For whatever it's limited worth, I thought McCain had a few opportunities to do some real damage tonight, and basically blew it. For example, on the Ayers issue, if McCain was going to use it at all, once Obama acknowledged that he and Ayers served on a foundation board together, McCain could have come back with Obama's quote from his debate with Hilary, in which he suggested that Ayers was just some guy who lived in the neighborhood, and only then added that Obama had either his first, or one of his first, fundraising get-togethers in Ayers' home. That would have reinforced McCain's point about the issue being Obama's forthrightness with the American people.
When McCain challenged Obama on whether he has ever gone against the party leadership, he could have followed up by pointing out Obama's 100% liberal voting record in the Senate. (Surprising that the "L" word hasn't come up in this campaign, given that the percentage of American's calling themselves liberals is still rather low.)
When Obama discussed his very limited relationship with ACORN, McCain could have noted that it's been well-documented from ACORN's own contemporaneous web publications that Obama worked closely with ACORN over the years--again, hammering on "forthrightness."
When Obama defended increasing taxes by referring to Warren Buffet, McCain could have pointed out that Buffet's income is almost all from capital gains, and that Buffet started out with inherited wealth. By contrast, many entrepreneurs who work their way up from nothing will face marginal state and federal tax rates of almost 60%. McCain could have then challenged Obama to defend the proposition that someone who works 80 hours a week, creating jobs for the community should "spread the wealth" to that extent--my recollection from polls I've seen is that only a tiny fraction of Americans think taxes should be that high for anyone. I can think of a few more examples, but you get the idea.
On the other hand, I thought McCain was effective when he pointed out that he isn't President Bush, and when he called Obama "Senator Government," even if that was inadvertent. But, in general, McCain just isn't able to rattle off the kind of detailed critique that could throw Obama off his game, while Obama plays an excellent defense.
UPDATE: Jennifer Rubin has a similar, but more detailed, analysis.
FURTHER UPDATE: Here are Obama's exact words about ACORN, from the debate transcript: "The only involvement I've had with ACORN was I represented them alongside the U.S. Justice Department in making Illinois implement a motor voter law that helped people get register (sic) at DMVs." It's all over the blogs, with links to sources, that Obama was a trainer for ACORN. The Obama campaign itself changed its "Fight the Smears" website from stating "Fact: Barack was never an ACORN trainer and never worked for ACORN in any other capacity," to "Fact: ACORN never hired Obama as a trainer, organizer, or any type of employee." That's an implicit acknowledgment that Obama worked for/with, but was never officially "hired" by, ACORN. It was a pretty brazen, and seemingly unnecessary, lie by Obama, but McCain didn't call him on it.
And how about this for the relevance to McCain's campaign: "We are going through a terrible economic crisis that few Americans understand. American will have to trust their leaders when we propose solutions to this crisis. We are still engaged in a 'War on Terror' that necessarily involves secret intelligence work and covert action, and that requires the American people to trust their president. If Barack Obama can't be forthright about [Ayers, ACORN, his position on gun control pre-2008, and so on], how can Americans trust him on the economic crisis and issues of life and death."
Note that I don't think that Obama is necessarily less trustworthy than McCain, and I, in fact, don't trust either of them, or any "political leader." McCain, however, does have the advantage of having a (perhaps undeserved) reputation for straight talk, while Obama has a Clintonian lawyerly way of evading difficult questions, and, for that matter, he also tends to pass the buck to subordinates when people point out that he took some rather non-mainstream positions in his legislative campaigns. If McCain were a more effective campaigner, he could be taking better advantage of this dynamic.
McCain: 894/899 U.S. Naval Academy
Obama: President, Harv. L. Rev.
What do you expect?
P.S. What is the problem with Obama in providing his original long form birth certificate?
MCCAIN 73% 65,429 votes
OBAMA 25% 22,482 votes
Reasons to vote for McCain: gridlock with Congress, school choice, healthcare, international trade, energy, spending reduction, tax reduction.
The worst that can happen under Obama: new interminable socialist programs, tax increases, less school choice and dumber young folk, welfare spending, "spreading around" of wealth, reduced travel and work rights of Americans, stupid energy policy.
