Good for her. Once Democrats are united, old man McCain will be in big trouble.
....
I just heard the dumbest analogy ever on CNN. David Gergen said that if this were 1968, John McCain would be the Bobby Kennedy of the election. I find that quite a stretch. RFK was campaigning to end the unpopular war in Vietnam. John McCain is campaigning to keep Bush's war going for 100 years.
Mass transit will be one of the major issues confronting America in the next few decades. As anyone who follows such issues knows, no city or state can begin a major mass transit project without considerable assistance from the federal government. There is nothing wrong with this -- most highway money comes from the feds as well.
So it will be interesting to look at the competing stances of Obama and McCain on this issue. From what we see so far, Obama is a big fan of mass transit. McCain, not so much:
Then there's John McCain. Well, Sen. McCain doesn't have too much to say when it comes to national transit objectives (we suppose it's a case of 'if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all'). But if there's one thing that we do know, it's that McCain hates Amtrak - at least in its current state. The Arizona Senator has been attempting for years to dissolve Amtrak and create small, privately owned rail companies. In fact, McCain has sworn that if elected, the shuttering of Amtrak would be a "a non-negotiable issue."
We'd also imagine that if McCain were to be elected president, current Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters would either remain at her post or handpick a successor. While Peters does favor congestion pricing, she also shows no signs of wanting to change the ratio of mass transit and highway spending from current levels.
If you are happy paying gas prices that will only continue to escalate, McCain is your man. Like Bush, his foreign policy will drive up oil prices while his corporate-first mentality will prevent him from pushing any alternatives. Gas prices will go up under either candidate, but at least under Obama we will start to have a choice.
The McCain campaign needs to hire a spell-checker.
Beyond the worrisome sign that this multimillion dollar campaign hasn't fixed a spelling error that occurred over 24 hours ago, I'm also intrigued by the idea that ALL of McCain's news items are about Obama.
For curiosity's sake I flipped over to the Barack Obama website. There is only one mention of John McCain, from a Feb. 9th news story about head-to-head polls.
Overall: 5 mentions of Obama's name on McCain's website. Only one mention of McCain on Obama's website.
Dedicating your website to attacks on the other candidate is not a sign of confidence.
During his press conference today in Baton Rouge, John McCain declared in strong terms that he's voted for every investigation of Hurricane Katrina.
The only problem, as the DNC has been pointing out to reporters, is he voted twice against Democratic proposals to investigate the levee failures.
After a local reporter at his Baton Rouge press conference asked why he voted against forming a commission to investigate the levee failures in New Orleans, McCain insisted that he supported every investigation -- and added that he was "not familiar" with what the reporter was talking about.
McCain voted against establishing a commission to investigate the levee failures, in a September 2005 party-line vote in which all Republicans voted against the Democratic proposal. He then repeated that party-line GOP vote against a similar Dem proposal in February 2006.
The McCain campaign issued a lame response, saying that McCain wasn't interested in these Congressional investigations because the Department of Homeland Security was already investigating.
This seems to compound the error. First McCain lies about his record on the Katrina investigations. Then he claims that he had full confidence in the sham after-report compiled by the same people who screwed up in the first place.
McCain is trying to burnish his anti-Bush cred by pounding the administration on Katrina. But the facts are not in his favor. On the day Katrina hit landfall, McCain was celebrating his 100th birthday with George W. Bush in Arizona. When Democrats proposed an independent investigation into what happened, McCain voted against it. He also voted against Katrina relief efforts. For him to now call himself a champion of Katrina victims is simply ridiculous.
I keep coming back to this speech, and I really can not get over how bad it really was. If a student gave a speech this bad in a public speaking class, not only would he be failed, it would probably spark mandatory drug testing.
This is so awful, strained, and off-key, that it really does almost cause physical pain to watch. Did he even practice it? Hell, did he read it before he delivered it? I really had thought that Bush was one of the worst public speakers I had ever seen, but McCain seems to be lowering the bar.
The weird thing about McCain is that he seems much older than he actually is. Seventy-two, while certainly elderly, still leaves years of capable, mentally alert life barring significant disease or disability. And the issue with his age isn’t his mental capacity (he’s the exact same kind of cluelessly aggressive conservative demagogue that we see coming out of Young Republican groups on campuses the nation ‘round), it’s simply how he comes off - as a caricature of every crusty old meanspirited coot wondering about kids these days and their e-pods and the funny new athletes with the odd names like “LeBron” and “LaDanian” and “Albert”.
