Archive for the ‘McCain’ Category

Why I Remain, Forever Yours, Neurotic Dem

Friday, October 17th, 2008

On CNN tonight, David Gergen, the most even-handed, least hyperbolic of the punditocracy, noted that the daily tracking polls going in to the debate showed movement, finally, in McCain’s direction.

Oh — and then there’s this, from Talking Points Memo: “McCain Camp Unleashing National Robocall Blitz.” Here’s the nut:

Even as McCain said at the debate he regrets campaign negativity, his camp is releasing a nationwide blitz of robocalls attacking Obama on Ayers, national security, Hollywood, and the old infanticide smear, TPM Election Central reports.

Robocall: Obama Voted To Let Babies Die
Robocall: Obama And ‘Terrorist Bill Ayers’
Robocall: Dems Want Rights For Enemies
Robocall: ‘Hollywood Above America’

And people think this election is over?

The Obama campaign has called the Robocalls dishonorable. He needs to go beyond that. Obama has had the answer for every McCain-Palin gutterball this campaign. He can’t let this October Sleaze go un-countered.

Dad: ‘Obama Looked Just Like a President Should’

Thursday, October 16th, 2008

My Dad’s a Reagan Democrat — more Democrat, than Reagan, but still. That’s why I often look to him, at crucial political moments, to gauge how something might be playing outside my own head.

Dad, I said this morning. What’d you think of the debate?

“McCain was squirming all over the place,” he said.

I pressed him on it. What do you mean by squirming?

“With that little half-smile he has 90 percent of the time — like he has disdain for his opponent.”

What about Obama? How’d he do?

“I think Obama handled himself very well — McCain looked like a tired old man,” Dad said. “Obama looked just like a president should: Cool, calm, with all the facts.”

Dad keeps going back to this — that Obama seems presidential.

McCain got in some zingers last night (“You didn’t tell the truth to the American people,” “I am not President Bush,” “Why would you want to increase anyone’s taxes right now?”). Especially for the first third of the debate, McCain had Obama firmly on the defensive. Obama wasn’t so much flat as he was muted and unfocused in his response.

I was disappointed, frankly, that Obama didn’t punch back harder, as he’s done in past debates. As my Uncle Jon pointed out, when McCain accused him of playing class warfare by “spreading around the wealth,” Obama could have hit back with: “Republicans have been playing class warfare at the expense of the middle class for decades.” When the moderator asked Obama if he felt Palin was qualified, Obama could have just answered, flatly: “No.” (Also Jon’s idea.) I understand that Obama wanted to seem above the fray, but the moderator asked him a direct question, and he dodged it. And why did he let McCain get away with changing the subject from McCain’s bloodthirsty rallies, making it seem as if Obama was somehow criticizing Korean War vets? Why didn’t Obama demand that McCain repudiate those comments?

It makes me nervous. As any sports fan will tell you, when you play to run out the clock — when you stop trying to score — you always always always lose.

What my Dad is trying to tell me, I think, is that Obama did score — probably, in the way that matters most.

My Grandmother’s Idea

Friday, October 10th, 2008

Once, a few years back, I was having some career trouble.

I was working for a publication, performing the duties of the top level editor — who had been dismissed — but, still, my title was “assistant editor.” I was being paid accordingly.

I’d been lobbying for a new title, one that reflected my actual responsibilities, as well as a pay increase. But my boss had been stonewalling. At one point, he promised an answer by a specific Friday. When that day came, I approached my boss and asked for his decision. He said he wanted to think about it some more.

So I phoned my grandmother, a communications expert, and asked for her advice.

She said that if I was up for it, I should write my boss a simple, straightforward note: “The delay doesn’t work for me.”

I was just angry enough to do it. I thought I might be fired, but also, I knew that I wasn’t being treated respectfully, and I needed to do something to change the dynamic.

I left the note for my boss on a Friday. When I walked in Monday, he had cleared out the files — he thought I was quitting. When I assured him that I wasn’t, he demanded to know what I meant by my note.

“I mean: The delay does not work for me,” I said. (I was nothing if not well-coached by my grandmother.)

