Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Q Poll: Voters Reject McCain Economic Approach


Arizona Sen. John McCain must find a way to make the economic issue his own, or risk losing "economic voters." (Gerald Herbert -- Associated Press)

It's not news that the focus on the economy over the past month has hurt John McCain's chances at the presidency.

But, new polling in four battleground states -- Colorado, Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin -- conducted by Quinnipiac University for washingtonpost.com and the Wall Street Journal suggests that McCain's own reaction to the economic crisis that began with the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac early last month has done much to erode his position in the contest. (See poll highlights.)

Asked whether they thought McCain had "shown effective leadership" in dealing with the financial crisis, voters roundly panned the Arizona senator.

In each state, less than one in four voters agreed with that statement while a majority of voters said McCain had not demonstrated leadership during the recent crisis. (Full numbers after the jump.)

Obama's numbers on handling the crisis were significantly stronger -- though far from rosy. In three of the four states a small plurality said he had effectively dealt with the financial fallout while in Wisconsin 44 percent said Obama had done well and a similar 44 percent said he had not.

Looking deeper into the economic numbers, it's evident that the last few weeks have eroded voter confidence, which was already shaky, in McCain's ability to handle financial issues.

Asked which candidate better understood the economy, Obama held leads over McCain ranging from 12 points (in Colorado) to 21 points (in Wisconsin). These numbers mirror data from a Washington Post/ABC News poll released on Monday in which 53 percent of voters said they trusted Obama on the economy while just 37 percent opted for McCain.

The widening trust gap on the economy is absolutely critical given the prominence of the issue in key states and nationally.

In the Quinnipiac poll, more than six in ten voters in Michigan said the economy was the "single most important issue" in deciding their vote; 58 percent said the same in the Minnesota and Wisconsin surveys.

Nationally, the story is the same. Fifty-three percent of voters in the Post/ABC poll named the economy as the most critical issue facing the country; no other issue scored in double digits.

The data is determinative. McCain must -- and we can't stress this enough -- find a way to reclaim (or claim) the economic issue as his own. He simply cannot afford to lose "economic" voters by double digits given the raw number of people in battleground states who see the economy as the only issue of any import in this election.

McCain is expected to roll out a series of economic proposals today. Will this be the first step in the attempted reclamation of the issue?

The Economy and Leadership: John McCain

Do you think John McCain has shown effective leadership in dealing with the financial crisis facing the nation?

The Economy and Leadership: Barack Obama

Do you think Barack Obama has shown effective leadership in dealing with the financial crisis facing the nation?

By Chris Cillizza  |  October 14, 2008; 6:50 AM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: A Florida (House) Bombshell
Next: What's Next for HRC?

Comments

It just goes to show you that there are a lot of idiots out there taking these polls. Have these people who give Obama high marks for his ability to fix the financial mess ever actually did any research into Obama's record? He has no more expertise on the economy than McCain does. Before this election can anyone even think of something Obama did as Senator that benefited the economy other than support not regulating Fannie and Freddie more stringently. Actually can anymone name a single major piece of legislation Obama has authored? The media, better known as Obama's cheerleading squad, has been the one pushing the fallacy that Obama and the Democrats are better at managing the economy. Where's the facts backing this idiotic talking point? Do people think that the Democrats are economic experts because the economy did well during the Clinton presidecncy? Do they remember that the Republicans ran congress for most of Clintons time in office or that the economy went down the toilet just as he was leaving office or that up until a few months ago the economy had been doing pretty well most of the Bush administration? How about the fact that the Democrats have been running congress now for almost two years and they are the ones who actually pass the laws? Bush may be the President but he can only propose laws. I thik most people would benefit from some American Government traiing. Without congressional approval nothing he proposes can happen. As a matter of fact President Bush and congressional Republicans proposed changes to reign in Freddie and Fannie's toxic mortgages but the Democrats shot it down, not wanting to cut back on loaning money to people who couldn't afford to pay it back. Where's the media investigation into the Democrats culpability in the financial meltdown? You'll never see it because it doesn't help get Obama elected.

Posted by: RobT1 | October 15, 2008 8:46 AM | Report abuse

I've been trying to learn more about this so called 'hero' & maverick John McCain. It is true that he placed way at the bottom of a class of around 900 naval academy graduates. But because of his name and family (father and grand fathers were 4 star admirals) he was given a pass and made a pilot. He managed to destroy 5 fighter jets and at least for one of them the navy said it was pilot error. Each fighter jet costs millions of dollars of tax payer money. That is what John McCain accomplished as a pilot. On his mission to Vietnam before he could destroy any of their power stations his plane was shot down. He wasn't very smart. In his 26 years as senator, he is known most for his role in the Keating 5 scandal than anything else. His McCain/Feingold bill to reduce soft money abuse in the senate and congress has not acheived the desired results. Lobbyists are still pouring money into our politicians pockets in Washington. You can find a lot of those same lobbyists now running the McCain campaign. I can bet a $100 that if you test his IQ it will be in the < 110 range. Very low for somebody who is supposed to have some wisdom from being that old.

Overall McCain has turned out to be a McIdiot.

Posted by: JimFargo | October 15, 2008 5:47 AM | Report abuse

It is a basic question of trust and the voters are deciding they cannot trust John McCain to make decisions that are in voter's best interest. The Palin pick, while first applauded, has turned out to be the stake in the heart of the Republican Party. History will write that it was the McCain campaign's fatal decision.

Posted by: prbob | October 14, 2008 9:00 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD, meet 37th and O.
You guys should start your owm country where everyone is white with a red neck, no one can get an education unless they say the N word three times, turn around and say "I believe in the Arian race", and we will re-write your constitution to say "keep off the grass, don't think, and don't trust them feriners."
Seriously. Washington Post, can't you DO anything about who can post here and what they say? It's been a long time since I've seen the N word in print. No thank you.

Posted by: sheridan1 | October 14, 2008 8:55 PM | Report abuse

poll says roll Obama roll where Sarah's going,,,, I don't know...

I say Roll roll Roll Obama Roll

Posted by: grandstreetfund | October 14, 2008 7:53 PM | Report abuse

Palin's inciting and then refusing to put a stop to the violent crowd rhetoric certainly puts her right up there with Hitler and Stalin. I think todays wire story on alcohol use and brain shrinkage does a lot to clarify the idiocy of "Joe Six-Pack nation" - a bunch of porn lovin', beer-guzzlin', gun-totin' mavericks with small brains. Nuff said.

Posted by: JohnnyR1 | October 14, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

When asked how living in the state closest to Russia gave her foreign-policy experience....

Palin responded with this blathering stupidity...

"It's very important when you consider even national-security issues with Russia as Putin rears his head and comes into the airspace of the United States of America. Where—where do they go?
It's Alaska. It's just right over the border.

It is from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there.

They are right next to—to our state."
. "It is from Alaska that we send out those …"

[Ridiculious.....Unless Putin's head is 900 miles wide and can fly...]

peeeuuu Palin has been given a set of talking points by campaign advisers, simple ideological lies that she repeats and repeats as long as she can.

"Domestic Terrorist..."

She sounds like a retarted parrot...

But if forced off those pathetically rehearsed lines, what she has to say is often, quite frankly, moronic...

Couric asked her a smart question about the proposed $700 billion bailout of the American financial sector.

peeeuuu Palin had tried to get her empty skull and longhair around the problem in this crisis is that credit and liquidity in the financial system has dried up, and that that's why, in the estimation of Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and Fed chairman Ben Bernanke, the government needs to step in to buy up Wall Street's most toxic liabilities.

And peeuuu Palins further non-sensical rantings...

COURIC: Why isn't it better, Governor Palin, to spend $700 billion helping middle-class families who are struggling with health care, housing, gas and groceries; allow them to spend more and put more money into the economy instead of helping these big financial institutions that played a role in creating this mess?

PALIN: That's why I say I, like every American I'm speaking with, were ill about this position that we have been put in where it is the taxpayers looking to bail out. But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health-care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy, helping the—it's got to be all about job creation, too, shoring up our economy and putting it back on the right track. So health-care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions and tax relief for Americans. And trade, we've got to see trade as opportunity, not as a competitive, scary thing. But one in five jobs being created in the trade sector today, we've got to look at that as more opportunity. All those things under the umbrella of job creation. This bailout is a part of that.

What????
What does that mean?
I'll tell you what that means...she is a fraud an "empty bag" with no tricks inside it.....

....A heartbeat away from the Presidency of the United States...

...Please remember that tirade above when you cast your vote November 4th...

Posted by: AlexP1 | October 14, 2008 4:20 PM | Report abuse

caribis writes
"I think it is time to update your swing states. The next poll should target FL, NC, IN and MO."

Good suggestion.

On another front, it looks like Dakota Territory is underpolled. Yesterday's ND poll showed a surprising - though slight - lead for Obama. SD hasn't been polled in over three weeks. Neither state is a focus of either campaign, but surprises could yet lurk in the tallgrass prairie.

Posted by: bsimon1 | October 14, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

Oh, look. Another of McCain's staffers worked for an evil dictator -- one Saddam Hussein.


"The Washington lobbyist John McCain has named to head his presidential transition team aided an influence effort on behalf of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein to ease international sanctions against his regime.

The two lobbyists who McCain aide William Timmons worked closely with over a five year period on the lobbying campaign later either pleaded guilty to or were convicted of federal criminal charges that they had acted as unregistered agents of Saddam Hussein's government.

During the same period beginning in 1992, Timmons worked closely with the two lobbyists, Samir Vincent and Tongsun Park, on a previously unreported prospective deal with the Iraqis in which they hoped to be awarded a contract to purchase and resell Iraqi oil. Timmons, Vincent, and Park stood to share at least $45 million if the business deal went through.

Timmons' activities occurred in the years following the first Gulf War, when Washington considered Iraq to be a rogue enemy state and a sponsor of terrorism. His dealings on behalf of the deceased Iraqi leader stand in stark contrast to the views his current employer held at the time."

Posted by: drindl | October 14, 2008 3:15 PM | Report abuse

Palin made a call in appearance on the Rush's show today. When asked about the tone of her attacks during her rallies she said and I quote "I have nothing to lose". Even Rush was a little taken back. This woman doesn't seem to give a sh&t anymore. She has gone from a stooge who they could tell to say anything, to a loose cannon driven by her own ambition. If you watch her now when she and Mccain appear together she will interrupt Mccain and just go off on some tangent of her own often having to be corrected by Mccain. They have no control of her anymore, she thinks she is a star. I know for a fact she is fielding several book offers in the millions of dollars as well as a made for TV movie deal. It is looking to any rational person Mccain and Palin are not going to win and she has plans of her own now. I suspect she will be telling stories and naming names. She is going to destroy what even legacy Mccain would have had left when this is over. I have to tell you I will probably read it. I seriously doubt she has any real interest in being VP with all the headaches it will entail. She can't wait to move on to her new life as a celebrity. Certainly a commentator on Fox with a million dollar contract. Who wants to be VP when you can be Paris Hilton so to speak. Mccain had no idea what a real self centered monster he hooked up with. She will destroy Mccain and become a star in the mean time. We will not have heard the end Of Sarah Palin after Nov. 4, but I bet Mccain will wish he never heard of her at all.

Posted by: popasmoke | October 14, 2008 3:07 PM | Report abuse

Today the Wall Street Journal delved into Obama's claim that he will cut taxes for '95%' of America. They said:

"It's a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he's also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%. But how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all? There are several sleights of hand, but the most creative is to redefine the meaning of 'tax cut.'"
(read the Wall Street Journal to find out more)

Posted by: ShawninMI | October 14, 2008 3:06 PM | Report abuse

Congratulations to Paul Krugman!


Back in the day, August 8, 2005 to be exact, the conservative economic "experts" (who have also endorsed McCain) at Powerline wrote this gem:


"It must be depressing to be Paul Krugman. No matter how well the economy performs, Krugman’s bitter vendetta against the Bush administration requires him to hunt for the black lining in a sky full of silvery clouds. With the economy now booming, what can Krugman possibly have to complain about? In today’s column, titled That Hissing Sound, Krugman says there is a housing bubble, and it’s about to burst.."

"There are, of course, obvious differences between houses and stocks. Most people own only one house at a time, and transaction costs make it impractical to buy and sell houses the way you buy and sell stocks. Krugman thinks the fact that James Glassman doesn’t buy the bubble theory is evidence in its favor, but if you read Glassman’s article on the subject, you’ll see that he actually makes some of the same points that Krugman does. But he argues, persuasively in my view, that there is little reason to fear a catastrophic collapse in home prices."

"Krugman will have to come up with something much better, I think, to cause many others to share his pessimism."
.
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/011291.php
.


The "depressed" Krugman can cry himself to sleep with his Nobel Prize, as well as the realization that yes, he was right and the knuckledragging Republican wingnutosphere was once again proven tragically wrong.

Posted by: DrainYou | October 14, 2008 3:05 PM | Report abuse


Check this blood-curdling moment at a Sarah Palin rally in Pennsylvania today, courtesy of the Times-Tribune:

Chris Hackett addressed the increasingly feisty crowd as they await the arrival of Gov. Palin.

Each time the Republican candidate for the seat in the 10th Congressional District mentioned Barack Obama the crowd booed loudly.

One man screamed "kill him!"

Welcome to the new Nazi Party.

Posted by: drindl | October 14, 2008 3:03 PM | Report abuse

I think it is time to update your swing states. The next poll should target FL, NC, IN and MO.

Posted by: caribis | October 14, 2008 2:54 PM | Report abuse

37th and O Street,

You never offered any proof of your claim about Senator Obama being elected Editor of the Havard Law Review solely because it would be "cool". VirginiaGal2 and others have lampooned you enough, but I will add that you're proof that Affirmative Action many still be needed.

By the way, did you attend Havard?

Posted by: tcraft1 | October 14, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

"List of all the references that DDawd has listed to back him up ...

Hmmm, none. Are you sure it is I that am projecting there, idiot drooling DDAWD?"

Well, the only claim I've made is that you're wrong about everything. I don't really need to provide a link to the page that you're currently reading, do I?

Well, if you insist

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/10/q_poll_voters_reject_mccain_ec.html

Ok, now your turn. For starters, you can show me the budget breakdown and how 40% of it is for handouts.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 14, 2008 2:43 PM | Report abuse

And he never will, DDAWD -- because it's all in his sick, twisted mind.

Posted by: drindl | October 14, 2008 2:41 PM | Report abuse

So because McCain spoke at one meeting that ACORN was one of 20 plus sponsors that McCain is in bed with ACORN.

Hmmm, does that make any sense to anyone?

How about the fact that Obama has spent over 15 years supporting ACORN directly? Now that is a definite connection.

But here is the idiot DEM attempt to connect McCain to ACORN. He spoke at a general immigration event where ACORN was one of over 20 sponsors. Yep, that is how dumb these Obamites are.

Posted by: KMichaels | October 14, 2008 2:33 PM | Report abu

----------

A little truth
Barack Obama Never Organized with ACORN

Discredited Republican voter-suppression guru Ken Blackwell is attacking Barack Obama with naked lies about his supposed connection to ACORN.

• Fact: Barack was never an ACORN community organizer.
• Fact: ACORN never hired Obama as a trainer, organizer, or any type of employee.
• Fact: ACORN was not part of Project Vote, the successful voter registration drive Barack ran in 1992.

In his capacity as an attorney, Barack represented ACORN in a successful lawsuit alongside the U.S. Department of Justice against the state of Illinois to force state compliance with a federal voting access law. For his work helping enforce the law, called “Motor Voter,” Barack received the IVI-IPO Legal Eagle Award in 1995. (For more about Barack’s career.

Ken Blackwell is best known today for disenfranchising Democratic voters in his dual role as Ohio Secretary of State and chair of George Bush’s Ohio campaign in 2004. To see him shed crocodile tears for the integrity of the vote while making accusations about Barack and ACORN with absolutely no basis in fact is disturbing.

In short, It is BS .


Posted by: popasmoke | October 14, 2008 2:40 PM | Report abuse

Wow - KMicahels LIVES on this board. No other life at al. Here all day long.

I guess they have a computer in the day room of his mental hospital.

