-
sponsorship
Just because Barack Obama is president does not mean you can now violate traffic laws. From today’s Obama pool report:
Obama left his house at 11:27 am, and heading to a security briefing at the FBI building (Chicago division). The motorcade drove along Lakeshore Drive, and past Grant Park (where there were scores of construction workers still tearing down the scaffolding and staging from Tuesday night's rally.
Some of the drivers here in Chicago do not seem to understand that a) the Chicago police car at the end of the president-elect's motorcade is serious about having traffic pull over when the officers flash their lights and hit their sirens, and b) it's not a great idea to jump ahead of traffic by trying to cut around the black SUV filled with five heavily-armed secret service CAT members. When the motorcade pulled onto Van Buren, an African-American couple driving a tan sedan tried to drive around the motorcade. The SUV cut the car off immediately, and the security team aimed their weapons at the car. The driver and passenger in the sedan stopped, and looked stunned--until the male driver appeared to understand what was happening (your pool reporter could see him mouth "Obama"). The motorcade continued on. The sedan remained stopped, near the side of the road.
The president-elect arrived at the FBI building at 11:48 am.
-
sponsorship
See all Swift Boat Watch entries here.
Who They Are: Right Change
Purpose: Though claiming to be nonpartisan, the group has run all anti-Obama ads.
Executive Director: Tim Pittman
Funding: According to IRS reports, the group received almost $5.5 million from its president, Fred Eshelman, who is also the CEO of PPD, a pharmaceutical research firm in North Carolina.
Cost of the Ad: $500,000
Where It Ran: Washington, D.C., and North Carolina through the middle of this week.
Claims: Fighting terror has cost America almost $1 trillion. The ad implies that Sept. 11 was responsible for the current economic crisis. After quoting Joe Biden's much-repeated remark about a crisis early in an Obama presidency, the ad says Obama's policies undermine counterterrorism efforts.
Accuracy: Congressional Research Service puts the price tag for the war on terror at $864 billion since Sept. 11 (PDF). Although Biden predicted an international crisis, he made no mention of the crisis being related to terrorism. There have been many reasons given for the probable cause of the economic crisis (Alan Greenspan, globalization, Wall Street). Sept. 11 fails to make the short list. Experts on terrorism agree that Obama's counterterrorism policy is actually very similar to current U.S. policy.
Background: Eshelman has been donating to the Republican cause for years. Two other board members are Republican legislators from North Carolina. The group's first ad made no mention of Obama's name but clearly referred to his tax plan. Until now, the attack ads have focused on Obama's tax plan being bad for Americans.
Swift Boat Rating: 
Invoking the Sept. 11 attacks is a cheap scare tactic. The ad also implies that Sept. 11 caused the financial crisis (unfounded) and that Obama's policy on terrorism would leave the United States vulnerable but offers no reasoning for this claim.
-
sponsorship
Barack Obama's half-hour infomercial Wednesday night didn't teach us a lot we didn't already know—except that an Obama administration would likely
feature immaculate stagecraft.
The spot opened with a shot of—I’m not making this up—amber waves of grain. Obama reiterated his plan to cut taxes for families making less than $250,000 in a softly lit room in front of an oak desk. He explained his Social Security plan to moist-eyed retirees in what could have been a church vestibule. Then a guy behind a register tells Mark Dowell, a laid-off auto worker, the price for groceries. The camera cut to Dowell, scowling, in a way that could not have possibly been live. Not to mention the well-coordinated switch to Obama's live address in Florida, with sweeping cameras straight out of a Rolling Stones concert movie.
Improved artifice easily fits under the banner of "Change." Some of President Bush's worst political moments came from poorly executed stagecraft. Dressing up as a fighter pilot and standing before a "Mission Accomplished" banner was the epitome of tone deafness. Bush's team also goofed in allowing him to be photographed looking down at post-Katrina New Orleans. Optics aren't everything, but Bush's visual flops were especially damaging.
And it's not just choreography that matters: It's making the choreography look effortless. Tonight's episode featured all sorts of shots that simply had to be rehearsed: a couple praying before dinner, a mother walking out of a grocery store toward a fixed camera, a woman with arthritis massaging her knuckles. You can imagine the cinematographer saying, "Can you pray a little longer this time? OK, now try moving your mouth a little." It's heavily choreographed. But the production quality is high enough that the transitions are almost invisible. It's the opposite of George H.W. Bush's famously clunky statement to the people of New Hampshire in 1992: "Message: I care." The trick is not to let the seams show.
Smart propaganda does not a smart administration make. If anything, it means we have to be more vigilant in calling out theater when we see it. But whatever the next four years may bring, we're in for some damn good camera angles.
-
sponsorship
Farhad Manjoo has a great piece up about the Obama campaign's text-messaging superiority. But the campaign's technological dominance extends to all corners of the Internet, as evidenced by this new video:
It's a prime example of the Internet gap in 2008. Obama's people understand the Web—what works, what doesn't, and what's funny about it. They realize that you can take a popular YouTube clip (and a great moment of FAIL), add some silly Photoshopping, and make a better ad than a snoozy Fred Thompson pep talk. Now if only they'd BarackRoll McCain.
