I actually got a head-start on the holiday because I read the July 4 issue of that great military newspaper, the Stars and Stripes, on July 3. You see, because of the time difference, the Middle East edition of the Stars and Stripes is published around 2 PM Central Standard Time, in effect “the day before.“
In the July 4 issue there is an opinion piece, “In foot-in-mouth contest, Clark is swiftest,” by Jay Ambrose, in which Ambrose takes retired Gen. Wesley Clark to task for remarks he made about John McCain. Ambrose quotes Clark saying, “riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down” is no qualification to be president. Ambrose continues, “ and the immediate accusation was that he was guilty of “swift boating.”
First, let’s put Clark’s remarks in context.
In a question-and answer session with Bob Schieffer on CBS’ “Face the Nation,” Clark praised McCain‘s service and sacrifice as a prisoner of war: “I certainly honor [McCain’s] service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in the armed forces, as a prisoner of war,” and on his service in the Senate: “He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee and he has traveled all over the world,” but, Clark continued, “he hasn’t held executive responsibility” “That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded — that wasn’t a wartime squadron.”
Actually, back in March, in a conference call with reporters, Clark did a much better job of articulating his criticism of McCain and of putting his views in context. He then said: “Everybody admires John McCain’s service as a fighter pilot, his courage as a prisoner of war. There’s no issue there. He’s a great man and an honorable man. But having served as a fighter pilot — and I know my experience as a company commander in Vietnam — that doesn’t prepare you to be commander in chief in terms of dealing with the national strategic issues that are involved. It may give you a feeling for what the troops are going through in the process, but it doesn’t give you the experience first hand of the national strategic issues.”
Second, as to the accusation that Clark “was guilty of ‘swift boating.’ I say “hogwash,“ because that is patently ridiculous and because I am not aware of any “immediate accusation that [Clark] was guilty of ‘swift boating’” in any serious media.
I say it is a patently ridiculous accusation–and I will add disingenuous and manufactured–for the following reasons:
1. General Clark’s remarks by no stretch of the (objective) imagination rise to the level of the despicable tactics used by those who conducted the defamatory media blitz against John Kerry four years ago and, as a result, gave the term “swift boating” such an odious connotation.
2. Democrats would not use such a term to characterize the remarks of a fellow Democrat, especially those of a distiguished retired General.
3. Republicans and Conservatives are trying to put that heinous episode behind them, and–as Ambrose himself would agree–attempting to reclaim the good name “Swift Boat,“ and would not themselves continue to perpetuate its odious connotation by using it to characterize Clark’s remarks.
Finally, a reason for Ambrose to use such a term to describe Clark’s remarks, might have been to be able to launch into a discourse against what he calls “Disgrace Number Two” which, according to him is “the use of the word ‘swift boating‘ to describe mendacious slurs on a political candidate.”
After first–pardon the expression–swift boating General Clark’s military record, Ambrose quotes from a June 30 New York Times article (“Veterans Long to Reclaim the Name ‘Swift Boat’”): “’Swift boat’ has become the synonym for the nastiest of campaign smears.” He then says, “But the real smear is against the honorable Vietnam veterans of swift boat service who raised serious, responsible allegations against Democratic nominee John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election.”
Ambrose then goes on to rehash, and to try to justify, many of the same accusations that made “Swift Boat “ “the “synonym for the nastiest of campaign smears“ to begin with.
Glaringly absent from Ambrose‘s primer on “Swift boating” is the following, still from the same New York Times article:
By the association’s count, about 3,600 men served aboard Swift boats in Vietnam, 600 officers and 3,000 enlisted. About 200 signed the letter that became the basis of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign in 2004. In advertisements, a best-selling book and extensive news media appearances, they accused Mr. Kerry of fabricating exploits to win his military decorations and a discharge just four months into a yearlong tour.
And,
Navy documents contradicted many of their accusations, but the claims undermined what Democrats had hoped would be Mr. Kerry’s strength. Regardless of what they thought of Mr. Kerry, many Swift boat veterans objected to the attacks. “It was unconscionable,” said Stan Collier, who served as an officer in charge on a boat based in Qui Nhon. “I thought those boys struck a new low.”
