Tuesday, July 29, 2008

Can Obama Really Win this Thing?

George W. Bush's legacy is clear. Come January, when the 44th president of the United States takes office, the nation will be racked by,among other things, a record half-trillion dollar budget deficit; an economy teetering on, if not in, recession; $4+/gallon gas prices; the lowest consumer confidence in 15 years; a failing, deadly war; and a resurgent terrorist stronghold in Afghanistan. Americans are broke, both in pocketbook and spirit. Over 85% of voters now think the country is headed in the wrong direction. No matter how you slice it, this should be a landslide year for Democrats. By any stretch, Sen. Barack Obama, the party's presumptive nominee, should be ahead by 15-20 points in the polls. Why then, in the latest USA Today tracking poll, is he trailing Sen. John McCain, the GOP's presumptive nominee, by four points among likely voters...a poll in which he led by five points last month? Is this a chilling foreshadowing of things to come in November?

Has the Obama campaign plateaued? Is it stuck in the mud? Out of steam? Despite the media frenzy and campaign euphoria over his much-heralded overseas trip to Europe and the Middle East last week, the polls show no bounce. In fact, as the USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll above indicates, Obama's numbers are dropping. Even more troubling for the campaign are numbers released in last week's Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll. On the questions of who has more knowledge and experience, who's better equipped to be commander-in-chief, and who's the riskier choice, McCain leads by a whopping 20%-30%. And in most polls, voters say McCain is the more truthful, trustworthy candidate. Last week's trip was designed to make Obama look presidential. But as the numbers above indicate, it's going to take a lot more than a brilliantly choreographed series of photo-ops with foreign heads-of-state to convince voters that he has the chops to actually be president.

The simple truth is, John McCain is very much in this race, and depending how you look at it, he can and very well might win despite every logical reason that should point to his defeat. So what's happened? Is it merely race? That Americans are just not yet ready for a black president? For a black first family? To be sure, Obama's skin-color has and will continue to pose a major problem for him come November. The harsh reality is, America is still very much a racist country. But the overwhelming support Obama receives from blacks and young people could very well offset losses from the nation's bigots.

But how much can we blame the candidate himself for? Has he truly run an effective campaign, one that has reached out to, and whose message has resonated with, constituencies beyond blacks, the youth, the affluent and educated "Starbucks" whites? Last January, Obama came roaring out of the gate like a Triple-Crowned thoroughbred, but as the primary season wore on it became clear that, once the novelty and mystique of his historic candidacy wore off, that he could not finish off his main rival, Sen. Hillary Clinton, with whom he bitterly fought to the end. That he would not capture enough delegates to win the nomination without the last-minute help from the party's elite super-delegates. Along the way there were several critical controversies including Rev. Wright, Tony Rezco, Bill Ayers, "BitterGate" and several patriotism-related gaffes by him and his wife Michelle that all served as a major distraction from the campaign.

That Obama's campaign seems flat is of no surprise to many. Of concern is the belief that with Obama there's lots of style but little real substance. His recent spate of position-changes smacks more of political expediency than the genuine convictions of the "agent of change" to whom millions have heretofore passionately thrown their support. He's disappointed many, and while they'll still surely vote for him, some of that luster, and lust, has faded. The honeymoon is over. They realize their marriage to Obama might just be like every other political union, and that's depressing given all the hope surrounding his early campaign promises.

What's been most disappointing to his supporters is that, while he gives awesome speeches, he may be proving to be little if anything more than the typical double-talking, flip-flopping, opportunistic politician as everyone else. Unfortunately, the bar has been raised much higher for him, and by him in particular. His entire campaign has been built with him being the candidate who'll transcend typical dirty politics. That he's above the fray. Running a new kind of campaign, with a new kind of message of hope and change. And that's what millions were drawn to. They were not drawn to a typical triangulating panderer who now seems to do or say whatever it takes, to whomever, to get elected even if it means supporting centrist policies that are counter to those of his supporters.

His recent flip-flopping and/or support of several hot-button issues--wiretapping/telecoms, Iraq, campaign finance, gun control, death penalty, religious-based incentives--is quite disingnuous. That he has just three years national experience doesn't help either. Nor does his boneheaded relationships with Wright, Ayers, Rezko etc., all of which show really poor judgement, and serve to give his detractors and the Sean Hannity's of the world ginormous fodder from which to attack. You'd be kidding yourself if you believe that these missteps have not had a tremendous negative impact on the independents; those still on the fence. Those voters whom he so desperately needs.

I don't quote Hannity often, but I will today: "We just don't know who this guy really is." Correction, we do: he's a really junior Senator, with no major policy accomplishments, who wants to be America's first black president. In a year where the election should be a fucking landslide for a Democratic candidate, it's incredible, and beyond frustrating, just how close the race truly is at this point. More and more indicators point to the ugly truth that America's racist dumbasses might very well rather have a curmudgeonly-old-forgetful-highly-experienced-grandfatherly-war-hero-white-guy-they-can-identify-with than a young, inexperienced black man with a Muslim name who they hear hangs out with angry black preachers, radical 60's terrorists and real-estate crooks. While many Democrats, this writer included, would still take Obama in a nano-second over McCain for many reasons, don't kid yourself that the rest of the country's gonna follow suit.

HELP ELECT BARACK OBAMA PRESIDENT: It's now time for us to pull together as Democrats and unite behind Obama and his historic candidacy. These are exciting times. I urge you to support Obama by sending the campaign whatever you can afford. In politics, money is key. There are many swing states this year--Colorado, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Missouri among them. With a sizeable war chest for campaigning, ground teams/staff, ads, mailings, Internet/email promotions, etc, he can win these states. We are commited to helping the campaign raise as much money as possible to combat the bountiful warchest of Sen. John McCain and the GOP. Click here to make a contribution. It's time to change America.


