Anyone who heard about what Sarah Palin said to Chris Plante, host of a conservative radio show, must be confused (as I am). She thinks that because the media has called her attacks on Obama regarding Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, and RashidKhalidi negative (was she trying to paint them in a positive light? If not, then it's negative) her right to freedom of speech that is guaranteed in the First Amendment is in danger of being infringed upon.
Full interview, Part I:
Part II:
(Skip to 0:50 in part 2 to hear Palin's comment on freedom of speech)
It is quite clear that Palin is in troubled waters with this comment. To begin with, a private entity (like the media) cannot illegally infringe upon one's freedom of speech (at least if that person is not an employee; you enter a grayer area when it comes to the EEOC) because that right is guaranteed under the Constitution and thus requires a state action to even to be considered as an infringement of that right. Secondly, in the type of open environment that we as United States citizens and residents are lucky enough to enjoy, there is what is called a "marketplace of ideas," to quote Oliver Wendell Holmes. One person says something, another person can respond, others can join in and rebuttals and such can be offered up. That is part of the beauty of America. Debate is necessary to bring out the truth.
So to say that because you are criticized your freedom of speech is being infringed upon is ridiculous. The same tenet that gives one the right to say whatever he/she wants gives someone else the right to criticize you (add freedom of the press guaranteed by the same amendment and the media's ability to call something negative is enhanced). To say that because someone rebuts what you say or paints it in a way that you do not find favorable it infringes on your freedom of speech (and thus the party who criticized you should not do so for the greater "good" of the people's first amendment right) is ridiculous and totalitarian.
Additionally, there are many people in the world who would love to be in Sarah Palin's shoes when it comes to free speech. To people in nations like China, Cuba, Venezuela, or North Korea (to name a few) if some criticism were all that accompanied speaking out against the government (which Palin is certainly doing when she talks about the Washington elite, etc.) they would be ecstatic. Instead they must deal with beatings, imprisonment, even death for exercising their human right to free speech, and they still manage to use that right whenever possible. For Palin to say that the media calling her attacks on Obama negative (again, there are no positive attacks) a potential infringement on her freedom of speech is insulting.
If Palin is feeling bullied by the media for calling her ridiculous assertions that Obama's policies will be shaped by some hippy like Bill Ayers negative, she needs to either begin talking about the issues or, if she wants to continue to try to smear Obama, deal with it. Freedom of speech goes two ways, and to say that the first amendment's dichotomous nature is preventing the utilization of the right in the first place is ludicrous. Is Palin under media scrutiny? You're damn right. When you're a heartbeat away from the presidency and your own running mate does not vet you and all you have to talk about is Obama's acquaintances instead of the issues, what can you expect? Obama, McCain, and Biden have gone through the same process, though it was months and months ago and people seem to forget it (Stephanopoulos anyone?). It also does not help that she has made many missteps so far in front of the nation (I can see Russia from my house!). Palin likes to say that she calls them like she sees them. It seems as if the media is doing the same thing with her. Peace.
While the main headline grabber yesterday was Obama's 30 minute informercial (which was done surprisingly well and not as schticky as I thought it would be), the McCain campaign yesterday still managed to make waves in the news world. The newly minted McCain campaign's Sabbatai Zevi (read: Joe the Unlicensed Contractor) dropped a bombshell yesterday at a McCain campaign supported bus tour in which he agreed with a member of the audience asking questions who stated that a vote for Barack Obama would mean the death of Israel. The scare tactics continue.
Later when Joe the Unlicensed Contractor was on Fox News with Shepard Smith (of Jenny from the Block Blowjob fame) he was pressed to explain why he felt that a vote for Barack Obama was a vote for the death of Israel. He could not explain why he felt that way beyond saying that Obama has stated that he would sit down with the President of Iran without preconditions (something "Joe" mistakenly labeled as an action and not just words when, in reality, saying you will do something manifests itself in the form of words):
Joe said an interesting thing in the phone conversation. When asked what Obama's stance on Israel was, he avoided the question and stated, "Let people go out and find it...Find out why they would think that I would say that...You don't want my opinion on foreign policy; I know just enough probably to be dangerous." I think I know why Sam would say something like that. It's probably because he has no idea what he's talking about and cannot state Obama's stances on Israel. And Joe/Sam is right, we don't want his opinions on foreign policy.
All of this continues with the scare tactics of the McCain campaign (who, after Joe/Sam's recent fear mongering put out a statement essentially backing Joe's comments). But rule number one when trying to smear a distinguished professor in order to get a barb or two in about your political opponent: know how to pronounce the guy's name (skip to 2:25 if you don't want to watch the whole thing).
So while Joe/Sam the Unlicensed Contractor seems to be Sarah Palin's male counterpart (not vetted properly, entirely unready for national attention, saying stupid things in front of the media, and embraced by the McCain campaign), a bigger McCain issue is his own hypocrisy. I understand that McCain could not have possibly remembered giving money (albeit half a million dollars) to Khalidi's organization, but don't the speechwriters at the McCain campaign factcheck or make sure there are no conflicts of interest or overt hypocrisy? If this is the competency level of the campaign with less than a week to go until Election Day, it makes you wonder how ready any member of that camp, nevermind the higher-ups, would be to run one of the most powerful countries in the world. Peace.
Photo - Joe the Unlicensed Contractor (who apparently may be in line for a country music deal) (popwatch.ew.com)
One quote from a CNN article struck me in particular as being emblematic of the McCain campaign lately. The McCain campaign has been desperately grasping at straws since they have determined (but also have inadvertently strengthened) the stigma that the media and the country have "written them off." The latest is taking it to a new level. Back in April (yes, APRIL) the LA Times wrote a piece about a farewell dinner for Rashid Khalidi, a UChiacgo professor who was slated to leave to go to Columbia, and Obama's attendence. The paper reported that at that dinner, a young Palestinian-American woman read a poem that was highly critical of the United States policy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The paper had also received footage of the dinner, which Obama was at, and promised the source of the tape that it would not air it (read: journalistic integrity). Some have pointed to the LA Times and said that this is an example of media bias. Unless the source that the LA Times has does not exist or has not requested that the tape remain unaired, the LA Times is doing the right thing. McCain decided to bring this up anyway today in a last ditch effort to scare people away from Obama.