Posted by: drindl | October 14, 2008 2:39 PM | Report abuse

Both Candidates must focus on touch points of the electorate, and this a big one for all parties and voters: Economic Solutions
1. Eliminate Special Interest
2. Create and developed Economic opportunity not for some but all level from wage workers to executive
3. Control wasted spending from government programs
HOW
Suspend the taxes for corporate and individual tax filers for one year commencing Jan 20, 2009, no more 35% or up to 50% for all, during the year, congress corrects the tax system, eliminates self interests driven by tax code and creation of wealth without taxation. Government employees continue to work at current pay funding
by non income tax programs, Congress, Executive, judicial work for no wages or expenses and if want to stay as an official live off their own saved resources.
RESULT: Individuals have more income to spend and reduce leverage create cash or savings, while corporations can use funds to create new methods of job creation with new competitive global approaches to products and services. This way everyone gets a raise, and can use for spending or recapitalization. How simple is this!!!!

Posted by: gordon9 | October 14, 2008 2:38 PM | Report abuse

37th writes:

"There is NO ARTICLE on the Harvard Law Review

Obama is hiding his relationship with Ayers

OBAMA IS HIDING HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE.

Obama was never truthful with the American People about Obama's relationship with Rev. Wright

OBAMA IS A DECEITFUL LIAR - OBAMA IS NOT BEING TRUTHFUL WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE."


Blah, blah, blah.

You've posted the same points time after time. Repeating it, as McCain has discovered, is not going to win him the WH.

Which is why he's called off his attack puppy Palin and started talking about the economy again. Too late in my view, but not surprising.

This strategy didn't work for Clinton in the primary, what made you folks on the right think it would/will work for McCain ??

Spin it any way you like. But the conservative movement and their representatives in the Republican party are going to spend some time in the politcal wilderness.

Expect Democrats to control the WH for the next eight years and both bodies of the Congress for at least the next four.


Posted by: mathas | October 14, 2008 2:34 PM | Report abuse

So because McCain spoke at one meeting that ACORN was one of 20 plus sponsors that McCain is in bed with ACORN.

Hmmm, does that make any sense to anyone?

How about the fact that Obama has spent over 15 years supporting ACORN directly? Now that is a definite connection.

But here is the idiot DEM attempt to connect McCain to ACORN. He spoke at a general immigration event where ACORN was one of over 20 sponsors. Yep, that is how dumb these Obamites are.

Posted by: KMichaels | October 14, 2008 2:33 PM | Report abuse

List of all the references that DDawd has listed to back him up ...

Hmmm, none. Are you sure it is I that am projecting there, idiot drooling DDAWD?

I guess your demand for references only applies to others and not you.

You are such an idiot pud.

Posted by: KMichaels | October 14, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD (incredulous that facts back up what his opposition says) writes: "By the way, when you spout off things like 40% of government spending is handouts, feel free to include some sources."

First off, DDawd, when have you been into including sources in your claims? What maybe 1% of the time? Sounds like you are quite the hypocrite, in addition to being quite the dimwit.

Secondly, just google US Budget Pie Chart and you will see the details. 40% is being understated if anything.

Posted by: KMichaels | October 14, 2008 2:28 PM | Report abuse

"See what I mean? Witness the incredible talent republicans have for projection. Everything they accuse you of is precisely applicable to them."

It's just funny how the guy has yet to cite ONE SINGLE REFERENCE for anything he has said.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 14, 2008 2:28 PM | Report abuse

McCain just blew it (big surprise) with his recent ACORN line of attack...


Miami, Florida – February 20, 2006 ― Leaders from a diverse array of sectors will hold a rally in Miami on Thursday, February 23, 2006, in support of comprehensive immigration reform in an effort to keep immigration reform at the forefront of the public debate. Leaders from both political parties, immigrant communities, labor, business, and religious organizations will gather to call on Washington to enact workable reform.
.
The rally will feature Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) as the headline speaker along with elected officials, immigrants and key local and national leaders. Sen. McCain is one of the chief sponsors of the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act; bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform legislation introduced last Congress and scheduled for consideration by the Senate in the coming weeks. A similar rally with Sen. McCain is planned for New York City on February 27 [...]
.
The rally in Miami is being sponsored by the New American Opportunity campaign (NAOC) in partnership with ACORN, Catholic Legal Services - Archdiocese of Miami, Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center, Florida Immigrant Coalition, Miami Dade College, People for the American Way/Mi Familia Vota en Acción, Service Employees International Union, and UNITE HERE.
.
http://www.mdc.edu/Home/Press/rally.htm
.


That was a great event, and I'm glad McCain headlined it. But it does make it a bit more difficult for his campaign to press this line of attack, doesn't it? They even have a picture of McCain attending the event:
.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/Acorn_pushes_back_hugs_McCain.html?showall
.


The McCain campaign is one of a kind. Every time it settles on a line of attack, it always undermines it days later. It's almost like McCain hired the Three Stooges to run his campaign strategy or something.
.

Posted by: DrainYou | October 14, 2008 2:28 PM | Report abuse

"Did you assume that some portion of 60% means 100% of 60%? I was thinking more like 5% of it would be in line for social handouts like forced minority hiring."

So are you saying that companies that are forced to hire nigggers will actually have their salaries paid for by the government?!

Oh, joy!

Posted by: DDAWD | October 14, 2008 2:27 PM | Report abuse

'what drug are you pumping yourself with? You have failed to say anything truthful. Seriously dude, seek professional help. Your ramblings make you look a bit odd (absolutely insane) to say the least.'

See what I mean? Witness the incredible talent republicans have for projection. Everything they accuse you of is precisely applicable to them.

KMichaels is clearly insane.

Posted by: drindl | October 14, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

It is hardly surprising that McCain's numbers have tanked in the polling.

Rather than focus on policies that will benefit the majority of Americans, he has persisted in his character assassination of Obama (sometimes playing good cop to Palin's bad cop), and his few economic proposals have consistently provided disproportionate benefit to the wealthiest people.

Unfortunately for McCain and Palin, a middle class vote counts the same as an upper class vote, and a rational person's vote counts as much as a raving, hatred-filled bigot's vote. And the former far outnumber the latter in this country.

Posted by: labman57 | October 14, 2008 2:23 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD lying writes:

[My statement: "Nobody says it was. Handouts currently account for 40% directly and then who knows how much of the rest of the 60% of the budget goes to handouts indirectly."]

DDawds conclusion ... There you have it. Every penny spent by the government is a handout. Give this guy a round of applause!

I said that 40% of our budget pays for social programs directly. Then some unknown percentage of the remaining amount goes to some social handouts.

Did you assume that some portion of 60% means 100% of 60%? I was thinking more like 5% of it would be in line for social handouts like forced minority hiring.

Sorry if you are so consistently such a stupid pud DDawd, but hell, that is you all over.

Posted by: KMichaels | October 14, 2008 2:21 PM | Report abuse

By the way, when you spout off things like 40% of government spending is handouts, feel free to include some sources.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 14, 2008 2:18 PM | Report abuse

drindl, what drug are you pumping yourself with? You have failed to say anything truthful. Seriously dude, seek professional help. Your ramblings make you look a bit odd (absolutely insane) to say the least.

Posted by: KMichaels | October 14, 2008 2:17 PM | Report abuse

"Nobody says it was. Handouts currently account for 40% directly and then who knows how much of the rest of the 60% of the budget goes to handouts indirectly."

There you have it. Every penny spent by the government is a handout. Give this guy a round of applause!

Posted by: DDAWD | October 14, 2008 2:16 PM | Report abuse

drindl continues to lie his retarded arse off: "Hitchens has been a rabid neocon for some time now"

Actually Hitchens was asked what party line he currently favors. He replied "DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST."

His words, not mine.

So drindl, do try to keep reminding yourself how your lies are actually facts and that we just refuse to believe them. You are such a moron.

Posted by: KMichaels | October 14, 2008 2:15 PM | Report abuse

You see, folks, the base--the truly moronic, like KMichaels, can't deal with any form of reality. Conservatism is the utopia they have been searching for all thier lives, a fantasy to root their belief system in.

Therefore, it cannot fail. It cannot make mistakes. If a conservative individual or government fails, then it wasn't truly conservative, or not conservative enough. They cling to this, cannot accept reality or accountability or responsible of any kind, because they are children who will never grow up.

In short, these folks are delusional madmen who have so much riding on this identity, like Nazis or Communists--they will very likely resort to mindless violence when their world shortly crumbles.

Posted by: drindl | October 14, 2008 2:15 PM | Report abuse

Idiot DDawd claims: "See, this is why Bush economics and Reagan economics fails."

Actually it did not fail. Supbrime lending failed us and that is supported primarily by DEMOCRATS starting with FDR and ending with OBAMA.

"It is so mindlessly simplistic in its thinking. Government spending isn't all in the forms of handouts."

Nobody says it was. Handouts currently account for 40% directly and then who knows how much of the rest of the 60% of the budget goes to handouts indirectly.

But if you just look at the 40% of our budget paying for social handouts and counted the actual amount of money you would realize that you could pay off our current national debt (100% of it) TEN TIMES OVER. That is correct, if you used the national handout money alone, which is 40% of our current budget the national debt could have been paid off TEN TIMES. In other words, we could take our national debt, multiply it by TEN and then be able to pay it off just with the money spent on social handouts.

Republicans are in favor of fair taxation that goes to pay for general benefits that benefit all Americans. We are not in favor of forced SOCIALIST programs however. Because they prove to be harmful to the vast majority of our American citizens.

Look at blacks for example. Because of their acceptance of Democrat principals they remain one of the most poor, uneducated and harmed segment of our society. I guess the DEMOCRAT dream has not exactly worked for them has it. Yet they continue to support current DEMOCRAT leaders because they were lied to and have made a habit of believing those lies.

Funny how the party that started the KKK (DEMOCRATS) and was supported primarily by DEMOCRATS (90% of KKK were white protestant DEMOCRATS) should gain the favor of the current black community. So much for distribution of the real news I guess.

Posted by: KMichaels | October 14, 2008 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Hitchens has been a rabid neocon for some time now, KMiachels the Unemployable.

And almost the entire R party leadership -- the ones with a semblance of gray matter or cerebral activity -- unlike yourself--are jumping overboard like rats from your sinking party.

Going down fast, as*hat.. Boo Hoo!

Posted by: drindl | October 14, 2008 2:10 PM | Report abuse

"Idiot drindl drooling still: "cadre of conservatives - Frum, David Brooks, Ross Douthat, George Will, in part Charles Krauthammer"

Most of which happen to work for leftist WaPo. Funny how the just barely conservatives are the ones that liberals like to quote."

Ok, so what makes these guys "barely" conservative?

Posted by: DDAWD | October 14, 2008 2:06 PM | Report abuse

curious if you have any idea which party controlled the Whitehouse, House and Senate until January 2007?

Perhaps it was the fault of those Ds who were routinely locked ot of Banking Committee meetings by te R Congress, for not storming the doors and forcing them to regulate the banking industry which Rs call socialist practices.

"it was Bush that wanted Fannie and Freddie regulated "

Posted by: leichtman | October 14, 2008 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Is this the Christopher Hitchens you are currently fawning over, idiot drindl? The guy that supported the Iraq war but other than that is a self declared "Democratic Socialist" similar to Obama who is also on the rolls of the Chicago DSA (Democratic Socialists of America)

Hmmm, I guess it makes sense that he would not be too much in favor or McCain or Palin, considering who he is.

About Hitchens:

"While he was once identified with the Anglo-American radical political left, he has more recently embraced some arguably right-wing causes, notably the Iraq War; the war has had the support of some liberal commentators of Hitchens' acquaintance in the UK and Canada. Formerly a Trotskyist and a fixture in the left wing publications of both the United Kingdom and United States, Hitchens departed from the grassroots of the political left in 1989 after what he called the "tepid reaction" of the European left following Ayatollah Khomeini's issue of a fatwa calling for the murder of Salman Rushdie, but he has stated on the Charlie Rose show aired August 2007 that he remains a "democratic Socialist."

Posted by: KMichaels | October 14, 2008 2:03 PM | Report abuse

"Either way, if Obama loses or Obama wins DDawd will continue to be a jobless idiot. Obamites everywhere will continue to be the same losers they are now. They are dependent on some adult somewhere, possibly in the government, to give them what they need, never thinking or working for themselves."

See, this is why Bush economics and Reagan economics fails. It is so mindlessly simplistic in its thinking. Government spending isn't all in the forms of handouts. Hell, I'd be willing to spend a dollar extra in taxes to improve my roads here. It would definitely be worth it in terms of the damage it would save my car. The biomedical industry receives the vast majority of its funding through NIH. When Bush decided that this wasn't a priority, it hurt the industry and forced many of the best scientists to move away (or never come to the US in the first place)

As a result, healthcare got worse, we lost jobs and income that could have been generated through these advancements.

This isn't handouts or paternalism. This is investment in our society. It's a good thing. No, I can't fit all that on a bumper sticker, but its still better policy than the sloganeering pushed by people like Bush and McCain.

That's why people spend countless numbers of hours making calls and knocking on doors for McCain. This is a country that we all need to invest in. It's our home and we need to protect it from what people like McCain would have it become.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 14, 2008 2:01 PM | Report abuse


"Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) announced a new economic stimulus plan this morning that features a new round of tax cuts for millionaires. McCain campaign spokesperson Nancy Pfotenhauer was stumped this morning when asked how much those new tax cuts would cost and how McCain planned to pay for them. “Obviously…it’s going to cost some amount of money,” she said. "

'Doh!'

Posted by: drindl | October 14, 2008 2:01 PM | Report abuse


Speaking at an Atlantic luncheon Monday, New York Times columnist David Brooks said Gov. Sarah Palin “represents a fatal cancer to the Republican party” because of her tendency to “scorn ideas entirely,” comparing her to President Bush:

[Sarah Palin] represents a fatal cancer to the Republican party. . … Reagan had an immense faith in the power of ideas. But there has been a counter, more populist tradition, which is not only to scorn liberal ideas but to scorn ideas entirely. And I’m afraid that Sarah Palin has those prejudices. I think President Bush has those prejudices.

Posted by: drindl | October 14, 2008 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Ari Melber and Sam Stein both report that at today’s TimeWarner media summit, GOP strategist Matthew Dowd sharply criticized Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) pick of Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) as his running mate:

“They didn’t allow John McCain to pick the person he wanted for Vice President,” Dowd said, referring to Sen. Joe Lieberman, which undercut his experience argument and tethered McCain to the GOP base.

“He knows in his gut he put somebody unqualified on the ballot,” Dowd stressed, “and put the country at risk.”

Dowd joins a growing list of conservatives critical of Palin.

Posted by: drindl | October 14, 2008 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Idiot drindl drooling still: "cadre of conservatives - Frum, David Brooks, Ross Douthat, George Will, in part Charles Krauthammer"

Most of which happen to work for leftist WaPo. Funny how the just barely conservatives are the ones that liberals like to quote.

Funny still that this cadre of conservatives that are not 100% behind Palin and McCain represent less than 1% of 1% of the conservatives.

Posted by: KMichaels | October 14, 2008 1:57 PM | Report abuse

But there seems to be an element now on the right of essentially fear, fear for themselves masquerading as anti-Obama hysteria, that thinks maybe they went too far when they had power and it's going to be awful if and when they don't. I mean, really, read some of the Corner, and there's truly an hysterical quality to some of the stuff. Which the saner Frums and Brooks seem to be trying to kind of talk them down from.

Update: Just saw this Christopher Hitchens' piece: "I used to call myself a single-issue voter on the essential question of defending civilization against its terrorist enemies and their totalitarian protectors, and on that 'issue' I hope I can continue to expose and oppose any ambiguity. Obama is greatly overrated in my opinion, but the Obama-Biden ticket is not a capitulationist one, even if it does accept the support of the surrender faction, and it does show some signs of being able and willing to profit from experience. With McCain, the "experience" is subject to sharply diminishing returns, as is the rest of him, and with Palin the very word itself is a sick joke.

One only wishes that the election could be over now and a proper and dignified verdict rendered, so as to spare democracy and civility the degradation to which they look like being subjected in the remaining days of a low, dishonest campaign."


Posted by: drindl | October 14, 2008 1:57 PM | Report abuse

Lets list some of bondjedis illogical claims.

1) If most people support someone it makes that someone the best person for a job. Hmmm, Hitler was supported by the majority too. I guess Hitler was a great leader after all, using bondjedi logic.

2) Obama being currently ahead in the polls means that he will win. Kerry and Gore were both ahead in the polls as much as Obama currently is and both lost. So much for the accuracy of polls.

3) Bush is the cause of all of our economic problems. Hmmm, the most obvious cause of our current big economic problem is subprime loans and it was Bush that wanted Fannie and Freddie regulated (they hold over 50% of the subprime loans) and it was Democrats like Obama that were against further regulating Fannie and Freddie.

When it comes to the specifics bondjedi is full of crap.