Barack's like a fresh hot pizza from the best pizza place in New York...and John McCain is the cardboard box it was delivered in.
To be fair, John McCain is more comfortable and appealing when he is off-script. Making speeches just ain't his forte. Obama, on the other hand, is generally less powerful when speaking off the cuff (although there are major exceptions). But what's interesting is that even in town hall settings, where McCain is at his best and Obama is at his potentially worst, Obama is still more charismatic, charming and engaging that McCain could ever be.
It looks like McCain can't handle questions from real voters. Instead, his campaign is planting questions at his town hall meetings.
This reminds me of George W. Bush in 2004, when you had to sign a loyalty oath before attending a Bush rally. Not a sign of confidence from the McCain campaign.
McCain is a horrible speaker. I can't wait to hear the reviews of his RNC convention speech. If he's looking for a positive from last night, he can console himself with the fact that he's lowered expectations considerably.
But compared to Obama, let's be honest, McCain is horrible at giving speeches. The more Americans see him in venues like this, the worse it will be for him.
Here's a summary of the pundit reaction, for those who weren't watching last night. Hilarious stuff.
John McCain - A typically horrible, dull, uninspiring speech. Just about every criticism that can be made of this speech has already been made. Small venue, barely any supporters showed up, the speech was full of lies and misrepresentations about his own record and Obama's. I thought it was hilarious that the networks cut away from the speech to announce that Obama has won the nomination.
Hillary Clinton - A decent enough speech, except for the fact that she didn't concede and didn't congratulate Obama on his win. Seems a bit classless to me. If she thinks she can blackmail Obama over the VP slot, she has another thing coming. And if she really thinks that she is the only woman who can be on Obama's ticket, I think a few million feminists would differ. She has already angered a lot of Democrats, and every day she keeps up this game is another day that her reputation crumbles.
She has until Friday to concede and endorse Obama, otherwise her standing in the party begins to erode big time, much more than it already has. Right now she is the best ally that John McCain has.
Barack Obama - What else can you say? A fantastic speech. His best since January. I love the idea of giving his victory speech at the site of the RNC national convention. He just pwned McCain, he drank his milkshake, he kicked his ass on national television.
Today is a great day. For the first time in American history, an African-American has clinched a major party nomination for President.
Barack Obama effectively clinched the Democratic presidential nomination Tuesday, based on an Associated Press tally of convention delegates, becoming the first black candidate ever to lead his party into a fall campaign for the White House.
A battle has been won, but the war is still waging. Semifinals are over, now it's time for the championship round.
Dr. King isn't here to celebrate, but he knew this day would come. Grab your handkerchiefs. Today is a great day.
McCain has plenty to choose from when it comes to VP. There will be a battle between who he is comfortable with and wants to pick (Lindsay Graham, Lieberman, etc.) and who his advisors will want him to pick (Huckabee, Romney, Jindal, etc.).
I think the most intriguing pick would be Alaska governor Sarah Palin. She's young, attractive, popular in her state (not that Alaska is a swing state), pro-life, mother of five, and of course female. If Obama ends up picking a male running mate, Palin could give those angry Hillary supporters a reason to vote for McCain, despite the fact that Palin won't stop McCain from overturning Roe and fucking us over for the next generation.
The downsides to Palin, at least from McCain's view? He doesn't know her, he doesn't view women as his equals, she just gave birth one month ago and may not be able to dedicate herself full time to campaigning, she doesn't really put any new states into play, and she has zero foreign policy experience.
I think it would be a fairly good choice for McCain overall, especially if Obama picks a male running mate. I hate acknowledging these identity issues, but they are real. It would only take a small percentage of women to vote for the McCain/Palin ticket to hurt Obama's chances, and I think it unlikely that many men would vote AGAINST the McCain/Palin ticket because there is a woman on it. As we saw with Hillary Clinton, being female is generally a net positive when it comes to actual votes.
For this reason, I would strongly advise the Obama campaign to not choose a VP until after McCain makes his pick. Then they can perform some electoral jujistu and adjust accordingly. If McCain winds up picking the safe and easy choice, like Gov. Pawlenty or Romney, then Obama will have an easy job of it. If McCain picks Palin, Obama will have to get creative.
I'd like to see Obama pick a female VP anyway (Claire McCaskill is my fav), but this would make it even more important. That said, I don't have any problem with Obama picking a male VP if that person is the best qualified for the job. Even more than McCain, Obama has an embarrassment of riches when it comes to his VP options.
