Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Obama Aired More Negative Ads Last Week

Updated 12:55 p.m.
By Howard Kurtz
Despite perceptions that John McCain has spent more time on the attack, Barack Obama aired more negative advertising last week than did the Arizona senator, says a new study released today.

Seventy-seven percent of the Illinois Democrat's commercials were negative during the week after the Republican convention, compared to 56 percent of the spots run by McCain.

Ken Goldstein, who directed the study by the Wisconsin Advertising Project, based at the University of Wisconsin, says the pattern was a reversal from earlier months in which McCain's advertising was consistently more negative than Obama's.

"It suggests that the Sarah Palin pick and the newfound aggressiveness by MCain got into Obama's head a little bit," Goldstein says. "He was under great pressure to show some spine, be aggressive, fire back."

The study found Obama limiting his television buys to 17 states and McCain airing spots in 15. For all the talk of an expanded electoral map, both campaigns are concentrating their resources in the traditional battlegrounds, with just over half the money spent in Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Indiana, Minnesota and Pennsylvania.

"Shockingly, this race is going to come down to swing voters in the same swing states that decided the last two elections," Goldstein says.

All told, the study says, the campaigns poured $15 million into the ad wars last week -- they were virtually even in total spending -- but the figures revealed an important distinction. Obama, who has rejected public financing in favor of private fundraising, paid for 97 percent of his spots.

McCain, who is limited to an $84-million federal subsidy, financed 43 percent of his commercials, with the rest airing in conjunction with the Republican National Committee.

These "hybrid" spots allow McCain to retain control while the party foots much of the bill.

Obama spent the most money last week, $1.3 million, on Florida ads, nearly matched by the $1 million McCain spent there. McCain's most expensive state was traditionally Democratic Pennsylvania, where he spent $1.6 million to Obama's $948,000.

Obama was still on the air in Virginia, North Carolina, Indiana, North Dakota and Montana, all states won by President Bush in the last two elections.

Interest-group advertising was marginal at $187,000, although that is expected to ramp up in the coming weeks. Three pro-Obama groups aired commercials -- the Service Employees International Union, Defenders of Wildlife and Planned Parenthood -- while Vets for Freedom ran spots on McCain's behalf.

By Washington Post Editor  |  September 17, 2008; 10:12 AM ET
Categories:  B_Blog , Barack Obama , John McCain , Media Notes  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Obama, McCain Pivot to Economy in New Ads
Next: Obama Invokes Rush Limbaugh in New Spanish-Language Ads

Comments

Yeah and who ran more lies? And who started it? And who has the entire world calling himself a big fat liar? McCain has sacrificed his word, his integrity, all believability and his sacred honor.
Win baby win----no matter what you have to do. People don't realize how desperately McCain needs to out do his father and grandfather. There is nothing he wouldn't do---well, I guess that goes without saying. He's made that pretty obvious.

Posted by: karela | September 19, 2008 11:05 AM | Report abuse

Until the ballot includes a NO column I can't vote as the negative ads encourage me to. The yes only ballot restricts my freedom of expression by 50%...withholding my right to vote against a trashee without having to vote for the trasher. The highest net yes wins. How honest. How much more effective in pushing candidates to sell themselves rather than trying to make themselves look bigger by making the other look smaller. And fewer noses would be squeezed while voting.

Posted by: Valjean1 | September 18, 2008 1:05 PM | Report abuse

Article misses the point badly. Negative ads are not the problem lies are! Only a fool would expect candidates to say positive things about their opponents or allow their claims to go unchallenged. As electors we have to start punishing them for their outright lies or distortions. If they lie and or cheat to get in office (Bush 2000 and 2004) they will have no reason to respect the electorates needs.

Posted by: olliemckinney | September 18, 2008 12:54 PM | Report abuse

dear mis-informed boob.


What Barack Obama wanted to be taught to Kindergardeners was signs of a sexual predator.

I don't think that's a bad thing.

The only people who should think of that as a bad thing are baby rapists...are you a baby rapist? Get your facts straight.

My name is John McCain and I approve this likeness of a straight talk message.

Posted by: Straight Talk Express | September 18, 2008 12:05 PM | Report abuse

Slide in the polls over, smart guy. See you in 2012.

Posted by: nitpicker | September 18, 2008 10:14 AM | Report abuse

Barack Obama really did vote for an extreme, provocative Sex Education bill, which would have sold sex to K-5.

Here's the straight story from Illinois:

http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2008/09/whats-age-appro.html

Posted by: ArlenWilliams | September 18, 2008 3:55 AM | Report abuse

Funny.

People call McCains ads lies and fabrications and Obama's "just the truth."

Obama's ads are full of lies and untruths. And they have little substance. Where's the beef Obama?

Research by an independent organization into the "Sex Education" bills in the Illinois legislature showed conclusively that McCain was 100% correct. Even the bill's author said it had nothing to do with "inappropriate touching" and what to do about it. The language of the bill itself was to change Illinois law to start in Kindergarten with explicit information on how to prevent HIV through sexual contact.

Obama lied about what that bill was all about that he supported. This is verifiable. Yet he slandered McCain as a liar.

Here is the actual language of the bill:

“The second purpose [of the bill] was to increase the number of children receiving sex education. Illinois’ existing law required the teaching of sex education and AIDS prevention in grades six through twelve. …Senate Bill 99 struck out grade six, changing it to kindergarten, in addition to making a few other changes in wording. It read: ‘Each class or course in comprehensive sex education in any of grades K through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV.’”

One of the co-sponsors of the bill, Illinois Senator Iris Martinez, told the researcher that most of the information that went into writing the bill came from Planned Parenthood. When asked specifically whether Sen. Martinez understood the bill to be about “inappropriate touching,” she said, “Absolutely not.”

Shame on you Mr Obama. Liar.

Posted by: Chad | September 18, 2008 1:00 AM | Report abuse

Obama is getting the election handed to him on a silver platter by the media.
It is just one more "achievement" given to him by guilty and emotionally stunted Whites, and Racist Blacks.
like his Ivy League education, his political career, he just has to be pretty and half-black, and reap the rewards.
His race is a net positive. There are white racists who won't vote for him based on race, there are black racists who will vote for him based on race, and white racists who will vote for him because of race (to make themselves feel better).
Add it all up, and he gets way more votes because of his skin color.
And he knows it, it was his strategy in the primaries.
Disgusting.

Posted by: Affirmative Action | September 17, 2008 9:46 PM | Report abuse

The only thing you ever hear from the McCain campaign is why you shouldn't vote for Obama. He has yet to reveal to me, a good reason to vote for McCain/Palin. How Republicans whine when negative ads are used on them.

Posted by: J Lauber | September 17, 2008 8:25 PM | Report abuse

According to information I saw elsewhere the organization counting the ads counted ads showing McCain with Bush as negative. That is not negative, it is truth. The plain honest to God truth of the matter. McCain has a record and it is verified. If the truth is negative, so be it.

Whereas, the McCain ads are outright lies, 10% truths or fabrications made in video by splicing together words said here and there in incidents that are not related to create a fallacy that is in no way what was said, intended or meant in any way by Obama.

McCain's campaign is a disgrace. This organization looking to make Obama into the bad guy is a some kind of a joke. Except it is not funny - the crisis in America is to important to be playing games about how many negative ads are aired by some definition that makes the side you want to win look better.

I guess the objective is to create an issue where none exists to avoid having to actually deal with the issues.

Here are the questions that McCain, who after all is just a candidate too, should answer (alongside Obama who is faithfully and seriously trying to address them but can't be heard for the noise of the likes of yours):
- What will you do about the daily loss of lives and new casualties and the billions being spent in the war in Iraq? How do you support the tens of thousands of innocent deaths in Iraq?
- How will you deal with Iran and other nations with mal intent? I mean, not just "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran". A realistic, sensible policy in a global context, with a clear understanding of available American resources.
- How will you succeed at the so far failed effort to rout out Bin Laden and his terrorists? I mean besides going to the gates of Hell. My sense is you don't need to go that far - you could start with moving forces from Iraq, where they are being wasted in a war that should never have been fought, to Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan.
- What will you do about declining American long term security through foreign policy, about policies on religion generally, and religious terrorists and extremists specifically. And please, that is not Ayers, or Rezko or Wright. Let us not confuse the issues willfully. The question might be phrased - how will you deescalate the global tension? How will you build a bridge of understanding to the non extremist Muslim world and to other major religions and cultures to build global social stability and work together with them to eradicate terrorism?
- What will you do about the US policy of unilateralism and shooting first ? And your policy of go it alone. (The Bush Doctrine Sarah in case you are reading this) So far, it seems McCain wants to continue this policy. It may seem macho, but is it smart and in America's best interest?
- Why are you so sure that it is Russia that is causing the problems in Georgia and that Georgia is not part of the problem? Why is it that Georgia should be able to hold onto a part of its "territory" unilaterally against its will? What are your connections to the Georgia government and its advisers?
- How will you handle the real and important issue of representing and moving everyone forward including African Americans, Hispanics and other minorities within America? I don't mean affirmative action. Tell us much more. (What I have seen so far, with the attempts to marginalize Obama does not bode well for all these people, which is a huge part of America.)
- How will you address the lack of economic progress in the last 8 years and growing economic misery for the typical American. Particularly in the Mid West.
- How do you really define "rich" in truth? How many homes do you really own? How will you deal with the economy when you so obviously either do not understand it or have an agenda you are not sharing?
- What will you do about the financial crisis (made in America by the way), that is infecting the global financial system and bouncing back in other shapes and forms and knocking on America's door with secondary impacts?
- How will you address the continuing and escalating loss of homes by millions?
- What direction will you take to fill the vacuum in health care for millions in a faulty system that desperately needs overhaul. Will you expand and offer full coverage to all while at the same time reducing costs?
- How will you address underfunded social security as boomers rapidly approach retirement?
- What is your approach to handling the budget and current account deficits? How will you pay for more tax breaks to large corporations including the oil companies?
- How will you address the decline of the dollar in America and as a global reserve currency?
- What is the right answer to spiraling oil and gas and other commodity prices that seem to be out of control?
- Will you look to change America's energy policy to one that would replace oil and gas dependence with truly long term sustainable energy from sun and wind? If so, how and in what time frame? If not, why not or what else? And, don't say "drill here, drill now". Give us a real and believable strategy and time line. And let's not pander to corporate and multinational corporate interests all the while saying it is in the interest of Americans to do so. We know it ain't so. Will you support the Energy bill that just passed the house? If not, why not - give us a serious answer, not one that says it is not a perfect bill. You said you know how to compromise - this bill gets a lot done that should be done, even if not perfectly.
- Will you look to change America's environmental and science policies, which have historically fueled its growth in productivity and return them to unmatched in the world? If so, how? If not, why not?
- Will you return America to a leadership role in the world. In particular will you look to lead the global attack on the lethally real and exponentially growing environmental issues including pollution, global warming and polluted water? If so, how? If not, why not? And don't tell us we can't afford it. The sooner it is done the cheaper it will be. It is not a problem that is going away on its own. And, each passing day, it is getting worse, our collective health is getting worse, more are dying prematurely with cancers and other diseases.

Posted by: Paul Stewart | September 17, 2008 7:52 PM | Report abuse

Charmin tissue once tried to dedicate a new roll of toilet paper after Sen. John McCain. It didn't work out, they realized that John McCain takes no sh*t!

McCain/Palin 2008! Palin/Bullwinkle 2012!

Posted by: Bobo4bush | September 17, 2008 7:44 PM | Report abuse

More lies from the Republicans:

"Barrak Hussein Obama is a muslim who will destroy this nation.His foreigns naturalized citizens supporters of this stranger are pushing this.Wake up America.

Posted by: mink/celes | September 17, 2008 6:28 PM"

You know, freedom of speech comes with a moral obligations to speak the truth. What you are putting out here is propaganda by the McCainites. This is America you know. We don't do propaganda.

Posted by: Paul Stewart | September 17, 2008 7:40 PM | Report abuse

I hear McCain is secretly a Muslim. Pass it on.

Posted by: El Bruce | September 17, 2008 7:05 PM | Report abuse

I wonder why none of these incompetent hacks that call themselves journalists point out that Obama's "negative" ads were truthful in their assertions while McCain's "negative" ads are all complete fabrications and lies?

Posted by: Average joe | September 17, 2008 6:53 PM | Report abuse

Barrak Hussein Obama is a muslim who will destroy this nation.His foreigns naturalized citizens supporters of this stranger are pushing this.Wake up America.

Posted by: mink/celes | September 17, 2008 6:28 PM | Report abuse

Honestly, it's getting harder and harder to keep up with all of the lies that come out of John McCain's mouth.

Here's McCain's Latest Lie:

"Two years ago, I warned that the oversight of Fannie and Freddie was terrible, that we were facing a crisis because of it, or certainly serious problems," Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., told CBS this morning. "The influence that Fannie and Freddie had in the inside the Beltway, old boy network, which led to this kind of corruption is unacceptable and I warned about it a couple of years ago."
.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/despite-claims.html
.

And here is "straight- takin'" John McCain 10 months ago when asked about the subprime mortgage crisis:

"But so, in this whole new derivative stuff, and SIBs and all of this kind of new ways of packaging mortgages together and all that is something that frankly I don’t know a lot about. [...]"
"But I don’t know of hardly anybody, with the exception of a handful, that said ‘wait a minute, this thing is getting completely out of hand and is overheating."
"So, I’d like to tell you that I did anticipate it, but I have to give you straight talk, I did not."


I'm starting to lose track of all of these mavericky flip-flops from McCain and as usual our corporate media Republican water carriers won't report it because their job is to take every situation that arises in this Presidential race and ask:
"How is this good for McCain and how is this bad for Obama"?.


McCain Lies, it's part of his campaign strategy and here's the documentation of his lies:
.
http://mccainpedia.org/index.php/Count_the_Lies
.

Posted by: Asper Chick | September 17, 2008 5:56 PM | Report abuse

GO BARACK!!!!
Both candidates started out saying they were going to run dignified honorable campaigns. That lasted until Mccain figured out he couldn't win running on his own record and ideas, especially carrying a lot of Republican baggage.
So he decided to go to "swiftboat" tactics. He forgot to notice that Obama is not John Kerry. Kerry went right on being dignified and honorable because " the American people are smarter than to fall for that." Yeah, Right
Now, we have a country club Republican who only made it into college on his family's influence then graduated 5th from the bottom of his class. He's trying to "swiftboat" a man who graduated at the top of his class from Harvard law, then went to work on the south side of Chicago, a place where wimps do not do well.
There's an old saying; "Before you draw back your leg, it's best to know whose dog you're kicking." McCain didn't. He's starting to find out-just starting.

Posted by: Dianne Lee | September 17, 2008 5:50 PM | Report abuse

Re:"NUCLEAR DISASTER - "DEBATE ON THE POSSIBILTY OF "NUCLEAR DISASTER" IF MACAIN IS PRESIDENT

"NUCLEAR DISASTER" IF McCAIN IS PRESIDENT VERSUS THE DIPLOMACY OF OBAMA FOR WORLD PEACE AND SECURITY, ESPECIALLY THE FINANCIAL STABILITY OF THE U.S. AND THE WORLD AT LARGE IF THE WAR CONTINUES FOR THE NEXT HUNDRED YEARS, WHICH McCAIN WILL INDEED CONTINUE WITH IF ELECTED AS PRESIDENT. (MCCAIN IS A SERIOUS THREAT TO WORLD PEACE AND THE POTENTIAL OF "NUCLEAR DISASTER", YOU CAN SEE THIS BY SIMPLY PROJECTING AHEAD WITH MCCAIN'S LIES, HIS OBVIOUS DECEIT AND HIS PHILOSOPHY OF WAR MONGERING.

The idea is to question and debate John McCain regarding his lies and deceit and the possibility of "NUCLEAR DISASTER" based upon lies and deceit IF "JOHN McCAIN" is in office, THE QUESTION IS: will he bring the world to the brink of disaster if he continues the war and will he will inflame world peace with his attitude and inability the to think logically because of his AGE, (HIS MENTAL STABILITY) and in a manner that is diplomatically required as a President????. His age and mental stability is a definite reason for him NOT TO BE IN OFFICE, THIS IS A DANGEROUS MAN TO HAVE AS PRESIDENT.

McCain and Palin are running a deceitful campaign and I think John McCain will be a bad fit for the office of President, the country and the world at large in terms of international safety, the Presidential task is totally beyond his means to maintain stability in the world.

My feeling is that if McCain can lie most of the time just to get into the WHITE HOUSE then he will indeed lie to the public about maintaining the war and hence the possibility of Nuclear disaster and total financial ruin of the country. The question again is: "When do we know that McCain and Palin are telling the truth about continuing a war and McCain's ability to be diplomatic in dealing with our adversaries."

I believe McCain is an unstable individual and is at his age mentally challenged, as he ages I believe he will bring us to a "Nuclear Disaster" if he takes office and will create further financial chaos and unrest in the world and in the United States and as well with his neighbours regarding free trade.