The quote I was referring to earlier, the emblematic one, came from a McCain aide who replied, after being asked why this was being brought up 6 months after the report, "Because we are one week away from potentially electing Barack Obama." If that's not a fear-mongering quote for the ages, then the Celtics aren't better than the Lakers. We saw something similar from another McCain campaign participant - Bill Kristol - but no one listens to him anyway.
What is unbelievable is that - and I did not think this was possible - Rashid Khalidi is more irrelevant than Bill Ayers when it comes to Barack Obama. I cannot even believe that we are talking about this guy. If he were a PLO spokesman, why wouldn't Bush and Co. ship him to Gitmo? If Jose Padilla can be locked away like he has, and Khalidi was as dangerous as McCain/Palin want you to believe, he'd be in Cuba or some CIA black site. Instead he is teaching at a university. And just as a quick sidenote: I took a class with Khalidi (and according to McCain/Palin that makes me a dangerous person). This is what I took from his class: Western imperialism in the Middle East had unintended consequences which led to increased instability in the region that was furthered by Western action. Oooooh, dangerous.
What is important to remember in all of this is that if McCain's goal is to boost his own poll numbers, he should know that this is not the way to do it. While tactics like this may cause a temporary dip in Obama's numbers (as it seems to have done briefly when the Ayers madness reached its peak), it does not raise McCain's numbers (which is what he really needs right now). Experimenting with the Ayers connection (which did not work) and spending time debunking the myth that Obama is an Arab (as if there is anything wrong with that in the first place) among his own ignorant supporters has distracted McCain from the real issues of the election and, in the process, truly hurt his campaign for president. If McCain and Palin want to start talking about the issues at their rallies instead of tenuous relationships Obama held with academics, socialism, or how Palin has "gone rogue" I (and the media) are willing to listen. If not, then the media is just going to hop on the attacks (that's what gets viewers and, in turn, ad revenue) and his campaign will continue to suffer. It's up to you, McCain. You can begin to focus on the issues, possibly win the White House (or, if you end up losing, it will be with a shred of dignity left) or you can continue to focus on the bullshit and probably end up losing the election and your reputation. Peace.
Just a quick reminder to the media: the election is a week from now and has not occurred yet. With all of the reporting lately on Obama's poll numbers and that 60+ Democratic Congress, one would think that November 4 has come and gone and Obama was president-elect and Pelosi and Reid the two most powerful people in Washington. Not so fast.
So who is predicting all of this Obama and Democratic-led hoopla? The media, the pundits, and also the McCain campaign. Obama and his staffers like to remind themselves of what happened in New Hampshire and say that they are playing it like they are 10 points down, not 16 up. Obama reminded his supporters in New Hampshire that you have to run through the finish line and not let up during the last portion of the race:
But McCain seems to be jumping on the fact that many people have "written him off." He continues to point to the poll numbers, reminding people that he is down by a lot:
While McCain's strategy of playing the underdog may work, it also is a big gamble (like most of his campaign since picking Palin). While it may get some voters to go to the polls because they think they can help give McCain a surge in the election, it could also get people to either stay home (thinking that it is a lost cause to vote for him when he is down by so much) or vote for Obama (for the same reason). A gamble, but like McCain's other gambles (see: Palin), it may not work out.
Through all of this we have the media fanning the flames from the sidelines. With headlines like "Republicans scramble after Stevens conviction" and "Polls show McCain not making up ground in Ohio," it's hard to imagine that many in the media do not forsee an Obama victory next Tuesday. The words "scramble" and "not making up ground" seem to be based on the assumption that Republicans are panicked and McCain is desperately seeking to catch up to Obama. We do not know if these things are true (though, to be fair about the Stevens article, some Republicans are asking Alaskans to vote for Stevens even if they think he's guilty because if he steps down the Alaskan governor (a Republican) will be able to appoint a conservative replacement - that's just desperate). Polls are not 100% accurate, and we still do not know the full extent of the Bradley Effect. Many pundits will say, "Oh, well a lot has changed since then there are plenty of excuses that people can come up with to not vote for Obama than they could have with Tom Bradley." I just do not buy this. If someone is embarassed to say that they do not want to vote for Obama because he is black, are they going to say that they don't like him because he is a Muslim or is buddy-buddy with Bill Ayers (two things that have been definitively debunked)? The Bradley effect assumes that those who take part in it have shame; people who claim Obama is a Muslim or is going to take advice from some hippie like Bill Ayers have none of it.
We should all take Obama's advice and not count the chickens before they hatch. The media simply wants to paint a big picture of a landslide victory (the whole divided America, red state blue state crap is a little played out). It's not liberal bias (though one could argue it is a backlash against Bush who played the media big time leading up to Iraq - don't forget that the media didn't treat Carter too well when things were looking bad for the country). If the roles were reversed we would be talking about what went wrong in the Obama campaign (is it because he's black? Too liberal? Was it the Ayers/Wright stuff?). Election Day is seven days away and anything could happen, so don't play along with the media's assumptions. Peace.
Photos - McCain and Obama under a polling logo (ABC News), Obama and wife Michelle after the Senator conceded the New Hampshire primary (LA Times)
The story of Ashley Todd, the 20 year old McCain campaign volunteer allegedly attacked in Pittsburgh due to her political affiliations, has been making the national news rounds. As with any story making national news (see: Joe the Unlicensed Contractor), media scrutiny can sometimes lead to fact-checking (unless it's the Iraq War). As it turns out, Todd was not attacked by anyone and it appears that she inflicted her injuries upon herself (including carving a "B" into her cheek - backwards).
This would have little to no political consequences if it were left untouched by both campaigns. People would have written it off as some looney in western PA looking to seek attention. The reality of the situation is, however, that both campaigns took notice of Ashley Todd's allegations. Barack Obama's campaign simply said that they hoped Todd would recover quickly. The McCain campaign went a little further.
