The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

Archives

Dan Balz's Take

The Muddy Road Ahead, and What the Candidates Can Do About It


Many of today's political strategists enjoy a good wallow in the mud.

By Dan Balz
John McCain has a tiger by the tail. Twice in as many days, McCain's Republican allies have launched unseemly attacks on Barack Obama. Twice, McCain has tried to distance himself from them. Does anyone doubt they will continue? Can McCain really do anything to stop them?

Barack Obama may have a similar problem on his hands, if he does become the Democratic nominee. McCain already has become a target of sharp and sometimes personal criticism from Democratic organizations. Those attacks will rapidly intensify. Can a Democratic candidate talk of unity and new politics while his (or her) allies savage the Republican opposition?

Political strategists dismiss such questions as naïve ramblings; they have campaigns to run and things occasionally get rough. But the conduct of the coming general election campaign will present serious challenges for the major party nominees for president, if the past few days are any indication.

What has soured many Americans on politics and fed public cynicism toward the way business is done in Washington is the sense that uplifting rhetoric and calls for an end to partisan warfare coexist too easily with unsavory tactics and underhanded attacks in hard-fought campaigns -- that all the talk about a better politics is disingenuous when winning becomes the objective.

McCain has faced this test first. On Tuesday, a Cincinnati radio talk show host well known for his flamboyant style warmed up a McCain audience by repeatedly attacking "Barack Hussein Obama." McCain said he would make sure such introductions never happen again.

On Wednesday, the Tennessee Republican Party sent out a press release that began this way: "The Tennessee Republican Party today joins a growing chorus of Americans concerned about the future of the nation of Israel, the only stable democracy in the Middle East, if Sen. Barack Hussein Obama is elected president of the United States."

Only after criticism did the party amend the release to remove Obama's middle name. But the release, which was headlined "Anti-Semites for Obama," still stands. It includes criticism of Obama because Minister Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam supports Obama's candidacy -- though Obama has repudiated Farrakhan's anti-Semitic views and rejected his support.

After the Cunningham incident on Tuesday, Obama's campaign accepted McCain's word that he had no prior knowledge of what the radio talk show host might say and let the matter rest there.

The McCain campaign then issued a challenge to Obama. Campaign communications director Jill Hazelbaker charged that the Democrats had launched personal attacks on McCain, saying that Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean questioned McCain's integrity and an unnamed DNC official had branded McCain a liar.

"We agree with the Obama campaign's statement today that this debate should be 'respectful and focused on issues,' and it would be encouraging to see Senator Obama denounce the character attacks coming from the leadership of his party," she said in the statement.

McCain is challenging Obama to live up to his high-minded rhetoric on a second front -- his pledge to accept public financing and therefore spending limits in the fall campaign. Obama is hedging, no doubt in part because he is loath to shut down the extraordinary fundraising machine he has assembled. If he becomes the nominee, that too will be a test of Obama's sincerity about changing politics.

This week's dust-ups coincided with the announcement by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg that he will not run for president as an independent this year. Despite broad hints that he was seriously considering a run for the White House, the decision was no surprise.

Events have conspired against a Bloomberg candidacy. His hopes depended on the two major parties coming forward with nominees who would be most likely to continue to polarize the electorate and whose strategies would be grounded in energizing their left or right bases while leaving the middle of the electorate open to him.

McCain obviously doesn't fit that criteria, nor would Obama, if he ends up as the Democratic nominee. Long ago, a top Bloomberg strategist made clear that a McCain or an Obama nomination likely would make it impossible for the mayor to mount a successful campaign. With both as potential nominees, the door shut on Bloomberg's speculations.

But the elements that made Bloomberg even think about running remain central to the politics of the 2008 campaign, and the mayor, in his article in the New York Times, said he would seek to keep the candidates focused on that. "In the weeks and months ahead, I will continue to work to steer the national conversation away from partisanship and toward unity; away from ideology and toward common sense; away from sound bites and toward substance," he wrote.

With Bloomberg out, it is incumbent on the two major party nominees to remain true to those sentiments. McCain and Obama can easily control their own rhetoric and the conduct of their advisers. More difficult will be changing the culture of the political community, which is now populated by several generations of operatives who have learned the techniques of slash and burn, take no prisoners, demonize the opposition, accuse, accuse, accuse.

These changes won't come easily or quickly. Nor should this campaign be anything other than hard fought. But the events of this week underscore the clash of forces that will surround the major party nominees -- public sentiment for an end to partisan gridlock in Washington and political techniques designed to inflame and energize the party faithful. It is a combustible mixture, and it remains to be seen how well the nominees handle it.

Posted at 2:24 PM ET on Feb 28, 2008  | Category:  Dan Balz's Take
Share This: Technorati talk bubble Technorati | Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
Previous: McCain Endorsement Angers Catholic League President | Next: Obama: 'Remember N.H.'


Add 44 to Your Site
Be the first to know when there's a new installment of The Trail. This widget is easy to add to your Web site, and it will update every time there's a new entry on The Trail.
Get This Widget >>


Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



lypbfz pcvboih pzaur rofdizw kigejuq xrup icdhjs

Posted by: ekzjhtwrm vakrge | April 16, 2008 9:23 AM

lypbfz pcvboih pzaur rofdizw kigejuq xrup icdhjs

Posted by: ekzjhtwrm vakrge | April 16, 2008 9:21 AM

lypbfz pcvboih pzaur rofdizw kigejuq xrup icdhjs

Posted by: ekzjhtwrm vakrge | April 16, 2008 9:20 AM

bobbyvalenz:

Michelle Obama is the one the campaign uses to denouce any mention of his middle name as "the fear bomb". http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/michelle_obama_name_hussein_is.html

Posted by: JakeD | February 29, 2008 11:34 AM

The The Tennessee Republican Party did not just say his middle name. That is not the issue. They created a misleading article that stated that Drudge picture was "Muslim garb" and tried to make it appear that Obama supported Farrakhan.

They have taken it down but it was the worst smear piece I have seen.

Posted by: Holcombe1 | February 29, 2008 11:00 AM

dyinglikeflies wrote:

Trend lines are stabilizing in these Texas and Ohio polls, in the direction of Clinton.
---------------------------------
Can you provide a cite for these trend lines? I've seen just the opposite. Obama is closing in on Clinton in Ohio, and is tied with her in Texas. The Intrade prediction markets now have Obama at 77 in TX.

Posted by: smc91 | February 28, 2008 11:16 PM

Obama supporters on these boards act like cheap thugs, posting vicious personal insults at anyone who supports Hillary Clinton, clearly as an attempt to silence them.

This shows the total hypocrisy of Obama supporters, who preach unity and togetherness while practicing hatred.

If Obama is sincere about "changing the tone of politics" he would not want his supporters doing this.

They certainly do nothing to help their candidate by insulting Bill and Hillary Clinton and the people who love them as much as Obama supporters love Obama.

The bottom line for me is that Hillary Clinton has far better plans for solving America's problems than Obama does, and would be a far better President.

Personal attacks on her and her supporters only strengthen our resolve to win this election and to not have our voices and our points of view silenced.

.

Posted by: svreader | February 28, 2008 10:29 PM

shrink2-very good point. The Obama supporters hold all women in high regard. I respect and admire Hillary Clinton but the agent of change that can win and remove the Republicans from the White House is Barack Obama. If Obama wins the nomination, I think Hillary supporters will need time to digest their disappointment,but in time,they will get their minds around the issues again and join Obama in handing out a good case of whup-ass on the freedom-killing Republicans.

Posted by: soonipi6 | February 28, 2008 10:16 PM

Earlier I was reading a comment from a Clinton person who was blaming men in general for all that went wrong with her attempt to become president. She said, "I worry about how they treat their own wives and girlfriends."

So many Clinton people can not understand how feminist the Obama people are. We really do care about how men behave. Hillary needed to dump that jerk at the first humiliation. Personal integrity is a crucial issue in this situation.

Posted by: shrink2 | February 28, 2008 10:04 PM

I agree...nough said soonipi6...good night. I loved venting all my pent up excitement!

Posted by: frank | February 28, 2008 9:53 PM

What do you expect from a diverse community that is just coming to terms with the fact that America might actually elect someone that looks like them, an America they thought didn't give a crap. We're all dysfunctional in this crazy world. Let them work it out without your baseless comparisons. I'm guessin' your not black? As Hillary said: "It'll all work itself out."

Posted by: frank | February 28, 2008 9:49 PM

In the past, many educated white men would either be Republican or independent leaning Republican. After twenty years of watching the American bible-thumping Taliban hijack the Republican party, those white men are furious with these hateful idealogues. This general election will be different. The Democrats, the so-called "mommy party" of the past, will have the educated white men as "stormtroopers" who will laugh at Republican dirty tricks and attack their 100 year war candidate with ferocity. The Democrats have their fighters now and with us...losing is not an option. Get used to this sound...President Obama.

Posted by: soonipi6 | February 28, 2008 9:47 PM

dogsbestfriend,

The link you put up does not contain the alleged racist comment, just the end of a sentence. Can you find a link to the whole comment?

Meanwhile, what I read is that Obama supporters are outrageously racist. If white Clinton supporters were heckling and harassing white Obama supporters as a traitor to the race, there would probably be rioting in the streets. Here's the story in the NYT. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/politics/28race.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&ref=politics&pagewanted=print&oref=login

Posted by: rosepetals64 | February 28, 2008 9:43 PM

And least we forget that Obama has been fairly warned by the GOP, complements of Ms. Buchanan, that Barack must account for and atone for his "Muslim Blood". Hussein? What's this guy really trying to hide? How dare he have a father that came from another country.

