Are you listening John?

[cethklein]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

Ok, it's no secret I'd rather McCain not win at this point. But I'm going to come out and say this anyway: Why isn't he listening?

Polls show the negative ads are hurting him. Yet he's producing more of them. I fact, where live, EVERY one of his ads is negative and not a single one pertains to issues. (Obama isn't hardly running ads at all though, just for the record).

Negative ads worked in 2004. But not in 2008. It's almost like no one in the McCain campaign is listening. Love him or hate him, one thing no one can deny is that Obama has run a mostly calm campaign by comparison. They're far better at holding back when needed. I suspect that's part of why he's having so much of an advantage now.

Now, granted, as I've long said, the3se polls don't mean a damn thing in the grand scheme. But they do show how people FEEL and how they react to the actions of the campaigns. This election was in the favor of the Democrats from day one. Yet McCain did the impossible. For awhile at least, he was ahead of Obama. This shouldn't have happened in a year lie this but he did it anyway. Yet now he has squandered that, mainly due to his reliance on the Rove-educated goons who run his campaign.

As much as I don't feel comfortable voting for McCain, it sort of bugs me that he could be doing better yet is being held down mainly due to his own actions. If he'd go back to being an actual maverick instead of just claiming to be, he could possibly win this thing. Maybe it's just my inner love for competition.

[mscelina]

This election is by no means decided yet. Wasn't Kerry ahead by about the same number of poll points at the beginning of October in '04? *may be wrong--awake-fu is not yet operational* The election is still hanging on the balance of one event, IMO--an event that hasn't happened yet. If it happens, and there's no guarantee that it will, then everything could change over the course of one day.

[Takvah]

After this Keating smear, that piece of trash Obama needs to be shown for what he is... a guy that associates with scumbags and America hating trash. Just because McCain had poor judgment (a lot like Barack's REAL ESTATE DEAL) doesn't make him a crook. The Democrats that control the Senate held McCain's feet to the fire because they didn't want it to appear that only their party was involved with Keating.

The irony of the Keating case (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081007/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_keating)is that McCain received the mildest ethics committee rebuke of the five senators in 1991, and was kept as a defendant because he was the only Republican. The special counsel in the case had recommended that McCain and one of the Democrats be dropped as defendants. But Democrats, who controlled the Senate, refused to take all the heat for the scandal and all five remained in the case to the end.

McCain, in his book "Worth the Fighting For," lamented that the senators "were now a two-word shorthand for the entire savings and loan debacle and the rotten way American political campaigns are financed."

He also wrote: "My popularity in Arizona was in free fall. ... I expected a rough, and quite possibly unsuccessful re-election campaign in 1992. To the extent I was known nationally anymore, it was as one of the crooked senators who had bankrupted the thrift industry."

Dowd, in his conference call, wouldn't tolerate a hint of an apology for McCain's actions.

"John was the only senator who threw Charlie Keating out of his office," he said, reminding reporters of a well-publicized confrontation. Keating had called McCain a wimp for failing to do more to influence financial regulators on his behalf.

McCain is the only Keating Five defendant still in the Senate. The senators were accused of trying to intimidate regulators on behalf of Keating, who along with his associates, raised $1.3 million combined for the campaigns and political causes of the five.

The investigation ended in early 1991 with a rebuke that McCain "exercised poor judgment in intervening with the regulators." But the ethics committee also determined McCain's actions "were not improper nor attended with gross negligence."

Who's negative? Who is rewriting history? The change candidate, Barack Obama.

[VGrossack]

Obama does not hate the US. I think we could make a case for Palin associating with people who hate the US. She addressed a group of secessionists in AK, didn't she?

And I think McCain should repudiate his own supporters for yelling "Kill Obama" and calling him a terrorist.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/06/mccain-does-nothing-as-cr_n_132366.html

I don't want McCain to win. But I used to have respect for the guy. Unless he does something about this horrible, horrible behavior - do we need more political assassinations in the US? - I won't vote for him for the Senate either.

[MarkEsq]

Obama does not hate the US. I think we could make a case for Palin associating with people who hate the US. She addressed a group of secessionists in AK, didn't she?

Addressed? She's married to one!

I don't want McCain to win. But I used to have respect for the guy. Unless he does something about this horrible, horrible behavior - do we need more political assassinations in the US? - I won't vote for him for the Senate either.

I agree. I used to respect him, too. But now I feel like he just wants to win at all costs, including abandoning what for me used to be his best trait: rising above petty political gamesmanship. I hear Palin is now referring to Obama as Barack Hussein Obama. Classy.

[mscelina]

Both candidates want to win at all costs. Obama has spent almost his entire Senate career running for President.

[maestrowork]

Negative ads do work, even if they don't work for you. Those who have already decided would deplore those ads, but those who haven't may still be swayed by them, especially if they don't bother to find out the truth themselves.