John McCain actually called the woman up, and Sarah Palin talked to the woman's family. While going a little further than the average campaign statement wishing the "victim" well, still not a horrible thing to do. The main issue is the fact that many reporters who first reported on the story say that their source was not the police department, but the McCain campaign itself:
But now the McCain campaign ends up with egg on their face. While the McCain camp may not have participated in overt race-baiting, Fox News did not waste time attributing the unidentified black male's actions against Ashley Todd to the Obama candidacy:
So because a black man allegedly attacked a white woman in Pittsburgh (classic racial fear, right Woody?), it should make people rethink their support for Barack Obama as a black president because they do not know enough about him? Unless Barack Obama himself attacked the woman, I do not see how it should bear on him at all. Linking the two due to race is racist (even Murtha would tell you that).
Ironically, in the same post, John Moody (VP of Fox News), admits that not all of the facts are out and says that the McCain campaign will be ruined if this turns out to be a hoax (maybe he was privy to the McCain campaign pushing the story...?): "If the incident turns out to be a hoax, Senator McCain’s quest for the presidency is over, forever linked to race-baiting." Never mind that Moody himself was blatantly race-baiting in his misguided remarks about how Obama, as a black man, should be doubted in light of an imaginary black man in Pittsburgh.
The fact of the matter is, the story should not have been pushed by the McCain campaign. In an election where issues of race have been highlighted due to Obama being black, one would think that a large black man attacking a young white woman (and sexually assaulting her) supposedly due to her allegiance to the McCain campaign would be off limits, with the exception of the "get well soon" statements, until all of the facts were 100% verified (and even then it may be unwise to discuss it). Alas, the McCain camp clearly needs to brush up on its TawanaBrawly and Francisco Nava knowledge. Of course, they could always talk about the issues... Peace.
Photos - Ashley Todd (Times Online), Ashley Todd, this time in handcuffs (Faniq)
Palin's comments last week, when she referred to the "pro-America" places that she and McCain visit as the "real America, have touched off a rhetorical firestorm. In her comments at a fundraiser in Greensboro, North Carolina, she said that "We believe that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hard working very patriotic, um, very, um, pro-America areas of this great nation. This is where we find the kindness and the goodness and the courage of everyday Americans. Those who are running our factories and teaching our kids and growing our food and are fighting our wars for us. Those who are protecting us in uniform. Those who are protecting the virtues of freedom." Apparently Palin thinks that big city folk do not possess the kindness and goodness of everyday Americans and that they do not fight in America's wars. In other words, the large cities (which, by no small coincidence, tend to lean democratic) are not pro-American.
Palin has since apologized for the comment, realizing how dumb it was to say. Of course, in the same interview she expressed how inexperienced Barack Obama was and rattled off her experience as being a mayor of Wasilla, Alaska as one reason she is more ready for the Oval Office than he is. Jon Stewart sent a correspondent to Wasilla to find out about its "realness" and also get an inside look into the mayor of Wasilla's duties:
No social services? Really? I guess they're too busy signing the checks over at Wasilla town hall.
But Sarah Palin is not the only one on the McCain campaign who sees different parts of America as "real" and other parts as "fake." Nancy Pfotenhauer, a McCain campaign adviser, dismissed an MSNBC anchor who, when discussing the state of Virginia and its vital importance to McCain come November 4, stated that the northern portion of the state, which tends to lean democratic, had recently strengthened in terms of its electoral power statewide. This was Pfotenhauer's response:
So it seems that anything liberal or sympathetic to the Democratic Party is not "real." Earlier this month McCain's brother Joe stated that northern Virginia was "communist country" while at one of the candidate's rallies. This pales in comparison to what North Carolina congressman Robin Hayes (R) said at a McCain rally in Concord, North Carolina. While first denying that he said it, Hayes finally admitted that he stated, "Liberals hate real Americans that work and achieve and believe in God."
It's clear what this is. The old "Us vs. Them" idiom. The only problem is that the "Us" and the "Them" are on the same side: they're both American. It is idiotic to try to divide this country at a time when we are at war with two nations and as soon as one war seems to go well, the other falls apart (Afghanistan to Iraq, then back to Afghanistan) and the stock market is in turmoil because neither party stepped up to the plate to try to regulate the Wall Street leviathan. Instead of talking about these issues, we talk about what parts of the country are real and which are not, Joe the Unlicensed Contractor who brought the tax debate to the forefront despite his own tax liens, and how liberals are not as patriotic as conservatives (a move straight from Karl Rove's dirty little book). One congresswoman, Michelle Bachmann (R - MN), has even suggested that the news media do a "penetrating expose" on anti-Americans in Congress because she feels that Barack Obama may not be the only one:
Somebody wake up Joe McCarthy from the dead and get the old HUAC hacks, apparently their job is not done because there are still liberals in the United States.
If I could describe the way that this race has been going the past couple of weeks, I would choose pathetic. The country's economy is in the shitter, we are fighting two wars, the Bush Administration has used the Constitution as toilet paper the past few years, and we're talking about "real" parts of America and small town "pro-America" (never mind that 9/11 happened in the biggest city in the nation), anti-Americanism in the halls of Congress, and BILL FUCKING AYERS. Bill Kristol said in his column on Monday that he did not think that anti-intellectualism was "rampant in the land." Given the way that the McCain campaign and a lot of others in the Washington elite have been acting lately (Robocalls are not exactly intellectually stimulating), I would have to say McCain and company are banking on Bill Kristol being wrong (yet again). Peace.
The McCain campaign strategy seems to be invoke something, find out it was a big mistake, but try to go with it and convince the American public that your mistake was actually part of the plan (see: Sarah Palin). So it is with Joe the Plumber. Without looking into Joe's credentials (or lack thereof), McCain decided to thrust the guy into the national spotlight in a an ill-advised debate style which hinged on him. Once the media looked into the guy (as McCain or any other sane individual knew they would) they found out some interesting facts.