Posted by: KMichaels | October 14, 2008 1:54 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps it is our job at NRO is tell our readers only what they want to hear, without much regard to whether it is true. Perhaps it is our duty just to keep smiling and to insist that everything is dandy - that John McCain's economic policies make sense, that his selection of Sarah Palin was an act of statesmanship, that she herself is the second coming of Anna Schwartz, and that nobody but an over-educated snob would ever suggest otherwise.

Who knows? Perhaps if I do that enthusiastically enough, somebody somewhere might even pour me a free drink or invite me onto the airwaves for a 3 minute Monday morning sunrise interview. And after all: What else could I possibly want?

For a few weeks now, especially since the Palin nomination, one has noted a cadre of conservatives - Frum, David Brooks, Ross Douthat, George Will, in part Charles Krauthammer -- expressing not just dismay at the pick, but more broadly kind of nudging the right to an acceptance of its probable loss of the election next month. And a parallel incredible resistance to accept that possibility - a rejection of the legitimacy that essentially Obama could be elected -- by some on the right, a kind of plan to go down in flames, which at times has seemed willfully, insanely over the top as well as deeply irresponsible. Fighting has very much turned inwards, and Frum's patience seems to be wearing thin.

Posted by: drindl | October 14, 2008 1:54 PM | Report abuse

David Frum, noted conservative, in the National Review:

I receive emails from readers every day who tell me that the only possible motive I could have for expressing doubts about the McCain ticket is my desire to attend cocktail parties, appear on TV, apply for a job in the Obama administration etc. Now I see this line of accusation appearing in the Corner too. ...

Do my correspondents (and now my Corner colleagues) truly believe that - but for my pitiful media and social ambitions - nobody in America would have noticeed that Sarah Palin cannot speak three coherent consecutive words about finance or economics?

In the past month, Sarah Palin's unfavorability ratings have risen by 12 points. She briefly boosted the McCain ticket, but that effect subsided by the end of September. Blue-collar white women (!) now reject Palin as unqualified for the presidency 48-43, according to the Wall-Street Journal/NBC poll.

It's flattering to be told that my eagerness to clink glasses with the Washington social elite is the driving cause behind the shriveling public support for the Alaska governor. Flattering - but not very convincing. Tens of millions of people have tuned in to watch Sarah Palin field questions from Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric, and then to share a stage with Joe Biden. If Palin's public support is now collapsing, it is her own doing.

Possibly it is bad form for me to acknowledge this reality.

Posted by: drindl | October 14, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

It's the end of the Greedy Oil Party as we know it ...and I feel fine.
.


"Our economy is structurally sound for the long term"
George W Bush - Feb 11, 2008


"The American people can remain confident in the soundness and the resilience of our financial system"
Henry Paulson - Sept 15, 2008


"The fundamentals of our economy are strong"
John McCain - Sept 15, 2008


"The economy is fundamentally sound"
Herbert Hoover - October, 1931


McCain does not have the ability to fix this economic crisis. After declaring the fundamentals of the economy strong, he created a political circus in Washington last week by mucking up bailout negotiations; a deplorable stunt, considering he and his political cronies helped cause the current meltdown.

It was McCain and his economic adviser Phil Gramm who pushed for the deregulation that helped lead to the banking crisis, and it was McCain's crony Rick Davis who had deep lobbyist ties to Freddie Mac. Don't let others be fooled by McCain's economic grandstanding because the reality is his policies and principles will only exacerbate our financial hardships.

McCain is being deceitful with his sudden populist message and support for regulation; his economic policies still favor our nation's wealthy elite.
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4egXbhSOhk
.

Posted by: DrainYou | October 14, 2008 1:52 PM | Report abuse

KMichaels -- all one has to is scroll down a bit on any given day and see almos every other comment is one of your unhinged, foaming, moronic attacks.

Obviously you don't even qualify for McDonald's.

Posted by: drindl | October 14, 2008 1:52 PM | Report abuse

just curious since the McCain supporters are so obsessed today with reducing capital gains taxes if we would have a show of hands for all of those here, not shorting the market, who have a capital GAIN in the market. Why ae they not talking about changing the capital LOSS provision which in realty is what stock holders have to deal with thanks to the brilliant R economic policies? Are they so much out of touch to have convinced themelves that anyone has Capital Gains an longer?

Posted by: leichtman | October 14, 2008 1:49 PM | Report abuse

The little parts about the Keating five that Obamites keep leaving out.

1) McCain was the only republican. The other four were DEMOCRATS.

2) Three of the four democrats were found GUILTY.

3) McCain was found INNOCENT along with John Glen (one of the four democrats involved)

4) Obama has one of the GULITY three DEMOCRATS of the keating 5 currently working for him in a top campaign position.

5) Current problem is subprime loans.

6) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac holds over 50% of all subprime loans.

7) ACORN (fraudelent votes) supported by OBAMA promoted subprime loans for decades.

8) McCain tried to pass legislation to control Fannie and Freddie doing subprime loans in 2006. In 2003 Bush tried to regulate Fannie and Freddie.

9) DEMOCRATS (100%) said that Fannie and Freddie did not need to be further regulated.

10) Obama is #2 recipient of Fannie and Freddie lobbying money after just 3 years. #1 was Dodds (another DEMOCRAT)

11) Fannie and Freddie were started by DEMOCRAT FDR

12) Fannie and Freddie are socialistic orgs started by and supported by primarily DEMOCRATS. They are in favor of giving out subprime loans and forcing other banks to take the losses.

13) HUD reports that over five million of the failed mortgages belong to illegal aliens, the vast majority of which support Obama.

14) Fannie reports that blacks are 300 percent more likely to default on their loans and 90 percent of them support OBAMA.

15) Democrats have a long long history of promoting subprime loans in order to gain cheap votes from their base.

Conclusion

1) DEMOCRATS WERE 80% of the KEATING FIVE.
2) DEMOCRATS caused our current subprime problem.

Posted by: KMichaels | October 14, 2008 1:48 PM | Report abuse

KMichaels, because we're sick of the cut-and-paste fantasy, I'm going to concede that Americans overwhelmingly want McBush socialism instead of Obama and ... hold on ... Obama +6 in the latest nationwide Zogby/CNN/Reuters, +5 in the latest Rasmussen, +10 in the latest Gallup. Forget that.

But I will concede that McCain's message resonates among voters in states hit hard by Bushonomics, and those voters who have bizarrely voted against their self-interest in the past will once again ... wait a second, new polls here. Let's see .. Obama +5 in Ohio, up double digits in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Philadelphia. Hmmm ... well, forget that.

Let's see, at least McCain can continue Bush socialist policies in traditional red states. Those people are hardcore, and the base isn't going to desert the GOP when ... oops. Spoke too soon. Obama/Biden +9 in Colorado, +3 in Virginia, +3 in Missouri (Missouri!). Well, forget that argument.

Here we go - the McBush socialism resonates in Alaska and Arizona. Thank God McBush shut it down in Michigan, so he can add New Hampshire to the ticket's home states.

kmichael - do you realize now what a complete f*u*c*k*i*n*g sociopath you are? You and the fringe are right, but the other 85% of the country is wrong.

Repeat after me, you'll need the practice come January - "I pledge allegiance, to Barack Obama..."

Posted by: bondjedi | October 14, 2008 1:46 PM | Report abuse

Idiot drindle writes:

"I think Obama's relatively weak but nonetheless real interactions with William Ayers are a legitimate campaign issue."

Yes they are.

"But Obama's best response, after telling the facts of the relationship, is to point out who else supported him. Republican machers Walter and Leonora Annenberg gave the former terrorist $50 million.:

Actually, Walter was near death when he started a Chicago chapter under his name. The money was not given to Ayers but to the foundation. Walter died shortly thereafter. Ayers was then (after his death) voted in as the head of operations and Obama was voted in as chairman.

Annenburg gave money to over 1000 education related organizations. I guess you could assume that a dead guy had total control of what each org in each city actually did with the money but then that would be a rather stupid assumption.

But lets assume that the US government gave 1000 dollars to each citizen. I guess we could blame the US government for some of them buying guns and killing somebody (sounds like Chicago, more murders of Americans there than in Iraq) but then I think it would be foolish to blame the government on what it's citizens choose to do.

Thus it is that way with Annenburg. A dead white guy whose foundation chapter in Chicago ended up being known SOCIALISTS with obviously SOCIALIST agendas.

The headfaking that idiot Obamites are pulling is not working. More and more details of Obama's SOCIALIST connections are finally surfacing.

Like Obama being listed as a member of DSA (Democratic Socialists of America) and NEW PARTY (another self-declared socialist party).

Hmmm, Obama sure seems like a practicing socialist to me. Just review his voting records. Yep, socialist to his core.

Posted by: KMichaels | October 14, 2008 1:39 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.
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAzDEbVFcg8
.


McCain - Founding Member of the Keating 5

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.)

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 was not convicted of any crimes, though the Senate concluded that he exercised "poor judgment." (Furthermore, he got off on some charges by a technicality -- that he was still in the House when he took those vacation trips, and so the Senate couldn't prosecute him. The House concluded that THEY couldn't prosecute him because he had moved to the Senate.)


Here's some more mavericky straight-talk, my friends:
.
http://www.realchange.org/mccain.htm
.

Posted by: DrainYou | October 14, 2008 1:37 PM | Report abuse

America the stupid!

Your Country is in the biggest financial crisis since 1929, you are about to elect a new President & Vice-President, and what do you post about?

Some long ago association between and eight year old and some protester from the 60's.

Let me reveal a detail or two,

If Obama was running in Canada his percentage of approval is over 80%

If Obama was running in Europe his approval is over 83%

That's a combined population of nearly 400 million people.

When Obama was in Germany he drew a quarter million people to a rally.

These are people who are intelligent and aware of things going on in the United States, do they know something Americans don't.

The future of your Country is going to be in the hands of McCain or Obama, of the two
who is more concerned about your financial future for you and your kids, who has a better plan for health care, education, foreign relations, jobs.

Forget about the Ayers, and the Reverend, or the Keating five,

Think about your Country's future, about your kid's future, about your financial security, your health care system.

McCain has to stop running everything down about Obama, come up with a solid plan for the future, and park that wing nut Palin somewhere out of sight and earshot.

Get the hell out of Iraq, it's killing you financially and morally.

You need a new start, a new direction, the old path is a dead end.

Your decision affects the world, it's economy, it's relations with each other, it's future.

We're depending on you to make the right choice, make it a good one.

Posted by: kentaylor1 | October 14, 2008 1:35 PM | Report abuse

jedediahjammer writes
"Yes, Obama is a socialist - if his answer to that plumber and his background is not enough for you all to see that then you are simply blind to the facts."

If anyone is blind to the facts it is the people who equate the Obama tax plan to socialism. First problem: you apparently don't understand what socialism is. Socialism is when the state (i.e. the gov't) controls the means of production (i.e. businesses). When the US Fed Gov't has to intervene in US financial markets by buying stakes in formerly privately held US banks, we have a form of socialism. This is called "The Republicans' Accidental Socialism."

The Obama tax plan has nothing to do with socialism.

------------------------------------
I agree!

These people who claim that Obama is going turn this country in socialism,guess what people we are already there! Get educated and informed you republicans.

Posted by: valjeanharden | October 14, 2008 1:31 PM | Report abuse

drindl drools: "This geezer is on every all day long, every day--gotta be unemployed, obviously."

How would you know if any person is on all day long every day unless YOU are on all day long every day?

drindl is one of those idiots that is incapable of independent thought. He like DDawd and mikeinmidland make excellent Obama supporters. They dont have an original thought in their heads.

Howard Stern I think interviewed them recently in Harlem. He had his reporter give a list of nothing but McCain policies and call them Obama's and the Obama supporters were all in favor of them. Why were they in favor of them? Because the name Obama was attached to the McCain policies.

Go figure. Obamites are proven idiots waiting haplessly for their night manager position at McDonalds.

Posted by: drindl

Posted by: KMichaels | October 14, 2008 1:29 PM | Report abuse

Ok, guess the name of this teenager. DDawd? mikeinmidland? bondjedi?

...

And now the Cuyahoga County Elections Board has 73 cards with Johnson's name on them.

Johnson and another prolific registrant were subpoenaed to testify at a meeting Monday as the Elections Board continued its look at possible fraud by ACORN, a national organization that tries to get low- and moderate-income people to register. ACORN's methods have drawn interest in a number of states this presidential election year.

Johnson, 19, said he mostly was trying to help ACORN workers who begged him to sign up because they needed to keep their jobs.

"They'd come up with a sob story why they needed the signature," said Johnson, of Garfield Heights.

ACORN leaders have acknowledged that workers paid by the hour were given quotas to fill.

Board member Sandy McNair said ACORN did not do a competent job carrying out its business plan. Members, in fact, said little about ACORN. And they turned their investigation over to the county sheriff and prosecutor.

A second person to testify, Christopher Barkley, 33, said ACORN workers pestered him while they tried to gather signatures.

Barkley, of Cleveland, said he was homeless and reading a book on Public Square when he signed some of the 13 cards that contain his name. He filled out cards - with his mother's house or workplace as the address - to help workers stay employed.

"Me being a kind-hearted person, I said 'Yeah,' " Barkley recalled.

Posted by: KMichaels | October 14, 2008 1:25 PM | Report abuse

Yes, KMicahels is a McCain Drooler and Foamer all right, probably uses the same kind of Depends as McCain as well.

Posted by: drindl | October 14, 2008 1:24 PM | Report abuse

"They are dependent on some adult somewhere, possibly in the government, to give them what they need, never thinking or working for themselves."

KMichael is excellent wiht the republican gift for projection. You can guarantee they that they excuse you of, they are guilty of.

This geezer is on every all day long, every day--gotta be unemployed, obviously.

Posted by: drindl | October 14, 2008 1:23 PM | Report abuse

bondjedi, yet another Obamite drooler claims that it is fantasy to say that Obama is historically for tax increases. As proof he offers ... ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

Posted by: KMichaels | October 14, 2008 1:21 PM | Report abuse

Re Ayers, by conservative Andrew Sullivan--

"I think Obama's relatively weak but nonetheless real interactions with William Ayers are a legitimate campaign issue. But Obama's best response, after telling the facts of the relationship, is to point out who else supported him. Republican machers Walter and Leonora Annenberg gave the former terrorist $50 million. They also gave money to Rick Santorum, Strom Thurmond and Mitt Romney. Annenberg was Nixon's ambassador to Britain. If Obama is "palling around with terrorists," the Republican Annenbergs are funding them.

Yesterday, the McCain campain put out a press release boasting that Leonore Annenberg had just endorsed him for president. Why is McCain happy to accept the endorsement of a funder of terrorism?

Posted by: drindl | October 14, 2008 1:20 PM | Report abuse

DDawd finally admits the truth"

"Maybe Americans WANT socialism

+5 for Obama in Ohio
+9 in Colorado"

Well jackarse, I know that you want socialism. You are a fool and begging for the worst possible thing is not unlike you.

As to the rest of America, many are like you. Naive nose drippers wanting more of somebody elses money or complete idiots (sounds like you again) that has no clue what Obama is really about.

Either way, if Obama loses or Obama wins DDawd will continue to be a jobless idiot. Obamites everywhere will continue to be the same losers they are now. They are dependent on some adult somewhere, possibly in the government, to give them what they need, never thinking or working for themselves.

If idiots like DDawd are indicative of this generation then God help us all.

Posted by: KMichaels | October 14, 2008 1:19 PM | Report abuse

"Obama is historically and repeatedly on the side of tax increases, higher capital gains taxes and higher business taxes. And McCain is historically on the side of reducing almost all forms of taxes, realizing that too many taxes hurts the economy."

Most of the above is make-believe, and what isn't is the sort of superficial thinking we've come to love from the fantasy bloggers The Fix attracts.

You clearly have no idea what it is you are spouting off about, and your cut-and-paste copyright infringement hasn't convinced anyone yet, nor is it likely to. Go vote for Bob Barr or whomever, then report back at the end of January for some make-believe blogging on the first week of the Obama administration.

Posted by: bondjedi | October 14, 2008 1:17 PM | Report abuse

"But then again, DDawd is a proven naive little nose dripper with the experience of a kid. So it is no surprise that he is so easily suckered by the current line Obama happens to be spewing."

Well, I'm sure that convinced everyone.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 14, 2008 1:14 PM | Report abuse

DDawd, one of the early droolers for Obama writes: "Obama's is far superior"

Which plan? The one, the Obama plan to be FOR HIGHER CAPITIAL GAINS TAXES or the Obama plan for LOWER CAPITIAL GAINS TAXES.

