Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

DNC Hits McCain, But Can They Keep It Up?

UPDATE, 5:45 pm: Progressive Media USA is taking to the Ohio airwaves tomorrow in an attempt to match Sen. John McCain's (R-Ariz.) advertising in the crucial swing state.

The ad is a replica of what the liberal group, led by media critic David Brock, ran last week in Washington at minuscule levels. It seeks to paint McCain as a clone of President Bush -- right down to the language the two use to discuss the economy.

"John McCain is offering the same misguided economic policies as George Bush that have left Ohio's economy behind," said Brian Rothenberg, the executive director of ProgressOhio.org.

Sources familiar with the Progressive Media USA buy say it will match the amount of money being spent by McCain in the Buckeye State. McCain went up with an ad last week in Ohio and Pennsylvania that touted him as a candidate of "big ideas for serious problems." (Once we have specific details about the ad buy, we'll post them here.)

A more expansive -- and expensive -- media buy from Progressive Media USA suggests that the group may well be better funded than first imagined. The little we know about where the group gets its money (Progressive Media is organized as a 501(C) (4) and does not have to report its donors) comes from filings with the Internal Revenue Service by Fund for America -- the organization expected to be the major giver to progressive causes in the 2008 elections. Through March 31, Fund for America had moved $2.5 million to Campaign to Defend America -- the group from which Progressive Media USA has sprung.

ORIGINAL POST

Even as Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.) spend the last 24 hours before Pennsylvania's primary scavenging for votes, the Democratic National Committee is ramping up its efforts to define the Republican presidential nominee.

In a conference call this afternoon, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean unveiled a new national ad that portrays Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) as out-of-touch with the problems caused by the slowing economy.

The goal of the ad, said Dean, was to hold McCain to statements he made during the Republican primary race concerning the economy that may not ring true these days with swing voters.

"We find a candidate now trying to reinvent himself as many do when they get the nomination," said Dean. He promised that the ad, the first of a series, would "make sure the American people don't get bamboozled by the wishy-washiness of Senator McCain."

Dean described the ad as the leading edge of his committee's plans to ramp up in the coming weeks for the general election. "If we had a nominee, we'd be able to do more," he acknowledged but added that the massive voter turnout in this extended primary season has allowed the DNC to greatly grow its ranks. "I know this is tough for Democrats but the truth is there are going to be states like Virginia and North Carolina that are going to be competitive for the first time in years," he added.

The question hovering over the DNC's effort is how long they can keep it up and at what level. Unlike the House and Senate campaign committees, the DNC trails the Republican National Committee in fundraising. At the end of March, the DNC had $5.3 million on hand compared to $31 million in the bank for the RNC.

With such a meager cash on hand total, it's hard to imagine the DNC keeping up a sustained paid advertising campaign for very long.

What that means -- barring a quicker-than-expected resolution to the ongoing Clinton-Obama scrap -- is that an outside organization must step into the void.

The obvious candidate is Progressive Media USA, the group now controlled by Republican turned Democrat David Brock. While Brock touted a $40 million budget for the group, its first foray -- an ad that ran on MSNBC and CNN last week -- cost just $7,000, according to a Democratic media buyer.

Progressive Media today launched a new web video entitled "The Fabulous Life of John McCain" that pokes fun at the Arizona Senator's wealth and how he is out of touch with average voters.

The web video is below but take note: it is a web video. That means that Progressive Media USA expended very little cash on it and does not in any way answer the questions about how much money the group truly has to spend in its attempts to define McCain.

The dearth of money coming into the DNC and the lack of real dollars being spent on outside groups' attempts to define McCain present a serious problem for Democrats if the race between Obama and Clinton goes all the way to June 3 or beyond.

Not only do Democrats run the risk of allowing McCain several more months to define himself, they also could watch as disaffected donors, who favor either Clinton or Obama, walk away from funding the DNC and other outside groups if their preferred candidate doesn't wind up as the nominee.

For more on the machinations of outside groups seeking to influence the 2008 election, check out Matt Mosk's story today in the Post.

By Chris Cillizza  |  April 21, 2008; 4:16 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Clinton Ad Invokes Harry Truman and Osama Bin Laden
Next: Pennsylvania Primary Prediction Time!

Comments

For the *really* curious, here is the morbidity table used by the insurance industry. The results are for 2006. Note, you are MORE likely to die by falling out of bed than from a firearm, more likely, in fact, to die falling out of a chair, twice as likely to drown, 8 times more likely to die from a bee sting, 20 times more likely to die from a dog attack, etc. In fact, by lifetime expectancy and population use, you are about as likely to die in a bicycle accident as you are from a firearm.

http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm

Posted by: MikeB | April 22, 2008 5:29 PM | Report abuse

What is amazing to me is the degree of ignorance demonstrated by gun control proponents. First, the "militia" fable has been passed around so much that some people believe it. U.S. law *defines* the term "militia". There are two sorts, formal-organized militia like the Coast Guard and National Guard and informal militia, like those the Second Amendment addresses. Those militia's have popularly elected officers, citizen provided weapons and provisions, and terms of serve that are indefinite and entirely up to the citizen volunteer. Go read Jefferson's comments.

As for firearm violence, the DOJ published statistics on crime every year and anyone can look it up! -- http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

There were slightly few than 10,000 homicides in this country last year (not the "tens of thousands" figure blathered about by the Brady fruitcakes, security moms, and assorted beta male wetters that compose the gun control crowd). Unless you are a gang member, you are five times more likely to die from food poisoning than you are from a firearm! The actual rate is LESS today than it has been at any time. Moreover, the rate of violent crime in this country is about 1/3 of that for countries with strict gin control laws. Actually, in Australia, which recently pass some strict gun control laws, the rates of crimes like rape, homicides other than by firearms, forced home entries, assaults, all went up from U.S. level to European levels (e.g. they increased three fold). Actually, the DOJ statistics demonstrate that over 80% of gun crimes in this country are gang related, about 35% of them due to hispanic gangs largely composed of illegal immigrants! Under the reasoning of the gun control proponents here, that provides more a reason to round up and deport all illegals than it does to impose new gun restrictions. The same reasoning would provide a better excuse to ban automobiles or doctors (CAUSED 25k DEATHS) or abortion or ....

Posted by: MikeB | April 22, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

proud:

I guess my thinking is that BHO and HRC are not very far apart on this issue (I think she got an F- from the GOA). So the choice on gun ownership is between whoever the D is and McC, who appears to be a recent convert (circa 2004) to opposing gun control.

Posted by: mnteng | April 22, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

proudtobeGOP - I will be voting for and campaigning for McCain as a Democrat. I am not so enthusiastic of him as you are. But I think he is honest and a decent man. I wish the Democratic choices were better, but both Obama and Clinton have demonstrated that they are the sort of politican who will say anything, make any promise, but once elected wont keep one of them. Both are blind global economy fans ("free traitors", and supporters of cheap guest workers) and it would be suicidal for anyone to vote for either of them. Nonetheless, I expect the general election to be close, because there are enough suicide bent "true believers" out there who honestly think that Obama really cares about them. I wonder if they will change their mind, if Obama is elected President and does exactly what he said in his "bitter" remarks, when their children are homeless and starving, basic food shipped out of the country to the thriving economies of China and India and Europe, the family broken beyond repair, their job gone, gasoline at $8 a gallon, Medicaid and Medicare and social services broke becasue of the flood of newly legalized illegal immigrants,the government so broke it uses all of it's resources to just continue it's own parasitic existance; the Second Great Depression, the one where the very means we could have used to dig our way out of the "free trade" hole, our production capacity, our engineering and science base, shipped overseas. Gun control, the first woman or black President, age, and all of these "other" ssues wont seem so important when you are faced with just surviving.