The worst that can happen under McCain: women will have to look to the states for their abortion rights, as they did pre-Roe, and a unified SCOTUS that will end up making us all genuflect, especially those 95% who are in prison for sex and drug crimes and for not realizing that Amerika is a Christian country.
No contest.
Despite McCain's obvious dislike for Obama, he is still a person of (some) integrity. I think he simply feels uncomfortable with the personal attacks. He realizes how insubstantial the charges are, but also feels pressured to raise them. His body language is all off- plus, if he goes too negative, it appeals to the base (such as you) but turns off the people still undecided he needs to win.
It was close to a no-win situation. As you point out, McCain needed an Obama stumble; I think he realizes at this point that going entirely negative wouldn't win the election and would lose what's left of his reputation. However, he isn't good at articulating the positive parts of his platform that are relevant to the American People now (domestic issue). He gave a halfway decent answer on corporate taxes, which is tough to defend in this format . . . but absent a major Obama gaffe, this was unwinnable debate.
And Obama plays great defense.
Yeah. Word on the street. Tough guy. Knows what's going down. And so forth.
BTW, wasn't it just a year or two ago that immigration was going to be the big domestic issue in the campaign? Obviously the economy has had to replace that, but even before the economy went south there was no mention at all of immigration... probably since they essentially agree and so neither has anything to gain...
McCain did miss chances, but don't give Obama credit for a tie- being present is not qualification for being President.
I think there is a telephone poll for the 1932 election that is calling your Drudge report. You might want to check out the poll results coming out from undecided voters. I have yet to see anything less than a 10 point Obama win, an the CBS snap of undecideds is Obama 53, McCain 22.
Except perhaps at the polls
McCains made the three week agrument front and center
Senator Government Senator Taxes, Senator spending
Its going to hit - also no one believes a 95% tax cut coming from a democrat
CNN poll: Obama 58, McCain 31
MediaCurves Independents: Obama 60, McCain 30
I happen to think this was a better McCain performance, but Obama did what he needed to do. He made people feel comfortable voting for him.
I would be happy to see an actual poll of undecideds, as opposed to a a self-selected 'vote on Drudge' poll. Do you have a Dailykos poll you'd like to use too?
Blah. All McCain showed tonight is that he can just barely argue his way out of paper bag...but that is it.
He is definitely a one-bagger presidential candidate. Wait, can I not say that? lol.
It was McCain's best debate, without doubt. He still got his ass kicked, regardless.
Would that make you some kind of an [gasp] elitist?
With the financial crisis looming, McCain has to give voters a damn good reason not to punish him for the sins of his fellow Republicans. That may be too tall an order to begin with, but after seeing him in the last couple of debates I can't tell if he's even trying anymore. I have my problems with Obama (actually more with the prospect of Dems controlling both the White House and Congress), but at least he still looks like he wants the job, understands it and is enthusiastic about it. McCain, not so much.
I hope not. What this country should have is a complete ban on abortions. This mealy-mouth idea of prosecuting doctors, but not women, is ridiculous. If the killing of an unborn child is murder, then the person who instigated the killing is just as guilty. If abortion is wrong for the Federal government, it should be wrong for the states. Where is the courage of our convictions?
but if you're a little less in tune with all of the talking points and blog debates, you'll think that mccain did a better job tonight of presenting an agenda and highlighting some of the candidate's disagreements.
but it's definitely frustrating watching mccain let obama off the hook time and again...can't help but think of how the other candidates would've cleaned up tonight...
That said, Bernstein is right: McCain whiffed on a few softballs lobbed his way. I will vote for Obama with a fair degree of trepidation, mostly because I know he will be supported by a an iron-clad majority in the House and very close to a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. That worries me, and I don't think McCain drove that home (did he even mention it?)
Is this sort of like how Fox is fair and balanced?
Wow, I give you three separate actual for real polls, and you try to peddle that? Yo truly need to get out more.
TO clarify: among all CNN viewers, Obama won 58-31, among indies, Obama won 57-31. If anyone can find a real poll showing less than a 10 point Obama win, I'd be all ears.
I literally laughed coffee onto my laptop when I read this.
I believe your continuous repetition of Sean Hannity's talking points on any otherwise respectable blog proves otherwise, Professor.
