Attacking Obama
I am tapping out my link-free cocktail party talking points of probable attack lines against Obama. Help me out!
1. Can We Settle For Picking A President, Not A Messiah?
It's wonderful that Mr. Audacity of Hope has got Scarlett Johannson all acquiver - the poor dear was no doubt looking down a long, lonely road to a gray horizon until Barack saved her. But really, can't we just pick a President? This Cult of Barack is creepy.
2. Commander in Chief of a Cub Scout Troop - Maybe.
This guy is ready to command the US military in wartime? Please. Kennedy wasn't ready - ask the folks who survived the Bay of Pigs debacle. Let's add that Bill Clinton was not ready to be President, since not all the whackos at Waco were inside the Davidian compound but neither Reno nor Bill seemed to be in charge. Or ask about Mogadishu that fall.
3. Barack, Barack, what have you done lately, or ever?
Chris Matthews had fun with this; won't be the last time.
4. When Does The Bipartisanship Begin?
David Brooks offered a fruitful variation on the "What, if anything, has Barack accomplished (I have a free thirty seconds)" question - why has he ducked the big bipartisan pushes of the last few years?
Where was Barack when the Gang of 14 teamed up to move judges through the Senate? McCain was there!
Where was Barack when the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill was stumbling through the Senate? McCain was there!
Where was Obama when roughly 20 Democratic Senators joined the Republicans in trying to update FISA? McCain was there!
The reality is that McCain has practiced the sort of bipartisanship Obama has merely preached, and has the political scars to prove it. Do we want the guy who does a great job of talking the talk, or the guy who has walked the walk for years?
5. We Are The Change We Have Been Waiting For (Or Am I The Walrus?)
Some of Obama's rhetoric desperately needs to be mocked. We can assume that the Saturday Night Live folks will go AWOL on this but perhaps others will pick up the slack. We are the change we have been waiting for? Uh huh, and John McCain is the KeyMaster. Or is he the Merovingian?
6. Down With MiddleClassedness
Obama's minister surfaced a few weeks back; hard to believe he is gone for good.
Help me out. I really think it is Obama's hard luck to be squared up against McCain.
You should include some of the things he has actually proposed, invading Pakistan, drivers licenses for illegals, etc.
Posted by: abw | February 20, 2008 at 06:13 PM
4. is hard to deny.
Posted by: clarice | February 20, 2008 at 06:16 PM
Barack Obama - Is that a request?
Posted by: PeterUK | February 20, 2008 at 06:43 PM
7. Voting for Obama is like tossing the keys to a Ferrari Testarossa to your 5-year old.
Posted by: coolpapa | February 20, 2008 at 06:44 PM
I really think it is Obama's hard luck to be squared up against McCain.
Oh come on he is so not square.
Thats' his appeal his Unsquariness-which uh, wow, rhymes with his scariness.
Yours truly,
Scarlette, Scar-ette, Scar-it!
Could she look more clueeless in that one video-you know the one.
I know let's call him His One-ness!
Have you read some of the threads at the Barack blogs?
Which are actually under the web address "my barack"..
Wow. My Sharona!
Posted by: Anon | February 20, 2008 at 06:47 PM
Everybody wants to vote for their Grandpa for President!
Posted by: dmh | February 20, 2008 at 06:49 PM
Look I have to do this-
Have you seen some of the DRIVEL-
Here it is in all it's squirelly "goodness"-
Posted by: Anon | February 20, 2008 at 06:55 PM
McCain can run on "Change You Can Depend On" vs. BHO "Change You Can't Believe In"
Posted by: Steven W. | February 20, 2008 at 06:57 PM
No better not go with that...
Change your Depends....
not good.
Posted by: Anon | February 20, 2008 at 07:06 PM
I would use GMax's analysis of the cost shifting involved in the promise to cut health insurance premiums by $2,500. I don't know the IQ of your cocktail crowd but they would have to be industrial grade stupid not to get that one.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 20, 2008 at 07:10 PM
2. Commander in Chief of a Cub Scout Troop - Maybe.
This guy is ready to command the US military in wartime?
If you guys intend to pursue this line with any effectiveness in persuading swing voters, you're going to have to grit your teeth and admit grudgingly that Bush in '00 was probably even less experienced in foreign policy and that his wartime performance hasn't been so stellar (at a minimum, by not prosecuting the Iraq war very compentently).
Hardly anyone who is not already in McCain's camp is going to buy the idea that Bush was obviously foreign-policy seasoned when he first got elected AND that he's performed well AND that Obama should be considered green using the same nonpartisan criteria by which Bush was judged to be ready in '00. It's not going to happen.
Maybe once Obama picks a VP (assuming he wins) you could try contrasting the joint team with Bush/Cheney, although I wouldn't be too optimistic about that strategy, either.
If you're willing to push this line with some accompanying Bush-bashing, though, it may gain some traction. How bad do you want to beat Obama?
Posted by: Foo Bar | February 20, 2008 at 07:16 PM
Bush was pre-9/11.
It's that simple.
Conditions are fluid.
You can't plop Obama down in 2000 and say it's all the same.
Posted by: Anon | February 20, 2008 at 07:21 PM
I don't know-maybe with Democrats you can.
That's the problem.
Posted by: Anon | February 20, 2008 at 07:22 PM
# 4 is your best argument. I'm sure we will be seeing variants of ity here over the next few months. (And maybe I'll be able to think of a good response to it. Right now, I'm like that poor schmuk on MSNBC last night)
The counter to #1 is that the reasonbable fellah talking to you probably does not buy into the Messiah business.
The counter to #2 is that he was right on Iraq, when the experienced weren't. Good judgement counts for something...
I'm sure the talking points on Item 3 are coming. I don't know them yet.
I think the answer to #5 is that Hit & Run be hired by the SNL/Colbert/Daily Show crew. In seriousness, the media tends to excerpt "big nmoments" from Obama's speeches, so that one misses the programatic stuff.