Unknown said...

Obama can win but it will be close if he does. A letter to the editor in today's local paper here(Corpus Christi, Tx) listed the reasons why the writer said she could not vote for Obama. She said "His dad was a muslim, his wife hates America, he refused to serve his country, he wants to pack the Supreme court, he flip flops on the issues..." and blah blah blah!
There are too many racist, ignorant people who will either not vote or will vote McCain for this to be in the bag for Obama.

Anonymous said...

There is nothing in Obama's resume to date that shows he has shown true leadership or stood up for something--so why are people surprised he is not doing it now and likely would not as President? He is an opportunist (a brilliant one to be sure), but here is no "there" there and people are starting to realize it. It is why he finished so weakly in the primaries and had to be dragged across the finish line by the super-D's who mainly hoped to get their hands on some of his big bucks. Thanks DNC!!

Anonymous said...

I will vote for Obama, but I have said all along that race will play a part and it won't be pretty.

Too many white men will not vote for him. They see this as their last chance to keep white power. They know change is coming, but they feel that they can stop it this time. I live in the most segated metro area of the country (Metro Detroit). We are a blue state, but now we are shown as leaning Democratic. This is because white men will not vote for Obama.

Many Hillary supporters are now supporting McCain. (I really don't get it either).

The polls should be showing Obama leading with huge numbers.

So why else are the numbers close between Obama and McCain when the right track/wrong track numbers are 70-80% for wrong track? The issues are on our side.

So as a white woman Baby Boomer, I feel we are screwed again.

Anonymous said...

Why is it that the MSM thinks this election should be a slam-dunk for the Democrats? George Bush is not running for President and there's certainly no hard evidence that the Democrats (or Republicans for that matter) in Congress are beloved. "Generic" Democrat is not running for president and does not exist.

As for national tracking polls... who gives a rat's ass? They're about as important as who is ranked #1 in the NCAA pre-season football or basketball polls. And that's apt because we're still pretty much in the pre-season as the VPs have not been selected and the conventions have not happened.

But if you must delve into polling at this point, look a little deeper into the state polls and odds at places like Rasmussen, 538.com, Election Projection, Pollster.com and Intrade. All of them project at better than 60% the odds of Obama winning the election. Why? Because they know national numbers mean diddly-squat. If they did, Al Gore would have been elected. If 60,000 people out of 5.5 million in Ohio changed their votes in 2004, John Kerry would be president.

McCain has unleashed a flurry of negative ads in the last two weeks and they've done little to no damage to the Obama campaign. When the two eventually go toe-to-toe in debates, McCain will not only look like a old toad next to Obama he is also far more likely to trip up and appear like the angry, petulant person he really is.

The question I have is this: if the election is really about experience, as the McCain camp claims, why is it that McCain has not (excuse the pun) surged to the front?

Anonymous said...

"Barack Obama says he was 'played' and 'hustled' by German tabloid daily Bild after they published a rather embarrassing unauthorized article the day after his popular speech in Berlin last week."

OK, so we are supposed to trust him to protect America from enemies like Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chavez yet he's easily fooled by the German tabloid "Bild".

Obama is a fool not worthy of the position of President, nor Commander-In-Chief

Anonymous said...


Bush is the worst president in my lifetime and maybe of them all.

McCain has kissed Bush's butt and stood with him for the last 4 years so he could win in 2008. He has backtracked on most of the issues that made him a maverick just so he can win.

McCain will continue the Bush agenda.

Where have you been? Wake up.

Anonymous said...

Obama will lose because he is black and we all know it's true.

Wake up folks!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 1:10 PM,
If Bush is the worst President in your lifetime, you obviously were not alive during the Carter Administration.

"Death to America" was born on Carter's watch.

Obama will be a second Carter Administration.

Anonymous said...


Whoa there, pal! We're not in disagreement about how *we* perceive Bush and McCain.

The problem as I see it is the American people do not see them as wedded at this point and while there is general dissatisfaction with the performance of the President, there is also general dissatisfaction with both parties.

Ostroy's assumption today is that because Bush is such a fucking loser, the Democrats should necessarily be the beneficiaries of his low approval ratings and have a substantial lead. I don't see this as too simplistic.

It's not a BAD idea to wrap Bush around McCain's neck but at the same time, Democrats are going to have to sell more than they are "the anti-Bush". They are going to have to make the case that Obama is the BETTER choice than McCain if we hope to see a national victory of the 10-12 points the MSM seems to think should happen due to Bush's unpopularity.

Frankly, I don't see it happening. My own projection is that Obama will win by 4-5 points but take an electoral victory with over 300 electoral votes - something GW Bush never achieved.

He's gonna have to work incredibly hard and smart to pull it off, though.

Anonymous said...

Oops, that should have read I see the assumption as too simplistic...


Prius said...

Last week I was called at work, no less, from the Obama camp. The caller asked if he could put me down for a $100 or $250 donation for Obama. He continued to go on about how great a President he'd be and how we can not stand to have McCain elected. He went on and on until he took a breath and asked what I'd give. I told him I supported Hillary, and before I could continue he started up on how she's not the candidate and on why we have to elect Obama.

When he finally calmed down to ask for money I told him that there was ONLY one way I'd support Obama and that was if he picked Hillary for VP. That started him going again blah, blah blah about Obama and McCain. I told him once more that for me to open my check book, Hillary had to be on the ticket.

This is Obama's ONLY chance to win is having Hillary as VP, the ONLY way. His numbers are declining where they should be sky high by now. As I have said on this blog many times, come October there will be an Obama bomb shell dropped by the GOP that will seal the White House for McCain and the Democrats will find one more way of loosing an election. You can not trust the slime machine of the GOP, yet it's the media who elects our officials, not us.