I am a concerned Canadian and I do business in the the U.S. and I want to continue to do business there, but I cannot if the economy is ruined even further by McCain. I really need the WASHINGTON POST to write an article that encourages BARACK OBAMA to take on McCain in a debate on this subject because it is obvious the McCAIN will be a serious threat to world peace and the possibility of "NUCLEAR DISASTER" if elected President. I have real serious concerns about the direction McCAIN will take this world, it will be eminent disaster with McCAIN as President.

Posted by: James | September 17, 2008 5:28 PM | Report abuse

Actually Mark,

Not a single person on McCain's team is a lobbyist, some (maybe even many) were, but there are plenty of those in Obama's campt too

Posted by: Matteucs | September 17, 2008 5:26 PM | Report abuse

is that a surprise? all you hear from WaPo editorials though is how much of a liar and terrible person McCain is.

Posted by: matteucs | September 17, 2008 5:23 PM | Report abuse

Obama is a big liar. And the media that supports him is an even bigger liar. As a general rule of thumb, when people are unsure about what is really happening, they usually vote Republican.

Posted by: Jane | September 17, 2008 5:15 PM | Report abuse

Fairfax Voter, How can Obama's ads be negative but accurate. Are you seriously trying to defend Obama's ad that misquotes McCain on Social Security? Its obviously a lie and has been called out by the media as a lie.

Posted by: RTH | September 17, 2008 5:09 PM | Report abuse

There is a difference between a negative political advertisement and an ugly, openly dishonest advertisement that has been "called out" by almost every major news organization as factually untrue. While it may be true that Obama's ads that one week were more negative, they were accurate. It was and is McCain's ads that are the deliberate lies.

I get the sense the American voters see the difference. John McCain's cultivated image as a 'straight talker' is eroding as the stream of bald-faced lies continues, apparently without shame (or, of course, honor -- we passed that milestone with McCain some weeks ago).

Posted by: Fairfax Voter | September 17, 2008 5:05 PM | Report abuse

Obama is a bigger liar than McCain. He climbed the adder in IL by stepping on every other Blacl politician, with smears and by chalenging their canidacy legally.

Obama is a sheister lawyer. If you don't start voting for the alternatives to "the leser of two evils" nothing will change. Obama is an actor delivering lines, but in reality at 47, he's never helped anyone, and that's a pathetic resume for a president.

Obama lies more than McCain and that's scary.

Vote for Nader or McKinney not a liar con man who smeared and destroyed the real chance for democrats to win. People should earn their experience to be president.

Axelrod = ROVE. Obama and Axelrod are more like Bush and Rove than McCain. Obama is the scan artist of the century. Ever been conned by a really good con man? Who has Obama ever helped? What did he do as a community organizer. Yes. It seems clear he runs more NEGATIVE ads than anyone in this race.

Posted by: Steve | September 17, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

If ron paul had even a snowballs chance in hell of winning I would vote for him.
Every election cycle the corporations trot out their selections from the line up.
This time they give us:
A funny looking black guy with a name like a terrorist.
A old white guy so crooked you could screw him into the ground.
Im voting for the black guy.

Posted by: seems to me | September 17, 2008 4:44 PM | Report abuse

Neither Obama nor McCain are experts on the economy. Hillary is the expert on the economy but the NEGATIVE OBAMA TEAM SMEARED HILLARY NON-STOP.

I find it amazing any of you are claiming Obama is not negative.Of course he runs more negative commercials than McCain. Obama flip-flopped on public financing so he could flood the airwaves with his smears.

If you want someone who is not lying not for Nader. I'm not Republican and I'm voting for McKinney or Nader, but I do have my eyes open and Obama is a liar and a con artist and Axelrod is more vicious than Rove.

Obama is probably a Bush operative anyway, whose goal was to stop Hillary and pave the way for McCain. Obama is a fraud.

Vote for Nader or the Green party if you want change, otherwise, who cares who wins these jokers are both working for Wall Street, but for the record Obama got 3X's as much money from wall street than McCain... but he claims to be finaced by Grass Roots... check the facts. Obama lies all the time. Obama is the con artist of the century.

Posted by: Steve | September 17, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse

Palin and McCain:
more of the same pain;
Thanks, but no, thanks,
not again!


Posted by: El Mugroso | September 17, 2008 4:37 PM | Report abuse

Howard, this article is SO misleading. Obama's Lobbyist ad -- which accurately points out the inconsistency between McCain's claim that he will take on lobbyists when 7 of his top advisors (and over 100 of his campaign staff, by the way) are all major DC lobbyists -- is viewed as "negative" when it is contrasting and factual. That ad has run repeatedly over the past few days, and for good reason.

By contrast, McCain's sex ed ad is a deeply negative character attack based on a complete lie -- it is a transparent personal attack intended to twist a vote that he made in the Illinois legislature to make him look like some kind of ultra-liberal pervert for plaing a higher priority on teaching full blown sex education to kindergarten aged children before teaching them how to read. Obama's real motice was to allow for teaching about inapprropriate touching, which almost all rational adults would support to protect out children from being molested. It is a sick attack, made by a desparate campaign which is bringing new meaning to the words "lie", "cynical" and "negative campaign"

That you equate the two is a form of campaign symmetry that the Press indulges in, which is a disservice. The implication is that Obama is being even more dishonest than McCain, or engaging in even more personal character attacks than Mccain, when exactly the opposite is true. You should be ashamed of yourself for pandering to teh McCain campaign in this way. But I'm sure Steve Schmidt and Charlie Black will treat much more deferentially the next time you see them. When the "fourth estate" become "for the state"? This type of so-called "balanced reporting" is what gave us Dubya as President, and the Iraq war. WHEN ARE YOU GUYS GOING TO LEARN????

Posted by: Mark | September 17, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

It's time to demand more than the lesser of two eveils and it's hard to say who is worse obama or McCain. Obama says more of what I want to hear, but he lies more than McCain.

Vote for a 3rd Party and say No More Lies!

U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, a former candidate for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, said last week, "the strongest message can be sent by rejecting the two-party system, which in reality is a one-party system with no possible chance for the changes to occur which are necessary to solve our economic and foreign policy problems."
He also called on his supporters to vote for one of the non-establishment, "principled" candidates.
He made the appeal at a news conference with three third-party candidates: independent Ralph Nader; former Georgia Democratic Rep. Cynthia McKinney, the Green Party candidate; and Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate. Bob Barr, the Libertarian candidate, was invited but said at his own news conference later that he declined because Paul didn't endorse one candidate.
In a campaign email, Nader said of the gathering, "the coming together of third party candidates marks the beginning of the realignment of American politics," though he added he didn't share many of the same positions as the very conservative Paul.
According to The Associated Press, Paul called the presidential elections a charade and said voters are faced with choosing the "lesser of two evils."

Posted by: Steve | September 17, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

This study is bogus. "Negative" is defined by an ad that uses the other candidate's name. The perception that Obama's ads are less negative is completely true. McCain, just like most republicans can't win on issues because they're wrong. Thus they have to resort to negative ads and lies, which is exactly what McCain has been doing.

Posted by: Tassos | September 17, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

I do believe its time for change...the Repubs have been in power for the last 8 years controlling the house, senate w/exception to last two years and the white house....so I don't see how the dems could have blocked MCcain's proposal on Fannie Mae.....more liars and more liars from some who continue to blind sided...lets be honest..Mccain has admitted to not understanding the economy, and continues to make different statements at every speaking event...come up lets be frank,,,,if we compare the two on issues...there are differences...but the bottom line its time for the Repubs to live washington and go reevaluate themselves...they have become so corrupt with no disregard for the law (Bush admin)...we can't afford a continuations of the current situation.... Furthermore if MCcain believe he is the reformer- he should have stuck to his principles as in 2000 campaign against Bush and should first start by reforming his own party that he couldn't for the last 30 years or so....

Posted by: Concerned American | September 17, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

"You can put a Muslim in the White House, if you're that dumb"

Hey it's Don the racist again!

Posted by: Bill | September 17, 2008 4:25 PM | Report abuse

The argument against obama is that he is an inexperienced and untested liar, cheat and thief.
The argument for mccain is he is an experienced liar, accomplished cheat and a master thief.
I'll take the new guy.

Posted by: seems to me | September 17, 2008 4:24 PM | Report abuse

Well, that would explain the comments by McCain's economic adviser.

Posted by: Tom | September 17, 2008 4:23 PM | Report abuse

WOW the republicans are good at whining. Who would a thunk it LOL.

Posted by: Jeff | September 17, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Obama ruined any change of Democrats winning by SMEARIUNG HILLARY & BILL CLINTON non-stop throughout the Primary.

Now that Obama got rid of Hillary with his dirty lies and underhanded claims to be above the fray he's throwing the election to McCain... Obama is pathetic liar.

Vote for nader or McKinney, this charade has to stop. Both candidates are working for the Republicans. Obama is a liar, No I dobn't trust him more than McCain and I'm a Democrat. Obama and Axelrod are just like Bush and Rove and Obama ruined the democratic party by being a smear monger during the primaries. he's pathetic.

Posted by: Steve | September 17, 2008 4:20 PM | Report abuse

Obama is the master of START A FIRE CRY FIRE!!!!

Obama and Axelrod are more like Bush and rove than McCain.

Vote for Nader or McKinney if you want change we can believe in. Obama is vicious, underhanded and has no record of creating change. At 47, that's pathetic and YES he lies more than McCain.

Posted by: Steve | September 17, 2008 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Now that's smear you can believe in. I mean change and hope.

Posted by: Dmitriy | September 17, 2008 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Obama could never be as negative as mccain.
Dont forget the rovians run senator POW's campaign.
Doughboy has more evil in store for obama so he better get a big umbrella before the s**tstorm hits.

Posted by: seems to me | September 17, 2008 4:12 PM | Report abuse

Obama's problem with credibility is he lies about EVERYTHING. The list of Obama lies is a mile long. So for Obama or anyone to call McCain or Palin a liar - LOL.

Vote for nader or McKinney if you don't want McCain. That's whta I'm doing. Obama is a sleazy Chicago Politics as usual... You can't trust one word Obama says.

I asked one of his supporters who said he's been a community organized and I said and done what? He couldn't name one thing Obama at 47 had done, until he Googles. Obama is a frauf with a very powerful press agent, Axelrod, and YES OBAMA is the MOST NEGATIVE in the running he just denies it all the time. Obama is a con man.

Posted by: Steve | September 17, 2008 4:12 PM | Report abuse

yes, I think so, the dems are usually too cautious. Nice to see one with guts.
I might be alarmed if he was flat out lying, but he's not...


"so this is 'Change we can believe in' from the person who is going change the way campaigns are run and then change Washington politics ? same ole, same ole, from a shape-shifting Half-rican American

Posted by: rtinfla | September 17, 2008 4:07 PM"

Posted by: samiam | September 17, 2008 4:11 PM | Report abuse

Ummmm, Howard... one important thing you failed to mention, is the methodology used in the study.
In other words, what constitutes a *negative* add??
The answer: That the opposing candidates name was mentioned.
Thus, if Obama ran an ad that said: "my tax policy is better than Senator McCain's," that's negative.
If McCain runs an ad that said: "Calling Gov Palin a pig, is detestable," that wouldn't be negative... according to the study.
Now that's very useful, isn't it???

Posted by: baz | September 17, 2008 4:11 PM | Report abuse

Obama and ACORN ( his work as a Community Organizer ).. learn more about this organization... Rezko, Rev Wright and Ayers are nothing compared to this group...

Acorn grew out of “one of the New Left’s silliest and most destructive groups, the National Welfare Rights Organization.” In the 1960’s, NWRO launched a campaign of sit-ins and disruptions at welfare offices. The goal was to remove eligibility restrictions, and thus effectively flood welfare rolls with so many clients that the system would burst. The theory was that an impossibly overburdened welfare system would force “a radical reconstruction of America’s unjust capitalist economy.” Instead of a socialist utopia, however, we got the culture of dependency and family breakdown that ate away at America’s inner cities.

People want to know what a "community organizer" does.. this is what Obama did

Posted by: DUH | September 17, 2008 4:11 PM | Report abuse

This is why Obama thinks there are 57 states in our union:
The Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) is an international organization with a permanent delegation to the United Nations. It groups 57 member states, from the Middle East, Africa, Central Asia, Caucasus, Balkan, Southeast Asia, South Asia and South America. The official languages of the organization are Arabic, English and French. You can put a Muslim in the White House, if you're that dumb.
From Audacity of Hope:'I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.'
Not to mention his admitted Muslim faith comment on national TV...

Posted by: Don | September 17, 2008 4:11 PM | Report abuse

KEATING 5!!!!!!!!!

Check...Mate.

Posted by: Keating 5 | September 17, 2008 4:10 PM | Report abuse

The Market is crashing, I'm sure under republicans our kids will be sent out to more wars. So work harder and earn less and then they fool you in saying we won't raise taxes well DUH that is a tax, working harder and earning less, having your house value fall. All this under a Republican govt. and it bewilders me if again the Republicans get it. It could only mean one thing why Obama is having trouble connecting with people is deep down people are just damn right racist. Why would they suffer hardship and wars to elect a elderly republican with a no experience VP. Sad

Posted by: Anonymous | September 17, 2008 4:09 PM | Report abuse

This study is a load of bull. It defined "negative" as any ad where the opposing candidate's name was used. Just because Obama used McCain's name in his ads does not mean that the ad is inherently negative. This story should have stated how the study defined "negative".

Posted by: Mike | September 17, 2008 4:09 PM | Report abuse

so this is 'Change we can believe in' from the person who is going change the way campaigns are run and then change Washington politics ? same ole, same ole, from a shape-shifting Half-rican American

Posted by: rtinfla | September 17, 2008 4:07 PM | Report abuse

Where's the "negative"? I've just heard actual facts! So, stating the Truth is now considered "negative"? So, if Obama lied like McCain, what would that be? I mean really...he didn't even mention the Keating 5, which is still True! You guyes must be brainwashed or just plain liars!

Posted by: Really | September 17, 2008 4:07 PM | Report abuse

My big worry about the next democtratic White. Will they they go after those people (legally go after) in congress and those who worked for Bush who lied and cheated the American people out of money and peace. Or is it business as usual we have a new group of crooks in the White House. One thing is for sure David Gergan needs to stay where he is. I am tired of his take on washington DC.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 17, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

such crap. what howie failed to mention:

Here's the fine print: The WAPpers define "negative" as any time you mention the opponent's name. So if Team O ran an ad that said "My economic plan is better than John McCain's" -- ding! ding! ding! -- that rings negative bells in the WAP's ears. And they don't measure the veracity of the ads or whether something was a personal attack or a policy attack.

WAP deputy director Sarah Niebler told us why: "It's more objective than having our coders determine what is a personal negative attack and what is a policy negative attack."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=14&entry_id=30395

Posted by: chea prince | September 17, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse

Obama has never done anythin to reach across party lines. He has done nothing to reform Govt. But, he has talked about it. He thought about it. He may have even written about it. But, vote on it.... no way! He couldn't ever take a position that could ever be used against him. So, he doesn't decide. That is EXECUTIVE EXPERIENCE.. too scared to make a decision? Then don't make one or speak in riddles

Posted by: ObamaIsGod | September 17, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse

Obama is such a phony. let's get real. He spends half his speeches GOING NEGATIVE and Swift Boating his opponents and the other half talking about how he's above the fray and that his opponents are NEGATIVE.

Ever been conned by a really good con man? Enter Obama.

If you want change you can believe in vot for Nader or McKinney. I'm not voting for McCain but Obama is more of a liar than McCain and does not have any more experience that Palin.

Obama is probably a double-agent for the Republicans anyway whose goal was to stop Hillary and pave the way for mccain.

At 47, who has he ever helped? What has he ever done? Obama is a lare and a phony. There is no substance to his eloquence. he's a fraud, with a vicious campaign and no loyalty to anyone.

Posted by: Steve | September 17, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse

Duh I don't think you can't get much negative have you looked at the market/world lately? What a stupid article.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 17, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

John McCain co-sponsored a housing reform act in 2005 which specifically addressed the risks of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Guess who voted against it? Yep, Obama did. I'm guessing it's because he received more than 100K from those companies in political contributions since joining the Senate. And he has the nerve to criticize McCain for having former lobbyists on his staff? I'm tired of Obama's "holier than though" attitude and blaming Republicans for the housing crisis. Things might have been different if he and his fellow Democrats had approved the housing reform act in 2005 instead of getting in bed with Fannie and Freddie!

Posted by: Laura | September 17, 2008 2:03 PM

THANKS LAURA for pointing this out!!!! Great Post

Who was on Obamas VP selection committee?? Any guessers??? old head of one of the failed institutions that gave him all that "dirty money" Never hear that on the news do you? Wonder why?

Posted by: Obamanator | September 17, 2008 4:01 PM | Report abuse

I dug a little deeper - what they define as a 'negative' ad is any ad where you mention the opponent's name. A meaningless definition that results in a meaningless statistic. They took this approach because the term 'negative' is subjective (as of course it is), but given that they should have simply not done the study at all. If the headline had read 'Obama mentions McCain's name more than McCain mentions Obama's', no-one would have read the story, and for good reason.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 17, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Obama won his seat in IL by going NEGATIVE on all the other Black politicians and he went NEGATIVE on Hillary from Day one. Obama is the most NEGATIVE campaigner in history.