Those jokers give Irish immigrants a bad name. Go back to Ireland Page (the north of course...on an island way out in the North Atlantic).

We need to spotlight all these fools. Make sure they don't have time to slip their hoods on.


Posted by: frank | February 28, 2008 9:36 PM

A bunch of whiners...wake up folks. The past is gone. The slopyard is quickly turning into the boneyard as these old schoolers are crushed by the massive power of the American people's voice.

Now that Obama has slain the Giant its time to slay the Madman in the Tower.

Strong Hearts to the Front! Its time to count some coup on these weary warriors!

Posted by: frank | February 28, 2008 9:25 PM

McCain just embraced a raging anti-Catholic bigot.

Whoopies. He just sealed his defeat, and by a wide margin. Those images will run again and again and again....

He's making this easy

Posted by: ben2 | February 28, 2008 9:09 PM

The only way to bring the two parties to issues instead of attacking each other is to have Hillary Clinton to become nominee of the Democratic party. Obama only knows to campaign and attack with slogans, and promises with no specifics on issues. It is not too late to switch votes to HRC,the country's future depends on it.

Posted by: johnycheng1 | February 28, 2008 9:02 PM

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Allow me to submitt the following:

"If ever a time should come when vain and aspiring men(or women) shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of it's experienced patriots to prevent it's ruin"
Samuel Adams

The majority of those now serving in the United States Congress fall into this category. William Daniel Cunningham is an experienced patriot and a great American. I, for one, support him and applaud his courage. The flame of freedom burns bright within him and should serve as a beacon to all Americans...regardless of party, race, religion and creed.

Samuel Adams

Posted by: oldanncrjr | February 28, 2008 9:01 PM

Why is everybody's ill-at-ease with Hussein, Obama's middle name? Even Obama's people are decrying the use of it. Is it because people are discomforted by it? But why? If you cannot be proud of our president-to-be's middle name why elect him? Even Obama himself has been silent about it. Preparing another rhetoric? If your name can be use against you and fears it, there's something wrong with you and the people around you.

Posted by: bobbyvalenz | February 28, 2008 8:55 PM

Hillary Clinton Refuses to Reject or Denounce Racial Attack

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuSqUnx78g0

Posted by: dogsbestfriend | February 28, 2008 8:53 PM

Omyobama, such passion, pls spare me. May be exclusive is a strong word, but in the hatred sweep stakes, even more than money raising, Omaba and his supporters are the clear champs. When Clinton talked about LBJ and MLK, they immediately painted with a race brush and brought race into the race for the first time, to their great advantage. (Of course, it is a shame that African Americans immediately forgot that the Clintons stood with them for 30 years, and turned en masse to Obama who did n't give a damn about Jenna 6 or the Black Caucus. But then, African Americans had put their emotions ahead earlier, and supported Clarence T when he cried high tech lynching of uppity black; so this is not a first). Ditto when Bill talked about Obama and Jesse, god knows how that was supposed to be racist. Nevermind that Obama called Clinton status quo at every turn, I guess that is par for the course, and not sexist. On one hand, he thinks he has more experience than Clinton, and on the other HRC is the status quo. Of course, more than Obama, it is his mindless drone supporters who are the pits of the earth.

For some one who is supposed to inspire us to greater good, it sure looks like all Obama has inspired is to split the democratic party in the middle, and inspire the scum of the world like Colby, Gerson, and Rich to write most hate-filled posts in NYT and WaPo week after week.

So, yes, I don't give a damn if Obama gets his comeuppance at the hands of the Rethugs. It is well known that the Rethugs play dirty, and they hate Muslims, minorities, women, and gay, so I am not surprised they will try the same against Obama. But the Omabamanics have showed they will try to bring down the only 2 term democratic president since WW2, his wife, and his daughter, in order to elevate Obama to his dream job.

Posted by: intcamd1 | February 28, 2008 8:34 PM

Barack Obama would have done a lot better in CA, by having a very strong anti-illegal immigration stance.

California, has more illegal immigrants than any other state; many, many, many, more.

Californians, including many legal Hispanics, are very angry that we don't have a candidate, who wants the fence built, and who wants the illegal immigrants deported.

California, in case you don't know, has a 14.5 billion dollar state budget deficit, all of which is directly attribuatble to providing free benefits for illegal immigrants.

California's governor isn't doing diddly squat to remedy the situation, girly-man that he is.

Posted by: buzzm1 | February 28, 2008 8:21 PM

Obama's background will be thoroughly checked like a needle in a haystack. If he wins the nomination there might be some very nasty surprises that might come out. We know Hilary through and through and there's no more surprises anymore. I am not an American but I fear for what might happen to us if Obama wins. He is all talk and rhetoric.

Posted by: bobbyvalenz | February 28, 2008 8:13 PM

All the RACISTS who criticize Obama because his pastor once praised Farakahn should clean up their own house first:

"Many Israelis--and many Americans--are sleeping through the rise of Lieberman. Others are through their actions facilitating the ascendance of fascist ideas in Israel. Lieberman is more than kosher as far as Washington is concerned. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice welcomed him at the State Department on December 11, a day after he was featured at a forum, sponsored by the Brookings Institution's Saban Center, that also included Bill Clinton, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and several other members of Congress."

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070101/lynfield

"In October 2006, Lieberman and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert signed a coalition agreement. Under the agreement, Lieberman became the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Strategic Affairs, a new position with a focus towards the strategic threat from Iran.[1] However, he left the cabinet when Yisrael Beiteinu resigned from the coalition in January 2008.

In 2002, at the height of the Palestinian al-Aqsa Intifada, the Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth quoted Lieberman in a Cabinet meeting saying that the Palestinians should be given an ultimatum that "At 8am we'll bomb all the commercial centers...at noon we'll bomb their gas stations...at two we'll bomb their banks...."[13]

In 2003, Ha'aretz reported that Lieberman called for thousands of Palestinian prisoners held by Israel to be drowned in the Dead Sea and offered to provide the buses to take them there.[14]

In May 2004, he said that 90 percent of Israel's one million Arabs would "have to find a new Arab entity"[15] in which to live beyond Israel's borders. "They have no place here. They can take their bundles and get lost," he said.[8]

In November 2006, Lieberman called for the execution of any Arab Members of Knesset who meet with representatives of the Palestinian government, saying, "World War II ended with the Nurenberg trials. The heads of the Nazi regime, along with their collaborators, were executed. I hope this will be the fate of the collaborators in [the Knesset]."[16] In response, Arab Israeli Knesset member Ahmed Tibi, demanded that "a criminal investigation be initiated against Lieberman for violating the law against incitement and racism".[17] He called Lieberman "a very dangerous and sophisticated politician who has won his support through race hatred." Lieberman was cleared of racism charges by the Israeli Deputy State prosecutor, while admitting that the office objected to the content of his statement. Tibi strongly objected to Lieberman's ministerial appointment, describing him as "a racist and a fascist". Labour minister Ophir Pines-Paz, who resigned over Lieberman's appointment, echoed Tibi's remarks, saying that Lieberman was tainted "by racist declarations and declarations that harm the democratic character of Israel".[18]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avigdor_Lieberman#Allegations_of_anti-Arab_racism

Posted by: dogsbestfriend | February 28, 2008 8:12 PM

Israel? They have got to be kidding. The US has too many problems to worry about the State of Israel.

Posted by: Maddogg | February 28, 2008 8:11 PM

Obama is just too wet behind the ears to do battle with Karl Rove and the Republican Party. It is a shame the Democrats are so hell bent on putting him in the game so soon. Yes, Obama is smart, but he is arrogant and has a temper. People like Rove will know how to make an idiot of him. Sigh. I so wanted a Democrat to win this year.

Posted by: bghgh | February 28, 2008 8:10 PM

intcamd1 -- You write a post about "Hussein Obama", stating you don't care if our party is destroyed and you complain about the "vicious and venomous" Obama supporters? With friends like you, the DNC doesn't need enemies if that's how you truly feel. Obama's people, by the way, did not "cry uncle" about the Wingnut Cunningham -- John McCain heard about the remarks after he spoke and on his own came out and denounced them. Which is alot more than can be said for Sen. Clinton, who when told of racially-insensitive remarks of a leading 84 year old Latina in Texas, said something to the effect that "supporters should be allowed to say what they think", even after the local newscaster in Texas gave her a chance at redemption by asking if SHE "denounced and rejected" the remarks. Her campaign had to come in with a broom and try to sweep up the damage hours later. Character assasination the "exclusive preserve" of Obama? Come on-- where does this stuff come from? Do you remember the fliers in New Hampshire and Iowa claiming that Sen. Obama was anti-choice, which claims were repeated over and over despite the President of Illinois NOW publicly stating Sen. Obama had a 100% rating and switching from Clinton to Obama because of the distortions? Do you not remember that the Drudge attribution of the Somali tribal dress photo to a Clinton staffer was NEVER disputed by the campaign -- only stating that the campaign has 700 members and Wolfson & Williams can't keep track of them all but THEY didn't tell anybody to post that. How about the Clinton supporter in NH who introduced Sen. Obama by saying "He's no JFK, and anyway, JFK was assasinated..." with Mrs. Clinton standing beside her, smiling and AGAIN statement not repudiated until AFTER the event, by campaign staff obviously more in tune than the candidate. Obama is not a saint; politics can get personal but since when is a call to aspirational change, hope and reconciliation so vile a concept as to engender such hateful responses? You don't like Sen. Obama? Fine -- don't vote for him. Support your candidate -- you should and you should help her. But you don't help her, and Obama fans don't help him, by resorting to gutter politics, personal atacks and distortions. Let's ALL get "real." Yes We Can!