-
sponsorship
See all Swift Boat Watch entries here.
Who They Are: Let Freedom Ring
Purpose: To promote a conservative agenda and to counter liberal messaging. In this election, they support John McCain.
President: Colin A. Hanna
Funding: NPR reports that John Templeton, a physician and wealthy Republican donor, is a contributor.
Cost of the Ad: $5 million for the whole campaign.
Where It Ran: Colorado, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Washington, D.C., starting Oct. 24.
Claims: Former Assistant Secretary of Defense Frank Gaffney says that candidates who are determined not to use force or invest in a strong military convey "weakness" that "invites aggression." (He doesn't explicitly name Obama.) The ad then quotes Joe Biden's statement that "it will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama."
Accuracy: Frank Gaffney writes editorials theorizing that Islamist groups are using Obama to take over the United States. The ad implies that Obama is determined not to use military force or to maintain a strong military. Both of these claims are false. In fact, both Obama and McCain want to expand the armed forces. In a 2007 speech, Obama said, "I will not hesitate to use military force to take out terrorists who pose a direct threat to America. ... I will ensure that our military becomes more stealth, agile, and lethal in its ability to capture or kill terrorists." The Biden statement, made at a rally in Seattle, is accurate.
Background: The group's Never Find Out campaign features individuals addressing Obama's tax plan, energy plan, and use of the present vote in the Illinois Senate. Other ads have attacked Obama on his comments about small-town Pennsylvanians, his position on the Employee Free Choice Act, and offshore drilling. Ronald Reagan nominated Gaffney for assistant secretary of defense; Gaffney served for seven months until the Supreme Court blocked the nomination.
Swift Boat Rating: 
Biden did warn Americans that an international crisis would test Obama. But the ad's implications—that Obama would not use force and would weaken the military—are inaccurate. The ad gets an extra boat for featuring Gaffney, who is not the most credible spokesperson.
-
sponsorship
Yesterday, Sarah Palin said that this election is going to "come down to the wire." She may have meant it's going to be close. But she also may have been suggesting that this election rests in the hands of the hit HBO series.
If so, McCain's screwed:
Cast
of "The Wire" Campaigns in North Carolina for Obama
Stars Will Make Stops
in Raleigh Sunday and UNC Chapel Hill and Duke on Monday
RALEIGH—
Tomorrow, members of the cast of the Peabody Award-winning drama series, The
Wire will attend a Backyard Brunch for Barack in Raleigh. Seven of
the show's cast members will visit the Tarheel State in support of the
change Barack Obama will bring across the country and in North Carolina.
Chad
Coleman who plays Dennis "Cutty" Wise, Deidre Lovejoy who plays
Rhonda Pearlman, Jamie Hector who plays Marlo Stanfield, Clarke Peters who
plays Detective Lester Freamon, Sonja Sohn who plays Detective Shakima
"Kima" Greggs, Seth Gilliam who plays Sergeant Ellis Carver, and
Gbenga Akinnagbe who plays Chris Partlow will all appear at the backyard brunch
on Sunday.
Look for the attack ads citing Obama's shady drug-dealer connections. Some members of the cast also went knocking on doors, which obviously means kicking them down. On a side note, Akkinagbe, who plays Chris Partlow, confirms via a friend that Season 4 is "definitely the best one."
John McCain wants it to be one way. But it's the other way.
Update 3:51 p.m.: They also made this video.
-
sponsorship
See all Swift Boat Watch entries here.
Who They Are: Republican
Jewish Coalition PAC
Purpose: To
advocate for issues relevant to Jewish Republicans. In this election, they
oppose Barack Obama.
Executive Director:
Matthew Brooks, who also directs the Jewish Policy Center.
Funding: Individual
donations.
Cost of the Ad: More
than $1 million.
Where It Ran: Florida, Nevada, Ohio and Pennsylvania
through Election Day.
Claims: Obama
would meet with leaders of unfriendly countries during the first year of his
administration. Hillary Clinton said she would not. She also said Obama's stance
was irresponsible and naïve.
Accuracy: Obama
and Clinton's responses are taken from the July 2007 CNN/Youtube Democratic
Primary debate in South Carolina.
(Watch their complete responses here.) As some have pointed
out, Obama never explicitly said he would meet with Ahmadinejad-only that
he would consider sitting down with unnamed leaders. (The questioner did not
specifically name the leaders, but a picture of Ahmadinejad was shown.) Clinton, in an interview
with the Quad City Times, called
Obama's comments "naïve and frankly irresponsible."
Background: Formerly
the National Jewish Coalition, the RJC lobbies on behalf of Jewish interests. The
PAC has contributed
heavily to state candidates in the past. They were responsible
for some pretty nasty attacks on Howard Dean in 2005. Last month, the group received
sharp criticism for a poll that asked Jewish voters to respond to negative
statements about Obama. One polled voter happened to be a writer for the New Republic
and blogged
about his experience.
Swift Boat Rating: 
Obama has reiterated his intention to meet with leaders of
anti-American countries. The ad leaves interpretation up to the viewer.