Sure he CLAIMS TO BE ABOVE THE FRAY... what a load of crap that is. Obama redefined swift boating and double-talk.

Posted by: Steve | September 17, 2008 3:59 PM | Report abuse

In recent weeks, John McCain and the Republican Party have blatantly and without any shame adopted the Democratic campaign theme of “change”. It should be evident to an objective observer that Bush 43 and now McCain and Pailin are mere puppets to the true Republican national party leaders who control their strings. Cheney is one of the few of that inner cabal that have been calling the shots since the Nixon administration. They are in fact a continuation of the Nixon and Ford presidencies with only a disruption during the Carter and Clinton years. Bush 41( Head of the RNC during Nixon, former head of the CIA,VP to Reagan, and president is probably the real leader of this political Cosa Nostra if not a equal partner of this power sharing musical chairs game. His right and left hands have been Dick Cheney(former Sec.of Defense of Bush 41, former White House Chief of staff for Ford) and the other is Donald Rumsfeld(former Sec. of Defense for Ford and Bush 43,former special envoy to the Middle East during Reagan). Another member of this group, more likely a captain if not a full blown boss himself is James Baker (former C.O.S of Reagan, former Under Sec. of Commerce for Ford, former C.O.S and Sec of State for Bush 41, former Sec. of Treasury for Reagan, former chief legal advisor to Bush 43). Another captain or free lance enforcer is Karl Rove a college drop out and campaign manager for both Bush 41 and 43, also for Phil Gram who is McCain’s economic advisor.
Lets look at McCain’s staff of change.
On July 2, 2008, Steve Schmidt was given "full operational control" of McCain's campaign. Steve Schmidt prior to this was a top aide to Dick Cheney and a protégé to Karl Rove. Another advisor is Charles R. Black worked for Ronald Reagan's two Presidential campaigns in 1976 and 1980 and he was a senior political adviser to the 1992 re-election campaign of George H.W. Bush. Another advisor is Randy Scheunemann. He was project director for the Project for the New American Century. A neo-conservative think tank founded by non other than Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Bill Kristol and others in 1996. Other signatories to this group reads like a who’s who of the last 8 years of the republican administration.
These people have never cared about small town america or “values” All they care about is war profiteering. Many of the signatories have never served in the military. Cheney and Rove both dodged the draft. Look at the statement of principles by the PNAC. Rumsfeld was a good friend of Saddam Huessin in the 80’s Cheney didn’t want Nelson Mandela free. These are the real puppet masters, they throw out the talking points about the left of being elitist and not caring about middle america and these same guys other than Rove have advanced degrees and are worth no less than 10 million dollars. People who support them need to extricate their heads out of Limbaugh and Hannity’s asses and see what is really happening to them. McCain is not his own man he confuses stories of his real life with a book he read “The Gulag Archipelago", in which a fellow prisoner - not a guard - silently drew a cross in the dirt with a stick.” An ironic twist to all this is Eliot A. Cohen, a signatory to the PNAC "Statement of Principles", responded in The Washington Post: "There is no evidence that generals as a class make wiser national security policymakers than civilians. George C. Marshall, our greatest soldier statesman after George Washington, opposed shipping arms to Britain in 1940. His boss, Franklin D. Roosevelt, with nary a day in uniform, thought otherwise. Whose judgment looks better?"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/johnmccain/2581086/John-McCain-accused-of-plagiarising-Wikipedia-for-speeches.html. Even if you don’t like Obama there is no-way a sane person can want this continued blatant fleecing of our Nation.
Thes are all verifiable facts and can be found just with a google searches.
Other than the ultra affluent, how can anyone support the Republican Party? When will small town America realize that they are being duped into supporting the ultra-affluent agenda? The talking points of the right are so hypocritical that it becomes laughable. The red meat of the right is the so called Main stream Media as if Limbaugh, Hannity, et al. are not part of it. They demean celebrity status, however they tout one of their greatest presidents(Reagan) was an actor. They say they are the party of patriotism, yet many of the upper echelon of the party have never served, i.e. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Baker, Reagan. They say that they care about "Main Street" USA but only bail out the Whales of Wall Street. Yet small town America eat this tripe every year. They don't care about religion unless it can be used to stir up the base, nor science or technology unless there is a buck to be made. Small town America takes pride on its freedom but yet don't realize that over time we are becoming less free, ie wire tapping and other forms of domestic surveillance. They demean people of intelligence because they know many people of small town America don't have degrees and use it at a fake issue and call people who spent time in academia as elitist when many on the right serve on university boards and have part-time professorships. They say they are against affirmitive action but yet celebrate mediocrity, Bush43 and McCain graduating at the bottom of their classes. Who both came from already well established families and had all the opportunities and connections to excel. Why does small town America believes this is the party for them? Christian conservatives seem to the be the first ones who want to go to war and bomb someone before any diplomacy is tried. Why can't small town America and Christian conservatives realize they are being used as pawns just as much the Islamic fundamentalist are. Islamic fundamentalist come from small town Middle East and given the same kind of talking points as the evangelicals. They want prayer in school, no choice available to women, and believe to the core that their ideas about worship and country are the best. Wake up small town America you are being duped.
Talking about who is more patriotic, symbols, lipstick and wearing pins are nothing more than distractions to the real issue of how a few select group of people have held power almost continuously for over 30 years. Yes the left has their own political power groups but none have been so effective at pushing forward an agenda that is fundamentally bad for the U.S. and in a larger view the entire world. I stress again the now defunct PNAC and the AIPAC have been slowly pushing us closer to another World War. Bush41 and et al have been doing this and no one calls them on it. Every Republican administration has basically the same people recycled since Nixon. Just do a little research and you will see that these people are just pushing this agenda of some kind of Pax Americana and not taking into account that maybe other nations of the world might not like that and if not bomb them.
Many people who support the Republican party, really need to read "1984" by George Orwell and see how we as nation have been inching closer to that type of society. People think this story is about a communist society, but it is more about how a society is kept in a constant state of fear in order for the ruling class to stay in control. Doublespeak, patriotism to the point of frenzy, censorship, erosion of civil liberties (not respecting the Constitution) is happening right in front of us. The consolidation of government (the executive branch has never been more powerful than ever, gridlocked legislature with only two parties for representation, a judiciary that just kowtows to the executive branch). No real independent journalism. Cameras placed on every street corner. This may sound like delusional conspiracy stuff, but I implore people to research for themselves to really see what is happening to them. People think this could never happen here in the U.S. but it is already happening, slowly, incrementally all under the guise of "keeping America safe"

Posted by: Anonymous | September 17, 2008 3:59 PM | Report abuse

I hate that I am forced to agree with the liberals so much this election cycle. The McCain camp is a pack of wolves dressed in blue overalls and hard hats. I miss the McCain that ran against Bush in 2000. I voted for him them then, and I would have voted for him now.

--------------

This is so sad and so true. I would have voted for him too if he'd run in 2000, and I would have voted for him in '08 if he were the same man (although I'm sure a lot of far right wing voters would have stayed home).

The McCain we've got today is a totally different man. The McCain of '00 wouldn't even vote for him. Whether he wins or loses, I think he's going to hate himself on Nov. 5th.

Posted by: Joe | September 17, 2008 3:57 PM | Report abuse

"Obama is the con artist of the century"

no that would be Bush, but McCain is trying.

Posted by: Tom | September 17, 2008 3:57 PM | Report abuse

Isn't dishonesty negative? shouldn't this be taken into account? Who gets to define negative?

(But good for you Barack it's about time!)

Posted by: Jeff | September 17, 2008 3:56 PM | Report abuse

Obama is the con artist of the century -- an actor. Have you ever been conned by a really good con man.

He ruined Democrat chances to win because he's never accomplished anything and has no legitimate experience, and now with Palin, it makes it more obvious.

I'm no Republican, but maybe Obama is. Rezko his good buddy also fund-raised for Bush, and Obama may be a Bush operative. seems to me Obama's goal was to stop Hillary and pave the way for McCain.

I'm voting for Nader or McKinney of the Green party. I'm no Republican and we have two Republicans on the ticket, McCain and the liar of the century Obama. Obama tore the Democratic party apart by age and race. he's a Sexist, Aginst and has never helped anyone of any race. Obama is a fraud.

Please vote 3rd Party. These two parties will never change anything and we don't need a Juvenile like Obama who does assinine things like the lipstick comment and then launches into denials. Axelrod and Obama are more like Bush and Rove than McCain. Obama is a sleazy liar and a creep.

Ever been conned by a really good con man... enter Obama.

Posted by: Steve | September 17, 2008 3:56 PM | Report abuse

Negative ads work!
It's about Obama started slinging the mud!

Posted by: mediahack | September 17, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

Mentioning an oppenent's name is qualification for a "negative ad," even if all Obama (or McCain) is doing is comparing his policy's to his opponent's. That's a pretty weak measuring stick.

I hate that I am forced to agree with the liberals so much this election cycle. The McCain camp is a pack of wolves dressed in blue overalls and hard hats. I miss the McCain that ran against Bush in 2000. I voted for him them then, and I would have voted for him now. Unfortunately, his empty, vitriolic rhetoric is forcing me to vote for Obama. At lease I'll enjoy the larger income tax cut with Mr. Obama.

By the way, all you morons who keep emphasizing Obama's middle name are the very reason that he ever "played the race card." One thing about McCain: he was smart enough to know that he didn't have to point out the ethnic differences in Obama because his bigot base would dot the job for him.

Posted by: Former McCain Fan | September 17, 2008 3:49 PM | Report abuse

The problem is that no one defines what ads are negative. C'mon Howey, withou a detailed explantion of what is considerede a negative ad this is MEANINGLESS. Of course, we can rely on the Post to continue to PROPAGADIZE for the mammon worshipping moral degenerates that pay their salaries. I swear, ever since Katy Graham fell down the stairs, you guys have been acting like she was pushed.

Posted by: Phrank | September 17, 2008 3:49 PM | Report abuse

"Here's the fine print: The WAPpers define "negative" as any time you mention the opponent's name. So if Team O ran an ad that said "My economic plan is better than John McCain's" -- ding! ding! ding! -- that rings negative bells in the WAP's ears. And they don't measure the veracity of the ads or whether something was a personal attack or a policy attack.

WAP deputy director Sarah Niebler told us why: "It's more objective than having our coders determine what is a personal negative attack and what is a policy negative attack.""

SFGate

Posted by: mkoch | September 17, 2008 3:47 PM | Report abuse

Machine-Gun McCain has backed most of Bush's economic ideas that got us in this Financial mess. Don't forget, McCain was involved in the Saving & Loan Scandal, he should be an expert at stealing tax payers money. McCain is Bush's hand picked boy, Bush yells jump & McCain tries to get his feet off the ground. As for Palin, if elected McCain will need a nurse, she's the only woman in the country to want the job !!!

Posted by: SadAmerican | September 17, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Hey George, lay off Joe Biden! I think his hair plugs look great!
Like many men who have had hair transplants, we identify with Biden and will be pulling the lever for him this fall!

Biden/Obama '08

Posted by: Larry | September 17, 2008 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Its been fun watching grandpaw mccain flip around like a weathervane in a tornado this week. One things for sure this relic can change and sometimes right in front of your eyes.
The fundamentals are sound. You ever been called a fundamental before?
He says its sad to see Obama going negative.
He says he can catch Osama.
Before he can catch Osama he has to catch Obama.

Posted by: seems to me | September 17, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

The bogus just got even bogusser.

Howard Kurtz needs to do some homework on how "negative" is defined by WAP. WAP says an ad is "negative" if it mentions the opponent's name. That's all!

Now they're just makin' stuff up. No wonder Obama is ahead.

Posted by: JPMinNC | September 17, 2008 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Of course Barack Hussein Obama has to run a negative campaign, it's not as if he can run on his almost non-existant resume!

Throwing mud is all he's got!

Posted by: Rufus | September 17, 2008 3:34 PM | Report abuse

It is amazing to hear and watch completely opposite prospectives being derived from the same set of facts. Obviously, partisanship directly influences the manner in which we interpret factual events.

So, as to partisanship -- how do we get there? Its simply a case of winners and losers of the system in place. The losers want to change the system's rules while the winners like things the way they are.

Talk is cheap. Verbal attacks only denegrate and destroy. But true leadership doesn't come from empty words --but only from actions to build, inspire, and to motivate.

A leader is never more qualified to lead nor is his ability to do so measured by his assassinations against his opponent. In other words, its all about what YOU can do and NOT about what the other party cannot.

Posted by: kingchuckfong | September 17, 2008 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Why is the MSM censoring the news that Obama begged the Iraqi's not to start a troop withdrawal until he was president so he could get credit???

You would think Howie "in the tank for Obama" Kurtz would mention the censorship. No, he only reports on things that are bad about republicans. Howie Kurtz -- liberal lunacy.

Posted by: Anti-MSM | September 17, 2008 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Why is the MSM censoring the news that Obama begged the Iraqi's not to start a troop withdrawal until he was president so he could get credit???

You would think Howie "in the tank for Obama" Kurtz would mention the censorship. No, he only reports on things that are bad about republicans. Howie Kurtz -- liberal lunacy.

Posted by: Anti-MSM | September 17, 2008 3:31 PM | Report abuse

So is this the first week that there has been more negative ads by Obama? That means that all the rest of the time McCains party had more negative ads?

Posted by: Kent | September 17, 2008 3:30 PM | Report abuse

lets hear more about
the obama slide in the polls...
sweet
sweet...

actually he's edging back ahead
hahahaha.
i think the more people realize who palin actually is the more they will shy away from her.

Posted by: gabe | September 17, 2008 3:26 PM | Report abuse

It is amazing to hear and watch completely opposite prospectives being derived from the same set of facts. Obviously, partisanship directly influences the manner in which we interpret factual events.

So, as to partisanship -- how do we get there? Its simply a case of winners and losers of the system in place. The losers want to change the system's rules while the winners like things the way they are.

Talk is cheap. Verbal attacks only denegrate and destroy. But true leadership doesn't come from empty words --but only from actions to build, inspire, and to motivate.

A leader is never more qualified to lead nor is his ability to do so measured by his assassinations against his opponent. In other words, its all about what YOU can do and NOT about what the other party cannot.

Posted by: kingchuckfong | September 17, 2008 3:26 PM | Report abuse

Yes Howard, If McSame can attack, so can Obama. Did I miss your point or was there a worry that the straightalk McCain was accually being attacked!

Posted by: DenisR | September 17, 2008 3:24 PM | Report abuse

The problem with the Wisconsin Advertising Project numbers is that they consider an ad "negative" if it mentions the opponent's name - not whether it is true, not whether it even attacks the opponent or opponent's position, just mentions the opponent's name. Strange way to count "negative" ads.

Posted by: vklip | September 17, 2008 3:24 PM | Report abuse

It pays to live in Alaska. three thousand two hundred dollars this year from the permanent fund and a rebate. In a heavily republican state its almost like buying the election. No wonder Palin is so popular.

Posted by: seems to me | September 17, 2008 3:21 PM | Report abuse

Howie is shocked because his ridiculous column today showed Howie to be so in the tank for Obama he resembled a lonely 20 something watching the last episode of "Sex and the City". Howie has ceased being credible == he did not address Nero fiddling while Rome burned, or the fact that Obama partied in Hollywood last night. Nor did he mock the Biden ridiculous statement of Obama giving tax cust so Americans can buy a toaster. No, Howie is so getting his information from DailyKos.

Posted by: Karen | September 17, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

Well, it's hard for Obama to talk factually about McCain without sounding negative. I see that MediaCorp -- which doesn't seem to feel constrained by facts -- has a much easier time of it.

Posted by: Whippy | September 17, 2008 3:19 PM | Report abuse

There is a distinct difference between negative attacks and intentional distortion of the facts. Who was practicing which?

Posted by: Joseph Arrario | September 17, 2008 3:16 PM | Report abuse

I love McCain so so much, he makes me feel like Im livin in the 30s, its so great to be a Republican, my party really knows how to get me riled up, at one point, i didnt hate them Dems, i just wanted to vote for a republican cause Jesus says dont kill babies, I didnt want to have to be familiar with anything else in politics, Religion is really all i know, sort of, cause i watch tv evangalists when im not at church, but now on the radio, they tell me that Dems hate America and that they are trying to destroy it. I feel so alive after seeing all those funny looking overweight people with no self confidence screaming at the RNC, it really makes me feel like I belong, cause the only other thing i feel a part of is my Church on Sunday morning, other people dont really like me cause, well cause i dont like them. Thats just kinda how it is for us country folks, we dont like our neighbors too close, thats why i love me my guns too, They make me feel safer cause my neighbors look at me funny sometimes. And really, Bush aint so bad, at least he doesnt sound like one of them smart city people, why should one a them over educated sinners be tellin me what to do. I LOVE MCCAIN, his pants are pee stained.