Posted by: Omyobama | February 28, 2008 8:03 PM

Of course it's gonna get muddy. The Democrats are convinced that last time out they lost because of some unfair sliming and they're itchin' to git even.

The Republicans will reply in kind because, by God, negative campaigning works.

The problem for the Democrats is that they are picking the wrong candidate. While Republicans would have to go easy on a women for fear of raising a backlash by a majority of the voters, women, Obama lives in a free fire zone of political rhetoric.

Posted by: edbyronadams | February 28, 2008 7:55 PM

Democrats alternative to Obama. These are MUST WATCH videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idon1YPlCdA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPgC0-0bY0Q

Posted by: dogsbestfriend | February 28, 2008 7:54 PM

As a Clinton supporter, I shed no tears when Obama is shred to tatters by the right wing groups.

Character assassination has been the exclusive preserve of Obamaniacs and his pimps er journalists on the payrolls of WaPo and NYT such as Robinson, Rich, Colby and Dowd. They have been saying much worse things, most blatantly sexist, than Hussein Obama.

Needless to say, Obama never tried to stop his unpaid supporters like the Ricj, Robinson, and scum of that ilk. Now, when a talk show host says his middle name, which is truly his middle name, he is crying uncle.

As a lifelong democrat, it pains me to say, but if the democratic party is destroyed in this election, I could n't give a dmn, because half of the democrats have turned out to be vicious, venomous animals.

Posted by: intcamd1 | February 28, 2008 7:38 PM

OneFreeMan --

I've got work to do and can't keep answering posts. . .

Posted by: svreader | February 28, 2008 05:22 PM

_____________________________________________

Whatever, Bob. You've posted over 100 pages of comments to articles (which excludes posts to blogs like here) since January 24. That's about 1000 comments (many of them spam, but still)

Here's just a sample of how frequently you post:
Comment on: Some in Party Bristle At Clintons' Attacks at 1/24/2008 3:05 PM EST
Comment on: Some in Party Bristle At Clintons' Attacks at 1/24/2008 3:01 PM EST
Comment on: Some in Party Bristle At Clintons' Attacks at 1/24/2008 2:58 PM EST
Comment on: There You Go Again at 1/24/2008 2:55 PM EST
Comment on: Some in Party Bristle At Clintons' Attacks at 1/24/2008 2:49 PM EST
Comment on: Some in Party Bristle At Clintons' Attacks at 1/24/2008 2:46 PM EST
Comment on: What's Gotten Into Bill? at 1/24/2008 2:38 PM EST
Comment on: Some in Party Bristle At Clintons' Attacks at 1/24/2008 2:30 PM EST
Comment on: Some in Party Bristle At Clintons' Attacks at 1/24/2008 2:27 PM EST
Comment on: Some in Party Bristle At Clintons' Attacks at 1/24/2008 2:24 PM EST

That's ten -- TEN -- posts in 31 minutes. You've obviously got plenty of time.

Posted by: gbooksdc | February 28, 2008 7:34 PM

OneFreeMan --

I've got work to do and can't keep answering posts. . .

Posted by: svreader | February 28, 2008 05:22 PM

_____________________________________________

Whatever, Bob. You've posted over 100 pages of comments to articles (which excludes posts to blogs like here) since January 24. That's about 1000 comments (many of them spam, but still)

Here's just a sample of how frequently you post:
Comment on: Some in Party Bristle At Clintons' Attacks at 1/24/2008 3:05 PM EST
Comment on: Some in Party Bristle At Clintons' Attacks at 1/24/2008 3:01 PM EST
Comment on: Some in Party Bristle At Clintons' Attacks at 1/24/2008 2:58 PM EST
Comment on: There You Go Again at 1/24/2008 2:55 PM EST
Comment on: Some in Party Bristle At Clintons' Attacks at 1/24/2008 2:49 PM EST
Comment on: Some in Party Bristle At Clintons' Attacks at 1/24/2008 2:46 PM EST
Comment on: What's Gotten Into Bill? at 1/24/2008 2:38 PM EST
Comment on: Some in Party Bristle At Clintons' Attacks at 1/24/2008 2:30 PM EST
Comment on: Some in Party Bristle At Clintons' Attacks at 1/24/2008 2:27 PM EST
Comment on: Some in Party Bristle At Clintons' Attacks at 1/24/2008 2:24 PM EST

That's ten -- TEN -- posts in 31 minutes. You've obviously got plenty of time.

Posted by: gbooksdc | February 28, 2008 7:33 PM

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Then again that is all the liberals have: a little knowledge.

Distorting the U.S. Constitution and misreading a government document to make a point shows either total ignorance of the facts or is a blantant attempt to mislead. In either case, it is pathetic.

First, ANY child born to U.S. parents is a U.S. citizen. End of story.

Second, the reason U.S. citizenship is not automatically conferred upon a child born in a U.S. miltary hospital is because not only Americans might give birth there. If a foreign citizen, were to give birth in a U.S. military hospital (we do have foreign nationals in our military, after all), that child would NOT be a U.S. citizen. THAT is what the government document cited above means -- NOT that any child born there is not a U.S. citizen.

A child born to a U.S. citizen is a U.S. citizen -- whether born in one of the 50 states and the District of Columbia or anywhere on the planet.

Good luck with the Supreme Court losers!

Posted by: flyers_fan_1 | February 28, 2008 6:58 PM

Mr. Balz,

The "serious" reporters at The Post might want to take a look at this before they jump on the Russert/Farrakhan Bandwagon.


http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/john_hagee_post.php

Posted by: marSF | February 28, 2008 6:56 PM

I just read an article about how black sin Ohio who are supporting Hillary are being called "Uncle Toms" by other blacks who are supporting Obama

I have been called racist because I am not supporting Obama

pressure, you bet

Barak did not want this but it is turning out to be a very racist election

too bad

i was hoping for a sexist election

Posted by: lndlouis | February 28, 2008 6:51 PM

About Senator McCain:
I really cringe, when pundits on CNN or NBC go over the top micro-analyzing every letter of every word said by a candidate. It really suprised me the other day, when they started to analyze Sen. Obama's praise for Sen. McCain:

He is trying to appear holier than thou; the tactical point of it all etc.
Whatever happened to the pure humane instinct of saluting a genuine war-hero? Couldn't Sen. Obama be simply stating the obvious? That Sen. McCain's service to the nation should be respected and honored?

On the claim by Sen. McCain about Iraq: He reminded us today (per nytimes), that staying there is about the future and not about past decisions. Doesn't that imply that past decisions were essentially wrong? Since he was a part of that disastrous decision, why should one believe that he will be right this time around? In matters of war, where thousands of lives have been lost, and thousands more are in danger - I don't think you should get a second chance...

Posted by: amitavar | February 28, 2008 6:48 PM

The mainstream media bears much of the blame.

A guy saying Barack Hussein Obama a bunch of times at a McCain rally? Wouldn't have known about it, except for the media re-printing the story for the next 48hrs, over and over. I wouldn't go near a McCain rally, and could have been blissfully ignorant of the whole event.

A Tennessee Flyer from the Republican Party? Don't live in Tennessee, not a Republican. Wouldn't know about it. Except from the mainstream media.

Trying to get party zealots to act civil is tough, but just maybe the media can stick to some standard where they'll only report what's really news.

Neither will happen.

The media knows that the average American loves this mud. We love reading articles about how we're repulsed by this mud, makes us feel good. But deep down, we love this stuff, can't get away. Just like when there is a bloody accident, large crowd standing around, or a fire, you name it.

Posted by: camasca | February 28, 2008 6:46 PM

GOD I HATE LONG POSTERS (re: MsRita)..

and i hate posters (re: myself, who hurry 7 mistype typos)...so.. to keep with my latter, never the former (god!!!, what a misinformed person--LONG POSTS show that they are usually, grasping..)..

MY CORRECT..NO TYPO POSTING..
---------

OBAMA WILL END PARTISIANSHIP!!

..after 4 years of his failed
Democratic leadership.. he will be the cause of a reign of Republican federal Representatives, Senators and an Executive..

>>>DONT NEED A CRYSTAL BALL FOR THAT PREDICTION...... (chuckle)

ps. i apologize for the lengthiness..which i tried previously to avoid with (ambiguous) abbreviations..