Joe the Plumber's real name is Samuel Joe Wurzelbacher and, in reality, he is not really a plumber. Despite insisting that he does not need a license to practice his trade, the folks who run Toeldo, Ohio say that he does. And his claim that he is about to buy his employer's $250,000 plumbing business may not be true, either. In any event, it is worth watching Obama's answer to Sam (Joe), because instead of brushing him off, he takes the time to explain his plan to him and makes sure that he understands it:
Wurzelbacher seems to get it and to appreciate Obama's time to answer his question. Now, beyond McCain's initial incantation of Joe the Plumber at the third debate, his campaign seems to be grasping the idea of Sam (Joe) the Plumber (probably in their attempt to portray themselves as populists). McCain has even gone so far as to call up Joe (Sam) to ask him to come out to some campaign rallies. Rather than let the Joe the Plumber fad die, McCain seems to want to embrace it despite the recent revelations of the real Joe (Sam).
Palin also seems to be embracing Joe the Plumber. She has said that he had the courage to stand up to Obama and that should be commended. Indeed, it should, because politicians do not get asked legitimate questions (it is too bad that this time it seems that the questioner was not the best person to be asking the question given his tax history). But Palin should not be praising Joe the Plumber, for when she faced a similar incident in Philly and was called out on it later, she said that Katie Couric was participating in "gotcha journalism": (you can ignore the interview with the guy who asked the question, because he seems like a pompous ass)
So, isn't Palin caught in "gotcha politics" (isn't that a pizza place?) when she invokes the Joe (Sam) the Plumber question? Is it not hypocritical for Palin to say that she should not be called out on her answer to a random voter (in which she agreed with Barack Obama's ill-advised plan to enter sovereign Pakistani land to get terrorists without Pakistani approval, which is in direct opposition to John McCain's position), but that Barack Obama's answer should be scrutinized? Or is it still sexist to ask Sarah Palin about things she has said and what she believes?
All of this Joe the Plumber stuff is getting annoying. He asked Obama a good question, and Obama answered him quite well. The McCain campaign, looking for anything to bring attention off of their policies and anything else that may mean something to the voter before the election, have continually brought up Joe the Plumber to show, "Hey, look, I own eight homes, but I still care about your average Joe; I'm a populist! Greed and corruption on Wall Street!" Once Joe's 15 runs out, it'll be back to the Ayers non-connection. But while McCain and Palin continue to use the image of Joe, I propose a name change . I think we should call him Joe the Unlicensed Contractor. Peace.
Every pundit in the world said before this debate that all Obama had to do was not, in polite terms, defecate the bed. He metaphorically woke up feces-free. McCain needed to do some Criss Angel magic, and he ended up looking like Gob Bluth. While I think the debate was relatively close (at least compared to what we saw the last two times), this is because McCain performed better in the second half of the debate than the first. However, McCain certainly did not "whip Obama's you-know-what" in this debate like he promised he would.
McCain was the first to speak and it seemed that he was nervous as hell (which he probably was, knowing that his campaign is in tatters and he needed a "game changer." He repeated words a few times, said "Fannie and Freddie Mae," and recycled some of those stump speeches he's been using the for past few weeks. This nervousness wore off, but the fact that Obama opened up the debate very well (middle class tax cut, let people dip into IRA early with no penalty - why hasn't this been brought up before, a good idea) only highlighted McCain's weak opening.
Then there was the government spending issue. McCain said that he was going to issue an overall spending freeze; in other words, no new spending. In McCain's words, he wants to take a hatchet to the problem, and then clean up with a scalpel. Not a great surgical analogy (if that's what he was going for, with the whole introduction of the scalpel). Obama's answer gave me a little hope because he seemed to be focused on the long term issues, rather than some short-term fixes to placate the people (*COUGH* $700 billion bailout *COUGH*). Health care for everyone now to ensure they are healthy in the future (driving Medicare and Medicaid costs down), solve dependence on foreign oil (to drive down oil imports in the long-term), etc. I've said numerous times that one major pitfall of this country is its lack of foresight, and tonight Obama gave us a glimpse of foresight. Not only that, he also discussed individual responsibility, which many politicians don't like talking about because it reminds people of a grim reality: at the end of the day, you are ultimately responsible for yourself and no amount of government action will drastically improve your life, only you can do that.
McCain had a good one-liner and I thought he was going to capture a large part of the debate with it, but unfortunately I thought he followed up with little substance. He and Palin have been faulting Obama and Biden for looking toward the past when America needs a solution for the future, and McCain echoed this sentiment when he said, "I'm not George Bush and if you wanted to run against him, you should have run four years ago." McCain followed this up with unimpressive rhetoric and Obama was able to turn the phrase back on McCain by taking the time to highlight the similarities between the current president and McCain (in slightly more impressive rhetoric, though not much better). After that, McCain did not have any other memorable quotes that really stung Obama.
And a big thank you to Bob Scheiffer, who asked the candidates to grow a pair and say what they have been saying to each other through ads and press conferences like gossiping high school girls to their face. Obama started off by admitting that the two campaigns had certainly put out ads that were less than honorable, but the American people deserved better and they should put it behind them and talk about the issues. McCain began to agree, before blaming Obama for the way the campaign had devolved into a passive aggressive showcase by not agreeing to do the town hall debates McCain wanted to do months ago. At this Obama needed to respond, did, and the talk went to Ayers, which I think Obama refuted even better than before (pointing out Reagan's friend Annenberg funded the board and other prominent conservatives served on it). McCain just threw out the old, tired half-truths of how "Obama's political career was launched in Ayers' living room," etc. Then the ACORN thing, which I think both candidates exaggerated (I think Obama had done a bit more with the group, but not to the extent that McCain would like you to believe). And McCain got very emotional when discussing John Lewis' recent remarks about him, saying that segregation and the church bombing of four little girls was the worst part of America's history (if only; I would have picked the enslavement of an entire people based on the "one drop rule" and the color of one's skin, but to each his own). Obama repudiated Lewis' comments, and brought up the fact that members of McCain and Palin's rallies have deemed him a terrorist and have expressed a desire for his murder. McCain did not explicitly repudiate this and instead made excuses for it, then tried to insinuate that Obama had insulted veterans of all major 20th century wars. Obama played Bob's question well, tried to push it away, but McCain couldn't resist and while he may have scored points in the Republican base, McCain's continuing accusations probably did more harm than good in the eyes of the undecided.