#6. All politicians lay down with dogs. Hence they all carry a few fleas. It does not seem that Obama has too many moronic associates, but time will tell.
Posted by: Appalled Moderate | February 20, 2008 at 07:23 PM
Wouldn't trouble me a bit to bash Bush in order to defeat Obama. But at least the man had put on a uniform and got in the cockpit of a hot and dangerous aircraft. Having some understanding of what military people do isn't foreign policy experience, but it sure is an element of being commander-in-chief. And JFK, callow as he was, had commanded men in combat and been decorated for it.
Posted by: Other Tom | February 20, 2008 at 07:23 PM
The counter to #2 is that he was right on Iraq, when the experienced weren't. Good judgement counts for something...
My counter would be to play the "what if we hadn't gone to war with Iraq?" game.
Iraq has been a huge problem.
Go back to 2003 and tell me what happens if we never bomb, because I don't see how it would end with anything but Saddam in power rebuilding his nukes with Iran madly trying to keep pace, and Libya chuckling alongside them.
Posted by: MayBee | February 20, 2008 at 07:34 PM
"McCain can run on "Change You Can Depend On" vs. BHO "Change You Can't Believe In"
How about "Change you have had before so it will come as no surprise"?
Posted by: PeterUK | February 20, 2008 at 07:35 PM
"Bush in '00 was probably even less experienced in foreign policy and that his wartime performance hasn't been so stellar (at a minimum, by not prosecuting the Iraq war very compentently)."
You won didn't you? Nobody prosecutes a war competently(sic),it isn't in the nature of the beast.
Posted by: PeterUK | February 20, 2008 at 07:38 PM
Anon,
The Democrats are still in 1968,their bodies may be in 2008,but their brains are forty years behind them.
I blame leaf.
Posted by: PeterUK | February 20, 2008 at 07:41 PM
#4 Bipartisanship --
It's even worse, McCain tried to include Obama in a bipartisan task force on ethics and Obama reneged on a commitment to McCain.
McCain's letter blasting Obama is here
(2nd letter)
Here's a taste:
Posted by: capitano | February 20, 2008 at 07:52 PM
A.P. said, "It does not seem that Obama has too many moronic associates, but time will tell."
I dunno, A.P. I seem to remember in one of the debates where Obama claimed to have many of Clinton's old advisors, and even offered to confer with Hillary. Do those advisors count as moronic?
Posted by: centralcal | February 20, 2008 at 07:53 PM
Have y'all seen the drudge headline?
The NYTs unloads on McCain and an affair, or alleged affair, with a lobbyist.
Posted by: Sue | February 20, 2008 at 08:07 PM
Bush in '00 was probably even less experienced in foreign policy and that his wartime performance hasn't been so stellar (at a minimum, by not prosecuting the Iraq war very compentently).
Why is this relevant FooB? McCain has way more foreign policy experience than Obamessiah, end of story. How either compares to GWB, or Clinton, or Herbert Hoover is beside the point. None of those guys is running.
Posted by: Soylent Red | February 20, 2008 at 08:13 PM
Tom...Tom...Tom
How quickly everybody forgets the Campaign of 2000 and the wordsmithing used by the Democrats.
What Obama lacks is the "G" word: Gravitas.
My understanding, thanks to the Democrats, is that a candidate without gravitas is unelectable. That candidate needs a gravitas-laden personality to act as co-president.
All the Democrats need to do to secure an Obama presidency is have Dick Cheney change his registration and run as Veep.
Gravitas - If you can't have it by winning two elections to be chief executive of the 2nd largest state, what chance is there is that serving in a state legislature and running during your first term as a senator gives you it?
-
Posted by: BumperStickerist | February 20, 2008 at 08:16 PM
Try to picture an empty suit lip syncing a Milli Vanilli tune.
Posted by: MikeS | February 20, 2008 at 08:19 PM
If you guys intend to pursue this line with any effectiveness in persuading swing voters, you're going to have to grit your teeth and admit grudgingly that Bush in '00 was probably even less experienced in foreign policy and that his wartime performance hasn't been so stellar (at a minimum, by not prosecuting the Iraq war very compentently).
If the swing voters aren't any more intelligent than that, I don't want em.
Posted by: Pofarmer | February 20, 2008 at 08:23 PM
(at a minimum, by not prosecuting the Iraq war very compentently)
The only way McCain loses on this count is if he cheerled for the "incompetent" approach, say, and then derided the approach that worked. Ooooops. Looks like McCain's (wrong, IMHO) criticism about Rumsfeld&Co's handling of the war, and surge support hits all sides of the "prosecution" meme perfectly. And the contrast in experience is ridiculous. Obama can't win this one, and dare not fight it.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | February 20, 2008 at 08:24 PM
PeterUK
I blame more than the leaf...
Posted by: Anon | February 20, 2008 at 08:24 PM
The NYTs unloads on McCain and an affair, or alleged affair, with a lobbyist.
I feel cheated that they never went with the Rielle Hunter story.
Posted by: MayBee | February 20, 2008 at 08:25 PM
"If you're willing to push this line with some accompanying Bush-bashing,'
Sorry. Since he cannot run again, he is not a subject we wish to discuss.
Posted by: Semanticleo | February 20, 2008 at 08:25 PM
"Bush in '00 was probably even less experienced in foreign policy and that his wartime performance hasn't been so stellar (at a minimum, by not prosecuting the Iraq war very compentently).'
""Why is this relevant FooB?""
I think it's because you wish to give Bush
a pass on foreign policy acumen, while assailing Obama's similar pre-WH experience.
But that's how you guys do your stuff.
Posted by: Semanticleo | February 20, 2008 at 08:28 PM
His dad was President . His dad was Ambassador to China. He is close to his dad. He probably knew more about foreign policy as a kid than Obama knows as a candidate.
Posted by: clarice | February 20, 2008 at 08:31 PM
I think it's because you wish to give Bush
a pass on foreign policy acumen, while assailing Obama's similar pre-WH experience.