I guess you could conclude that Obama is not lying, since one of his plans on Capitial Gains taxes must be correct, since he is found on both sides of the same issue.

That is my point. It is obvious that Obama is a liar if he believes in both YES and NO on the exact same subject.

But then again, DDawd is a proven naive little nose dripper with the experience of a kid. So it is no surprise that he is so easily suckered by the current line Obama happens to be spewing.

DDawd will be for Obama regardless of what Obama is for because DDawd is a drooling idiot that wants a given party to win, regardless of their agenda.

Is Obama a liar? If he is both FOR capital gains tax increase and AGAINST capitial gains tax increases then yes, at least one of the Obami must be a liar. I suggest it is the one in the middle.

Posted by: KMichaels | October 14, 2008 1:10 PM | Report abuse

Obamite drooler writes: "If anyone is blind to the facts it is the people who equate the Obama tax plan to socialism. First problem: you apparently don't understand what socialism is. Socialism is when the state (i.e. the gov't) controls the means of production (i.e. businesses)."

Socialism consists of both who controls production and how resources are distributed. Socialism is created in steps, because full socialism is a difficult sale to any group of people. But if you get them involved at a young age, and introduce socialism in steps then it is easier to take full control later. This is historically how all socialists operate. Soft sell their ideas and the supposed good results of their agenda until they can gain enough control to force the rest of their agenda upon you.

Obama has been found on the rolls of two socialist groups now. DSA, Democratic Socialists of America and the NEW PARTY also a socialistic party.

The leader of NEW PARTY has stated the very goal of first redistributing the wealth then later get involved in controlling actual production.

It is not a surprise that the Obamites are currently in favor of the US government actually controlling the production and operational ends of large companies.

And of course Obama has made it clear that he supports the socialist agenda of "redistribution of wealth."

So yes, it is very clear by both what accidentally spews forth from Obama's mouth from time to time and in reviewing his past history that Obama does indeed believe in and promote nothing but socialist agendas. This is a fact that cannot be successfully whitewashed no matter how hard you try.

Obama is a known socialist (and becoming even more known about it as real journalists do their job) and wants to promote a socialist agenda. That part is very clear.

Posted by: KMichaels | October 14, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

"I guess I could go line to line and compare McCains current plans to Obama's current plans but that would be an exercise in futility. Why? Because the vast majority of Obama's claims are not the real Obama."

Translation: A line by line comparison of the two tax plans would show that Obama's is far superior, so I won't do it and then just claim that Obama is lying. I do this because I tend to surround myself with stupid people with which these tactics work.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 14, 2008 1:01 PM | Report abuse

Ever wonder what would happen if MTV hosted a presidential debate, well now you get to find out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=752cvy86qH8

Seems McCain may be asking Palin to take his place in the debate tonight.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMebGbcC2Sg

Posted by: pastor123 | October 14, 2008 12:58 PM | Report abuse

"As many children to politics like mike and DDawd their first flaw is to believe the current lines being given in a campaign. This is typical of thoughtless kids that think they have a clue."

Isn't this all time you could be using to provide some evidence to your outlandish claims?

Posted by: DDAWD | October 14, 2008 12:57 PM | Report abuse

Maybe Americans WANT socialism

+5 for Obama in Ohio
+9 in Colorado

Those are the only two real battleground states reported today so far. (yes, those are the CLOSE races)

Obama's lead nationally is up to 7.4%

Let's hope Obama can somehow close the deal soon.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 14, 2008 12:55 PM | Report abuse

mikeinmidland naive asks: "KMicaels, Do you have anything at all to say about McCain's Economic approach vs. Obama's?"

As many children to politics like mike and DDawd their first flaw is to believe the current lines being given in a campaign. This is typical of thoughtless kids that think they have a clue.

The first priority of any potential voter is to do some research in the actual historical past of a candidate, not their current spin.

For example, the current spin of Obama is that he is now FOR capital gains tax CUTS. How can this be since it was just his last debate that he was badmouthing capital gains tax cuts?

The answer is simple. Obama is looking at some of the success that McCain has made with tax cuts and now is adopting some similar sounding language and claims.

The key difference is this, and should be obvious to even DDawd and mikeinmidland. Obama is historically and repeatedly on the side of tax increases, higher capital gains taxes and higher business taxes. And McCain is historically on the side of reducing almost all forms of taxes, realizing that too many taxes hurts the economy.

I guess I could go line to line and compare McCains current plans to Obama's current plans but that would be an exercise in futility. Why? Because the vast majority of Obama's claims are not the real Obama. He has obviously moved towards the center in order to gain votes. It is typical of preachers preaching to itching ears. Those type of self-serving men that want popularity over rightness. This is part of some peoples human nature. To gain power for themselves regardless of the outcome.

Obama has been a self-serving self-promoter from an early age. And because of his evil intents and self adoration he has found it an easy path to follow to just pander to the poor and the less educated in order to build up a power base.

McCain, far from perfect, seems to be a leader of the other sort. The kind of leader that follows what he truthfully thinks is right and correct even if it might lose him some votes.

Obama is the type that will think of and has proven this pattern, will think of himself and his personal glory at the expense of Americans that he supposedly cares for.

So when I see people so stuck on the current list of claims that a politician is making for the sake of purchasing votes and I just have to laugh at their inexperience and their obvious childlike naivete.

Posted by: KMichaels | October 14, 2008 12:54 PM | Report abuse

"BELOW TEXT COPIED from one of the reports on Obama ..."

None of which proves any of the nonsense you spouted.

Keep tryign , though. What fun is it to gloat if there aren't buffoons like you to gloat over?

Posted by: bondjedi | October 14, 2008 12:52 PM | Report abuse

jedediahjammer writes
"Yes, Obama is a socialist - if his answer to that plumber and his background is not enough for you all to see that then you are simply blind to the facts."

If anyone is blind to the facts it is the people who equate the Obama tax plan to socialism. First problem: you apparently don't understand what socialism is. Socialism is when the state (i.e. the gov't) controls the means of production (i.e. businesses). When the US Fed Gov't has to intervene in US financial markets by buying stakes in formerly privately held US banks, we have a form of socialism. This is called "The Republicans' Accidental Socialism."

The Obama tax plan has nothing to do with socialism.

Posted by: bsimon1 | October 14, 2008 12:50 PM | Report abuse

Yes, Obama is a socialist - if his answer to that plumber and his background is not enough for you all to see that then you are simply blind to the facts. he is not what this country needs. So-called "tax cuts" (rebates for 95% of taxpayers, whether you pay or do not pay taxes) will do nothing to expand jobs in this country - why? Because the money to pay for the rebates is to come from the top 5%, small business and corporations who will see their taxes increase - can we say income redistribution? and as those folks cough up the money to pay for the rebates, pink slips will be delivered to the workers receiving those rebates - so how does the Obama re-distribution plan create jobs and encourage investment in the US? I will answer for you - IT DOESN'T. THe middle class does not create jobs. How many more jobs do we have to lose to lower cost countries before we are going to figure this out? It is easy to go after those who do not vote, and nail them in the process. But in this global society, it has become increasingly easier to move offshore, and there is no doubt in my mind that should the Obama policies become reality, we are in for another shift of production and loss of jobs. Dems do not like to hear this - they say it is a threat - NO, it is reality and has been proven time and again, just as the fecklessness of socilaism has been proven time and again...while the rest of the world is looking to move away from socialism, the US, if Obama is elected, will move toward it - what is wrong with this picture? Right now, he is offering the world in an effort to buy votes....the hope is that the electorate sees trhough this and votes for freedom, for morality, for the United States of America, and NOT for the United States Socialistic Republic - the new USSR!!! Wake up people - he gives a good speech but he is inexperienced and not ready to lead this country with his grand experiments!!!!!! He came out of nowhere, well-funded, little vetting by the media and poised to become president - does this not give anyone pause?

Posted by: jedediahjammer | October 14, 2008 12:45 PM | Report abuse

Are you suggesting that GWB and McCain are not using the education and voting systems to promote THEIR ideology? For heaven's sake, that's what politics IS!

Please enlighten us, since you are so obviously not a brain-dead McManiac: What advice would you give the McCain campaign to help the voters understand and appreciate his economic approach?

Posted by: mikeinmidland | October 14, 2008 12:45 PM | Report abuse

One thing a lot of people do not understand is the depth of anger felt by foreign governments and people directed at the U.S. Virtually the whole economic meltdown, across the globe, is due to Wall Street assembling and selling fraudulent investment packages, and not just mortgage debt! Whole communities, retirement systems, banks, government entities, got taken in this gigantic swindle. What they are proposing, seriously proposing, are international criminal proceeding, along the lines of the Nuremberg Tribunals. And, they will be looking at Wall Street investors, U.S. banks and financial industry executives and (even) workers, government oversight officials, and even elected representatives. Toxic little twits like 37th Street had better forget that vacation to Europe, because there likely will be a warrant out for her arrest.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | October 14, 2008 12:45 PM | Report abuse

The Fix writes
"Voters Reject McCain Economic Approach"

NO doubt.

One would think McCain supporters - and the McCain campaign - would be wondering why. Perhaps they're too focused on tearing down their opponent to notice that their message - such as it is - is gaining zero traction among the electorate.

Good luck with that strategy.

Posted by: bsimon1 | October 14, 2008 12:44 PM | Report abuse

Obamites still b-tching about somebody elses negative campaigns yet gives Obama, one of the most negative campaigns in history a clean bill of health. Could it be that Obamites are blind to their own hypocricies or do they just say anything to make their new found false messiah look good?

To take a line from the bible, Obama is like whited sepulchres. Which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness.

So, how many more skeletons are to be found in Obama's closet and will the MSM continue lapdogging for this wolf in sheeps clothing forever or will they finally show a little patriotism.

Farakan has referred directly to Obama as a new messiah. Of course Obamites in general do not disagree with this presentation.

And it is clear that Obama is the preacher teaching to itching ears meaning that he says what he thinks they want to hear, instead of saying what he thinks is right.

Of course idiot naive MTV kids like DDawd are easily decieved by such snake oil salesmen. But what about real Americans? Will we let this false prophet get the best of us?

Posted by: KMichaels | October 14, 2008 12:41 PM | Report abuse

KMichaels:

Do you have anything at all to say about McCain's Economic approach vs. Obama's?

Yes, Obama's tax cuts favor the middle class. In one sense, that is a redistribution of wealth. McCain's plans favor the rich and corporations--another redistribution.

If you oppose middle-class tax cuts, just say so. Screaming "socialist" over and over does nothing to further the discussion of the issues.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | October 14, 2008 12:37 PM | Report abuse

Typical braindead naive Obama lover writes: "I did not realize that voter education and voter registration were socialist issues."

They are not. They only become socialist issues if those specific orgs display and promote socialist agendas.

Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mussolini, Tito, Chavez, Castro and now Obama all use the voting system and the education system within their respective countries to promote certain idealogy.

So a thinking person does not conclude that education and voting is the problem. But the direction and agenda of given voters and or educators.

Ayers is a known LEFTIST SOCIALIST MARXIST educator. It is not education that is being denounced here. It is the direction of the agenda, which again is proven to be FAR LEFT.

I wonder if is possible for Obamites to be as truly stupid as they sound when they make the kind of claims as I noted above. or are they just so power hungry that they will let any evil slide for the sake of their party.

Posted by: KMichaels | October 14, 2008 12:34 PM | Report abuse

The McCain campaign is running out of TACTICS for lack of a strategy. Expect McCain to change tactics and play up the "I'll fight for you" mantra during the last 3 weeks of the presidential campaign.

McCain and Palin went really negative over the past week and got scolded by both Democratic and Republican party pundits. Combine that with the poor interviews of Palin and lack of understanding McCain displayed during the economic crisis and you get the formula that caused so many independents/undecided voters to move to Obama.

Unfortunately, McCain is a day late and a dollar short.

Posted by: AJ2008 | October 14, 2008 12:33 PM | Report abuse

jan curenly you can only deduct $3000 a year in losses. Would be nice to hear someone admit that few have capital gains only losses and increase that limit to 5-$10,000 per year from $3,000. Changing capital gains taxes does not effect your 401k. Your retiremen funds are not taxable until you are 65 plus and forced into a distribution. Most American's stock exposure is in their retiremnt accounts not affeced by taxes until they actually take a distribution which is treated as ordinary income not capital gains. That is totally ignored by Rs who clammer for capital gains reductions.

Posted by: leichtman | October 14, 2008 12:32 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: tncdel "Whatever McCain's economic plan is, it is certainly better than Obama's."

Exactly, Whatever is McCain's economic plan? Still waiting for Mr. Freakout FlipFlop to present ANY plan.

Kmicheals: still waiting for that real proof...

Posted by: pete1013 | October 14, 2008 12:31 PM | Report abuse

Dunces! Obama's **only** relationship with the New Party was that he sought their endorsement in 1996. He has never been a member, never sought membership, never showed any interest in any sort of formal relationship other than soliciting their endorsement. (Likewise, was McCain a member of Hagee's collection of paranoid fools becasue he sought Hagee's endorsement?) The Socialist New Left Party has and never had, any relationship with the New Party. The later is a tiny/insignificant SWEDISH political party that has absolutely no relationship with any American politician and never has.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | October 14, 2008 12:29 PM | Report abuse

Scrivner on his site says this about the truthful McCain ad showing ties with Obama and Ayers

"This ad goes even further in painting the picture of Obama as a willing accomplice of a terrorist"

The ad shows that Obama and Ayers did indeed work together (for 13 plus years in fact)

" making no mention of the fact that Obama was a child when Ayers participated in terrorist bombings."

The point was that Obama was an adult when he worked with the known terrorist. It is as though Obama worked with Osama decades later and idiots saying it was OK because what he did was decades ago.

"It characterizes as "radical" the Annenberg Challenge educational group in Chicago"

Actually, the ad says that Obama and Ayers donated the vast majority of the Annenberg Challenge money to radical organizations, which is true. One group was ACORN and we now know their voter fraud activity, etc. Obama Ayers also donated to Jeremiah Wright and we know that he is anti-American and anti-White. So yes, Obama and Ayers did donate most of the money to radical leftist orgs. And it is also true that there was no measurable advances to education because of their work.

"- the organization on whose board Obama served alongside of Ayers, who's now a college professor."

There are lots of known leftists serving as college professors. It was leftist college professors at Berkelely that gave away Atomic Bomb secrets to the then Soviet Union. This is historic fact.

"The ad's description of the charity no doubt would have amused the right-leaning conservative Walter Annenberg, the benefactor for whom it was named."

This benefactor was indeed a conservative. However, he was near death when he sent money to start a chapter in Chicago. He died shortly thereafter. I doubt that he could have shown much conservative influence over the grants after he died, now could he.

The other key fact is that Annenberg sent money to over 1000 education orgs. He did not control what everyone did.

As to who founded what, our founding fathers were rather conservative, yet a known SOCIALIST Obama is close to winning as president. I hardly think who founded what proves how far left a group has become. Of course, this is just using logic and common sense.

The fact is that Obama worked with Ayers for over 13 years and was tied to socialist and radical groups of all kinds. This was not a passing one day event for Obama. Socialism took up the vast majority of Obama's adult life.

One more thing on what happens when a person is 8, Adolf Hitler never killed a single person when he was 8. It was what he did and what Obama does as an adult that we are concerned about. Obama the adult is a known socialist.

Posted by: KMichaels | October 14, 2008 12:27 PM | Report abuse

Voters also reject Obama's approach of taxing the bejesus out of us to fund his programs,

including money to provide services to the over 37 million illegals sucking the lifeblood out of our economy,

and also Obama's plans to send hundreds of billions of aid to foreign countries.

So, what is Obama shill Chris Cilizzi trying to tell us?

Whatever McCain's economic plan is, it is certainly better than Obama's.

Posted by: tncdel | October 14, 2008 12:25 PM | Report abuse


I did not realize that voter education and voter registration were socialist issues.

Even if Obama attended some meetings 12 years ago, exactly what positions does he currently advocate that you would call socialist?

Those of you with the "us or them" mentality can't seem to grasp that a politician might want to listen to his constituents, hear their grievances, and then encourage them to vote. Every meeting is not evidence of some secret pact.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | October 14, 2008 12:22 PM | Report abuse

"Ddawd, seniority dictates committee chairs by Senate rules, but not the whip or the leader. Reid has been a disappointment to Ds as a leader and a poster child for R finger pointing. I cannot imagine HRC announcing that the "war is lost", for example. She would be an upgrade as SML.

I would personally prefer other Ds; more centrist Ds than HRC [e.g., Salazar, CO; Baucus, MT]. But she gets along well with her colleagues and generally thinks before she speaks."