Anonymous said...


If the media elects our officials, how will having Hillary on the ticket be the ONLY way Obama can win?

Suddenly the media loves Hillary?

Anonymous said...

To the poster above:

I was very much alive during the Carter administration and Bush has passed him in negative numbers.

Wake up!

Prius said...

Michael, It's very simple how Hillary being on the ticket will assure a win in November. Hillary won more primary votes then Obama and won the key states where the electoral votes really count. The media loved Obama from the get-go, this everyone knew, and the media did everything it could to make sure she did not win. The proof of that is in the publications dating back to last fall. Most magazines and newspapers were in love with Obama and gave Hillary the cold shoulder. If you had watched any TV during that time it was pro-Obama 24/7 and anti-Hillary 24/7. Andy wrote about it countless times in this blog. The fact is the media wanted Obama yet Hillary kept even with him to the end.

Take those Hillary backers out of the picture and you have McCain as the President. I'll wait until 2012 and vote for Hillary. The country under a McBush White House will be so screwed up I doubt if anyone will be able to correct it.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 2:28,
If numbers are so important to you, how about the number 9. That's the approval rating for the Democrat-controlled Legislative branch as of July 1, 2008. The approval rating for Congress is MUCH lower than Bush's.

Anonymous said...


If the media loves Obama, which is what you are saying, then by your own logic he does not need Hillary since the media will annoint him President. It'll be Obama/Clinton II in the general. McCain keeps it close but Obama wins because the media loves him.

Please do not view this as a slam at Hillary. I like her.

Your logic just does not hold water.

Anonymous said...

I can not prove it, but I reject your conclusion: "The harsh reality is, America is still very much a racist country." You hit it right on the head when you said: "But the overwhelming support Obama receives from blacks and young people could very well offset losses from the nation's bigots.[...]Has he truly run an effective campaign, one that has reached out to, and whose message has resonated with, constituencies beyond blacks, the youth, the affluent and educated "Starbucks" whites?"
He is resonating, from where I sit, with "the affluent and educated "Starbucks" whites?"
As you say, "the overwhelming support Obama receives from blacks and young people could very well offset losses from the nation's bigots.", I would say something stronger like "will"; that is, if those demographics are allowed to vote in the swing states.
What's in play is a Southern Strategy psycops aimed at those voters who may normally overlook any of their racial prejudices. After softening up by soft pedaled racism in the media, these voters will easily accept the notion that it was the racist whites that came out to vote, really obscuring the truth. If only it was so. You Andy are perpetuating the racist myth.

It obscures the fact that it is just the opposite, that black and dark skinned minorities are being subjected to a new kind of Jim Crow voting law, targeted for their color, income level and/or ethnicity.

The Republican party has already purged the voting roles in Colorado, Florida, New Mexico, Ohio and Nevada.
"In swing-state Colorado, the Republican Secretary of State conducted the biggest purge of voters in history, dumping a fifth of all registrations. Guess their color.

In swing-state Florida, the state is refusing to accept about 85,000 new registrations from voter drives – overwhelming Black voters.

In swing state New Mexico, HALF of the Democrats of Mora, a dirt poor and overwhelmingly Hispanic county, found their registrations disappeared this year, courtesy of a Republican voting contractor.

In swing states Ohio and Nevada, new federal law is knocking out tens of thousands of voters who lost their homes to foreclosure." ~ Greg Palast with legal and research help from Robert F. Kennedy Jr and MIT.
Look at the numbers. They are hundreds of percent greater than the margin of votes between Bush and Kerry in 2004.
Now if even half of these voters were to cast their vote......
'They' will say it was the racists..... but it will really be the spoiled votes.
How could this be happening? Remember the the US Attorney's purge? There is a lot more. It is not too late to do something about these voter roll purges.

Anonymous said...

...and Democrats are still trying to prevent people from having to show identification prior to voting.

Identification requirements obstruct the legions of dead people and illegal aliens from voting for Democrats election after election.

Prius said...


The media, being in bed with the Republicans wants Obama because they know Hillary would be hard to beat.The logic is that the media decided that Kerry should be the candidate in 2004. Look how they went after Dean, especially after his screech in Iowa and he came in 3rd no less. The media again knew that Kerry would be a push over, a non fighter and the it proved to be true with the swift boaters. All I'm saying is the media being mostly Republican, pick the Democratic candidate that can be beaten as their "darling", knowing full well when it comes to the election they will get beat. This keeps the Republican's in the White House and the object is to control the Supreme Court, the true law makers.

We all know the Congress gets nothing done, look at the past 8 years, how pathetic they are. The GOP knows this and they know that if they control the White House they control the Courts and the Courts control our lives.

Michael, look at 2000's election. We all know how that was rigged, yet in 2004 Ohio was rigged. As bad as Bush was in the years leading up to 2004, Kerry looked even worse though the eyes of the media. Since the American voters are very fickled they follow like sheep and put W back in even knowing what a screw up he is. Mark my word, they are going for the "hat trick" in 2008 and they will get it. Can we all say, "3 in a row for the GOP."

The Ostroy Report said...

Anon 3:48..."The racist myth?" While I appreciate everyone who takes the time to read what I write here, I truly believe you'd be better able to comprehend my points, and reality for that matter, once you yank your delusional head outta ya tush!

Anonymous said...

Prius said, "The media, being in bed with the Republicans..."

You need to pull your head out of your ass. A recent analysis of Federal Records of political donations made by journalists shows a 15:1 advantage to the Democrats.