Posted by: IWantAMcCainBurger | September 17, 2008 3:13 PM | Report abuse

I've been a democrat all my life i'm sorry to say this time i will not vote democrat sometimes you have to step back and look beyond your nose and realized that everything that comes out their mouths it's a lie .i have to say i was one of those welfare children and happy to be out of that system that makes people lazzzy to say the least you know in your hearts that is not a solution to our countries problems handouts is not going to make you better citizens but it will make you lazy i know we are strugglin but it will get better they will get richer and you will be in the same boat mark my words obama will be a terrible president and the people that voted for him and the media that help him push his ideas and lies in our faces will be whinning and complaining in 4 years but all of you deserve it.not voting at all

Posted by: bribri | September 17, 2008 3:12 PM | Report abuse

Where were the "McCain airs Lies and Distortions" headlines when McCain aired the 5yo girl condom ads? There's nothing negative about describing the truth about a Candidate. He did say the economy was sound. He did say he supported the policies of the Bush Administration. Pointing that out is campaigning, it's discussing the issues. The Republicans want to talk about voters, "feelings" about a candidate: Do you 'like' him, do you 'relate' to him, do you 'trust' him. Sounds like a bunch of touchy-feely Jew Agers. They don't want to talk about issues, policies, or be held accountable for the Disastrous results of THEIR failed policies.

Too Bad. They're gone in November!

Posted by: thebob.bob | September 17, 2008 3:11 PM | Report abuse

The closer the election gets the nastier the ads. The republicans are just taking a break before they start their real onslaught. October surprise.

Posted by: seems to me | September 17, 2008 3:05 PM | Report abuse

Simply telling the truth about Republicans is "negative" because over the last eight years, they've done nothing positive.

The country is in a financial meltdown, jobless rates are setting records, and our military has been foolishly stretched too thin to respond to a new crisis.

McCain has been on the wrong side for 26 years in Washington. Really, really, really wanting to be President and claiming to be a "maverick" can't make up for his record - or his current dependence on the same lobbyists who have influenced the Bush agenda to fund his low-road campaign.

He offers more of the same failure - because he helped create it.

Barack Obama has earned the trust and enthusiasm of voters who understand that really putting the country first means fixing its problems, and not just trying to cover them up with the flag. The last eight years in America under Republicans offer proof - not theory - of why we need to change course.

Posted by: ArmyBrat68 | September 17, 2008 3:00 PM | Report abuse

Racial attacks will be coming against Obama shortly. The republicans have not yet hit him on his muslim associations and ties to ayers. The attacks will be oblique something rovians are good at.

Posted by: seems to me | September 17, 2008 2:59 PM | Report abuse

McCain knows all about bailing out rich bankers and screwing over middle class and poor people, he's been doing it for years.


*McCain - Founding Member of the Keating Five:

McCain was one of the "Keating Five," congressmen investigated on ethics charges for strenuously helping convicted racketeer Charles Keating after he gave them large campaign contributions and vacation trips.
Charles Keating was convicted of racketeering and fraud in both state and federal court after his Lincoln Savings & Loan collapsed, costing the taxpayers $3.4 billion. His convictions were overturned on technicalities; for example, the federal conviction was overturned because jurors had heard about his state conviction, and his state charges because Judge Lance Ito (yes, that judge) screwed up jury instructions. Neither court cleared him, and he faces new trials in both courts.)
Though he was not convicted of anything, McCain intervened on behalf of Charles Keating after Keating gave McCain at least $112,00 in contributions. In the mid-1980s, McCain made at least 9 trips on Keating's airplanes, and 3 of those were to Keating's luxurious retreat in the Bahamas. McCain's wife and father-in-law also were the largest investors (at $350,000) in a Keating shopping center; the Phoenix New Times called it a "sweetheart deal."


*McCain - Mafia Ties:

In 1995, McCain sent birthday regards, and regrets for not attending, to Joseph "Joe Bananas" Bonano, the head of the New York Bonano crime family, who had retired to Arizona. Another politician to send regrets was Governor Fife Symington, who has since been kicked out of office and convicted of 7 felonies relating to fraud and extortion.
.
http://www.realchange.org/mccain.htm
.

Posted by: McCain on the membrane | September 17, 2008 2:58 PM | Report abuse

theres nothing negative about the ads,unless your a john mccain supporter,for the rest of us its the truth.

Posted by: Jack R | September 17, 2008 2:57 PM | Report abuse

First, WHO is this Ken Goldstein from the Wisconsin Advertising Project at the University of Wisconsin? An independent or a Republican? Second, eight-year Bush's negativity has to be countered by eight-week campaign negativity to achieve eight-year Obama's positivity. It is probably not as pretty as a pig with lipstick, but it is a small price we all have to pay.

Posted by: Tao Zen | September 17, 2008 2:55 PM | Report abuse

NEWS FLASH Obama/Biden
Democratic team breaks foreign experience sound barrier ....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=annkM6z1-FE


NEWS FLASH Palin a heartbeat away from flying
Sarah Palin graduates from McCain's foreign experience flight simulator ....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Es8Kqq74GsQ


Posted by: Ruth | September 17, 2008 2:49 PM | Report abuse

Why is it Obama gets a free ride with the press, when he has so much baggage behind him and McCain and Palin are given so much negative press.

Posted by: M.M. | September 17, 2008 2:48 PM | Report abuse

How is it possible that article after article, news snippet after news snippet, tries to claim that the "negativite ads" from each side is the same. Pointing out factual items about your oppenent that you know will concern voters is a little different than MAKING STUFF UP and LYING OUTRIGHT. Don't you think?

This study doesn't even define "negative". Isn't calling someone a pervert by lying about a bill they favored a little different than making a factual claim that someone voted 19 times against a minimum wage bill?

McCain has reached historic lows in this campaign and we should not let Karl Rove get on Fox news and claim that somehow they are both getting dirty. they are not. There's a clear difference.

Posted by: Mike d | September 17, 2008 2:44 PM | Report abuse

How is it possible that article after article, news snippet after news snippet, tries to claim that the "negativite ads" from each side is the same. Pointing out factual items about your oppenent that you know will concern voters is a little different than MAKING STUFF UP and LYING OUTRIGHT. Don't you think?

This study doesn't even define "negative". Isn't calling someone a pervert by lying about a bill they favored a little different than making a factual claim that someone voted 19 times against a minimum wage bill?

McCain has reached historic lows in this campaign and we should not let Karl Rove get on Fox news and claim that somehow they are both getting dirty. they are not. There's a clear difference.

Posted by: Mike d | September 17, 2008 2:44 PM | Report abuse

I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out who is REALLY running the negative campaign. Obama has been doing it since he was running against HIllary. Nothing new here.

How anyone can think he is running on positives ( which he said he would ) and then do absolutely nothing but state 4 more years of failed Bush, McCain is like Bush, Palin is just like Bush. The markets are crashing and the world is falling apart becuase of Bush and McCain.

I don't think McCain has taken the kins of money Obama has from Freedie Mac and Fannie May.. and maybe I am wrong but who had the ex-head of that organization help pick his VP? It wasn't McCain.

McCain was always called a Maverick by Dems (they gave him the name ) and sang his praises as a person of change and willing to work across party lines. But now he is just a Bush clone....

We would love to say Obama reaches across party line ( and so would you ) but he has NOT done it and WON'T do it. His record proves it. If he is for change.. what kind of change is it? No one in the entire world can figure that one out.

Posted by: Obamanator | September 17, 2008 2:44 PM | Report abuse

PulSamsara

You should try sushi...it's quite delicious!

liberals, by definition is a doctrine stressing individual freedom and limited government. This includes the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, constitutional limitations of government & free markets.

Conservatism is a term used to describe political philosophies that favour tradition, where tradition refers to various religious, cultural, or nationally defined beliefs and customs.

which do you think sounds a little more negative?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 17, 2008 2:43 PM | Report abuse

One thing everyone needs to keep in mind about statistical studies is that if they are honest they answer exactly and only the qeustion they were designed to answer. What I mean is this, the question this study was meant to answer is if a particular ad is negative or not. The question was not whether the adds were true, or in response to comments made by the other candidate, or the ads were meant to clairify something that had been incorrecty attributed to the candidate. Don't expect a statistical study to answer broader question for which it was not designed.

I don't really see how Obama could have been expected to respond positively to some of the ads that McCain has put out over the past few months. But the study doesn't have a catagory of "responding to lies from the other candidate", it only has positive or negative as a possible outcome. I think it is fairly clear that McCain was looking for this exact thing when he went negative. By saying things that were obviously untrue, and damning to Obama he essentially farced Obama to respond negatively.

Our duty as American voters is to cut through all the garbage and figure out who is more likely to more America forward in a positive way. We need to look at all the available information, consider the likelyhood that the candidate is going to run the country in an honest and logical fashion. We need to consider their promises as only as meaningful as their apparent honesty before the election. We need to look at the preponderance of evidence, not a 30 second commercial or soundbite on Fox news.

Posted by: captbilly | September 17, 2008 2:41 PM | Report abuse

This is some of the Obama "high road i suppose.

No different than the other Demicratic tricks over the years.

The Democrats virtually invented dirty campaigning and have putrefied every election in my lifetime with false accusations, lies, phony vote counts, multiple votes per individual, and dirty tricks.

The liars can’t even agree amongst themselves in their own primaries. The reason is they know what they are up against – each is as sleazy as the next. The difference has been that the media has always looked the other way.

When I see a headline that refers to “THE ONE” as a “MISOGYNIST PIG”, my feelings regarding the press may begin to change.

Nixon learned his dirty tricks from the Democrat dirty trickster who sabotaged his campaign when he ran for governor of California and then wrote a book bragging about it.

In one of the closest Presidential elections in US history, in 1960 he again lost to Kennedy by margins in both IL and TX by amounts larger than the total number of registered voters.

Why do you think Democrats are insistent on NOT requiring ID’s to vote? They need and ID for :
Opening a bank account,
Getting a library card
Financing a car
Getting a drivers license
Applying for a job
Getting medical attention
Buying insurance
Buying a home
Renting an apartment
Getting a credit card
Registering for college
Picking a kid up at daycare
Cashing a check
Getting a traffic ticket
To board a plane…………………………… etc, etc, etc, etc, etc

But for some reason the Democrats don’t think they don’t need an ID to vote- I have to assume it is so every Democrat can go back to the polls 15 times and re-cast their ballot.

Remember the "Daisy ad" that lied about Goldwater?

The last 2 times out, Democrats ran phony ads telling black voters that the GOP was out to keep them from voting. It is a never ending stream of rank BS from those that actually have the “audacity” to cry foul over RESPONSES to their slimy tactics.

In the 2000 & 2004 campaigns, which Democrats are still crying about, The Miami Herald, a mullet wrapper, driveway liner liberal rag if there ever was one, spent over $500,000 of its own money to “prove” Bush lost. Their conclusion; he won both times. I guess that just goes to reaffirm that most democrats are incapable of reading.

For the last 40 years the democrats have scared the elderly in the country to death with lies about Republicans cancelling social security. The myopic souls don’t even realize that in GWB’s first term, he and a Republican controlled congress increased social security entitlements by the highest percentage ever to the highest dollar amount in US history. That, by the way, was an attempt to reach across the aisle and the only thing you hear from imbeciles on the left is the budget deficit is because of the war.

In this campaign, Obama has been whimpering that the GOP was going to attack him because of his name and race (none of which has happened). As I recall, the lovely and charming Democrat party has given America
the Ku Klux Klan,
White Primaries,
Poll Taxes,
"voter literacy tests",
Gerrymandering,
Union thugs intimidating voters,
the Daley machine,
the Prendergast machine,
Tammany Hall
and , more recently, has registered tens of thousands of illegal aliens to vote.

That while the Republicans have delivered (not merely promised) the two most important contributions to American Civil Rights in American history- 1) Lincoln 2)Overcoming filibuster after filibuster to make sure the civil rights act of 1964 actually got past over the fierce objections of ignorant Democrats.

This tribe of nausiating miscreants is unfit to govern a local little league much less the Unites States of America.

Please spare us the tripe about unfair elections and mindless drivel about the virtues of Obama, the Democratic Party or its constituents.

Posted by: robt | September 17, 2008 2:41 PM | Report abuse

Black republicans are like bigfoot. The only place you see them is on television.
And you know they are fake.

Posted by: seems to me | September 17, 2008 2:40 PM | Report abuse

Obama is runnning . . . running scared . . . from an old dude . . . AND A GIRL!

Posted by: D | September 17, 2008 2:40 PM | Report abuse

examine the ads . . . negative and truthful is different from negative and full of lies . . the voters have to wake up and see that McCain is not the maverick he once was.

Posted by: rooster clown | September 17, 2008 2:39 PM | Report abuse

Long Live the New Union of Socialist Republicans!!!


Welcome news comrades! We the People are now We the Owners. The People's Insurance Company, formerly known as AIG, was saved for the time being from the forces of capitalism by the new Union of Republican Socialists, formerly known as the GOP. Somewhere in the great beyond, the ghost of Karl Marx is grinning while the spirit of Adam Smith forks over the one dollar bet with an invisible hand:


"In a move aimed at averting a new global economic shock, the US Federal Reserve agreed an unprecedented 85-billion-dollar rescue loan for American International Group. The deal, sealed late Tuesday, saved AIG from collapse and gave the US government a 79.9 percent stake in the insurance behemoth."

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hqFac57CVjDIS6bj_Lsbg8oAbdPw


Now that the People own a major insurance company, it's fair to ask how the People's Insurance Company, along with the People's Mortgage Companies and the People's Investment Banks, will benefit the People who Own them. Can we expect lower premiums, equity sharing, and corporate perks for our hundreds of billions of dollars? Should we start checking our mailbox for dividend checks? Who gets paid first, claimants, bondholders, stockholders, or we the new taxpayer owners?

We the Owners, want to know, and the Union of Socialist Republicans better damn well tell us, fast.

Posted by: McCain/Palin = FAIL! | September 17, 2008 2:39 PM | Report abuse

Obama has Hollywood and the media. McCain has America's heart.

Posted by: Jack | September 17, 2008 2:36 PM | Report abuse

I wouldn't go as far as saying that Obama's ad's are 100% true....but they are a bit more truthful than McCains ad's have been...and they make a bit more sense. McCain just keeps saying the same nonsense about Obama being a celebrity and being able to speak coherently. I think his dementia is effecting his ability to campaign. He's too damn OLD!

Posted by: Anonymous | September 17, 2008 2:35 PM | Report abuse

What is this story suppose to prove? By now all of you should know that Obama's negative ads are actually based in fact, while McCain's are just outright lies. That's the clear difference between the two campaigns. McCain Campaign claimed that Obama supported teaching sex ed to Kindergarten students for Christ's Sake. You can't get any lower than that. No lie as horrible as that has ever been told by a presidential campaign. Ever. You can't compare wanting to teach children sex ed, when it was really meant to teach them about child predators and inappropriate touching. And if you claim otherwise it only proves how disingenuous you are, and that you only care about your party.

"Why do black people overwhelmingly vote for people based on skin pigment?"

That doesn't make any sense. Barack is the first black presidential nominee. You make it seem like now is that first time that blacks have ever voted. But there's a good reason why blacks don't vote for Republicans. It's because the majority of blacks are poor, and Republicans only care about the rich and big business. As is evident in the stark difference between McCain and Obama's tax plans.

Posted by: Butters | September 17, 2008 2:35 PM | Report abuse

I have to think that the corporations first choice for president was romney and their last choice was mccain.
There is no comparison when it comes to grey matter. mccains brain is running on one cylinder.

Posted by: seems to me | September 17, 2008 2:35 PM | Report abuse

Hmmm..one week with more Obama negetive adds and the past is forgotten?

Being republican IS being negative. It's how they thrive and drive.

Posted by: MR B | September 17, 2008 2:34 PM | Report abuse

Hate to break it to you Laura and other posters, but Fox news is not the gospel. Check actual senate records and other RELIABLE sources for info on the candidates.

Also it would be a refreshing CHANGE to hear you speak about why you like the GOP candidate rather than always trying to shoot down your opponent. But hey, I guess that just the NRA component in many of you.

As Democrats we are fired up about what we admire about Obama and how we have similiar idealogy, hopes, and dreams as Americans that why he won the primary for us. He is a terrific candidate who will overcome the hurdle of race because when it comes down to it - Dems who outnumber Reps will elect him as we need an intelligent person in the White House who understands our nation's current challenges. OBAMA DOES!

Why are Republicans always in the hate the other candidate mode????

Posted by: Gunnar | September 17, 2008 2:33 PM | Report abuse

Thank you for the analysis and bringing this up. Obama guy looks pathetic and who calls himself "new kind of politics". With Biden, he proved that he is more of the same and chicago dirty politicaian who will say and do anything and everything for political gain.

Dems are sure doomed this fall.

Posted by: jen | September 17, 2008 2:33 PM | Report abuse


That's because Obama is a liar. New politics: old hack for VP. Postpartisan civility: same old, same old. Federal campaign finance limits: who, me? Initially said McCain must not have anything to propose because all he talked about was Obama: look in the mirror, pal.

Wrong nominee; going down again thanks to the freaks on the left fringe.

Posted by: Chicago1 | September 17, 2008 2:33 PM | Report abuse

so, howie - let me get this straight: mccain runs one of the most low-down, dishonorable, almost totally negative campaigns for months on end... and obama calls him on it in a couple of TV ads in a week... and OBAMA is the one running a negative campaign? wow. just... wow.

Posted by: PW in Omaha | September 17, 2008 2:31 PM | Report abuse

What a worthless article.