-
sponsorship
Playing the terrorism card is risky: You could look desperate, and your opponent could accuse you of fear-mongering. But if your opponent brings up the subject, then you may have an opportunity.
Which is why the McCain campaign is probably sending Joe Biden a thank-you card (it doesn’t do text messages) right about now. Over the weekend, Biden suggested that Obama would face an international crisis soon after taking office: “Mark my words,” Biden said at a Seattle fundraiser. “It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. … Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.”
McCain pounced on the statement, claiming that even Joe Biden agrees that Obama presidency would be dangerous. The key words, according to the McCain camp, are “generated crisis,” as if Obama’s mere presence in the Oval Office would provoke the crisis. “We don’t want a president who invites testing from the world at a time when our economy is in crisis and Americans are already fighting in two wars,” McCain said.
Today marked Phase Two of Operation Terrorism Card. The McCain campaign held a conference call in response to a Washington Post piece about commenters on al-Qaida-related message boards celebrating the U.S. financial meltdown. The gist of the piece: These al-Qaida commenters generally think the crisis is caused by the U.S. spending its resources on foreign wars, and they suggest that McCain would be more likely to continue this trend.
McCain surrogates took the opportunity to refute the article and to spin it around on Obama. McCain spokesman and blogger Michael Goldfarb said that the article, in a “rather irresponsible and rather outrageous fashion, claims that al Qaeda supports John McCain for president.” McCain Foreign Policy Adviser Randy Scheunemann then read a series of quotes—“If we’re going to talk about who has support from terrorist groups”—from Hamas leader Ahmed Yousef, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Muammar Gaddafi saying positive things about Obama. (Gaddafi has also attacked Obama.) Scheunemann said he was reading the quotes “without commentary.” Finally, former CIA director Jim Woolsey argued that one commenter’s motives are suspect: “This individual knows that the endorsement would be kiss of death, figuratively and literally. So it seems to me pretty clear that by making this statement, he is clearly trying to damage John McCain.”
As for Goldfarb’s complaint, the piece stops short of saying that al-Qaida endorses McCain or that the commenters are anything more than al-Qaida sympathizers. Adam Raisman of Site Intelligence Group, who was also quoted in the Post piece, emphasized to me that the commenter in question was “not affiliated with al-Qaeda. He doesn’t represent the group, he’s not spokesman.” Rather, he’s an al-Qaida sympathizer whose comment represents the prevailing views of other users—that McCain would keep America on its current trajectory. Raisman also dismissed Woolsey’s suggestion that the commenter was using reverse psychology to hurt McCain. “I don’t think the author wrote the message with any intention other than having like-minded individuals read it,” he told me. “I don’t think he thought he was … harming the campaign in any way.”
For weeks, the McCain camp has insinuated that Obama isn’t ready to handle crises. (Obama has said the same about McCain.) But until now it hasn’t made the explicit case that Obama would provoke and/or be unable to handle a terrorist attack. And just in time, too: With less than two weeks to go before Election Day, the McCain camp is running out of ammo. The “celebrity” angle flubbed, Ayers went nowhere, and the campaign is now mulling whether to invoke Jeremiah Wright, despite McCain’s assurances that he would not. The best part? Campaign apparatchiks can now claim it was Biden and the Washington Post who brought up terrorism—not them.
-
sponsorship
See all Swift Boat Watch entries here.
Who They Are: pH For America
Purpose: To persuade Americans that Barack Obama is not a good Christian.
Director: Stephen Marks, opposition researcher and self-described "political hit man."
Funding: Small donations
Cost of the Ad: Less than $1,000 to produce. The latest ad buy was $2,500.
Where It Ran: Starting Oct. 17 in Florida, Ohio, Virginia, and Missouri.
Claims: Obama "insulted small-town Americans" when he said they are bitter and cling to guns and religion. He also "mocked and ridiculed" the books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy and the Sermon on the Mount by taking passages "painfully out of context." Obama "condescendingly" implied that Americans don't read the Bible.
Accuracy: In an event in San Francisco, Obama did say that some Americans, such as small town Pennsylvanians, "cling to guns and religion."*
As for the Bible, the clips in the ad come from Obama's 2006 "Call to Renewal" address, in which he responded to opponent Alan Keyes' claim that Obama was not a true Christian. Obama did mock Biblical verses, but he was trying to prove his point that literal interpretation makes no sense. And the problem isn't "context," as the ad suggests. Leviticus creates a set of rules regarding slavery. (Slave is used in some translations, and servant is used in others.) Deuteronomy suggests that a rebellious son be brought to the town's elders to be stoned to death.
At the end of that same paragraph, Obama says, "Folks aren't reading their bibles." But it's pretty clear that he's not talking about the American people—he's talking about Americans who interpret scripture literally.
Background: The pH in the group's name stands for "political hit man." This group clearly had the infamous Swift Boat ad of 2004 in mind when they created this ad: "pHForAmerica.com is hoping to become the ‘Swiftboat' 527 of 2008," states the group's Web site. Stephen Marks has created political ads in the past. The group's videos (there are one-minute and two-minute versions), which have been on Youtube for months, garnered a direct response from the Obama campaign, which called Marks a "scam artist" and said the ad would never be aired on TV. The group bought time earlier this month in Michigan and Pennsylvania but pulled the ad after it became clear those states were leaning Democrat.