But it does suggest that McCain is getting more aggressive in winning now his numbers are off. Unfortunately, there's no Swift Boat for Obama this year.

[whistlelock]

This election is by no means decided yet. Wasn't Kerry ahead by about the same number of poll points at the beginning of October in '04? *
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2004/Pres/Maps/Oct07.html

That's what the polling map looked like on this day in 04. It was October when Bush started to pull away.

http://electoral-vote.com/

And that's of today.

It's a nice site, they collate several different polls to determine which state is voting where. It's been interesting to watch that map as Virginia, Florida, New Hampshire, and Colorado shift from red to blue.

[cethklein]

I agree. I used to respect him, too. But now I feel like he just wants to win at all costs, including abandoning what for me used to be his best trait: rising above petty political gamesmanship. I hear Palin is now referring to Obama as Barack Hussein Obama. Classy.

Are you shitting me? Is she really doing that? If you've got proof I'd like to see it. I want to believe she's too good to do that. I really hope this isn't true.

[VGrossack]

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/10/06/politics/fromtheroad/entry4504484.shtml

From the above, it wasn't Palin but someone at one of her campaign stops. But do you think - even though they came out against it - that they're really against it? We'll only know if the behavior continues.

Palin does accuse him of palling around with terrorists - referencing the NYT article - which if she'd actually read it, points out that the connection is tenuous.

[cethklein]

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/10/06/politics/fromtheroad/entry4504484.shtml

From the above, it wasn't Palin but someone at one of her campaign stops. But do you think - even though they came out against it - that they're really against it? We'll only know if the behavior continues.

Palin does accuse him of palling around with terrorists - referencing the NYT article - which if she'd actually read it, points out that the connection is tenuous.

Exactly. But since we're on the subject:

McCain tied to group in Iran Contra case. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27062761)

Now, granted, this tie is no less trivial and minor than Obama's tie to ayers. But who wants to wager that this will somehow be viewed as less a big deal by Palin?

[Seaclusion]

Are you shitting me? Is she really doing that? If you've got proof I'd like to see it. I want to believe she's too good to do that. I really hope this isn't true.

It was Mike Scott, republican Sherrif of Lee County, Fl who used Obama's full name in warming up the crowd at Germain Arena for Palin's campaign speech.

I used to respect the guy, but since he has become a partisan hack using the Sherif's uniform to make campaign smears, I think he is a piece of trash. He insults the entire Sherrif's office of good hard-working officers when he does things like this in the name of the sherrif. A pox on you Mike Scott. Makes me sorry as Hell I voted for you. Never again.

Richard

[whistlelock]

From the above link:

Palin campaign spokesperson Tracey Schmitt issued the following statement on Sherriff Scott’s remarks: We do not condone this inappropriate rhetoric which distracts from the real questions of judgment, character, and experience that voters will base their decisions on this November.

But they do approve of rhetoric that distracts from talking about the economy. :roll:

[Shadow_Ferret]

Personally, I like the attack ads. They're short and too the point.

Not like those five minutes ads by Obama where he's just droning on and on and on in with that horrible delivery of his putting everyone to sleep. Those are driving me away more successfully than the McCain ads. They make me realize I don't want him doing State of the Union addresses. Well, unless I'm battling insomnia.

[dmytryp]

But they do approve of rhetoric that distracts from talking about the economy. :roll:
Last I checked, elections are about more than just economy

[Takvah]

Why do people go into fits because a guy says Hussein? It's his name, if I were Obama I would have used it again and again to desensitize people to it.

[maestrowork]

Why do people go into fits because a guy says Hussein? It's his name, if I were Obama I would have used it again and again to desensitize people to it.

Like when Fox news "accidentally" spelled his name Osama?

[InfinityGoddess]

After this Keating smear, that piece of trash Obama needs to be shown for what he is... a guy that associates with scumbags and America hating trash. Just because McCain had poor judgment (a lot like Barack's REAL ESTATE DEAL) doesn't make him a crook. The Democrats that control the Senate held McCain's feet to the fire because they didn't want it to appear that only their party was involved with Keating.


The Keating 5 is not a smear. McCain knew damned well what he was doing and by all rights he should have been sent to the pokey along with his buddy Keating. That fiasco cost taxpayers $3.4 billion, which is chump change compared to what taxpayers are being forced to foot now, in no small part thanks to the Milton Friedmanites who thought deregulation was a good thing, even after that scandal blew their fantasy back into their faces.

The Rezko business has long been put to rest as nothing. Even Rezko himself said that Obama had nothing to do with his shady deals.

Furthermore, McCain was the one who started this by bringing back a relatively weak Obama association with Bill Ayers. They made their bed; now they get to lie in it, as far as I'm concerned.

