too bad Dole couldn't have run against Dukakis...that would have been a stemwinder. Rationale behind McOld's candidacy...what rationale. He's their candidate because the other choices were worse, demonstrably.
Posted by T2 at February 26, 2008 12:11 PMStill, don't discount the Corporate owned media's ability to forget inconvenient truths. We need more to come out and, even more difficult to imagine, be reported, before I'll be sticking any forks into Straight Talkin', Lobbyist Hatin', Viet Nam War Hero St. John McCain.
There was a seemingly interesting, unsourced post in a comment thread on the big Orange a couple of days ago. I don't know its origin but it seemed like a pretty damning bio of the young John McCain, whose abilities and behavior seemed to match rather eerily, George W.
In his lackluster career, according to this report, he crashed no fewer than 3 jets and was involved in striking power lines in Spain with another.
He was something of a wastrel and extremely ambitious, with a rich & accomplished daddy. It may have been drawn from this Wikipedia bio. Interesting to reflect on the similarities between the two men. Perhaps that explains the warmth of the famous "hug picture".
Posted by DeminNewJ at February 26, 2008 01:06 PMSheer fantasy. John McCain is bulletproof on the integrity question. The media and his war medals will see to that. So he met with lobbyists. Big deal. No crime, no problem. Democrats better find another way to beat him, and I don't think Obama has one. His adoring fans can't help him on this one. He'll have to look presidential on his own.
Posted by cygnus at February 26, 2008 01:34 PMI agree with Turkana, this will likely lead to more information, and the straight talk express will be derailed. So he will have to fall back to his history as a genuine war hero. Unfortunately every voter 45 years old and under were 10 years old or less or unborn in 1973 when Vietnam ended and don't give a fiddler's fart about it. Among the 45+ age group about 50% of them really are tired of fighting the battles over Vietnam. The other 50% splits down the middle. So he will have to tie his boat to Iraq, even my solid Republican friends are scared to death of McCain not only staying in IRaq but expanding into Iran and Syria.
These dogs won't hunt.
Posted by leftymn at February 26, 2008 02:16 PMAlso buried in a post story today (don't have time to dig it up) was an admission by republican operatives that they are the ones who sent around the pic of Obama in Kenyan garb and the youtube video of Obama's speech compared to Deval Patricks--not the Clinton campaign.
Posted by CG at February 26, 2008 02:33 PMthat is of course unless he is running against someone named barack obama
Posted by dennis at February 26, 2008 02:58 PM...was an admission by republican operatives that they are the ones who sent around the pic of Obama in Kenyan garb
Well, of course it was, CG. But it helped Obama to believe Drudge's headline, so everyone pretended it was Clinton who did the deed. You'll notice how the "reality-based community" didn't bother to hunt down the truth on that one; why should they? It was a gift from Rove or one of his wannabes, and everyone's running with it. As long as it helps Obama, who cares who started it, right?
Posted by iamcoyote at February 26, 2008 03:00 PMDon't count John McCain out. Everyone talks about how all the Republicans and Indies are coming out for Obama. What everyone is ignoring is that there are a lot of registered Democrats, hardcore Democrats that are going to vote for McCain in the G.E rather than B.O.
Right now no one can say anything about B.O. AT ALL which is not cast in racist terms. I knew this was coming down the pike last fall when Bob Novak came out with his column stating that someone from the Clinton campaign told him that the Clintons had dirt on Obama that they were not releasing. Obama and Co. jumped on that immediately denouncing HRC. No evidence that anyone from the Clinton campaign even spoke to Novak, no evidence that Novak didn't just make the story up to see what would happen. The Obama camp didn't even question the fact that Bob Novak is a republican operative who outed a CIA agent. They took his column and used it against Hillary Clinton.
Fast forward several months and we see another example of another Republican operative, Drudge, alleging dirty tricks by the Clinton campaign. Everyone bought the line that this was indeed a dirty trick. No one - or few- stopped to ask "why" this was a "dirty trick." What was dirty about it? Why did the Obama camp immediately pounce on it as coming from the Clinton camp? Why where they so willing to accept what Matt Drudge had to say about anything? And why didn't they just say "yes that is a picture of Barack Obama in 2006 doing whatever he was doing?"
If the man didn't want to be shown in the garb he shouldn't have put it on. If the man thought it would inflame people in his presidential run a year later why did he allow a photographer to take the picture. Did anyone ask why the Obama campaign characterized this as inflammatory?
So far the Obama camp has been very good at turning the tables on Hillary Clinton. I don't think the Republicans will be so easily manipulated by him. They have studied the Axelrod playbook and dissected his "biographies" (who writes about their life at 33?) and are ready and waiting for him.
Posted by Sue at February 27, 2008 04:50 PM