And, continuing with Stan Collier:
Mr. Collier considers himself a conservative and did not agree with Mr. Kerry’s politics, but he voted for him to protest the Swift boat campaign. “We’ve all been attributed to the sleaziness that those guys assigned to Kerry,” he said. “I think we’ve all been demeaned.”
I do agree with Ambrose on one thing. It is a shame that a name associated with so many brave veterans–especially the ones who had nothing to do with the attack on Senator Kerry–has become a political pejorative, and that these heroes should get their good name back. Especially, as the Times says, “the good names of the men not lucky enough to come home alive.”
It is hoped that more and more of these heroes will come forward to disassociate themselves from the group that has brought them so much grief. Harlan Ullman, a Swift boat driver in Vietnam and a Pentagon consultant has written: “It is time to ban a word that is at once offensive, demeaning and obscene both to and for anyone serving in the naval profession. That word is ‘Swiftboating.’”
And,
…as Americans get to know more and more about those 3,400 brave people who did not participate in the besmirching of good men and women for purely political reasons, the quicker the original shine will be returned to the name Swift boaters.
In a USA Today story, “Price of Power: McCain accepts ex-Swift Boaters’ donations,” we learn that Senator John McCain, who four years ago condemned the “Swift Boat’s” attacks on Vietnam veteran John Kerry as “dishonest and dishonorable,” has now accepted nearly $70,000 from the top donors of this group.
According to USA Today,
That’s nearly four times the amount McCain received from those donors in the 14 years before launching his current campaign at the end of 2006, campaign finance records show. In 2004, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (later called SwiftVets and POWS for Truth) bankrolled ads charging that Kerry had lied about the incidents in Vietnam that led to his military decorations. The group included former members of the Navy who served in the same kind of river patrol boats as Kerry.
And,
McCain campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds said in an e-mail that McCain accepted the money because the donors are “interested in supporting (his) agenda of reform, prosperity and peace.”
Just a couple of observations.
First, is it morally and ethically correct for a presidential candidate to accept campaign contributions from, say, the most heinous organizations or people, just because they support his or her agenda?
Second: Of course, John McCain has every right to accept such contributions from the group that he condemned four years ago for smearing his fellow Vietnam War veteran, John Kerry. Just like he will have every right to –after having pocketed their contributions–once again condemn the group when and if its Swiftboating of Barack Obama begins.
On a related note, The New York Times in an article yesterday (June 30), “Veterans Long to Reclaim the Name ‘Swift Boat’,” describes how “Swift boat” “has become the synonym for the nastiest of campaign smears, a shadow that hangs over the presidential race as pundits wait to proclaim that the Swiftboating has begun and candidates declare that they will not be Swiftboated,” and how the true “Swift boat veterans — especially those who had nothing to do with the group that attacked Senator John Kerry’s military record in the 2004 election — want their good name back, and the good names of the men not lucky enough to come home alive.”
Again, just two observations.
First, it is good to hear from those Swift boat veterans who had nothing to do with one of the most vicious and shameful smear campaigns in recent political history. By their Association’s count, only about 200 of the approximately 3,600 men who served aboard Swift boats in Vietnam, signed the letter that became the basis of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth smear campaign in 2004. It is truly a shame that the actions of a relatively few have so gravely damaged the reputation of so many brave men.
As one of their own–Stan Collier, who according to the Times, served as an officer in charge on a boat based in Qui Nhon–says, “It was unconscionable,” “I thought those boys struck a new low.” And, “We’ve all been attributed to the sleaziness that those guys assigned to Kerry,”. “I think we’ve all been demeaned.”
Second, it is hoped that more and more of these heroes will come forward to disassociate themselves from the group that has brought them so much grief. Harlan Ullman, a Swift boat driver in Vietnam and a Pentagon consultant has written: “It is time to ban a word that is at once offensive, demeaning and obscene both to and for anyone serving in the naval profession. That word is ‘Swiftboating.’ ”
While it is unlikely that the word “Swiftboating” can or will ever be banned, one way for such an “offensive, demeaning and obscene” connotation to gradually diminish may be when and if those who initially brought about such an association discontinue such activities.
But, as Americans get to know more and more about those 3,400 brave people who did not participate in the besmirching of good men and women for purely political reasons, the quicker the original shine will be returned to the name Swift boaters.