Below is a list of media organizations, followed by the amount of money their journalists gave to Democrats (D) and Republicans (R):

NBC/NBC Universal-> $104,184 D, $3,150 R
CBS-> $45,508 D, $966 R
ABC-> $17,320 D, $4,717 R
Turner/TBS-> $30,161, $2,950 R
Fox-> $40,573 D, $0 R
FoxNews-> $1,280 D, $0 R
MSNBC-> $210 D, $282 R
CNN-> $2,286 D, $1,250 R
Associated Press-> $2,550 D, $545 R
Reuters-> $10,745 D, $3,450 R
Washington Post/Newsweek-> $4,268 D, $0 R
New York Times-> $8,143 D, $0 R
Time Inc.-> $40,988 D, $4,850 R
Time Magazine-> $1,250 D, $0 R
USA Today-> $6,067 D, $0 R

Anonymous said...


I so very much admire your dogged support of Hillary but your complaint is simply misplaced and inaccurate.

If the media is in bed with the Republicans, not Obama, and the media chooses our elected leaders, then your logic dictates there is nothing Hillary could do for Barack. McCain would be the next President.

Anonymous said...

I am white, I live in NY and I was for Obama and really hoped that either Rangel would be his vp, or that Rangel would be the next preisdent after Obama. I thought Rangel and Obama were real champions for "the people." Now that I've seen a side of each I don't like or trust, I would never vote for either of them. Just because Obama loses it won't be because of racism, but disillusionment.

Anonymous said...

I was for Hillary and I did think during the primary that the media was pushing for Obama because they thought he could not win. However, even if Hillary were on the ticket as vp I would not vote for Obama. I simply cannot trust him after he deserted
"our" platform and went to the other side.

Anonymous said...


Do you really expect anyone to believe you were hoping Charlie Rangel would be the next president after Obama? Even if Obama served only one term and Rangel then ran for President, Charlie would be 82 frikkin' years old! He'd make McCain seem frisky by comparison.

Sure. Why not try and sell us some of Arizona's fine oceanfront property while you are at it?

Anonymous said...


So, who are you going to vote for?

Anonymous said...

7:04 Whadda ya a friggin ageist? I guess you hate him because he's black, too. Wow, if he was a black, old, woman you'd have a glory day.

I do believe you're an old person projecting your age, by the tired "joke" you use. Get a new joke book. These old tired -- "I have a bridge to sell you" types show your age and lack of wit.

Anonymous said...

I am old -- hate me if you will -- I'm a Dem and I'm voting for McCann. My first time to vote Republican. I live on soc. security and a few small CDs and Obama is going to raise (or support it if it comes to a vote before he's elected) tax income from CDs and I can't afford it. And he's going to give illegal immigrants social security when after years of contributing I don't have enough to live on.

Anonymous said...

Was John McCain an ageist back in 2004 when he said he'd be too old to run for President in 2008? Or Jack Murtha when he said John McCain was too old to be President?

If Obama's youth is a concern, so is McCain's age.

Oh, and the old person on social security and a few small cds - you might want to check Obama's plan. It's not real likely you are going to be taxed at all given it seems like you probably make less than
$50K a year.

BTW, McCain pissed off the Club For Growth yesterday by going back on his no new taxes pledge.

Anonymous said...

Unlike Obama, part of McCann's charm is his self-deprecating humour. If he thought he were too old, he woudln't be running It's not's Obama's "youth" that's the problem it's his inexperience. Forty-five is middle age.

John McCann pisses off a lot of people and groups. So does Obama. He pisses me off more than McCain. It's all relative.

Anonymous said...

So self-deprecating is code for ability to flip-flop or have it both ways. Gotcha.

It's all relative.

Anonymous said...

The reason the race is tight b/c McCain was a good choice by the GOP. The one guy who could actually survive in this environment. Also during the democratic primary, there were many polls that looked to hypothetical head to head match ups between different democratic candidates and McCain. Could you please point me to one that showed another candidate blowing away McCain? McCain was either winning or was within a couple points of every candidate we had. I am going to vote for Obama with pride but that does not mean that I cannot acknowledge that the Repubs made a good pick considering the current political climate.

Anonymous said...

Americans continue their avoidance of responsibility in this election. They want a President to "save" them from high gas prices, foreclosures, a difficult economy, an unpopular war, etc. No President can do all that alone and it is some peculiar fantasy that has developed amongst the electorate. Americans seem to want a sugar Daddy or a Prince Charming - not a President.

"Saving" America from itself starts near home. Supporting the education of our children, supporting those less fortunate than ourselves, demanding responsible government from local officials. Americans need to educate themselves beyond watching sound bites and apply themselves to actively participating as citizens.

Americans have become incredibly lazy about their citizenship and have abdicated their role in our government to corrupt, greedy officials. Stop blaming the "government", because the "government" is the people - or it used to be.

Anonymous said...

Obama may win enough support, but if elections are a fraud, he will not win. Google "voter purge" and be horrified about who is being purged, how many are being purged, how many states, where and by whom. Election fraud needs to become a national issue NOW!!!!!

Anonymous said...

Electronic voting machines should have open source software on them so the source code can be inspected by software developers.

Democrats need to stop obstructing voter identification requirements at the voting booth.

Dead people and illegal aliens need to stop voting for the Democrats.

Anonymous said...

7:51 is right. And Obama is playing to the child-like needs of the people. He all but calls himself a messiah with no human flaws.

Anonymous said...

7:51 and 10:06 should take a look at the following short clip (less than 2 minutes). It addresses a good bit of their concerns:


Anonymous said...

Thanks for the responce.
Let me clarify: That there is racism is not the myth. The myth is that it is as prevalent and strong in enough people to change an election; eg. voter racism will swing the election. You yourself admit that "... the overwhelming support Obama receives from blacks and young people could very well offset losses from the nation's bigots."
So how do they win? Suppress the votes of blacks and young people.