Posted by: awithoff | February 28, 2008 6:32 PM

John McCain was born August 29, 1936 in the Panama Canal Zone, to two U.S. citizens. It's a common misunderstanding that the zone was a U.S. territory - in fact, the U.S. had lease rights, but not territorial rights.
The US Constitution states, "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States."
"Natural Born Citizen" - "is where ONLY the natural act of one being born in a place determines the status of ones citizenship with no additional stipulations necessary to influence that status"
No law or court ruling has ever established the precise definition of a natural born citizen. It is generally agreed that a natural born citizen of the United States is any person born in one of the 50 states or the District of Columbia.
John McCain's father "Jack" was born in Council Bluffs, Iowa. McCain graduated from the United States Naval Academy in 1931. Like his father and son, he graduated near the bottom of his class. He married Roberta Wright, a wealthy oil heiress, on January 21, 1933, in Caesar's Bar, Tijuana, Mexico. During WW II he commanded the submarine Gunnel at Operation Torch. After the end of the war, he was assigned to the Office of the Chief of Naval Personnel until 1948. He assumed command of Submarine Division 71 in the Pacific the next year. In 1950, he was assigned to a series of posts at The Pentagon. He spent the 1960s in a series of commands in the Atlantic, becoming Commander in Chief, U.S. Naval Forces in Europe in 1967 and 1968. Admiral McCain directed an investigation into the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty and he wanted the investigation done in less than a week even though the court's president, Rear Admiral Isaac Kidd, said that it would take 6 months to conduct properly. Admiral McCain also wouldn't permit Admiral Kidd to travel to Israel or to contact any potential Israeli witnesses. In fact, the written affidavits of 60 witnesses from the Liberty itself who were hospitalized at the time of the restricted inquiry, were also excluded from the final report and not considered as part of the evidentiary record. The investigation was completed in just ten days. The National Archives in College Park, Maryland includes in its files on casualties from the Liberty copies of the original telegrams the Navy sent out to family members. The telegramswhich called the attack accidental, were sent out June 9, the day before the Navy court of inquiry convened .
When Senator McCain was asked to reopen and conduct a proper investigation into the USS Liberty's attack he stated that he wasn't going to do anything about it because the "matter was thoroughly reviewed."
Senator McCain also collaborated with ultra liberal Senator Ted Kennedy to attempt to provide amnesty to nearly 40 million illegal aliens, mostly Mexican

Posted by: MsRita | February 28, 2008 6:24 PM

IS IS LEGAL FOR JOHN MCCAIN TO BE PRESIDENT?
John McCain was born August 29, 1936 in the Panama Canal Zone, to two U.S. citizens. It's a common misunderstanding that the zone was a U.S. territory - in fact, the U.S. had lease rights, but not territorial rights.

The US Constitution states, "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States."

"Natural Born Citizen" - "is where ONLY the natural act of one being born in a place determines the status of ones citizenship with no additional stipulations necessary to influence that status"

No law or court ruling has ever established the precise definition of a natural born citizen. It is generally agreed that a natural born citizen of the United States is any person born in one of the 50 states or the District of Columbia.

John McCain's father "Jack" was born in Council Bluffs, Iowa. McCain graduated from the United States Naval Academy in 1931. Like his father and son, he graduated near the bottom of his class. He married Roberta Wright, a wealthy oil heiress, on January 21, 1933, in Caesar's Bar, Tijuana, Mexico. During WW II he commanded the submarine Gunnel at Operation Torch. After the end of the war, he was assigned to the Office of the Chief of Naval Personnel until 1948. He assumed command of Submarine Division 71 in the Pacific the next year. In 1950, he was assigned to a series of posts at The Pentagon. He spent the 1960s in a series of commands in the Atlantic, becoming Commander in Chief, U.S. Naval Forces in Europe in 1967 and 1968. Admiral McCain directed an investigation into the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty and he wanted the investigation done in less than a week even though the court's president, Rear Admiral Isaac Kidd, said that it would take 6 months to conduct properly. Admiral McCain also wouldn't permit Admiral Kidd to travel to Israel or to contact any potential Israeli witnesses. In fact, the written affidavits of 60 witnesses from the Liberty itself who were hospitalized at the time of the restricted inquiry, were also excluded from the final report and not considered as part of the evidentiary record. The investigation was completed in just ten days. The National Archives in College Park, Maryland includes in its files on casualties from the Liberty copies of the original telegrams the Navy sent out to family members. The telegramswhich called the attack accidental, were sent out June 9, the day before the Navy court of inquiry convened .

When Senator McCain was asked to reopen and conduct a proper investigation into the USS Liberty's attack he stated that he wasn't going to do anything about it because the "matter was thoroughly reviewed."

Senator McCain also collaborated with ultra liberal Senator Ted Kennedy to attempt to provide amnesty to nearly 40 million illegal aliens, mostly Mexican.

When the Constitution was established, the United States government did not have a empire builder foreign policy. The United States military was for defensive purposes only. As a matter of fact, the U.S. is not to have a "standing Army" and all the documents evidencing the intent of the authors of the Constitution, warned against becoming involved in foreign entanglements. The U.S. had zero foreign based military forces and certainly did not approve of, envision, or condone having babies and raising families on foreign based U.S. military installations. The intent of the authors of the Constitution is exactly opposite the policy twentieth century U.S. government has pursued.

The Constitution of the United States, Article 1, Section 8, vests in Congress the power "to establish an uniform rule of naturalization." "Naturalization" is NOT synonymous with "Natural Born Citizen."

In order to come to a Constitutional definition of "Natural Born Citizen," one must look to the common meaning and understanding of the phrase at the time it was written.

The Constitution has been called a "living document" by liberal progressives who think they know better than the authors of the Constitution and want what they want with disregard for The Supreme Law of the Land. In one way, and one way only, is the Constitution a living document. The authors of the Constitution gave a specific process to add to or subtract from the Constitution and that is by amendment. The Supreme Court, the U.S. Congress nor the President of the United States are granted the authority to define or change the Constitution in any way, they only have an obligation and duty to obey it.

There were no foreign based US military forces at the writing of the U.S. Constitution, therefore, it is impossible that the intent of the Constitution was to have babies born to civilian wives of military personnel be considered "Natural Born Citizens." The only authority the government may lawfully exercise, through the U.S. Congress, is to declare these children to be "naturalized Citizens" at birth based upon the U.S. , Congress's authority "establish an uniform rule of Naturalization." I must reiterate, not the U.S. Congress, the U.S. Supreme Court nor the President of the United States is "authorized" to define or change the meaning, definition, or intent of "Natural Born Citizen" as prescribed by the authors of the Constitution.

The original "intent" and therefore meaning and definition of "Natural Born Citizen" is one free white man being delivered through natural progression of a pregnancy, born within the geographical boundaries of one of the several States of the union, and later the District of Columbia. This is very clear and simple and what it means is born HERE.

In the Fourteenth Amendment the eligible group allowed Citizenship was expanded from free white men to "All persons." This would have been better stated "all people" to avoid the bogus recognition of a corporation being a "person."This would have been better as it would have clarified the meaning as intended which is having rights of people but lacking any of the liabilities. One cannot imprison a corporation, but that is for a later article.

The Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1 actually defines "natural born citizen" by stating, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

One's wishes of what one feels things should be must yield to facts of law and one must accept the way things are according to the law until such time one is able to change the law.

There are two types of Citizenship in the United States, Natural Born and Naturalized. The fourteenth amendment defines "Natural Born Citizen" as persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. It goes on to explain that there exists a dual Citizenship that includes the United States and of the State in which on lives. This in itself serves to demonstrate that Natural Born Citizen being born in the United States means within one of the several united States of America.

People may feel that it is not right that John McCain is not eligible to be President of the United States of America, however, this is a fact of law. "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President. There are two types of Citizenship in the United States "Natural Born" and "Naturalized." Congress has authority to make rules as to how to become a "naturalized citizen." There is no such authority granted to Congress, the Court, or the President to define "Natural Born Citizen."

Given the fact the United States official and long term military enclaves presence within foreign nations was not authorized and in fact was cautioned against by the authors of the founding documents of this nation including but not limited to the Constitution it is not only unlikely but impossible that the authors intended anyone born outside the several States of the United States, for any reason, to be considered "Natural Born Citizens" of the United States. This position and fact is second witnessed and verified by the fourteenth amendment, section 1 where it states clearly the two forms of United States Citizenship and defines Natural Born Citizen as "all persons born...in the United States...".

Some will attempt to argue the point that U.S. military bases are under the jurisdiction of the United States and the fourteenth amendment mentions that. The fourteenth amendment states, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." The word "and" means "as well as" being born in the United States. Being born only under the jurisdiction of the United States, as some misguided military people would like to imagine, is not good enough. Some would like to believe that because the "United States" has a Status of Forces Agreement with a foreign government that military bases are somehow "sovereign" U.S. territory. If you murder a Panamanian citizen in Oregon you will be arrested by Oregon police, go through the Oregon courts and be imprisoned in Oregon, and now some other state maybe, but still within the U.S. If you murder a Panamanian citizen on a U.S. military base in Panama you will be arrested by Panamanian police, go through the Panamanian courts and be imprisoned in Panama. So much for "sovereignty."

All this discussion is nothing more than hot air and a waste of time that is off point. The point is that one cannot build a viable position on a non-existent foundation. In this case the foundation is the Constitution and the intent of the authors, NOT Status of Forces Agreements and worthless arguments by military men who would like to have babies on foreign soil, calling them natural born Citizens and have them run for President some day.

The authors of the U.S. founding documents counseled against becoming entangled in foreign wars. They also had a distinct distaste for colonial empire building. So now we are to believe that it was their intent to designate the prodigy, born on foreign soil, of the American centurion colonizing for the empire as a Natural Born Citizen?

The fourteenth amendment states "born or naturalized in the United States," that is IN the United States. At the time of the writing of the Constitution it was properly written as united States of America as the word "united" was describing the condition of the States not a proper name of a thing. The Congress can direct that persons may be "Naturalized" "in" the United States to mean embassies, military bases or wherever else they decide. That is what they are authorized to do. However, they are NOT authorized to redefine what "Natural Born Citizen" means. It means what it meant to the authors of the Constitution. The US did not have foreign military bases at the time the Constitution was authored. Therefore "born on a US military base in a foreign country" is NOT what they meant by "Natural Born Citizen."