Acorn and Ayers are done as issues in this election. The biggest benefit of these "scandals" was that very few people understood the details of them so Republicans could push the relationship to the limit with "Pallin' Around with Terrorists" and McCain could darkly hint about "knowing the full extent of the relationship". Obama's answer was reasoned and calm, and seems much more believable to non-Fox viewers than the idea that Obama hangs out with terrorists. Just due to the relative audience sizes of the debate versus cable news I think this answer will stick a lot longer with voters than the accusations.
The real damage to McCain isn't just that these attacks have raised his negatives, it's the opportunity cost of not talking about the pain of voters and starting to eat away at Obama's lead on economic issues.
There's no reason that the Democrat has to be the most trusted candidate on the economy in the race, just as Republican's don't automatically get defense as their issue. I think people's feelings on the relative strengths of the parties is more fluid than the MSM talking heads will ever admit. McCain gave Obama two bye weeks to own the economy while he "pal'd around" with useless claims. oops.
Obama was on the defensive the entire time. McCain exposed Senator Government for the marxist that he is.
There's nothing wrong with being an elitist if you are actually elite, but that's not what I meant. I meant I'm not a member of the Republican base. In fact, I'm someone who needs persuading to vote for the Republican candidate.
that's cool. doesn't make it true.
While technically true, serving on a board with someone does not really indicate that much more than being from the same neighborhood.
I have the joke response (those that were not watching FOX News or CSPAN) and the serious response- they did snap polls of general viewers (including committed voters) and of independent voters. The results were roughly equal. They're also in line with every snap poll I've seen so far.
.... still waiting for any contrary evidence.
Supporting multiple government bailouts (banks, homeowners, corporations)--he should have led the charge against it. Taking over home mortgages, violating the sanctity of contracts? Why aren't we objecting to that, in addition to the moral hazard arguments? Forcing banks to accept nationalization--not a peep. Abolishing government departments--don't hear about that anymore. What a wasted campaign.
Well, gee, didn't you hear Ayers helped write Obama's autobiographies...
Pretty much. There were so many incoherent moments tonight. The time he tried to go after Obama on abortion and instead sounded like he was mocking mothers' health, the "Obama says nuclear energy to be safe, and that's somehow a bad thing" line (sure, there's a point he's getting at, but the way he puts it it sounds like he's attacking Obama for caring about safety), the muddle over Colombian trade, the botched retelling of the Joe The Plumber story and the insane returns to him thereafter (does he really think this election turns on the votes of small business owners), this odd, telegraphic line:
I would have, first of all, across-the-board spending freeze, OK? Some people say that's a hatchet. That's a hatchet, and then I would get out a scalpel, OK?
and so many others. The weird approach to Ayers. He doesn't care about an old washed-up terrorist, he just wants to know the full extent of the relationship. Don't we already? Why call him old and washed-up, thereby cutting into your own attack? The obscure allusion to the "Sarah Palin is a Cunt" t-shirts that no one but political junkies like me will get. The claim that Palin gets special needs issues better than anyone in America, reminiscent of the time his daughter went on TV and said that no one understands war like the McCains. The shocked "Zero?" when he realized his handlers' talking points were wrong and Joe The Plumber wouldn't be fined if he didn't provide his employees healthcare, and the bitterly snarky "Hey Joe, you're rich, congratulations" response. The flat-out awful and incomprehensible rebuttal to Obama's whining about Ledbetter:
Obviously, that law waved the statute of limitations, which you could have gone back 20 or 30 years. It was a trial lawyer's dream. [awkward pivot]
Let me talk to you about an important aspect of this issue. We have to change the culture of America...
To date, we have four polls. CBS, CNN (two different polls), and MediaCurves. I could toss in SurveyUSA as well. All have similar resounding Obama numbers.
J. Aldridge has people voting on Drudge on the internet.
The polls I cite are discounted because they're all leftie bastions.
Drudge, on the other hand, is noted for attracting a broad swath of the uncommitted American public.
No wonder there is an inability to converse in America today, when we cannot even agree on basic ground rules for facts.
He didn't do it. And I think that's because he was in pure "prevent defense" mode all night. The public polls certainly support that strategy, and I have a strong notion that Obama's internal state-by-state polling is even more powerful.