Many Democrats have had reason to comment lately on the conventional wisdom that Democrats must always tack to the center to win an election in this country.
Count me among those who want to see more challenges to that conventional wisdom (which to me just means ‘last year’s assumptions’). While I understand the reasons why candidates do it, the fact is that eight years of neoconservatism has moved all the goal posts way to the right.
To repair the damage done by Bush and his gang of neocons, what’s needed isn’t a balancing bipartisan approach but immediate corrective action. It’s outmoded ‘conventional wisdom’ to believe that Democratic candidates always have to tack centerwards (meaning shift right) to prevail in a general election or to attract swing voters and independents. I don’t buy it.
What most Democrats I know want now is an entirely different approach. With the Republicans still mechanically spouting policies consistent with Bush-era neoconservatism, what’s needed to achieve balance again isn’t compromise action, but corrective action. What most Democrats I know want is a different choice: in our government’s approach to the economy, national security, civil liberties, health care, energy policy and the environment and on and on.
And back-room deals and trade-offs between our elected representatives just aren’t going to cut it. We want to see changes that will restore to us as a nation and as individuals what we lost during Bush’s failed regime.
Of course, if a candidate is a good orator you MUST image-link him to Hitler (if you can’t debate a candidate on issues, just raise that wild, loudmouthed guy with the mustache who murdered so many of my Russian and Polish relatives). And that’s part of the content of the latest email sent out to smear Democratic presumptive nominee Sen. Barack Obama.
The email is credited to Bill Brown, former president of Graham’s ministry, which could be accurate or not accurate since anyone with a keyboard can type a name.
But to whoever sent it out (let’s just call him “Mr. X”):
Mr. X: My relatives on my grandfather Abraham Ravinsky’s side came in contact with the Nazis. They lived during the time of Hitler and under Hitler. They knew Hitler. Hitler was an enemy of theirs. Hitler murdered many of them. Hitler wiped out almost all of my grandfather’s family.
And, Mr. X, Barack Obama is no Hitler.
Also Mr. X: Just in case you don’t realize it. There are people who might not be enamored with Obama. But when you send out something as reprehensible and simplistic as this you’re likely to find that with some voters, you’re going to get them to vote FOR Obama. If you dislike him so much, why not send out an email that debates him on issues — if debate is what you really seek (and from the sound of the email, it isn’t serious debate on issues).
Don’t get me wrong. In my opinion — and as a Clinton supporter, I followed the exchanges extremely closely while they were happening— Bill Clinton has every right to be angry about the way Hillary was treated by the Obama campaign. I don’t think his anger is productive, mind you; and I think he is undermining Hillary’s chances. But if Hillary values her political career, she needs to give Bill a time out.
Hillary, as a mature woman, knows the best way to prove someone wrong is just to prove them wrong. You don’t get there by sulking in your tent or complaining; you get there by rising above the slurs and gossip, as Clinton-supporter and lifelong civil rights activist Maya Angelou advised Hillary to do in this poem. Bill used to know how to rise above the fray. Why isn’t he doing it now? I can understand why he would be wounded by the racism charges. To accuse someone of being a racist — a vile thing for a person to be — is, by definition, to accuse them of vileness. It is a grave insult. It seems to be principally these allegations that are fueling Bill Clinton’s outrage and wounded feelings. Most of us would feel the same.
Even so, he needs move on —for his own and Hillary’s sakes.
New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd has a MUST READ COLUMN today — pegged to GOP political maven Karl Rove’s assertion that Democratic presumptive nominee Sen. Barack Obama is like an arrogant country club member who hangs around the clubhouse smoking a cigarette with a beautiful woman on his arm making snide comments.
Read this in FULL because she notes at the beginning that, once upon a time (before he was the presumptive nominee), Rove said he was impressed with Obama. Read it from beginning to end. One thing her piece underscores again: as a campaign strategist (and he is an informal campaign adviser to GOP presumptive nominee Sen. John McCain) Rove will create and promote a caricature of a candidate that is then cloned on talk shows, partisan new and old media and in campaign ads.
But here’s our quote of the day — the end:
Charlie Black crassly argued in Fortune that a terrorist attack would “be a big advantage” for John McCain. And what’s scary is, Black is the smartest adviser McCain’s got.