He blinked. “Oh,” he said.

Then he put down the files. Within the hour, I had a new title and a pay raise.

Perhaps it’s this penchant for spot-on communication advice that prompted me to call her today, to get her take on the state of the election campaign, particularly regarding the latest McCain-Palin incitements.

I reached her in the hospital, where she has been the past two days, being treated for an irregular heart beat. If I was concerned that perhaps she’d been isolated from politics in her convalescence, I needn’t have been. Within a minute, she’d asked me if I’d read the David Brooks column in the Times this morning.

I had, I told her. The one-time McCain supporter appears to have reached a tipping point:

This year could have changed things. The G.O.P. had three urbane presidential candidates. But the class-warfare clichés took control. Rudy Giuliani disdained cosmopolitans at the Republican convention. Mitt Romney gave a speech attacking “eastern elites.” (Mitt Romney!) John McCain picked Sarah Palin.

Palin is smart, politically skilled, courageous and likable. Her convention and debate performances were impressive. But no American politician plays the class-warfare card as constantly as Palin. Nobody so relentlessly divides the world between the “normal Joe Sixpack American” and the coastal elite.

“I have to tell you,” Grandma said, “all the nurses here — I say to them, ‘I’m thinking of voting for Obama,’ and they say: ‘I’m voting for him!’ That’s good.”

She went on to explain that she thinks Obama is going to be somewhat inoculated to these latest attacks, because this stuff has been discussed before.

But, in typical Grandma fashion, she’s got some advice for Sen. Obama:

“My gut tells me that what he has to do Wednesday at the debate is to say, in a very respectful way: ‘Sen. McCain, You’ve said this stuff about Mr. Ayres. Please tell me what it is you heard or know. What did you mean when you said that?’”

“He ought to demand the confrontation at the debate,” she continued. “He should take the initiative, be straight, forceful.”

She said that when you call someone on something they’ve been saying behind your back, “it almost always leads to an unravelling of the bullshit.”

(Grandma’s always had a way with a word.)

If McCain responds by attacking Obama on Ayres, Obama can address it, forcefully – name the tactic (“guilt by association”) — and perhaps, by putting McCain on the defensive, help put the whole sordid mess behind him.

Alternatively, the moderator could bring it up — which leaves Obama exposed, with not nearly the same upside potential.

“We know McCain won’t confront him in person,” she said, echoing something that both Obama and Biden have pressed in recent days:

“All of the things they said about Barack Obama in the TV, on the TV, at their rallies, and now on YouTube … John McCain could not bring himself to look Barack Obama in the eye and say the same things to him,” Biden said this morning. “In my neighborhood, when you’ve got something to say to a guy, you look him in the eye and you say it to him.”

Memo to Sen. Obama: People are craving bold, assertive, respectful leadership. You might want to consider my grandmother’s assertive, direct approach.

It worked for me.

While I’m at it …

Friday, October 10th, 2008

… Because the NY Times reported yesterday that swing states are illegally dropping thousands of voters from the voter rolls, especially in states where Obama has made a large effort to register new voters.

Here’s the nut:

Tens of thousands of eligible voters in at least six swing states have been removed from the rolls or have been blocked from registering in ways that appear to violate federal law, according to a review of state records and Social Security data by The New York Times …

Although much attention this year has been focused on the millions of new voters being added to the rolls by the candidacy of Senator Barack Obama, there has been far less notice given to the number of voters being dropped from those same rolls.

States have been trying to follow the Help America Vote Act of 2002 and remove the names of voters who should no longer be listed; but for every voter added to the rolls in the past two months in some states, election officials have removed two, a review of the records shows.

This is especially true in Michigan, Colorado, Indiana, Nevada, North Carolina, and Ohio.

And speaking of Ohio, a NY Times editorial yesterday notes that Diebold electronic voting machines are dropping votes. Here’s the nut:

Election officials, who will have plenty on their minds on Nov. 4, have one more thing to worry about: Diebold electronic voting machines that drop votes. Ohio’s secretary of state raised the alarm after local officials reported problems with the March primary count. Diebold has since notified more than 30 states to be on the lookout for missing votes …

Computer scientists have shown that electronic voting machines are easy to hack. And voters report errors like vote flipping, in which the vote they cast for one candidate is recorded for another. Ohio’s secretary of state, Jennifer Brunner, is suing Diebold over the vote-dropping and noted that its machines crashed repeatedly during last year’s voting in Cuyahoga County.