Well, don't worry about Tivo'ing his show. He's basically just an outlet for pushing the "Greatest Hits of the Insane Right Wing Blogosphere" out into mainstream conversation. Partial birth abortion? Check. Acorn controls the election? Check! Obama's fake birth certificate? Oh yeah baby!
that's cool. doesn't make it true.
I think it is generally true that "Angry, difficult to understand accusation from a desperate party" is often bested by "Calm, easy to understand explanation from the smiling accused". This has been a pretty good technique for the Bush press secretaries, hence the lack of public outrage at complicated legal/political matters, such as the US Attorney firing scandal or FISA.
Whatever complaints you or the other ditto-heads have about Obama's explanation of Ayers, those will not filter out to even a tiny percentage of the 60 million or whatever viewers of the debate.
[Yes, I saw the "gotcha" clip of Obama talking about "spreading the wealth," and I understand that, but what does that have to do with Joe's ability to own a business?]
i agree i won't filter out. still doesn't make what obama said tonight true. nor does it make me a ditto head.
I wish McCain would have pointed out that it's rather cruel to make young people - who have lower incomes than their middle-aged peers - subsidise the health premiums of the middle-aged people. Yes, it costs more to get insurance when you're older, but it's still a smaller fraction (generally) of income.
Obama's nonsense about employers dropping coverage was senseless. He obviously doesn't understand the difference between the total cost and the per capita cost. Yes, per capita cost would increase if healthier people dropped out of an employer's coverage pool, but the total cost would decrease. Freakin lawyers don't get these things.
Come on, you've got to be smarter than that. Huge sample size doesn't mean a thing if you have massive sampling bias. You could poll 30 million registered Republicans, or residents of the Deep South for that matter, and ask them who they think won the debate, and their answers would be less indicative of national opinion than a poll of 50 randomly selected Americans.
I hate to break the news to you, but these intertubez can be unreliable. 130,000 votes does not equal 130,000 unique people. I hope I don't have to explain this, but even ignoring bots and script kiddies, it's trivial to vote multiple times. I simply don't understand why you choose to deny every single credible poll in favor of one self-selected internet poll.
Where you a Ron Paul supporter?
Dude, Joe's marginal rate is going to go from 36% back to the Clinton-era 39%! Joe is toast!
FYI, I am a S-Corp small business owner, and I hate paying taxes. Especially since I live in California. Double especially when I found out what incredible money-sinks Alaska and the other red states are! I will hate having my marginal rate go up, but it's better than borrowing that money from the Chinese and paying it back over the next hundred years.
Too bad I can't vote for a low-taxes and small-government candidate. :(
This says a lot about you.
Wow, someone needs to google:
Literary Digest Truman Dewey
Right away.
Sorry to shock y'all hardcore types, but I suspect "the average guy" likes it just fine to have judges who are fair to him. The average guy thinks that "fairness" and "the law" are SUPPOSED to be the same thing.
Those of you who've seen a plaintiff's face when her case gets tossed on procedural grounds (and n.b., I would be the one working to get it tossed) know what I'm talking about.
The above-quoted comment just confirms the impressions of others on this debate, that if you're already a conservative, then McCain sounded fine -- but if you're someone McCain needed to win over, then not so much.
Seriously? You think that's a winner with voters? The Republican talking heads kept repeating this after the debate. It just goes to show how tone-deaf the McCain camp is right now. Right now, lots of Americans, whether you think they are right or not, don't think "fair trade" has been fair for American workers. Stories of Chinese milk poisoned with melamine don't give American consumers warm fuzzies. And now you want to believe that labor agreements that don't protect us on any of those issues are what most Americans want and that it's a winning political point? If so, please keep repeating it. I can't wait to see how that one bounces for the McCain team.
No, the only real supporters of the GOP are the federal-teat sucking red staters and the state-institution employed Professors who give their policies plausible academic cover.
Us Blue staters are always voting against our interests, you know, helping out those flyover folk by giving them our hard earned money. What's the matter with California?
I mean, if you were a space alien, would you provide the original long form birth certificate that shows that?
RealClearPolitics, which as most of you know tilts right, has Obama about where Bush was ... not counting "toss-up" states.
Will the GOP recognize this problem and come back stonger than ever?