While talking about their VP choices, McCain did a curious thing. He brought up special needs and the need for a better focus on it. Obama agreed, but reminded McCain about his spending freeze and how, under his hatchet to scalpel plan, special needs programs would also see no new spending. This would not be a big deal, but McCain brought up autism later in the debate while talking about education and special needs, and then mentioned it one more time in the context of Palin and her "knowing more than most" about autism. This made me think, is McCain saying that Palin knows more about autism than most because her son has down syndrome (two unrelated conditions), or is he framing the entire special needs argument (an incredibly diverse range of conditions, depending on whether one is discussing mental or physical special needs, or both) in the incredibly complex condition of autism? I thought it was weird that McCain kept bringing it up, and I won't speculate here about his motives. He also sounded paternal when discussing Palin, saying he's "proud" of her. As someone I spoke to after the debate pointed out, that's what a father says to a daughter. Hopefully many Americans did not share that view, because it shows that Palin is young and McCain is old, two things that the McCain campaign does not want to highlight.
As a last major thing I want to say, there was one point in the debate where I thought McCain was going to go apeshit. It was when Obama began discussing the assassination of labor leaders in Colombia after McCain discussed NAFTA. It looked like pure, unadulterated rage was building inside of McCain before he rolled his eyes and wrote something down on his legal pad. In that span of 4-5 seconds, I was legitimately worried. It was scary to see McCain's eyes like that. That's really all I have to say on that, just wanted to point it out to see if other people thought the same thing.
In conclusion, McCain needed a "game changer" and he didn't create one out of his own doing and Obama did not give him one through a major gaffe. Obama did well, but did not completely dominate McCain. McCain did OK, but could not make up the deficit he lost in the first half of the debate. My roommate pointed out that on InTrade, Obama is favored to win the presidency by 4:1 odds (80 points to 20 points). It will be interesting to see what happens after this debate. However, being a Red Sox fan for my entire life, I never say that something is a sure thing, even if many others do. While I think that Obama just might win the election, this is American politics and, like the 1990s Red Sox, anything can happen and expecting an outcome as a certainty only worsens the blow if it doesn't come true. Peace.
It appears that the McCain campaign - after a week of personal attacks and smears against Obama - wants to play nice again as his poll numbers begin a sharper decline than we have seen in the past few months. The most current poll puts Obama well above McCain (50%-43%) with just over three weeks to go in the election. A month ago today, McCain was leading Obama 47%-45%. Many pundits and political insiders have pointed to the McCain campaign's tactics of the past week (namely to use personal and character attacks on Obama rather than discuss the issues in an era that, while precedented, nonetheless has people very worried), as one of the reasons for this fall in the polls.
It now appears that the negative campaigning that the McCain campaign has employed - whether through Palin and her "palling around" with terrorist accusations against Barack Obama or surrogates like McCain campaign co-chair Frank Keating (no relation to the Keating Five) bringing up Obama's experimental drug use while in college - did not have the effects that McCain and company had been hoping for. This led McCain to quickly try to calm down his hostile crowds by saying that Obama was a "decent" man when people attacked him and spread rumors that he was an Arab. While not distinctly refuting the Arab mischaracterization, he has tried to, as the Globe says, "restore civility" to his campaign.
This, of course, does not mean that he is going to denounce other disrespectful attacks on Obama from within the Republican party or at his own rallies. This video, which has been circulated around the internet for a few days now, shows a McCain/Palin supporter with a Curious George doll with an Obama bumper sticker wrapped around the doll's head. When he realizes that he is being captured on videotape, he tries to surreptitiously stash the Obama sticker away and give the doll away to a confused child in the audience:
Of course you can't take one racist that looks like a pedophile from a Sarah Palin rally and apply it as the model to all those who attend McCain/Palin rallies. You also cannot take the folks who yell out "terrorist" or "kill him" when Barack Obama's name is brought up at these rallies as representative of the entire group. But notice that when McCain attempts to take the moral high ground and repudiate these comments, he uses generalities and vagueness. Maybe he doesn't want to admit that the same people making these comments are wholeheartedly supporting him and he desperately needs their votes; alienating them would alienate a Republican base that he has worked so hard to win over following initial doubts to his loyalty to the party line. But as McCain and his aides realize, when you pander to the extreme right wing of the Republican party, you lose moderates and independents who may very well lean toward the other candidate (as we have seen with Obama's surging numbers and McCain's stagnant and slightly falling numbers).
Sometimes, however, McCain does not even turn to the vague repudiation of ridiculous attacks on Barack Obama. That was the case with Virginia GOP leader Jeffrey Frederick when he compared Obama to Osama bin Laden, saying that both had friends who bombed the Pentagon (he was referring to Bill Ayers, who Obama met later in life as they both served on a Chicago board for education but in a previous life had organized a domestic terror group that bombed a toilet in the Pentagon, which injured no one). When pushed on the comparison, Frederick stuck to it. When asked about what he thought of Jeffrey Frederick's remarks, McCain not only did not say that they were inappropriate, saying that we needed to know the full context (I wonder what context would make that appropriate), but took the moment to repeat his attack on Obama for being on the same board as Ayers:
It seems that while McCain doesn't want to find himself in Lady Macbeth's shoes, trying to wash the blood from his hands when it is already too late, he has little problem with others doing some dirty work at arms length. That way, McCain can make it look like he is above the fray, while others make the attacks on Obama that tend to alienate moderates and independents in this country. McCain is in desperate territory; some advisers and previous supporters are beginning to distance themselves from the campaign so as not to be sucked into the collapse should McCain lose November 4. Will McCain's "honorable" turn-around be enough to help him overcome a large deficit in less than a month? I'm leaning towards no, but as I've said before, the Democrats cannot get too cocky, because the sole fact that this race is even within the ten point margin with one of the candidates backing an immoral and incredibly unpopular war, among other unpopular stances, is telling. Peace.