Did I mention that Cuyahoga County is perhaps the key county in Ohio for Democrats to turn out Democrats?

And, while we’re at it, the Times reports this morning that the Obama campaigns has not been vetting its donors carefully enough. A small percentage of donations have come in from fictitious donors like “Test Person.” The Times, while noting there’s no evidence yet, raises the “ominous possibility” of fraud, “perhaps in order to donate beyond the maximum limits.”

Here’s the nut:

Even a contributor who used the name “Jgtj Jfggjjfgj,” and listed an address of “thjtrj” in “gjtjtjtjtjtjr, AP,” was able to contribute $370 in a series of $10 donations in August.

A pair of donors named “Derty West” and “Derty Poiiuy,” who listed “rewq, ME” as their addresses and “Qwertyyy” or “Qwerttyyu” as either their employer or occupation, contributed a combined $1,110 in July.

In some cases, campaign finance records showed refunds from the Obama campaign, presumably to donors’ credit cards, even as other contributions were accepted. Obama officials said most of their vetting occurred after a donation came in.

How long before we see the McCain campaigns titled “Derty West”? I’d be surprised if they didn’t have something out by lunch.

And speaking of those ads, in addition to mentioning Ayres at every stop, McCain-Palin is launching a new, national campaign linking Obama to Ayres. Here’s the nut, from ABC news:

New from the McCain campaign Friday: An ad that casually drops the L-word and touches on both Ayers to the economic distress, with Democrats portrayed as anti-regulation.

The ad:“Obama’s blind ambition. When convenient, he worked with terrorist Bill Ayers. When discovered, he lied. Obama. Blind ambition. Bad judgment. Congressional liberals fought for risky sub-prime loans. Congressional liberals fought against more regulation. Then, the housing market collapsed, costing you billions. In crisis, we need leadership, not bad judgment.”

This, from the candidate who once said: “I pledge again a respectful campaign. A respectful campaign based on the issues and based on the stark differences we have on the vision for the future of America.”

And Carville thinks this election is over?

Why I’m Still Worried …

Wednesday, October 8th, 2008

Because the CNN post-debate crew, lead by James Carville, basically said last night that the race is over. We can stick a fork in the McCain campaign …

Because John McCain has been counted out before …

Because john McCain seems to respond best as an underdog …

Because Barack Obama hasn’t proven to be great as a front-runner …

Because Barack Obama is black …

Because a recent Stanford study indicated that Barack Obama may lose as many as 6 points on election day, because people are not being honest with pollsters about race, which means he could be up by as many as 5 points on Election Day, and still lose …

Because some polls I’ve seen, even now — after the utter debacle of McCain’s last few weeks, politically; after the economy tanked, Obama won two debates, and Biden won one — have Obama tied or with only a two or three point edge …

Because John Kerry had a 4 point lead Thursday before election day, and lost …

Because Al Gore had an 11 point lead going into the last debate, and lost …

Because some pundits are saying, with a straight face, that Palin has been rehabilitated, and will be a trusted weapon for the campaign in the weeks ahead …

Because Palin and McCain have started painting Obama in racially-tinged ways, implying he pals around with terrorists, and they have seemed to revel in rallies where people have chanted things like “kill him” (referring to Obama) …

Because Obama is black …

Because in the state-by-state polling — even though Obama’s ahead — he’s still going to need to flip at least one of Bush’s states to win the election — Colorado, Virginia, Ohio, Florida, Nevada, New Mexico – while keeping every last blue state blue …

Because Obama has absolutely no margin for error …

Because there are still 27 days to go before election day …

Because — hey, truth in advertising — I’m the Neurotic Democrat.

I’m very much looking forward to this day of fasting, which begins in a few hours, to center on the spiritual, to purge some of the toxicity of this campaign, to focus inward.