Or will they continue to listen to their nuttiest members (like those pushing the Ayers crap) and continue to marginalize themselves?
Reagan did something because he recognized what was wrong with the Democrats and provided an attractive, simple-to-understand solution. The current GOP candidates offer nothing more than divisiveness and fear.
Does John McCain use Medicare? Look it up. Sorry, "Try looking it up."
Racism has become a punch line. If you do not vote for Obama you must be racist.
If Obama had his first fundraiser in Ayers' house, then why didn't Ayers make a donation to Obama's campaign?
Maybe he agreed to write books for Obama or provide certain services?
Nah. We Dems are much more understanding than that.
Stupidity, ignorance, partisanship, greed, and a desire to see clones of John Roberts on the SCOTUS are all plausible non-racist motives.
(John Roberts always looks like a genetically engineered human to me, anyway. An inspired casting agent would've picked someone w/ his looks, not Richard Burton, for O'Brien in the film of Nineteen Eighty-Four.)
Phew.
Because the bastard's not just a terrorist, he's a *cheap* terrorist.
What a great TV spot: "Friends, I have served on a board with Obama. I had the chance to donate at his first fundraiser. But I didn't. Because I perceived the menace he poses for America. That's why I, Bill Ayers, unrepentant ex-Weather Underground terrorist leader, am endorsing John McCain for president in 2008."
That would be BETTER than an Osama video.
"Professor Volokh, the partisan bickering here is stale. Please disable comments on your blog. The comments (including my own) serve no purpose."
Kids these days!
You've got a bright future ahead of you, even if you chose your school poorly. Don't give up hope yet!
"There's nothing wrong with being an elitist if you are actually elite
This says a lot about you."
He's writing the post. We're writing the comments. Questions?
Theo: McCain is also *rich*. He can put his healthcare on his wife's Amex card.
Oh, a dickhead on the Internet. Let me tell my mother.
Few if any women and men that graduate from the bottom of the military academy go on to be a US senator, and or marry into money. McCain knows he owes much to his family line and money that came with marriage. This race is his last run for the White House win or lose. Obama is in many ways everything he could have been.
It could be that when you ask the Hawaii authorities for a birth certificate, this computer-generated thing is what they give you. That's what Maryland does, as I found out when I requested a copy of my birth certificate from 1954, and instead of getting a copy of the microfilmed original record, I got something computer generated that looked like Obama's.
Which is not too surprising, since he's basically an idiot.
We are so screwed.
That's how I've been able to conceal my Zimrodian heritage.
Can you present some proof? This claim, often presented and never proven, appears to be wrong. The event at Ayers' house was a fund-raiser for Palmer, not Obama. And that event was not the launch of Obama's campaign. See here:
I look forward to this interesting "objectivity" on the next Israel-Palestine DB post. Should be interesting.
Of course, if you sincerely believe that Israel is mostly right, and that 90% of the trouble is that the Palestinians are anti-semitic jerks, then you're not going to sound very "objective."
Sorry if our comments on McCain are insufficiently Broderesque.
This is the best campaign slogan. Better than lost pensions, or jobs.
"Or will they continue to listen to their nuttiest members (like those pushing the Ayers crap) and continue to marginalize themselves?"
Its not the nuts. Or even the members. And it doesn't happen to even be crap. On this one, we're the refs, and we don't much like being worked, so you might want to follow Obama's lead and shrug it off instead of rubbing your thoughtspace dominance in the faces of voters.
"Reagan did something because he recognized what was wrong with the Democrats and provided an attractive, simple-to-understand solution. The current GOP candidates offer nothing more than divisiveness and fear."
Well, he offered more than a mere solution. He offered a positive vision. You're dead on about what's missing, but not about the thin gruel that's there. Reagan wouldn't have been scared away by a bunch of his opponents crying wolf from calling an Ayers an Ayers, past and present, and laying out the case for what that means about Obama. I happen to believe that Obama would effectively present a countercase, but not even getting to that point is not good for the electoral process.
FWIW, the Faux poll is here. It shows Obama ahead, 67/33. With 69292 votes. But I think some of those voters might be dead people. Or voters phoning in from the planet Zimrod. I heard ACORN has a branch up there.