Swift Boat Rating:
Obama did mock Bible verses, but only the literal meaning of them. By suggesting that Obama is not a true Christian, the ad plays to people's fears that he might be something else entirely. It's this insinuation that earns the spot an extra boat (although apparently that's what the ad's makers want).
Correction, Oct. 16, 2008: This piece originally said that Barack Obama made his "guns and religion" statement in Pennsylvania.
-
sponsorship
See all Swift Boat Watch entries here.
Who They Are: Judicial Confirmation Network
Purpose: The group supports conservative nominees to the Supreme Court. In this election, they oppose Barack Obama.
President: Gary Marx, former coalitions director for Bush-Cheney 2004 and Mitt Romney.
Funding: The group is a registered 501(c)4, funded through individual donations.
Cost of the Ad: $550,000 in a $1 million campaign.
Where It Ran: Michigan, Ohio, and nationally on the Fox News Channel through Friday, Oct. 10.
Claims: Tony Rezko, a slumlord who was convicted on 16 counts of corruption, donated money to Obama. Obama also associated with William Ayers, a member of the Weather Underground who planted a bomb in the Pentagon in 1972 and later said he "didn't do enough." The Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama's pastor for years, blamed the U.S. for the Sept. 11 attacks. If Obama "chose" these people as associates and backers, the ad suggests, how can we trust him to choose Supreme Court justices?
Accuracy: The majority of the facts in the ad are correct. Rezko started to donate to Obama's state senate campaign in 1995, although Obama recently gave Rezko donations to charity. Obama and Ayers worked together on the board of the same Chicago anti-poverty foundation for three years. Ayers, when he was a member of the Weather Underground, planted a bomb and later said it wasn't enough. Wright did say in a sermon that African Americans should not sing "God Bless America" but "God damn America." But the ad is wrong to equate this statement with blaming the U.S. for 9/11. It was another controversial Wright statement—"America's chickens are coming home to roost"—that suggests the U.S. is partly to blame.
Background: The group was created in 2004 to help President George W. Bush's nominations get confirmed in the Supreme Court. The group campaigned heavily for Samuel Alito's confirmation.
Swift Boat Rating:
Although the facts in the ad are essentially correct, suggesting that these associations have anything to do with Supreme Court nominations is a stretch.
-
sponsorship
In the beginning, there was “The One.” Now, thanks to an off-hand comment in tonight’s debate, there’s “that one.” The result: One "one" cancels the other "One" out.
McCain was discussing a 2005 energy bill “loaded down with goodies, billions for the oil companies, and it was sponsored by Bush and Cheney. You know who voted for it? You might never know. That one,” he said, indicating Obama. “You know who voted against it? Me.”
The Obama camp immediately blasted out a one-liner to reporters: “Did John McCain just refer to Obama as ‘that one’?” In an otherwise forgettable debate, that’s already become the moment, with Obama campaign manager David Plouffe suggesting it reflects McCain’s “anger” and lumping it in with his refusal to look Obama in the eye last debate.
Which is, of course, utterly silly. “That one” is good-natured towel-snapping—another way of saying, Get a load of this guy. Anyone who knows how McCain talks knows this. He was joshing around. It wasn’t particularly funny—but it wasn’t mean-spirited either.
It could still matter, though. McCain’s campaign has had a good chuckle dubbing Obama “The One,” a tweak at the worshipful way some fans treat him. (And, some believe, a hint that he’s the Antichrist.) They’re still laughing, too. Just today, the McCain camp issued novelty cufflinks with a mock presidential seal on one side—a jab at Obama’s campaign seal—and “The One” engraved on the other.
But “that one” could mean the end of “The One.” Now, every time Team McCain resurrects their favorite moniker, Team Obama need only reply, Sorry, which one? Oh, you mean “THAT one.”
It’s a dumb response, but then again, it’s a dumb attack. After all, it takes one to know one.
-
sponsorship
House Republicans and the McCain campaign are currently blaming Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s speech today introducing the bailout package for its failure. According to this narrative, she managed to alienate a dozen Republicans who otherwise would have voted for the bill.
But read Pelosi’s speech. (Transcript here.)* She wasn’t bashing Republicans; she was bashing Bush. She said the $700 billion price tag “tells us only the costs of the Bush administration’s failed economic policies—policies built on budgetary recklessness, on an anything-goes mentality, with no regulation, no supervision, and no discipline in the system.” Later, she thanked Democratic leaders Barney Frank and Rahm Emanuel while conspicuously omitting minority leader John Boehner. But she did thank Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. Doesn’t he count?
Granted, it may have sounded unpleasant to sensitive Republican ears. But GOP members can hardly object to Bush-bashing—in fact, many of them have done it themselves. Vulnerable GOP congressmen have scrambled to distance themselves from the president on Iraq, immigration, Katrina, and now economic policy. Sure, Pelosi could have been more gracious to Boehner and other Republicans who voted for the package, especially after such delicate negotiations. But her speech also showed Democrats that you can be for the bailout and still run on a Bush-bashing economic message. It’s a message you’d think would resonate with Republicans, too.