Does equating Obama to Bush work out well for the Dems, FooBar and Seman?
Posted by: MayBee | February 20, 2008 at 08:32 PM
Given BHO's penchant for voting 'Present' when the going gets tough, his support of infanticide may provide a nice "compare and contrast" area.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 20, 2008 at 08:34 PM
"Does equating Obama to Bush work out well for the Dems'
I don't know, MayBee, but I'm sure you'll tell me.
I am glad that someone here used the 'Bush'
word. Will McCain want his endorsement?
Posted by: Semanticleo | February 20, 2008 at 08:34 PM
I think it's because you wish to give Bush
a pass on foreign policy acumen, while assailing Obama's similar pre-WH experience.
But that's how you guys do your stuff.
Where did anyone ever say they gave GWB a pass? And furthermore, isn't Obamessiah the change from Bushitler politics of non-hope we've all secretly been praying for?
Why on earth would the Chosen One - who makes me weep with tears of ecstasy and speak in tongues - want to compare himself in any way to Chimpy? Doesn't he brag about how is inexperience makes him the perfect agent for hopeful change we can all believe in and hope for while changing toward the hopeful?
Posted by: Soylent Red | February 20, 2008 at 08:35 PM
OMFG!
I just saw Obama's beatific face on my grilled cheese sandwich.
Posted by: Soylent Red | February 20, 2008 at 08:38 PM
I think it's because you wish to give Bush a pass on foreign policy acumen, while assailing Obama's similar pre-WH experience.
Nonsense. Obama has exactly zero military or related experience. GWB was a former military (Guard) officer himself, and head of the Texas guard as governor. (And son of a military officer, CIA director, ambassador, and President, as noted.) The experience is not at all "similar." The contrast with McCain is even more stark.
Obama is perfectly unqualified to be C-in-C.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | February 20, 2008 at 08:39 PM
Energy Independence Now!
No more Oil Wars!
Stop funding the terrorists!
Drill in Anwar.
Build more nuclear power plants
Use More coal.
Use more natural gas
Turn trash into energy
Double the efficiency of windmills and solar cells.
If France can do nuclear power so can we.
If Brazil can do biomass/ethanol power so can we.
If Australia can do LNG power so can we.
Posted by: poetryman69 | February 20, 2008 at 08:39 PM
"Nonsense"
If you say so, 'He who must be obeyed'.
Posted by: Semanticleo | February 20, 2008 at 08:43 PM
I'm thinking Bush had at least 12 years of Hillasperience. While his dad was in the White House.
Maybe that's where he learned it was bad form to insist on launching military attacks inside an ally's territory without their permission.
Posted by: MikeS | February 20, 2008 at 08:43 PM
I suppose if Bill Clinton had been more honest about the nature of the threat we were facing from AlQaeda, John McCain might have done better in 2000.
Posted by: MayBee | February 20, 2008 at 08:46 PM
From my.barackobama.com...
Barack Obama is a Black Man, born in Hawaii, of a Kenyan Father and a White woman from Kansas; a holy union that has blessed us with a being capable of giving rise to the grace of God through the words that he speaks, and through his service and example. Someone capable of channeling spirt with such intensity that he can inspire us to go far beyond our selves in the service of Mankind, and all creatures great and small with whom we share this planet.
I think I might barf.
Posted by: Soylent Red | February 20, 2008 at 08:55 PM
I'm a cockeyed optimist. I still think Hill will win the nomination, and then lose to McCain.
Posted by: clarice | February 20, 2008 at 09:00 PM
Chauncey Gardener.
Roger Ebert: " 'Being There,'... has the appeal of an ingenious intellectual game, in which the hero survives a series of challenges he doesn't understand, using words that are both universal and meaningless. But are Chance's sayings noticeably less useful than when the president tells us about a "bridge to the 21st century?'' Sensible public speech in our time is limited by (1) the need to stay within he confines of the 10-second TV sound bite; (2) the desire to avoid being pinned down to specific claims or promises; and (3) the abbreviated attention span of the audience, which, like Chance, likes to watch but always has a channel-changer poised."
"...The movie argues that if you look right, sound right, speak in platitudes and have powerful friends, you can go far in our society. By the end of the film, Chance is being seriously proposed as a presidential candidate. Well, why not?"
Posted by: sbw | February 20, 2008 at 09:01 PM
Question for Obama: Senator Obama, when you said, "My job is not to represent Washington to you, but to represent you to Washington." which you do you intend to represent?
Posted by: sbw | February 20, 2008 at 09:04 PM
I once knew a girl with a really sweet smile,she kept on giving this smile,which turned sugary,then sacharine,then unbearabley cloyingly sickly.The smile and the girl had to go.You will find Obama has the same effect.
Posted by: PeterUK | February 20, 2008 at 09:05 PM
Breaking News ... via NY Times under pressure of THE NEW REPUBLIC has a story about an affair between a female lobbyist and John McCain.
Here we go ...!
Posted by: centralcal | February 20, 2008 at 09:05 PM
If you say so, 'He who must be obeyed'.
Riiight. Somebody forgot to tell my wife.
. . . and through his service and example . . .
What "service"? Being a congressman? Pretty thin.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | February 20, 2008 at 09:06 PM
In Obama's commercial playing on local tv, he says he isn't going to be the president of blue America, or red America but the United States of America. So, my question to Obama is how are you going to be my president when I disagree with everything you have proposed? Are you willing to compromise and move to the center? And if so, in what areas?
Posted by: Sue | February 20, 2008 at 09:07 PM
Hey--It's just about sex--(Quick, Rick, grab the old Clinton playbook).Actually if you read the NYT article, it's a big nothing..just that McCain is so sure of his rectitude that he was careless and spent so much time with a young female lobbyist that tongues were agging.