Posted by: MikeB | April 22, 2008 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Blarg,
Including today, there are approx 585 pledged delegates out there to get. Obama currently has 1418 pledged which puts him roughly 607 away from the nomination. We don't know if he will need a majority of supers or not. We do know that neither him or HRC will be able to garner the nomination without the Supers since neither will be able to gain enough pledged delegates to get to 2025. It is true that Obama has a lead in pledged delegates. It is also true that HRC is nowhere near mathmatically eliminated (unlike say Guiliani) from garnering the nomination. Say what you want about the Supers, but a vote is not a vote until it is cast and for them it happens at the convention. HRC has a realistic, but unlikely, chance at the nomination. There is no good reason she should drop out yet.

Posted by: Dave! | April 22, 2008 3:28 PM | Report abuse

mnteng, Obama's record is extremely liberal when it comes to gun control....he is anti-gun and no amount of comparison to any other candidiate can make that go away.

From Wiki:
As a state legislator in Illinois, Obama supported banning the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic firearms, increasing state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms and requiring manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.

He supported a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns. In 1999, he urged prohibiting the operation of any gun store within five miles of a school or park, which according to pro-gun advocates would eliminate gun stores from almost the entire inhabited portion of the United States. He sponsored a bill in 2000 limiting handgun purchases to one per month.

As state senator, he voted against a 2004 measure that allowed self-defense as an affirmative defense to those charged with violating local laws making it otherwise unlawful for such persons to possess firearms.

He also voted against allowing persons who had obtained domestic violence protective orders to carry handguns for their protection.

Although out of line with most of his anti-gun voting history, in 1999, Obama voted "present" on SB 759, a bill that required mandatory adult prosecution for firing a gun on or near school grounds. The bill passed the state Senate 52-1. Illinois allows lawmakers to abstain from issues by voting present instead of yes or no.

From 1994 through 2002, Obama was also a board member of the Joyce Foundation which funds and maintains several gun control organizations in the United States.

During his tenure, the Foundation granted nearly $2.7 million to groups that advocated for handgun bans and advocated against an individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment.

This advocacy has included amicus briefs supporting the D.C. handgun ban in the case D.C. v. Heller currently pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.

While in the US Senate, Obama has supported several gun control measures, including restricting the purchase of firearms at gun shows and the reauthorization of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban.

Obama voted against legislation protecting firearm manufacturers from liability. Obama did vote in favor of the 2006 Vitter Amendment to prohibit the confiscation of lawful firearms during an emergency or major disaster, which passed 84-16.

During a February 15, 2008 press conference, Obama stated, "I think there is an individual right to bear arms, but it's subject to commonsense regulation."

He voiced support for the District of Columbia's ban on handguns, for which arguments pro and con were heard by the Supreme Court in March 2008 in the case D.C. v. Heller. Obama has also stated his opposition to allowing citizens to carry concealed guns and supports a national law outlawing the practice.

Obama is rated F by the National Rifle Association. The NRA describes the recipient of its F grade as a "true enemy of gun owners' rights."

He is also rated F by Gun Owners of America who stated that Obama will "Get the Dems 'Barack' into the Business of Gun Control".

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 22, 2008 3:14 PM | Report abuse

MikeB, John McCain is a T.R. kind of politician, cut from the same mold.

From a WaPo article about him:

In his 67 years, John Sidney McCain III has survived three plane crashes, all flights he piloted. He has endured, among other things, 5 &1/2 years in a North Vietnamese prison, cancer, an almost career-killing scandal and one of the nastiest primary campaigns in GOP history.
(Not counting this year's)

"This is all so transient," McCain says. "It could all end tomorrow. My philosophy is just to just go, go like hell. Like Teddy Roosevelt did it. Full-bore."


In his acceptance speech after getting enough delegates to win the nomination he said:

Now, we begin the most important part of our campaign: to make a respectful, determined and convincing case to the American people that our campaign and my election as President, given the alternatives presented by our friends in the other party, are in the best interests of the country we love. I have never believed I was destined be President. I don't believe anyone is pre-destined to lead America. But I do believe we are born with responsibilities to the country that has protected our God-given rights, and the opportunities they afford us. I did not grow up with the expectation that my country owed me more than the rights owed every American. On the contrary, I owe my country every opportunity I have ever had. I owe her the meaning that service to America has given my life, and the sense that I am part of something greater than myself, part of a kinship of ideals that have always represented the last, best hope of mankind.

I understand the responsibilities I incur with this nomination, and I give you my word, I will not evade or slight a single one. Our campaign must be, and will be more than another tired debate of false promises, empty sound-bites, or useless arguments from the past that address not a single American's concerns for their family's security. Presidential candidates are judged on their records, their character and the whole of their life experiences. But we are also expected to concentrate our efforts on the challenges that will confront America on our watch and explain how we intend to address them.

America is at war in two countries, and involved in a long and difficult fight with violent extremists who despise us, our values and modernity itself. It is of little use to Americans for their candidates to avoid the many complex challenges of these struggles by re-litigating decisions of the past. I will defend the decision to destroy Saddam Hussein's regime as I criticized the failed tactics that were employed for too long to establish the conditions that will allow us to leave that country with our country's interests secure and our honor intact. But Americans know that the next President doesn't get to re-make that decision. We are in Iraq and our most vital security interests are clearly involved there. The next President must explain how he or she intends to bring that war to the swiftest possible conclusion without exacerbating a sectarian conflict that could quickly descend into genocide; destabilizing the entire Middle East; enabling our adversaries in the region to extend their influence and undermine our security there; and emboldening terrorists to attack us elsewhere with weapons we dare not allow them to possess.

The next President must encourage the greater participation and cooperation of our allies in the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

The next President must lead an effort to restructure our military, our intelligence, our diplomacy and all relevant branches of government to combat Islamic extremism, encourage the vast majority of moderates to win the battle for the soul of Islam, and meet the many other rising challenges in this changing world.

I will leave it to my opponent to argue that we should abrogate trade treaties, and pretend the global economy will go away and Americans can secure our future by trading and investing only among ourselves. We will campaign in favor of seizing the opportunities presented by the growth of free markets throughout the world, helping displaced workers acquire new and lasting employment and educating our children to prepare them for the new economic realities by giving parents choices about their children's education they do not have now.

I will leave it to my opponent to claim that they can keep companies and jobs from going overseas by making it harder for them to do business here at home. We will campaign to strengthen job growth in America by helping businesses become more competitive with lower taxes and less regulation.

I will leave it to my opponent to propose returning to the failed, big government mandates of the sixties and seventies to address problems such as the lack of health care insurance for some Americans. I will campaign to make health care more accessible to more Americans with reforms that will bring down costs in the health care industry down without ruining the quality of the world's best medical care.

And I will campaign to reduce our dangerous dependence on foreign oil with an energy policy that encourages American industry and technology to make our country safer, cleaner and more prosperous by leading the world in the use, development and discovery of alternative sources of energy.

These are some of the challenges that confront us. There are others just as urgent, and during this campaign I'll travel across the country in cities and rural areas, in communities of all ethnic backgrounds and income levels, offering my ideas and listening to the concerns and advice of Americans. Americans aren't interested in an election where they are just talked to and not listened to; an election that offers platitudes instead of principles and insults instead of ideas; an election that results -- no matter who wins -- in four years of unkept promises and a government that is just a battleground for the next election. Their patience is at an end for politicians who value ambition over principle, and for partisanship that is less a contest of ideas than an uncivil brawl over the spoils of power.

