US General Election: McCain vs. Obama

Remove all ads!

Are you referring to AM's article? If so, then we are looking at two different articles:

That's part of what I read. How has Mac responded to such "antics" in the past? By saying this:

Well said, Mac. Maybe a few can learn from your example.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/26/mccain-repudiates-hussein-obama-remarks/

 

Well now this is interesting.

Apparently Bill Kristol thinks presidential campaigns are just like comic-book lines, and you can totally restart them out of nowhere and get good results. New X-Men!

 

Here is an interesting article on Obama from the perspective of Brit.

This article has a lot in it for everyone. It has praise for Obama, It has criticism of Obama. Here is the conclusion and I'll try to fit the article in a spoiler as it is kind of long. The author of the article is an Obama supporter and hopes that he wins. Enjoy.

Spoiler

Four years ago, during one of the dullest and most depressing American presidential election campaigns in living memory, I happened by chance to watch an obscure senator from Illinois deliver a speech to the Democratic National Convention.

It was electrifying. I can still remember the power of his voice, as he said: 'I stand here knowing that my story is part of the larger American story, that I owe a debt to all of those who came before me, and that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible.'

Barack Obama was the best political speaker I'd seen in my lifetime. And I wasn't the only one who thought so. He walked off that stage a star, and four years later he is the Democratic candidate for President of the United States.

My enthusiasm that day is now shared by millions, in America and in Europe. He gives hope to those of us in Britain who admire what America stands for but can't abide George Bush, with his cowboy boots, prayer meetings and appalling judgment - over Iraq, in particular.

For us, Barack Obama - who risked his career with a speech in 2002 against the war - seems to be the man who can decontaminate the American brand.
So I've rooted for Obama as he fought first to defeat Hillary Clinton and now John McCain, his admirable but not inspirational opponent. I've followed Obama's speeches on YouTube, and they've gone on getting better.
I've listened to him narrate his own remarkable autobiography - Dreams From My Father - and I've willed him on to victory.

Then a friend recommended a short book entitled The Case Against Barack Obama, by a respected U.S. investigative journalist called David Freddoso, which has stirred up a storm of controversy in America since it was published in August.

Based on forensic research into Obama's political background, it casts a fascinating light on his early years in politics, and in so doing debunks many of the compelling myths that have been built up around him.
'Have a read,' my friend suggested, 'and see if you still feel the same.' So I did. And the result has profoundly altered my views. Oh, I still want Obama to win. Sarah Palin may be a remarkable person, but I don't want her a heartbeat away from leadership of the free world.

But when Barack Obama becomes President, as I still hope he will, I no longer expect him to change the world. As I shall explain, I've lost most of what Mr Freddoso would call my 'Obamamania'. And here's why.

First, let's examine how Obama took his first significant step on to the political scene when be became a state senator for Illinois in January 1996.
It was a rather remarkable contest, in that Obama was elected unopposed. And the reason for that was that he had found a way to have all the other candidates removed from the ballot, including the incumbent.

If you want to run for a U.S. state senate seat, you need the backing - ie, the signatures - of a minimum of 757 ordinary electors within your district.
Obama employed a special consultant, Ronald Davis, to look at each of the 1,600 signatures that the sitting senator, Alice Palmer, a member of his own party, had gathered. And Mr Davis found problems with so many that Palmer was dropped from the ballot, and for good measure he managed to have the other three candidates ditched as well.

According to a local newspaper, problems included 'printing registered voters name [sic] instead of writing, a female voter got married after she registered to vote and signed her maiden name'.

It was a legal electoral tactic, but a little odd from the man who had run 'Project Vote' - a campaign to persuade the disenfranchised to vote for the first time. Yet here was Obama disenfranchising those same voters in another way, using the toughest of political tactics to deny them a choice at the election.

Asked about it later, he said: 'If you can win, you should win, and get to work doing the people's business.'

The next telling aspect to the case against Obama is his attitude towards the corrupt politics of Cook County, the five-million-strong council area that includes Chicago.

Until recently, Cook County was run by John Stroger, the President of the Cook County Board of Commissioners. And he ran an extraordinary political machine, in which a full 50 per cent of all the campaign contributions he received came from either employees on the county payroll, or contractors doing work for the county.

