This is hilarious. The other day, one of the masthead crew called another poll supporting McCain an “outlier.”

It seems that the Dems love polls except when they aren't supportive of Dems, then they are “dubious” and an “outlier.”

Polls are very slippery gauges of public attitudes & opinion, largely depending on wording of the queries, the ratio of one party to another [a recent poll favoring Obama turned out in the "fine print" to be over 55% Dems & less than 40% Repubs, but the headlines about the poll said nothing of this anomaly], and the mysterious “Wilder” or “Bradley” effect, to mention only three variables.

Obama has been slipping up again & again with racial innuendo and the “Moses” ad consisted largely of snippets of Obama's own public appearances. So maybe Obama should be blamed for celestial satires on his bloated self-esteem verging on arrogance [or maybe past arrogance into overweening pride/egomania].

I heard John Kerry whining today on Tom Brokaw's MTP how mean the Repubs were to him—having Vietnam vets pointing out his 3.5 months in-country with 3 mysterious Purple Heart wounds [he still hasn't released his records as promised]. I don't think Obama should use Kerry as a surrogate. Character issues.

McCain has more character than Obama, GWB, Gore, Clinton, or GHWB. He simply can't stick to script and wanders off topic like my old Dutch uncle used to do.

Barack Obama went abroad and looked and behaved like a real President. Maybe you think it was just a show, but it certainly didn't look like he was over his head.

Like a jealous 13-year old girl, John McCain has responded by mocking Obama as a celebrity – even though he called himself a celebrity on his own website before scrubbing it.

Yes, Barack Obama has much less experience than John McCain. But we haven't seen any evidence that John McCain's experience has led to wisdom and good judgment.

Well, that makes for a nice line, but if it's true, then how on earth did GWB ever get elected? He certainly never came close to filling any of that criteria. Forgive me if I suggest they are merely pretty words that take a back seat to partisan loyalties.

The New York Post “Page Six” is reporting that celebrity Tyra Banks will be, bizarrely enough, posing as Michelle Obama for the cover of Harper's in September.
First “Time” and “Newsweek”, the “New Yorker”, then “People”, now Michelle is being impersonated by a celebrity on “Harper's”. If the Obamas get the covers of “Vanity Fair” and “Vogue” this fall, it is all over for them.

And some folks (mostly liberal pundits) dismissed the power of the “Celeb” ad, and declare the MSM has a pro-McCain agenda (by giving Obama the cover of every major MSM publication in the US…a very devious GOP plot that

From “Page Six”:
“TYRA Banks – the mastermind of gimmicks – is at it again. Banks – who once had her breasts examined on TV to show everybody they were “real” – is now dressing up as Michelle Obama for the September cover of Harper's Bazaar. “It's a full makeover,” said one spy. “You know how Tyra likes to do that stuff. And she'll get a lot of press off it.” A rep for Banks didn't return calls.”

But where we likely differ is on the moral propriety of this strategy. Being a good or bad unitary leader of the United States Executive branch – arguably the most powerful person the world – does not essentially turn on one's stand on the issues. Any smart high-school debater can tick off a series of positions on health-care, immigration, Iraq, etc. that would have the support of most Americans, but we don't elect him president (and not just because he's under 35.) Being the president involves unforeseen difficulties and unforeseen domestic and international crises, which cannot be litigated in the course of a campaign. That's why ultimately all we have to go by are a candidate's general character, past experience, accomplishments, and judgment, as demonstrated by past decisions, hopefully under some amount of stress.

So Republicans say that Obama has so far accomplished little, and has demonstrated little strength of character, and yet – while he may not have clinical Narcissistic Personality Disorder – does a pretty good imitation of it. Obama has his own character attack on McCain, which usually takes the form of focusing on his his allegedly poor judgment in supporting the war in Iraq.

The voters will have to make up their own minds as to the characters of Obama v. McCain. And so far, the voters have wisely seen through Obama's attempt to escape this vetting process, by claiming, in effect, that any attack on his character is essentially racial in nature.

The problem for McCain is that his ad team is not very subtle about what they do. They haven't gone over any racial lines, in my opinion, but they have made a mockery of their claim to be above negative campaigning.

John McCain has no honor. He is a liar and a buffoon. He puts himself above his country. He will do anything to gain power. He is NOT a “different” kind of Republican. If you want a standard-issue Bush-style Republican, go ahead and vote for McCain. But if you think he is somehow above the usual GOP pol, you are naive.

Tha 44% of African Americans said “yes” to this question means that they interpreted it MUCH differently than the Rasmussen is reporting it. My guess is that many of them meant, “Obama was responding to real racism” in his dollar bill reference; remember more than half of blacks believe the Paris Hilton ad was racist.

So this datapoint is pretty much useless Rasmussen should be called to task for asking such a sloppy question.

Is there a non-racial interpretation of this Obama statement, from a Florida fundraiser in June?

“It is going to be very difficult for Republicans to run on their stewardship of the economy or their outstanding foreign policy. We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run. They’re going to try to make you afraid. They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. ‘He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?’”

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/21...

As Lindsey Graham said on Fox News Sunday this morning, referencing the above passage: “Who the hell is 'they'”? Well, in the preceding sentences, Obama referenced “the Republicans,” and “the campaign” so it's clear that Obama meant to include the McCain campaign in his false indictment.

And now, in his latest “dollar bill” remark, Obama explicitly referenced McCain by name before proclaiming that nefarious forces would say that Obama doesn't look like other presidents on our currency, which was so obvious a racial appeal that even Obama's own campaign manager Axelrod had to admit to it.

So I ask Gandelman or anyone else who cares to answer: How many times is Obama allowed to call McCain a racist, before McCain is permitted to call him out on it?

This sucks but I don't think it's going to go away anytime soon. I also have to say that I think in most instances racism doesn't affect the outcomes a whole lot if there is that extra effort. If Obama wanted to be honest he could just say he realizes this and will strive to make it a non-issue because he thinks his ideas are so much better. There is so much subconscious racism that it's bound to pop up even if it's not explicit, and most people feel very defensive about it so they are likely to deny everything if there is not explicit racial messages (which they will eagerly denounce). This phenomenon definitely isn't a republican/democrat, rich/poor thing or any other divide.

Marlow has a more cynical take that is probably closer to what Obama is trying to do over the long term. It's not like Obama is a saint, there are tons of instances where he has used deft political maneuvering. I just happen to think that in most instances Obama doesn't tell outright lies.