(Meanwhile, McCain produces a *selection* of his medical records &lets some reporters look at them for a few minutes. This from the oldest-ever president if elected. And the news folks shrug it off. What a bizarre nation we live in.)
True. Part of that countercase might be to point out that the claims about "unrepentant" (you linked to a story that used that word six times) are based on somewhat shaky evidence. The typical reference is a NYT interview Ayers did, but he says those statements are being taken out of context. And no one seems to recall that he also said this:
And, for the record, here is Obama's "guy in my neighborhood" quote, which doesn't sound as bad as your paraphrase:
I also thought it was good that McCain didn't relentlessly demand for Obama to answer questions about Ayers or ACORN. That might have entertained a few of the people here, but the average voter, frankly, doesn't give a damn about it. And those are the people whose interests are being placated.
It probably would have been better for McCain if those issues weren't discussed tonight. Instead of letting rumors run rampant in the blogsphere, Obama was given the perfect forum to dispel those rumors in his own words.
Now, there's nothing left to say. And if McCain insists on saying more about Ayers or ACORN on his stump, even more voters are going to lose interest in McCain. McCain is too busy listening to the conservative base to understand the wants of the average voter.
Hey...you can't change a player's game in the 9th ending.
That issue is discussed here.
"That might have entertained a few of the people here, but the average voter, frankly, doesn't give a damn about it."
There are several different average voters, and they live in several different states. Most don't give a damn about it because the R's have been thoroughly discredited and thus tuned out and the corporate media is over the moon for Obama.
I worry about what happens when he steps on some of those corporate toes once in office and they start sending the barrels of ink against him. You don't think they know how to make the case about lack of proper vetting? There's a lot of there there and they can hold it over Obama's head. He'd better get some advice from Bill about how to turn it into a mere Whitewater.
What kills me is that Bernstein manages to parrot the Hannity talking points even as he tells us that he doesn't watch Hannity. "Great minds" must think alike.
"About that Birth Certificate AGAIN: Am I to understand correctly the only known copy we have seen was the one released on KOS?"
No, neither candidate has presented their birth certificates for public viewing. What has been posted online for McCain and Obama are called a "Certificate of Live Birth", which is a government record that lists your birthplace, time, etc. but is not the actual birth certificate.
"'We did go off track … and that was wrong,' Ayers now says."
Thanks. That's helpful. But I think rehabilitating Ayers is a lost cause. After Bush and McCain, powerful dads getting their sons out of trouble is not a helpful category in which to participate.
My theory is that Obama learned from the failure of his Alinsky-inspired community organizing efforts and radical-chic ed reforms with Annenberg. That seems like it should be plausible to most intelligent people, given his subsequent career and, I trust, sensible leadership in the White House.
You are very much mistaken with regard to Kerry. As the RCP page from '04 shows, after 10/11 Kerry led in exactly 3 publicly-released polls out of 37. That election was actually quite close, relative to this one. Check out the current RCP polling page--you've got to go back 34 polls, to 9/25, to find a McCain lead of any magnitude.
The polls correctly predicted Bush the winner in '04, and they are presently projecting Obama the winner by a much more comfortable margin than Bush. The plain fact of the matter is that unless some event extrinsic to the campaign itself alters the dynamic of the race, Obama will win.
Appreciated, Anderson.
David Warner:
The Ayers thing is done and the electoral process is better for it. Are you concerned that the "lack of vetting" will lead to Ayers being appointed Secretary of Education?
Tell us how this lives on and rears its head after the election.
Buddy, you need to go back and take an Econ 101 class. Joe the Plumber is a small businessman. Most of these types work their tails off to earn a good living. Raising taxes on these business makes it hard to improve your equipment (called 'investing in your business') or hire additional help (called 'providing employment'). Joe needs incentive to work that hard. Usually the incentive is the $$$ he earns to provide a nice living for his family. However, if Obama decides to take all his extra money and 'spread it around', what incentive does Joe have now to work his tail off, invest in his business and provide employment for others? None.
McCain is known for his verbal attacks in Washington DC. The word choice that McCain uses when he address Obama is well known as to record. McCain is also known for his voting record. Few men and women from the Working Poor and or Working Class in recent history become ranking US Senator or get a chance to become president.
