocrisy, not to mention the outright lying, that has run so rampant in the McCain campaign that even the RIGHT WING — Karl Rove, Orrin Hatch, WSJ, etc. — is calling them out. McCain is running against the republican establishment that he has increasingly supported over the last eight years (over the last two, essentially without deviation or reservation), and Palin is running against the very earmark process from which her state was the biggest beneficiary under her leadership. It is beyond ridiculous.
September 15th, 2008 at 2:32 pmJG says:
Re: #29 from hwc. Lovely quote you pulled, but of course you missed the sentence just above that:
The point of the WSJ providing the Palin earmark info was to contradict the BALD FACED LIE from your chosen candidate. Which question covers lying to the American people in your personal “commander in chief” test? If they were touting her reduction of earmarks, that would be a FACT on which individuals can place whatever value they choose. But no, instead they just lie. Lie lie lie lie lie lie lie lie.
September 15th, 2008 at 2:36 pmRory says:
hahahahahahahaha.
please, i dare you, give me one example of Josh Marshall being anywhere near as ridiculous as limbaugh. i beg you.
and if you know more smears, congrats. that doesn’t make the smears you do post (see the latest from the NY Post lie department) any less pathetic.
September 15th, 2008 at 2:37 pmjeffz says:
It seems like Obama is taking all the advice to heart re: sharper lines. Here are some great ones:
“But now suddenly, John McCain says he is about change, too. He even started using some of my lines. Suddenly he says he wants ‘to turn the page.’ He had an ad today that he started running that he and Gov. Palin would bring the change that we need. He had this in an advertisement. Sound familiar? Let me tell you something, instead of borrowing my lines he needs to borrow our ideas,” Obama said.
He followed up with [a] dig on lobbyists, saying “if you think those lobbyists are working day and night for John McCain just to put themselves out of business, well then I’ve got a bridge to sell you up in Alaska.”
Also, according to Daily Kos, over the last five days (again, Daily Kos is on the far left, BUT, presumably it uses a consistent methodology in its own daily tracking polls) Palin’s approval rating has from plus 17 to plus 4 — a fairly dramatic drop. Her approval rating is now about 12 points below Biden’s. Basically, the more people see of Palin and the more they learn about her, the less they like her.
September 15th, 2008 at 2:52 pmJG says:
Oh, and btw the “advice” actually came from Mark Halperin of Time, who Kaus quoted.
Normally I wouldn’t bother with such a correction, but since I got in trouble for citing the Anchorage paper publishing an AP story, I figured tit-for-tat was necessary. Also, since I generally detest Kaus, I figued others might view the advice differently coming from Halperin, for what it’s worth.
September 15th, 2008 at 2:53 pmRonit says:
Thanks, JG. I was a litte puzzled by the Kaus quote, because it would have marked the first sensible thing he has said in at least 20 years.
September 15th, 2008 at 3:02 pmSoph Mom says:
BTW, thanks for the “Lie-Counter” link, Jeff. I just zipped it out on a mass email.
It’s nice to know someone is keeping track.
It will bet money, that after some time passes, there will be a plethora of McCain campaign insiders stepping forth to expose the ugliness of the strategy. Whatever decent folk are involved in it will eventually feel the need to fess up.
September 15th, 2008 at 3:02 pmce says:
$50 that hwc doesn’t respond to McCain’s lying, Palin’s being worse about earmarks than Obama despite the fact that she’s running on it and he is not, McCain’s being a sexist, or the internals show Palin’s approval rating being less than Biden’s.
September 15th, 2008 at 3:48 pmhwc says:
Let’s compare Palin versus Obama on campaign contributions from the failed Freddie and Fannie Mac exectutives. The top three since 1988 are Chris Dodd, John Kerry, and Barack Obama. No wonder the Dems fought the Bush Treasury Department’s efforts to bring new financial controls to the quasi-government enterprises before they failed.
September 15th, 2008 at 3:54 pmhwc says:
On earmarks, how many did Obama’s buddy Dick Durbin request this year?
And why is Obama late to the party? I believe that Senator McCain has NEVER requested an earmark. So, yeah…let’s make that a campaign issue.
September 15th, 2008 at 3:55 pmRory says:
your team has made it a campaign issue. and its backfiring as we speak.
and why would an alaskan governor get contributions from freddie and fannie mac? lmao. then again, this is the problem with trying to defend a dishonorable campaign…eventually, you really do have to try to make 2+2 = 5.
and what in gods name does dick durbin have to do with anything? nevermind…i don’t want to know.
September 15th, 2008 at 4:01 pmnuts says:
Rory @9 1:07 pm
$210. I donated on-line here, http://www.donate.barackobama.com. Who won the pool? Soph Mom?