So what’s the advantage of the “hurt my feelings” excuse? Not only does it defy belief—does anyone really think 12 members of the House of Representatives actually changed their minds on this bill because of a speech?—but it allows Obama to take the high road and look presidential. His campaign decried McCain’s “angry and hyperpartisan statement”—McCain had blamed the failure on Obama and fellow Democrats—but refused to point fingers back. “Now is the time for Democrats and Republicans to join together and act in a way that prevents an economic catastrophe.”
In the short term, at least, the advantage is Obama’s. First, it means the financial crisis is likely to stay in the news for a while longer—and he enjoys a huge margin over McCain when the issue is the economy. Second, McCain explicitly injected himself into the bailout negotiations, thereby lashing himself to the results. He was taking credit for this bill before it passed. Does that mean he should get blamed for its failure?
*UPDATE: Turns out Pelosi ad-libbed quite a bit of the speech, including this potentially divisive line: "... Democrats believe in a free market ... but in this case, in its
unbridled form as encouraged, supported by the Republicans — some in
the Republican Party, not all — it has created not jobs, not capital,
it has created chaos." See the video here.
-
sponsorship
Whoever wins the election, one thing is for sure: The next president of the United States will be extremely boring.
At least, that’s the impression voters just tuning in will get based on tonight’s debate.
The evening was heavy on substance, from the Wall Street bailout to Iraq to Russia and Georgia. Which is good, in theory. But there wasn’t a single memorable line. McCain did a better job of boiling his message down to short sentences—“That isn’t just naive, it’s dangerous,” he said of Obama’s desire to hold talks with unfriendly nations. At another point, McCain held up a pen and promised to veto every spending bill that crossed his desk. But none of his lines zinged like his now-famous “tied up at the time” moment during the primaries. Obama, meanwhile, sounded discursive and academic even about visceral issues like war with Iran: “What Senator McCain refers to is a measure in the Senate that would try to broaden the mandate inside Iraq” to justify action against Iran, he said. Obama did have a strong moment where he repeated the phrase, “You were wrong,” referring to McCain’s opinions on WMD and being welcomed as liberators in Iraq. But for the most part, it was like a race to the bottom of my memory.
Jim Lehrer tried valiantly to get the candidates to address each other. Eventually, Obama managed to turn to McCain and address him in the second person, but only after some prodding. “Say it directly to him,” Lehrer instructed Obama at one point. McCain never mustered the will.
The last few weeks are partly to blame. People have become so used to potshots and posturing—“100 years,” “lipstick,” sex education for kindergartners—that sober discussion of earmarks comes off as, well, dull. It was also the subject matter. Lehrer deliberately avoided pulling a Gibson/Stephanopoulos and instead stuck to policy. Sure, it occasionally got personal. McCain said Obama doesn’t know the difference between tactics and strategy; Obama accused McCain of trying to "pretend like the war started in 2007." But compared with recent weeks, it was all pretty tame.
That said, boredom is probably a good thing. The media fixate on debate details that reflect poorly on the candidates. (George W. Bush garbling a sentence, George H.W. Bush checking his watch, Al Gore sighing a lot.) So, the lack of “moments” means the candidates were able to stick to their message, not screw up any lines, and generally stay relaxed. Plus, there are greater sins than wonkiness in a debate. Tonight’s topics demanded some drilling down. McCain’s discussion of Georgian sovereignty, Obama’s distinction between “preconditions” and “preparation,” the sacrifices the economic bailout will force both candidates to make—all of this matters. I’m just glad they provide a transcript.
-
sponsorship
I don’t know what it says about this election that it has spawned so many debate drinking games, but it seems worth a roundup. Here are some of the best rules and instructions you’ll find for tonight’s Mississippi fisticuffs:
“One drink:
- If both candidates show up”
--Rhog
“TAKE A SIP WHENEVER:
John McCain refers to himself as a 'maverick.'
Barack Obama rolls his eyes when John McCain refers to himself as a 'maverick.' "
--Radar
“When McCain makes his first reference to being a prisoner of war:
Everybody get in a box and take a Vicodin.
At McCain’s second reference to being a POW:
Two shots, punch the person next to you in the biceps, demand a confession.
Third POW reference:
Five and a half shots.
--Wonkette
“The entire time McCain speaks, players will be able to ‘invade’ other players by putting their finger in another person’s cup without them noticing. If they are able to do so, the invaded person must drink from their cup as well as their conqueror’s cup until McCain is done speaking.”
--In Our Ear … Out the Other
“Every time Obama pauses before the predicate of a sentence, go watch Star Trek: The Original Series to see how a pro does it.”
--Indecision 2008
“DO NOT take a drink every time McCain attempts to appropriate parts of Obama’s campaign message.
DO NOT take a drink every time McCain chuckles and smiles.
And ABSOLUTELY DO NOT take a drink every time McCain mentions 9/11."
--Daily Kos
“McCain claims the 'fundamentals of our economy are strong'–finish your drink and write a bad check to your landlord.
The cameras pan out to Cindy McCain–swallow all the pills you can find and finish your drink.
Either candidate refers to previous drug use–spark a joint and pass.