It will apparently be the first night in a long while where all three candidates will speak. Two of them, including John McCain, are very mediocre public speakers. One of them, the one who happens to be a very good public speaker, will finally get to declare victory tonight in his race for the Democratic nomination.
And he'll do it while drinking McCain's milkshake.
So in 2003, Rev. Hagee preached that the Antichrist would be a homosexual Jew.
In his sermon, "The Final Dictator," Hagee described the Antichrist as a seductive figure with "fierce features." He will be "a blasphemer and a homosexual," the pastor announced. Then, Hagee boomed, "There's a phrase in Scripture used solely to identify the Jewish people. It suggests that this man [the Antichrist] is at least going to be partially Jewish, as was Adolph Hitler, as was Karl Marx."
Can someone explain to me why John McCain's top Senate ally Joe Lieberman is still slated to speak at Hagee's upcoming Christians United For Israel (CUFI) summit? And maybe it's time for Abraham Foxman to not just put a "hold" on his ties with Hagee, but to break those ties and condemn him.
Imagine if one of Obama's top Senate supporters spoke at a conference espousing these kinds of anti-Semitic views. There would be outrage! But on the right, from the Sean Hannity's and Bill Kristol's of the world, there has been deafening silence.
In the last few months there was a debate about the U.S. economy. The moderator, Peter, asked a simple question. I'd like you to identify Candidate A and Candidate B:
Peter (moderator): “Do you think if Americans were asked, ‘Are you better off today than you were before George Bush took office more than seven years ago?’ What answer would they give?”
Candidate A: Certainly, at this time, we’re in very challenging times. We all recognize that. Families are sitting around the kitchen table this evening and figuring out whether they’re going to be able to keep their home or not. They’re figuring out whether they’re, why it is that suddenly and recently someone in their family or their neighbor has lost their job. There’s no doubt that we’re in enormous difficulties.
Candidate B: “I think if you look at the overall record, and millions of jobs having, being created, etc., etc., you can make an argument that there’s been great progress economically, over that period of time.
Candidate A: But that’s no comfort, that’s no comfort to families now that are facing these tremendous economic challenges.
Candidate B: But let me just add, Peter, the fundamentals of America’s economy are strong.
Boy, Candidate A is pretty pessimistic about the economy. Sounds to me like John Edwards, Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Candidate B is much more upbeat, a kool-aid drinker, sounds like McCain or Guiliani or Karl Rove.
The answer: both are John McCain. The quotes are taken verbatim from an answer he gave to the question above.
“Certainly, at this time, we’re in very challenging times. We all recognize that. Families are sitting around the kitchen table this evening and figuring out whether they’re going to be able to keep their home or not. They’re figuring out whether they’re, why it is that suddenly and recently someone in their family or their neighbor has lost their job. There’s no doubt that we’re in enormous difficulties.
“I think if you look at the overall record, and millions of jobs having, being created, etc., etc., you can make an argument that there’s been great progress economically, over that period of time. But that’s no comfort, that’s no comfort to families now that are facing these tremendous economic challenges.
“But let me just add, Peter, the fundamentals of America’s economy are strong.”
And this is why we call it the Double-Talk Express. Every time McCain opens his mouth, whether it's on economics or foreign policy or his own opinions, he often states both sides of the argument. That way, when you criticize his words on this statement or on 100 years in Iraq, McCain can point to the rest of his statement as a rebuttal.
By the way, here is Obama's statement on the matter:
“Senator McCain says we have made, and this is a quote, ‘great progress economically’ these past eight years, and he promises more of the same.
“Well, I couldn’t disagree more. Since George Bush took office, we’ve gone through the first period of sustained economic growth since World War II in which the incomes of American workers have actually dropped. 7 million more Americans don’t have health care. 1 million more Americans are out of work. Millions of families are facing foreclosure. You’re working harder for less, and paying more for tuition, more for groceries, and more at the pump.
“To me, this isn’t ‘great progress.’ This is a cause for concern and an impetus for change. Yet Senator McCain wants to double down on the Bush economic plan…. In fact, Senator McCain conceded not long ago that he didn’t know much about the economy. That’s not his interest. That’s not his priority. But it will be mine.”
McCain's campaign, not surprisingly, has whined that Obama is taking McCain's words "out of context". Big surprise.