A federal investigation found that jobs were handed out not on merit, but thanks to personal connections with the Stroger machine. If you were a 'soldier for Stroger', you would get a job. And then, allegedly, you would in return contribute campaign funds to re- elect your political patron.
'He was in a prime position to speak out against this appalling corruption. Instead, he did nothing'

What's that got to do with Obama? Well, as a local state senator and then as a U.S. senator for Illinois, he was in a prime position to speak out against this appalling corruption. Instead, he did nothing.

In fact, when a well-qualified liberal challenger, Forrest Claypool, stood against Stroger with support from both Democrats and Republicans, again Obama did nothing.

And when Stroger had a stroke, and his unqualified son, Todd Stroger, was nominated by the machine to replace him, again Obama did nothing.
Worse, he issued a statement saying that: 'Todd Stroger is a good progressive Democrat who will bring those values and sensibilities to the job.'
Young Stroger won that election, and since his victory he has continued with his father's patronage politics. For example, he gave his cousin, the county's chief financial officer, a 12 per cent pay increase to $160,000 (£92,500), hired his best friend's wife on $126,000 (£73,000), and appointed a childhood pal as his official spokesman.

Hardly the 'good progressive Democrat' whom Obama supported. But that was by no means Obama's only connection with tainted political empires.
Obama has also enthusiastically endorsed Richard Daley, mayor of Chicago. Daley managed to cling to office despite a federal investigation into a widespread system of political patronage over which he presided.
Two of his aides were convicted in 2006 for running this system, and rewarding the mayor's allies with jobs and promotions. One job applicant was actually in Iraq on the day that his supposed 'interview' took place, but still managed to score a perfect five out of five to secure a coveted position.
Yet in 2007, Obama endorsed Daley's campaign for re-election as Chicago's mayor, saying 'the city overall has moved in a positive direction'.
This should come as no surprise, since Obama has inherited his chief spokesman and political adviser directly from Mayor Daley. David Axelrod worked for Daley for 15 years and has consistently defended him, arguing at the time that Daley's men were about to go to jail: 'The so-called machine doesn't exist any more.'

Obama said earlier this year: 'I think I have done a good job in rising politically in this environment without becoming entangled in some of the traditional problems of Chicago politics.' The evidence, unfortunately, suggests otherwise.

Freddoso's case against Obama then moves on to his time in the U.S. Senate. Obama hasn't been there long, but one of his much-trumpeted-achievements was the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act, 2006.

This helped expose, and therefore limit, the system of 'earmarking', where legislators direct national funds to parochial local projects, often as part of dodgy deals to get their support for national legislation.

So it is doubly disappointing that in 2007, Senator Obama 'earmarked' $1 million for the University of Chicago medical centre. The vice-president of the centre is his own wife, Michelle Obama.

Indeed, she had received a pay rise of $200,000 (£115,500) at the very same time that Obama first became a senator - and thus able to organise earmarks. Coincidence? Or something more sinister? Obama insists the former, but it certainly doesn't look good.

Then the book moves on to Obama's single most disappointing decision. In the wake of Nixon's Watergate scandal, state funding for Presidential elections was introduced as an option.

Under the terms of the deal, candidates can choose to receive a fixed sum of $84 million from U.S. taxpayers to pay their election expenses, but then can't spend any more of their own money. Alternatively, they can opt to raise all their funds independently with no fixed ceiling.

Progressives have long argued for mandatory state funding, since it's intended to make newly elected presidents less indebted to the donors who paid their way to the White House. So it was no surprise when, in 2006, Obama said he 'strongly supported' state funding.

In 2007, he promised to ' aggressively pursue' a deal with McCain, under which both candidates would opt for central funding rather than private donations. But then he realised how much money he could raise on his own - perhaps as much as half a billion dollars.

So he promptly dumped his commitment to state funding. He said the decision 'wasn't an easy one' but that the system was 'broken'. This is rubbish. It's just that he has a better chance of beating McCain - who has accepted the $84 million state funding deal - if he can massively outspend him.

Like the time he had all his fellow candidates eliminated from the ballot in 1996, he wanted to win, more than he wanted to hang on to his principles.
Next, the book has a look at Obama's long-term relationship with the Church of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, who believes that the American government has been deliberately infecting black people with the HIV virus.

Freddoso points out that the Church's 'vision statement' says it is founded on the writings of Dr James Cone. Dr Cone argues, among other things, that ' Christianity and Whiteness' are opposites.