I'm not saying that its strictly seniority, but are you saying it doesn't matter at all? It seems like Clinton would be leapfrogging a LOT of people to become majority leader.

I'll defer to you, though.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 14, 2008 12:20 PM | Report abuse

mark: Texas always gets the short end of the stick. They take our money then high tale it out of the state. No one ever took predictions that either HC or Obama would compete here in Texas, but respectfully I recall your bold predictions in March that Obama would be better for down ballot Texas Ds.The test will be whether Harris County can replicate Dallas and win some bench races. I-10 to Katy as I advised you erlier is one of the mst conservative coridors in the nation. Hope in 3 weeks you will prove me wrong and you win your cngressioal race.The only hope is for a large student an AA trnout here to winsoe of those downballot races we discused earlier in the year. McCain supporters I have spoken with here locally seem disspirited, know they are about to lose in a landslde and may have a depressed turnout in Texas.

Posted by: leichtman | October 14, 2008 12:19 PM | Report abuse

KMicheals, not very smart are you? You can't PROVE a NEGATIVE.

towhit:

Negative proof, the fallacy of appealing to lack of proof of the negative, is a logical fallacy of the following form:
"X is true because there is no proof that X is false."
It is asserted that a proposition is true, only because it has not been proven false.

The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam ("appeal to ignorance") or argument by lack of imagination, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false or is false only because it has not been proven true.

So present REAL PROOF or STFU.

Posted by: pete1013 | October 14, 2008 12:18 PM | Report abuse

How amusing that, given the subject of this post, McCain's supporters continue to focus on false attacks on Obama rather than boosting their own candidate's proposals and/or record. Its no wonder that voters don't rate Senator McCain very highly on the economy when he and his supports spend all their time and effort on tearing down the guy that actually is talking about the issues.

Posted by: bsimon1 | October 14, 2008 12:18 PM | Report abuse

"Obama is on the official rolls (an official member) of the DSA (Democratic Socialist Party) and NEW PARTY (another socialist party working with DSA in Chicago around the year 1995-1996 or even later. This is one huge clue that Obama may actually be a socialist. But dont let the facts get in your way of whitewashing the new messiah."

Let's see the evidence of this.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 14, 2008 12:17 PM | Report abuse

Republicans have always believed that prosperity begins at the top. They're wrong, and they can't learn. So they keep making the same mistakes, keep lowering our standard of living trying to look after the rich. Time to turn them out.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | October 14, 2008 12:15 PM | Report abuse

After a little research about Obama and DSA and NEW PARTY one can easily find these facts ...

BELOW TEXT COPIED from one of the reports on Obama ...

Barack Obama was an active participant in the 1990s, and a direct political beneficiary, of the Chicago New Party and, importantly, the Chicago DSA, a group of socialists affiliated with the Democratic Socialists of America.

Barack Obama attended and participated in meetings of the Chicago New Party and the Chicago DSA, the local affiliate of the Democratic Socialists of America.
Barack Obama sought the endorsement of the Chicago DSA which required rigorous scrutiny by the party’s Political Committee as well as Mr. Obama’s signature on a contract promising “a visible and active relationship with the NP.”
Barack Obama actively used the endorsement from the Chicago DSA.
Barack Obama won his DSA-endorsed and -backed campaign to secure his seat in the Illinois State Senate.
Barack Obama continued his involvement with the Chicago DSA — including directly asking the group to join “his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration” — and received their endorsements in subsequent campaigns.

Obama’s participation in and endorsement from the Chicago New Party and Chicago DSA, the local affiliate of the Democratic Socialists of America (which is the U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International) is quite clear:

According to the write-up on the July 1995 meeting of Chicago DSA and New Party membership, Barack Obama was one of about 50 people attending out of their then-300 member local group. Other documents below will demonstrate Barack Obama attended and participated in subsequent meetings.
The New Party rigorously evaluated its candidate endorsements and claimed “a winning ratio of 77 of 110 elections.” This was no passive endorsement.
Candidates must be approved via a NP political committee. Once approved, candidates must sign a contract with the NP. The contract mandates that they must have a visible and active relationship with the NP.—New Ground

Candidate Barack Obama participated as a panelist at the DSA-sponsored Town Meeting on February 25, 1996, entitled “Employment and Survival in Urban America”. As reported in New Ground
Obama subsequently secured his endorsement from the Chicago DSA
The local Democratic Socialists of America affiliate issued their Chicago DSA Endorsements in the March 19th Primary Election:
Barack Obama Continued Attending Membership Meetings of the Chicago DSA New Party
Obama attended membership meeting on April 11, 1996 where he expressed his gratitude for their support. The report shared that “Barack Obama, victor in the 13th State Senate District, encouraged NPers to join in his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration.”

Posted by: KMichaels | October 14, 2008 12:12 PM | Report abuse

What if McCain's real strategy is aimed NOT at voters, but at the apparachik?

McCAIN-PALIN'S 'FELLOW TRAVELER' INSINUATIONS:
WHAT IF U.S. SECURITY FORCES AGREE?

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/mccain-palins-fellow-traveler-insinuations-what-if-u-s-security-forces-agree
OR members.nowpublic.com/scrivener

Posted by: scrivener50 | October 14, 2008 12:11 PM | Report abuse

The comments are much more entertaining than the article.

Here's my take. From the Republican standpoint, Obama is about to commit the ultimate sin -- he's going to win.

Back in 04, the GOP was crowing that Democrats should stop whining and win some elections if they wanted people to listen to them.

Looks like they're on the right track, doesn't it?

I doubt the real powers behind the Republican Party (the haves and the have-mores) are all that disappointed. They didn't like John McCain to begin with, and Sarah Palin is not exactly their cup of English Breakfast, either.

They're content to let the election go to the Democrats who will then have to struggle under the weight of all Bush's errors. They can focus on trying to manipulate government money into their own pockets -- that's the point of government, isn't it?

Those poor neocon true believers -- some of them take up a lot of space in the Comments section -- have no more real influence on the outcome than your daily horoscope.

That's why they're so mad.

Posted by: Samson151 | October 14, 2008 12:10 PM | Report abuse

The Republicans have stood idly by while jobs have been cut and outsourced and no one has spoken out. Let the American people have the same health plan and retirement plans as John McCain and the rest of the Congressman in Washington. If that were the case, you wouldn't have to worry about losing your 401(K) which has become a joke on the American people. Think McCain is worried about his 401(K) and his ability to retire off of it? Think again. He has a military pension, social security and a congressional salary. His wife is a millionnaire so McCain hasn't a clue as to what average American people are going through. Anyone ever lost their job and try to get healthcare? McCain hasn't a clue because he already has healthcare and now wants to tax those who do have healthcare from an employer. McCain says "fight for our children's future" yet the children of our country are faced with job loss and job outsourcing. College students can't get jobs because they are being outsourced. Obama gets it and has proposed a plan to encourage corporations to hire Americans. Remember Carly Fiorina in the McCain camp said when she was HP's CEO that Americans aren't entitled to have a job. Excuse me? I am an American and demand to have jobs here in this country for my fellow Americans and our children. If McCain is getting advice from someone like Fiorina, God help us. We've already been down that path and look where it's gotten us. Imagine if social security had been privatized as the Republicans had wanted to do. Wall Street was salivating but the American people would have lost. McCain doesn't talk to the middle-class, he talks to the wealthy. Enough is enough. The Republicans have let corporate America run amuck and we the American people are paying a horrible price for this shift. People wake up! The Republicans and McCain have stolen our country and leading charge of fear mongering in our effort to take it back.

Posted by: cricket35 | October 14, 2008 12:08 PM | Report abuse

Ddawd, seniority dictates committee chairs by Senate rules, but not the whip or the leader. Reid has been a disappointment to Ds as a leader and a poster child for R finger pointing. I cannot imagine HRC announcing that the "war is lost", for example. She would be an upgrade as SML.

I would personally prefer other Ds; more centrist Ds than HRC [e.g., Salazar, CO; Baucus, MT]. But she gets along well with her colleagues and generally thinks before she speaks.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | October 14, 2008 12:08 PM | Report abuse

McCain's plan (as outlined by nytimes.com) sounds more like a plan for the rich. Workers who saved earnings in IRA’s and/or 401k’s may withdraw some of their saved earnings and pay 10% tax; the rich with capital gains on investments get to take their investment profits and pay 7.5% in taxes. Doesn’t a capital gains tax reduction benefits McCain and his $100 million heiress wife directly?

The average worker does not own individual stock, rather the average worker is invested in a retirement mutual fund. Does “an acceleration in the tax write-off for stock losses” apply to retirement mutual fund losses? Does anyone know? Our CPA is outstanding–yet, he has never asked us for documentation on losses on our retirement mutual fund for a tax write-off.

Posted by: jandcgall1 | October 14, 2008 12:07 PM | Report abuse

"Obama is on the official rolls (an official member) of the DSA (Democratic Socialist Party) and NEW PARTY (another socialist party working with DSA in Chicago around the year 1995-1996 or even later."

That's not true. If your boy McStupid is such a good candidate, why are you parroting this garbage?

A better question is why are you stopping with calling Obama a socialist. Why not call him a Klansman while you're at it?

Posted by: bondjedi | October 14, 2008 12:07 PM | Report abuse

did not comport themselves the way Hillary and her lying deadenders did.

and what in the world does that mean???

You miss the point. You act like someone is asking Obama to sell his home and pay HC personally. No one but you denies that HC has been a good soldier and helped Obama in fund raising and campaigning but as usual NOTHING is good enough. Its a tradition of D nominees to help their opponents retire their debt. You can not deny that Kerry and Mondale graciously did exactly that for Dean, Gephardt and Hart. We KNOW you HATE HC, We have heard that from your posts since January. Seems like by now you would have stopped that nonsense. Its nothing new nor your constant insults. Deadenders. What makes you so high and mighty?

Posted by: leichtman | October 14, 2008 12:07 PM | Report abuse

I said prove that Obama is not a socialist, idiot drooling DDawd. Dont just restate the same claim. PROVE IT.

I bet you cant.

BTW, since Obama is actually on the rolls of DSA (Democratic Socialists of America) and NEW PARTY (another socialist group working with DSA) would you not say that is viable proof that he might just be a socialist?

Not to mention the fact that he votes SOCIALISTIC 99.9% of the time.

Posted by: KMichaels | October 14, 2008 12:05 PM | Report abuse

america the liberal,
kid gloves,
I dont think the 70's program
All In The Family
could be shown today,
there are too many
politically correct media
types,
that firmly believe the populace
is a bunch of ignorant rednecks
not worthy of their disdain.

NOBAMA

Posted by: USA3 | October 14, 2008 12:05 PM | Report abuse


To all: I apologize for allowing myself to get pulled in to the HRC debt question.

I see know that it is yet another ploy to distract the voters from the real issues.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | October 14, 2008 12:03 PM | Report abuse

Clueless drooling misinformed Obamite asks: "Why do McCain supporters insist on calling Obama a socialist?"

Obama is on the official rolls (an official member) of the DSA (Democratic Socialist Party) and NEW PARTY (another socialist party working with DSA in Chicago around the year 1995-1996 or even later. This is one huge clue that Obama may actually be a socialist. But dont let the facts get in your way of whitewashing the new messiah.

Posted by: KMichaels | October 14, 2008 12:03 PM | Report abuse

$832,000.00 Directly to ACORN.
$112,000.00 Returned to Rezko.
Obama is big government,
in fact it is YOUR MONEY
he is sending to Convicted Felons(Rezko)
and Fraudulent Voter Registration(Acorn)

this man will spend his first term
in front of grand juries explaining
the meaning of the word "IS"

NOBAMA

Posted by: USA3 | October 14, 2008 12:03 PM | Report abuse

"In other words, chicken-sh#t DDawd is afraid to take up the challenge and show that Obama is not a true socialist at heart. How convenient. I guess there is a rush at his local McDonalds right now and he cant sneak away and do a little research."

Eeek, anonymous poster on internet called me chicken!

Doesn't matter. Everyone knows that the claims of Socialist Obama are full of crap.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 14, 2008 12:02 PM | Report abuse

bsimon and leichtman -

Because BHO [and McC] have abandoned TX, the bounce BHO is getting in PA as he becomes familiar to them is impossible to replicate here. So b/c BHO is not campaigning in TX, leichtman's prediction that rural TX will reject him becomes self-fulfilling. I think HRC could have ignored TX with a better result but given the prospect that either would take TX seriously I think BHO had more upside, leichtman. However, now its a done deal. BHO will do well in Austin, perhaps well enough to help Doherty win CD 10. But Giddings and Brenham? Forget it. Like Doherty says, traveling US 290 he has names for all the cows. Their owners vote McC.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | October 14, 2008 12:00 PM | Report abuse

Lots of idiot Obamites are saying that McCain is just following Obama's lead on economic proposals. It is the old Soviet Union style of claims that they invented it first.

Lets review the case of Capitial Gains taxes for example. McCain has always been in favor of reducing capital gains taxes and Obama has been in favor of raising them.

But now, Obama has taken to claiming that Capital Gains taxes should be reduced for some people (some people that he wants their votes from). Of course, this idea of reduced capital gains taxes was thought of first by Obama, he he he.

Obamites are truely the most stupid people on earth.

Posted by: KMichaels | October 14, 2008 11:59 AM | Report abuse

"Sen. Clinton will replace Harry Reid as Senate Majority Leader on or before Jan. 3, 2011.

Reid is either going to retire or be beaten for re-election in 2010. Majority Leader will provide her with a clear power position both in government and within the Democratic Party for as long as she chooses."

I doubt it. Seniority is everything in the Senate and Hillary simply hasn't been a Senator for all that long.

I also REALLY doubt that Reid will be beaten.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 14, 2008 11:58 AM | Report abuse

"Why do McCain supporters insist on calling Obama a socialist?"

As I recall it was Paulson and W that pushed for a partial govt takeover of our banks. And what party would you guess they are in? It is also a R president that will be leaving office with a 500 billion dollar deficit and a 5 trillion dollar national debt. And Obama is the liberal/socialist? Can only imagine what you be yelling had President Obama rather than W was responsible for pushing for partial govt control of our banks.

Posted by: leichtman | October 14, 2008 11:57 AM | Report abuse

OBAMA IS A SOCIALIST!
HIS MOST RECENT SERMON CLAIMS:
“I THINK WHEN YOU SPREAD THE WEALTH AROUND, IT’S GOOD FOR EVERYBODY.” What Barack means is for government taking from one group of people (the people who worked hard and earned it) and giving it to those who did not earned it (welfare cheats).

WELCOME TO BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA’S NEW AMERICA, IT’S CALLED REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH and his tax cuts for 95% of America is nothing more than Government welfare for people that don’t pay taxes at all. Haven’t we already been down this path ? This was done in the 70’s and the Democrats are bent on bringing it back.

One of Barack Obama’s most potent campaign claims is that he’ll cut taxes for no less than 95% of “working families.” He’s even promising to cut taxes enough that the government’s tax share of GDP will be no more than 18.2% — which is lower than it is today.
It’s a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he’s also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%. But how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all? There are several sleights of hand, but the most creative is to redefine the meaning of “tax cut.”
For Barack Hussein Obama, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. IN HIS REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH PLAN, A TAX CUT INCLUDES TENS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN GOVERNMENT HANDOUTS THAT ARE DISGUISED BY THE PHRASE “TAX CREDIT.”

Will hard working Americans support to cater to the ”parasite class” and bury the American worker further? Mission almost accomplished.
UNLESS YOU VOTE FOR THE PATRIOT JOHN MCCAIN, AND PRESERVE AMERICA AND OUR AMERICAN VALUES!

Posted by: Manolete | October 14, 2008 11:57 AM | Report abuse

"Once again Kerry did it for Howard Dean and Dick Ghephart as did Modale for Gary Hart. Its nothing new except for some of the hate filled Obama supporters here, which makes me sick to now support their candidate."

Quit ducking the questions and maybe people will take you seriously. Dean, Gephardt, and Hart (and for the sake of argument we'll say that the nominees help pay their debts, though that too is a dubious proposition) did not comport themselves the way Hillary and her lying deadenders did.

If you think that it is within the realm of reason to expect Obama to pay for Hillary's poorly run and financed campaign, knock yourself out. But you're a minority of one.

Try again, leichtman.

Posted by: bondjedi | October 14, 2008 11:56 AM | Report abuse

In other words, chicken-sh#t DDawd is afraid to take up the challenge and show that Obama is not a true socialist at heart. How convenient. I guess there is a rush at his local McDonalds right now and he cant sneak away and do a little research.