[MarkEsq]

Palin campaign spokesperson Tracey Schmitt issued the following statement on Sherriff Scott’s remarks: We do not condone this inappropriate rhetoric which distracts from the real questions of judgment, character, and experience that voters will base their decisions on this November.

I think this reinforces my point: McCain has abandoned any hope of winning on the issues, presumably because the main issue of the day is the economy. How pathetic that someone who touts himself as experienced can't even fight on the issues.

[mscelina]

You know--I find it funny sometimes.

I read the McCain article this morning in USA Today about the links to the Iran-Contra affair. And, I agree--this link has about as much meat to it as the Obama link to Ayers.

But Obama's link was nothing and McCain knew damn well what he was doing.

Seriously. So, then am I to assume that we have to have different standards for political party dependent upon the party? Because quite frankly, I see a lot of similiarities between the two situations and don't really get why one is more important than the other.

Just sayin...

[Lyv]

Obama does not hate the US. I think we could make a case for Palin associating with people who hate the US. She addressed a group of secessionists in AK, didn't she?


More than once. In person and by video. I can dig up the video, if you like. She wishes the group well with their work, which is focused on taking a vote on seceding from the US.

Her husband belonged to this group for years.

[cethklein]

Why do people go into fits because a guy says Hussein? It's his name, if I were Obama I would have used it again and again to desensitize people to it.

Normally I'd agree but too often it seems to be used as an insult by ignorant pieces of crap who can't come up with anything else. See the aforementioned Fox incident. Another example being the "pastors" who supported McCain last weekend. more than a few emphasized the Hussein part of his name in their sermons.

Yes, it is sad the world has come to this, but it's true. And don't think for a moment it isn't working. I still hear people say "I aint votin' fer that Obama, he's a Moooslim". (No lie i heard that line verbatim just yesterday.)

No one referred to Bush by his middle name. At most they used the initial. I'd wager most don't even know what the W stands for.

[whistlelock]

McCain launched the Guilt By Association game, which Obama survived in a much lighter form during the primaries and as a 30 year vet of the Senate there's a lot of tenuous material on McCain, which I don't think is a good idea on his part.

In the Guilt game having a long record can be a real disadvantage as there's a lot more to dig up.

It'll be interesting to see how the polls respond.

[Takvah]

Like when Fox news "accidentally" spelled his name Osama?

Uhhhh... you must have forgotten about CNN doing this:

http://www.rawstory.com/images/new/obamaosama.jpg

A very right leaning lot there.

[mscelina]

:ROFL:

Okay Takvah. That was funny. For some reason that just made me spit coffee all over my screen AGAIN.

[Alpha Echo]

You know, I haven't seen any McCain ads recently. All the ads I see are Obama.

Yet, most of the signs in the front yards of my neighborhood are McCain. I've seen 1 for Obama.

Who knows...

[Christine N.]

I have the Obama channel on my satellite provider. Not even kidding. I haven't watched it, just saw it on the guide yesterday. It says "Obama's plan for America (paid ad)" as the only show.

[VGrossack]

You know, I haven't seen any McCain ads recently. All the ads I see are Obama.

Yet, most of the signs in the front yards of my neighborhood are McCain. I've seen 1 for Obama.

Who knows...

Just curious: in which state are you?

[mscelina]

I have the Obama channel on my satellite provider. Not even kidding. I haven't watched it, just saw it on the guide yesterday. It says "Obama's plan for America (paid ad)" as the only show.

*grimaces*

We have that too. I've watched a bit of it. What a droner.

Just curious: in which state are you?

Good question. I was going to ask this too.

[benbradley]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

Ok, it's no secret I'd rather McCain not win at this point. But I'm going to come out and say this anyway: Why isn't he listening?

Polls show the negative ads are hurting him. Yet he's producing more of them. I fact, where live, EVERY one of his ads is negative and not a single one pertains to issues. (Obama isn't hardly running ads at all though, just for the record).

Negative ads worked in 2004. But not in 2008. It's almost like no one in the McCain campaign is listening. Love him or hate him, one thing no one can deny is that Obama has run a mostly calm campaign by comparison. They're far better at holding back when needed. I suspect that's part of why he's having so much of an advantage now.
When you've come this far, and you're ahead in the polls, you can afford to take the high road.

And (putting on my political analysis hat) McCain is at a distinct disadvantage, being of the same party as an outgoing President with some of the lowest approval ratings ever, and it appears McCain hasn't distanced himself enough from Bush. At this point, perhaps McCain CAN'T distance himself enough without leaving the Republican party.
Negative ads do work, even if they don't work for you. Those who have already decided would deplore those ads, but those who haven't may still be swayed by them, especially if they don't bother to find out the truth themselves.