Nothing is inevitable in America. We are the captains of our fate. We're not a country that prefers nostalgia to optimism; a country that would rather go back than forward. We're the world's leader, and leaders don't pine for the past and dread the future. We make the future better than the past. We don't hide from history. We make history. That, my friends, is the essence of hope in America, hope built on courage, and faith in the values and principles that have made us great. I intend to make my stand on those principles and chart a course for our future greatness, and trust in the judgment of the people I have served all my life. So stand up with me, my friends, stand up and fight for America -- for her strength, her ideals, and her future. The contest begins tonight. It will have its ups and downs. But we will fight every minute of every day to make certain we have a government that is as capable, wise, brave and decent as the great people we serve. That is our responsibility and I will not let you down.


---------------------------------
That's my kind of hope, right there.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 22, 2008 3:03 PM | Report abuse

proud:
Actually, Obama has stated that he favors the view of the 2nd Amendment protecting an individual's right to bear arms.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/463haksg.asp

"When a student asks Obama for his views on the Second Amendment, he reminds his audience that he taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago and is thus familiar with the arguments regarding the right to bear arms. He acknowledges "a tradition of gun ownership in this country that can be respected," and says that his academic studies convinced him gun ownership "is an individual right and not just the right of a militia.""

Of course, there's a caveat ...

"But he was not finished. "Like all rights, though, they are constrained by the needs and the rights of the community.""

Which doesn't really tell us whether he's OK with local/state regulation or wants a federal ban (like Hillary). Either way, the D candidate will "probably" try to restrict gun ownership in some way. The problem for McCain is that his own history with the 2nd Amendment isn't so clear (he used to be for gun control before he wasn't).

Posted by: mnteng | April 22, 2008 2:46 PM | Report abuse

>>the second amendment probably should recognize an individual's right to own firearms<<
Since the second amendment talks about the right to bear arms in connection to the states right to a militia, he's actually siding with you on this one. Plenty of people think the right exists only for members of the states militia.
Banning the sale of ammunition within five miles of a school or park is not a ban on handguns, it's an attempt to restrict their use to areas where it is safe and legal to discharge weapons. I don't agree with the proposal because it penalizes businesses randomly in an effort to curb a problem without doing anything about the root cause of the problem (incompetent or criminal hand gun owners). There's nothing to stop local hood and wannabe Rambos from going to the country to load up on wad cutters and Teflon coated rounds.
I think we all agree, it isn't every gun owner that needs government regulation however we don't have a system to accurately identify the problems from the decent individuals who just enjoy the pistol range and the casualties caused by inaction on this subject are mounting daily.
Personally, having served in the military and having been bow hunting several times,(using a rifle or pistol to kill deer just doesn't seem much like sport, it's too easy). I understand the enjoyment associated with the careful use of fire arms. As a father who has actually witnessed idiots firing pistols into the air in celebration of a football team winning a game, I am left to wonder how we separate the wheat from the chaff when it comes to gun ownership. A ban in urban areas seems reasonable because you can't use a gun in urban areas. Does this conflict with the second amendment? Popular legal opinion (which Obama re-states in your quote) seems to think so, so what is the solution?
My best suggestion is that we allow ownership but restrict possession of the weapons, so that you may own a Glock, but you have to keep it in an area that allows the use of the weapon, be it a licensed firing range or a friends house in the country where it's legal to discharge the weapon.
Sure, criminals will not abide this law any more than they do the rest of the laws but it would stop kids from lifting the old mans piece to settle a schoolyard score. It would also stop the use of "safe houses" where drug dealers stash their guns while they work the corners in an effort to avoid hard jail time when they are caught.
There may be no solution to this problem that we all can agree too. We don't know yet because nobody wants to compromise in search of the solution. I'm ready to compromise, I think most of America sees both sides of this problem and wants to move forward with a solution that takes into account everyones rights.
The NRA and the Gun lobbies don't want a solution, they want to sow fear in the gun owners. After all, where does the NRAs' money come from if it weren't for 2nd amendment advocates who are afraid of the government infringing on their rights. That said, we have to learn to trust each other a little bit, I don't want your gun, I just don't want to get shot.

Posted by: Dijetlo | April 22, 2008 2:43 PM | Report abuse

proudtobeGOP - I don't kow about you, but I would be *delighted* to have a President who honestly believed in hope, was idealistic, honest, and genuine. We had leaders of this country just like that... once upon a time. People like Jefferson and Adams and Washington and Teddy Roosevelt and Kennedy. These leaders, the ones with sometimes "looney" visions, that brought us Alaska and the Louisana Purchase and the Peace Corp and the Lewis and Clark Expedition and the Sherman Antitrust Act and our national park system, these qare the best leaders this cohntry has ever had, the best we could possibly hope for. My only problem with Obama is, I do not think he is any different than the other hacks in Washington and his "bitter" remarks rather proved that for me. I wish it were different, but instead of the "Day the music died", the day I heard of what Obama said, that was the day that hope died and genuine bitterness replaced it.

Posted by: MikeB | April 22, 2008 2:43 PM | Report abuse

Obama says "We believe we can change, and that's the kind of hope I'm talking about."

Obama's pitch to fawning audiences is so hopelessly idealistic and his promises so painfully unrealistic that it's amazing he's taken as seriously as he is.

If any other politician were to deliver the pap Obama routinely includes in his speeches, they'd be laughed off the stage.


And speaking of b.s., here's Bill Clinton's latest utterance on the campaign trail...
"I don't think I can take any s*** from anybody on that, do you?" Clinton said at the end of an interview on Philadelphia's WHYY radio.

I guess he thought the mic was off. Woopsie! Unscripted D moments are turning out to be the gift that keeps on giving this year.


Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 22, 2008 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Has anyone noticed that, from certain angles, McCain bears a superficial resemblance to Herbert Hoover?
Given McCain's less-than-overwhelming response to the mortgage mess, could the dems put together something clever, with a voice-over quote of McCain dissing help for middle class debtors, and with a pic of McCain that morphs into a pic of Hoover?

Posted by: John | April 22, 2008 2:19 PM | Report abuse

Dijetlo writes "[Obama] makes the point that the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms is protected, though your may have to trade your Glock for a shotgun"

His actual words were "the second amendment probably should recognize an individual's right to own firearms". Note the use of the word "probably". Not definitely, but probably.

That is indeed a very carefully worded statement. It allows him maximum wiggle room to infringe on people's 2nd amendment rights. I'm not being hysterical. I'm being objective, and I don't like what I see....someone who is willing to pander to the ultra left wing of the Democrat Party to get the nomination, but tries to keep all these unpleasant stances out of sight for the general election.

He has proposed a federal ban on the sale of firearms within five miles of a school or a park. That effectively amounts to a nationwide back door gun ban.

His anti-gun views will be a big factor in the general election, don't kid yourself.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 22, 2008 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Your being hysterical, proud. He didn't say he supported a handgun ban. What he did say was thoughtful and careful, basically that local governments have right to curtail the use or ownership of deadly weapons within the framework of the second amendment. It isn't what you want to hear but it is established law on the subject.
Very mainstream, not really what your suggesting it is at all. He makes the point that the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms is protected, though your may have to trade your Glock for a shotgun. At least that way we'll know you've come to rob the store when you walk in with it under your arm. That gives us a chance to run for our lives before you start shooting.
That's not too much to ask, is it? Morons with concealed weapons are the leading cause of death among urban young adults, don't they deserve a little protection? I seem to remember that along with your right to bear arms, they have the right to life.