My posit is that the notion 'racism will swing the election' is the fig leaf, straw man if you will, that will allow educated "Starbucks" whites, as well as working class voters who may normally overlook their racial prejudices, to miss the real mechanizations responsible for an Obama loss. Ockham's razor; it is easier to believe that random voter racism is in play than a calculated, systematic, and racist vote suppression scheme targeted at specific geographical blocks of voters, (which is illegal).
Hey, it worked in 2000 and 2004. They got caught after the fact in 2000, they got the goods on them for 2004, and have the proof it has been/is being done already for 2008.

If you do not want a Republican in the White House in 2009, stop pushing the myth that racist voters will swing the election, and focus on the racist suppression of voters in the swing states. Perhaps you like the corporatism that oozes from the current Republican presidential candidate?

On to anon @ several places...

While I respect the need to keep "dead people and and illegal aliens" from voting at all, it is a misplaced fear trumped up for use in the Neo-Southern Strategy.
Even under the most high pressure search by ideological US Attorneys during the past several election cycles, there have been only a handful of actual prosecutions of voter fraud. Out of that, the overwhelming majority were not prosecuted successfully. (Have you followed the "Attorney purge" of 2004?) Most investigations, even in this highly partisan atmosphere were found to come from simple human error or mis communications. If you could name one or two guilty verdicts, your posit may be more credible. You don't, no one ever does, it is a myth.
Voter ID is already done on the local level by local poll officials with a simple signature check with a signature on file.

Responding to anon again

Having worked in broadcast for a number of years, the journalists do not decide what is broadcast. The media organizations you list may employ journalists. The journalists have as much say in the work product as a line mechanic at GM. Put that canard to rest, please.

Anonymous said...

To "old" anon who is afraid Obama will give illegal aliens SS...
That is delusional. Fear will make people irrational.
Illegals try to keep as far away from government as possible. Even those who use phony or other peoples SS# pay $$ into the SS coffers. It is a cold hard fact that they will never get it out legally and Obama has not proposed such. How many prosecutions can you name where it was proven SS money was taken out or given to illegals? Don't you think if it was so prevalent they would be parading each case? Hell, I wish an illegal was paying in under my SS#.

You are a prime example of what poor economic times, xenophobic fear and wedge politics does. You are given false facts, false choices and actually vote against your own best interests.

Anonymous said...

Just a couple of links to consider:

Anonymous said...

To those who think Obama couldn't put away Clinton, who is the Democratic nominee heading to Denver? Clinton had every conceivable advantage and couldn't put him away. She had the money, name and connections and he beat her in a fight to the finish thrilling primary season that was amazing to behold. I want to bet anyone who thinks Obama can't campaign.

Anonymous said...

"And in most polls, voters say McCain is the more truthful, trustworthy candidate."

Sweet God Almighty. Bring on the end times. Any electorate this stupid deserves to see their society descend into chaos.

[Actually, I answered a lengthy phone survey just the other night. Gave McCain a zero. Explained to the guy it was what I had to do to remain consistent since I consider McCain mentally defective for the position along more than one dimension. As usual, guess I don't have my finger on the pulse of American opinion.]

Anonymous said...

Obama said he would give social security benefits to "undocumented" workers. That obviously means they will no longer be "undocumented" if they are to get the benefits of social security, which he clearly meant. Therefore those who have broken the law will be rewarded for their crime at the expense of American citizens. And, whereas Rev. Wright and his gang are not willing to forgive the living whites for the sins of their fathers, Obama, the anointed one, is willing to forgive millions of Mexicans for stealing into our country and stealing our resources.

Breaking our countries laws is not important it seems.

Anonymous said...

Before you all scream: I erred: "breaking out country's laws ====== "

Anonymous said...

Enough already about racism and Obama. Let's hear it about Obama and racism against whites. Now the latest is having to hear the racist and misogynistic remarks from Ludacris, Obama's fund raiser and one he considers a "great talent." Hillary was called a bitch again and Ludacris gloated that the White House will soon be the Black House and there's nothing anybody can do about it. And of course Obama's team denounced him, thus adding to a long list of unacceptable associations that he dumps for political reasons What does Obama really feel and think and when will we find out?

Anonymous said...

There has never been a candidate for president who has had to deny so many damaging relationships and then dump the "associates."

Anonymous said...

If Obama becomes President he will use his race to attack any and all criticism of his Administration's policies.

Obama is a racist playing the victim!

Anonymous said...

It has been a disaster for us that for almost all of Bush's term he had a Republican Congress that agreed and supported his every crazy move. What worries me, even as a Democrat, is for Obama, a great "unknown", to have a Democratic Congress majority, whch he certainly will, which would give him uinlimited power to do -- who knows what?
It would be safer to have McCann as president, and hope we could have a Democratic Congress with a backbone.

Anonymous said...


Tom Loeffler, Phil Gramm, Rod Parsley, John Hagee, Vicki Iseman, Rick Renzi, Jim Courter and literally dozens of lobbyists have all been "distanced" from the campaign of John McCain.

The architect of the "Straight Talk Express", John Weaver, who convinced McCain he had the narrative and background to be a good presidential candidate back in the 2000 race recently called the McCain campaign's latest tactics as "childish".

Anonymous said...

The fact of the matter is Obama is injecting his race into the campaign. By playing the race card, Obama is implying that anyone that disagrees with him is a racist. This is just the start - any criticism of Obama will be characterized as racist.

Anonymous said...

Did any of McCain's "associates" bomb buildings in NYC, or were any engaged in criminal real estate deals, or did one preach to thousands every Sunday about how terrible white people and America are and then damn them, did any make a musical product calling Hillary a bitch and wish paralysis on McCain which would confine him to a wheelchair; and, did McCann himself go abroad and list America's faults?

And was one of them a lifelong friend, mentor, minister and "uncle" that McCain dumped?