The intention of the authors of the Constitution was that no person born outside the geographical boundaries of the several States of the United States of America be eligible to hold the office of President of the United States of America. Animus ad se omne jus ducit - It is to the intention that all law applies. Animus moninis est anima scripti - The intention of the party is the soul of the instrument. 3 Bulstr 67 - Maxims of Law from Bouvier's 1856 Law Dictionary.

There are consequences to disregarding the Constitution and the intent of the authors of our founding documents. There are consequences to following a course of empire building by military might. There are consequences to being born on foreign soil as a son or daughter of a centurion of that empire building military. You are not Constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States of America.

You may think it's not fair. You may feel it's not right. You may think because military and government "experts" tell you a military base in a foreign country is actually the United States that it's okay for John McCain to hold the office of President of the United States. You are nevertheless wrong and so are they, no matter how long they have told the falsehood and believed in error. communis error no facit just - A common error does not make law. -Maxims of Law from Bouvier's 1856 Law Dictionary.

The position stated in this article is based only upon the Constitution and the intent of the authors of the founding documents of this nation. The only authority on this matter is the Constitution and the intent of the authors. Argumentum ab authoritate est fortissimum in lege - An argument drawn from authority is the strongest in law. Co. Litt. 254.-Maxims of Law from Bouvier's 1856 Law Dictionary.

If you don't like the law, by all means work to change it, however, until such time that it is changed John McCain III is not a natural born citizen and therefore not eligible to be President of the United States of America.

http://www.theamericanvoice.com/

This entry was posted on February 2, 2008 at 7:05 pm and is filed under 2008, America, American, American Citizens, Constitution, GOP, John McCain, Law, McCain, POW, Panama Canal, US Constitution, United States, Voters, birthright, legal . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

8 Responses to "John McCain Is He Even Eligible To Be President?"
Christopher Procyk Says:

February 3, 2008 at 5:06 am
Oh Please! There are two definitions of a "Natural Born Citizen". One is also considered a natural born US Citizen if they are born to American Parents abroad.... Ergo.... McCain is in fact eligible. End of story.

americanchaos Says:

February 3, 2008 at 10:56 am
Constitutional definition

Section 1 of Article II of the Constitution contains the clause:
" No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. "

Additionally, the 12th Amendment to the Constitution states that: "[N]o person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

The origin of the natural-born citizen clause can be traced to a July 25, 1787, letter from John Jay to George Washington, presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention. John Jay wrote: "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen." There was no debate, and this qualification for the office of the Presidency was introduced by the drafting Committee of Eleven, and then adopted without discussion by the Constitutional Convention.

Children born outside the United States to American parents

Three major candidates have sought the Presidency who were born outside the United States: Barry Goldwater (ran in 1964) was born in Arizona while it was still a U.S. territory, George Romney (ran in 1968) was born in Mexico to U.S. parents, and John McCain (ran in 2000 and runs in 2008) was born in the Panama Canal Zone to U.S. parents. Barry Goldwater's case among these three is unique in that although Arizona was not a state, it was a fully incorporated territory of the United States, making it debatable whether or not he was born "outside" the United States. The Panama Canal Zone was under United States sovereignty between 1903 and 1979.[7] None of these candidates was elected, so it has never been fully addressed whether children born to Americans overseas are "natural-born citizens" and thus eligible for the Presidency. However, McCain is currently seeking the 2008 Republican nomination for President.

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born_citizen

azresistance Says:

February 3, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Great job on the site. Glad I've been able to help so much. I did notice that the block roll link to Arizona Resistance hits on our fair use page and not on our main page. If you could link it to Http://arizonaresistance.net it would be greatly appreciated.

The Arizona Resistance

americanchaos Says:

February 3, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Consider it done.

blah Says:

February 5, 2008 at 1:21 am
So you're basically saying that the 1790 Naturalization Act, passed by the First Congress, is prima facie unconstitutional? Or are you arguing that being 'considered' natural-born is different from being natural-born?

Good luck with that Supreme Court challenge.

americanchaos Says:

February 5, 2008 at 1:36 am
There are two types of Citizenship in the United States, Natural Born and Naturalized. The fourteenth amendment defines "Natural Born Citizen" as persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

JT Says:

February 6, 2008 at 9:30 am
Christopher Procyk, AND WHERE EXACTLY does it say that IN the Constitution?!?!? NO PLACE WHATSOEVER & NO Congress can pass acts, laws or whatnot that CONTRADICT the Constitution EXCEPT BY PASSING ADDITIONAL Constitutional AMENDMENTS that is AGREED UPON by enough of the states. See next paragraph:

blah, YES, the 1790 "act" was & IS NOT Constitutionally valid b/c it blatantly CONTRADICTS the Constitution & was NOT a Constitutional Amendment ratified by the required states. It may be valid for AREAS regarding citizenship NOT SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSED by the CONSTITUTION, however, it CAN'T CONTRADICT/OVERRIDE the Constitutional areas like which ppl are eligible for the offices of President & VP.

americanchaos Says:

February 6, 2008 at 5:40 pm
The Constitution states, "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible for the Office of President." The 14th Amendment did not alter this provision.

The status of the U. S. Navy Hospital in the Panama
Canal Zone is described by the U. S. Department of State in its Foreign Affairs Manual (7FAM1116.1-4(c)): "Despite widespread popular belief, U. S. military installations abroad and U. S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14^th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a
facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U. S. citizenship by reason of birth."

Posted by: MsRita | February 28, 2008 6:17 PM

You got your picture in the paper. Congratulations, Bob!

Posted by: gbooksdc | February 28, 2008 6:15 PM

OBAMA WILL END PARTISIANSHIP!!

..after 4 years of failed demo leadership.. he will cause of a reign of repub reps, sens and a exec...

dont need a crystal ball for that prediction... (chuckle)

Posted by: awithoff | February 28, 2008 6:04 PM

Yes, the sliming has begun already.

Case in point: The supposedly non-partisan Sierra Club has put out a series of press releases and member e-mailings recently that paint McCain as a career-long friend of "polluters and special interests."

This is the same McCain who:

* Favors carbon emissions caps;
* Voted repeatedly against oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge;
* Voted to strengthen vehicle fuel economy standards;
* Worked with Mo Udall to protect wilderness;
* Fought EPA efforts to weaken power plant mercury emission standards;
* Fought to reform the Army Corps of Engineers and its river-wrecking ways.

No good can come of environmental political operatives defaulting to their polarizing habits.

Posted by: Burkean | February 28, 2008 6:04 PM

the quote below is not mine, i whatevered it to here

now, here is something that can cause mr barak some problems

it will be stuff like this that he is going to have to answer to, can't be shrugged off or displaced to another issue, so get your mudslinging replies ready for more attacks like these

you guys haven't seen anything yet

"Mr. Obama has also criticized the war in Iraq because , he opined, it took the focus off Afghanistan. Now we know that for about a year, Senator Obama is the Chair of a Senate Committee with oversight of the situation in Afghanistan , but the Committee has never met. Mr. Obama was too busy promoting his book that was a forerunner activity to his actual campaign for the Presidency. Yet, Mr. Obama is saying that he took leave from the campaign to attend a special function at his Church. He is too busy to call a meeting of the Senate oversight committee, which he uses as part of his foreign policy resume, but he could take time off to attend a Church function! Does this reflect good "judgment"? Was Mr. Obama "right" this time?"

Posted by: lndlouis | February 28, 2008 6:03 PM

The analytical framework here should be HOW MCCAIN IS TRYING TO MAKE HILLARY HIS OPPONENT. He's not trying to help Obama, certainly, by raising him to the level of presumed democratic nominee. The contest is not over. And all polls show that McCain has a much tougher race against Obama. And the Clintons never quit, as we all know. So...
Hello?

Posted by: mjford2 | February 28, 2008 6:02 PM

This campaign is an ordinary campaign in that each side is slinging the other

it's called politics, it's not new (although for some this is their first election)

sit back and enjoy the fireworks, thats all you can do

my middle name is Christine, which means Christian, but some people say I am more like the anti=christ (but you can't listen to your kids)

so what his middle name is Hussein

america is mixed, get over it

besides, the mud slinging is why we are all on this board, isn't it

Posted by: lndlouis | February 28, 2008 6:01 PM

Posted by north_aufzoo:

" ... Let's call shenanigans before the noise machine reaches full strength. Otherwise, it could be a very ugly election season."

Want to commend you on your very well-thought out post; it's one of the best I've read in some time.
McCain and Obama should both read it.
Your post is in complete antithesis to propoganda spewed by svreader, kingofzouk, Jake and others (on either side of the spectrum).

Posted by: vegasgirl1 | February 28, 2008 5:58 PM

I'm sorry but Hillary energizes the Republican base more than any use of Saddam's last name can. When will the "moral" right start actually living up to their anti abortion, Christian M.O.? Wasn't Christ loving and forgiving and peaceful, humble and even poor? Republicans=hypocrites. Praise the Lord and don't put locks on those guns! I need to use them to shoot at the abortion clinic doctors. We need to build up our military and always be fighting a war, but don't you send my son or dare try to tax me to pay for that! The true/rich Republican philosophy must be keep rich people richer, whites only in power, the Mrs. always behind me, and fight any good idea from the left with everything we got.
Sadly for for the wingnuts, the American people have their own agenda. They are starting to realize they have to actually vote to make their voice heard. All this on-line bickering does not equal one lousy vote.
Of course McCain has to rely on hard core right wingers to do his fighting for him. It's interesting how he always tries to lift his arms up. Seems he keeps forgeting that his shoulders don't work. All Obama needs is one good shoulder and a consistent jab. He can afford to tie the other arm behind his back. Why would he need all that money to fight with in the general election when the American people have decided? All he has to do is sit back. . .