As McCain's campaign becomes increasingly dirty and smear-filled, I figured it was time to air out the negative personal differences between the two candidates (because McCain seems to want to focus on Obama's early adulthood rather than the impending economic meltdown facing this country). Neither candidate is a choir boy, though neither candidate is the devil that some make them out to be. Both have skeletons in the closet, but given Obama's limited time in Washington, he has yet to build the political network involving lobbyists and underworld figures on Capitol Hill.
Let's begin with Obama. Most know of his unique childhood, so I will not go over it again. Let's just hit the controversial topics. One thing that came up was that he spent time at a madrassa (an Islamic school) in Indonesia. This was later debunked as a typical smear from the Clinton campaign (which we know was headed by someone who wanted to point to Obama's "otherness"). Another allegation that has arisen is that Obama is good friends with recently convicted felon Anthony "Tony" Rezko. Rezko is currently in negotiations with prosecutors as he nears facing the music for his corruption charges with the Illinois governor's office. It appears that Rezko may begin snitching on his connections in the Illinois state government. The main connection between Obama and Rezko is a land deal that went down in Chicago in which the the pair bought adjoining lots in a Chicago neighborhood. The issue was that the two lots had to close on the same day, and when Obama mentioned the deal to Rezko, he wanted to help and agreed to buy the adjacent lot so that they could close on the same day. Rezko's wife then sold Obama 1/6 of their over $600,000 lot for a little over $100,000. That deal went down after allegations of Rezko's corruption came out. Some have pointed to the fact that Obama paid less-than-market price for the house and that the lot that Rezko purchased was sold at full price. This is because of the subdivision the owners decided to undertake and the offers standing on the two lots. Obama has since regretted that he did the deal with Rezko to buy the small parcel of land from the adjacent lot to the house. It was, in all appearances, a dumb thing to do.
Other Obama relationships have been called out. To begin with, there was the Jeremiah Wright scandal. I've discussed Wright a good deal and don't want to have to rehash everything about it. Obama went to a church in Chicago where a pastor named Jeremiah Wright, who has connections to other powerful Democrats of recent memory, preached. The two became close and Obama continued to attend his sermons. Some of Wright's sermons (which, it appears, Obama did not attend) were very controversial in nature, talking about things like America's active role in racism. The following got the most attention, when Wright infamously said, "God damn America":
Then there is Bill Ayers. An ex-radical who helped co-found the Weather Underground - a domestic group deemed terrorists by the U.S. government. The Weather Underground's activities included bombing such venerable places as a Pentagon toilet and a statue in Chicago. Their most famous bombing was an accident - the Greenwich Village townhouse explosion that killed three Weather Underground members who were making a bomb. Beyond that, no Weather Underground bomb killed a person, though robbery of a Brinks armored car in New York (a joint venture between WU members and the Black Liberation Army, but with no involvement of Ayers himself) resulted in the death of two cops and a Brinks employee. Ayers says that after the townhouse explosion, he wanted no human casualties (which the Weather Underground seems to have stuck to for the most part).
So where does Obama fit in? Well, he was a wee child when Ayers was running around the country blowing up toilets. They connected much later in life, when they served on the same board for educational reform and lived in the same Chicago neighborhood. Ayers and his wife, another former Weather Undergrounder, hosted a coffee at which State Senator Alice J. Palmer introduced Obama to Democratic friends as her replacement while she spearheaded a run for Congress. Apparently it was one of several small neighborhood gatherings that Obama attended in his lead-up to beginning his campaign, so to say that his political career was launched in Ayers' home, as some McCain ads would like you to believe, is a little ridiculous.
As a sort of an epilogue, today Ayers teaches education at the University of Illinois, was never convicted for any of his activities in the '60s and '70s (thanks to COINTELPRO and the incompetence of federal law enforcement) and has a doctorate of education from Columbia. His wife teaches law at Northwestern. In short, they are a bunch of ex-hippies who have been forced into the mainstream.
Onto McCain. I wrote up a long post about his past activities (here), but I will brush up on some of them for the sake of knowledge. McCain comes from a distinguished military family, his grandfather was an eccentric four-star admiral and his father was also a four-star admiral in the Navy. McCain followed in their footsteps, joining the Navy and fighting in Vietnam when he was famously captured by the VC and held for years as a POW. John McCain retired from the Navy as a captain and entered politics. Beginning as a U.S. Representative for Arizona and becoming a Senator for the same state.
When McCain went to Vietnam, he was married to model Carol Shepp. While McCain was a POW in Vietnam, Ms. Shepp was in a car accident that left her badly injured. When McCain returned from Vietnam their relationship was very different from when he had left. After his return, he began having extramarital affairs, culminating in an affair with Cindy Hensley. The two began a relationship and got married about a year after meeting. McCain hurriedly got his first marriage to Carol Shepp dissolved before marrying Hensley. Hensley is the daughter of Jim Hensley, the founder of Hensley and Co., the third largest Anheuser-Busch distributor in the country (out of around 800) and is currently the chair of the company and estimated to be worth $100 million. While a bit has been made of Jim Hensley's underworld connections and felon status, McCain's involvement in the social aspect of Jim Hensley's affairs is tangential at best. His father-in-law, however, certainly helped with campaign funding.
When McCain became a senator, he got involved with some of the wrong people. Before McCain claimed to be a Washington outsider, he was sucked into being a Washington insider. The Keating Five scandal left McCain officially unscathed, but would hang over him as a dark cloud for the rest of his Congressional career and presidential campaigns. The story can be read here and you can watch the following video produced by the Obama campaign (though, as a warning, this video seems to be a bit over-dramatic):
As mentioned earlier, given John McCain's wife Cindy's desire to enter the campaign limelight by attacking Obama, we cannot leave her personal life untouched (note the title of this post). There's no easy way to say this and any way someone says it is going to sound brash and harsh, but unfortunately it is a reality. Cindy McCain is a drug addict. Back in 1994 the story about her addiction first broke, but the story went deeper than a mere addiction. It turns out that Cindy had been stealing from her own charity, American Voluntary Medical Team, a charity Cindy set up to provide better health care for third world populations - specifically war-torn areas. The DEA got involved, but the McCains cut a deal with the feds and Cindy avoided jail time. The doctor who wrote her false prescriptions for the drugs (Percocet and Vicodin) ended up losing his medical license. This whole dark period of Cindy McCain's life makes me scratch my head when Frank Keating (no relation to the Keating Five), a co-chair of McCain's campaign, brings up Obama's recreational drug use, when McCain's own wife is an addict.