These are just the main events -- no mention of the erring campaign people etc. who have been "cut loose."

I think Graham made an uncomplimentary crack about Americans much like Obama did with his "bitter" observation.

Anonymous said...


If someone were willing to dig it up, my guess is that it could be found that Mr. McCain served on a board with or lived near or received campaign donations from someone who was involved in subversive activities in the 60s.

Several McCain associates have been involved in nasty real estate deals. That's why they had to leave the campaign. See, that's a big difference. Tony Rezko did not work for Obama's campaign. Rick Renzi did.

Several preachers who have endorsed McCain and whose endorsement he has accepted have given racist sermons. One even suggested that Foggy Bottom suffer the effects of a small nuclear device. That's treason.

Several folks associated with McCain have created videos and started viral emails with all sorts of racist overtones and outright falsehoods.

Phil Gramm and Tom Loeffler have been good friends and associates of John McCain's for longer than Obama has been associated with Wright or Rezko.

Take off the blinders. John McCain's closet is so much more dirty than Obama's. His association with John Keating alone is worse than anything you can throw at Obama. Keating's failed S&L cost the US taxpayer nearly $7 billion in today's dollar.

Anonymous said...


Are you an idiot?

Barack Obama is black. By definition race is involved in the campaign; and are you going to deny that the McCain and Clinton campaigns, via surrogates, have made race-based accusations against Obama?

My god, Mark Halperin of Time Magazine actually suggested (encouraged) the McCain campaign utilize surrogates to "risk" racism charges all the way back in February.

Anonymous said...

6:34 'If someone were willing to dig it up, my GUESS is that it could be found that Mr. McCain . . . "

"Several McCain associates have been involved in nasty . . . '

"Several preachers who have endorsed McCain and whose endorsements he has accepted . . . "

"Several folks associated with McCain have created . . . "

Your above argument is too pathetic to really call attention to. You did not list one verifiable charge. Pathetic.

Phil Gramm has made an Obama-like crack about Americans.

As for lobbysits, Obama has former federal lobbyists working for and raising money for his campaign: Former Federal Lobbyists on Obama's staff are Steve Hildebrant, Teal Baker and Emmett Beliveau. They are restricted from joining his campaign, they just "help out." Yea.

Rezlo bankrolled Obama's campaigns for State Senate, US House and US Senate. And gave him a huge financial break on his house. That's a really good friend.

John GLenn and John McCain were cleared of having acted impropertly in the Keating mess. They were both cleared and re-elected.

Anonymous said...

The only time race has been an issue in the primary or the general was when Obama or a surrogate charged the other side of racism. What has anyone, but perhaps Jackson, said that was a racial slur? The game plan for Obama from the beginning when they twisted Clinton's words has been to make race an issue to work in Obama's favor. It works because of white guilt.

They even have the audacity to "play the race card" although the Reverend Wright is and has been spewing racial hatred toward whites while Obama listened and remained a member for twenty years.

Just for the record - why is it racism when a white person criticizes Obama, who is black,and not when Obama criticizes McCain who is white? What makes a criticism a racial slur? (When women cried fowl because of the sexism of Hillry's treatment everyone said it wasn't sexism, it was just nobody liked Hillary.)

Anonymous said...


What's pathetic is that you pretend there is no substance, you deliberately avoid specific evidence provided and refuse to draw simple conclusions based on names provided earlier or through very simple research tools available at your fingers.

Take off your blinders and wake up.

Tony Rezko did not give Obama a big financial break on his house, dipshit. Rezko's wife bought the lot the seller wanted sold along with the house and then sold a 10' strip of that lot to the Obamas. Also, Rezko and his companies contributed $250,000 to Obama's various campaigns. Tom Loeffler raised a shit-load more money for McCain and was dumped by him.

Try and get the facts straight. I know it's hard to keep the talking points handy but it helps if you want to make your argument.

John McCain was officially cited by the Senate committee of excercising "poor judgment" in the Keating Five scandal and himself admitted it was the "wrong thing to do". A congressional investigator also concluded that McCain leaked information from closed meetings of the Senate Ethics Committee to the press.

So what the fuck is your point about re-election? Does that absolve him of his actions? Ted Kennedy was re-elected after Chappaquiddick.

Anonymous said...


It's quite clear that your ability to be logical and consistent is blocked by your myopic and persistent belief that Hillary was subjected to sexism (which she was) while deliberately putting on blinders to racist overtones or outright racism leveled against Obama.

"For the record"... your question is absurd.

Anonymous said...

Just another example of the train-wreck of stupidity and vacuousness that is the McCain campaign:

The Hilton family has contributed money to the McCain campaign; so much so that the campaign had to return money as it exceeded the legal limit.

After the new ad which compares Paris Hilton and Barack Obama in an unfavorable light, Rick Hilton, the father of Paris, is reportedly FUMING at McCain.

Anonymous said...

I think that earlier than I can remember in recent years, Obama has, if people and the MSM treat things fairly, achieved stick a fork in him status.

I say that looking at things from the merits.

His wild and foolish comments about inflating our tires and tuning up our car engines as the solution to seeking additional petroleum reserves is so beyond the pale, so outrageously naive and ignornant that it makes Mike Dukakis tank ride and Dan Quayle's potatoe fiasco look like a side show.

Clearly today, petroleum availability and its refinement is an urgent issue that we face. It will only get worse as China and India continue their explosive growth paths. Prudoe Bay produces 700,000 barrels a day - a third of what it produced 20 years ago.

And the Prudhoe Bay and pipeline issues really ought to be viewed in the context of the politically driven ANWR situation. At the time, the pipeline was considered to be an ecological disaster, Instead, it's quite the opposite - they elevated it where needed to accomodate wildlife migration patterns and, indeed, it's turned out that many animals seek out the pipeline for it's warmth.