Obama left Wright's Church only earlier this year - when the Reverend accused him of 'political posturing'. This is well-worn territory, of course. Obama's critics never tire of criticising his links to Wright. But they are no less disturbing for that.

Finally, Freddoso looks at Obama's relationships with a series of property developers, including Tony Rezko, who recently went to jail for fraud.
When Obama bought his house in 2005 for $300,000 (£173,000) less than the market value, Rezko bought the plot next door. When challenged about their connections, Obama claimed: 'I've never done any favours for him.'
Not quite true, apparently. The two were friends and Obama wrote a series of letters supporting Rezko's successful attempts to get state subsidy to build affordable housing in Chicago.

Chicago real estate developer and fast-food magnate Antoin 'Tony' Rezko spent years pouring thousands of dollars in campaign contributions into Barack Obama's campaign

Unfortunately, Rezko's 30 buildings have subsequently run into financial difficulties, which is a bit tough for their tenants as living conditions have deteriorated. Rezko even turned off the heating in the middle of winter to save money.

Not a nice man, then. But a generous supporter of Obama, collecting and donating $250,000 (£144,000) to his political patron over the years.
So there, in essence, is Freddoso's case against Obama. But as he also says, his book doesn't demonstrate that Obama is in any way personally corrupt or even 'a bad man'. Yet it does suggest that 'he's like all the rest of them in Washington'.

Those Americans who support him, and the billions around the world who believe that he could rebuild Brand America, would do well to remember that Obama's a politician with huge gifts, but also great flaws. He's a beacon of hope. But not now - nor ever - a political Messiah.

 

Is there any election where you more or less do not choose the lesser of the two evils? From my political stand point I would never be happy to vote for any Democrat or Republican but seeing how completely nutty and outright dangerous the Republicans have been the last 10 years the choice would be easy. People who truly truly believe and follow politicians are dangerous they should all be viewed by a healthy dose of skepticism and suspicioun. The problem of course is that when of the options is so abysmally horrible as the Republican is in the states pretty much anything that isn't that can easily take on messiahanic tendencies.

 

Actually, I believe this election is the first one in years where we've had two good candidates. While Bush-Kerry (and Bush-Gore for that matter) was a case of choosing the lesser of two evils, I believe this election is win-win.

And republicans aren't that bad. I know many who never even tried to eat their children.

 

T2 - I've always pretty much been a liberal, more so in recent years. But even I've known that the Republican Party was always the sober, pragmatic group, at least in my opinion. They were better represented by intellectuals like the late WF Buckley. This is taken from a liberal blog:

Source: http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=2970

What a great compliment from the opposing side. Do we find much of that kind of discourse from the Republican Party today? The Republican Party rallies are almost like lynch mobs: "Kill him!" or "take his head," or "traitor." are jeers heard from among the ranks. The Republican Party has been high-jacked by a group of media pundits and operatives who have been pandering for years to the lowest common-denominator, while making themselves a fortune in the process. Where are the "system of ideas?" But for that matter, where is the famous "Reagan optimisim" within the Republican Party now? Reagan may not have been a "thinker," like say Buckley, but at least he wasn't full of the kind of hatred we see coming out of the Republican Party today.

So much so that Chris Buckley, the son of WF, is going to vote for Obama. Take a look:

Source: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-10/the-conservative-case-for-obama

Quite amazing.

Then there's this:

He's talking about Kathleen Parker. The conservative writer who had the nerve to write this in the National Review:

Wow! For that, members of the Pro Life movement became "unplugged."

Source: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDZiMDhjYTU1NmI5Y2MwZjg2MWNiMWMyYTUxZDkwNTE

David Brooks called Palin: "A cancer on the Republican Party." You can find that source on one of Ragusa's well-researched posts. Imagine, the two big "liberals," Ragusa and myself, having to use conservative sources to make our points to our conservative friends.

Nevertheless, not too many other conservatives share your, (or these other fellow Republicans) depth of perception regarding Obama, T2. Instead, the majority of the Republicans seem to share perceptions which are shallow, seeing this election in the same old & tired context of "liberal versus conservative," or, "the War Hero" versus "the Terrorist." Is this what's become of the Republican "system of ideas?"

 

Just watched the final (thank God) debate. Several things.

1. I know I am biased, but I am also honest. Obama won pretty handily. I really don't think it was even close. As to at least partly why...