These are the facts as I see them for both candidates. McCain has the advantage of having run a close primary campaign against Karl Rove in 2000, meaning that a lot of his personal dirty laundry was aired during that bitterly fought campaign. Therefore, some in the media see no point in rehashing McCain's personal issues because they assume that the populace already knows about McCain from 2000. The problem with that is while Obama's ties to Ayers and Wright are highlighted by the McCain campaign (and echoed in the media), things like the Keating Five and McCain's infidelity get brushed over because they were explored in 2000. But McCain, being a Christian, should know Matthew 7:1-2, "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." Peace.
To begin with, McCain's use of the term "my friends" needs to stop. It is a lame attempt to be folksy and seem like "one of us." It does not work and once you notice it, the effect is akin to a professor who says "like" or "umm" a lot: you begin to become hyper-sensitive to it, and hearing it so often begins to annoy you beyond words. For last night's debate, I counted 18 "my friends" uttered by McCain, and I may have missed one or two. Palin has more folksy cred than McCain, given that she comes from a rural area and has no experience in Washington.
The other logistical thing about last night that annoyed me was both candidates' lack of heeding to the allotted time for their responses. As a viewer, you can see the green, yellow, and red lights they use for the candidates to know when to stop talking. I noticed it in the beginning with McCain, but Obama made up for it later in the debate by running well over time on numerous occasions.
I could go into the amount of lies told by both candidates, but FactCheck.org has a pretty good overview of it and I highly suggest that you check it out. Some things not mentioned in the FactCheck article were the following: McCain saying that he can solve the energy problem, the health care problem, and the entitlement problem at the same time (saying that Social Security was easy to fix, and Medicare was not that much harder), saying Reagan was his hero, then on the next question saying that Teddy Roosevelt was his hero, and claiming that the Taliban "came back" into Afghanistan following the abandonment of the mujahideen "freedom fighters" by the U.S. (despite the fact that while mujahideen warlords may have been targeted by the Taliban, many of the Taliban were comprised of mujahideen fighters who fought off the Soviets in the 1980s with heavy assistance from the U.S. and Pakistan).
The main issue I had with McCain at the debate was his highly disrespectful attitude. Clearly the one sticking point that many have pointed out was when McCain referred to Obama as "that one" while turning has back to him and pointing. While you can easily make the argument that this is a xenophobic, if not somewhat racist, remark, the overall fact is that it is disrespectful. I cannot imagine how being called "that one" can be construed as being respectful, or at the very least as on the same plane of "him" or "he" or any other male pronoun used to refer to a third person. In addition to this, I noticed that McCain walked around a lot while Obama was talking, whereas Obama sat and intently listened to McCain's answers. I don't know if this is because McCain had ants in his pants or was trying to distract people from Obama's answers, but I found it rude. When someone else is talking in a town hall format, it is common courtesy to sit still and remain quiet out of respect, at least in my mind.
Finally McCain's jokes. He has a history of some zingers (most notably his "Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly - because Janet Reno is her father" joke), but he fell flat on every joke he tried to tell. First was his hair transplant joke when he talked about "Cadillac" health plans in which cosmetic procedures like hair transplants are covered. He quipped that he might be in need of one (in case the sub-par combover did not alert you to that fact). I thought that while self-deprecating jokes are legitimate, pointing out one's age when it seems to be a concern for some voters might not be the smartest thing to do in a debate so close to Election Day. There was also an interjection by McCain when he interrupted Brokaw after an Obama reply, saying "Did we hear the size of the fine?" referring to the non-existent fine that would be levied on parents and small businesses who do not insure their children or employees under Obama's health care plan. Obama had said that there was no fine in the plan, but this did not stop McCain. And finally McCain tried to take some praise from Obama when the latter was talking about the former's portrayal of Obama as brash while McCain was calm. McCain quipped "Thank you" and began to awkwardly laugh, and then Obama finished his thought and referred to the time that McCain had sung the song "Bomb Iran" to the tune of the Beach Boys' "Barbara Ann" and when McCain had yelled to a bunch of American servicemen on January 2, 2002 (more than a year before the invasion of Iraq by American forces), "Next up, Baghdad!"
If you look carefully at McCain's face during the debate when Obama says the "Bomb Iran" and Baghdad comments, it goes from one of laughter to absolute glum. It reminds me of when a young child is laughing and then falls or is scared senseless and there is a moment right before he begins to ball his eyes out: that's what McCain's face looked like. McCain countered by saying that he was joking with a fellow veteran about bombing Iran. Apparently he thinks it is funny.
All in all, a relatively lackluster debate. It did not get interesting until Obama turned the whole "I do not understand" thing around on McCain, saying that he did not understand how we could invade a country that had absolutely nothing to with 9/11. This was the turning point, in my opinion, of the debate and it had Obama on the offensive against McCain and it is what ultimately framed the debate. As the polls say, Obama won, and it will probably only increase his lead with less than a month to go before that first Tuesday in November. McCain and Palin will probably try to come out with increasingly negative smears against Obama in an effort to salvage their campaign, but I am leaning toward predicting it will not work. Of course, this is American politics and you never know what could happen. Peace.
In his unsubstantive interview with Sarah Palin, Kristol says that when Palin mentioned Ayers, he countered with the assertion that Jeremiah Wright has a closer relationship to the Democratic nominee for president than the former self-proclaimed terrorist. Palin, taking the obvious hint from Kristol and pouncing on it, said the following: "To tell you the truth, Bill, I don't know why that association isn't discussed more, because those were appalling things that the pastor had said about our great country, and to have sat in the pews for 20 years and listened to that...to me, that does say something about character. But, you know, I guess that would be a John McCain call on whether he wants to bring that up." Kristol follows with the line, "And I guess we'll soon know McCain's call on whether he wants to bring Wright up - perhaps at his debate with Obama Tuesday night." It appears that neither Palin nor Kristol realizes that McCain has already put the issue to bed.