Posted by: Dijetlo | April 22, 2008 1:44 PM | Report abuse

madhatter, indeed. tinfoil hat is more like it... what kind of crack you smoke, fascist moron? do you siegheil while you goosestep?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 22, 2008 1:26 PM | Report abuse

While all the headlines in the primaries are all about who the Democrats nominee will be, neither Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton can win in the general election. Both have negatives that would sink a battleship with the average non-liberal American voters. These same negatives that the Obama and Clinton loyalists are now trying to pooh-pooh and excuse as just minor gaffes, misquotes, inexperience, and questionable associations with white and America--haters to get the Democratic Party nomination, will be major issues when all Americans vote. The fact is that the Democratic Party nomination process is controlled by the Democrats far-left Socialist wing, so to get the nomination the candidate must be as far left as they are, which is to the left of Karl Marx or Lenin. This however won't work in the general election, were one has to be near the political center as Bill Clinton proved. This election will basically be a repeat of the Joe Lieberman-Ned Lamont race for Liebermans Senate seat in Connecticut back in 2006. Lieberman didn't get the Connecticut Democrats nomination because he wasn't liberal enough for them. When Joe Lieberman then ran as an Independant and against the Democratic Party nominee, he won because the general Connecticut voters aren't far left liberals. This election will be like that. McCain's a shoe-in.

Posted by: madhatter | April 22, 2008 1:09 PM | Report abuse

Barack Obama supports a handgun ban. He has equivocated and parsed every time he is asked about the DC handgun ban, and it's high time the public knows what he's really saying.

It's kind of like how he talks to the voters in PA, then goes behind their backs to billionaires in SF and denigrates middle America as clinging "to guns or religion, or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiments or anti-trade sentiments out of some sense of frustration." All of that was supposed to be behind closed doors...the average Americans he was talking about weren't supposed to find out that he really believes this.

Last night on NPR radio, Obama did an interivew where he was asked about the DC handgun ban. Keep in mind, he has been asked about this specifically several times, and has plenty of time to do the research.


"MS. BLOCK: Do you have a position on the D.C. hand-gun ban, the case that has gone before the Supreme Court?

SEN. OBAMA: You know, my general view - and this is colored by having taught constitutional law for 10 years - is that as a constitutional matter, the second amendment probably should recognize an individual's right to own firearms. But just because you have an individual right doesn't mean that the public at large doesn't also have a countervailing right to protect the public safety.

I mean, we all have rights to own private property, but that doesn't mean that zoning laws are unconstitutional. And, you know, I don't know all of the details and specifics of the D.C. gun law, but I do know that local communities as well as states and the federal government can institute some common-sense gun laws that will survive constitutional scrutiny."


Bottom line: Obama likes to brag about being a 'constituntinal law professor' on the one hand, and yet can't quite bring himself to answer a yes or no question without equivocating and parsing.

Read between the lines, people. He supports a handgun ban, but he is too cowardly to come right out and say it. He is an elitist liberal who thinks he knows better than average Americans; he just won't tell you to your face.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 22, 2008 10:49 AM | Report abuse

Really? The same could be said for Obama? How strange. I said that Hillary can't win, and now you say that Obama can't win either. So I guess there won't be a nominee this year.

Obama doesn't need a majority of superdelegates. He needs a majority of overall delegates, of course, but his lead in pledged delegates means that he doesn't need a majority of supers. Hillary, on the other hand, can't possibly make up the gap in pledged delegates. She needs to get the vast majority of all remaining supers to get the nomination, along with a majority of remaining pledged delegates. It's not going to happen.

And don't bring up superdelegates changing sides. Barring some horrible disaster for one campaign or the other, delegates aren't going to change sides. Besides, it's theoretically possible that McCain's delegates will all change their minds and vote for Guiliani at the convention, but that doesn't mean that Rudy should have stayed in the race.

Posted by: Blarg | April 22, 2008 10:23 AM | Report abuse

Blarg - " She'd have to dominate in every remaining primary, AND she'd have to get a supermajority of superdelegates. Basically, she can't win. And that's why she should drop out."

Almost the same could be said for Obama. Supers are free to change their position until the convention so those that have come out for Obama could (not saying they would) change their minds. Regardless, Supers are not final until the convention. Obama needs a majority of the supers come convention as he is not going to get enough delegates from primary/caucuses. The path to the nomination is the same for both. It's just that Obama is currently in the lead and his nomination is certainly more likely.

Posted by: Dave! | April 22, 2008 9:46 AM | Report abuse

Opa2, the voting isn't going to start over again. Most of the voting has already occurred. And according to that voting, Hillary Clinton has only a very slim chance of being nominated. She'd have to dominate in every remaining primary, AND she'd have to get a supermajority of superdelegates. Basically, she can't win. And that's why she should drop out.

Posted by: Blarg | April 22, 2008 8:47 AM | Report abuse

To all of you who want Hillary to quit, it must be obvious to even you that this is not going to happen. Why the heck should she quit? She, and those that support her, see the same thing that even YOU see. Your candidate is slipping. If the voting started over again he would be out of it by now. This primary season has been too long for him and he is being found out for what he is. An idiotic empty suit trying to get the nomination before people find out who he really is and what he stands for. I know I'm biased because I support the other candidate but believe me, if NO-bama gets this nomination, we may see a white versus black vote for the first time in this country. That would be a disaster for this country that we would not soon overcome.

Posted by: Opa2 | April 22, 2008 1:39 AM | Report abuse

How many of these Sovereign Wealth Funds out of the Middle East,that are propping up our failing banks are from Israel?A person may be able to live in the past but a country can not.I'm wasting my time on this.Events are going to overwhelm you.WW2 is ancient history.

Posted by: j.Edgar | April 22, 2008 1:16 AM | Report abuse

Cillizza writes: "The dearth of money coming into the DNC and the lack of real dollars being spent on outside groups' attempts to define McCain present a serious problem for Democrats if the race between Obama and Clinton goes all the way to June 3 or beyond."

First of all, I doubt the contest will go much past May 20; after Oregon and Kentucky vote, there will only be 86 pledged delegates left in remaining contests, and remaining uncommitted supredelegates may feel it's time to take sides and effectively end the process and put someone over the top if it hasn't happened already. Even if it goes to the end of the voting on June 3, I can't see any reason for remaining superdelegates to stay on the fence, and they'll be under a lot of pressure to commit. I don't think the few weeks between mid-May and early June would be politically significant (except that the emerging delegate lead may determine what happens with the Florida and Michigan delegations).

So I really don't see a problem for the Democrats if the nomination isn't settled for another month and a half. Six months is plenty of time to get ready for the general election.

(With apologies to bsimon, whose posts in these forums are consistently informative; but I've always posted elsewhere as dsimon.)

Posted by: dsimon | April 21, 2008 11:57 PM | Report abuse

santa fe, nm writes
"Hillary just threatened to nuke Iran if they attacked Israel."

It can be spun a couple ways. Firstly, its not actually all that different from implied US policy for the last couple decades. Secondly, its another attempt by Sen Clinton to appear hawkish and as 'tough as the boys', not unlike her 2002 vote to approve the use of force in Iraq. There are other potential interpretations/ramifications as well. While I think its an idiotic policy & indicative of Sen Clinton's lack of appreciation for foreign policy nuance, its not exactly ground-breaking. See Bush, George; Reagan, Ronald; neocons; AIPAC.