It presents as authoratative, a study by some group affiliated with the University of Wisconsin and then provides absolutely no definition of how they define the term, "negative".

I'd bet your life that no Obama approved ad stooped to the level of the disgusting McCain ad that claimed Obama had proposed legislation to teach sex education to kindergarteners, which was nothing but a blatant lie.

Why don't you guys actually try to provide just a little professionalism in "news" reporting?

Posted by: Tim | September 17, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

Captain obvious;some of your points may be true. I personally voted for Hillary, and I still think she was the better choice, at this time. I always liked Obama, and I would have loved to have seen a Clinton/Obama ticket. That being said, I think he is the best candidate running at this time. All politicians lie/slant. We all know it. It all gets a little confusing and hard to keep track-of who really did what. The one thing they can't lie and bulls**t their way out of, their first big decisive decision - Who they pick to be their running mate. It tells us a lot about the man and how he thinks. If I die, this is the best person, I can think of, to rule the most powerful country on earth. If McCain truly loves this country above himself, I do not believe he would have picked this woman.
I think he sold himself out, and unlike the old McCain, he now will do anything to get elected. I feel sorry for him because at his age this will be his last hurrah. He should be the sitting president, but he was cheated out of that. His day has passed.

Posted by: jwald1 | September 17, 2008 2:28 PM | Report abuse

Osama 08

Posted by: joe | September 17, 2008 2:28 PM | Report abuse

I'm tired of these sushi eating liberals walking all over our HERO !

Come On ! Give McCain Some Credit Here !

You see, as it turns out... the McCain camp were actually referring to John's contribution to the development of the 'blackberry' ... not the 'Blackberry'.

Yup, seems Mr. McCain played a hand in the development of the time honored favorite fruit. As it turns out John was an early proponent for genetically modified fruit and while working alongside a band of Flemish monks visiting Scotland in the early 13th century John accidentally spliced a Mungleberry fruit stem into a Benninberry stem (related to modern Alderberry).

Low and behold - a star was born - the 'blackberry' and John was celebrated for centuries around the abbey. Indeed - the breakfast gruel was never the same !

Hurray for the inventor of the 'blackberry' -our own John McCain.

Posted by: PulSamsara | September 17, 2008 2:26 PM | Report abuse

Why do black people overwhelmingly vote for people based on skin pigment?

Posted by: confused

===========================================

That's not true...at some point during the primaries Hillary had the edge on Obama in all key demographics.

The same could be said about white people...I mean, just look at the turn out for the republican convention.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 17, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

Obamas debating skills must be really poor if grandaddy mccain wants to take him on.

Posted by: seems to me | September 17, 2008 2:24 PM | Report abuse

I don't understand why anyone would say Obama's ads are "negative". Every single ad Obama has done is 100% true, and that is all. McCain on the other hand is the one with the negative ads, they are all full if outrageous, blatant lies.

Posted by: Democrats 08 | September 17, 2008 2:23 PM | Report abuse

This article fails to mention that the 54% of non-negative ads were also 100% dishonest

Posted by: Tom | September 17, 2008 2:23 PM | Report abuse

Hey Howard that was last week.... selective reasoning.... How about the last month ?
Dear John....
Please stop switching your positions on the economic issues so fast.... I can't keep up with you.

Posted by: Ron | September 17, 2008 2:19 PM | Report abuse

What Phil Gramm did leading to the Enron collapse, and what he did again leading up to the current financial meltdown, he wants to do yet again to your healthcare. Remember the fawning coverage that was being peddled on that one?

"[E]conomic conservatives should take heart. McCain's chief economic adviser - and perhaps his closest political friend - is the ultimate pure play in free market faith, former Texas Senator Phil Gramm. If McCain follows Gramm's counsel, and most of his current positions are vintage Gramm indeed, his policies as president would represent not just a sharp departure from the Bush years, but an assault on government growth that Republicans have boasted about, but failed to achieve, for decades. [...]"

"On the economy, McCain's most daring manifesto is his healthcare plan. Not surprisingly, it bears the Gramm imprint. In fact, McCain has been heeding Gramm's "power-to-the-consumer" approach for more than a decade. The two senators bonded when they linked arms to fight Hillary Clinton's ill-fated healthcare program in 1993. "We couldn't get any press coverage in Washington, DC, so we traveled all over the country, to the regional media markets," says Gramm. In 150 meetings at hospitals and clinics, McCain and Gramm relentlessly pounded the Clinton plan, helping fire the voter outrage that killed the plan in 1994."
.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/18/news/newsmakers/tully_gramm.fortune/index.htm
.


Yep. McCain and Gramm were prime movers behind killing health insurance reform in the 1990's -- but no worries. They've got a great grasp of the current situation. According to McCain and Gramm, the problem is that we need more deregulation, and some tax rebates and stuff. You know, just like for everything else.


Gramm, you may recall, famously blamed the current economic woes on Americans being a "nation of whiners". You'll be happy to know that here, too, the McCain camp is consistent: healthcare costs are your own damn fault, America.


In July, McCain's healthcare architect Al Hubbard (an architect of Bush's failed healthcare proposals, which have now adopted by McCain in a fit of the usual non-maverickiness) laid the blame for healthcare costs on Americans "consuming" health care like "caviar":

"[W]e consume it as if it was free...It’s interesting, if you would think about, the employers rather than providing health care insurance they provided food insurance. So every time you go to the grocery store you just take out your food insurance card, you give it to the cashier, she scans it, and you’re outta there. Pretty soon, you would start buying caviar, expensive steak, and you start buying more than you need..."
.
http://thinkprogress.org/wonkroom/2008/07/22/mccain-caviar/
.


Yep. You consumers are being spoiled -- you want to be too healthy. You want too much care. A lot of people live rich, full lives with, say, blinding cataracts, or with a piece of construction rebar lodged in their skulls -- why do you want to be such a prima donna about it? So you're having a heart attack -- you don't have time to shop around a little, get some quotes"?


Makes me feel sheepish, now, for taking all that expensive medicine just so I can "breathe".


Of course, we can go further still. There's no problem that conservatism can't solve by simply altering the fabric of reality until the problem goes away. This is known as the "lampshade principle", as discovered by George W. Bush: when something is bad is happening, stick a lampshade over your head so you can't see it anymore. Problem solved!


Yet another McCain healthcare advisor, John Goodman:


Mr. Goodman, who helped craft Sen. John McCain's health care policy, said anyone with access to an emergency room effectively has insurance, albeit the government acts as the payer of last resort. (Hospital emergency rooms by law cannot turn away a patient in need of immediate care.)

"So I have a solution. And it will cost not one thin dime," Mr. Goodman said. "The next president of the United States should sign an executive order requiring the Census Bureau to cease and desist from describing any American – even illegal aliens – as uninsured. Instead, the bureau should categorize people according to the likely source of payment should they need care."
"So, there you have it. Voila! Problem solved."
.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/stories/DN-Uninsured_27bus.ART.State.Edition2.4dce428.html
.


Given what's happened to everything else this crew has touched -- and Gramm, especially, seems to have the reverse-Midas touch to an uncanny degree -- I'm almost looking forward to the idea of John McCain and Phil Gramm possibly being in charge of my health insurance. It would be nothing if not exciting.


Heck, with Gramm's "magic touch", I'm confident we can all look forward to a resurgence of the Black Death.

Posted by: DrainYou | September 17, 2008 2:17 PM | Report abuse

Why do black people overwhelmingly vote for people based on skin pigment?

Posted by: confused
================

Like Kerry, Gore, Clinton, Dukakis, Mondale, Carter and McGovern?

Idiot.

Posted by: zukermand | September 17, 2008 2:17 PM | Report abuse

Blaming the republicans for the countrys troubles is like blaming the captain of the exxon valdez for the alaska oil spill.
He was in charge but he was sleeping at the time. Could happen to anyone.

Posted by: seems to me | September 17, 2008 2:13 PM | Report abuse

To the ignorant believers of the former comment, "Obama is afraid of having to stray 'off-script' and be challenged directly ( something the media continue to be unable to do"

Huh? Where have you been? Have you had your hearing and/or vision tested lately?

Obama has the intellectual acumen to THINK AND RESPOND to questions without teleprompters unlike your sad ticket. OBAMA has a brain and he uses it and didn't get where he is on his 4 star admiral grandfather/father or on being Ms. Wasilla.

Posted by: Max | September 17, 2008 2:05 PM | Report abuse

jesse said "You people out there who live in economic downtrodden states like Ohio, Pa and Michigan, if you are stupid enough to vote for McCain this fall then you will deserve all of the continued economic hardship that you will get from a "President McCain"...."

Perhaps someone might say that if you on the edges of the country are inane enough to vote for Sen Kumbyaya Obama you will deserve the hardship of the next attack this country draws from the terrorists?

Posted by: b.riehl@comcast.net | September 17, 2008 2:04 PM | Report abuse

John McCain co-sponsored a housing reform act in 2005 which specifically addressed the risks of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Guess who voted against it? Yep, Obama did. I'm guessing it's because he received more than 100K from those companies in political contributions since joining the Senate. And he has the nerve to criticize McCain for having former lobbyists on his staff? I'm tired of Obama's "holier than though" attitude and blaming Republicans for the housing crisis. Things might have been different if he and his fellow Democrats had approved the housing reform act in 2005 instead of getting in bed with Fannie and Freddie!

Posted by: Laura | September 17, 2008 2:03 PM | Report abuse

You wouldn't know "change" if it hit you in the face! The menu and direction of you Republicans is McSame/Pain. If your candidates won, you'd suddenly find yourself saying "do you want fries with that?"

Get real, we need an intelligent president who works for our interest as Americans and not the Corporations & their lobbyists.

from a white 12 generation American and proud Democrat who lives in a swing state that will deliver for Obama!

Posted by: Kim K | September 17, 2008 2:01 PM | Report abuse

When the McPain campaigh puts out false adds against Obama, no matter how many,the supporters call it "Aggressive", and when Obama counters with facts, they count the number of adds, and call them "Negative" and "Excessive".
It's laughable and Obama really needs to hit back hard, and not worry of the criticism of the oponent, for, he shouldn't expect "praise", of course.

Posted by: El Mugroso | September 17, 2008 2:00 PM | Report abuse

Obama will lose

Posted by: julian | September 17, 2008 1:58 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps, if Senator Obama had accepted John McCain's offer of conducting numerous 'Town Hall' type debate meetings, things would be different.

However, as has been obvious, Obama is afraid of having to stray 'off-script' and be challenged directly ( something the media continue to be unable to do ).

Perhaps someone in the media will ask about his meddling in Iraq?

Perhaps someone in the media will point out - when he claims that McCain is part of the problem with Fannie, Freddie & AIG - that McCain spoke on the Senate floor 2 years ago & predicted these failures would occur unless something changed. That proposed change, by the way, never made it out of committee thanks to the democrats.

And who has benefitted most from donation dollars from these failing entities? Chris Dodd & Barack Obama - the latter even having two former members of Fannie/Freddie on his campaign payroll.

The liberals who fail to acknowledge these FACTS are worse than the ostrich with his head in the sand. The ostrich does it out of fear - liberals do it out of hate.... hate for Bush.

Posted by: John | September 17, 2008 1:57 PM | Report abuse

So much for "change" from a "different" kind of politician!!

bye bye OBAMA!!!!

Posted by: ChicagoMike | September 17, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Wake up Republicans, it's un-American to not care about your fellow Americans. Look at our housing crisis, high unemployment rate, high uninsured rate, NCLB driven education failing to teach our children, drill at all cost to our precious environment etc...
No more trickle down economic policies that benefit only corporate America and the upper 1% of the nation! No more drilling for the sake of Big Oil! No more cheating our children of healthcare and high educational standards! No overturning Roe vs Wade! We are in an economic, social, and environmental crisis and OBAMA is the candidate who can guide us out of this GOP policy driven mess. McCain would be worse than W, what a scary thought!

Come November, the Peoples voices will be heard, our votes will be counted and Obama will be our next President of the American People!

Posted by: Miami Me | September 17, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

McCain speaks and argues like jealous children do and repeat what their parents say.
"The fundamentals of the economy are sound" are EXACTLY the words of Bush to defend HIS administration, NOT to defend THE AMERICAN people. Please, let's all get it right and not be duped by the deceiters.

Posted by: El Mugroso | September 17, 2008 1:51 PM | Report abuse

The same could be said about white people...I mean, just look at the turn out for the republican convention.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 17, 2008 1:43 PM | Report abuse

A vote for Sarah Palin is a vote for Jerry Falwell.

Posted by: EugeneFlyer | September 17, 2008 1:43 PM | Report abuse

"My friends, the fundamentals of the economy are strong"
.
MCCAIN - 09/16/08


Isn't it awesome how McCain invented the Blackberry? And here I always thought it was some Canadian company...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhCLO3lNP6A

Posted by: astral99 | September 17, 2008 1:42 PM | Report abuse

That's not true...at some point during the primaries Hillary had the edge on Obama in all key demographics.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 17, 2008 1:42 PM | Report abuse

Why do black people overwhelmingly vote for people based on skin pigment?

Posted by: confused | September 17, 2008 1:38 PM | Report abuse

The sad part is that Obama's ad's are truthful...which makes them negative.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 17, 2008 1:37 PM | Report abuse

Its about time. At least Obama's negative adds are TRUE!

Posted by: Blake | September 17, 2008 1:33 PM | Report abuse

McCain is too old and losing his marbles, and Palin is just plain scary. She is a loony.

Posted by: RedNeck4Obama | September 17, 2008 1:32 PM | Report abuse

now we know why you're Washington Post, because you're exactly what the current administration is all about --> bias & only the right wing is right mentality. what happened to fair journalism? it's a shame.

Posted by: abc | September 17, 2008 1:31 PM | Report abuse


Of course Obama did more negative adverts.

Everything a liberal does, says and believes is negative.

Posted by: reason | September 17, 2008 1:31 PM | Report abuse

There's anything wrong with negative ads if they're legitimate and honest. It would be more interesting to see a study of whose ads were reasonably truthful (or at least not blatantly dishonest) and whose ads were outright lies. I think it's pretty clear that McCain would come out looking worse in such a comparison.

Posted by: Durant Imboden | September 17, 2008 1:28 PM | Report abuse

You can call it Negative Ads, I call it fighting back at all the LIES the McCain camp is throwing out there. I call it not letting McCain get away with lying to the public.
You McCain/Palin supporters sure like to twist everything up.

Posted by: RedNeck4Obama | September 17, 2008 1:28 PM | Report abuse

Howard Dean...Mr. Cut and Run

Where are you hiding now, Mr. Dean?

Posted by: jazzming | September 17, 2008 1:25 PM | Report abuse

My professor told me to vote for Obama, so I did ))))

Posted by: zombie | September 17, 2008 1:23 PM | Report abuse

In fall 2008, Obama said,

"if our intelligence indicated that attacks to our troops were being orgainzed from within Pakistan, I would bomb Pakistan"

Nice to see that Mr. O is following existing American war policy overseas.

So much for the anti-war airheads !!!

Posted by: independent raza girl | September 17, 2008 1:21 PM | Report abuse

obama will unify this country again. he will take from the rich and give to the poor. we can all be equal and get along and pretend that we're all the same. i like pretending.

Posted by: uncle tom | September 17, 2008 1:21 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Washington Post Editor: Why aren't you doing your job and reviewing and deleting some of this garbage, like "mnjam" nasty slander calling John McCain a "serial adulterer", "phony war hero", etc. You should pull such comments that come from someone warped mind, it is just filth.
Also stop allowing comments to be duplicated over and over.
As far as negative ads, the democrats and their croneys like moveon.org have far outweighed their opposition, in this election and the last one.

Posted by: John | September 17, 2008 1:21 PM | Report abuse

obama is whack

Posted by: Anonymous | September 17, 2008 1:19 PM | Report abuse

Who cares. McCain ditched his first wife and then, as a 40 yr old man, made the conscious decision to marry into an organized crime family (Hensley-Marley-Lansky) to use that network and fortune to launch his political career.

And people in the media like Kurtz don't have the balls to report on that. Only silly stuff like, Obama is being negative...

The Washington Post has failed the character test. There was a time when a paper like this prided itself on investigative journalism.

Now they are just bought and sold.

Posted by: Deep Blue | September 17, 2008 1:19 PM | Report abuse

My professor told me to vote for Obama, so I did )))

Posted by: zombie | September 17, 2008 1:17 PM | Report abuse

In a moment of failed brilliance, Dean realizes an African American woman for president would have stumped the McPalin ticket.

He so much wanted his cake, and to eat it too!

Posted by: Tom Jefferson | September 17, 2008 1:16 PM | Report abuse

The issue isn't negativity...it's whether the ads are telling the truth.

McCain has been shown to be a serial liar, and been called out on it even by Karl Rove and Fox News, not to mention several nonpartisan fact-checking organizations. He is perfectly willing to mortgage what's left of his carefully crafted Square Talkin' Maverick image for a few points in the polls, while Obama, to paraphrase Truman, tells the truth and McCain and his cronies think it's hell.