McCain uses self-deprecating humor to comment on his age–mix whiskey with Metamucil and sip while asking the person next to you when you’re going to have grandchildren.
McCain says 'my friends' more than three times–open the front door and scream, 'I am not your goddamn friend, McCain,' pound your beer and throw the empty in the street.”
--Fat Kid Special
“- Do a Jägerbomb every time 'the surge' is mentioned
- Shot of vodka every time Russia or Georgia are mentioned
- Shot of bourbon every time ethanol is mentioned
- Shot of tequila every time immigration or Mexico are mentioned
- Shot of rum every time hurricanes are mentioned
- Shot of scotch if the disembodied ghost of Ulysses S. Grant makes an appearance
- Shot of your own wretched tears when the debate ends and you realize that one of these two clowns is going to be the next president."
--Rhog
“Regardless of what either candidate says, at the end of the debate, drink something that must be lit on fire first, then hit yourself in the face with a shovel.”
--Josh Nelson, Huffington Post
And, of course, drink every time Jim Lehrer's pupils dilate to the size of quarters.
-
sponsorship
The first question of tonight’s debate should be for John McCain, and it should be this: What were you thinking?
Let’s review: It was precisely 2 p.m. on Wednesday when McCain issued a statement saying he was suspending his campaign, and asking to delay tonight’s debate, so he could “return to Washington” to work with both parties on the Wall Street bailout plan. He was clear about the goal: “We must meet until this crisis is resolved,” he said. Then, at 11:30 a.m. today, he declared the suspension lifted. Crisis resolved? Not exactly. But McCain said he was “optimistic that there has been significant progress toward a bipartisan agreement.” He will be in Mississippi tonight to debate Barack Obama.
From crisis to optimism in less than 48 hours: That’s leadership! Or maybe not. There’s a better word to describe McCain’s behavior between his two announcements.
First, it should be noted that he didn’t really suspend his campaign. His campaign asked TV networks to stop running ads, but some still aired. Sarah Palin still attended public events. Surrogates and campaign aides continued to boost McCain and ding Obama. And McCain himself still held an interview with Katie Couric (though he canceled on David Letterman, much to Dave’s chagrin). Then there’s the length of time it took him to get to the White House after his announcement—more than 24 hours. Then there’s what he did when he got there—upset a bipartisan agreement that appeared to be moving along well, remain mostly silent during the key meeting with Obama and President Bush, blame Democrats for the mess-up, and accuse Obama of “posturing.” His final act was to skip off to Mississippi for the debate.
Editorial boards and most other observers declared the decision a mess, especially after the Thursday meeting in which bipartisan negotiations collapsed. Even Mike Huckabee, a McCain booster, called McCain’s gambit a “huge mistake.” (That said, Newt Gingrich approved, calling McCain’s decision “the greatest single act of responsibility ever taken by a presidential candidate.”)
But despite all the talk about his campaign suspension, McCain’s bigger mistake may have been lifting it and agreeing to debate Obama. Initially, McCain promised to boycott the debate barring “consensus on legislation” to address the bailout. Needless to say, that hasn’t happened. What has happened is that a general agreement on the broad strokes of the bailout package has fallen apart; House Republicans who had earlier seemed amenable to the bailout have revolted, possibly to make it look as if McCain swooped in and saved the day; and talks have “imploded” thanks largely to the arrival of both presidential candidates on Capitol Hill.
McCain’s assessment of all this in a statement this morning? “Significant progress.”
Take it away, Jim Lehrer.
-
sponsorship
Bill Clinton praised a presidential candidate yesterday. “The American people, for good and sufficient reasons, admire him,” Clinton said on The View. “He’s given something in life the rest of us can’t match.” The problem: He was talking about John McCain.
[UPDATE, Sept. 25: Clinton can't help himself: He praised McCain again today, telling Good Morning America that he understands why McCain wants to delay Friday's debate. ""We know he didn't do it because he's afraid, because Sen. McCain wanted more debates," Clinton said. "I presume he did
that in good faith since I know he wanted -- I remember he asked for
more debates to go all around the country and so I don't think we ought
to overly parse that."]
At the Democratic National Convention in August, Clinton promised that he and Hillary would do everything possible to get Barack Obama elected. Since then, he’s been a nonentity on the campaign trail. He just announced plans to visit swing states with Obama next week, but only “after the Jewish holidays.” (Presumably he’ll wait for Yom Kippur, which is Oct. 9, not Sukkot, which ends Oct. 22.) But his presence won’t necessarily be a boon; even when he’s praising Obama, it sounds tepid.
Bill Clinton is one of the best orators and political talents of his generation. So why is he such a lousy surrogate? Some theories:
It’s always about him. Granted, Clinton’s recent TV appearances were geared to promote the Clinton Global Initiative. So he’s excused for talking about himself there. But even questions that aren’t about him become about him. When a View hostess asked him who he thinks is going to win, he answered the question—“I believe Obama will win”—and then segued into praise for McCain. “If it hadn’t been for John McCain, I’m not sure I could have normalized relations with Vietnam,” he said. When David Letterman asked him what he thinks about Obama picking Biden over Hillary, he described how “Joe Biden was a great supporter of mine when I was president in stopping the genocide in Bosnia, Kosovo, restoring democracy in Haiti, and a lot of things we did together.”