We interrupt this commentary since we can now confidently give you this:

PROJECTION: Barak Obama wins Texas and Ohio.

Posted by: hotrawd | February 28, 2008 5:55 PM

This campaign is an ordinary campaign in that each side is slinging the other

it's called politics, it's not new (although for some this is their first election)

sit back and enjoy the fireworks, thats all you can do

my middle name is Christine, which means Christian, but some people say I am more like the anti=christ (but you can't listen to your kids)

so what his middle name is Hussein

america is mixed, get over it

besides, the mud slinging is why we are all on this board, isn't it

Posted by: lndlouis | February 28, 2008 5:53 PM

JakeD wrote:
"Was it 'racist fear-mongering based on a name or cultural background' for me to use McCain's full name above? Why is Barack HUSSEIN Obama 'afraid' of his name -- I believe "Hussein" means "handsome" -- did you know that?"

That's a red herring argument -- and major cheap trick -- on your part, Jake.
Obama isn't "afraid" of his last name -- unfortunately, the GOP (courtesy of apparent enablers like yourself) are deliberately using his middle name to make people think Obama is a Muslim -- even though he is NOT.
Unfortunately, the ignorant, the uninformed and the mindless right-wing sheep will fall for it.
You know damn well what's about, Jake, and you're not fooling anyone with the "innocent question."

BTW: John SIDNEY McCain was born in Panama! *Gasp*, why that's not even on American soil! Oh my word -- he's not a TRUE American!
(Yes, that last paragraph was completely irrelevant and immensely stupid -- and it perfectly mirrors what you and others are doing. Hope you're proud of youselves ...)

Shame on anyone who is falling for any of the smear campaigns against ANY of the candidates (be they Republican or Democrat).
I pray that we as a nation will rise above the slime and become informed voters. That's not too much to ask, is it?

Posted by: vegasgirl1 | February 28, 2008 5:52 PM

svreader: based on your very frequent posts, YOU have decided to define Obama as "undefined"- thus parroting the right-wing "fear the unknown- he's somehow not American" line of fetid garbage.

If you really are a "concerned" Democrat you might not want to insult the intelligence of the millions of Obama supporters who are well educated about the candidates and quite comfortable with our choice. You are not fostering "unity" by suggesting that we are all idiotic "cult" followers who need to wake up somehow.

I am picking the candidate who doesn't operate from a defensive crouch, cowering in fear of the Republican Wing-nut Idiot Brigade.

Posted by: marSF | February 28, 2008 5:43 PM

Is it that obvious?

Posted by: frank | February 28, 2008 5:41 PM

by calling for a unity ticket, I think sv is conceding that hillary's negatives will prevent her from winning on her own, even assuming the support of the Obama democrats.

Posted by: ussamsarmy | February 28, 2008 5:38 PM

Let the games begin! The republican party is the bad cop and McCain is the good cop. They have already make Obama ashamed of his entire name. Maybe, he'll change it to Barry Obama that's what they called him in Hawaii, he had issues back then too.

Posted by: jpannebecker | February 28, 2008 5:30 PM

We know what the Republicans are going to do and it's not going to work this time. Don't be afraid, we'll hold you hand.

They rest of us are ready to play as well. And if you have seen what they are planning in specifics why don't you just blow the top off it and get paid for writing about this stuff instead of arguing with us.

Posted by: frank | February 28, 2008 5:30 PM

Troubles..who's having troubles. Responding to this crap is like shooting Klan members in a barrel.

America has changed. And I think some folks are a little upset.

Posted by: frank | February 28, 2008 5:25 PM

JPRS --

Obama hasn't been "defined" yet.

Perception is reality in politics.

I've seen what the Repubicans are planning to do and its a guaranteed "kill"

Please, Please, we Democrats can't afford to lose yet again.

We need a unity ticket!!!

Posted by: svreader | February 28, 2008 5:24 PM

sv

why do you think Obama will refuse to pick Hillary as his running mate if he wins?

Posted by: ussamsarmy | February 28, 2008 5:23 PM

OneFreeMan, that is the point that svreader has been making now for the past several months.

Never mind the evidence.

e.g. That Clinton's negatives according to the most recent Rasmussen poll were at 52% with the favorables in the 44% range. The general election will be a close fought battle, but Obama's electoral strength is substantially better than Clintons. A lot of his negatives are concentrated in the southeast, which is unlikely to break for a Democrat this election cycle. Clinton has higher positives in the southeast, but not enough to be truly competitive in any state other than Arkansas. She could win, but would be playing defense in some Kerry states (Oregon, Washington, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania) while trying to swing Florida AND Ohio into the Democratic column. At this point, I'll gladly take Obama's uncertainties (and growth potential) over Clinton's certainties any day of the week.

Posted by: JPRS | February 28, 2008 5:22 PM

OneFreeMan --

I've got work to do and can't keep answering posts.

Hopefully Hillary will break Obama's streak on the 4th and we can go with a "unity ticket"

Its not only a garenteed win for Democrats, its the only way we can win.

Posted by: svreader | February 28, 2008 5:22 PM

Mr. Clinton is systematically destroying his own legacy. Even after he recovered from its near destruction over the GOP obsession with BJs.

Come on. Get real. Denial is not just a river in Egypt.

Posted by: frank | February 28, 2008 5:22 PM

Clinton has a good chance of winning both Ohio and Texas. She must win them decisively (by at least 15 points) if she expects to gain any traction in pledged delegates. It is possible, however, that despite winning both, she still trails Obama in pledged delegates.

Posted by: ussamsarmy | February 28, 2008 5:21 PM

Magoo was born in the Canal Zone? His Spanish must be a lot better than W's and Teddy Kennedy's. No?

Posted by: filoporquequilo | February 28, 2008 5:20 PM

frank, that's picture's been on the web for years.

Stop blaiming the Clintons for all your troubles.

Csn't you see that Republicans are playing you guys like a cheap violin???

Posted by: svreader | February 28, 2008 5:20 PM

You want to know what the candidates need to do to stop the "muddy road ahead"? Simple-- Obama needs to demand that McCain sit down with him and draw up ground rules for any public financing agreement before he accepts McCain's "challenge."

Up until recently, I believed that the Obama campaign had no excuse for backing out of its pledge of public financing for the general election. It seemed like lame backpedaling and hypocrisy from a candidate that claimed to be a champion of a different kind of politics. However, thanks to Joshua Micah Marshall's frank assessment of John McCain's campaign road map (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/180471.php) and tomorrow's NY Times article, "Early Obama Commitment on Money Becomes Target," I now believe that it would be a serious mistake for the Obama campaign to commit to public financing without first setting some conditions.

Josh Marshall writes that during this election season, McCain will be playing good cop to the Right's fear-mongering bad cop. The left hand of the GOP knows exactly what the right hand is doing. They have played this game many times before. And, as the Cunningham and Tennessee GOP incidents prove, this latest round is already underway.

The New York Times article describes and largely accepts McCain's line of attack on Obama's reluctance to flatly accept public financing. In explaining Obama's side of the story, the article cites a recent USA Today column where Senator Obama "appeared to set some new conditions" for accepting a deal for public financing.

I (along with pretty much the entire news media) had assumed that Obama wanted to back out of public financing simply because he didn't want to give up his grassroots fundraising juggernaut. However, the truth is more complicated.

In the Times' words, "[Obama] argued that any bipartisan agreement to accept the limits of public financing would be 'meaningless' if there were no provisions to close the 'loopholes' that allow unlimited spending during the long primary season or by independent outside groups."

Without specific provisions to limit outside money, the GOP will be able to throw its racist attack machine into action, in a big way. John McCain will be able to formally distance himself from the attack machine, even as he reaps the reward of its efforts to "define" Barack Hussein *cough, cough* Obama.

If John McCain is truly interested in running a dignified and honest campaign, he will agree to meet with Obama to set the terms for a public financing agreement, rather than simply using Obama's perceived "hedging" as a convenient bludgeon for scoring political points.

The bottom line: The only way McCain can credibly distance himself from the GOP's underhanded attacks is to sit down with the Obama campaign and agree to ground rules on the role of outside organizations and outside money. Otherwise, we should hold him responsible for every racist smear that comes from the Right. It doesn't matter how many Bill Cunninghams he throws under the Straight Talk Express. He is still implicated by their actions.

Let's call shenanigans before the noise machine reaches full strength. Otherwise, it could be a very ugly election season.

Posted by: north_aufzoo | February 28, 2008 5:20 PM

Sv - Come on, you can't be serious in saying, it is a tie. If Barack Obama had lost the last 11 contest in a row, you would be demanding he drop out. And I don't mean barely lost, he has beaten her so bad until I'm starting to feel sorry for her.

Posted by: OneFreeMan | February 28, 2008 5:19 PM

Yeah, hey! Given all the smearing from Obama and Magoo, we only have one clear choice: Hillary!

Posted by: filoporquequilo | February 28, 2008 5:18 PM

It was Clinton's campaign that fed the Kenyan pic to the republican dogs who pounced on it since they knew they could always point out that it was Hillary who brought it up first.

It only took them a day or so to turn that trash into a press release and full court press about Obama's "Muslim blood" as Pat's transvestite brother said on CNN today.