It’s hard to believe that if Americans get attacked after all these years of getting strip-searched at the airport, they’re going to be filled with confidence at the performance of the Republicans on national security. And at least Obama wants to catch Osama and doesn’t think he’s getting his directions on war from “a higher Father.”
Rove’s mythmaking about Obama won’t fly. If he means that Obama has brains, what’s wrong with that? If he means that Obama is successful, what’s wrong with that? If he means that Obama has education and intellectual sophistication, what’s wrong with that?
Many of Obama’s traits are the traits that people in the population aspire to.
It looks as if Rove is on the verge of realizing his dream of creating a permanent position for the Republicans.
Comments by former White House political maven Karl Rove about presumptive Democratic Presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama to some Republican insiders underscore what’s to come in campaign 2008 — and what’s wrong with American politics…how it has descended to All Personalities All The Time where frantically trying to define someone negatively often replaces serious issues debate.
ABC News’ Christianne Klein reports that at a breakfast with Republican insiders at the Capitol Hill Club this morning, former White House senior aide Karl Rove referred to Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, as “coolly arrogant.”
Rove calling Obama arrogant is like the pot calling the pot a pot.
“Even if you never met him, you know this guy,” Rove said, per Christianne Klein. “He’s the guy at the country club with the beautiful date, holding a martini and a cigarette that stands against the wall and makes snide comments about everyone who passes by.”
HUH??
If you took a poll of Americans who like, dislike Obama, or even HATE Obama or had them describe him for you, you’d get many things but most assuredly most wouldn’t say he resembles a guy in a country club with a beautiful date hanging on his arm, drinking a martini.
This isn’t a prevalent view of Obama that you’ve heard — or that you can even find in a lot of blog posts or even in anonymous sourced news stories. Do a Google search yourself.
This is an image Rove has signaled he and his associates will seek to create. Will they superimpose Obama’s head on the campaign 2004 ad of John Kerry on a windsurfer?
How can Americans possibly vote for a guy for President who says something about the price of Arugula, let alone eats that stuff? How can anyone be seriously considered to implement policies that might seek a different course on the economy, energy policy, the war and other issues who looks like (Rove says) a guy hanging out in a country club smoking, with a beautiful woman on his arm making snide comments? And when he isn’t smoking, talking to the woman on his arms or making snide comments, he’s stuffing greens from Whole Foods in his mouth. Why, the very THOUGHT of it!
And, if you analyze this, just what are these “snide” comments? Obama criticizing McCain in his campaign?
Rove said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., “needs to come right at him.” He referred to the latest Newsweek poll showing Obama with a 15-point lead over McCain as nonsense, though he used a more scatological synonym. Rove said he was heading over to the White House for lunch and a chat with the President, Klein reports.
Since he’s advising McCain, it’s clear, then, that Rove is doing what he has done to American politics since he burst upon the national scene like a ruptured, fragrant sewer pipe: he is urging McCain to go negative very early and very hard.
Why do these comments matter? Rove is still in touch with Bush and he is an informal adviser to McCain. This is a foreshadow of the campaign that is to come. Rove & Co will hit the ground running.
Is the Obama campaign ready for it? Or is Obama too focused on the country club, the woman on his arm, his smokes, his wisecracks and his hunger for exotic but bargain-priced salad?
Or, even if this stereotype takes, will the American people be too focused on the ailing economy, sky-high gas prices, home foreclosures, Iraq War that has dragged on longer than World War II, skyrocketing health care costs, growing inflation, growing unemployment — and the need to take a Big Broom and sweep out those who’ve administered the federal government — to care?
UPDATE: One of the most interesting blog reactions comes from Comments From Left Field. Why? Because when you CLICK HERE you’ll see that he has a detailed list of positive and negative points about EACH of the candidates. There’s also a pie chart showing that Obama gets 75 percent of the news stories. Kyle Moore writes:
If this little pie chart is correct, Obama is getting nearly 75% of share of stories regarding the presidential election compared to only 25% for McCain. That, folks, is saturation.
There have been two things I’ve been kind enough to point out for our friends on the right. The first is be careful regarding how viciously you go after Obama; he’s not John Kerry, and he’s not likely to let much go by unanswered. Further, he has displayed thus far the kind of political awareness and raw leverage to redirect many attacks back at his opponents, and use those attacks to feed into his overall political narrative.