Posted by: ExperimentalTheologian | September 17, 2008 1:15 PM | Report abuse

My professor told me to vote for Obama, so I did ))))

Posted by: zombie | September 17, 2008 1:13 PM | Report abuse

****

Joey B and Barry Who?

jd


****

Posted by: Johnny Democracy | September 17, 2008 1:12 PM | Report abuse

Scott --

WorldNetDaily is not a reputable news organization. I believe they have, several times over the years, reported the discovery of bigfoot.

Posted by: Jesse | September 17, 2008 1:11 PM | Report abuse

In a twisted sort of way I almost want McCain to win this election because four more years worth of failed Bush/McCain policies would for all intents and purposes be the end of the Republican party as we know it today. They would become the 4th party gadflies that they deserve to be.


The only question is, would this country survive it?


You people out there who live in economic downtrodden states like Ohio, Pa and Michigan, if you are stupid enough to vote for McCain this fall then you will deserve all of the continued economic hardship that you will get from a "President McCain"....


McCain economics 101:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mHsuL6FfY4
.

Posted by: Paige Palmer | September 17, 2008 1:11 PM | Report abuse

At least Obama's ad's are true.

BRAINWASHED MYOPIC MORONS for McCAIN

Posted by: timebanded | September 17, 2008 1:10 PM | Report abuse

From Canada.
I have received so many bogs saying it's none of our dam business. Well, perhaps we get different news than you, but you are and deep trouble. May I add so are we and we are having an election. QUESTION

Posted by: justada55+ | September 17, 2008 1:09 PM | Report abuse

playa:

That ain't gonna happen ; )

Posted by: JakeD | September 17, 2008 1:07 PM | Report abuse

Every year candidates spend SO MUCH MONEY on their cause...to win the election. Take that money and put it where your mouth is. Actions speak louder than words..right?? We could have done so much with the money they have raised. Our Country needs a change alright...
Obama is a joke and I cannot believe he is still a candidate...what a joke. Our Country needs to wake up! Its funny how we were ALL united after 9-11 and we ALL wanted Saddam and OSAMA to pay yet are mad that we are at war...TWISTED!! It seems as if I grew up from a little girl and have awoken to people in my own Country and they are all WEIRD as hell and twisted as hell. WAKE UP AMERICA AND VOTE FOR THE ONE WHO HAS THE EXPERIENCE..not the one that wants to divide us with hate!! Look at his damn mentor...COME ON!! What has he voted for or against in the past??

Posted by: Jennifer | September 17, 2008 1:07 PM | Report abuse

Tit for tat. Did'nt McCain camp start the negative ads campaign. Cry babies.

Posted by: beevee | September 17, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse

Report: Obama attempted to delay Iraq withdrawal
WorldNetDaily16/09/2008 00:00:00

Did candidate try to manipulate policy to later claim credit for ending war?


While touring Iraq in July and publicly calling for troop withdrawal, Sen. Barack Obama was reportedly trying in private to delay plans for an American draw-down until after the next president took office.


New York Post columnist Amir Taheri writes that he interviewed Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, who confirmed the Democratic presidential candidate met with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad to demand delay in the withdrawal of American forces.


"He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the U.S. elections and the formation of a new administration," Zebari reportedly said.


The column states that Obama insisted it was in Iraq's best interest to avoid an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its "state of weakness and political confusion."


Such a position in private negotiations would be a stark contrast with Obama's public record on the issue.


"The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops," Obama said last year at a university in Iowa. "Not in six months or one year – now."


In January of last year, Obama offered legislation on the floor of the Senate called the Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007, which called for troop withdrawals to begin in May 2007 and to conclude by March 2008.


And in his New York Times editorial released the same month the senator toured the Middle East, Obama wrote, "The call by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki for a timetable for the removal of American troops from Iraq presents an enormous opportunity. We should seize this moment to begin the phased redeployment of combat troops that I have long advocated."


Taheri reported that Iraqi President Jalal Talabani's advisers wonder if Obama is privately working to delay troop withdrawal until after the election in order to claim credit – should Obama win the presidency – for ending the war.


"Indeed, say Talabani's advisers," reports Taheri, "a President Obama might be tempted to appropriate the victory that America has already won in Iraq by claiming that his intervention transformed failure into success."


The Obama campaign has not responded to WND's request for a response to the Post column.


© 2008 WorldNetDaily

WorldNetDaily16/09/2008 00:00:00

Posted by: Scott | September 17, 2008 1:05 PM | Report abuse

Why can't Obama supporters see that raising taxes for big businesses will ultimately hurt the economy. When the govt. gets our money they screw things up. I'm a typical blue collar redneck, that works for a big corporation doing manual labor. Every time democrats raise taxes, it cuts into the bottom line of my company and places my job @ risk. Obama can shove his $1000 dollar middle class tax break up his @$$. It won't last long when he wins his battle against capitalism, and I lose my job.

Posted by: redneck | September 17, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

What's shocking is how the media is taking palin to bits while letting Obama get a free ride! When they did a story on Obama's life if you notice, there is not one person from his college days that can vouch for him - except for his muslim friends. Anyone who cannot see that Obama is a closet muslim is totally blind. How come no one is reporting what the Iraqi's foreign minister said about how Obama wanted to delay the pulling of troops from Iraq? Really scary!

Posted by: sue | September 17, 2008 1:03 PM | Report abuse

Columns and perceptions like these are why Obama is still a long-shot for this election.

Millions of people still believe fear and shock stories more than they believe reality. It's still easier to get away with a big lie than to tell a nuanced, true story. Vast chunks of the American electorate still look at anyone educated with suspicion, still think that trying to understand the rest of the world is a sign of weakness, still consider intelligence to be elitism. These are our neighbors and friends; they will vote for someone who "feels right" over someone who *is* right, they will vote for someone they can have a beer with over someone who can command the respect of national leaders around the world, they think patriotism is flying a flag on your porch and wearing a pin on your lapel and don't care about the Constitution, or the meaning of liberty and equal rights, or what it is that our founding fathers were trying to achieve; and, unless something changes in our culture and politics, they will get the candidate and the America they want.

Posted by: Reader | September 17, 2008 1:02 PM | Report abuse

There is a nefarious conservative plot to load up websites with obviously insane "liberal" comments that are intended to make folks believe that libs wrote them and that therefore all libs are very dumb, unpatriotic, are ill-informed, are bad mannered, and have stinky breath. Unfortunately for libs and Obama, it's working. A prime example is mnjam and others like her and their constant whining about Palin's lack of qualifications. Even grossly uninformed libs now understand that Palin, running for VP, is far more qualified than Obama, running for president. Conservatives, be kind, stop your plotting.

Posted by: v racer | September 17, 2008 1:02 PM | Report abuse

Obama's ads that McCain lied are not negative ads.

What republicans are doing is exactly same lawyer bulloneys. Lawyers lie, but accuse others for calling them liar.

Shame on Republican lawyers. Liars.

Posted by: Calling lies is not negative ads. | September 17, 2008 1:02 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA'S DOWNWARD SPIRAL WILL END nOV 5TH....
finally people have awaken to the fraud he is.

our country would be the laughing stock of the world if we hire a HUSSEIN and yet the name is on our WATCH LIST>

Posted by: MN | September 17, 2008 1:01 PM | Report abuse

"John McCain is the WORST candidate in history. He is serial adulter..."

People who put adultery at the top of their list of any candidate's shortcomings are too stupid to vote.

".. phony war hero..."

He's a REAL war hero. Obama, on the other hand, never served at all.

"While on the verge of death,..."

Those of us who are older voters resent this kind of assy talk. It's one of the things that made me move my support to McCain instead of Obama, after Hillary dropped out. -- An Old Democrat who is Not on the Verge of Death, Thank You Very Much.

Posted by: bobbiewick | September 17, 2008 1:00 PM | Report abuse

God forbid that something happened to Senator McCain. Life is just like that for all of us. Don't you want to hear your Republican VP talk to the people, discuss important issues, world issues. Do you not want to no something about your Hidden and protected possible, next President? I don't see any concern from anyone in your Country. Bless you all, from Canada.

To end, how can you expect any President to undo your mess day by day? I never mean to impose, but your economy is ours. If I may, I suggest change. Hillary is young enough to be President in 200012. Don't make it harder on her with four more years of the same. May your god Bless you all.

Posted by: justadad55+ | September 17, 2008 1:00 PM | Report abuse

I have to agree
===============
His attacks all go back to what he said when he was giving his acceptance speech. When he talked about going home from school with a blood nose, and his mom telling him to go back and fight those boys who picked on him. That is exactly what he is doing with McCain. Is it the honorable thing to do? Probably not...but it is what the general American public responds most to.

For example, look what happened to John Kerry last election, where he never really defended himself against Bushes attacks on his economic policies, patriotism and service to our country. Everyone thought he was weak for trying to run an honorable campaign and lost because of that.

I think it's a little naive for anyone to be saying that either party is running a reputable campaign. Lets just face it...that hasn't happened in my lifetime, and I doubt that it is something that is going to change anytime in the near future. America enjoys the sensationalistic drama. That's the one thing that gets our attention and the one thing we are drawn to.

Posted by: MarcoPolo | September 17, 2008 12:57 PM | Report abuse

That's the most truthful thing I've heard so far.
--------------------------------------
His attacks all go back to what he said when he was giving his acceptance speech. When he talked about going home from school with a blood nose, and his mom telling him to go back and fight those boys who picked on him. That is exactly what he is doing with McCain. Is it the honorable thing to do? Probably not...but it is what the general American public responds most to.

For example, look what happened to John Kerry last election, where he never really defended himself against Bushes attacks on his economic policies, patriotism and service to our country. Everyone thought he was weak for trying to run an honorable campaign and lost because of that.

I think it's a little naive for anyone to be saying that either party is running a reputable campaign. Lets just face it...that hasn't happened in my lifetime, and I doubt that it is something that is going to change anytime in the near future. America enjoys the sensationalistic drama. That's the one thing that gets our attention and the one thing we are drawn to.

Posted by: e.d. lebadose | September 17, 2008 12:56 PM | Report abuse

More came out about Palins affair today.
http://www.theveep.com

Trooper gate is unravelling http://www.hotpres.com

Posted by: Anonymous | September 17, 2008 12:55 PM | Report abuse

Hey JakeD....get prepared to greet your new President....Barack HUSSAIN Obama.

Posted by: playa | September 17, 2008 12:55 PM | Report abuse

There should be negative ads on McCain, by Obama and hopefully a legion of 527 groups.

John McCain is the WORST candidate in history. He is serial adulter, phony war hero and pathological liar who is physically, morally and intellectually unfit for the Presidency.

Though on the verge of death, he has chosen a VP who he knows is manifestly unqualified to succeed him. A total sell-out to the "agents of intolerance" in his party, all while he poses as a "maverick."

He also wishes to blindly follow the very policies that have led this country into foreign and economic disaster for the past 8 years.

No way. Now how. No McCain.

Posted by: mnjam | September 17, 2008 12:54 PM | Report abuse

McCain in April declared that there had been "great progress economically" during the Bush years. On more than one occasion, he diagnosed Americans' concerns over the dismal U.S. economy as "psychological." (Phil Gramm, McCain's close friend and adviser supposedly excommunicated over his "whiners" remarks, was back with the campaign last week.) McCain, a man who owns eight homes nationwide, in March lectured Americans facing foreclosure that they ought to be "doing what is necessary -- working a second job, skipping a vacation, and managing their budgets -- to make their payments on time." And when all else fails, McCain told the people of the economically devastated regions in Martin County, Kentucky and Youngstown, Ohio, there's always eBay.


In his defense, McCain's shocking tone-deafness may just be a matter of perspective. When you're as well off as he is, anything below a $5 million income (a figure exceeding that earned on average by the top 0.1% of Americans) seems middle class.


*The $100 Million Man*
Courtesy of his wife Cindy's beer distribution fortune (one her late father apparently chose not to share with her half-sister Kathleen), the McCains are worth well over $100 million. (In the two-page tax summary she eventually released to the public, Cindy McCain reported another $6 million in 2006.) As Salon reported back in 2000, the second Mrs. McCain's millions were essential in launching her husband's political career. Unsurprisingly, the Weekly Standard's Matthew Continetti, who four years ago called Theresa Heinz-Kerry a "sugar mommy," has been silent on the topic of Cindy McCain.


*The Joys of (Eight) Home Ownership*
While fellow adulterer John Edwards was pilloried for his mansion, John McCain's eight homes around the country have received little notice or criticism. His properties include a 10 acre lake-side Sedona estate, euphemistically called a "cabin" by the McCain campaign, and a home featured in Architectural Digest. The one featuring "remote control window coverings" was recently put up for sale. Still, their formidable resources did not prevent the McCains from failing to pay taxes on a tony La Jolla, California condo used by Cindy's aged aunt.


*The Anheuser-Busch Windfall*
As it turns out, the beauty of globalization is in the eye of the beholder. While John McCain apparently played a critical role in facilitating DHL's takeover of Airborne (and with it, the looming loss of 8,000 jobs in Wilmington, Ohio), Cindy McCain is set to earn a staggering multi-million dollar pay-day from the acquisition of Anheuser-Busch by the Belgian beverage giant, In Bev. As the Wall Street Journal reported in July, Mrs. McCain runs the third largest Anheuser-Busch distributorship in the nation, and owns between $2.5 and $5 million in the company's stock. Amazingly, while Missouri's politicians of both parties lined up to try to block the sale, John McCain held a fundraiser in the Show Me State even as the In Bev deal was being finalized.


*McCain's $370,000 Personal Tax Break*
Earlier this year, the Center for American Progress analyzed John McCain's tax proposals. The conclusion? McCain's plan is radically more regressive than even that of President Bush, delivering 58% of its benefits to the wealthiest 1% of American taxpayers. McCain's born-again support for the Bush tax cuts has one additional bonus for Mr. Straight Talk: the McCains would save an estimated $373,000 a year.


*Paying Off $225,000 Credit Card Debt - Priceless*
That massive windfall from his own tax plan will come in handy for John McCain. As was reported in June, the McCains were carrying over $225,000 in credit card debt. The American Express card - don't leave your homes without it.


*Charity Begins at Home*
As Harpers documented earlier this year, the McCains are true believers in the old saying that charity begins at home:
.
Between 2001 and 2006, McCain contributed roughly $950,000 to [their] foundation. That accounted for all of its listed income other than for $100 that came from an anonymous donor. During that same period, the McCain foundation made contributions of roughly $1.6 million. More than $500,000 went to his kids' private schools, most of which was donated when his children were attending those institutions. So McCain apparently received major tax deductions for supporting elite schools attended by his children.
.
Ironically, the McCain campaign last week blasted Barack Obama for having attended a private school in Hawaii on scholarship. That attack came just weeks after John McCain held an event at his old prep school, Episcopal High, an institution where fees now top $38,000 a year.


*Private Jet Setters*
As the New York Times detailed back in April, John McCain enjoyed the use of his wife's private jet for his campaign, courtesy of election law loopholes he helped craft. Despite the controversy, McCain continued to use Cindy's corporate jet. For her part, Cindy McCain says that even with skyrocketing fuel costs, "in Arizona the only way to get around the state is by small private plane."


*Help on the Homefront*
In these tough economic times, the McCains are able to stretch their household budget. As the AP reported in April, "McCain reported paying $136,572 in wages to household employees in 2007. Aides say the McCains pay for a caretaker for a cabin in Sedona, Ariz., child care for their teenage daughter, and a personal assistant for Cindy McCain."


*Well-Heeled in $520 Shoes*
If clothes make the man, then John McCain has it made. As Huffington Post noted in July, "He has worn a pair of $520 black leather Ferragamo shoes on every recent campaign stop - from a news conference with the Dalai Lama to a supermarket visit in Bethlehem, PA." It is altogether fitting that McCain wore the golden loafers during a golf outing with President George H.W. Bush in which he rode around in cart displaying the sign, "Property of Bush #41. Hands Off."


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N38Ug_ugzXs
.

Posted by: McCain = Bush's third term | September 17, 2008 12:53 PM | Report abuse

"John McCain looks like a used car salesman."

Well, you got that wrong. Although I am a Obama supporter, but to be fair, Barack is surely a lot like the brother car salesman in our neighborhood. Nothing wrong with being a used car salesman, right? Brother also needs to make a living.

Posted by: Jeremy | September 17, 2008 12:52 PM | Report abuse

Dan:

I don't remember a single second of last week when McPain talked about issues.

McPain's biggest fear: the truth.

Posted by: TeeCee | September 17, 2008 12:52 PM | Report abuse

Idiots!
Both Obama and McCain are forced to get ugly because your political system and, your so-called democracy is sham. A myth!
No decent and knowledgeable people are ever able to reach positions of legislative or executive power in this country because the system is rigged against them. The scummier you are, the better are your chances to get elected.

My advice: convert your dollars into gold and euros and get da f... outta here. I hear Costa Rica is very nice.

Examples: Ralph Nader, Dennis Kucinich, et al

Posted by: Sam | September 17, 2008 12:52 PM | Report abuse

His attacks all go back to what he said when he was giving his acceptance speech. When he talked about going home from school with a blood nose, and his mom telling him to go back and fight those boys who picked on him. That is exactly what he is doing with McCain. Is it the honorable thing to do? Probably not...but it is what the general American public responds most to.