The only reason I resort to name calling is because I'm so disgusted with these old school fools. The good thing is they are dying in their own crap.

Clinton, Mccain its all the same!

Hey that's catchy...

Posted by: frank | February 28, 2008 5:17 PM

OneFreeMan --

Not at all.

Its a virtual tie. We need to see what happens next Tuesday and with Florida, etc.

If Clinton wins, she'll pick Obama as her running mate.

If Obama wins, I have no idea who he'll pick.

Posted by: svreader | February 28, 2008 5:16 PM

svreader - So are you saying that since more people have voted for Obama than Clinton, that Obama should drop out and let Clinton be the nominee?

Are you serious?

Posted by: OneFreeMan | February 28, 2008 5:11 PM

If Obama and his supporters acted the way they talk we'd be all set.

Unfortunately they "don't play well with others"

To find out what Obama will do, try to opposite of what he says.

He's split the Democratic Party, he's done his absolute best to destroy the positive legacy of Bill Clinton, and he's setting up Democrats for a defeat in the fall.

Clinton/Obama is the way to win.

Al Gore was the most powerful VP until Cheney.

Why are Obama supporters so willing to destroy the party and its chances in November rather than joining together in a "unity" ticket?

This is Obama's first real test of being "a uniter, not a divider" and he and his supporters are failing it!!!

Posted by: svreader | February 28, 2008 5:09 PM

McCain's public financing issue -- relating to his material benefit from opting into the public financing pool strikes me as a completely above the belt hit (e.g. his using public financing as collateral for a loan -- and also using the public financing system to avoid spending tens of thousands of dollars registering his name on the Ohio ballot -- as every other privately financing candidate did).

The FEC still has to rule on this one, but at least on a first glance it strikes me as perfectly above-board to raise questions about whether McCain's efforts to opt-out of public financing at this stage are in fact legitimate.

The "Hussein" attack is just silly. Of course the GOP and campaign surrogates loosely affiliated with the campaign will continue to use it because those kind of appeals tend to be very effective in motivating the GOP base. It's just a sad fact of politics that the GOP base falls for race-based and xenophobic appeals.

I actually thought the exchange over Iraq was fine yesterday. If Obama does win the nomination, I'm curious to see how he and McCain square off in debates. I suspect it will be a lot more civilized and informative than debates in past election cycles.

The tactics that are really troublesome are the ones that the Bush administration engaged in with voter caging and the use of the U.S. attorneys office to advance political prosecutions -- essentially gaming the legal and electoral system in a ways that were at best in a legal gray area -- and more likely ILLEGAL.

We may be seeing some of that now with the IRS investigation of Obama's church, which has every appearance of being a selective enforcement of the law -- those are the kind of tactics that are truly beyond the pale.

Posted by: JPRS | February 28, 2008 5:07 PM

This is what happens when you take the politics GAME too seriously...

/www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-_FafHOyl4

It's just theatre people - don't get so worked up about it. When has any candidate followed through as president with the promises he made while running? Yet we get so worked up - like it matters - come every election.

Posted by: ictv31 | February 28, 2008 5:04 PM

Don't want to be accused of plagiarism but:

KEEP HOPE ALIVE!

Forget all the haters. They always have a lot to say when they're about to lose.

Posted by: frank | February 28, 2008 5:04 PM

Mr. Melina:

With regard to your claim of media bias against Senator Clinton, wasn't it the media who branded her the candidate of "inevitablity"? Didn't that label afford her the benefit of double digit leads in the polls over much more experienced opponents such as Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson?

Was there any press scrutiny involved in concluding that a one term senator with unspecified experience as First Lady had an "inevitable" path to the presidency?

Prior to anointing her has the candidate of "inevitability", did the press put any pressure on Clinton to discuss exactly which experiences during her time as First Lady were directly relevant to her claim of being "ready" to be president "on day 1"? Have they done so to date?

Yet, it is her opponent who is getting the "free ride"? Complete with constant questions about his patriotism, grasp of foreign policy, his racial allegiences, his personal/professional associations (Rezko, Wright, Farrakhan) and his rhetoric?

Did GW Bush or Ronald Reagan (two candidates light on details and foreign policy experience) get this amount of scruitiny?

Posted by: ussamsarmy | February 28, 2008 5:04 PM

Hello Dan,

Many republicans here in Ohio have decided to vote for Clinton after Bill Cunningham incident. They want her to win big in Ohio.

Many elected republican offcials said: if Clinton is the nominee, they will have higher turnout in November. She will definitely energize their core base.

On the other hand, if Obama is the nominee, they fear very much, it could be another big wipe out day for left over elected officials.

Big strategic move worth watching on Tuesday (3/4)!

Posted by: Alvordton | February 28, 2008 5:03 PM

The reason dirty politics will continue into the 2008 election (and beyond) is because this stuff is like red meat to the press. I mean come on -- if he didn't think the media would cover his rant, that nutjob Cunningham wouldn't have ranted in the first place. Responsibility is a two-way street. Denunciation is still press, and as they say, any press is good press. So until the media starts covering what is actually important (issues) as opposed to lunatic fringe rants by a hack radio host, nothing can (and will) change.

Posted by: tmc629 | February 28, 2008 5:02 PM

I'm starting to feel really discouraged about Democrats chances. A Republican friend of mine called me, positively gloating about how they had engineered Obama's wins by Republicans voting for him, and what idiots us Democrats are.

Obama is "easy pickings" for Republicans.

The post from bnw173 is "spot on"

An earlier post on another article came from a reader that called themselves "far left" and was thrilled about the prospect of Hillary losing to Obama and how great that would be for the far-left, never realizing how negatively the phrase "far left" is viewed by most of America.

Obama is going to be defined by the Republicans on the left the way Democrats defined goldwater on the right.

Winning the primaries and losing the general election is worth nothing to us Democrats and the principles we believe in.

Hillary is the way to win.

Posted by: svreader | February 28, 2008 5:01 PM

bnw173-TN didn't vote for Obama in the primary. One of only two southern states so far. I would never judge the USA based on what happens in TN. Not to speak bad of TN, but it's just not a state to use as a barometer for how the rest of the nation feels.

Posted by: OneFreeMan | February 28, 2008 4:59 PM

bnw173: The only people who are taking the lies and smears against Obama seriously are the 19% who still think Bush is a fabulous President. What this primary season has shown so far is that Democrats are showing up to vote in massive numbers, many times it has been more than 2:1 vs. Republican numbers.

If mouth-breathing inbred imbeciles still decide to stick to the story that Obama is a muslim America-hater, in spite of all the clear evidence to the contrary then that's fine with me. I don't like to vote on the side of idiots anyway.

Posted by: marSF | February 28, 2008 4:53 PM

The Harold Ford situation was lame. I think his loss and the result of the recent primary show how divided that state still is when it comes to certain issues. Its the home of Country and that's not the most progressive thinking lot. Memphis is responsive to progressive thinking (except when it comes to BBQ), but the rest of the state still has a ways to go. Its not a surprise that this GOP trash came out of TN. Harold Ford was a very good candidate. I thought he was going to win. I know better now. It still may be a November surprise...time will tell.

Posted by: frank | February 28, 2008 4:52 PM

Get ready Dems. The RNC did us in with the race card in Tennessee with Harold Ford Jr. in 2006. It worked too. I notice the Tennessee Republican Party is already weighing in on Obama. By November Obama will be Arab, Muslim, too Black. Liberal and a weakkneed leader in Foriegn Policy. By the time November comes Saddam Hussain will have been his uncle. Who are they going to pi** off? Blacks and Liberals? So what. No votes there anyway. Ask Harold Ford Jr. what the RNC can do.

Posted by: bnw173 | February 28, 2008 4:44 PM

A vote for Obama would mean a change in business as usual in Washington. The country needs new thinking after Bush and Cheney. McCain is no different from the two, he only play it smart by denying things. No one can sway me to vote for their candidate.

Posted by: truth1 | February 28, 2008 4:43 PM

dyinglikeflies:

Name Senator Clinton's top five legislative accomplishments during her 7 years in congress. Convince us through facts, and do not rely on the Clinton name brand.

Posted by: ussamsarmy | February 28, 2008 4:41 PM

Keep your fingers crossed Flyman because the flies are starting to gather on the Clinton campaign.

Posted by: frank | February 28, 2008 4:40 PM

In a report on MSNBC, McCain is crying about his "100 year war in Iraq" remarks being distorted. He is one to speak! He is distoring the snot out of Sen. Obama's response to Tim Russet's Iraq hypothetical in the recent debates.

The hypothetical proposed by Russert was: if in the years to come, a sovergn Iraq asks that all US troops be removed from within its borders, would a Pres. Obama still reserve the right to strike Al Queda in Iraq?

Sen. Obama rightly responded that he would reserve the right to stike anyone anywhere that threatens US security. John McCain is distorting Sen Obama's response as if Sen. Obama was the one who suggested the hypothetical in the first place.

Anyone who watched the debate knows that Sen. Obama was merely addressing a hypothetical future scenario proposed by Russert. Sen. Obama at no point sugessted that there was no current presence of Al Queda in Iraq - although John McCain's distortion suggests just that. John McCain should not be crying about distortions when he is engaging in the very tactic. And McCain still stands by his remarks that US Troop presence in Iraq could continue for 50 - 100 years.