He likes everyone. On Tuesday, Clinton had kind words for the Palin family. “I come from Arkansas. I get why she’s hot out there, why she's doing well,” he told reporters. (He added that voters would think, “I'm glad she loves her daughter and she's not ashamed of her. … I like that little Down syndrome kid.”) On Larry King Live, he called Palin “gutsy, spirited, and real.” As for Obama vs. McCain, “I genuinely like both of them. … We make a terrible mistake believing we have to find something wrong with the people we won’t vote for.” And calling Obama a “good candidate” and a “smart man” sounds pretty weak.
He’s too analytical. Clinton likes to play pundit, explaining why he thinks Obama will win instead of why people should vote for him. On the Late Show, he predicted the election would “break Obama’s way.” Not because of Obama’s message of hope and change and the American dream, but because of election fundamentals. As he said on The View: “Obama will win for the following reasons: Two-thirds of American people are having trouble paying their bills. … America is growing more diverse,” racially and demographically. And “registration is up for Democrats, flat for Republicans in 20 of the most important states.” Inspiring!
He thinks Hillary deserved to win. Clinton doesn’t have to keep arguing that Hillary won the popular vote, as he did on The View. (She did come close.) He also stopped short of telling Hillary supporters who dislike Obama that they’re wrong. “You can’t tell someone else that ground on which they make their voting decision is irrational,” he said. “We can’t tell anybody they don’t know what they’re doing because they vote for candidate X instead of Y.” That’s actually a good description of what campaigning is.
He’s determined to be bipartisan. Since 2000, Clinton has tried to live down his reputation as a polarizing force. The Clinton Foundation combats HIV/AIDS and makes a point of reaching out to Republicans. Laura Bush was the keynote speaker at the foundation’s 2006 conference. After a massive tsunami hit Indonesia in 2005, Clinton teamed up with President George H.W. Bush to ask for donations. Sure, he didn’t seem to mind the rough-and-tumble when campaigning for his wife in the primaries, but campaigning for Obama, with all the mud-lobbing going on right now, could complicate his efforts to reburnish his reputation as an elder statesman.
This doesn’t mean that Clinton won’t campaign for Obama or that he won’t be effective. All he needs, to paraphrase a popular political slogan, is a candidate he can believe in.
UPDATE: Clinton can't help himself: He praised McCain again Thursday, telling
Good Morning America that he understands why McCain's wants to delay
Friday's debate. ""We know he didn't do it because he's afraid, because Sen.
McCain wanted more debates," Clinton
said. "I presume he did that in good faith since I know he wanted -- I
remember he asked for more debates to go all around the country and so I don't
think we ought to overly parse that."
-
sponsorship
Prominent Hillary Clinton supporter Lynn Forester de Rothschild has decided to endorse John McCain. Why? Because Barack Obama is a snob.
“This is a hard decision for me personally because frankly I don’t like him,” she told CNN this summer. “I feel like he is an elitist.”
This, coming from the CEO of EL Rothschild LLC and wife of British financier and thoroughbred-horse-racing enthusiast Sir Evelyn Robert Adrian de Rothschild—son of financier and luxury automobile enthusiast Anthony Gustav de Rothschild, son of financier and thoroughbred-race-horse breeder Leopold de Rothschild, son of British politician Lionel Nathan de Rothschild, son of London financier Nathan Mayer Rothschild, son of Mayer Amschel Rothschild, son of money changer and goldsmith Moses Amschel Bauer.
Of course, being elite is not elitism. As de Rothschild herself wrote in that working man's rag, the Wall Street Journal, "Elitism is a state of mind, a view of the world that cannot be measured simply by one's net worth, position or number of houses." But as my colleague Mickey Kaus put it, "You lost me at 'de.' "
-
sponsorship
Both campaigns promised a truce yesterday for the
anniversary of 9/11. But they went a step further, backpedaling from previous attacks—on
community organizers, in John McCain’s case, and on small-town mayors, in Barack Obama’s.
At last night’s forum on service at Columbia University,
McCain praised community organizers after Sarah Palin and Rudy Giuliani mocked them in their
convention speeches last week. “Of course I respect community organizers,”
McCain said.
“Of course I respect people who serve their communities. Senator Obama’s
service in that area is outstanding.”
Meanwhile, Obama went out of his way to praise small-town
mayors, after dinging the town of Wasilla
for having “I think, 50 employees.” “We had an awful lot of small-town mayors
at the Democratic convention, I assure you,” Obama said
on Thursday. “The mayors have some of the toughest jobs in the country because
that's where the rubber hits the road. We yak-yak-yak in the Senate. They
actually have to fill potholes and trim trees and make sure the garbage is
taken away.”
To some, that might sound like damning with faint praise. Tough job, there, taking out the trash. But
presumably Obama meant well. At least this time he didn’t call her home town “Wasilly.”
-
sponsorship
When a politician says something, the assumption is that it adheres, however loosely or distantly or illogically, to the truth. This week has shown that assumption to be hopelessly naive.