Posted by: bsimon | April 21, 2008 11:25 PM | Report abuse

hey Chris - did you see Olbermann tonight?
Hillary just threatened to nuke Iran if they attacked Israel. How is this going to play in Beijing and Moscow? Might those countries now formally ally with Iran to preserve their energy source and military equipment trade partner? how far back in election history do we have to go to find an equally stupid blunder from a candidate for President? what do Robert Kennedy's kids think of Hillary's warmongering policy proposal? (so unlike JFK/RFK's peaceful solution to the Cuban missile crisis.) 401k's aren't going to prosper if we get into a new Cold War (or Hot war) with the rest of the world.

Posted by: santa fe, nm | April 21, 2008 11:11 PM | Report abuse

Spin it any you please but 72 is OLD.

Posted by: Jose | April 21, 2008 10:59 PM | Report abuse

We ( Clinton and Obama ) are going to slug it out for a while longer then gang up on the old man ( McCain ).

Posted by: Jose | April 21, 2008 10:47 PM | Report abuse

I've never heard an Obama supporter say anything against age. Unless you mean the OLD POLITICS that has become so divisive that nothing gets done.

Posted by: Joyce | April 21, 2008 10:28 PM | Report abuse

McCain, "a candidate of 'big ideas for serious problems.'"

Hmmmm? I've got one. Hey, my friend, I helped enact election reform laws, but now the FEC is trying to make me follow them. WHAT'S THE BIG IDEA????

Posted by: Joyce | April 21, 2008 10:23 PM | Report abuse

The DNC questions McCain's economic expertise -- as he has publicly done himself -- and Republicans have the nerve to call it "Swiftboating".

No. Swiftboating would be if Democrats called him a coward for having broken to torture and signed anti-American statements in prison.

If and when that happens, on national TV, then Republicans can justly claim that Democrats have sunk to their level. But it never will happen.

Posted by: OD | April 21, 2008 10:03 PM | Report abuse

A Word to the Wise

The Democrats have done an Uncle Remus on McCain and have thrown him into the briar patch. Roast me, Brer Fox, says he, "But don't fling me in that briar patch."

The older voter is one voter demographic that appears to be missing from the Democratic lexion this year, and much to their peril.

Every time a Obama supporter suggests that 72 is too old, they lose a dozen older baby boomers, who are beginning to realize that 72 is just not that old anymore.

The more that Obama supporters, in the luxury of their youth, think that Clinton at age 60 or McCain at age 72 - are too old for the job - they lose a bunch of older voters.

Older voters decide elections - they really do go to their precincts and cast ballots, election after election, and they don't like to take baloney from anyone.

Posted by: alance | April 21, 2008 9:15 PM | Report abuse

Wow, that was long. Sorry about that everyone.

Posted by: P Diddy | April 21, 2008 9:14 PM | Report abuse

On a previous thread, mlbrooks cited 2 links and then wrote the following:

"In actual fact, well over 50% of Obama's donations are from wealthy Wall Street sorts, with the bulk of them coming from buy-out artists and the high tech industry (aka - "Age/Family Discrimination 'R Us", aka "Indian and Chinese Indentured Servants 'R Us"). Basically, the most recent article calls Obama and his campaign liars....and they are!...a corporate owned and funded hack, a raw and brash crook, no different than anything we have seen in the past."

Interesting articles, but not surprising. Obama enjoys tremendous support from the "Latte Liberals" (I am one, I'm also in high-tech, and I'm also a naturalized American citizen, so I hit your trifecta :-) ).

In reality, while I have donated $4600 to the Obama campaign, I did so on my own volition. Obama has received approximately $185,000 in individual donations from employees of my former employer (Clinton: $171,000). Looking through the list, only one of those people is an officer of the company, and looking further through the list, I know none are in a position where they would be permitted to lobby the government. (the same applies to Clinton and McCain, BTW)

Data: http://www.opensecrets.org

My former employer also has a PAC (of which many rank and file employees, including myself, are members), but Obama does not accept money from corporate PACs. So while it may appear that my former employer is donating $185,000 to Obama, the reality is different. Individuals should be permitted to donate to candidates of their choosing, no matter who their employer is.

Another of your assertions is that the Obama camp is being disingenuous when it says that the majority of its donations come from small donors. It's simple math. Obama has raised a lot of money, and there are a lot of people donating $10, $25, etc. But a basic understanding of math would reveal that lots of $10 donations does not equal $231M, and that a large number of $1000-$4600 donations are in that figure (probably greater than 50%). I wish opensecrets.org would let me dump into a spreadsheet so I could do the real analysis myself. In any event, I believe the accurate phrasing Obama's camp uses is that the "average" donation is under $100, which is obviously true.

Nevertheless, the nuance you've captured is not one I'm sure the typical American voter will comprehend, so I do agree with you on your original assertion that all of this can be used against Obama by a skillfully created ad campaign.

Remember, however, that every presidential campaign employs "bundlers" (who are usually not particularly powerful and are nothing more than highly networked individuals who have no qualms about asking for money). In truth, the Clinton "bundlers" are finding it difficult to extend their already tapped networks, while the Obama "bundlers" are finding it easier. You could see that two ways: lots of folks sat on the fence and wanted to back a winner, or Obama is more attractive. Given the relatively minute differences in policy between Clinton and Obama, I tend to believe it's the former.

As for McCain, I thought this article was very intriguing:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/21/us/politics/21bundlers.html?ref=washington

The basic truth is that when it comes to money, all three candidates will find it difficult to sling mud at the others.

Another one of the underlying assertions in your statements is inarguable: money buys access. It always has, it always will. Sadly, I don't think Jesus, much less Obama, can change that.

Posted by: P Diddy | April 21, 2008 9:09 PM | Report abuse

A Word to the Wise

The Democrats have done an Uncle Remus on McCain and have thrown him into the briar patch. Roast me, Brer Fox, says he, "But don't fling me in that briar patch."

The older voter is one voter demographic that appears to be missing from the Democratic lexion this year, and much to their peril.

Every time a Obama supporter suggests that 72 is too old, they lose a dozen older baby boomers, who are beginning to realize that 72 is just not that old anymore.

The more that Obama supporters, in the luxury of their youth, think that Clinton at age 60 or McCain at age 72 - are too old for the job - they lose a bunch of older voters.

Older voters decide elections - they really do go to their precincts and cast ballots, election after election, and they don't like to take crap from anyone.

Posted by: alance | April 21, 2008 9:09 PM | Report abuse

A Word to the Wise

The Democrats have done an Uncle Remus on McCain and have thrown him into the briar patch. Roast me, Brer Fox, says he, "But don't fling me in that briar patch."

The older voter is one voter demographic that appears to be missing from the Democratic lexion this year, and much to their peril.

Every time a Obama supporter suggests that 72 is too old, they lose a dozen older baby boomers, who are beginning to realize that 72 is just not that old anymore.

The more that Obama supporters, in the luxury of their youth, think that Clinton at age 60 or McCain at age 72 - are too old for the job - they lose a bunch of older voters.

Older voters decide elections - they really do go to their precincts and cast ballots, election after election, and they don't like to take crap from anyone.

Posted by: alance | April 21, 2008 9:09 PM | Report abuse

Well put, mlbrooks.

Posted by: P Diddy | April 21, 2008 8:33 PM | Report abuse

And the DNC is who. Oh yeah the folks that brought us the most pathetic primary season in memory or the history of the US.