Back in March, McCain essentially put the kabash on the issue in an interview with George Stephonanopoulos' best friend Sean Hannity when McCain said - after some insistent baiting by Hannity - "I do know Senator Obama, he does not share those views."
So while McCain said eight months ago that the Reverend Wright issue was essentially irrelevant, the campaign's major mouthpiece at the New York Times and the campaign's vice-presidential candidate are bringing it back up in a desperate attempt to drag down Obama. Given the fact that Palin is not really allowed to give input on important decisions - such as the McCain campaign pulling out of Michigan - I would not expect her to realize that the decision regarding Wright had been made months earlier.
Of course, we should all take anything that Kristol says about Wright with a large grain of salt. He is the same man who, in March of this year, stated that Obama was in the pews on the day of Wright's infamous "God damn America" sermon. A little fact-checking was done and Kristol was forced to apologize when it was proven that Obama was not at the church that day. Kristol's writing should always be suspect - he is a bit of a snake when it comes to honesty - but when talking about matters concerning Jeremiah Wright, everything should be, in Santa's manner, checked twice.
Naturally, Bill's column had other issues with it. While pointing out that Palin regretted allowing herself to be handled more than a competitor in the Westminster Dog Show (and before anyone twists my words I am not calling Mrs. Palin a dog), he pointed out how when he asked her if she would challenge Biden to another debate he believed he heard a lot of staffers in the background before Palin gave her answer (though this could just be speaking to Palin's habit of not knowing what is going on in the world around her). He also said that he would volunteer to moderate a debate between the two vice-presidential nominees. Clearly this would be a conflict of interest considering Kristol serves on McCain's campaign (although, to give Kristol a break here, it could have been a tongue-in-cheek comment). But his last line in the column - Hockey Mom knows best - is just ridiculous. Watch the Katie Couric interviews, Bill, and try to repeat that line with a straight face.
I've said it before and I will say it again: why is Bill Kristol given a spot at the New York Times? Are the Times that desperate for a conservative writer that they hire Bill Kristol? After his insistence on Iraq and its projected aftermath was shown to be completely - not even just a little bit, but completely - wrong, why is he a major part of the national conversation? Let him take his spot at Fox News and tell those not concerned with the facts what they want to hear. If Kristol wants to try to argue the issues, that's fine and possibly worthy of a weekly column for him. But if he wants to use his column as a mouthpiece for the McCain campaign by focusing on things like Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright when real issues like the economy and foriegn policy are what need to be discussed, let him go serve out his journalistic career as a Fox News hack. Peace.
Given the New York Times' front-page article yesterday about ex-radical Weather Underground co-founder William Ayers, the McCain-Palin campaign has begun grasping at straws. In two separate events, Sarah Palin attempted to play up the tenuous relationship by saying that while she and McCain see America as the greatest force in the world, Obama has decided to "pal around" with terrorists who would attack their own country. Of course, had Palin read the entire Times article, she would see how both liberals and conservatives have come out to say that the relationship between Obama and Ayers was nearly non-existent. They worked together on a school board and have seen each other around the neighborhood, and that is essentially the extent of the relationship.
The timing of the story is interesting, with less than a month to go in the presidential election. The McCain campaign is getting desparate. Their numbers are down and they need something - anything - to either buoy themselves or bring Obama down. They seem to be leaning toward the latter strategy, with an unnamed Republican strategist saying, "We're going to get a little tougher. We've got to question this guy's associations. Very soon. There's no question that we have to change the subject here." The subject that this mystery man is referring to is the economy, which McCain gambled on and lost last week.
What is surprising - at this point it should not be, but my naivete is showing through here - is that McCain would lower himself to this point, being a victim of the same sleazy politics in South Carolina back in 2000. The two events are similar in the amount of truth they hold. Rove and company conducted a push poll during the South Carolina primary in 2000 (after McCain had won New Hampshire) suggesting that McCain had fathered a black child out of wedlock. In reality, McCain and his wife had adopted a dark-skinned girl from Bangledesh named Bridget. So while they had a dark-skinned daughter, she was not fathered out of wedlock as Rove would have liked you to believe. In similar fashion, Obama has been accused by the McCain campaign as having been"palling around" with a self-proclaimed terrorist (let's not forget that with all of the outrage of Ayers' terrorism, he has never been convicted of anything terrorism-related because the FBI could not get their act together). In reality, Obama has met Ayers and served on a board or two with him. Everyone with knowledge of the relationship between the two (read: not McCain, Palin, or any Republican operative claiming the two were close) insist that the two were not considered "close" and that the media and everyone else is making mountains out of mole hills.
The reality of the situation is that the McCain-Palin campaign is desparate. In the immortal words of Police Chief Grady, "Desparation is a stinky cologne." Unfortunately, for the American people, the final stretch of this campaign may very well be characterized by smear tactics and attack politics as opposed to the issues, how to fix the American economy and, in the words of Ron Suskind, how to reassert this nation's moral authority. So while McCain has oft-claimed that he would rather lose an election than lose a war, it seems that he would rather win an election based on false information than lose an election based on the issues and what the American people deserve to hear about. Peace.
Anyone who heard about what Sarah Palin said to Chris Plante, host of a conservative radio show, must be confused (as I am). She thinks that because the media has called her attacks on Obama regarding Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, and Rashid Khalidi negative (was she trying to paint them in a positive light? If not, then it's negative) her right to freedom of speech that is guaranteed in the First Amendment is in danger of being infringed upon.
ple in the world who would love to be in Sarah Palin's shoes when it comes to free speech. To people in nations like China, Cuba, Venezuela, or North Korea (to name a few) if some criticism were all that accompanied speaking out against the government (which Palin is certainly doing when she talks about the Washington elite, etc.) they would be ecstatic. Instead they must deal with beatings, imprisonment, even death for exercising their human right to free speech, and they still manage to use that right whenever possible. For Palin to say that the media calling her attacks on Obama negative (again, there are no positive attacks) a potential infringement on her freedom of speech is insulting.