There's absolutely no reason to believe - especially with the wild eyed and irrational frothy objection to ANWR drilling - that the industry wouldn't similarly rise to the ocassion - especially with the potential profits available.

Offshore drilling? Let's face it. This is more of the elitist nonsense that modern Democrats have used notwithstanding the clear detrimental effect upon us. Offshore drilling WILL happen. The risks can be managed. Let's be clear - the American offshore drilling history has not been a bad one ecologically speaking. And more importantly, apart from that which is solely in our accepted territorial waters, it's going on all around us - China is drilling off the coast of Cuba and you have to be blind to think that the US won't be at risk of an accident. Yet WE have the experience here. We can do this and the fact that Democrats have foolishly blocked ANWR and offshore drilling is one of the biggest reasons that our dependency on foreign oil has grown and why our prices are so high.

You can raise the Trilateral Commission type conspiracy theories about the Bush/Cheney connection to the oil industry all you like. Reality is notwithstanding that, Democrats have been unilaterally responsible for the huge outflows of cash for foreign oil and the higher prices.

And I haven't even spoken about their ridiculous opposition to nuclear energy.

That is the real narrative behind America's energy supply/price problems and if people really look at the story, they will see what really is at issue here.

Which is that elitist, hyper-ideological and double hyper-idealism and misplaced priorities are at the core of the philosophy behind Obama's candidacy which is extremely destructive to America's fiscal health and quality of life.

Sometimes I wonder why they eat any packaged foods - anything wrapped or boxed. After all, doing so adds to the planet's pollution with regard to the boxes, and packaging that has to be discarded.

That's really not a joke - it;s the same ideoloy that stands behind ANWR and offshore drilling and produces naive incompetent comments about inflating tires and tuning up cars instead of drilling.

Anonymous said...


Merits, my ass. What you provided was a litany of GOP talking points that are at best flimsy and at worst outright lies.

The Chinese are not drilling off the coast of Cuba. US Congressmen have made this claim and had to retract it. You can find out why right here: http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/are_the_chinese_drilling_off_the_coast.html

It is also quite clear you have very little if any working understanding of the oil business. At least Senator McCain, in a brief moment of clarity so lacking in his campaign, admitted that the whole offshore drilling "debate" is more for "phychological" relief than any long-term or lasting relief.

I'm no fan of Boone Pickens but I know he understands the energy business. He's been a wildly successful oil man and he happens to be a conservative Republican. He financially backed the Swift Boat campaign and backs John McCain. He also is finanically backing his own campaign to tell the American people the truth; we cannot drill our way out of the current oil dependency problem we face: http://www.pickensplan.com/theplan/

You may laugh at tune-ups and tire pressure monitoring. It does sound a little like nannying. But the fact is if Americans would do it on a regular basis they would save more oil on an annual basis than drilling in ANWAR would add to the global oil market.

That, my friend, is a fact.

Anonymous said...

It is a also a fact that one should stock duct tape in their house for emergencies, but that didn't make the suggestion less laughable when the Pentagon made the suggestion.

I remember liberals jumping all over that suggestion. Of course, The Messiah didn't make the suggestion...

Anonymous said...

Obama continues to show a mean side of his nature. Today at a rally a group of black men were protesting that Obama wasn't showing enough concern for the problems of the black community. He invited them to shut up and wait for the Q & A period. They did and asked about his concern for the remaining mess of Katrina, police brutality, and a list of other concerns. Obama listened and then told what he'd done about each issue. However, the men weren't satisfied with his efforts. So, Obama suggested that if they didn't like his answers to those problems they could run for president themselves. How's that for "hope", a "messiah" and a "man of the people."?

He's dissed his granmother, dumped every friend we've ever heard of that he had, dissed workers who are "bitter", dissed America overseas, wouldn't visit troops unles he could do it his way, and generally displays serious unconcern for the cares of others.

Anonymous said...

The income average in NYC is 50,000 or was the last time I saw a figure, and with all the millionaires living there it's obvious the majority of the people make less than 50,000. I think the national average is 42,000 which mean Obama will give 1,000 to at the least, 95 percent of the population.

Anonymous said...

Hear this. Obama is considering the possibliity of flip-flopping on drilling offshore for oil. Before it's over, if I vote for McCain I will be voting for the more liberal candidate, which pleases me as a liberal Democrat.

Obama is the new Joe Lieberman,

Anonymous said...

The Messiah is flip flopping on off shore drilling in the name of 'compromise'. We've witnessed The Messiah compromise ALL OF HIS PROMISES TO HIS BASE. Will he compromise America's position in the world ? Absolutely.

Will The Messiah compromise with terrorists? Absolutely.

Obama is not fit to be President of the United States.

Anonymous said...

The New York Times wrote an article about Obama before the primaries in which it described his "governing" skills. He is always dertermined to reach an agreement whcih he usually manages to do in a "compromise" in which his side gives in to the opposition.

He simply cannot be trusted. He makes promises to win the primary and then makes the opposite promises to win the general. We have no idea what he might do to reach a "compromise" with foreign countries. He has shown no loyalty to the Democratic Party or those of use who voted for him in the primary.

Anonymous said...

Bill Herbert in the Times today says Obama has to really be careful what he says because he is black. It's also true, although Herbert did not point it out, that McCain has to be careful what he says because He is white.

Obama did bring up the race card when he said McCain's campaign would scare voters by pointing out Obama is black.

Obama started it and there is no way anybody can spin it differently. Obama said "their campaign" not the unidentified "they." He was attacking McCain.

Anonymous said...


He "started it"? Do you live on a kindergarten playground?

It's sad, but accurate, that McCain's former campaign chair (the man who came up with the "Straight Talk Express" and "maverick" personas for McCain) now refers to the candidate and his campaign as childish.