For example, look what happened to John Kerry last election, where he never really defended himself against Bushes attacks on his economic policies, patriotism and service to our country. Everyone thought he was weak for trying to run an honorable campaign and lost because of that.

I think it's a little naive for anyone to be saying that either party is running a reputable campaign. Lets just face it...that hasn't happened in my lifetime, and I doubt that it is something that is going to change anytime in the near future. America enjoys the sensationalistic drama. That's the one thing that gets our attention and the one thing we are drawn to.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 17, 2008 12:51 PM | Report abuse

HOPE turned to VENOM real quick.

Even my 5 and 7 yr olds are sick of the attack ads.

For a guy who's being compared to Jesus, he sure is throwing a lot of stones.

Posted by: patman | September 17, 2008 12:51 PM | Report abuse

"No matter who has the most negative ads only Obama is fit to serve in the condition this country is in in 2008."

Thank goodness we'll be rid of Obama and his hypocrisy in a few weeks.


Posted by: bobbiewick | September 17, 2008 12:51 PM | Report abuse

This is how a self-centered and narcissistic me-first politician wastes his donors' historic giving and then when he blows through that, goes out asking for more.

Wonder what he'd do if given the keys to the U.S Treasury and put in charge of the Internal Revenue Service and our economy.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 17, 2008 12:39 PM
----------------------------------
Gee whiz.

What about self-centered, narcissistic, me-first voters like Aspergirl? She has repeatedly stated that she is a Democrat who agrees with Obama on the issues and is voting for McCain out of spite over the loss of Hillary.

Hypocritical voters like Aspergirl are the reason why politicians like Bush can win and drive this country into a ditch.

Posted by: mnjam | September 17, 2008 12:51 PM | Report abuse

I fail to understand how people do not understand the appeal of the McCain/Palin ticket. It is the feeling of the return to the true American dream that is exemplified by the inclusion of a governor of Alaska, the last remaining frontier. Historically, people in this country have had a sense of independence and a desire to make their own life. We want to hunt and grow our own food, build our own homes and create our own life for our family and those we care about. We never ask for nor would we accept help from anyone. If a friend or neighbor is in need of help we are willing to do whatever we can to help them. When we have extra we enjoy giving to those charities that help people in the ways that we believe are best. However, when our hard earned money is stolen from us, in the form of taxes, to fund welfare programs to help people that we do not even know we are rightly resentful. The best government generally leaves the people alone, as much as feasibly possible to maintain peaceful society, to live their lives as they see fit.
I understand the desire to “help those in need” which is a heartfelt emotional response to visions of people who are loosing their homes. However, one must remember that the people that are currently facing the horrendous mortgage crisis from a personal perspective did voluntarily sign a contract that allowed these possibilities. If someone chose a variable rate mortgage they chose to gamble on the payments remaining low. If a person looses all their money on a trip to a casino they do not have the right to request aid to help them out. What difference is there?
The healthcare crisis is another emotional argument. While we all feel sorry for those who cannot adequately afford quality healthcare is that also the requirement of everyone else to take care of them? The majority of us work very hard at jobs that provide insurance or simply purchase our own. If everyone has equal access to equal quality healthcare it defeats the incentive for anyone to work harder so that one can afford better. In addition, every country that has developed a nationally socialized system has noticed a decrease in the quality of the care available. There is a reason that so many of the people in Canada, that can afford it, drive south for their medical care.
Finally, when a candidate receives so much fanfare in foreign countries it makes one wonder why would those abroad favor a candidate so much. Is it because they see a benefit to themselves if that candidate gains power? If it is that much of a benefit to other countries would it not then be a negative factor here? The more that is given away the less remains. A country is like a family. The head of the family must take care of his own first. Once his family is clothed, fed, and otherwise taken care of then can he may begin to take care of his neighbors. Once his neighborhood is improved to the point that it is a safe and friendly environment then can he begin to give to charities to help those he does not know.
Obama is a wonderfully gifted speaker but an idealist. One can respect him for wanting to do what he thinks will help. The heartfelt reaction to “help” those who are uneducated, down on their luck, sick, or otherwise needy is understandable. It is even admirable when someone chooses to volunteer their own time to do so. However when someone proposes to require all to do so, albeit through taxation or other governmental mandate, it is no longer possible to have the respect for those who choose to give of their own. Then we are all slaves.
Please let us have the hope for a leader who will try to decrease the size of government. Leave us to our religion, leave us to our guns and let us remain “bitter”. But please just let us define out destiny. McCain/Palin 2008

Posted by: James | September 17, 2008 12:48 PM | Report abuse

The boards are infested with right-wing spammers now. All proponents of Hitler's Big Lie Theory... tell a big enough lie long enough and people will believe it.

AsperGirl: You are a complete fool. McCain's statement about the economy's "fundamentals" are a distortion of his original position. To boot, his so-called "fundamentals" are not the fundamentals taught in any basic economics class. The ACTUAL fundamentals of the economy are indeed broken. Do you guys even bother to read half of the crap you post?

Posted by: JK | September 17, 2008 12:48 PM | Report abuse

The boards are infested with right-wing spammers now. All proponents of Hitler's Big Lie Theory... tell a big enough lie long enough and people will believe it.

AsperGirl: You are a complete fool. McCain's statement about the economy's "fundamentals" are a distortion of his original position. To boot, his so-called "fundamentals" are not the fundamentals taught in any basic economics class. The ACTUAL fundamentals of the economy are indeed broken. Do you guys even bother to read half of the crap you post?

Posted by: JK | September 17, 2008 12:48 PM | Report abuse

The boards are infested with right-wing spammers now. All proponents of Hitler's Big Lie Theory... tell a big enough lie long enough and people will believe it.

AsperGirl: You are a complete fool. McCain's statement about the economy's "fundamentals" are a distortion of his original position. To boot, his so-called "fundamentals" are not the fundamentals taught in any basic economics class. The ACTUAL fundamentals of the economy are indeed broken. Do you guys even bother to read half of the crap you post?

Posted by: JK | September 17, 2008 12:48 PM | Report abuse

The boards are infested with right-wing spammers now. All proponents of Hitler's Big Lie Theory... tell a big enough lie long enough and people will believe it.

AsperGirl: You are a complete fool. McCain's statement about the economy's "fundamentals" are a distortion of his original position. To boot, his so-called "fundamentals" are not the fundamentals taught in any basic economics class. The ACTUAL fundamentals of the economy are indeed broken. Do you guys even bother to read half of the crap you post?

Posted by: JK | September 17, 2008 12:48 PM | Report abuse

The boards are infested with right-wing spammers now. All proponents of Hitler's Big Lie Theory... tell a big enough lie long enough and people will believe it.

AsperGirl: You are a complete fool. McCain's statement about the economy's "fundamentals" are a distortion of his original position. To boot, his so-called "fundamentals" are not the fundamentals taught in any basic economics class. The ACTUAL fundamentals of the economy are indeed broken. Do you guys even bother to read half of the crap you post?

Posted by: JK | September 17, 2008 12:48 PM | Report abuse

The boards are infested with right-wing spammers now. All proponents of Hitler's Big Lie Theory... tell a big enough lie long enough and people will believe it.

AsperGirl: You are a complete fool. McCain's statement about the economy's "fundamentals" are a distortion of his original position. To boot, his so-called "fundamentals" are not the fundamentals taught in any basic economics class. The ACTUAL fundamentals of the economy are indeed broken. Do you guys even bother to read half of the crap you post?

Posted by: JK | September 17, 2008 12:48 PM | Report abuse

The boards are infested with right-wing spammers now. All proponents of Hitler's Big Lie Theory... tell a big enough lie long enough and people will believe it.

AsperGirl: You are a complete fool. McCain's statement about the economy's "fundamentals" are a distortion of his original position. To boot, his so-called "fundamentals" are not the fundamentals taught in any basic economics class. The ACTUAL fundamentals of the economy are indeed broken. Do you guys even bother to read half of the crap you post?

Posted by: JK | September 17, 2008 12:48 PM | Report abuse

The boards are infested with right-wing spammers now. All proponents of Hitler's Big Lie Theory... tell a big enough lie long enough and people will believe it.

AsperGirl: You are a complete fool. McCain's statement about the economy's "fundamentals" are a distortion of his original position. To boot, his so-called "fundamentals" are not the fundamentals taught in any basic economics class. The ACTUAL fundamentals of the economy are indeed broken. Do you guys even bother to read half of the crap you post?

Posted by: JK | September 17, 2008 12:48 PM | Report abuse

Umm... Obama is calling McCain a liar for a very good reason. McCain has been lying.

Posted by: Patrick | September 17, 2008 12:48 PM | Report abuse

"John McCain looks like a used car salesman."

Well, you got that wrong. Although I am a Obama supporter, but to be fair, Barack is surely a lot like the brother car salesman in our neighborhood. Nothing wrong with being a used car salesman, right? Brother also needs to make a living.

Posted by: Jeremy | September 17, 2008 12:48 PM | Report abuse

Yep how about that?

Now what the numbers for this month?
What about the month of August?
What about those 3 hour long negatives ads
known as talk radio?

Posted by: Mr. Unite Us | September 17, 2008 12:48 PM | Report abuse

This is how a self-centered and narcissistic me-first politician wastes his donors' historic giving and then when he blows through that, goes out asking for more.

Wonder what he'd do if given the keys to the U.S Treasury and put in charge of the Internal Revenue Service and our economy.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 17, 2008 12:39 PM
----------------------------------
Gee whiz.

What about self-centered, narcissistic, me-first voters like Aspergirl? She has repeatedly stated that she is a Democrat who agrees with Obama on the issues and is voting for McCain out of spite over the loss of Hillary.

Voters like Aspergirl are the reason why politicians like Bush can win and drive this country into a ditch. Hypocrites like Aspergirl are the biggest problem in this country.

Posted by: mnjam | September 17, 2008 12:48 PM | Report abuse

This is how a self-centered and narcissistic me-first politician wastes his donors' historic giving and then when he blows through that, goes out asking for more.

Wonder what he'd do if given the keys to the U.S Treasury and put in charge of the Internal Revenue Service and our economy.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 17, 2008 12:39 PM
----------------------------------
Gee whiz.

What about self-centered, narcissistic, me-first voters like Aspergirl? She has repeatedly stated that she is a Democrat who agrees with Obama on the issues and is voting for McCain out of spite over the loss of Hillary.

Voters like Aspergirl are the reason why politicians like Bush can win and drive this country into a ditch. Hypocrites like Aspergirl are the biggest problem in this country.

Posted by: mnjam | September 17, 2008 12:48 PM | Report abuse

Fit to serve, what a joke. I wouldn't let Hussein wash my car much less anywhere near the presidency.

Posted by: HolyCow | September 17, 2008 12:48 PM | Report abuse

Let's see here, one week for Obama compared to a whole campaign worth of negative ads from McCain?


I don't know what the Republican water carrier (Howard Kurtz) who wrote this piece of crap article is smoking but I want some...

Posted by: say what? | September 17, 2008 12:43 PM | Report abuse

Lynn Forester de Rothschild complaining that Obama is "elitist".

With a name like "de Rotschild" she's complaining about elitism?

Is this a real country or one &*)$%*#
long and tasteless cartoon?

Posted by: Sam | September 17, 2008 12:42 PM | Report abuse

There should be negative ads on McCain, by Obama and hopefully a legion of 527 groups.

John McCain is the WORST candidate in history. He is serial adulter, phony war hero and pathological liar who is physically, morally and intellectually unfit for the Presidency.

While on the verge of death, he has chosen a VP who is manifestly unqualified to succeed him, were he to be elected, and he knows it.

He also wishes to blindly follow the very policies that have led this country into foreign and economic disaster for the past 8 years.

No way. Now how. No McCain.

Posted by: mnjam | September 17, 2008 12:40 PM | Report abuse

To say that this article is disingenuous is an understatement. Every aspect of it is misleading to the point of falsehood. It's entirely semantical. Obama was addressing blatant lies told by the McCain camp. This Kurtz guy is obviously a right-wing clown. This only hurts WaPo's credibility.

Posted by: JK | September 17, 2008 12:40 PM | Report abuse

A negative ad is any ad run by your opponent. What is intersting is the apparent hysteria being manifested by the "hope and change" obama campaign. The little megalomaniac is used to being coddled by a press-corp that manifests its "white guilt" by slobbering over the little megalomaniac as though he were the second coming. One wonders how our little disciple of Che Guevara/Rev.Wright, if elected, will truly respond to an imminent international crisis. Perhaps when the phone rings at 3:AM he can have the caller "leave a message" while he figures out how to be a victim or otherwise cover his cowardly behind.

Posted by: marc christophe | September 17, 2008 12:40 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA FEAR-MONGERS RE: STABILITY OF OUR ECONOMY WHILE
BLOWING THROUGH HIS DONORS' HISTORIC GIVING
WITH EQUALLY UNPRECEDENTED, OBSCENELY LAVISH SPENDING

All the real leaders were out on September 15 making reassuring noises, which were true, by the way. Except Obama. Obama instead ran his mouth by sniping at McCain and exaggerating the systemic fears. Only Obama was out with ads shrilling fearful gloom-and-doom statements (that were exaggerations) hoping to capitalize on the Lehman bankruptcy to beat the bushes to drive up an economic-fear vote.

McCain was saying necessary calming things when he said that the economy's fundamentals were strong, but the things he was saying were in fact true. In the afternoon of Monday, September 15, Bloomberg came out and agreed with McCain's statement that the fundamentals of our economy are strong, and so have others.

Finally, on the day that Obama released an ad ridiculing John McCain's reassuring & accurate statement that the fundamentals of the economy are strong, and declaring that John McCain is wrong, that the economy is "broken", Obama was flying off to BEVERLY HILLS to entertain with multimillionaires at a fundraiser with Barbera Streisand. Although Obama has raised breathtaking & historic campaign funds ($400 million so far?), he's also engaged in lavish, unprecedented spending. He spent $6 million alone to move his nomination acceptance speech to Mile-High stadium on that special-built temple-like stage. He's raised historic money, but he's also spent it in an historic way. He needs every penny of the $10 million he was expected to make off his Hollywood backers in Beverly Hills.

This is how a self-centered and narcissistic me-first politician wastes his donors' historic giving and then when he blows through that, goes out asking for more.

Wonder what he'd do if given the keys to the U.S Treasury and put in charge of the Internal Revenue Service and our economy.

Posted by: AsperGirl | September 17, 2008 12:39 PM | Report abuse

Turns out Obama runs a negative campaign, has been one of the few politicians I have ever heard insisting another politician is a liar, one of the most negative accusations, and his supporters still defend him. How telling the rules by we play. I am an indepedent, and let me tell you Obama supporters, I hate what you are selling (hypocrisy!).

Posted by: Sarah | September 17, 2008 12:38 PM | Report abuse

Do John McCain, Sarah Palin or conservative republicans respect the moral foundations of our country? The U.S. Constitution is abused by conservative republicans at every turn.

U.S. Constitution: Amendment I - Freedom of Religion
Because of conservative republicans, your tax dollars are funding religious groups you may not agree with. To add insult to injury, conservative appointed judges have ruled that you do not have a right to challenge this expenditure.

Amendment IV - Search and seizure
Under the guise of court action against abortion, Conservative republicans had John Ashcroft subpoena all the medical records of literally thousands of women like you and members of your family. Conservative republicans invade your privacy every day by browsing your email and phone records. Unfortunately for all of us, they don't appear to care about our U.S. constitution, and they certainly don't care about your privacy.

Amendment X - Powers of the States and People
John McCain and conservative republicans have tried consistently to overturn States Laws. They used your hard earned tax dollars to destroy the will of the people of Oregon, and the famous "Death with Dignity" law; they lost, but undoubtedly will try again. Conservative republicans and John McCain do not respect States Rights. If your state votes for something conservatives don't agree with they will use federal powers to overturn it regardless of how you and your fellow voters feel.

Amendment VIII - Cruel and Unusual punishment
Would you rather die, or support a government which supported and sanctioned torture? The founding fathers would rather have died. The founding fathers were proud to fight and die for our government: A government which specifically outlaws cruel and unusual punishment. Conservatives don't agree with this philosophy. Conservatives are at odds with our founding fathers on this score, and too many others to count.

John McCain, Sarah Palin, and the conservative republicans have already gone too far in destroying the moral foundations of our country. I urge you to keep this in mind in the coming election as we rebuild our nation together by voting for Obama, who stated that in his first 100 days he would eliminate all of Bush's unconstitutional signing orders as a start.

Posted by: Frank | September 17, 2008 12:38 PM | Report abuse

HERE'S A STORY THAT YOU WON'T SEE ON DRUDGE...
AND ONE THAT HAS YET TO SHOW UP IN "MAINSTREAM MEDIA"

TARGETING OF AMERICAN CITIZENS BY GOVERNMENT AGENCIES:

A ROOT CAUSE OF THE MORTGAGE / CREDIT / WALL ST. MELTDOWN?


Victims of so-called "organized gang stalking" claim that multiple government agencies, including intelligence, law enforcement, and revenue collection agencies, have established a network of secret, extra-legal programs aimed at destroying the financial well-being of "targeted" individuals -- who are denied due process of law as their financial resources are systematically confiscated from them.