The other thing that I’ve mentioned several times now in the past is that conservatives need to start learning how to build a positive case for McCain.
In what has to be one of the most blunt preemptive political statements ever, Democratic presumptive nominee Barack Obama has warned supporters at a fund raiser about a rough campaign to come where he fully GOPers to play the race card:
“It is going to be very difficult for Republicans to run on their stewardship of the economy or their outstanding foreign policy,” Obama told a fundraiser in Jacksonville, Florida. “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?”
Of course, the reality is that if it’s done it won’t be done as crassly as that.
It’ll be done via images and code words. Remember the (in)famous photo of Obama in African garb? It was the best of both worlds for demonizers: it was suggested he looked like a Muslim but it turned out and reported it was African dress.
UPDATE:
But NOTE this: So far in campaign 2008 the controversies about playing the race card have involved Democrats. Senator Hillary Clinton’s campaign was accused of raising the race issue in a subtle way…and then in some not so subtle ways: her husband Bill Clinton was widely condemned for some comments he made and Clinton herself was denounced by many for talking about her support from hard-working white voters.
And the African garb photo? It turned out it was given to the Drudge Report — the website that has launched dozens of (sometime planted) political controversies — by a Clinton staffer. Some Clinton supporters not officially connected with the campaign have also been the most adamant about the existence of the Michelle Obama “whitey” tape which most now believe does not exist and they are seemingly the most eager to get it on the web. Read the rest of this entry »
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has been the subject of considerable speculation this year. First, the question was “Will he or won’t he launch an independent bid for President?” The answer: No. Next, some wondered whether he’d run as Veep on a ticket headed by Democratic presumptive nominee Sen. Barack Obama. The answer: Highly unlikely.
But Bloomberg has now bitten the bullet and entered the presidential rhetorical political arena making it clear in no uncertain terms that he doesn’t like the rumor campaign being spread about Obama. The New York Times:
Injecting himself directly into the presidential campaign and speaking before one of its most crucial constituencies, Jewish voters, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg on Friday morning forcefully rejected what he called a “whisper campaign” in the Jewish community linking Senator Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, to Islam.
Mr. Bloomberg, who has been occasionally mentioned as a potential running mate for both Mr. Obama and Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, told an audience of Jewish residents here that rumors that Mr. Obama is a Muslim represent “wedge politics at its worst, and we have to reject it loudly, clearly and unequivocally.”
He added, “Let’s call those rumors what they are: lies.”
You can’t get as blunt and TV sound bite friendly as that…
But he didn’t stop there. He let ‘er rip by articulating what many Americans know when they read demonizing attacks on either Obama or McCain: exaggeration, demonization and taking things out of context is the political game which may not work with some voters — but still works for others.
Mr. Bloomberg, who is Jewish, said the worries about the faith of Mr. Obama, who is Christian, “are cloaked in concern for Israel, but the real concern is about partisan politics.”
“Israel is just being used as a pawn, which is not that surprising, since some people are willing to stop to any level to win an election.”
Next time, Mr. Bloomberg, tell us what you REALLY think…
SOMETHING TO WATCH: It appears as if it could boil down to Connecticut Independent Senator Joe Lieberman trying to win over Jewish voters for McCain, and Bloomberg working to win over Jewish voters for Obama.
Democrats now want to move past the nasty fight and Clinton backers are standing by Mr. Obama’s side, but Republicans aren’t eager to let the opposing party forget its warring.
“We could point to many, many examples during the debates where the words ‘irresponsible’ and ‘naive’ were applied to Senator Obama, but not by a Republican, but by Hillary Clinton. She’ll probably be in a different position now, but these are issues that Hillary Clinton very dramatically pointed out during the Democratic primary,” former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani told reporters Wednesday. The former Republican presidential candidate was using Mrs. Clinton’s line to go after Mr. Obama after the Democrat’s formation of a national security “working group” to advise him on the issue.
And the rhetorical re-runs go back several months, to controversies that seemed to have begun to peter out:
In a press conference this week, Mr. McCain of Arizona employed another familiar line against Mr. Obama - evoking his rival’s remarks this spring that some rural voters are “bitter” and “cling” to religion and guns. Mrs. Clinton labeled the comments “elitist,” and repeatedly went after Mr. Obama as having insulted voters.