A Democratic source, just in time for the Aipac conference sends over two clips from Charlie Rose: The first is McCain saying he thinks Fred Smith, the chief of FedEx, would make a good Secretary of Defense. The second is Smith, in a more recent Charlie Rose interview, sympathizing with George Marshall's opposition -- overruled by Harry Truman -- to recognizing Israel.
"In retrospect, there would be a large body of thought that would have said that Marshall was correct in what would precipitate from that recognition, which is now sixty-some-odd years of war," he says, going on to say that McCain reminds him of Marshall.
McCain has pressed to keep Obama on the defensive on Israel, and the RNC likes to point to Jimmy Carter's hostility to Israeli policy to taint Democrats.
But in fact, pro- and anti-Israel stances are historically bi-partisan, particularly among an older generation of Republicans, and McCain supporter James Baker, for instance, draws some of the same ire as Carter from parts of the Jewish and pro-Israel communities.
Imagine the outcry if Obama's preferred choice for Secretary of Defense said it was a bad idea to recognize the independence of Israel. On the 60th anniversary of Israel's independence, no doubt!
I expect a clarification/retraction from Fred Smith very soon, as well as a distancing from the McCain campaign. But the same Republican smear mongers who can't stop talking about Zbigniew Brzezinski will probably stay deathly silent. As the saying goes, "it's okay if you are a Republican".
Not much going on in the McCain universe, as usual. It's hard to have an action-packed campaign when you are 71 years old and suffering from an average of 150 pages worth of medical problems over the past eight years.
Yep, McCain sounds totally healthy!
So what is going on in political news today?
I see that some McCainiacs are pushing for 36-year old Bobby Jindal for VP. He's a hard right conservative with very little experience and some rather extreme views. For example, he is against abortion even in the cases of rape or incest. He wants creationism taught in schools. He thinks public money should be used to fund religious schools. I think he's a great choice for McCain, if the Republicans want to help Obama get elected. Nothing like spending the next five months explaining your running mate's extreme positions to help you win over independents!
McCain almost took a one-term pledge when he announced his candidacy, then decided against it. Well, we've never had an 80-year-old president. McCain could hit that mark in his second term.
McCain spoke to AIPAC today. Here's Andrew Sullivan's take:
Today's AIPAC speech is about as strong an indicator that president McCain's Iran policy will be the same as George W. Bush's: rhetorical brinkmanship, no direct diplomacy, and ... more failed sanctions.
It seems to me that Iran has become a lot stronger and a lot more belligerent during the Bush years, particularly after that "Axis of Evil" bullshit. If McCain really plans to double-down on Bush's Iran policy, then the U.S. and Israel better get ready for a second Middle-East war, this time with a country twice as big (population-wise) as Iraq.
Since we will continue the war in Iraq (under McCain), that basically means we will be tripling our war burden in the Middle East. How this can happen without a draft, I don't know. But hopefully somebody will ask McCain and see what he thinks. This may explain why he opposes the G.I. Bill, since he thinks it will deprive the military of troops needed for these extra wars.
Gallup question: Generally speaking, do you think it is a good idea or a bad idea for the president of the United States to meet with the leaders of countries that are considered enemies of the United States?
Getting lost in the media furor over McClellan's memoir is the new autobiography of retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, the onetime commander of U.S. troops in Iraq, who is scathing in his assessment that the Bush administration "led America into a strategic blunder of historic proportions."
Among the anecdotes in "Wiser in Battle: A Soldier's Story" is an arresting portrait of Bush after four contractors were killed in Fallujah in 2004, triggering a fierce U.S. response that was reportedly egged on by the president.
During a videoconference with his national security team and generals, Sanchez writes, Bush launched into what he described as a "confused" pep talk:
"Kick ass!" he quotes the president as saying. "If somebody tries to stop the march to democracy, we will seek them out and kill them! We must be tougher than hell! This Vietnam stuff, this is not even close. It is a mind-set. We can't send that message. It's an excuse to prepare us for withdrawal."
"There is a series of moments and this is one of them. Our will is being tested, but we are resolute. We have a better way. Stay strong! Stay the course! Kill them! Be confident! Prevail! We are going to wipe them out! We are not blinking!"
A White House spokesman had no comment.
As somebody who lost a friend in the battle of Fallujah in 2004, I really have no words.