Posted by: Robinhood | April 21, 2008 8:31 PM | Report abuse

Now here's a cheery thought to close the day on... Under the global economy, corporations scour the globe for the cheapest prodction costs. Under that model, American workers cannot hope to compete with the lowest cost labor markets around the world, so we have winessed the outsourcing of jobs and production capacity (and technolohies along with them). Now, an intersting article in an Australian newspaper today discusses the wshortage of some basic food items in Japan. It seems that corporation can scour the world, looking for the best price for their food items, too. So Japan has to do without butter and lard ....no baking! (The Chinese *love* butter and most dairy products and have been bidding the price up in competition with American consumers.) We are seeing shortages of some basic grain items like wheat and flour, but especially corn and rice. Both it seems are just excellent basics for producing ethanol, which is already worth A LOT more in many places in the world than as a food item in the U.S. So, the porr DNC may be cash poor, but you, my fellow citizens, are, too! Not only will you get to pay much higher prices for basic food stuffs, but you can count on shortages. So, when your children are hungry, when you get to choose between gasoline to get you to work and medicine and food (assuming you are lucky enough to have a job), you can thank the pundits and your representatives for the "global economy". Now, I genuinely hope that voters DEMAND an additional debate and that, instead of questions straight out of a gossip column, I hope the moderators ask the candidates about their plans to end our experiment in globalization, end guest worker programs like the H1-B and L-1 visas, bring back tariff's on goods and services produced offshore by U.S. and "multinational" corporations, etc. These are questions more than 70% of voters want answered, not just by the Presidential candidates, by by the Congressational Representatives and Senators, too. I expect that more than a few political careers hinge on how they would answer such questions if they were asked. So, Chris, why aren't these questions asked? I see you on MSNBC all the time, why not raise the issue? Instead of the MSM's wrapping these specific issues up under the heading "The Economy" and hiding them, bring this out into the open for an honest debate and discussion before Canada and all of the corporate hacks get well underway with their lipstick on a pig campaign?

Posted by: mibrooks27 | April 21, 2008 8:13 PM | Report abuse

Considering the Washington Post is running free ads for McCain posing as news stories, I doubt the DNC can match them. Our media is sold out to Big Business and they don't care if we inherit a scorched earth from their meddling. As long as they can get the big corporate tax breaks and skirt FCC monopoly laws they will support McCain. Cillizza is by far the most blatant propagandist working for the Post. Oh....Rove and Gerson may be worse but they are too obvious to be cataegorized as propagandists.
As for the ads portraying McCain as Bush all over again, that is a more accurate assesment of McCain than anything you can read, listen to, or watch on the now exposed Pentagon News Networks.

Posted by: Kevin Morgan | April 21, 2008 7:42 PM | Report abuse

proud I presume you learned in high school civics how filibusters and clotures work? You remember those things Sen Cornyn wanted to nuke in 2004 and now use with joy to stop everything Dems in Congress can block. Did they also teach you how to spell hypocrisy or chutzpah since you constantly whine that the GOP has learned how to effectively use the sam filibuster I am sure you agreed needed to destroy.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 21, 2008 7:40 PM | Report abuse

Chris:

The question in your title implies a Viagara-like doubt about the DNC -

Is this really your opinion?


Or is it directed at Howard Dean?

Isn't it a little off the mark to have an "independent" group airing DNC talking points practically word for word?

Where is the limit there?


And Chris I hope this does not indicate some intimate knowledge.


Posted by: Words of Wisdom | April 21, 2008 7:27 PM | Report abuse

Your analysis neglects the fact that the race between Obama and Clinton is sucking all the political air out of the room. While it isn't great for the Democrats that they are tearing at one another, McCain has trouble getting a word edgewise. His actions right now are pretty much irrelevant. I predict this current tour will create about as much excitement as his "personal heritage tour" or whatever it was that he called it. He is hoping it will at least create a local stir in a few key communities - Youngstown, OH is a good place for him to go - but it will all be overshadowed by the Obama-Clinton race nationwide. This will remain true until Obama and his allies put an end to the Democratic campaign drama - probably after the primaries in June, though it may have been wrapped up after the Indiana-North Carolina round. There is plenty of time for negative attacks all around, so fret not, Democrats! As Hillary presciently said in December, "this is the fun part." I am being ironic.

Posted by: Chuck | April 21, 2008 7:25 PM | Report abuse

Swifboating of McCain begins by the bitter Democratic Hate Machine.

Posted by: Kerri | April 21, 2008 7:16 PM | Report abuse

"He might be the most skilled executive who ever ran for the office. Just astounding.

Posted by: cettel | April 21, 2008 4:50 PM


more proof obama supports are just not bright

Posted by: Anonymous | April 21, 2008 7:11 PM | Report abuse

Democrats fall campaign slogan - "Your life sucks because we said so. So vote for us you miserable depressed people of America or John McCain will steal all your money and beat you to a pulp".

Posted by: Dave! | April 21, 2008 4:39 PM

With right direction and Bush approval numbers both south of 25%, the D's GE slogan doesn't need to be much more than "We're not Republicans. Vote for us."

Posted by: novamatt | April 21, 2008 7:10 PM | Report abuse

proudtobeGOP
You mean we should just overlook the fact that the Dem Congress has accomplished nothing thus far?

How many vetoes has Bush done to the Dems in the last 1 1/2 years compared to the freespending repubs the prior 6 1/2 years ?

How many filibusters have your boys done in the last 1 1/2 years ?

Everytime the Dems try and do something your boys purposely screw them. Nice guys,thinkning of their country last,party first. You guys have done such a wonderful job screwing everything up,in what,7 years?
I hope you like paying $4.00 a gallon for gas and milk.
I'm just glad you didn't use proudamerican as a name,because your the farthest thing from an American there is. Just a moron.

Posted by: jime | April 21, 2008 6:55 PM | Report abuse


Nothing is going to cure what Hillary has done to the party.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | April 21, 2008 6:47 PM | Report abuse

I disagree with the poster that said McCain needs to pick a VP right away...McCain should probably wait until the democrats pick candidate before choosing a VP. A VP that is good against Clinton may not be good against Obama.

Posted by: Wolfcastle | April 21, 2008 6:46 PM | Report abuse

$3.47 a gallon: The average price of self-serve regular gasoline on Friday, according to the Lundberg Survey. Mid-grade was at $3.59 and premium was $3.70. "The national average price for regular gasoline rose nearly 16 cents in the past two weeks. ... Regular is up 60 cents from a year ago."

The economy has soared past Iraq as the top problem on the minds of voters. "With growing layoffs, tight credit and an ailing housing market, 67 percent say the economy is an extremely important issue, up from 46 percent in November. Gasoline prices follow close behind at 59 percent."

The state of the economy is also the top concern for voters between the ages of 18 and 29, according to a new CBS News/MTV poll. Seventy-five percent of young adults say that "the state of the economy is bad," and only one-third believe "their job prospects are excellent or good."

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made a surprise visit to Baghdad yesterday, where a ceremony featuring Rice in the Green Zone was delayed by a "duck and cover" alert, "one of several during her six-hour visit to the fortified compound housing the U.S. Embassy and much of the Iraqi government." There were three separate rocket attacks during her visit.

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has backed down from a proposal to establish a League of Democracies after experts warned it "could damage U.S. interests by alienating countries such as China, Saudi Arabia and Russia." McCain now "says the group would not use military force, and would be an informal organization."

Posted by: gas keeps going up.. and wll keep going up | April 21, 2008 6:45 PM | Report abuse

In midst of recession, Halliburton rakes in billions.
Economists are forecasting a recession, U.S. company profits in almost all sectors are taking a hit, and many American families cannot say they are better off than they were eight years ago. But one giant oil services company is weathering the economic storm quite well. Reuters reports Halliburton "said on Monday that first-quarter profit rose 6 percent as customers in markets including the Middle East and Asia spent more on oil and gas exploration and production":

In North America, Halliburton's revenue rose 11 percent to $1.86 billion while operating income was nearly flat at $491 million.