“I won’t tell [the American people] that in small towns across America and Pennsylvania that they are bitter or angry about their economic conditions,” he said, adding that he knows why gun enthusiasts “embrace their constitutional rights … [and churchgoers] embrace their religion because they’re fundamentally good and decent people.”
The McCain slam could have been culled from Mrs. Clinton’s own attack in April when the “bitter” comments were first reported and she said it seemed Mr. Obama was blaming rural voters for opposing him.
If this keeps up, any day now McCain will announce: “I’m ready to be President on day one..,” wearing a brown pants suit.
The scene: the National Press Club. The Guest: Larry Sinclair with some sensationalistic allegations about Democratic presumptive nominee Barack Obama that have been largely (and correctly) discounted by the mainstream news media, most of the “new media” and all but some determined Barack Obama haters in the Republican and Democratic parties.
The result: something that from The Politico description sounds like the equivalent of the bar scene in Star Wars — adjusted to 2008 politics. Ending in Sinclair’s arrest.READ THIS.
Weird. Not conducive to building credibility. And when you read the link it is clear that some folks had political axes to grind..which included some (apparent) Democrats. The problem for them: their thirst to try and get anything on Obama emerges stronger than any allegations against the Senator. This is a risk those who try to take out someone with an allegation take: not all journalists are stenographers, some ask tough questions — and some things can wither when they emerge from under the rock of less covered allegations and are put under the stronger light of mainstream media scrutiny.
Here’s a MUST READ account of this latest example of how people try to discredit those with whom they believe — and are propped up by people who have a political agenda to defeat a candidate.
In this case, it sounds like it backfired where the discreditors and those who supported the discreditors wound up being seemingly… discredited.
One of the nicer developments in American politics…
Former US presidential contender Mike Huckabee urged his fellow Republicans on Wednesday not to denigrate Democrat Barack Obama, saying they should celebrate the historic moment of a black candidate.
“Republicans will make a fundamental if not fatal mistake if they seek to win the election by demonising Barack Obama,” Huckabee told a news conference on a visit to Tokyo.
The former Arkansas governor said that, having grown up in the segregated South, he never thought he would see an African-American win the nomination of a major party for the US presidency.
“I do not want to have anyone misrepresent or miss the opportunity to celebrate what I think is a landmark achievement, not just for Barack Obama, but for the United States of America,” he said.
The country was able “to get to a point where we did not see his colour but we truly saw his charisma, his message and what he brought to the campaign trail,” Huckabee said.
Don’t look for him to get the Vice Presidential slot when he’s advocating anything less than total all-out political war…
The latest poll shows Obama is ahead of McCain and McCain is less defined in many voters’ minds. Does this this mean McCain is poised for better future numbers? Or does this mean the Obama camp must start defining McCain? Yes, this poll showing Michelle Obama ahead of Cindy McCain will get a lot of attention –and will probably keep political operatives busy figuring out how to use its results to their advantage…
Why does this matter, you (rightfully) ask? When every factor is being exploited and used in what is likely to be an — kindly excuse the word — bitter election, the spouses can indeed play a role in winning over or turning off some voters. This could count among swing voters and in vital swing states. Rush and Randi get your big verbal guns ready puhl-leaze…
But what jumps out in this poll is the following: you mean after ALL of that demonization on weblogs and on conservative talk show radio Michelle Obama still polls better than Cindy McCain? Is demonization, oversimplication and taking a quote and ranting about it losing its touch? If so, how can American politics (and blogs and talk radio) survive? The poll:
In the battle of the spouses the early edge is Michelle Obama’s, in favorable views and intensity of sentiment alike. But there are sharp differences among groups, and plenty of room to move for the less well-known Cindy McCain.
Forty-eight percent of Americans in a new ABC News/Washington Post poll see Obama favorably, vs. 39 percent for McCain, a 9-point Obama advantage. Slightly more, though, also view Obama unfavorably – 29 percent vs. McCain’s 25 percent.
Substantially more, 36 percent, haven’t yet formed an opinion of McCain, vs. 23 percent in Obama’s case. For both, those are sizable numbers who’ve yet to make a judgment.