September 15th, 2008 at 4:34 pmnuts says:
What fool would take that bet?
September 15th, 2008 at 4:35 pmce says:
I guess I wasn’t clear enough. I’m donating $50 to the Obama campaign if hwc doesn’t do any of the above.
September 15th, 2008 at 4:44 pmRory says:
i believe it was after 10 am, but only because he didn’t wake up early enough, not for lack of effort! but it’s been hard to keep track.
i technically owe $10 more towards the campaign (and probably another $50 since, but i can’t keep this up). then again I got a shirt, and that’s technically a donation…lol.
September 15th, 2008 at 4:52 pmSoph Mom says:
Nuts,
I told Rory to keep going with the tally. I have set an amount to donate when I pay bills in about a week and it more than covers the Fund so far.
That is, if he can stand to keep count. It’s a rather unpleasant responsibility, IMO.
September 15th, 2008 at 4:56 pmJG says:
You should set up one of those little trackers so we can keep a tally of how much hwc raises for Obama. It’s only fair that he get a t-shirt as well for his efforts, right ;)
September 15th, 2008 at 5:01 pmSoph Mom says:
Rory,
I just (5 minutes ago) emailed $50.00 to Obama. It was an irresistible ‘matched donation’ drive. But since I’m not counting that as part of my HWC BS OBAMA FUND, consider your balance taken care of; a token of appreciation from me for handling such a dour job.
September 15th, 2008 at 5:02 pmRory says:
there’s another $40 in this thread. so we’re at $250.
clearly, this isn’t dissuading him (which is funny. He should, as a proponent of “strategic voting” living in MA, realize that across the four or five of us in this competition he’s been the cause of a total donation of roughly $1000. Considering that Kerry’s cost per vote was $5.52, that’s not very strategic of hwc…)
September 15th, 2008 at 5:03 pmnuts says:
CE, I see. Good idea. Great cause. I think the Obama Campaign will appreciate it.
September 15th, 2008 at 5:10 pmSoph Mom says:
A tracking device! Kind of like the McCain Lie-Counter …but it would need to update hourly.
Dick could have a hay-day with that.
September 15th, 2008 at 5:11 pmnuts says:
a musical short
September 15th, 2008 at 5:23 pmnuts says:
rory @ 55. The courts decided money = free speech when they pared back McCain’s landmark election reform bill to the benefit of Republicans and the determinant of Democrats. I don’t mind spending my money in an attempt to get a two-fer… but only Obama has benefited so far.
September 15th, 2008 at 5:26 pmJeffZ says:
I will do my part later tonight, glad we’re all on board!
Speaking of fund raising, people saying Obama won’t have a huge financial advantage going forward are missing the point. First, he has already spent a TON of money on the ground operation, something McCain is way behind in — Obama has far more offices, campaign workers, etc. busy registering and getting voters out in swing states. Also, in recent elections, because the RNC has had a huge fundraising advantage over the DNC, the dems have been at an enormous DISadvantage. Because Obama will raise far more money than McCain, the total expenditures going forward will be fairly even, something that would have been impossible had Obama took public financing (the system is of course a total joke when people can given far MORE money to the parties and 527’s than they can to individual candidates in all events). And while Obama and Biden are busy at fundraisers, they have a lot more energy than McCain, so they still pack in just as many public campaign events as McCain does (compare the schedules). And McCain, w/out Palin, does not draw people or attention, meaning Obama and Biden can split up more effectively on the trail.
September 15th, 2008 at 6:01 pmPTC says:
Here is a really well done investigative artivle on Palin and the way in which she governs.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/politics/14palin.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Also, great post from a local Alaska blogger on the Women Reject Palin rally in Anchorage.
http://mudflats.wordpress.com/2008/09/14/alaska-women-reject-palin-rally-is-huge/rally63/
yea
September 15th, 2008 at 6:08 pmnuts says:
Which is why you go back day after day for over two years? Because Josh Marshall has about as much journalistic integrity as Rush Limbaugh? Is that why you listen to Rush daily, too, lack of journalistic integrity?
You’re so full of shit, it’s coming out of holes most humans don’t have.
September 15th, 2008 at 8:48 pmJeffZ says:
The genius of Stephen Colbert:
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/184928/september-15-2008/the-word—how-dare-you-
Honestly, if everyone just watched the Daily Show and Colbert Report every night, the GOP couldn’t get away with half of the ridiculous garbage the MSM is afraid to call them out on.
September 16th, 2008 at 7:22 amnuts says:
Why McCain went negative.
September 17th, 2008 at 1:08 amnuts says:
The exact moment America learned the McCain/Palin campaign jumped the shark with their campaign prevarications is the 1:12 mark on this video. 4mins.
September 17th, 2008 at 3:07 am