2. John McCain hates...hates...Barack Obama's guts. Just f'ing hates him. And it showed. He was petty, pissy and all over the place. Sneering, glaring, rolling his eyes. Not Presidential.

3. I like policy wonks, but Barack Obama can be electrifying in his speeches just as severely as he can be really boring in debates. I felt he was off his game tonight, but didn't really make any mistakes. And that alone is a touchdown.

4. No matter how much the Ayers and ACORN business is trotted out and debunked, they will always be THE issues for some people. Like Moby Dick territory. That McCain relies on them so heavily really belies the weakness of his candidacy (which Obama rightly nailed him for). Obviously, this is the best John McCain has got, and you can see even he knows it. And regardless, he's been sinking in the polls consistently since he started bringing them up, so obviously nobody but the wingnut base is all that concerned about Ayers or ACORN. Nor should they be, they're trivial at best.

5. This is my favorite debate format, by far. Bob Scheafer did a good job, and just let them talk. He didn't make me want to punch him in the Adam's Apple the way Tom Brokaw did last week.

6. I don't know why I used to believe John McCain was tough, honorable man. He's a big coward and a whiner. "You didn't agree to 9000 town hall debates, so I had no choice but to call you a terrorist's buddy, question your patriotism and claim you wanna teach sex-ed to toddlers. Obviously, it's your fault. By the way, YOU'RE running the most negative campaign EVAH." Fork, meet eye socket.

7. Joe the Plumber is the most important person. Ever.

 

I feel sorry for Mac. He chose to go down this road, and at some point, probably the advent of the Ayers "issue," he reached the point of no return. As far as I know, Hill was the one who started this nonsense over Ayers, and I was glad that she got nailed in an interview on CNN for bringing Ayers up in the primary. She tried to tap dance around it, but she was taken back a bit that the blame was placed on her doorstep (where it probably belongs).

I think Mac is going to regret the way he allowed this campaign to be run by the same operatives who ran the Bush campaign. The absloute worst part for Mac is that he hired Eskew, the same guy that started all that crap about him in SC when he was running against GWB in 2000.

Source: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/mccain-hires-go.html

Why would Mac stoop so low? A turd like Eskew? Before he went down this road, Mac was in a dead-heat with Obama, and had a good shot at winning. Now, it's pretty much over, unless some freak event happens within the next three weeks. Nevertheless, Mac has only himself to blame. This has been just too weird.

 

I think it shows a failing of character. Yes, this is his last shot at the Presidency and he feels like it's his time to shine. So much so that he's willing (sometimes, even eager) to trash his own very positive reputation in the hopes that he can tear Obama down enough to win. Not only is this beneath him (or at least his rhetoric), it's a losing strategy.

People want something new this year, and that includes a break from the rank partisanship that became a trademark of the Bush years. McCain has campaigned vigorously with the one thing that he used to lack that made him unique and admirable: rank partisan pettiness. Appealing to the worst elements of the current GOP, rather than make an affirmative case for exactly why it's conservatism, not liberalism, that'll get us through these tough times. When he became the nominee, I had sincere hopes that that's how he would have made his case. How McCain could be so utterly tonedeaf so late in his political career is the most astonishing development in this entire race, IMO. It also brings into sharp relief a suspicion I've had for a while now: that McCain's "maverickiness" and integrity were just a well-cultivated PR creation, and not who McCain really is. Honorable men simply don't do and say the things McCain and his people have during this campaign.

 

Unless a dead body or a scantily clad underage girl shows up on Obama's doorstep, this thing is over. In polls among undecided voters, Obama crushed McCain in everycategory in which a question was asked. From one of my most favorite sites electoral-vote.com, this paragraph pretty much says it all:

That that fork out of your eyesocket DR and stick it in McCain - his goose is cooked.

 

I got a different impression of the debates than you did, DR.

1. McCain failed to get a knockout punch in. But he did get a couple of good sound bites ("I'm not President Bush...").

2. Obama was clearly on the defensive throughout the evening. He was his usual polished self and did not commit any significant errors.

3. Both candidates exaggerated in their claims. Obama was a bit further into fantasy that McCain, but not by much.

4. McCain connected better with the middle class and independents that he has done previously. He came away in good shape to mount a final campaign push. But...