The popularity of presidential candidates’ spouses does not drive vote preferences. But in contests where every advantage can count, spouses do play a very public role. Cindy McCain is highlighting her support for children’s charities with a visit to Vietnam this week, while Michelle Obama hosts the ABC program “The View” on Wednesday.
The polling finds a slew of differences in how the two women poll. Here’s just part of it:
Obama’s ratings peak at 84 percent favorable among African-Americans, 66 percent among liberals and Democrats alike and 61 percent among young adults, age 18-29. Not surprisingly, those are among her husband’s core groups; indeed it’s his support that seems largely to drive views of his wife. Among people who prefer Barack Obama for president vs. John McCain, 73 percent like Obama’s wife, too.
McCain’s support, naturally, inclines the other way. Though the difference is less striking, she’s better rated by non-feminists (41 percent favorable) than by feminists (33 percent). She does best with Republicans (62 percent favorable) and with her husband’s supporters (56 percent of whom like her, too). But her favorability rating among conservatives (46 percent) is a full 20 points below Obama’s among liberals.
In fact, political wives matter a lot these days.
Partisans on the other side will use every argument and possible factor they can muster to campaign against their candidate’s rival, and package and repeat it (constantly) via their respective info-opinion machines. Planting negative imagery about a politician’s wife is another way to get at a politician. Just remember: if you vote for HIM you get HER!!
Or HIM. A new twist on this factor came in campaign 2008 when polls (and some voting results) showed that aspiring first spouse Bill Clinton’s controversial interventions in his wife Senator Hillary Clinton’s Democratic Presidential primary campaign were turning off some voters.
So if you don’t think Michelle and Cindy Obama’s names will come up during the campaign — think again. Expect the political wives’ names to come up — and expect them to have some highly quotable comments as election day drawers closer.
People who didn’t reach the stage of political awareness before 1980 probably think the “L” word, liberal, is a pejorative term. For more than a quarter century, since Ronald Reagan’s first term, virtually every progressive idea that came into the political arena was pilloried, and often outright trashed, when the dreaded L label was pinned on it.
This was no accidental happening, no natural political turn of the wheel, no inevitable evolution. It was largely the product of a systematic, well financed campaign by right-leaning think tanks and kindred media manipulators to discredit an approach to governing they didn’t like.
Which brings us to the present. After long years during which money and effort expended on progressive causes went into individual political campaigns or simply renting the ear of politicians, left-leaning think tanks are now almost equal in number and staffing as their right-leaning counterparts, and churning out endless reams of policy papers, some rather good, a few even innovative. Read the rest of this entry »
Barack Obama is warning supporters that the general election fight between him and John McCain may get ugly, but the Illinois senator is vowing not to back down.
“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said at a fundraiser in Philadelphia Friday, according to pool reports.
“We don’t have a choice but to win,” Obama said, joking that he has heard “folks in Philly like a good brawl. I’ve seen Eagles games.”
Obama again said that the GOP will make try to make him look “scary” to voters.
And, in the predictable way our politics functions you could guess what the Republican response to this would be — and you’re correct:
Republican National Committee spokesman Alex Conant said Obama’s rhetoric abandons Obama’s campaign themes of hope and change.
“In the last 24 hours, he’s completely abandoned his campaign’s call for ‘new politics’, equating the election to a ‘brawl’ and promising to ‘bring a gun,’” Conant said.
Actually, that isn’t what Obama says here at all.
He’s indicating that unlike past Democratic nominees — with the exception of Bill Clinton — he’s not going to wait to respond to attacks nor is he going to not counter an aggressive campaign with a campaign calibrated to be tough enough or tougher to counter any Republican attack.
Michael Dukakis let the Republicans portray him as a kind of robot, define him with the infamous Willy Horton ad and later run an ad that used footage of him in a tank looking like Snoopy. His campaign tried to ignore the negative campaigning and paid the price. John Kerry waited so long before he condescended to respond to the Swift Boat attacks that by the time he did his own boat sank.
Obama already tipped his hand on how he plans to handle negative campaigning aimed his way when it was announced that his campaign was starting a website to directly counter and answer — an debunk — Internet “smears,” such as the false charge that he is Muslim or continued speculation that there is a tape showing his wife Michelle screaming about “Whitey” at his ex-church.