Posted by: clarice | February 20, 2008 at 09:08 PM
*Wagging***
Posted by: clarice | February 20, 2008 at 09:08 PM
Actually if you read the NYT article, it's a big nothing.
They didn't even claim anything happened; just innuendo. Not sure it matters, anyway. At his age, it's a good opportunity for a joke.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | February 20, 2008 at 09:12 PM
By here we go, I mean the MEDIA out of the gate to try and influence the public against anyone on our side.
Posted by: centralcal | February 20, 2008 at 09:12 PM
To imply a man and a woman working together have to be involved sexually is pretty sexist. I'm ashamed of the misogynistic New York Times.
Posted by: MayBee | February 20, 2008 at 09:14 PM
Clarice,
It's in the NYT - if it were a reputable news outlet like the National Enquirer, then a response would be warranted.
BTW - there is a shakeup coming at the Times if I'm reading the stock action correctly. I think there could be a good case made for insider trading ala Martha Stewart if some enterprising SDNY prosecutor wants to dig into it. I don't care how Sulzbergers go to jail - as long as they go.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 20, 2008 at 09:17 PM
Damn. I hate the NYTs. They, and Obama, are forcing me to vocally support McCain.
It is stuff like this where support from your base is the most important. And since McCain has always pandered to the NYTs and other MSM outlets, his support when they turn on him is going to be thin.
It will either rally us or cause us to go 'told you so'. Any guesses which way the base will go?
Posted by: Sue | February 20, 2008 at 09:21 PM
Good point, Rick. I figure that one way or another Pinch won't be heading up the NYT much longer. either he'll be gone or the paper will be.
Posted by: clarice | February 20, 2008 at 09:21 PM
McCain has an easier way to kill that innuendo than Bill--His wife is knockdead gorgeous.
Posted by: clarice | February 20, 2008 at 09:23 PM
Just remember how wrong they were about their big Rudy allegations. The NYTs can be a bit....premature...in their excitement to take down a Republican.
****sob****
Posted by: MayBee | February 20, 2008 at 09:24 PM
His wife is knockdead gorgeous.
And "heiress to a beer fortune"? It don't get much better than that. ("Heiress to a whiskey fortune" maybe.)
Posted by: Cecil Turner | February 20, 2008 at 09:30 PM
Whew! Now I read an "official statement" that it was only a "hit and run smear campaign."
Golly! For awhile there I thought it was something serious. Darn you, Hit!
Posted by: centralcal | February 20, 2008 at 09:30 PM
His dad was President . His dad was Ambassador to China. He is close to his dad. He probably knew more about foreign policy as a kid than Obama knows as a candidate.
Well, let's hear it from the illustrious Richard Perle, who said this about the foreign policy tutorials Bush received before running in 2000:
High praise!
And let's throw in a Woodward book quote for good measure (although I guess the Woodward quotes we don't like are the ones he made up):
And the contrast in experience is ridiculous. Obama can't win this one, and dare not fight it.
The way TM posed it, the plan was not simply to say that Obama isn't as experienced as McCain, it's to allege that Obama, considered in isolation, does not meet the minimum standard required for a president in wartime. A right-winger making that argument to a swing voter is going to get the question "Well, are you happy with how Bush has done?". If that's answered with a yes, you're going to have explain why Bush was ready and Obama isn't. And that's a tough sell, given the extensive documentation of Bush's inexperience as of the late 90s. National guard experience? Soaking up dad's experience? Really, for your own good, I would suggest trying to distinguish in your mind between arguments you find convincing yourself and arguments a swing voter would buy.
Posted by: Foo Bar | February 20, 2008 at 09:32 PM
My you are a moron, Tom Maguire, or maybe you're suffering from amnesia.
- 9/11?
- a botched war in a country that had nothing to do with 9/11?
- Abu Ghraib?
- the erosion of habeas corpus?
- the botched aftermath of Katrina that continues to this day?
- removing needed troops from Afghanistan where the Taliban is now thriving?
- a president that said he'd stopped worrying about finding bin Laden?
- outing that CIA agent?
This is the legacy of a Republican administration and just a few of the reasons Republicans won't be winning the next presidential election.
Posted by: Lesley | February 20, 2008 at 09:39 PM
We weren't in an active war when Bush ran for office. And I'm not sure how much Obama wants to be compared to Bush. I doubt that is deal maker for the swing voters either.
Posted by: Sue | February 20, 2008 at 09:40 PM
FooB I read all the way thru that noxious NYT piece and noticed what you overlooked..Perle was taking about Bush's preparations in the 2000 campaign--not after he was elected.
The nub of this piece of dreck is that Bush was open to new ideas --when he wasn't a stupid layabout--but because of his absurd religiousity became increasingly narrow after elected--why*gasp* he even believed contrary to St Colin and others that there was fuck all we could do to resolve the Palestinian issue.
Posted by: clarice | February 20, 2008 at 09:44 PM
- 9/11?
And you support a policy that takes us back to the days of Clinton's policy of fighting terrorists in the court system.
There are morons, and then there are morons. You fit the latter category.
Posted by: Sue | February 20, 2008 at 09:45 PM
That's some weapons-grade crazytalk, Leslie.
Nicely regurgitated from the SN! crowd, though. Nicely regurgitated - apparently you did not even partially digest it.
Or, demonstrably, did you pay attention during the past seven years.
-
Posted by: BumperStickerist | February 20, 2008 at 09:45 PM
Hey, if you can see the moon (not cloudy...) go outside and look at it RIGHT NOW.
Posted by: cathyf | February 20, 2008 at 09:47 PM
Perle was taking about Bush's preparations in the 2000 campaign--not after he was elected.
Indeed, which is the relevant point at which to make a comparison when making an argument that Bush was ready and Obama is not.
Posted by: Foo Bar | February 20, 2008 at 09:48 PM
The way TM posed it, the plan was not simply to say that Obama isn't as experienced as McCain, it's to allege that Obama, considered in isolation, does not meet the minimum standard required for a president in wartime.