The word choice that McCain often uses when he talks to Obama is that of Superior to Subordinate. When he frames the story of abortion he frames the plight of women in the same manner. In trying to paint Obama as being for the great Republican bugaboo of late term abortions (because, you know, there are so many women running around and deciding after being pregnant for six or more months that being pregnant is no longer convenient for them), Obama replied that he didn't vote for the late term abortion ban because it had no provision for the health or life of the mother. McCain went on to talk about tax and spend liberals and the evils of socialism, but then he could suddenly find money for cripple children, adoption and school vouchers. Never mind he spoke early about cutting and freezing budgets. Never mind that he voted all the time or most of the time against federal programs to help children and families.
Unlike McCain, Obama's dad left town when Barrack was 2 or 3 and he did not have some one to open the doors for his Harvard education. Obama did not marry rich. No one gave him a job because of his given name.
Something called "google" directed me to abc news from 2004:
"Among registered voters who watched the debate, 42 percent called Kerry the winner, 41 percent said Bush won and 14 percent called it a tie. That's similar to the outcome of the second debate, while Kerry won the first among viewers by a nine-point margin."
Are these the debates you're referring to?
and..... this is probably why Joe seemed a little angry. Obama is taking his opportunity to really make a good living away. I know I'm angry about this myself.
I hope McCain takes your advice and spends the remaining days of the campaign harping on these petty, trivial matters that mean nothing to most Americans.
"I'd like Obama a lot better if he more forthrightedly admitted he flirted with radical ideas (and people) when he was younger, but I acknowledge that candor doesn't necessarily win votes."
I think it was more than a mere flirtation. All the better to know their limitations and motivate one to seek alternatives, as it is evident he has. Definite Prince Hal dynamic. There is a lot of hope out here for future Agincourts, hopefully non-military.
Really? What positions did Obama appoint any of the people you listed to fill? He listed a number of people who are serving as advisors. That might give you a clue.
OK, I did. I Googled search Volokh.com on "ayers" "fundraiser" and "first". Around 30 hits, most of them repeating David's unsubstantiated talking points. For instance, your unwillingness to source your claim is what you said here although then, it wasn't the first fundraiser.
"I'm going to sleep now, so I'm not going to hunt links, but neighbors have been quoted as saying they were part of the same social circle, Obama held one of his first fundraisers when he was a nobody at Ayers' house, etc. etc. "
Another commenter referenced this article but no claim of fundraising there.
Fellow Obama-whacker Jim Lindgren tried to tie Obama's fundraising efforts to Tony Rezko here but no Ayers as first fundraiser there.
Someone else linked to this article and claimed it as proof that they held a fundraiser. But what did the article say?
"In the mid-1990s, Ayers and Dohrn hosted a meet-and-greet at their house to introduce Obama to their neighbors during his first run for the Illinois Senate."
So it looks like it's back on the Professor to step up with some facts to back up his statements.
"The only examples we (the public) have are Ayers, Reverend Wright and Rezko."
Only? Unlikely. Start with Warren Buffett. No doubt they'll be some doozies as well, but he's assembled a pretty wide bench. I don't think that after the current administration that this point is a particularly strong one.
Apples to oranges (and apparently false, per markH). You're talking about insta-polls about who won debates, I'm talking about actual general election polling ("Who will you vote for?") Bush held a very small but consistent advantage in general election polling during October. Obama now holds a medium-sized, consistent advantage this October. Conclusion: Obama is on his way to victory, barring a genuine October surprise (not McCain deciding to hit him on Wright or something).
"Are you concerned that the "lack of vetting" will lead to Ayers being appointed Secretary of Education?"
Why should he accept a demotion?
"Tell us how this lives on and rears its head after the election."
Hell hath no fury like a media scorned.
It was such a winning strategy for the Clinton machine so McCain should have certainly doubled down.
Apparently, a large percentage of American voters want a president who stays calm in the face of challenges, cares about their problems, and provides steady leadership in times of crisis. McCain got in the most "digs" in this debate, but Obama clearly won the temperament battle. According to the opinion polls, calm trumps angry.