Posted by: KMichaels | October 14, 2008 11:56 AM | Report abuse

The problem is that his proposals are either

A) A variation on something Obama is already proposing

or

B) Proposals that will further damage the economy (i.e. further tax breaks for the super wealthy)

Posted by: storyofthefifthpeach | October 14, 2008 11:54 AM | Report abuse

"calld me a liar and claims Obama has raised so much for HC, lets see your proof"

Um, no. I said he TRIED.

But no one wants to give charity to a multimillionaire.

You know this is true.

If that means you take your ball and go home, then so be it.

It's not about hatred of Hillary (although she DID run a pretty disgusting campaign) It's about people with limited resources being asked to retire the debt of a multimillionaire.

Gee, I wonder why people aren't going for it.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 14, 2008 11:54 AM | Report abuse

This explains the type of blind support that Obama is receiving ...

Howard Stern (no fan of his) sent a reporter to Harlem. The reporter's task was to ask the people there who they are voting for. Then he was to present nothing but McCain policies to the people but claim that they were Obama policies and then ask if they supported these specific "Obama" policies or not.

Well, you can guess what happened. Obama was who they were voting for and they agreed to everyone of McCains policies (since they were wrapped under the label of Obama).

So, is it any wonder that we get unscientific polls like the ones that WaPo pays for.

And of course, the complete braindead nature of the typical Obamite supporter was on display in this Stern experiment.

Some of them were even ok with the "fact" that Obama had chosen Sarah Palin to be his VP. They were sure that she would do a good job.

I mean, how thick skulled to you have to be to believe that Obama had chosen Sarah Palin to be VP?

Posted by: KMichaels | October 14, 2008 11:53 AM | Report abuse

"DDawd, if you dont think Obama is liberal, get off your arse, which seems to be here day in and day out, every day, and research what Obama's history of voting and political agenda has been. If you can show that he is not liberal or leftist, you are free to do so. Here in America you have such freedoms. You are free to be the misinformed dimwitted fool that you seem to be. It is still legal to be such."

Oh, no one is denying your right to spout off whatever Sean Hannity talking point that pops into your empty head.

It's just that you'll be called on it from time to time.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 14, 2008 11:49 AM | Report abuse

Why do McCain supporters insist on calling Obama a socialist? It is used to denigrate and instill fear in voters. America has many socialist programs in place that work for the betterment of the nation, Social Security, Medicare, etc. And isn't the military basically socialist in nature? Free health care, room & board plus pay plus combat pay & a generous pension? Yes they fight for us, but we foot the bill for ALL their expenses, if we were totally capitalist those that serve would have to foot their own bill for living expenses. What makes their contribution greater than the people who pay their taxes and pay the military's way? Greater than all the other citizens that put their lives on the line everyday for our safety and well being, i.e. police men, fire men EMT's?

I don't want to join the war of words, but if we must find ourselves at complete opposite ends of the spectrum, well than that makes you a bunch of Fascists. Doesn't it?

Posted by: pete1013 | October 14, 2008 11:49 AM | Report abuse

The only post I could see HC giving up her US Senate seat for would be on to serve on the US Supreme Ct. which would not be a bad decsion. She likes being out among voters and if not considered too old will likely run in 2016 if not 2012. Don't see her as Secy of State since healthcare is her passion imho.Obama needs her in the Senate as majority leader, if national healthcare is still affodrable after $700 billion just spent.

Posted by: leichtman | October 14, 2008 11:48 AM | Report abuse

Sen. Clinton will replace Harry Reid as Senate Majority Leader on or before Jan. 3, 2011.

Reid is either going to retire or be beaten for re-election in 2010. Majority Leader will provide her with a clear power position both in government and within the Democratic Party for as long as she chooses.

Posted by: cam8 | October 14, 2008 11:46 AM | Report abuse

"KMichael - I have an economic question that many of us have wondered about.

Many McDonald's have signs that say "No bills larger than $50.00." What if one were to take the little league team there, and buy $50.00 worth of Happy Meals? Can a fifty-dollar bill be used then?"

Well, based on the fact that 90% of blacks are Obama supporters. Based on the fact that most latinos are Obama supporters and based on the fact that Obama gets most of the inexperienced youthful votes and based on the fact that most of the youthful uneducated voters are Obama supporters you will have to direct your question to DDawd. DDawds dream is that after ten more years he can become night manager.

Posted by: KMichaels | October 14, 2008 11:45 AM | Report abuse

its truly truly sad and a little shocking that bonjedi even when totally reluctant HC supporters join their cause are still throwing insults. We know you hate HC. My comment, get over it, you wo. You can't even take victory graciously what's with that?. We can have that discussion again in 2012.Hillary and Biden were busting their butts in Scranton this past week. She has abolutely nothing to gain other than to be a good soldier to do what is right for America. In all likelihood she will not even run in 2012 but I am sure we will still hear your hatred for her 4 years hence. wp calld me a liar and claims Obama has raised so much for HC, lets see your proof, you claim he has done so much to retire HC debt. Once again Kerry did it for Howard Dean and Dick Ghephart as did Modale for Gary Hart. Its nothing new except for some of the hate filled Obama supporters here, which makes me sick to now support their candidate.

Posted by: leichtman | October 14, 2008 11:42 AM | Report abuse

DDawd, eager Obamite is showing all the wisdom of a typical 20 year old MTV fan.

DDawd, if you dont think Obama is liberal, get off your arse, which seems to be here day in and day out, every day, and research what Obama's history of voting and political agenda has been. If you can show that he is not liberal or leftist, you are free to do so. Here in America you have such freedoms. You are free to be the misinformed dimwitted fool that you seem to be. It is still legal to be such.

Now, get out there and do some real research and you can return and report on your findings.

The challenge is for you to show, with actual evidence, that Obama is not the extreme socialist that he really is.

Posted by: KMichaels | October 14, 2008 11:41 AM | Report abuse

You can almost count on your fingers the actual posters on here. It is more like listening to a bunch of people in a bar arguing football. All talking and no one listening. I would not over estimate the value of a blog like this. It does not have the readership people think. No one cares about what is written here.


------------
I keep hoping this blog will find some intelligence somewhere, but it is just the same old chanting day after day.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 14, 2008 11:21 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: popasmoke | October 14, 2008 11:39 AM | Report abuse

KMichael - I have an economic question that many of us have wondered about.

Many McDonald's have signs that say "No bills larger than $50.00." What if one were to take the little league team there, and buy $50.00 worth of Happy Meals? Can a fifty-dollar bill be used then?

Please tell us your store's policy.

Posted by: bondjedi | October 14, 2008 11:38 AM | Report abuse

"I can see a President Obama tapping HRC as his Secretary of State. Seems plausible, doesn't it? It would definitely be a strong position for her in his cabinet."

I really don't know. I think he would like to clean his hands of Hillary. I'm sure he'd like to tap Bill's expertise, but I'm not sure how the Mr. Clinton would take it.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 14, 2008 11:37 AM | Report abuse

"The issue is not about paying taxes for the sake of needed and proper governmental programs that serve all.

The issue is about whether it is proper to force SOCIALISM and the idea of redistribution of wealth upon the American voters."

Complete misread. Go back to Drudge, where you got the FOX News plumber story that you are grossly mischaracterizing, and look for the stories about the old ladies living in a trailer with 150 cats. They are more your speed than anything having to do with genuine policy.

Posted by: bondjedi | October 14, 2008 11:35 AM | Report abuse

A liberal Obamite writes:

"Wow, so Obama got things handed to him on a plate did he? In racist America? Hm.....I think some of you ought to have a bit of a think about that."

I dont really know about his total past history but I do know this.

Racism in America is minimal for the most part. The past democrat founded KKK has pretty much died out and become a historic relic.

What has replaced racism is the entitlement age in America. Based on the democrats desire to remain in power they have taken the line that blacks are entitled to special favors since their great great great great grandfather was a slave. Of course democrats take this approach not out of concern for blacks but out of the desire to get votes. Is it any surprise that after decades of pandering that democrats manage to get 90% of the black vote? Of course, it is not surprising.

Has the main stream media played along with this sense of entitlement for Obama? Of course they have. They have treated Obama with kid gloves, much more than any other candidate is US history.

Is it any surprise that the Obama we know today based on MSM campaigning has been whitewashed to become elected. Again, no real surprise there.

You would think that after four years of campaigning that the fact that Obama was officially on the roles of the SOCIALIST party of Chicago (DSA and NEW PARTY) that this little piece of information would have been revealed by now.

But, when you have that deep sense of entitlement, the idea that Obama happened to be a registered SOCIALIST is something that we can ignore.

And while we are ignoring it, we might as well fulfill our sense of entitlement for Obama and ignore his 13 year relationship with SOCIALIST Ayers, his 20 year relationship with anti-American anti-White Wright, his long relationship with Rezko, his extreme SOCIALIST voting record, etc etc.

Yes, Obama has indeed been able to take advantage of his sense of entitlement. And the liberal crowd has been more than willing to feed the monster.

As to exactly when and where and how often Obama took advantage of this entitlement will never truely be known. But the current chain of events is pretty obvious that he is where he is today primarily because of his color.

Posted by: KMichaels | October 14, 2008 11:35 AM | Report abuse

I can see a President Obama tapping HRC as his Secretary of State. Seems plausible, doesn't it? It would definitely be a strong position for her in his cabinet.

kind of off topic, I guess...

Posted by: pete1013 | October 14, 2008 11:34 AM | Report abuse

Interesting

Posted by: Obama2008 | October 14, 2008 11:34 AM | Report abuse

Well what do you expect when you are out there beating the bushes to find economists (probably from the Obama campaign organization) that disagree with McCain. Obama rolled one out this morning that is laughable. Let everyone that is lucky enough to have $10,000 in a 401K pull out up to that amount to help them get through this rough patch. He doesn't get it either. Many working folks don't make enough to be socking money away in a 401K account. Most of them are lucky if they have a retirement plan at work and they are banking on Social Security. Also most people that would have access to money in a 401K have probably already had to use it before he came up with this genius plan of his. Also what are they going to do when they hit that rough patch in their retirement years. They will either have to work that much longer or depend on the Welfare state to support them. Pelosi is already calling for increased funding of Welfare as part of her stimulus package. We will all have to line up for help from Nancy Pelosi. That is Obama's solution for everything. Just throw some money out there. Where is he going to get all of this money he is throwing around. I think you and I both know where. He will be picking your pockets clean.

Posted by: flcraker | October 14, 2008 11:31 AM | Report abuse

"I keep hoping this blog will find some intelligence somewhere, but it is just the same old chanting day after day.

Posted by: king_of_zouk"

Yeah, I was expecting to see KMichael's comprehensive analysis of how Obama is the most liberal senator in the past fifteen years of both the US and Illinois Senates.

I guess he was just lying.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 14, 2008 11:27 AM | Report abuse

Barack Obama came out with a grab-bag of expensive, yet timid proposals to respond to the economic crisis. Minor and temporary tax breaks (without altering his plans to hike payroll and income taxes on the “rich”), a copycat proposal mirroring John McCain’s proposed relief for 401K withdrawals, a reversal of his prior opposition to a foreclosure moratorium and a new entity to lend money –to other governmental entities. That’s it? What about significant help for private sector job creation? Not there. What about a promise to increase trade which has kept the economy afloat? Nope. What about some recognition that corporate tax rates are uncompetitive? No way. It is all surprisingly meek and ineffectual, showing an underlying lack of confidence in the private sector as the engine of growth

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 14, 2008 11:26 AM | Report abuse

"Apparently, during the primaries, rural voters weren't very familiar with Sen Obama, but did know who Sen Clinton was. As they've learned more about Obama, they've begun supporting him."

I do think that Obama's ceiling was underestimated. People do fall in love with Obama once they get to know him. The best example was Pennsylvania. Yes, the final score had him losing, but remember that at the start of the six week period prior to the vote, Clinton was running about 25-30% ahead. Since Obama was allowed to campaign for such a long time in one state, he dramatically cut down her lead and eventually lost in the single digits.

That's what's happening this election. Obama was an unknown, but people are getting to know him and like him. The DNC introduced him to a large part of America and the heavily watched debates made it clear that he was, in fact, ready to lead the country. And now that Obama is non-stop campaigning in the battlegrounds, he is pulling away.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 14, 2008 11:24 AM | Report abuse

Is Obama a SOCIALIST and does it matter?

Yes he is.

Yes it does.

It was a hoot to see a plumber complain to Obama to his face that he did not appreciate Obama wanting to raise his business taxes.

Obama's only answer was that he should not feel offended since it was proper to "redistribute the wealth."

This is akin to Biden saying it is patriotic to pay taxes.

The issue is not about paying taxes for the sake of needed and proper governmental programs that serve all.

The issue is about whether it is proper to force SOCIALISM and the idea of redistribution of wealth upon the American voters.

Obviously, Obama is steep in socialistic training and mentoring. That coupled with training on radical anti-American anti-White and anti-Capitalistic ideas.

So, it is no surprise that Obama has now been discovered on the official roles of SOCIALIST parties in Chicago, such as NEW PARTY and DSA (Democratic Socialists Of America).

The bottom line, no matter how Obama tries to whitewash his background, he is a true Marxist Socialist at heart. His historical voting pattern is SOCIALIST true blue.

Of course, he knows better than to actually confess what he is. It would be bad for business so to speak.

Now young voters, especially the likes of 20 year old DDawd that actually thinks he has a clue, will rely on Obama's current line of lying to show what Obama is really like. See, he says, Obama is for this and for that. Well no dude, the real Obama is not represented by Obama's current line of lying. His current line of lying is strictly for the sake of votes. His real self is revealed in his history which again is SOCIALISM true blue, through and through.

Unfortunately, the main stream media wants to portray Obama the way that Obama wants to be portrayed. And the MSM has never really digged deep into what the real Obama is like. This is the most unfortunate part of the MSM. They have become Obama campaigners and have decided that journalism can take a back seat. Only in their case, the MSM has forced journalism to be dragged behind pickup trucks until it is no longer recognizable.

Posted by: KMichaels | October 14, 2008 11:22 AM | Report abuse

I keep hoping this blog will find some intelligence somewhere, but it is just the same old chanting day after day.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 14, 2008 11:21 AM | Report abuse

Well what do you expect when you are out there beating the bushes to find economists (probably from the McCain campaign organization) that disagree with McCain. Obama rolled one out this morning that is laughable. Let everyone that is lucky enough to have $10,000 in a 401K pull out up to that amount to help them get through this rough patch. He doesn't get it either. Many working folks don't make enough to be socking money away in a 401K account. Most of them are lucky if they have a retirement plan at work and they are banking on Social Security. Also most people that would have access to money in a 401K have probably already had to use it before he came up with this genius plan of his. Also what are they going to do when they hit that rough patch in their retirement years. They will either have to work that much longer or depend on the Welfare state to support them. Pelosi is already calling for increased funding of Welfare as part of her stimulus package. We will all have to line up for help from Nancy Pelosi. That is Obama's solution for everything. Just throw some money out there. Where is he going to get all of this money he is throwing around. I think you and I both know where. He will be picking your pockets clean.

Posted by: flcraker | October 14, 2008 11:20 AM | Report abuse

Capital gains tax cut... yeh, that is a winning approach. After all, people are paying a lot of capital gains this year! And for the few who did profit, this will only encourage them to cash out now and drive the market down.

Great thinking there Johnny!

Posted by: Groundhogday1 | October 14, 2008 11:19 AM | Report abuse

Wow, so Obama got things handed to him on a plate did he? In racist America?

Hm.....I think some of you ought to have a bit of a think about that.

No -one gets to be president of Harvard Law Review unless they are the goods, they don't graduate summa cum laude if they are stupid and they don't have a juris doctors of law by being dumb.

Posted by: shepherdmarilyn | October 14, 2008 11:17 AM | Report abuse

leichtman prevaricates:

to help elect her opponent who refused to lift a finger to help retire her debt,...

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

never known you to lie. sad.

Posted by: wpost4112 | October 14, 2008 11:17 AM | Report abuse

"DDAWD,

I went right past that comment but you are right. BO has tried to help HC with her debt, and if (as I expect) there are campaign dollars left over at the end of this thing, he may yet help her more.

But further in his defense, she ran up an unprecedented bill, because it was the longest, costliest primary season in the modern era."

It's not Obama's fault that Hillary couldn't recoup her debt. The problem is that no one is interested in providing charity to a multi-millionaire. Not when there are elections to win. Note the plural. Yeah, someone might have maxed out on the $4600 for Obama, but you also have Congressional and Senatorial races. Why give Clinton money when you can use it to help get a Senator elected?