People forget, but Bill Clinton, James Carville and Paul Begala started their famous campaign “war room” due to disastrous past Democratic national campaigns where charges were made and Democrats didn’t counter them fast enough or Democrats let the campaign momentum and media narrative slip from them to the Republicans.
So Obama’s channeling Connery is by no means a rejection of a campaign of hope and change. Its embracing a campaign that is planning to stay on equal footing with the Republicans, rather than allowing itself to become a doormat.
Now, if Obama says “My name is Bond. James Bond…” there MIGHT be some reason to worry..
UPDATE: For another reaction to Obama’s comments GO HERE.
Democratic presumptive Presidential nominee Barack Obama’s campaign fired a double round at Internet partisans who spread unsubstantiated information about him: it flatly denied his wife Michelle ever used the word “Whitey” at a church — and it has set up a website to directly answer Internet and media allegation mongering usually spread by websites and operatives who have political axes to grind.
It’s an impressive response since Democrats are traditionally accused of being political wusses who let negative stuff linger “out there” until it’s too late and has become cemented in the national psyche as conventional wisdom. At the root of it are several political and journalistic issues: (1)the use of sensationalistic allegations spread via political operatives, emails and on weblogs until the allegations snowball, are parroted by talk show hosts and then re-parroted by partisans and partisan blogs until the national media has to pick them up, (2) whether weblogs will continue to evolve as essentially extensions of political candidates used to promote and undermine candidates.
A fact of life: some weblogs often contain allegations that would NEVER survive vetting on a daily newspaper, newsmagazine, or in a broadcast news meeting for even five minutes. But because weblogs are independently owned and operated, in terms of journalistic ethics it’s the wild west and any reputation is a target. AP’s Nedler Pickler writes:
Democrat Barack Obama’s campaign said Thursday that Michelle Obama never used the word “whitey” in a speech from the church pulpit as it launched a Web site to debunk rumors about him and his wife.
The rumor that Michelle Obama railed against “whitey” in a diatribe at Chicago’s Trinity United Church of Christ has circulated on conservative Republican blogs for weeks and was repeated by radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh. The rumor included claims of a videotape of the speech that would be used to bring down Obama’s candidacy this fall.
“No such tape exists,” the campaign responds on the site, http://www.fightthesmears.com. “Michelle Obama has not spoken from the pulpit at Trinity and has not used that word.”
Reading through this site, an independent voter is again struck by how American politics has nurtured and grown a segment of partisans who seem uninterested in truth or specific policies. Their main goal seems to be to try and discredit the character of the person daring to challenge their chosen candidate at the ballotbox. It’s the angry, rage-filled battle attacking someone and raising that person’s negatives that counts, rather than actual policy issues.
Will Obama’s website matter? Yes, for media types and those voters who go on the Internet and research issues.
But it’s notable that many of these false allegations appear in emails or on websites and even if they’re disproven, the sources that spread them will not usually run corrections. They move onto the next allegation that can be thrown out there and spread.
Which is what they’ll likely do.
The issue here isn’t Obama, but the 21st century’s evolving politics and the role the new communications plays in it.
If nothing else, the new Obama site lifts a rock and shines a light under it.
Now how would this be possible ? Isn’t a majority vote a win ?
Well not when you have the House leadership playing games with the vote. They brought the vote up under special House rules which required not a majority vote but instead a 2/3rds vote in favor. Why would they do this you might ask. The answer is simple, they wanted to play politics.
There is an old saying in Washington that explains this… Do you want the bill or do you want the issue ?
In this case the Democrats wanted to get the issue for the November elections. They knew that on a straight up and down majority vote that many Republicans would vote in favor of the bill (in fact almost 50 did). Many of these would be members in marginal districts while many who voted no would be in safe Republican districts. This would prevent a campaign against these members.
But by voting this way, now the Democrats can run ads in November saying ‘Republicans voted against extending benefits and your Congressman is one of them. The fact that this particular member may have voted yes on the proposal is lost in the shuffle.
Today they will be voting on a straight majority up and down vote, so the bill will pass.
Just in the interests of fairness, I am well aware that the GOP pulled the same tricks when they were in charge, I highlight the Democratic effort because it happened now.