Steve Benen assesses the monster task of keeping track of McCain's flip-flops. His list so far:
* McCain pledged in February 2008 that he would not, under any circumstances, raise taxes. Specifically, McCain was asked if he is a “‘read my lips’ candidate, no new taxes, no matter what?” referring to George H.W. Bush’s 1988 pledge. “No new taxes,” McCain responded. Two weeks later, McCain said, “I’m not making a ‘read my lips’ statement, in that I will not raise taxes.”
* McCain is both for and against a “rogue state rollback” as a focus of his foreign policy vision.
* McCain considered and did not consider joining John Kerry’s Democratic ticket in 2004.
* In 1998, he championed raising cigarette taxes to fund programs to cut underage smoking, insisting that it would prevent illnesses and provide resources for public health programs. Now, McCain opposes a $0.61-per-pack tax increase, won’t commit to supporting a regulation bill he’s co-sponsoring, and has hired Philip Morris’ former lobbyist as his senior campaign adviser.
* McCain has changed his economic worldview on multiple occasions.
* McCain has changed his mind about a long-term U.S. military presence in Iraq on multiple occasions.
* McCain is both for and against attacking Barack Obama over his former pastor at his former church.
* McCain believes Americans are both better and worse off than they were before Bush took office.
* McCain is both for and against earmarks for Arizona.
* McCain believes his endorsement from radical televangelist John Hagee was both a good and bad idea.
* McCain’s first mortgage plan was premised on the notion that homeowners facing foreclosure shouldn’t be “rewarded” for acting “irresponsibly.” His second mortgage plan took largely the opposite position.
* McCain vowed, if elected, to balance the federal budget by the end of his first term. Soon after, he decided he would no longer even try to reach that goal.
* McCain’s campaign unveiled a Social Security policy that the senator would implement if elected, which did not include a Bush-like privatization scheme. In March 2008, McCain denounced his own campaign’s policy.
* In February 2008, McCain reversed course on prohibiting waterboarding.
* McCain used to champion the Law of the Sea convention, even volunteering to testify on the treaty’s behalf before a Senate committee. Now he opposes it.
* McCain was a co-sponsor of the DREAM Act, which would grant legal status to illegal immigrants’ kids who graduate from high school. Now he’s against it.
* On immigration policy in general, McCain announced in February 2008 that he would vote against his own legislation.
* In 2006, McCain sponsored legislation to require grassroots lobbying coalitions to reveal their financial donors. In 2007, after receiving “feedback” on the proposal, McCain told far-right activist groups that he opposes his own measure.
* McCain said before the war in Iraq, “We will win this conflict. We will win it easily.” Four years later, McCain said he knew all along that the war in Iraq war was “probably going to be long and hard and tough.”
* McCain said he was the “greatest critic” of Rumsfeld’s failed Iraq policy. In December 2003, McCain praised the same strategy as “a mission accomplished.” In March 2004, he said, “I’m confident we’re on the right course.” In December 2005, he said, “Overall, I think a year from now, we will have made a fair amount of progress if we stay the course.”
* McCain went from saying he would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade to saying the exact opposite.
* McCain went from saying gay marriage should be allowed, to saying gay marriage shouldn’t be allowed.
* McCain criticized TV preacher Jerry Falwell as “an agent of intolerance” in 2002, but then decided to cozy up to the man who said Americans “deserved” the 9/11 attacks.
* McCain used to oppose Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy, but he reversed course in February.
* On a related note, he said 2005 that he opposed the tax cuts because they were “too tilted to the wealthy.” By 2007, he denied ever having said this, and insisted he opposed the cuts because of increased government spending.
* In 2000, McCain accused Texas businessmen Sam and Charles Wyly of being corrupt, spending “dirty money” to help finance Bush’s presidential campaign. McCain not only filed a complaint against the Wylys for allegedly violating campaign finance law, he also lashed out at them publicly. In April, McCain reached out to the Wylys for support.
* McCain supported a major campaign-finance reform measure that bore his name. In June 2007, he abandoned his own legislation.
* McCain opposed a holiday to honor Martin Luther King, Jr., before he supported it.
* McCain was against presidential candidates campaigning at Bob Jones University before he was for it.
* McCain was anti-ethanol. Now he’s pro-ethanol.
* McCain was both for and against state promotion of the Confederate flag.
* McCain decided in 2000 that he didn’t want anything to do with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, believing he “would taint the image of the ‘Straight Talk Express.’” Kissinger is now the Honorary Co-Chair for his presidential campaign in New York.