I note you elide Obama's experience in that tratment (which makes sense, considering it's precisely zero, AFAICT). I don't see how that's much of a "tough sell." And those quotes are hardly convincing: Bush was relatively poorly qualified on national defense (probably why he picked a former SecDef as a running mate, in peacetime) . . . but he was obviously better qualified than Clinton, and compared to Obama he's a frickin' prodigy. Obama doesn't meet any standard, so if you agree there's a minimum for a wartime president, he ain't qualified.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | February 20, 2008 at 09:49 PM
Cathy,
I've been watching it, but the clouds have obscured it now. It was almost half-way when I could last see it.
Posted by: Sue | February 20, 2008 at 09:49 PM
"If France can do nuclear power so can we."
Wanna bet? Tell that to Jane Fonda. And tell us when the last nuclear power plant was built in the US. (And while you're at it, look into when the last oil refinery was built.)
"I guess the Woodward quotes we don't like are the ones he made up." How do we tell the difference?
"A right-winger making that argument to a swing voter is going to get the question 'Well, are you happy with how Bush has done?'"
Suppose a sensible, moderate, middle-of-the-road McCain supporter is asked the question? And suppose he answers, "No, neither John McCain nor I are happy with it. And my concern is that Obama appears to be proposing a surrender"?
FooBar, are you going to vote for Obama or McCain?
Posted by: Other Tom | February 20, 2008 at 09:49 PM
We all just ran out to see the moon. So cool!
Posted by: MayBee | February 20, 2008 at 09:51 PM
He built and ran his own company. He was Owner of a major league baseball team. He was two term governor of TEXAS.
Obama compares how?
Posted by: Pofarmer | February 20, 2008 at 09:51 PM
Oh yeah, Obama slimed an incumbent Senator to steal his seat.
At least there's an accomplishment.
Posted by: Pofarmer | February 20, 2008 at 09:52 PM
- the botched aftermath of Katrina that continues to this day?
Dang liberals anyway.
Really, is this Katrina stuff just projection or what?
Posted by: Pofarmer | February 20, 2008 at 09:54 PM
Sue, you're in Southern CA, right? I just went outside and it's obscured by clouds at the horizon, although at the moment the sky is clear overhead.
Posted by: Other Tom | February 20, 2008 at 09:55 PM
FooBar: A right-winger making that argument to a swing voter is going to get the question "Well, are you happy with how Bush has done?"
Well, are you?
Posted by: MayBee | February 20, 2008 at 09:56 PM
OT,
I'm in East Texas.
Posted by: Sue | February 20, 2008 at 09:57 PM
At least Obama's staff doesn't have to keep his mistress away at public events.
Posted by: Do the Cindy Stroke | February 20, 2008 at 09:57 PM
Waiting to hear whether FooBar is going to vote for Obama or McCain...
Posted by: Other Tom | February 20, 2008 at 09:57 PM
"At least Obama's staff doesn't have to keep his mistress away at public events."
How do you know?
Posted by: Other Tom | February 20, 2008 at 09:58 PM
I just saw Obama's beatific face on my grilled cheese sandwich.
He was also in my sushi a little earlier. He doesn't look that great in eel.
Who are all these moonbats, and how did they find us?
Posted by: Jane | February 20, 2008 at 09:58 PM
Oh yeah, Obama slimed an incumbent Senator to steal his seat.
Jack Ryan poured the slime himself, the edible kind, in the S%M clubs he tried to drag his wife into. Another shining example of right wing morality.
Obama had nothing to do with that one, silly.
Posted by: Do the Cindy Stroke | February 20, 2008 at 10:00 PM
How do you know?
Would the Messiah have a mistress?
Posted by: Sue | February 20, 2008 at 10:00 PM
I think I saw Obama in the lunar eclipse!
Posted by: MayBee | February 20, 2008 at 10:01 PM
If the left is going to depend on the NYTs and MSM to win an election, they should remember 2000 and 2004. That worked out well for ya'.
Posted by: Sue | February 20, 2008 at 10:04 PM
John McCains people knew their boss was in too deep with his 40 year old lobbyist girlfriend.
This is being picked up everywhere.
This will sink the maverick for good.
I wonder if Cindy will now come out and bark how proud she is of her husband who was fucking around on her when she was recovering from her stroke.
Posted by: Do the Cindy Stroke | February 20, 2008 at 10:04 PM
Do the Cindy Stroke
Well that's just classy, that's what that is.
It's always fun to make fun of someone who had a stroke!
Posted by: MayBee | February 20, 2008 at 10:04 PM
Gee, these Obamatons don't seem to be filled with the hopey changiness that I expected. Does the touch of the Obamessiah lack staying power?
I thought the first commandment of the Obamessiah was "Always stay bright, chirpy, cheerful and vacuous." Maybe they're learning it back to front? They seem to have the vacuous part down pretty well.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 20, 2008 at 10:06 PM
Well, are you?
No, I'm not, which is why I think "Obama is no more ready than Bush was" could be potent, coming from a Republican, if accompanied by some grudgingly admitted disappointment in Bush.
Waiting to hear whether FooBar is going to vote for Obama or McCain...
I am flattered to have earned enough of a reputation for open-mindedness to elicit this (apparently?) sincere question. Well, the election is 8 long months away and there is much yet to learn, but in the interest of full disclosure I should acknowledge being an Obama donor. If Hillary somehow pulls it out the decision in the general might require a bit more mulling...
Posted by: Foo Bar | February 20, 2008 at 10:07 PM
Well Cindy was quite the pillhead, maybe she popped the wrong one?
Posted by: Do the Cindy Stroke | February 20, 2008 at 10:07 PM
She had her stroke in 2004.
But your compassion is overwhelming.
Posted by: MayBee | February 20, 2008 at 10:08 PM
He was also in my sushi a little earlier. He doesn't look that great in eel.
Pre or post digestion?