And despite all that, Obama helped her. It's not his fault that "Charity for Clinton" wasn't their highest priority.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 14, 2008 11:16 AM | Report abuse

"She deserves the utmost respect from the Obama supporters for her tireless efforts to help elect her opponent who refused to lift a finger to help retire her debt"

Nice to see that the Hillary dead-enders are now showing up on the Obama side, now that Obama has a commanding lead in most polls, and trying to take credit for what the Obama campaign has accomplished. "Tireless"? You must be joking.

You were wrong on this in the spring, and just as wrong now. How stupid do you have to be to expect Obama to pick up the tab for the worst-run, nastiest campaign in primary history?

Posted by: bondjedi | October 14, 2008 11:15 AM | Report abuse

Obama keeps cool under the slimy attacks of McCain's camp. Their slime is harming only the attackers, while Obama moves forward hoping that the High Road he has chosen will prevail. His message remains on target and his economic proposals are timely and reasonable for the middle class. Those of us who really need the most help finally dare hope to get our champion in the Presidency. It will be a difficult task, but Obama has shown character and stamina: he'll reach accross the aisle in an earnest effort to deliver on our behalf.

Posted by: Vanesa2 | October 14, 2008 11:13 AM | Report abuse

What plan? You mean the one he had at 11AM, or the one that he introduced at 3PM after people didn't like the first one?

Posted by: majorteddy | October 14, 2008 11:09 AM | Report abuse

DDAWD,

I went right past that comment but you are right. BO has tried to help HC with her debt, and if (as I expect) there are campaign dollars left over at the end of this thing, he may yet help her more.

But further in his defense, she ran up an unprecedented bill, because it was the longest, costliest primary season in the modern era.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | October 14, 2008 11:09 AM | Report abuse

The csmonitor says Obama is gaining among rural voters:

http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2008/10/13/obama-gaining-among-rural-voters/

Apparently, during the primaries, rural voters weren't very familiar with Sen Obama, but did know who Sen Clinton was. As they've learned more about Obama, they've begun supporting him. Many have mentioned McCain's selection of Palin and apparent lack of economic knowledge as well. Also see Broder's piece in today's Post about the steep uphill challenge faced by McCain in PA.

Posted by: bsimon1 | October 14, 2008 11:08 AM | Report abuse

fishingriver writes:

"Important to note here that last week McCain opposed injecting money into the banks. Obama approved of this idea. Now the market is recovering. McCain was wrong... again."

The market was ready to recover, after the big drop, based on lots of factors. If you are saying that any governmental move can be given credit for where the economy ends up then you are naive indeed. And McCain is not against the feds injecting money into the system. He is against governmental gifts to the banks. I think you misread his policy.

Posted by: KMichaels | October 14, 2008 11:06 AM | Report abuse


I don't doubt that HC would have resonated better in the rural communities. HC/BO or HC/JB or BO/HC would be better in some areas than BO/JB. But as you said, water under the bridge.

I have thought about 2012. If BO is running for re-election, the country would have to be in pretty bad shape for HC to run against him. I hope the country is on such a good track that only DK runs against him.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | October 14, 2008 11:03 AM | Report abuse

"her opponent who refused to lift a finger to help retire her debt"

Why lie?

Posted by: DDAWD | October 14, 2008 11:02 AM | Report abuse

"tctexas: "I'm ready to hear apologies from every African American who's ever claimed White Americans were too racist to elect a Black President""

Sorry, but electing a black JFK isn't going to cut it.

Elect a black George Bush and THEN I think we'll have achieved racial equality.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 14, 2008 11:00 AM | Report abuse

What a sad legacy for the Grand Old Party. ..............
http://thefiresidepost.com/2008/10/09/the-gop-legacy-wars-death-hatred-socialism/

Posted by: glclark4750 | October 14, 2008 11:00 AM | Report abuse

You know, I almost feel sorry for the man. Of course, I still want Obama to wipe the floor with McCain, but you get the sense that their campaign is so disjointed that it doesn't matter what his economic plan is. I will almost miss the campaign because of the shear amount of comical stories that have come out of it. I mean, withcraft preachers, Palin yelling at her own supporters, getting booed at a Flyers game, her ridiculous interviews etc. I could go on and on...the funny thing is that my GOP friends continue to defend them. One said she is 'leery,' of Obama. I said to her, I would be more leery of your party should they win.'

Posted by: authorofpoetry | October 14, 2008 10:54 AM | Report abuse

mike its water under the bridge bt R analyst Kelly Anne said that HC would have resonated better in rural communities. O will win without her but that is besides the point. She deserves the utmost respect from the Obama supporters for her tireless efforts to help elect her opponent who refused to lift a finger to help retire her debt, something done by every other D Presidential nominee victor in my lifetime.

Obama/Biden '08
HC 2012

Posted by: leichtman | October 14, 2008 10:50 AM | Report abuse

tctexas: "I'm ready to hear apologies from every African American who's ever claimed White Americans were too racist to elect a Black President"

**********************
as soon as you white Texans apologize for dragging a black man to his death behind a car, I'll get back to you on an apology.
And there are some lynchings, cross burnings, Jim Crow, etc, that you might want to at least acknowledge - you know, HISTORY!!

Not that I am getting ahead of myself - the election is still three weeks off.

Posted by: LABC | October 14, 2008 10:47 AM | Report abuse

The problem with polls on specifics is that the largest percentage of respondents will vote based on the name. If you reversed the policies between Obama and McCain and then asked the same questions the numbers would be drastically different because the vast majority will vote based on the label. Of course, some being polled will give their honest views but that some is closer to 30 percent. So the remaining 70% will answer based on labels.

Howard Stern (whom I dislike generally) sent a reporter to Harlem. He asked people who they were going to vote for. Of course they all said Obama. Then the reporter (using nothing but McCain policies and beliefs but calling them Obama's) asked the people if they supported the policy. They all said yes. Some people even agreed with Obama that Obama choosing Palin as VP was a good idea.

This is the nature of polls in America. Party first, idea second or never.

Obama is the epitome of a party person. Unfortunately, the party he started with was the DSA (Democratic Socialists of America) and the NEW PARTY (also a socialist party). Obama was listed on their roll as a card carrying member.

Of course most Obamite supporters will be ok with this because party first, country last. That is their modus operandi.

Posted by: KMichaels | October 14, 2008 10:44 AM | Report abuse

Important to note here that last week McCain opposed injecting money into the banks. Obama approved of this idea. Now the market is recovering. McCain was wrong... again. Why isn't the "liberal media" crediting McCain with his position? Why would such an important position be left out of an article dedicated to McCain's economic policy?

Posted by: fishingriver | October 14, 2008 10:42 AM | Report abuse

tctexas: "I'm ready to hear apologies from every African American who's ever claimed White Americans were too racist to elect a Black President"

I'm sure many will be GLAD to say they were wrong. But "ever" claimed? I think African Americans were perfectly correct to claim, even up to earlier this year, that racism in this country would keep a black man out of the White House. The primary elections give plenty of evidence for that claim.

A good deal of the credit for Obama's current success in the polls has to do with having the right candidate at the right time. If this were 2000 or 2004, McCain would be WAY ahead.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | October 14, 2008 10:40 AM | Report abuse

37th and A-hole street: You should be glad that anyone would want to be the fake you. Cutting and pasting the psychotic smears and lies that you got from a website run by an anti-semite is hardly worthy of impersonation. shoo, fly...

Posted by: LABC | October 14, 2008 10:40 AM | Report abuse

mark good to hear from you again. Did not catch the ex post facto reference by chandra, will try and find out her referance. I am thoroughly disappointed in lampson's refusal to support the congressional bailout that devistated the market the last 2 weeks. It was the right political move for his district, the wrong move as a US Congressman, responsible not only for his district but doing the right thing for the economic security of the nation and I told him as much. Spending all of my time with Chris Bell campaign for State Senate. Clinton was hear yesterday for his fundraiser. Bell winning without a runoff will be difficult. Have yet to see Lampson spend 1 cent on tv 3 weeks out. As I predicted, O is down big here in Texas which is hurting Noreiga and I guess your congressional candidate, Dougherty. Still think HC would have done better with Texas rural voters and conservatives here in Texas; curious your thoughts now 6 months later.

Posted by: leichtman | October 14, 2008 10:39 AM | Report abuse

The Obama issues that he is running his campaign on.

1) Republicans are responsible for the economy.

2) Capital gains taxes are good.

3) Capital gains taxes are bad.

4) I said, I never said, I said.

5) I will use public funding.

6) I will not use public funding.

7) I will say anything to get elected.

8) People will lie for me because I belong to their party.

Posted by: KMichaels | October 14, 2008 10:37 AM | Report abuse

How can you reclaim what you never had? Why should Obama be giving up any ground on economics when he cleary has the better team behind him for advisors.

Posted by: nclwtk | October 14, 2008 10:30 AM | Report abuse


leichtman:

I believe you may be misreading Chandran's intent in the post about HRC.

He says she would have been the "sure win" pick. Also that Biden was a "good pick" for foreign affairs. I do not see any disrespect of Senator Clinton in those remarks.

I think that Sen. Obama could have won (in this economic environment) with any of several running mates, including HRC. The conventional wisdom at the time, though, was that 1) choosing HRC after the hard-fought primaries would be a sign of weakness, and 2) that an HRC pick would energize the base.

I think if Barack had picked Hillary, John would not have picked Sarah. Sarah has turned out to be a net liability. So, as it turns out, McCain/Romney vs. Obama/Clinton would be a much tighter race at this point. That is nothing against Senator Clinton--it's just an accident of history.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | October 14, 2008 10:20 AM | Report abuse

Chandran, I had hoped Leichtman would respond to your chaacterization of "ex post facto" law. In America, this is genrally prohibited in the criminal law: one cannot be prosecuted for an act that was lawful at the time one committed it.

The law you cite was a retroactive correction that did not take away a vested property right or liberty interest. It was within Congress' express power to make statutes enabling the Fourteenth Amendment, which was in many respects not self-operative. No federal court would entertain the hypothetical lawsuit you proposed.
-------------
Leichtman, how is Lampson doing? That Olsen dual citizenship thing I read about in "Burnt Orange" cannot actually have any traction, right?


Posted by: mark_in_austin | October 14, 2008 10:18 AM | Report abuse

Each day that the McCain Palin campaign stays the course is another day they lose ground on the road to the White House.

Posted by: bsimon1 | October 14, 2008 10:15 AM | Report abuse

It depends from person to person.Principles are what count to me an and if these principles can stand the test of tempatations of self enrichement, that is the kind of person who would make a good leader for me.

Posted by: SangeethChandran | October 14, 2008 10:12 AM | Report abuse

So, McCain and Palin want to talk about character issues, huh? Fine, we can play that game if you want. You betcha! Also!


Since Obama is actually running a campaign on the ISSUES, and because he is too classy to run smear a campaign, voters may not know about the character issues on the McCain/Palin family ticket. Allow me to enlighten everyone.

Let's start with the adulterous and unethical McCain family. John McCain cheated on his first wife, many times, after she became disfigured in an accident. He eventually robbed the cradle by cheating on his exwife with his current one: the model/alcohol distribution empire heiress Cindy McCain. In addition to being a home wrecker, Cindy McCain stole from her own charity to support her out of control drug addiction. John McCain's central role in the Keating 5 scandal directly contributed to one of America's greatest financial crisis, costing tax payers over $120 billion. Today, the McCain campaign is surrounded by similar political patrons and corrupt lobbyists.

Now for the Palin clan: Sarah Palin's family preaches the social practices of the religious far-right, yet this has resulted in an underage and unwed pregnant daughter. Mr. Palin boasts a DUI on his resume and was a long time member of the America hating secessionist Alaska Independent Party. Admitted marijuana smoker Sarah Palin clearly puts career ahead of family as she leaves behind her special needs baby and pregnant teen for the campaign trail. She is known for shooting and killing stray canines from planes and paling around with an extremist who started a real witch hunt in Africa before coming to Alaska to serve as the Palin family preacher. While the race-baiting Sarah Palin was busy using hate speech against Obama to incite rage among the Republican base, a bipartisan committee was busy finding Palin GUILTY of ethics violations as governor of Alaska.
Sorry, McCain/Palin, but you do not represent the American values we demand from our leaders.

In addition to the issues of the economy, health care, foreign policy, and reform, it looks like you can't win the 'character' issue either.

Posted by: jgarrisn | October 14, 2008 10:06 AM | Report abuse

as someone who is a reluctant supporter of Senator Obama I am totally sickened to still be reading garbage like this still remains with his supporters here at the Fix:

"However Obama showed that he has the ineterst of the coutry first by not choosing Clinton"

Chandran: since HC has campaigned her heart out for her opponent while his supporters who have shown her absolutely no respect, I am curious why you would continue to post such garbage. Are you encouraging HC supporters like me to once again turn away from Senator Obama. Would appreciate your response.

Posted by: leichtman | October 14, 2008 10:04 AM | Report abuse

MCCAIN CLAIMS CROWD OF 25,000 IN VENUE THAT WILL ONLY HOLD 16,000 AND WAS ONLY 3/4 FULL. IS MCCAIN CAPABLE OF EVER TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT EVEN THE MOST MINUTE THINGS?

Posted by: popasmoke | October 14, 2008 10:04 AM | Report abuse

John McCon was born at the Coco Solo U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone to U.S. parents. US military bases overseas are foreign soil. Although the Panama Canal Zone was not considered to be part of the United States, federal law states: "Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States." The law, however, that conferred this status took effect on August 4,1937, one year AFTER John McCon was born (Aug 29, 1936). Any natural citizen claim has a retroactive effect. "Ex post facto" laws or resolutions are unconstitutional. Congress by resolution made McCon a "natural citizen", resulting in McCon being declared a U.S. citizen, in violation. The congressional resolution is unlawful, can be challenged and result in any McCon presidency being overturned. Only 'natural citizens "according to the US Constitution are eligible to hold the President and VP offices. We have a big problem here, my friends. McCon steps down or is removed, in accordance with the "natural citizen" and "ex post facto%u201D provisions of the US Constitution, you get President "Sarah is Failing". So who wants to know where is McCons birth certificate??

Posted by: SangeethChandran | October 14, 2008 10:03 AM | Report abuse

The editor's name does not appear on articles he or she writes for the Harvard Law Review. It's just how it's done.

Didn't I see you waving a stuffed animal monkey at a McCain rally?

Posted by: McBain1 | October 14, 2008 9:57 AM | Report abuse

CHRIS:

I enjoy your posts and agree with most of them. And I enjoy the back and forth in the comments.

I would appreciate it, however, if you would ask your MySpace "friend," 37th&O Street, to stop pasting the same irrelevant rants on every thread here. It is annoying.

37th&O,

It is clear from your actions that you do not want to discuss the real issues in this campaign, but only to raise irrational fear and doubt about your candidate's opponent. Or perhaps you are only interested in earning "blog points" from the McCain campaign so you can get another t-shirt. Whatever.

Some of your posts (not the ones you cut-and-paste ad infinitum) show you are a critical thinker. I know you don't believe a fraction of the things you post about Obama--you're just trying to muddy the waters.

Please reconsider this "win at any cost" strategy. You have placed your integrity on the line for a losing campaign. Imagine how you will feel on November 5, when McCain has lost the election, and you lost your soul.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | October 14, 2008 9:50 AM | Report abuse

Rural route 37th&0, Appalachia,

The republican party and the fat katz on wall st. remind me of a criminal, who, after being shot on the door steps of the bank he just robbed, tries to tell the innocent bystanders that he was only trying to make a deposit, really. But they seen my guns and they gave me all this money!

Apparently there are some people who believed him!

Posted by: victorlove1 | October 14, 2008 9:50 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: 37thandOStreet
"Having said that, Obama NEVER wrote for the Harvard Law Review."

"There is NOT ONE ARTICLE WRITTEN BY OBAMA IN THE HARVARD LAW REVIEW."

The articles written by the editor of the Law Review don't have bylines, moron.