First, the McCain campaign repeated the falsehood that Sarah Palin said, “Thanks, but no thanks” to the “Bridge to Nowhere.” (Really, she said, "Thanks" and "No thanks.") Then they suggested Obama wanted to teach kindergartners about sex—he did no such thing. Then they accused him of calling Sarah Palin a “pig with lipstick”—a stretch, even according to Mike Huckabee. And now they suggest—citing FactCheck.org, no less—that Obama propagated “misleading” rumors about Palin.
The FactCheck folks are displeased. Today they posted an article saying the McCain ad “distorts our finding.” They had called the Palin rumors “misleading,” but in no way suggested the rumors were coming from Obama. The Annenberg Center’s director, Kathleen Hall Jamieson, is mulling whether or not to take legal action, since the McCain ad technically violates their copyright policy. Jamieson tells me a statement may be forthcoming: “Earlier ads have done the same thing,” she writes. “I am trying to make sure we have identified all of them before issuing a statement.”
This cycle has seen a proliferation of fact-checking sites, from Annenberg’s FactCheck.org to CQ’s PolitiFact to the Washington Post’s Pinocchio-doling Fact Checker column. For a while, they seemed to have an effect. The campaigns started sending out “fact check” dossiers to back up their own ads. When Barack Obama claimed that “gas prices have never been higher,” PolitiFact corrected him, and he stopped making the claim. They also tweaked Joe Biden for saying that John McCain voted with President Bush 95 percent of the time; the Obama camp adjusted their statements to the correct figure of 90 percent.
Now, though, facts seem irrelevant, at least to the campaigns. “I think we may have had an impact earlier in the campaign,” says Viveca Novak of FactCheck.org, “but now we don’t seem to be having much of one.”
It’s not that the campaigns are ignoring the fact-check sites. They’re misusing them. The same week McCain misleadingly cited FactCheck.org, the campaign cherrypicked a sentence from PolitiFact about the Bridge to Nowhere, quoting them as saying, "It's true that on Sept. 21, 2007, Palin officially killed the project." They left out the part of the article about how she also supported it. The best part: The Obama camp cited the same article to back up its claim that Palin committed “a full flop.”
To be sure, this is what happens at the end of a close race. The truth proves malleable, the stakes get higher, and the window for voters to Google every statement a candidate makes narrows. One can also conceive of a candidate who’s a horrible liar but would make a better president. Lyndon Johnson, for example, liked to say his great-grandfather died at the Alamo. He died in bed.
Plus, the fact checkers don’t seem to mind. “It’s not really any different from what we’ve seen in American politics for decades,” says Bill Adair of PolitiFact. “These guys say what they want to say. My job as a journalist isn’t to get them to change their tune.” Brooks Jackson of FactCheck.org also dismisses the notion that they need to have an “impact.” “I think that’s the wrong goal to have,” he says. “For one thing, they’ll break your heart. For another thing, I’m old fashioned. My idea of a proper role of a journalist is not to be part of the contest.”
-
sponsorship
In every election, recycling is inevitable. But rarely does a candidate (or his supporters) use the exact same attacks that were once leveled against him.
So it has been with Barack Obama and Sarah Palin. If some of the charges against Palin sound familiar, maybe it’s because they were the same arguments used against Obama by his primary opponents and by McCain himself before he picked Palin. Here’s a quick rundown of the accusations, and why they might ring a few bells:
She’s inexperienced. You’d think the Obama campaign would avoid this line of attack, given Obama’s own résumé. Apparently not. “Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency,” said Obama spokesman Bill Burton the day McCain picked her. In response, McCain/Palin tried to shift the conversation to “executive experience.”
She’s just a pretty face. Joe Biden’s comment that Palin is “good-looking” got twisted from a self-deprecating joke into a slur. But others have tried to use Palin’s looks against her. Critics on the left commonly refer to her as a “former beauty queen” or, my favorite, “the woman who failed to become Miss Alaska,” as if that presages future failures.
She only gave a good speech. “Sarah Palin delivered a great speech, but we haven’t heard anything else about what she’s going to do,” said Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln. Compare that to Hillary Clinton’s line that John McCain has “a lifetime of experience,” while Obama “has a speech he gave in 2002.”
She’s not right for Jews. Obama allies are capitalizing on Jewish discomfort with Palin, just as his opponents once suggested that Obama doesn’t suit Jewish interests. Rep. Robert Wexler has attacked Palin for appearing at a 1999 event with Pat Buchanan. Critics also point to a recent speaker at Palin’s church, David Brickner, executive director of Jews for Jesus, as reason for mistrust. Nor does it help that McCain passed over Joe Lieberman for the veep spot.
She’s a “gimmick.” In a now-famous hot-mic moment, former top McCain adviser Mike Murphy called the Palin choice “gimmicky.” Critics have long Obama of being an unserious candidate as well—a “lightweight,” a product of “hype” over substance. He has also been criticized for using campaign “gimmicks” like texting supporters his VP announcement.
Soon we will hear that Palin’s promises are “just words,” that’s she’s unprepared for 3 a.m. phone calls, and that she wanted to be vice president since kindergarten.