And I take strength and direction from the lines in the Torah portion that we read for last week — perhaps my favorite lines in the Torah — from Deuteronomy 31:7-8. Moses dying words to Joshua, in the sight of all Israel, as Moses passes the baton of leadership: “Be strong and of good courage … Fear not and be not dismayed!”

Those of you who are fasting, g’mar tov. May you have an easy fast.

Have a peaceful and meaningful Yom Kippur.

The Debate: Quick Take

Wednesday, October 8th, 2008

During a town hall meeting in Denver last week, with the GOP faithful getting restless, a  woman urged John McCain to go for Obama’s jugular.

“When are you going to take the gloves off and just go at him?”  she asked — and nearly 1,000 people leapt to their feet, cheering.

McCain answered: “How ’bout Tuesday night?”

He was referring, of course, to the debate.

Sarah Palin, when asked by New York Times columnist William Kristol this week what advice she’d have for McCain at the debate, said: “Take the gloves off.”

Kristol approved, using it as the kicker for his column, and adding: “Hockey mom knows best.”

It was part of the narrative all week, reinforced by Palin’s frequent mentions of William Ayres. McCain was going to strike back.

And yet at no time during the debate tonight did McCain take the gloves off. Obama hit him first, hit him harder, and hit him more effectively. And he seemed presidential, doing it.

Think, for example, about Obama’s retort, the one time McCain repeated the line about Obama not understanding. You’re right, Obama said. I don’t understand some things — like, for instance, why we went to war in Iraq, when they had nothing to do with 9/11.

Again, he hit McCain for having the bad judgment to lead us into war and predict we’d be hailed as liberators. And, again, McCain had no answer.

In two debates now, McCain hasn’t once defended himself by explaining why he thinks going to war in Iraq was the right thing to do. (He does, by the way. There’s a great article about it in the most recent Atlantic Monthly. McCain believes that pre-emption is the best way to safeguard America against a madman like Hussein, who would use weapons of mass destruction against us and Israel if he was able to obtain them.)

What amazes me is that the McCain campaign would push this line so aggressively in the lead-up to the debate, and that McCain would so thoroughly fail to deliver. It makes him seem, at best, out of touch with his own rhetoric. At worst, it projects weakness instead of strength.

(Much like McCain’s threat not to attend the first debate, which he also eventually backed down on.)

Barack and Michelle stayed for a long time in the debate hall, shaking hands, trying to persaude voters who were still on the fence, smiling, evidently enjoying themselves.

McCain and Cindy left the hall quickly, even with dozens of voters still milling around.

Frankly, I can’t say I’m surprised.

A Clear and Present Danger

Tuesday, October 7th, 2008

Oct. 4 (Bloomberg) — Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, in some of her sharpest attacks on Barack Obama, linked the Democratic presidential candidate to a domestic terrorist group from the 1970s, telling supporters Obama is someone who used to “pal around with terrorists who targeted their own country.”

On Larry King Live tonight, surrogates for John McCain — picking up on arguments made by conservative columnists recently — tried to argue that Obama’s links to domestic terrorist Willaim Ayres says something damning about Obama’s judgment.

They’re not talking about his political judgment. They’re saying that his past associations (tangential, at best, by the way) show that his decision-making would be dangerous for America. The implication is that Obama shares the same radical worldview.

Put aside, for a moment, the fact that Larry King could hardly contain his laughter at the absurdity of the charge. Think, if you will, about what happens if we take the McCain campaign at their word.

Suppose they really are concerned.

We’ve know about the Ayres connection for a long time. Obama was asked about it, directly, by George Stephanopoulos in one of the final debates against Hillary Clinton.

So McCain knew all along about this connection. He knew that, as he’s now arguing, it was evidence Obama would be a dangerous, radical-style leader in the White House. And, yet, he only brings it up now?

What kind of judgment is that?

If you were running for president, and you knew your opponent represented a clear and present danger to your country, would you wait until four weeks before election day to bring it up — and only then, through surrogates?

I guess McCain is only “Country First” when the polls show he’s losing so badly, he has no choice but to go embarrassingly negative, swinging for the hills.