But it does suggest that McCain is getting more aggressive in winning now his numbers are off. Unfortunately, there's no Swift Boat for Obama this year.
Well, not yet, but let me check GoDaddy:

SWIFTAYERS.COM is available!

Hey, some McCain proponent should grab that!

But wait, there's more. I googled Ayers (all by itself) and Google returned this "sponsored link:"
http://fightthesmears.com/
and the whois info makes it look official:
Registrant:
Obama for America
Created on: 01-Jun-08
Expires on: 01-Jun-10
Last Updated on: 21-Sep-08

Administrative Contact:
for America, Obama info@barackobama.com
233 N. Michigan Ave
APT 2416
Chicago, Illinois 60601
United States

It looks like an overly defensive website, but whatever...
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/10/06/politics/fromtheroad/entry4504484.shtml

From the above, it wasn't Palin but someone at one of her campaign stops. But do you think - even though they came out against it - that they're really against it? We'll only know if the behavior continues.

Palin does accuse him of palling around with terrorists - referencing the NYT article - which if she'd actually read it, points out that the connection is tenuous.
Who was it, some radio or TV personality, warming up the crowd for a candidate last winter or spring who used the full name "Barack Hussein Obama?" ISTR it was for a Republican, I recall Hannity condemning the action (gotta stop listening to him, he's worse for me than drugs).
Last I checked, elections are about more than just economy
And with the sum of money spend by candidates totalling the better half of a billion dollars, this is hardly an "economical" election. But at least it gives business to advertising media who are otherwise hurting in this economy.

And Clinton did win with the slogan in his campain headquarters that "it's the economy, stupid." Sure, it's also about the Iraq war, fighting terrorism, and a bunch of other smaller conservative-vs-liberal issues, but in recent months (and weeks and days!), it's more and more about the economy.
Uhhhh... you must have forgotten about CNN doing this:

http://www.rawstory.com/images/new/obamaosama.jpg

A very right leaning lot there.
But everyone knows when CNN does it, it's an honest mistake, and when Fox News does it, it's "accidentally" intentional. Harrumph. So there.

[Takvah]

But everyone knows when CNN does it, it's an honest mistake, and when Fox News does it, it's "accidentally" intentional. Harrumph. So there.

Of course, what was I thinking. :D

[DeleyanLee]

You know, I haven't seen any McCain ads recently. All the ads I see are Obama.

Yet, most of the signs in the front yards of my neighborhood are McCain. I've seen 1 for Obama.

Who knows...

That's true in my neighborhood too (Pittsburgh area). But the McCain folks came around and pretty much begged to be able to put up their signs (my landlady refused--she doesn't allow political signage on her property, period). It was almost embarrassing to watch, actually. The Obama people haven't stumped door-to-door to do the same.

[James81]

He is such a Maverick.

[Christine N.]

I thought that was James Garner.

[GeorgeK]

Negative ads, positive ads, ads on the issues...I just fast forward through all the commercials anyway

[johnnysannie]

Addressed? She's married to one!



I agree. I used to respect him, too. But now I feel like he just wants to win at all costs, including abandoning what for me used to be his best trait: rising above petty political gamesmanship. I hear Palin is now referring to Obama as Barack Hussein Obama. Classy.


Same here. I once respected McCain in past years but his campaign this year leaves me lacking any respect for the man.

He makes it very obvious that he wants to win but has no regard for the middle or working class.

His constant use of "my friend" and "my friends" made me want to barf during last night's debate; he's no friend to most Americans and he never mentioned the middle class at all. His plans to help the economy were very vague,

[Dale Emery]

Why do people go into fits because a guy says Hussein?

I think it transparently attempts to connect Obama with Saddam Hussein--a person with no connection to Obama besides sharing part of a name, and a person with whom we already have a strong negative association--and thereby to attach to Obama some of the negative feelings we have for Saddam. It exploits biases in our neurology, which seems designed to activate strong associations in any situation that has something in common with past strongly emotional experiences.

If the McCain and Palin campaign had routinely referred to other candidates by saying their full names, names that carried no particular emotional baggage, I'd say it's no big deal. But to single out Obama for repeated reference in that way suggests an intent to exploit our biases.

I object to the tactic. So did John McCain in February: http://www.juancole.com/2008/02/barack-hussein-obama-omar-bradley.html

Dale

[Julie Worth]

I think it transparently attempts to connect Obama with Saddam Hussein--a person with no connection to Obama besides sharing part of a name, and a person with whom we already have a strong negative association--and thereby to attach to Obama some of the negative feelings we have for Saddam.

I wonder if George Washington got the same treatment, people casting aspersions on his first name because they hated the king.

[cethklein]

I wonder if George Washington got the same treatment, people casting aspersions on his first name because they hated the king.

Hmmm, interesting idea. I never considered that. I'd wager some probably did.