These programs allegedly involve the interception of mail; surveillance, interception and alteration of telecommunications, including telephone and internet communications; fabrication of bank, credit card, mortgage and billing statements; surreptitious manipulation of personal and business bank and mortgage accounts. This system apparently is an outgrowth of past controversial government programs such as Cointelpro and "Total Information Awareness."

In effect, a secret parallel system of transaction processing has been established for these persons, a system allegedly intended to destroy their capacity to earn a living and to support themselves and their families. These "mechanics of personal destruction" closely resemble the tactics employed by Nazi Germany in its campaign against the Jews and other targeted groups.

Victims charge that these programs also are designed to degrade their physical health, with health care professionals pressured by undercover agents to cooperate. Citizen vigilantes affiliated with government-funded community policing and "watch" groups are employed to harass and intimidate targeted persons, victims charge. These vigilantes are equipped with high-tech instruments capable of causing adverse health effects, victims have alleged.

Officials in the private sector know about some of these programs, it is alleged, since their cooperation is required to effect confiscatory transactions. Victims charge that the government is using national security and the "war on terror" as a pretext to secure the cooperation of corporations and businesses. But it is also possible that civilian overseers have been kept in the dark about the most nefarious of these programs.

The government takeover of more than half of the nation's mortgage market, and government supervision of failed investment houses such as Bear Stearns and Lehman Bros. help effectuate these programs of personal destruction, according to some of those who have been targeted.

These programs apparently have existed in one form or another for many years, but have become codified under the banner of the "war on terror" since the 9/11 terrorist attacks seven years ago, victims charge.

Victims of these "programs of personal destruction" are calling upon Congress to immediately convene hearings on these alleged unconstitutional, extra-legal abuses of power, which they say represent a great crime against humanity and a descent into a neo-fascist police state.

A mainstream media journalist who counts himself among the victims of these programs has written several articles on the subject of domestic terrorism and extra-legal targeting of American citizens:

TO: Mssrs. CHERTOFF, MUKASEY, PAULSON, GATES, McCONNELL, MUELLER "GOV'T AGENCIES SUPPORT DOMESTIC TERRORISM"

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/government-agencies-support-domestic-torture-and-gang-stalking-says-noted-nowpublic-com-columnist

Gentlemen: What do you know about this, and what are you doing about it?

Posted by: scrivener | September 17, 2008 12:37 PM | Report abuse

C'mon people! Sarah Palin has foreign policy experience because both Russia and Alaska are spelled with six letters. Duh.

Posted by: Bob Loblaw Law Blog | September 17, 2008 12:37 PM | Report abuse

September 16, 2008
Prominent Clinton backer and DNC member to endorse McCain
Posted: 10:07 PM ET

From CNN Political Editor Mark Preston, Extra


A prominent backer of Hillary Clinton is endorsing McCain.
WASHINGTON (CNN) — Lynn Forester de Rothschild, a prominent Hillary Clinton supporter and member of the Democratic National Committee’s Platform Committee, will endorse John McCain for president on Wednesday, her spokesman tells CNN.

The announcement will take place at a news conference on Capitol Hill, just blocks away from the DNC headquarters. Forester will “campaign and help him through the election,” the spokesman said of her plans to help the Republican presidential nominee.

Forester was a major donor for Clinton earning her the title as a Hillraiser for helping to raise at least $100,000 for the New York Democratic senator’s failed presidential bid.

In an interview with CNN this summer, Forester did not hide her distaste for eventual Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama.

“This is a hard decision for me personally because frankly I don't like him,” she said of Obama in an interview with CNN’s Joe Johns. “I feel like he is an elitist. I feel like he has not given me reason to trust him.”

Posted by: Scott | September 17, 2008 12:37 PM | Report abuse

John McCain looks like a used car salesman.

(psst, he's selling a lemon)

Posted by: John in Montana | September 17, 2008 11:55 AM | Report abuse

What happened to Obama being a different kind of candidate? This is politics as usual. He is not change, he is more of the same...

Posted by: Gary Wyland | September 17, 2008 11:52 AM | Report abuse

Called out? You mean for pointing out the differences between himself and McCain? That's what ads are for.

Thank you David, for having some sense. There is a difference between drawing a contrast and making a personal attack.

Check out the psychology of voting; we're more likely to get out and vote if we absolutely hate one candidate than we are if we don't mind one and really like the other.

No wonder we mostly see contrasting ads instead of feel-good build-up ads.

Posted by: trevdurch | September 17, 2008 11:51 AM | Report abuse

From Obama's Hometown Paper-

"Obama Sidesteps Reform in Illinois
By Dennis Byrne

For those of you who still cling to the fantasy that Barack Obama is "about change," you should note how he, or his minions, want nothing to do with reforming politics in Illinois, perhaps the most corrupt state in the Union.

"Throughout his political career, Barack Obama has fought for open and honest government," proclaims his campaign Web site. Apparently, no longer. When the Democratic presidential candidate--now his party's industrial-strength voice for our deliverance from political corruption everywhere--was asked by a reformer if he would help get his political mentor back home to get off the dime and move the most minimal of state ethics legislation toward passage, the Obama campaign sent word back that amounted to a "no."

State Sen. Emil Jones (D-Chicago) is the Chicago machine politician who might have been most instrumental in jump-starting Obama's political career. Now, as Illinois Senate president, Jones is the one sitting on the reform legislation, refusing to call it for an expected favorable vote before it officially dies of neglect.

Jones is the pal of Gov. Rod Blagojevich, no friend of reform, who used his amendatory veto power to change the legislation after it passed both houses so that Jones would get another chance to kill it.

If all that's confusing, welcome to Illinois politics, where intricacy is the best camouflage for chicanery. Suffice to say, neither Blagojevich nor Jones is working for reform.

So, along comes Cindi Canary, director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, thinking that now might be a good time for Obama to parlay his friendship with Jones to do a good deed: Won't you intervene with Jones and try to get him to call the Senate back into session to get this law passed? "[T]his is a place [Obama] could come in and quickly clean up some of the damage and serve his state," she told the Chicago Sun-Times. After all, her group and Obama worked together during those halcyon days when he actually supported reform in Illinois, so maybe he'll be receptive to a plea to intervene on behalf of Illinois folks who have been getting gouged for years by the likes of Jones. "A 30-second phone call to the Illinois Senate president could yield huge dividends to this state," she said.

In response, Obama's campaign issued an oozy statement reaffirming Obama's alleged commitment to reform, while getting no more specific than urging everyone to get together and love one another right now. What Canary was asking Obama for wasn't all that much. Maybe a 30-second phone call to back up his usual pap of, "Look, ah, I've, ah, always been for, ah, reform." For most people, the reform that we're talking about is so basic that they might ask, "You mean it's not illegal already?"

The legislation would make illegal the widespread abuse called pay-to-play politics, by which companies doing business with the state contribute to the state official in charge of ladling out contracts. The new law wouldn't let you do it if you have more than $50,000 in state contracts, which, even at that, leaves open a nice loophole. In Illinois, this is a huge leap forward from how things are done. Blagojevich, who has reaped bundles of cash from state contractors, could be one of the pols most jolted by the prohibition. That explains why he rewrote the legislation in a way that would make it ineffective and why the House overwhelmingly rejected his changes.

Jones now is the only one standing in the way of the reform, with Obama abetting.

Here's another example of how Obama has revealed himself to be a creature of the Chicago machine. Who can forget his silence when he could have affirmed his reformer credentials by endorsing Democrat Forrest Claypool over machine creature Todd Stroger as Cook County Board president? When things got too hot, Obama severed his ties from his racially inflammatory pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. That's not too hard; you can always find another pastor.

But betraying your political godfather(s) in Chicago and Illinois is an entirely different matter. Especially if you lose the presidential election and return to being just another senator from Illinois. Cutting his ties with the corrupt Chicago machine is one bridge you will not see Obama burn. Not now, not ever.

Agent of change, my foot."

Dennis Byrne is a Chicago Tribune op-ed columnist. dennis@dennisbyrne.net

Posted by: Scott | September 17, 2008 11:51 AM | Report abuse

"started this when they (like Hillary) realized they couldn't win on the merits (i.e. candidate not as strong)."

... or not as black...

Obama is not a strong candidate. He is a strong speaker, but the least experienced candidate for president in the past 100 years. Hillary was 100 times more qualified to be president. If it weren't for blacks voting 90% for Obama, he would never have been the nominee. Do the math.

Posted by: Captain Obvious | September 17, 2008 11:50 AM | Report abuse

Good for Obama. As long as he calls out McCain on his lies or points out McCain's screw-ups, i.e. "the economy is fundamentally strong", etc. That's fair game.

Posted by: Chris Salzmann | September 17, 2008 11:50 AM | Report abuse

Good! For every below the belt punch that McCain throws. Obama should land two clean ones.

There is a world of difference between Obama's negative ads and McCain's lies. Negative ads which attack a candidate's record on an issue of national importance are OK to some extent. Lies, like the ones McCain has been throwing around, cross the line.

And, I think that Obama is perfectly justified in putting out negative ads if they directly counteract a McCain lie. McCain wants to make false claims about Obama's tax policy.... well good, we'll hit you with the truth.

But yeah, it's gotta hurt McCain's ego when Obama proves that McCain is lying and that McCain's positions are actually bad for the middle class.

McCain launched his career by voting consistently against Martin Luther King Day. How do you think he feels about getting schooled by Obama?

Posted by: Blip | September 17, 2008 11:49 AM | Report abuse

Like drilling, Bush tax cuts, Iraq surge, and all of Obama's other major flip-flops, negative campaigning was something the media's darling would not do. As with his 20-year affair with Jeremiah Wright, there isn't much about Obama to believe in, because as soon as you do, he will pull the rug out from under you and you will get a headache from the fall....
Hollywood certainly likes him though. A true icon for the American masses - Barack Hussein Obama - wearing his own presidential seal, forget those American flag pins.... Obama even removed the American flag from the rudder of his campaign jet and replaced it with his Obama seal.
http://americanpoliticalblog.wordpress.com/

Posted by: Larry Clifton | September 17, 2008 11:49 AM | Report abuse

All those ads by both to convince me the other is unworthy of my support and no way for me to show that on a yes only ballot. The ballot needs to give voters an option rather than a restriction by including a NO column so I could vote against the trashee, if so convinced, without having to vote for the trasher. The highest net yes wins. I'll wager that turnout would increase, negative ads would disappear and the result would be a far more honest reflection of voter sentiment if we weren't required to say we want yucky parsnips to say we don't want yuckier broccoli. It's time to be able to say NO when we mean NO. Why do we have to lie on the ballot...or not vote at all.

Posted by: Valjean1 | September 17, 2008 11:49 AM | Report abuse

David is right on, there is "negative" and then there is "lying". Not the same thing.

Here's my theory on John McCain: the first thing that comes out of his mouth on a subject is what he really thinks -- or doesn't think. Like the remark about forming a commission to study the mess in the financial markets. That's a total punt: he really doesn't know what to do. It's also the oldest Washington trick there is, so much for "reforming".

Then he goes off the air, his campaign gets ahold of him and the message changes, usually by that afternoon or the next morning. They've been spending a lot of time lately covering up his "gaffes". They're not gaffes, they're his lack of even a single clue about what's going on in the economy.

The covering up part? Shout buzzwords like "reform", denigrate "greed", blame "them", promise glittering generalities and avoid any substance. Then make scurrilious accusations against your opponent.

Right out of Heinrich Himmler's playbook.

Posted by: DDS | September 17, 2008 11:47 AM | Report abuse

Please quit spamming your bogus websites everywhere as if they are legitimate political websites. A quick whois lookup reveals:
www.hotpres.com
www.theveep.com
www.skip08.com

were all registered in the last year to Charles King.

Posted by: re:anonymous | September 17, 2008 11:46 AM | Report abuse

This week I noticed McCain was talking issues and Obama and Biden were screaming liar liar pants on fire.

Obama blasted McCain over the Wall Street meltdown...yet McCain cosponsored a bill in 2005 that was targeted at reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Neither Congress or Obama supported it.

McCain pleaded with Congress to no avail. He saw it coming and nailed 3 years ago. Yet Obama is attacking him, claiming he didn't do anything, when it was Obama that did nothing. Now he is blaming one of the few senators that sounded the alarm and tried to get the reform bill passed. If they had acted when McCain asked them to we may have avoided the whole Wall Street meltdown. So now who is the liar..why Obama and Biden of course.

Here is an excerpt of McCain's statement, which btw is a matter of senate record.

"If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole." John McCain


Posted by: dan | September 17, 2008 11:46 AM | Report abuse

I am not concerned about the negativity of the ads, but about their truthiness.

In that regard Mr. McCain still loses.

Posted by: Anne | September 17, 2008 11:45 AM | Report abuse

The difference between Obama's negative ads and McCain's negative ads is that McCain's negative ads are mostly made up of lies and distortions, while Obama's negative ads simply attack McCain with the truth.

Posted by: Socrates | September 17, 2008 11:45 AM | Report abuse

Yes, it would be interesting to know the overall volume, not just for a single week (i.e. how much total negative was run on both sides), and also the percentage (i.e. Obama spent more which means more negative, but what's the percentage of negative overall?).

It would be great if we had no negative ads at all, but as far as I can recall McCain started this when they (like Hillary) realized they couldn't win on the merits (i.e. candidate not as strong). The only thing Obama and the Democrats can do when attacked is respond.

One thing the press could do is report more on substance than sound bites and attack vs attack (I realize this is more exciting but i don't want to see the election decided on emotion again, and espeically not fear).

Posted by: andy2 | September 17, 2008 11:44 AM | Report abuse

I really think you need to clarify what you consider negative! Did Obama run ads last week flat-out lying about McCain?

You need to invent some new words for what McCain has been doing in order to even consider comparing the advertising between the two camps.

Posted by: kgb999 | September 17, 2008 11:43 AM | Report abuse

"Despite perceptions that John McCain has spent more time on the attack, Barack Obama aired more negative advertising last week than did the Arizona senator."

Note that this claim had to be QUALIFIED. While it may or may not be true that Obama aired more negative ads LAST WEEK, how long has McCain been airing his negative attack ads in comparison - and how many more? I thought it was hilarious that the ladies of The View called McCain out on his lies, and he mumbled something about how "they are not untrue." Hahaha!

Posted by: fmngo | September 17, 2008 11:38 AM | Report abuse

Thank you Howard and the Washington Post for this piece! It is about time this Obama guy gets called out!

Posted by: azkmb | September 17, 2008 11:33 AM | Report abuse

And what were the figures for the week before?

It seems to me this might be a case of McCain going negative, then toning it down the week after, so when the Obama campaign runs more negative 'attack' ads in response to the McCain attack ads, McCain's campaign can say, "We're not negative, you are!"

If that's the case, the figures would show McCain ran significantly more negative ads in the weeks prior to this one. Without those figures, we're just looking at one week out of context. So... can you do that journalism thing and give us the full picture, please?

Posted by: Aengil | September 17, 2008 11:31 AM | Report abuse

Howard,

There's a big difference b/w negative contrast ads (which all campaigns run), and out-and-out lies in ads. That's what the McCain campaign has done. The Obama ads are negative in the sense that they say McCain is lying through his teeth.

Posted by: David | September 17, 2008 11:13 AM | Report abuse

I love it when you political pundits and reporters say negative ads without offering up evidence?

I am suppose to trust the Wisconsin Advertising Project on what constitutes a negative ad?! Give me break.

The McCain campaign is seeing the Palin bounce going downhill when real tough issues come to the forefront of the national stage like the economy.

Posted by: Obama-Junkie | September 17, 2008 10:49 AM | Report abuse

Obama will get a big bump when McCain has to ditch Palin.

More Info came out about Palins Affair this morning http://www.theveep.com

Palins Trooper gate is also looking worse this morning. http://www.hotpres.com

They need to come out with ads about the economy neither of these campaigns have been focused on the issues lately. I have decided to skip 08 http://www.skip08.com

Posted by: Anonymous | September 17, 2008 10:46 AM | Report abuse

lets hear more about
the obama slide in the polls...
sweet
sweet....

Posted by: usa3 | September 17, 2008 10:37 AM | Report abuse

Palin selection as VP was to get her ready for the 2012 election. Sh will drag McCain down and that is fine with them. They want to loose because the problems that George Bush brought, they will project on to Obama. The only reslt that I see of the Palin nomination is a lack of confidence in McCain.

I was looking for a transformation of the Republican party after this election to a party that I could again vote for from time to time but I can not see that any longer.

No matter who has the most negative ads only Obama is fit to serve in the condition this country is in in 2008.


Posted by: ronnn | September 17, 2008 10:37 AM | Report abuse

lets hear more about
the obama slide in the polls...
sweet
sweet....

Posted by: usa3 | September 17, 2008 10:37 AM | Report abuse

lets hear more about
the obama slide in the polls...
sweet
sweet....

Posted by: usa3 | September 17, 2008 10:37 AM | Report abuse

Mr Kurtz seems obsessed with meaningless, often misleading efforts to count things. Why is that?

Posted by: zukermand | September 17, 2008 10:26 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company