Posted by: Pofarmer | February 20, 2008 at 10:08 PM
Ha, ha, ha. You guys are just jealous because you are stuck with John "No, we can't" McCain.
McCain is a crotchedy, cantankerous 72-year-old and his wife, by her own admission, can't remember what happened last week.
How inspiring!
Posted by: eldridgecleaverwasarepublican | February 20, 2008 at 10:09 PM
The Messiah won't like it. He is preaching a new way to win and politics of destruction aren't included in the ten commandments.
Posted by: Sue | February 20, 2008 at 10:09 PM
I'm sure most of these will be used. They're being used already by Hilary. Frankly, they don't stand a chance. Nor do you.
The experience argument isn't just George W. Bush. Ronald Reagan's foreign policy experience was what? Remind me again? Oh, that's right, it was nothing.
This country is run by a civilian. It was designed that way. The proto-authoritarians are afraid of letting a non-military man run the country, but most voters don't buy it.
If Barack's resume was as empty as you folks pretend it is, you'd have a shot. But voters are aware of his background. He didn't spend the last 20 years getting drunk: he's been a law professor, a community organizer, and a legislator. His resume weakness is a mindless talking point. It doesn't move too many needles. Hilary Clinton is figuring this out, folks. Smell the coffee.
Posted by: glasnost | February 20, 2008 at 10:09 PM
Lesly
How, exactly, does one "botch" an "aftermath"?
Posted by: TMF | February 20, 2008 at 10:10 PM
Well, are you?
No, I'm not, which is why I think "Obama is no more ready than Bush was" could be potent, coming from a Republican, if accompanied by some grudgingly admitted disappointment in Bush.
But isn't it potent when you think about it in your own head?
Why do you have to be in a discussion with a Republican to ponder it?
Posted by: MayBee | February 20, 2008 at 10:10 PM
Another shining example of right wing morality.
Yes, because disclosing SEALED court documents, that neither party wants opened, is obviously the moral thing to do.
Posted by: Pofarmer | February 20, 2008 at 10:10 PM
his wife, by her own admission, can't remember what happened last week.
This compassion for a woman with short-term memory loss due to a stroke is overwhelming. You guys never disappoint.
Posted by: MayBee | February 20, 2008 at 10:11 PM
"His resume weakness is a mindless talking point. It doesn't move too many needles."
Amongst partisan Democrats it doesnt
Amongst the majority of voters come November- I assure you my Soviet friend, it WILL
Posted by: TMF | February 20, 2008 at 10:11 PM
"I am flattered to have earned enough of a reputation for open-mindedness to elicit this (apparently?) sincere question."
Why "apparently?"
And why do you believe that the question confers on you a reputation for open-mindedness?
Posted by: Other Tom | February 20, 2008 at 10:12 PM
This country is run by a civilian. It was designed that way. The proto-authoritarians are afraid of letting a non-military man run the country, but most voters don't buy it.
How funny. When Kerry was running the argument was just the opposite.
Posted by: Sue | February 20, 2008 at 10:12 PM
Soylent Red-
Sorry dude...
And I happen to know you are one of the military brethren...
Jeebus-just imagine the "sensitivity" training with His Oneness-in -Chief...
DMZ or that?
DMZ please!
Posted by: Anon | February 20, 2008 at 10:13 PM
he's been a law professor, a community organizer, and a legislator.
Might qualify him to be on the board of some non-profit something or other.
Posted by: Pofarmer | February 20, 2008 at 10:13 PM
Seriously, folx. Tom, you like evidentiary-based questions, don't you? Has, or has not, Hillary Clinton been slagging away at the 'no experience' hot button for months? How's that working out for her? Have you seen the way Barack Obama has picked up independents? Those are your swing voters.
So you think when John McCain does it, it will be different... somehow.
Can you enunciate a specific reason for that?
Posted by: glasnost | February 20, 2008 at 10:13 PM
Resume weakness is a mindless talking point if youve never had to hire someone
Posted by: TMF | February 20, 2008 at 10:13 PM
"community organizer"
LOL
Translation- professional wannabe
Posted by: TMF | February 20, 2008 at 10:14 PM
No, I'm not, which is why I think "Obama is no more ready than Bush was" could be potent . . .
Nice try. Obama is "no more ready" than any random peacenik protester . . . he certainly doesn't compare with anyone who's been a commissioned officer in any service (or Guard component thereof). He's "far less ready" than Bush was. So now our (largely mythical) "independent" voters have to decide if that's acceptable.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | February 20, 2008 at 10:15 PM
Can you enunciate a specific reason for that?
Uh, yeah. Hillary has no experience either. Plus she runs about 49% unfavorable ratings.
Posted by: Sue | February 20, 2008 at 10:15 PM
"So you think when John McCain does it, it will be different... somehow.
Can you enunciate a specific reason for that"
When the GOP does it it will be to a general election electorate
Very, very different from an activist partisan primary electorate
Ask President Dukakis
Posted by: TMF | February 20, 2008 at 10:16 PM
Ask Senator Lamont
Posted by: TMF | February 20, 2008 at 10:17 PM
As an aside, didja notice--protein wisdom reports Truthout has let its crack reporter Jason Leopold go, insisting all the while it is not because of his false report that Rove had been indicted.
Posted by: clarice | February 20, 2008 at 10:17 PM
I am in California, and the moon is just now turning peachy pink, not totally eclipsed and orange yet. Light cloud cover (we had rain today), but still fully visible.
Okay, you may now return to your normal posting. Ha!
Posted by: centralcal | February 20, 2008 at 10:17 PM
Ask President Kerry and Vice President Edwards
Posted by: TMF | February 20, 2008 at 10:18 PM
"McCain is a crotchedy, cantankerous 72-year-old..."
Ronald Reagan carried 49 states at the age of 73. And McCain is 71, not 72. Might as well get your facts straight, even if your judgment is infantile.