Halliburton said revenue outside North America soared 24 percent to $2.16 billion, while operating income rose 21 percent to $422 million.

Posted by: contractors raking in taxpayer dollars | April 21, 2008 6:44 PM | Report abuse


Indeed, McCain has been confused quite a bit lately on a wide range of issues:

- McCain has said waterboarding "should never be condoned in the U.S." but voted against a bill banning the CIA from using torture, specifically including waterboarding.

- McCain says he is "a consistent supporter of educational benefits" for the military but has indicated he will not support the bipartisan 21st Century GI Bill.

- On at least three occasions, McCain baselessly claimed Iran is training Al Qaeda in Iraq but argued the error was an isolated slip of the tongue.

- McCain falsely suggested that Al-Qaeda in Iraq is a "sect of Shi'ites."

- McCain falsely claimed Moktada al-Sadr "declared the cease-fire" after recent fighting in Basra and has said he is both a "major player" in Iraq and that his influence "has been on the wane for a long time."

- Economists and nonpartisan analysts have said recently that the numbers is McCain's economic plan simply "don't add up."

- McCain has made the elimination of earmarks a cornerstone of his presidential campaign but he can't name any he would eliminate.

- In a matter of one day, McCain said Americans are both "better off" and "not better off" than they were before President Bush took office.

Posted by: More Flipflopping | April 21, 2008 6:43 PM | Report abuse

Last February, hard-line conservative evangelical Pastor John Hagee endorsed Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) candidacy for president. Despite Hagee's history of controversial and bigoted comments -- such as calling Catholicism "The Great Wh*re" and blaming Hurricane Katrina on gays -- McCain said he was "very honored" to receive the endorsement, one which he also reportedly sought.

McCain has since both "repudiate[d]" and defended Hagee's intolerant remarks. But McCain's double-talk on Hagee went a step further yesterday on ABC's This Week when he seemed a bit confused as to whether or not he still accepts Hagee's endorsement -- first agreeing that it was a "mistake" to accept it, but less than 30 seconds later saying he is "glad" to have it:

STEPHANOPOULOS: So was it a mistake to solicit and accept his endorsement?

MCCAIN: Oh, probably, sure. [...]

STEPHANOPOULOS: So you no longer want his endorsement?

MCCAIN: I'm glad to have his endorsement.

Posted by: The Great Flipflopper | April 21, 2008 6:41 PM | Report abuse

So far, the Obama campaign has extremely well funded, organized and well disciplined. Compared that to McCain's campaign. McCain is going to be blown out of the water.

McCain sucked up to Bush after Bush's campaign did him dirty. He stood by Bush while Bush took America down the tubes. Bush ignored his occasional, ineffective suggestions that maybe things weren't going well but, by and large, he was an accomplice. He doesn't have the judgment to be President.

Posted by: thebob.bob | April 21, 2008 6:37 PM | Report abuse

Einstein changed most of his theories every year until he worked out the Theory of General Relativity. Politics is the only area of human life that does not reward those who see their mistakes and fix their ideas. In politics it is called "flip flopping." The Democrats can attack McCain for learning and growing - but few voters will see that as a fault.

Posted by: Gary E. Masters | April 21, 2008 6:15 PM | Report abuse

The Dems should campaign on the question: Do you want Bush to have a third term? At every debate opportunity, the Dem candidate should say to McCain: Bush did so and so; are you going to do the same?

Posted by: Eric | April 21, 2008 6:15 PM | Report abuse

Maybe the Clintons can lend the DNC some of their $109 million.... :-)

Seriously tho, as I've said before here, Obama should accept the $85M public financing (more than enough for September, October) and ask his supporters to give their dollars to the DNC, down-ticket Dems, etc. That would be doubly positive for Obama because it would make him look like the leader of his party (as the nominee is) and would call McCain's bluff.

Posted by: egc52556 | April 21, 2008 6:12 PM | Report abuse

"Proud":
The Dems haven't done any worse than the morally bankrupt bunch of criminals you defend on a daily basis.
And Nancy Pelosi or Harry reid could NEVER bring as much shame to Congress as self-serving scum like DeLay, Boehner, T. Lott, etc.
Go ahead and point your finger all you want, "proud" -- there will be several pointing back right at you.
Enjoy living in your right-wing fantasy world and spitting on the ideals that made this nation great.
The next time you want to blame someone for the mess this country is in today, take a good, hard in the mirror, "proud."
The rest of us are living in the real world and will work to improve this country, regardless of clueless Bush enablers like yourself.
Hope you're happy ...

Posted by: vegasgirl | April 21, 2008 6:11 PM | Report abuse

"Hell, I'd kick Grassley's a$$ if I had the chance. The guy is THE most annoying person in the Senate and gives Iowans a very bad name."

No, "proud" -- I think Grassely would kick *yours*.
If you are what represents the GOP today, no wonder why that party is in so much trouble.
Please stop embarrassing yourself, please.
You really don't help John McCain, much either.

Posted by: vegasgirl | April 21, 2008 6:05 PM | Report abuse

"And please don't try blaming the Demos, because they've not had much power for nearly 15 years."

You mean we should just overlook the fact that the Dem Congress has accomplished nothing thus far? We should just forget all their campaign promises and give them a pass. They tried, they failed. oh well.

"We're lousy at governing and hard stuff like policy and nominating a candidate, but give us a crack at the presidency anyway."

With a 70% disapproval rating, they can't do much worse, but I'm sure Harry and Nancy are trying.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 21, 2008 6:04 PM | Report abuse

NO ONE EVER ASKED IF THE DEMS COULD KEEP IT UP WHEN BUBBA WAS IN OFFICE!

Posted by: MISTER CAPS | April 21, 2008 6:01 PM | Report abuse

I'm going to give the devil his due, and commend proudtobeGOP for hanging in there and not whining about telling on people if people disagree with him.

Posted by: bondjedi | April 21, 2008 6:00 PM | Report abuse

Dear "proud"tobeGOP:

Your posts are made up of juvenile cheap shots -- because that's ALL your and your morally bankrupt party have to offer this country: Failed war, losy economy, no fiscal responsibility, no ethics ...
Need I go on? And all of it happened on your party's watch.
(And please don't try blaming the Demos, because they've not had much power for nearly 15 years.)
Maybe it's you, "proud," who should be shouting.

Posted by: vegasgirl | April 21, 2008 5:58 PM | Report abuse

Dear "proud"tobeGOP:

Your posts are made up of juvenile cheap shots -- because that's ALL your and your morally bankrupt party have to offer this country: Failed war, losy economy, no fiscal responsibility, no ethics ...
Need I go on? And all of it happened on your party's watch.
(And please don't try blaming the Demos, because they've not had much power for nearly 15 years.)
Maybe it's you, "proud," who should be shouting.

Posted by: vegasgirl | April 21, 2008 5:58 PM | Report abuse

Can the Dems Keep it Up?

It might be "hard," but unless the Dems commit some mighty "boners," we will be "erecting" monuments to President Obama in a generation or two.

Posted by: Unity '08 | April 21, 2008 5:57 PM | Report abuse

The Washington Post ran a story on McCain's temper over the weekend, but the piece seems to be falling apart amid accusations that the reporter distorted, exaggerated, and perhaps even fabricated some of the events he described. McCain aide Mark Salter responded yesterday that:


If one half of it were true, it would give me pause. As it happens, the piece is 99% fiction....