Sen. Obama's response was the correct response, and I for one am glad that he will reserve the right to stike terrorists that threaten the US wherever they are - be it Pakistan, Iraq or anywhere else. I am equally glad that Sen. Obama stood up to McCain's distortion and was quick to point out correctly that the Republican leadership's bungling of Iraq and it's pre-imptive invasion IS THE CAUSE of Al Queda in Iraq. There would be no Al Queda in Iraq if it weren't for the Republican's huge strategic disaster and foreign policy blunder in Iraq.

Posted by: pasifikawv | February 28, 2008 4:37 PM

Trend lines are stabilizing in these Texas and Ohio polls, in the direction of Clinton. It's a matter of timing. The air is slowly starting to seep out of the Obama balloon, and it's a question of whether enough will come out by the Tuesday primaries to make a difference. Obama, "The Candidate", is all whipped cream and no cake, and his support is the same. Will things turn around by Tuesday or will the Democrats be suffering buyers remorse at 9:01 on election night when McCain is projected to be the winner over Obama?

Posted by: dyinglikeflies | February 28, 2008 4:36 PM

Get out of the weeds, ichief. There is nothing there.

Posted by: marSF | February 28, 2008 4:33 PM

All this negative attack on Obama only makes me want to VOTE FOR HIM more.

Posted by: plamphere | February 28, 2008 4:30 PM

To all those citing the TPM follow-up that the Canadian govt. has denied the alleged reassurance regarding NAFTA by an Obama aide:

Obama's aide very likely offered those words of reassurance at the time the Canadian government was lobbying the campaign to support NAFTA. I've no doubt that's what happened.

You notice the Clinton campaign immediately challenged the Canadian officials to name the alleged contact from their ranks, well before Obama responded.

Posted by: ichief | February 28, 2008 4:30 PM

I think America is proving your point OneFreeMan. Some folks just can't accept that the slimeballs are really losing the political game.

Posted by: frank | February 28, 2008 4:26 PM

As a neutral observer of the primaries in USA, I think a serious newspaper as the Washington Post will regret not having been more critical of Mr. Obama's candidacy.

I am impressed to notice how biased the covering of the campaign is being against Mrs Clinton.

It's is natural to cover the news in the most profitable way (and now it sells more to be friendly to Obama) but it will eventually and logically backfire and consequently hurt the journalistic work.

Sincerely

Posted by: carlos_melina | February 28, 2008 4:25 PM

Name-calling and mud-slinging will not make up the HUGE difference in the number of people that voted for Barack Hussein Obama compared to the number that voted for ALL of the republicans candidates.

There are just not enough people out there that can be manipulated with those tactics.

Posted by: OneFreeMan | February 28, 2008 4:23 PM

CAN YOU SMELL WHAT BARACK IS COOKIN'?

Posted by: frank | February 28, 2008 4:21 PM

Dan,
You are giving McCain too much credit. His mocking "AQI" attack on Obama yesterday is in exactly the same vein as the attacks by wingnuts like Cunningham.

Also, McCain's "surprise" at Cunningham's remarks is disingenuous considering McCain had met and talked to him on 2 prior occasions and McCain's staff solicited Cunningham to throw the crowd some "red meat" about Obama.

Posted by: vmathis | February 28, 2008 4:19 PM

I think today's piece by George Will puts McCain's pitfalls in the General in a very clear light. Not a big fan of Mr. Will, but I have to agree for once.

McCain is gonna play the GOP's "good cop" through all the attacks that he can't hang his War Hawk experience on. He's the good soldier, the "imperfect servant" who will chase America's greatest enemies to the "gates of hell", while selling himself out to the peddlers of fear and hate within his party. That's a follower, not a leader.

Obama won't even have to take off the gloves to drop this guy. Besides, he shouldn't. You don't beat up on old men, especially war heros. It just not right.


Posted by: frank | February 28, 2008 4:18 PM

Posted by: Schmedley | February 28, 2008 4:10 PM

ManUnitdFan,

It is not possible for Jake to make a more intelligent comment. He's operating at the limit of his intellect now.

Posted by: DualAg | February 28, 2008 4:09 PM

Ichief, you need to pay attention: The Canadian Government has already said that that story is false. Sorry to burst your bubble.

When people like Russert lend credibility to right-wing slime attacks by using a debate to play "six-degrees of Farrakhan" then it shows that the racist, crazed nut-bags out there have reason to continue using their disgusting tactics.

I am sure McCain's campaign had full knowledge of the type of bile Cunningham spews daily on his radio show. Don't be naive- more scum will bubble to the surface and it's all coming from the right. Who was is that started all those great rumors about McCain in 2000? It wasn't the lefties!

Posted by: marSF | February 28, 2008 4:06 PM

To ichief: The story about Obama supposedly telling a Canadian official he was just kidding regarding NAFTA has been forcefully denied by the Canadian government. Check the AP and stop falling for this junk!

Posted by: lquint | February 28, 2008 4:06 PM

What are the Republican policies for traditional national defense? To leave our army stranded in the desert of Iraq? If there is a defense gap, its the inattention to other traditional threats that could happen like a surprise attack in Eastern Europe by Russia or in Taiwan by China. It is the GOP that is soft on defense and creating a defense gap by wearing down and destroying the readiness of the American military in Iraq and deploying it foolishly all over the middle east. We are probably at a precipice in terms of defense because the Republican are deploying all our forces in response to 20 men who engaged in a terrorist act on 911 . The response is to keep 130,000 troops deployed in Iraq which detracts from worldwide military readiness. Stupid bills like the surveillance bill will not close the hard defense gap from GOP lack of attentiveness to traditional threats. Just look at how they create unnecessary risk talking about missile shields and recognizing Kosova while at the same time leaving a huge gap in terms of readiness. The GOP and McCain are soft on real defense, and jeopardizing our lives.

Posted by: paulnolan97 | February 28, 2008 4:03 PM

Jake:

I know you're trying to be as sensational as possible, but you're really not adding anything to the conversation. An "electoral sweep" for McCain? Repeating Obama's middle name ad nauseum? If you're not going to at least ATTEMPT to make intelligent comments, please stop spamming the message boards with your rhetoric.

Posted by: ManUnitdFan | February 28, 2008 3:50 PM

Does Obama's tactics include the right to lie to Ohio voters about his position on NAFTA while his top aide secretly reassures the Canadian government that it's all just campaign rhetoric?

http://katalusis.blogspot.com/2008/02/obama-campaign-allegedly-deceives-ohio.html

Posted by: ichief | February 28, 2008 3:10 PM

Hey-Hey-Hey!

Remember your Places dang it!


EVERYONE knows, that Slandering and Spinning is the MEDIA's JOB! ;~)

You Amateurs!

LOL! O'Billary! ;~)

Posted by: rat-the | February 28, 2008 3:05 PM

What I find strange is you present this as a bi partisan problem... No Democrat has criticized McCain in a inappropriate way. Then the excuse poor McCain can't do anything about it, but if some democrat does it in your framing it hurts Obama.

"Barack Obama may have a similar problem on his hands, if he does become the Democratic nominee. McCain already has become a target of sharp and sometimes personal criticism from Democratic organizations. Those attacks will rapidly intensify. Can a Democratic candidate talk of unity and new politics while his (or her) allies savage the Republican opposition?"

Sorry bu there is big difference between sharp criticism and racism.

Posted by: julian9682 | February 28, 2008 2:57 PM

thebobbob:

Was it "racist fear-mongering based on a name or cultural background" for me to use McCain's full name above? Why is Barack HUSSEIN Obama "afraid" of his name -- I believe "Hussein" means "handsome" -- did you know that?

Posted by: JakeD | February 28, 2008 2:55 PM

Questioning someones integrity based on their actions is different that racist fear-mongering based on a name or cultural background. Obama will be the Democratic nominee. It will be fun to watch all the racist and bigoted heads explode in the right-wing of the Republican Party.

Posted by: thebobbob | February 28, 2008 2:51 PM

"What has soured many Americans on politics and fed public cynicism toward the way business in done in Washington is the sense that uplifting rhetoric and calls for an end to partisan warfare coexist too easily with..."

Quite a feat of mind-reading, I'll say. There's also the fact that almost every politician constantly lies and misleads, and the MSM refuses to do their job and call them on their lies and misleading statements.

Perhaps the MSM could help make things a bit more civil by devoting even just a few percent of their coverage to actual policy matters, especially discussing the huge flaws in the candidates' proposals and at least asking their surrogates about those flaws.

Posted by: LonewackoDotCom | February 28, 2008 2:50 PM

I, of course, dispute it is "naive" -- adding to Mr. Balz's comments above, John SIDNEY McCain will continue to hammer Barack HUSSEIN Obama on his pledge to "aggressively pursue an agreement" on public campaign financing -- I predict an Electoral sweep for McCain in Novemeber.

Posted by: JakeD | February 28, 2008 2:49 PM

Dan, I didn't know you were this naive. Do you really believe McCain doesn't want surrogates out their sliming Obama with racist and xenophobic innuendos? What happened this week benefits McCain twofold:

First, it gets the wingnuts riled up and sows doubt about Obama among others. It begins building the meme that "Obama's a terrorist," however ridiculous that is, and that meme in turn seeps into political coverage.

Second, McCain gets to look noble and decent by disparaging such behavior, which will only increase.
This is textbook Rovian strategy. I'd have thought you'd have recognized it for what it is.

And to equate a couple comments by Democrats questioning McCains' veracity (always a valid field of debate in a campaign) with the sludge being pumped by the Right is doubly naive.

Posted by: JohnY63 | February 28, 2008 2:43 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2009 The Washington Post Company