Posted by: Other Tom | February 20, 2008 at 10:18 PM
Wow, Clarice! No more Jason Leopold! Whatever will we do, now? D'ya think he went undercover?
Posted by: centralcal | February 20, 2008 at 10:21 PM
How funny. When Kerry was running the argument was just the opposite.
You're right. The authoritarians were not concerned at all with Bush's lesser military experience. And now that McCain is running?
Posted by: Lawnguylander | February 20, 2008 at 10:21 PM
Someone capable of channeling spirt with such intensity that he can inspire us to go far beyond our selves in the service of Mankind, and all creatures great and small with whom we share this planet.
Cripes did they really say "channeling spirt"?
Look at all this benovelence he is inspiring in the Loverly Lesley and this troll making fun of Cindy McCain's health condition...
My gawd-next he'll calim he can keep polar ice caps from melting-while at the same time lowering your gas prices!
Wait! He already did it!
Yes-you might have slept through it given that he made history last night with the longest victory speech-where he made that promise.
Posted by: Anon | February 20, 2008 at 10:22 PM
Kerry rode in a boat for about 3 months in Nam
Cant exactly call that impressive military experience
Posted by: TMF | February 20, 2008 at 10:23 PM
Kerry's problem was that he lied about his experience. Bush won because he didn't lie.
I think we're witnessing a celestial event of some kind. Every time there's a lunar eclipse, a coterie of Moonbats shows up here. They come unencumbered by fact or reason, promptly get humiliated by the regulars, and disappear as promptly as a meteor shower.
Tomorrow night we'll see a waning gibbous moon, and these stupes will be gone.
Posted by: Other Tom | February 20, 2008 at 10:28 PM
he's been a law professor, a community organizer, and a legislator
Gee, from what I've seen most of the regular posters here have more qualifications than that.
But hey, I stand in awe.
Posted by: Jane | February 20, 2008 at 10:28 PM
I suspect the secret mistress story is inconsistnet with the too old theme, but if it floats your boats.......
Posted by: clarice | February 20, 2008 at 10:28 PM
Ronald Reagan's foreign policy experience was what? Remind me again? Oh, that's right, it was nothing.
The qualification is for "Commander in Chief" not "foreign policy guru." Reagan was a reserve enlisted man, cavalry officer, wartime logistics officer, and finally supervised making armed forces training films. Two terms of CA Governor (head of the national guard). About average. Not going to plan a major operation by himself, but at least you don't have to teach him the difference between a Fleet Admiral and a Lance Corporal. Compare that with Obama's . . . well, nothing. Great example.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | February 20, 2008 at 10:29 PM
Well, really, how much experience do you need to surrender? Not much, I would imagine. However, Obama's camp is now saying his out by 2009 is just a goal, not a promise.
Posted by: Sue | February 20, 2008 at 10:32 PM
Cecil, you obviously don't have a sense of what it takes to be a community organizer.
Posted by: Other Tom | February 20, 2008 at 10:34 PM
cleo-
... think it's because you wish to give Bush a pass on foreign policy acumen...
Get the memo to Bob Geldof
More failure here
An interesting question, if Bush has been a failure in foreign policy, then why has there been a surge in international economic growth [haven't parsed out the numbers but I think globally trade as %global gdp has finally recovered and surpassed the high-water mark set in the 1880's]?
Also, since BHO is committed to change, would he reduce US and international trade, thereby reducing global income?
Posted by: RichatUF | February 20, 2008 at 10:35 PM
Obama is inexperienced? Tough titty. The guy's going to win the Presidency. Bush, warrior that he is, has a 19% approval in the latest ARG poll.
Maguire-what's the last prediction you made that you got right?
Posted by: Don | February 20, 2008 at 10:39 PM
It would be extraordinarily easy for someone to force Obama out of the race simply by asking him a series of pointed questions about his past statements and actions and his current proposals. Obama's response could be videotaped and uploaded and a few hundred thousand views later he wouldn't have much of a career left.
You could start with asking him who he's speaking code to (see my name's link), but the main course code be asking him about this or asking him to explain exactly how immigration "reform" is going to work: tinyurl.com/2k8btl
The preceding, of course, assumes that the questioner is familiar with the topics being asked about and has experience forcefully demanding an answer.
But, even if that's not you just go to one of his appearances and ask him about the issue and then upload it. Unfortunately, not too many people seem capable of doing that.
Posted by: Obama speaks in code | February 20, 2008 at 10:40 PM
Reagan was a reserve enlisted man, cavalry officer, wartime logistics officer,
Looks like I picked a bad example. I stand corrected. Score one for you, etc.
Let's use another example to make the same point: Bill Clinton. Sure, you can all convince each other that the guy ran a terrible foreign policy, etc, but he was elected - and then re-elected - despite having no foreign policy experience. He left office with an approval rating of 65%. The point here is that the data demonstrates that your opinions have very little predictive value on America's opinion.
You may think it's the end of the world that Barack Obama has less foreign-policy experience than John McCain, but Bill Clinton's example makes it pretty clear that ordinary voters don't necessarily care.
While we're at it... Mitt Romney's FP experience? Rudolph Guiliani's? Mike Huckabee's? Did John McCain really beat those guys because of his veteran-ness? Is that the whole story? I doubt it. Quite a lot, in fact.
Posted by: glasnost | February 20, 2008 at 10:41 PM
But isn't it potent when you think about it in your own head?
Why do you have to be in a discussion with a Republican to ponder it?
It has a certain potency on its own, but it's more compelling if you hear it from someone not naturally inclined to concede it, which would imply that the truth of the claim seems so undeniable that even a former (current?) Bush supporter is forced to acknowledge it.
Posted by: Foo Bar | February 20, 2008 at 10:43 PM
Obama is inexperienced? Tough titty. The guy's going to win the Presidency. Bush, warrior that he is, has a 19% approval in the latest ARG poll.
Damn. Obama might just beat Bush then.
On a different note, reckon ole Huckster knew this story was coming and stayed in the race this long waiting for it?