The story about the Young Republican in 1982 is entirely fictional. The Bob Smith incident is entirely fictional. The Karen Johnson story is entirely fictional. Most of the others are exaggerated beyond recognition.


Salter also claims that his own words were taken out of context to exaggerate the details of an argument between Sens. McCain and Grassley in 1992. Now Salter's version has been confirmed by former Senator Bob Kerrey.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0408/Bob_Kerrey_defends_McCain_on_temper.html

Jonathan Martin reports that Kerrey disputes the Post's account, which had him intervening to prevent the argument from turning physical:


"First, I did nothing to intervene; the two Senators worked it out on their own," Kerrey wrote in a comment posted this morning under his name at 7:45....

The two senators were both "extremely angry," Kerrey adds, but McCain was "at no time threatening."

Kerrey, a Democrat and Hillary Clinton backer, concludes: "My experience is that [McCain's] anger always has a purpose and in this case the purpose was to defeat Senator Grassley's argument which he did decisively."


Everybody knows McCain has a temper, but none of these events seems to have happened the way they were reported, if at all. Still, and maybe it's just the warmonger in me, I tend to think McCain's disposition is more of an asset than a liability. Don't the American people want a president who's actually pissed off when he gets a phone call at 3 am saying the Iranians, or al Qaeda, or William Ayers (or all three working together) have just killed a bunch of Americans.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Weblogs/TWSFP/TWSFPView.asp#6526

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


Hell, I'd kick Grassley's a$$ if I had the chance. The guy is THE most annoying person in the Senate and gives Iowans a very bad name.

McCain's disposition is an asset. I don't want a namby-pamby present-voter in the Oval office. And if we're going to have a D, at least Hillary's got balls.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 21, 2008 5:42 PM | Report abuse

It's inconceivable someone could be "proudtobeGOP". Murder, torture, incompetence, BushCheneyMcCain. You're proud. No, you've just got no standards whatsoever. Glad to beat the GOP. Na na na, hey, hey, hey Good riddance.

Posted by: Tim from Silver Spring | April 21, 2008 5:35 PM | Report abuse

reason, No need to hurry on that. The vetting process takes quite a while, if done right, and there's no benefit from announcing it before the Dimocrat convention. We should let them wallow for a while in thier own mud of their nominating process. :)

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 21, 2008 5:21 PM | Report abuse

This is the Democratic National Committee's first ad against McCain. It seeks to capitalize on the public's anxiety over the economy.

Are you "Better Off"?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=2188

.

Posted by: Frank, Austin TX | April 21, 2008 5:20 PM | Report abuse

John McCain needs to name a running mate quickly. He needs a running mate that has strengths in his weakness, namely the economy. I've heard the name Rob Portman, former US congressman of Ohio & Bush's choice for Trade commissioner of the US this term, thrown around. In my view, this would be a very bad pick for McCain. Portman is in line with the Bush doctrine and would not be a positive running mate for McCain. TimPawlenty (2 term gov. of Minn., who has balanced a budget several years running), Mark Sanford (gov. of South Carolina. A favorite with the Club for Growth, who doesn't like McCain, & a staunch opponent of pork barrell spending) & Mitt Romney (we all know who he is) is 3 names being punched around. In my view, Pawlenty is the obvious choice. But, McCain could surprise and pick someone else. I believe the R ticket will & should be McCain/Pawlenty in 08.

Posted by: reason | April 21, 2008 5:16 PM | Report abuse

What the Dems need is an end to the Hillary taking everyone down with her show. The Dems need to get behind the candidate and fine tune the message and then go out and win this election, which should be alot easier than many now think

Posted by: nclwtk | April 21, 2008 5:15 PM | Report abuse

That must be bondjedi the imposter, again. Funny how most of your posts include some homophobic reference. And I thought you Dems liked diversity.

guess what...if I was gay I'd still be a Republican. But Chelsea will never be "cute". yuck.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 21, 2008 5:12 PM | Report abuse

"Can They Keep It Up?"

By the time we're through with McShame, America will be asking if HE can keep it up.

Obama is clearly more virile.

Posted by: bondjedi | April 21, 2008 5:10 PM | Report abuse

How come no one is commenting on Chelsea making the rounds of the gay/lesbian bar scene with Governor Rendell? I was out with some fellow Log Cabin Republicans at Bump, and thought she looked fabulous.

Posted by: ProudtobeGOP | April 21, 2008 5:08 PM | Report abuse

Chris asks
"DNC Hits McCain, But Can They Keep It Up?"

Do they have to? The reason I ask is because I'm not sure who's out on the airwaves on behalf of McCain. While McCain has a chance to 'define' himself before the Dems know whom their candidate is, does McCain have any money with which to run his own ads? Just asking the question makes me wonder if the DNC is trying to force his hand - and make him spend money now that will firstly reduce what's available to spend later - and secondly force him into spending privately raised money so he can't take the public money & thus can't hold Obama to the pledge to negotiate a publicly funded general election.

Posted by: bsimon | April 21, 2008 5:02 PM | Report abuse

Chris asks
"DNC Hits McCain, But Can They Keep It Up?"

Do they have to? The reason I ask is because I'm not sure who's out on the airwaves on behalf of McCain. While McCain has a chance to 'define' himself before the Dems know whom their candidate is, does McCain have any money with which to run his own ads? Just asking the question makes me wonder if the DNC is trying to force his hand - and make him spend money now that will firstly reduce what's available to spend later - and secondly force him into spending privately raised money so he can't take the public money & thus can't hold Obama to the pledge to negotiate a publicly funded general election.

Posted by: bsimon | April 21, 2008 5:02 PM | Report abuse

Dem campaign slogan, Part Deaux

"Your life sucks because we said so and everybody knows it's true so just admit it. Vote for us you miserable, depressed, bitter people of America or John McCain will steal all your money and beat you to a pulp with that gun you're clinging to".

YEEEEEAAAAAARRGGHHHH!!!

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 21, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

It's not just money; it's also strategy and smarts.

I was just now looking at the Obama campaign's internal primary-contest projections which leaked out on February 6th, and their predictions have turned out to be awesomely accurate. For each primary, they projected very closely to the final result not only the winner in each state, but the percentages for each of the two candidates, and also the numbers of delegates that would be won by each candidate. Only they predicted a slight loss in Maine, which they instead won. Their prediction for Pennsylvania was Clinton 52%, Obama 47%; Clinton 83 delegates, Obama 75 delegates.

We'll see.

But based on the astounding competency of Obama's campaign thus far, I want this person as our President. He might be the most skilled executive who ever ran for the office. Just astounding.

Posted by: cettel | April 21, 2008 4:50 PM | Report abuse

I guess somehow in Democratic logic, this ad falls into the hope and optimism of the Obama campaign. But then, if life was good, there would already be hope and Americans might not need Obama as much.

Democrats fall campaign slogan - "Your life sucks because we said so. So vote for us you miserable depressed people of America or John McCain will steal all your money and beat you to a pulp".

Posted by: Dave! | April 21, 2008 4:39 PM | Report abuse

"The dearth of money coming into the DNC and the lack of real dollars being spent on outside groups' attempts to define McCain present a serious problem for Democrats if the race between Obama and Clinton goes all the way to June 3 or beyond."

A touch on the hyperbolic side, don't you think?

Posted by: bsimon | April 21, 2008 4:35 PM | Report abuse

The downside of the extended campaign is Clinton/Obama are sucking up money the DNC could use right now.

Will it change between June and the election?

Posted by: rhinohide | April 21, 2008 4:19 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company