Posted by: McBain1 | October 14, 2008 9:49 AM | Report abuse

McCon lost all my respect when he choose slf over country in selecting "Sarah is Failing". His logic might have worked like this-choose a beautful household mum and we can surely attarct the people who had earlier supported Clinton. And bingo, we would win. However Obama showed that he has the ineterst of the coutry first by not choosing Clinton, which was sure win ticket. Instead he selcted someone who would be good, especially for America`s foreign relationships. With the McCon/"Sarah is Failing", the world would be a scarier place to live in as they woudnt even know the geographic location of the places thay have approved to be bombed. thay might probabaly approve a place by the name Indian Wells assuming it is India or Los Alamos thinking it is in Spain. God have mercy then

Posted by: SangeethChandran | October 14, 2008 9:47 AM | Report abuse

Rural route 37th&0, Appalachia,

The republican party and the fat katz on wall st. remind me of a criminal, who, after being shot on the door steps of the bank he just robbed, tries to tell the innocent bystanders that he was only trying to make a deposit, really. But they seen my guns and they gave me all this money!

Posted by: victorlove1 | October 14, 2008 9:46 AM | Report abuse

I'm ready to hear apologies from every African American who's ever claimed White Americans were too racist to elect a Black President

Posted by: tctexas | October 14, 2008 9:44 AM | Report abuse

USA3,

Yoiu are such a cry baby. Cry more.

Posted by: Independent4tw | October 14, 2008 9:40 AM | Report abuse

Re: McCain's attempt to "reclaim" the economic issue – ever hear the term "Johnny-come-lately?"

Even if McCain could come up with an objectively sound economic proposal he's already shredded his perceived competence on the issue and his credibility in general. He'll come across like the scene in "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" in which the incumbent governor's son suggests "gettin' us some of that RE-form too."

Posted by: FlownOver | October 14, 2008 9:38 AM | Report abuse

soory tcraft.got the wrong name.i appologise

Posted by: SangeethChandran | October 14, 2008 9:33 AM | Report abuse

Well the media are frenzy about Senator Obama so what can you expect about Senator McCain? The media are still in love with Senator Obama so. Straight talk is not popular all the time: People like sugary stuffs, although sugar is not good for health.

Posted by: crystalcrystal2008 | October 14, 2008 9:33 AM | Report abuse

I will say this: McCain regained some measure of respect from me this past weekend when he stood up to the haters in his audience and told them that Obama was a solid family man and that they should not be scared of an Obama presidency.

I wasn't expecting that and I was a bit mollified. I've said some harsh things about Sen. McCain on these boards, but he started redeeming his reputation in my eyes. Not enough for me to vote for him, but still...

Posted by: dbitt | October 14, 2008 9:30 AM | Report abuse

tcraft please identify yourself as a joesixpack or hockey mum

Posted by: SangeethChandran | October 14, 2008 9:30 AM | Report abuse

"Will this be the first step in the attempted reclamation of the issue?" The answer is obviously yes, but that's not a very interesting question. The real question is will he succeed in the attempt? I doubt it - McCain has been getting poor economics advice all along. There is no evidence he has brought on any new advisers, so what reason is there to think these ideas will be any better? In any case, It will be very, very difficult to overcome the perception of economic ineptitude this late in the game.

Posted by: wmw4 | October 14, 2008 9:29 AM | Report abuse

I just feel obama will help bring change,
and I am unable to change my own life,
I am about to go belly up, and my
baby daddy is in jail, so I think
a nice gov. check, should snap me out of it,
and what if I get sick? who will care for me? obama will.
i like that he is so smart,
he says things that go right over my head,
like putting a taxload on companies that
will not trickle down to the consumers.
those consumers are patriotic to pay
more then their share.
change is like co-dependency.
nobama08

Posted by: USA3 | October 14, 2008 9:29 AM | Report abuse

As for the economy, McCain can't recapture the issue. The voters have already "hardened" on this topic and they trust Obama, not McCain. His policies have not caught on, his ideas are not exciting anyone except the lunatic fringe of free-marketeers, and the few thoughts that aren't cribbed from Obama (or Clinton) are just rehashes of the failed Bush economic policy of the past eight years.
In other words, nothing to see here. Let's move along.

Posted by: dbitt | October 14, 2008 9:27 AM | Report abuse

The McCon campaign has built itself on lies and utter lies about itself as well as it political rivals. And it had hoped that the average Americans would be mcconed into beliveing this derogatory categorsitaion of joe sixpacks and hockey mums. Unfortunately for the McCon camp, as was evident at Philly, the American people are intelligent enough not to fall for this silly categorisation or targetting. What also seems to be happening now is that the McCon camp seems have been mcconned by its own stories and figures and believe they still have a chance to win. No ways. the game is over Mccon.

Posted by: SangeethChandran | October 14, 2008 9:25 AM | Report abuse

Good point, mischanova. McCain graduated near the very bottom of his class in Annapolis, yet was chosen for the elite position of pilot-- how? Guess it helps to have "affirmative action" (in the form of a four-star admiral dad and grand-dad) working for you.
Saying Obama benefited from affirmative action is a lie. His record shows he had the grades to earn scholarships and get a place at Harvard Law without any "breaks" being handed to him on account of his race.
It's time to stop the lies about who benefits from favoritism between the two candidates.

Posted by: dbitt | October 14, 2008 9:25 AM | Report abuse

obama will stop foreclosures for 90 days
and allow 'some' individuals to take monies
from their 401K plans penalty free.
WHAT IS HE GOING TO DO FOR PEOPLE WHO PAY
THEIR BILLS!!!!!
he is going to make us foot the bill for
helping the helpless.
PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY
STOP THE SPENDING INSANITY

NOBAMA08

Posted by: USA3 | October 14, 2008 9:22 AM | Report abuse

37thandO,
Which candidate benefited from a form of affirmative action? Obama, who worked hard and got into college on merit and graduated with honors, got into law school and was voted editor of the law review, which carries great distinction, went to work with one of the largest law firms in Chicago, only to leave to work with the poor?

Or was it McCain, who got into Annapolis as a legacy, despite his grades, was saved from being booted out on demerits by being a legacy, crashed not one, but two Navy planes screwing around and was still kept on active air duty, was directly involved in the worst naval disaster in the Vietnam War and ran and hid during it in the pilot ready room, got a job as the Senate liaison office because of Daddy and Granddaddy? Who got favored treatment again?

Yeah, must have been Obama.

Posted by: mischanova | October 14, 2008 9:21 AM | Report abuse

THE McCain Chosen One: a finger wagging, tongue-babbling, witchcraft fighting, TrooperGate dodging, Nowhere flip flopping, animal slaughtering, book banning, Putin pontificating, Drill-Baby-Drill cheerleading, earmark requesting, media manipulating, rape victim charging, choice killing, lipstick wearing pitbull who aspires to be Commander in Chief on the basis of her Alaskan National Guard "leadership" and clear, unfettered view of the soul of Putin in the Russian countryside to fix all the problems in Washington.

http://theshrillhockeymom.com

_./'\._¸¸.•¤**¤•.¸.•¤**¤•..•¤. .
*•. .•* *Obama/Biden* o8!! Vote4 REAL Change!! bushwhacked
/.•*•.\ •¤**¤•.,.•¤**¤•.,.•¤**¤

Posted by: HemiHead66 | October 14, 2008 9:20 AM | Report abuse

McCAIN-PALIN'S 'FELLOW TRAVELER' INSINUATIONS:
WHAT IF U.S. SECURITY FORCES AGREE?

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/mccain-palins-fellow-traveler-insinuations-what-if-u-s-security-forces-agree

Posted by: scrivener50 | October 14, 2008 9:14 AM | Report abuse

How many times has McCain rolled out a new series of proposals throughout this election. He's shaken things up so many times that I'm dizzy. He seems to be at his best when he just copies everything that Obama does. I guess this is what you get when you let a bunch of Bush hacks run your campaign. "Bushwhacked"


_./'\._¸¸.•¤**¤•.¸.•¤**¤•..•¤. .
*•. .•* *Obama/Biden* o8!! Vote4 REAL Change!!
/.•*•.\ •¤**¤•.,.•¤**¤•.,.•¤**¤

Posted by: HemiHead66 | October 14, 2008 9:12 AM | Report abuse

37th writes:

"Not bad for a guy who is probably in reality half white and half MUSLIM."


Like I said, this is all the McCain crowd has left.

Bitter racist and ethnic bile, spilling out at the rallies and here on the Wa Po blogs, and character attacks.

Nobody cares about Ayers, Rezko, Wright, or Obama's law school history. Voters are looking for coherent, honest leadership. On the economy and foreign and domestic isues.....something that McCain, at least so far, has been unable to articulate how he would provide.

Here's a little more straight talk my friends: President Barack H. Obama.

Posted by: mathas | October 14, 2008 9:04 AM | Report abuse

One of the biggest jokes about the McCain economic plan is his proposal to reduce the capital gains tax rate on stock investments. Has anyone bothered to tell his campaign that the DOW has been down 43% this year and except for a few short sellers THERE ARE NO CAPITAL GAINS. How about a real proposal like increasing the yearly deduction from $3,000 to $5,000 per year for stock LOSSES.

Posted by: leichtman | October 14, 2008 9:01 AM | Report abuse

37th and O Street says that Mr. Obama took a position at the Harvard Law School from a white student. How does he know that all the white students did not take positions at Harvard Law School from black students?

Posted by: jdcolv | October 14, 2008 8:52 AM | Report abuse

Nothing like being down by double digits to bring out the panderer in a presidential candidate.

Posted by: FirstMouse1 | October 14, 2008 8:49 AM | Report abuse

Mr. Magoo is out of touch -- is this a surprise, really, to anybody who's been following events -- even with only one eye open?

Posted by: thesuperclasssux | October 14, 2008 8:33 AM | Report abuse

This thread is about Obama making a much better connection with voters on economic issues. Not what Obama did or did not do while at law school.

This is what the McCain camp has been reduced to, every thread on the Wa Po blog area for example, contains one hit piece after another on Obama's character.

Hey Obama haters, in case you didn't notice, it isn't working. The more you attack, the higher Obama goes in the polls. Do the words cause and effect mean anything to you ?

I know, you love to spew the hate, call for Obama's head and scream terrorist and traitor at the mere mention of his name.

But it's time for some straight talk my friends.....Obama wins the WH with 300 + electoral votes and 51.5 % or more of the popular vote.

Posted by: mathas | October 14, 2008 8:27 AM | Report abuse

Because we, the voters, do not have a coherent view of the financial crisis we want to hear coherence from the nominees.
The Q Poll, IMHO, measures the perception of the coherence of the nominees' actions.

I think McC could project coherence for the remaining 21 days and move his polling numbers a bit, but not enough. It would be a positive if McC jettisoned Phil Gramm -I doubt whether he can present coherence relying on that man.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | October 14, 2008 8:24 AM | Report abuse

Everybody needs to read the piece on John Mccain written in Rolling Stone magazine. It tells the whole story about the man running for president with interviews with former and current friends, former pow's that were in the Hanoi Hilton with Mccain, political opponents. It paints a very different picture of a man who claims to be country first and a straight talker including his very deep link with Keating, his wife's drug use, abuse and making a doctor steal drugs for her and the coverup. It also details his very manipulative use of his family name to get places he had no business or right to achieve. This is a scary man who does not care about anyone but himself. You dont have to play the he said she said game as this piece is substantive and a lot of the fuel comes straight from Mccain's mouth himself. Please read for yourself and post it everywhere you can to get the real truth about Mccain to the public. This is not a honorable man neither in marriage or life. We cannot let this man win the White House. Spread the word.

Posted by: qneee | October 14, 2008 8:20 AM | Report abuse

McCain has lost. It's that simple. There is nothing for him to reclaim. He's changed his economic initiatives a number of times while Obama has remained steady with his. He and Palin decided to focus on Ayers rather than a coherent economic proposal. The public has tuned out McCain/Palin.

More importantly, the economy will not get better anytime soon. Expect a bit of a public backlash from the rapid rise of the stock markets after these enormous bailouts. Also expect continued job losses, inflation and mortgage problems. None of this will be magically wiped-away in the next few weeks (or months). With forecasts of unemployment rates of 8%-9% next year, Republicans will be on the hook for a while to come....

Posted by: RickJ | October 14, 2008 7:52 AM | Report abuse

37thand0, out of curiosity, why do you keep posting the same old lies?

If you really are pro-McCain, this kind of racist drivel is hurting him and helping Obama, in addition to insulting the intelligence of those of us online.

Obama was not voted onto the Harvard Law Review because it would be “cool.” People are nominated to the Review based on grades and recommendations.

The Review votes for the president. It’s a huge honor, something people compete for vigorously. They aren’t stupid enough to give away an honor that any of them would receive lifelong benefits from receiving.

An editor’s job is to edit – not to write articles. I have been an editor. Have you? The job is not about writing articles.

Obama did indeed become a lawyer and practiced law. He also taught law at a major law school. As you have been told many times. With links and references.

Obama did not “take a position from a white student” – that is a stupid, racist remark. The guy graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law School. He not only deserved to be there, he was one of the top students in his class.

This sort of blatant racism on the part of his supporters is one major reason McCain is tanking in the polls. If you are honestly trying to help McCain, you might want to take a break from posting.

On the other hand, since I am an Obama supporter, I'm conflicted as to whether to egg you on, which will help my candidate, or ask you to stop, as the sort of toxic rants you posted are bad for my country. Overall, I'll go for country first. I doubt you will have the self control to do so, however.

Posted by: VirginiaGal2 | October 14, 2008 7:49 AM | Report abuse

A presidential candidate shows his quality and character from the first decisions he makes. This is obviously the selection of a brilliant team of strategists and also a funding model. President Obama has clearly shown his leadership skills on both this fronts. Secondly he shows his leadership skills in selecting a running mate. Clearly President Obama showed his presidential skills by selecting a experienced person for the good of America first. He could have selected Clinton for his good, but he elected not to do so although it was dream ticket, as he always believes in America first. Now the silly McCon though only for himself and decided that selecting a beautiful bimbo would attract a lot of votes, not for the good of America, but solely for himself. Had he selected for the good of America he would have selected one of his experienced colleagues like Lieberman. Thirdly when faced with stressul situations, he must be able to act with calm and confidence and provide steady and stable leadership-the current economic crises has clearly showed President Obama`s skill in this regards too while McCon was seen scurrying around like a headless chicken.

Posted by: SangeethChandran | October 14, 2008 7:46 AM | Report abuse

Xanadu3, nice try. Stating that the Democrates are responsible for the financial crisis, is a slick move on your part. Slick, but not true because you said it. Can you say Phil Graham? I am not saying the Demoncrates didn't contribute to the problem, but I don't believe you can point to any single group and say -- "They did it". You are trying to fix blame rather than solve a problem.

Posted by: frederick2 | October 14, 2008 7:31 AM | Report abuse

McCain/Palin are certainly on defense and the economic downturn has certainly shaken up the competition.

The economy is improving and with it chances that Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin will see their numbers increase especially as the public understands Dem responsibility for the crisis.

Sen. McCain co-sponsored a bill to correct this problem years ago but it was defeated by liberals on a party line vote.

Sen. Obama and other Dems have supported and funded Acorn with taxpayers dollars. Acorn not only undermined our election system, they also undermined safeguards to protect the mortgage process and the financial system.

Liberals like Sen. Obama pushed for giving mortgages to those not qualified. Like grade inflation where a student is given "B"s but is really a "D" student, mortgages that are "D" or "F" were presented as "B" or "A" under pressure from Sen. Obama and other liberals.

Long serving Dem. Senators like Dodd & Kerry received large contributions from Freddie/Fannie which were controlled by Dems.

Sen. Obama, who just recently became a senator, received almost as many contributions as Dodd who chairs the oversight committee that did not oversee this growing mess and received a sweet heart mortgage deal.

Obama, Dodd, Kerry, Frank and Acorn undermined mortgages, which undermined Freddie/Fannie which undermined the financial system which hurt taxpayers and homeowners while Sen. Obama received political contributions, foot soldiers, and advisors.

Posted by: Xanadu3 | October 14, 2008 7:17 AM | Report abuse

The problem for McCain is that taken with the massive Obama money advantage any message he tries to get out will be drowned by the onslaught of the Obama ad machine.
Not to mention the fact that McCain himself said he wasn't that strong on economic issues. Now I know that is taken somewhat out of context, but the fact is he said it and in a 30 second ad that's all that matters.

Lastly, I would expect for McCain to come out swinging tomorrow night and hope for a knock out blow. But the thing is I think that strategy plays right into Obama's hands where he can say (like he did to Clinton) that this is what happens when politicians smell defeat, they attack.

I think this race will be over by wednesday night at 10:30 pm EST when the next president of the United States shakes Senator McCain's hand.

Posted by: AndyR3 | October 14, 2008 7:10 AM | Report abuse

"McCain is expected to roll out a series of economic proposals today. Will this be the first step in the attempted reclamation of the issue?"

Answer: No. He will continue with 24/7 Ayers.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | October 14, 2008 7:05 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company