5. Obama did nothing to distance himself from the middle class and independents. He did not allow much (if any) ground to be gained by McCain.

6. McCain should have let Ayers go.

7. Obama is still in the driver's seat.

As I've said repeatedly -- I like both the guys and think this is a win-win election for America. My biggest question about Obama is I cannot see any reasonable way he is going to fund so many projects without sending us further into debt. For McCain, I don't see how he is going to give all those rebates with keeping our debt in line.

Both candidates are promising us the treasury -- and that's not good.

As far as the "hates his guts" thing -- I think they both do not like each other, but Obama shows it differently. Obama has a sly condescending smile and a good poker face. McCain's poker face looks angry -- he's old and he shows it. His smile is more of a grimace, his eyes have that slight sag to them, he is not very mobile or flexible and he basically does not look like he's ever at ease in front of the camera. Obama has a much better stage presence and he flat out is better looking. This really reminds me of comparisons between Kennedy and Nixon during their debates -- the better looking won the television audience, the other won the radio audience (the television audience was bigger and Kennedy won overall). Visual appearance have trumped substance in too many elections, I think it is happening to some extent in this election as well. Although the Bush factor is huge too.

 

@ T2,

I don't really disagree with most of your points, so I don't think our impressions are all that different. Especially #1 - that was probably his best line of the night, you're right. #2 I agree with if you meant that he was "on the defensive," and not "defensive." It didn't surprise me, though - it was kitchen sink time for McCain, and he appeared to launch every possible attack he wanted to at Obama last night. I thought it was a good opportunity for Obama to set the record straight, and he did a fair (but not great) job. The problem for McCain is, Obama parried them all effectively enough to defang them. He didn't get flustered or defensive, he just said "Look, here are the facts..." and kept his cool, something a guilty person wouldn't be able to do very convincingly. Which is why I say it wasn't close, and nearly every post-debate poll seems to indicate most of the country thought so, too.

I once agreed with you about how in this election, either way we'd be getting a good result. I fully believed that...right up until a week after the Palin pick. It was then I knew there was only one candidate in the race who was actually serious about governing. Sarah Palin represents everything that is wrong, in my view, with the current GOP: anti-intellectual, uncurious, faux-populist, bible-thumping, culture-war entrenched and there appears to be little if any evidence that she's given more than a moment's thought to the major issues of the day (all things the McCain of old would have deplored). To say she's Bush in a skirt is a compliment, and she still hasn't given a single press conference. Given McCain's health, that's really scary.

 

I would partially agree with you on Palin. I actually like her (although I disagree with some of her beliefs -- but then there is no politician I agree with 100%), but I think she is not the best choice for VP. She's not as bad as Quayle was, but that's not saying very much.

 

By this time in 1988 though T2, Dan Quayle had done well over a dozen press conferences. People were allowed to ask him questions and demand followups, one of the best and simplest ways to determine a candidates command of the issues and fitness for office. A process I would argue as ESSENTIAL for a Vice Presidential candidate, who is not elected - but rather selected - by the party's candidate (in other words, the VP is a position not earned, but bestowed). Sarah Palin hides from and derides the press, speaks only in front of friendly, screened audiences and only gives softball interviews to people on the far right (post-Couric, that is) like Limbaugh and Hugh Hewitt. Clearly, her campaign has no interest in appealing to anyone near the middle.

Respectfully, I don't see how anyone can know if she's better or worse than Dan Quayle, but at least Quayle was expected to behave like a serious national candidate and perform the most basic function of a politician: answer questions and give straight answers. She's been held to a much, much lower standard. Why that is tolerated for the second highest office in the land is beyond me.

 

I got very confused on McCain's Roe v Wade speech. So he does not want a litmus test for judges, and instead would pick them on their qualifications. However, at the same time he says that support for Roe v Wade is not a qualification (I quote: I do not believe that someone who has supported Roe v. Wade that would be part of those qualifications") So for those who follow his speeches more closely, is support for Roe vs Wade a litmus test determining qualifications for McCain or not? It was really a moment for me.

 

would smell as sweet, indeed.

 

If this was a campaign stunt I doubt it was a good idea. If not, I am not so sure it's much better. Someone wearing a McCain costume?

​

---------- Added 0 hours, 54 minutes and 34 seconds later... ----------

This here is investigative reporting at its finest, Dana Milbanks on the last Presidential debate.