No, I was looking at this CNN hit piece:
TEMPE, Arizona (CNN) -- A CNN/USA Today/Gallup snap poll taken immediately after the presidential debate found that respondents gave a significant edge to Kerry over Bush, 52 percent to 39 percent.
The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 5 percentage points.
The numbers were similar to the results of a poll taken the night of the first debate September 30 in Miami, Florida. That night Kerry was favored by a 53 percent to 37 percent margin.
Aside from policy, where I don't agree with Obama on much, I think it's fair to say that Obama is in many ways everything that McCain could have been. Obama does practice, to an extent, the sort of intellectually honest, straightforward, non-attack-driven politics that McCain appeared to embody back in 2000. Whereas McCain's running a pretty substance-free, often dishonest, Rovian campaign. Now, Obama's far from perfect, which is why I write 'to an extent,' but he's a lot closer than McCain.
To be fair, I'm sure McCain was much better when he was alive...
(John Roberts always looks like a genetically engineered human to me, anyway. An inspired casting agent would've picked someone w/ his looks, not Richard Burton, for O'Brien in the film of Nineteen Eighty-Four.)
Naw. All of us Hoosiers look like that. Which you might have known if you'd get your A&F clad arse out of the Fire Island Starbucks every now and then and drive through the Heartland on the way to your pedicure. Or whatever it is liberals do these days.
Wow, really? The "hit piece" you refer to cites results of three snap polls. And...that's it. Cites results. Nothing else. That's a hit piece?
Do you dispute the polls? Or do you really think that reporting on a poll constitutes a "hit piece"?
Reminds me of Colbert's line about facts having a well known liberal bias.
All in all I thought McCain did a good job. Obama looked smirky like Biden did in the VP debate, used talking points as answers on most issues, and still provides a foggy explanation of his economic 'plan' and health care.
So, rather than going out and getting a job, student loan or a scholarship, folks can do a hybrid Peace Corp/New Deal Civilian Conservation Corps thing and get their education paid for? How does that work?
I'm telling you, he's holding something back from us.
4) He's an extraordinarily bad campaigner, 5) He comes across as a crotchety old man who can't make an argument that is simultaneously detailed, articulate, and correct, 6) that he is as much of a big-government man as Bush and Obama, giving part of his base no reason to vote, 7) that some people don't want a subsidy-sucking* beer magnate as first lady...
I'm sure with more than 10 seconds I can come up with more...
*see Reason.com's blog for details
Shouldn't that be you liberals?
Therut,
"Good Grief!! LOL...Oh and I do not like Hannity. He appeals to the young voters though. And guess what he makes about 5 million a year and that is just for his show on FOX. Disgusting I know. But hey this is the USA and celebrity pays big."
Hannity's like JukeBoxGrad without the intelligence, wit, or (7th?) doctoral dissertation's worth of Bidenesque facts.
Bandon,
"calm trumps angry"
Who knew?
The #2 reason why McCain is going to lose: the media.
The #3 reason why McCain is going to lose: his unwillingness to attack Obama on Wright and his horrible timing for bringing up Ayers.
Also, the economy.
But let's not blame Palin.
Aai a day or so for Colin Powell to weigh in. In the meantime, ponder the role of Saddam Hussein's former lobbyist, Bill Timmons, another new member of the McCain campaign. No problem there, I suppose.
The only McCain play left is full on voter suppression. Two and a half weeks of noun-verb-ACORN.
The #1 reason why McCain is going to lose: the media.
The #2 reason why McCain is going to lose: the media.
The #3 reason why McCain is going to lose: his unwillingness to attack Obama on Wright and his horrible timing for bringing up Ayers."
Everywhere I go, to the grocery store, the gas station, the bank, the receivables ledger, the worldwide stock markets, the unemployment departments, the bankruptcy courts, things are really very good; indeed terrific! It is only the liberal corporate media that are convincing people things are not good, and have not been good. How dare they believe their lying eyes! And how dare they not share the concern about board member Ayers! Wow.
I'd like you a lot better if you forthrightedly admitted that you are incessantly making a claim that's not supported by facts: that "Obama had his first fundraiser in Ayers' house."
TruthInAdvertising summarized some of the non-evidence here. I looked around in a similar manner, using a site search for fundraiser ayers obama. The most relevant thread is here, where the claim was made, and challenged. O