Posted by: Sue | February 20, 2008 at 10:44 PM
Sue-of course Huckabee knew about this story. It was on the Drudge Report in December!
And I'm sure the NYT held back some juicy stuff.
Posted by: Don | February 20, 2008 at 10:46 PM
The secret mistress for a 71-year-old reminds me of the old joke that "I'm not as good as I once was, but I'm as good once as I ever was!"
No traction on this smear.
Posted by: sbw | February 20, 2008 at 10:46 PM
They did endorse the guy after all.
Posted by: Don | February 20, 2008 at 10:48 PM
RichatUF-
These are the most selfish bunch of pikers.
It's all about them
Do you think for one minute they give a rat's ass about responsibility?
Responsibility on the global scale?
It's all about them and their wants and needs and Obama is willing to bribe these ugly hearts to the nines.
Do you think for one minute he mentions-Rwanda? Darfur? Saddam's evil? Kenya even?
Ironic.
Nope-um he's on record as saying that he wants to pull out of Iraq in less than six months.
The six month deadline isn't even his own idea-that's Hillary's.
Posted by: Anon | February 20, 2008 at 10:49 PM
Sue-
I'm getting to the thread late, but: And you support a policy that takes us back to the days of Clinton's policy of fighting terrorists in the court system.
Bill Clinton freed more terrorists with pardons than he could be bothered to jail. A cheap shot, I know, but I really can't believe that BHO would want to get into a debate that it would be better to have FSO's passing out matchbooks with pictures of wanted terrorists [Rewards for Justice v.1; Yousef; guest in Florence CO] to try them in the SDNY, than killing them with JDAMS [USAF; Zarqawi; dead-in Hell, 8th Circle] or Hellfire [USAF{?}; Atef; dead-in Hell, 8th Circle].
I've got my problems with McCain as the nominee, but I'm sure that is a debate he can win.
Posted by: RichatUF | February 20, 2008 at 10:49 PM
"The NYTs can be a bit....premature...in their excitement to take down a Republican."
Not to change the subject, but I'm sure that Mike Huckabee is thinking the Times is in fact a bit belated.
Posted by: hrtshpdbox | February 20, 2008 at 10:53 PM
It's reminding me of-
McGovern Redux.
Peace at any Cost was his motto-coupled with a $1,000 for everyone from the "public"[no they didn't get where this would come form] treasury-and hell-
A Chicken in Every Pot!
Or was it pot for every chicken?
Anyoo-that worked out well for them I think McGovern only won two states.
Massachusetts-and maybe DC or Maryland?
Posted by: Anon | February 20, 2008 at 10:53 PM
I've solidified how I feel about Democrats whose rhetorical efforts on comment threads are based not on reaching understanding, but rather on owning (pwning).
On the whole blogging Democrats seem to be a class of people petulant enough to think they can afford to stop learning.
Posted by: sbw | February 20, 2008 at 10:58 PM
Between his contempt for immigration law, the First Amendment, and (since I'm a conservative) me personally, I didn't see how McCain could possibly convince me to vote for him. Turns out he didn't need to - Michelle Obama and today's commenters are (ha!) doing the job Republican presidential candidates won't do.
re the NYT hit piece - last time Republicans nominated an old war hero, he didn't start doing Viagra ads until after the election.
Posted by: bgates | February 20, 2008 at 10:59 PM
The secret mistress for a 71-year-old reminds me of the old joke that "I'm not as good as I once was, but I'm as good once as I ever was!"
No traction on this smear.
I agree. At his age it's more of feature than a bug.
Posted by: Pofarmer | February 20, 2008 at 11:02 PM
Wonder what's coming down that caused NYT to prematurely start pounding on McCain. I figured they would wait until most of MSM had centered on Obama. Maybe the townhouse memo came out this afternoon that they have all agreed, but it still seems early - unless they have 8 months worth of bombs to drop on McCain, which isn't outside the realm of possibility. But 8 months of Obamessiah worship?? even hardcore libs will have a hard time with that.
Don/pete/martin - wondered where you dragged your goalposts to... Are you Lesley too? You forgot chemtrails in your loony screed above.
Posted by: Bill in AZ | February 20, 2008 at 11:02 PM
Sue,
I'm not concerned at all with the New York Dungheap's pattycake revelations of old stories. I'm a bit more concerned about BHO the Red's access to records (probably exquisitely doctored) that we can all rest assured will be provided to him by Commie buddies from Vietnam.
The Commie's have always been really good mixing disinformation and agitprop and I believe that people should really consider what it took to get those divorce records unsealed in order to boost BHO in his first efforts. He's a slimeball with the full backing of the American Communist Lawyers Union - including every pink to red judge sitting on the bench at the moment.
That's the part that won't be much fun.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 20, 2008 at 11:03 PM
Let's use another example to make the same point: Bill Clinton.
12 years as Governor (again, head of Guard). His first term in particular involved extensive operational issues involving the Mariel Boatlift (escapees). And though it's not the focus of day to day Gov duties, it's probably the closest to being overall commander. Moreover, Clinton was one of the worst-qualified national defense presidents ever elected . . . many think it showed. And Obama still ain't close.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | February 20, 2008 at 11:05 PM
ARG has Bush approval at 19%? Last ARG poll I saw had Hillary up five in Wisconsin...
And Zogby today has Bush at 34, congress at 17.
How many community organizers do you know? What does a community organizer do? Who pays him, and for what?
Posted by: Other Tom | February 20, 2008 at 11:08 PM
Too Rich! NYT: "Both (Republican former aides) said Mr. McCain acknowledged behaving inappropriately."
And Lowry wants to know "What does "behaving inappropriately" mean?"
Cub Scout. Well, McCain has denied a "romantic" relationship, so obviously it was just wild monkey sex. And I love that the woman got a lawyer back in December. Yep.Nothing to see here.
Posted by: Don | February 20, 2008 at 11:10 PM