Anonymous wrote:It's honestly been tough to judge how well McCain has been doing on his campaign given that the mainstream media have been slanting campaign coverage both in terms of time and perspective towards Obama by a landslide. Any semblence of objectivity in the "MSM" has been completely lost this election cycle.

How does playing and replaying McCain's ads, noting the factual errors in passing, if at all, and then spending their time pontificating on how effective the ads are (which the MSM amplified by repeating them ad nauseam) amount to bias in favor of Obama?

Anonymous wrote:Maybe that's the problem. I *am* a grownup. I don't call people names and I don't hide behind my military background in being abusive to my spouse. And, as the previous poster noted, this was not said behind bedroom doors. Hence the fact that we all know about it, Einstein. Sigh.

"Cuss like a sailor" is an old cliche that I (an Obama supporter) threw in because it seemed relevant. It was not McCain hiding anywhere.

I have no great desire to justify anything about McCain, but I think passing up his conversion to Rovianism and his recent kowtowing to the religious and corporate right to concentrate on a comment he made in front of a few reporters years ago weakens the argument.

BTW, I don't mean to criticize your personal repulsion. Only the implication that we should all share it.

Anonymous wrote:It's a presidential campaign for gosh sake. They're going to be mean and nitpicking and do their best to discredit each other. Let's face it, just the fact that someone wants to be president is probably a good reason not to elect them. But, it's what we have.

Can't someone ask some of the hard questions, like who are they going to bring into the cabinet with them? I don't want another fool like Rumsfeld and I also don't want another southern posse like Clinton and Carter brought on. I'd feel alot better about both of these candidates if I could get a good look at their handlers.

Do you think you could rise to that level of debate Jeff?

You know how DC has set up an office to bargain with electricity suppliers as a consumer coop? How about the idea of voters joining in a coop and bargaining with the candidates to get real information, like cabinet choices, that would really give us reason to vote for one or the other. The MSM grabs onto dumb ads and often gives them much more free playtime than the campaigns actually pay for. If we can't count on the MSM to pressure candidates to get real, perhaps voters can do it ourselves.

An internet blog seems like the obvious venue for action of this sort; could we pull something like that off here? I don't think we have the visibility at this point, but I don't have a clear idea of a better place -- it ought to be someplace not associated with one side or the other.

Any suggestions?

But like the New Yorker cover, it's a joke that people are likely to interpret in contradictory ways. Hell, there is no bigger joke in the country than Bush, but some people actually take him seriously!

Seriously, is that W08 sticker a Republican sticker pining for 4 more years of Bush or a Democratic sticker saying McCain = Bush? Maybe it's a New Yorker cover????

Anonymous wrote:Hey, Jeff, everbody gets old one day (if you're lucky). There are those of us who like the fact that McCain has been around the block.

Thanks for defending us old folks. McCain only has five years on me, so I sympathize with his word substitutions. I do the same thing, and sometimes don't even hear myself say the wrong word. But what's in my head is totally correct. Fortunately, I'm retired now, so I no longer have to worry what might happen if people go by what comes out of my mouth rather than what I'm thinking.

In any case, I think I'll start a new GOP: Geezers for Obama for President,

I suppose I'm only half anonymous, and I have already tipped my hand that I plan to vote for The One.

Anonymous wrote:Like a PP said- no one is perfect.. just check out Hillary's way to reference her hubbie (and others)..
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2008/01/the_quotable_sh.html

I was the one who made the comment that McCain's comment might be marital banter (although I forgot to sign in that time). I don't know whether all of Hillary's comments on the moonbattery page are actual quotes, but they illustrate my claim that you can't give an absolute meaning to any word. What is totally shocking to one person may be offhand chatter to another. People were executed for blasphemy because they said things that would not cause us to blink nowadays.

Don't forget McCain's background. If anyone should be expected to cuss like a sailor ...

Jeff, my hat's off to the master!

Anonymous wrote:Why do you think Obama isn't farther ahead in the polls. I'm stunned at the numbers.

Because negative campaigning works. That's why Obama is blasting back at McCain, and it's why I posted my little pictorial joke; it's a negative attack on McCain. My own little attempt at turnabout.

Anonymous wrote:What about McCain's ad accusing Obama of relying on "Foreign" oil -- with the word "Foreign" right next to his head? Do you not think there was, at a minimum, a double message in play there? Most people refer to it as "overseas oil" or "oil from overseas".

And what about the RNC's latest ad: "Both ways Barack." Now, this I may be reading too much into, as there is no question about Obama's sexuality. Nevertheless, that phrase immediately connotes something less than wholesome in my mind. And I don't think my mind is in the gutter to start with. I need to be pushed.

Bottom line is that there is simply no innuedo, no attack. no strategy beneath the Republicans.

By the way, wasn't there a time when Obama commented on one of McCain's flubs, saying McCain was confused, and McCain's people immediately accused Obama of attacking McCain's age? Isn't that "Playing the age card"? And it worked -- Obama's campaign has kept hands off all the McCain gaffes since then. One more example showing that you can uncover Republican tricks by looking cartefully at their charges against Democrats.

Anonymous wrote:While some the liberals are worrying like a bunch of sissies over who plays the "race card", I am more worried about who is bundling for Obama and what that is going to mean if he is elected. There is no free lunch on Capitol Hill, and those people will expect to be paid.

TURNABOUT, in spades! Perhaps it was habit rather than intent, but notice that you accused me of raising the race card as though Davis never said a word. And Democrats are the ones banlrolled by the lobbies, not the Republicans whose answer to all energy problems just happen to be things that will boost oil company profits. I am more convinced than ever that to learn what Republicans have up their sleeves, you should always look at what they accuse Democrats of.

By the way, thanks, Jeff, for defending my underwear, but I confess, Rovian tactics do get my jockeys in an uproar. I still think the intent of the "celebrity" ad was to put Obama's face next to those two blonds. Never underestimate subliminal suggestion!

Rick Davis, chair of McCain's campaign, accused Barack Obama of playing the race card when he said he does not look like the presidents on dollar bills. Am I the only one who thinks that Davis's statement is a much more blatant intrusion of race into the campaign than Obama's remark? A favorite tool of Rove and his disciples is to make a point by accusing your opponent of doing exactly what you are doing. Whenever they want to politicize an issue, for example, they accuse the Democrats of politicizing it.

They want to make sure that anyone uncomfortable about electing a black president is reminded of that discomfort. And how do they do that in a way that affords deniability? They claim Obama is the one who is doing it!

They have used this turnabout tactic time and again, and I don't think the press has ever called them on it.

Rich wrote:... juxtaposing him with Paris Hilton and Britney Spears, linking him to their slutty reputations and treating us to the juxtaposition of a black man with young blond women.[/url]

In case it was not obvious, the "him" being juxtaposed is Obama, not McCain.