Sad, but apt.

Anonymous said...

2:04 Although McCain has never mentioned race as a consideration in this campaign, Obama injected the issue with his accusation that McCain would use race to frighten voters.

"Obama started it." which is all one needs to know, somehow seems a more economical and effective way of describing the situation.

A "childdish" McCain is better than a "devious", "lying",
"flip-flopping", "suspicious" and "unknown" Obama.

Anonymous said...

Obama attacks John McCain

John McCain counter attacks Obama

Obama responds to John McCain adds that American's don't want attacks, they want to discuss the issues.

John McCain challenges Obama to series of debates so the issues can be discussed.

Obama rejects the challenge.

"WASHINGTON (AP) - Democratic candidate Barack Obama on Saturday backed away from rival John McCain's challenge for a series of joint appearances, agreeing only to the standard three debates in the fall."

Obama is not capable of being President. He doesn't understand the issues and is afraid to debate them

Anonymous said...

Obama does not stick to his promises. We don't know what he really thinks or what he will do. He changes positions and then says we weren't listening and that he hasn't cahnged, that he's been saying that all along.

If we elect him president we have made a deal that gives him the power to do whatever he wants to do. America will be his to do with as he pleases.

He will have the spineless Dems as the majority in Congress. He will rule the world.

Anonymous said...

Another Obama flip-flop discussed on front the page of NY TIMES today. He used to be for affirmative action for blacks based on race, now he's against it. Now he's for affirmative aciton based on class, although, he says, successful blacks still face discrimination.

Anonymous said...

Who went negative first: http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/08/you-vote-who-pu.html

McCain's flip-flops: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/flipflops

McCain has been called "childish", "undisciplined", "unprincipled", "scary", "angry", "petulant" and "stupid" during this campaign - not by his detractors or the DNC but by his own supporters, friends and former co-workers/staffers.

If this campaign was truly about experience, as McCain claims, he should have a lead over Obama given he's been a Washington player/celebrity for over 30 years. But he does not. And the fact is, Washington experience is not a prime factor in recent Presidential elections. If it were, the results of each of the last 4 elections would have been reversed.

McCain knows this and it's why his campaign has headed for the ditch instead of running on the high road.

Anonymous said...

Now that Obama is adopting McCain's platform on all the issues, there will be no choice except to choose the man with the better character.

Let's compare:

McCain: "childish; undisciplined; unprincipled; scary; angery; petulant; stupid" sats 2:52 PM

Obama: sophisticated liar; cold and calxulating - lies his way out of mistakes; talks principles but deserts them to win; also scary -- depends on what scares you the most - Obams's "scare" is the "great unknown"; McCain's scare is what you know about him (he wanted once to be a Dem); most people would like to see a little human emotion from Obama including anger; no petulance shown by Obama -- too controlled to show irritation; it was beyond stupid to belong to a church that teaches Black Liberation Theology and expect a majority of white people to vote for a candidate who hates them and wants vengeance. (Oprah saw it coming and left before too much damage to her career.)

Anonymous said...

It's amazing how many people can not sign their name to take credit for their witticisms. For all I can tell it is one poster 'anonymous' arguing with his/her self.

Come on, pick a name!

Anonymous said...


Actually no one knows McCain's platform as he has no real principles. He has flipped on so many issues over the years, claims positions now that he has not taken in the past and seems generally to have no clue from day to day what his position is on any issue.

Oh, but did he mention in the last 5 minutes that he was a POW?

His campaign is utterly lacking specifics and it's stunning that the Wall Street Journal is openly asking the question "(i)s John McCain stupid?"

So now we're to choose the man with better character, eh? Well, I for one am not going to give much credit for character to a man who cheats on his wife and dumps her for a much younger woman whose family money can finance his political career.

This same man majored in insubordination in college (those are his words), used the services of prostitutes, used poor judgment currying favor for a man who cost the US taxpayer billions, has connections with unscrupulous real estate scammers in Arizona, feels free to drop f-bombs on colleagues in the Senate, called his wife a cunt in front of staff and reporters... seriously, do I need to go on?

Anonymous said...

11:08 How good it is that once more attention is being called to sexism, misogynism and the religious hypocrisy among those good men who forget "thou shalt not commit adultery,

Among Presidents we have Jefferson who literally had a "sex slave."; FDR; Kennedy; Eisenhower; Clinton are the ones I know about, and there are rumors about other Presidents - not to mention Congressman.

Then we can look at our culture - our neighbors and men all over the country who commit adultery; beat their wives, practice incest on their children; and generally subordinate their women to their needs like "iron my shirt" although their wife contributes as much or more to the family income.

Yes,let's by all means investigate that part of our culture and closely examine every man we know, but particularly every man in power including those who run churches and preach morality.

And we could get into drugs, too. Isn't cocaine illegal?

Then let's go to Africa where there is the record of soldiers raping women so routinely that it's made prime time news on TV.

Let's stop that mistreatmet of women here and all over the world. And we can start by electing whom? The sex offender or the drug offender who hates white people.

Or we could draft Hillary. She's committed neither offense. Oops, she's "just" a woman.

Anonymous said...

We could draft Bush for a third tierm since each candidate is a Bush clone. We know about McCain, and Obama is evolving more and more into Bush.

In the NY Times today, Krugman calls to our attention a statement on Obama's website by Obama which Krugman says sounds just like Bush speaking,

Anonymous said...


For a man who hates white people, Obama sure has hired a lot of them to run his campaign.

Anonymous said...

Obama's gonna lose.

Anonymous said...

Who are you going to vote for, 12:36, and why?

Anonymous said...

10:48 some time ago On Morning Joe a frequent black guest and Joe were "joking" about white people who were hired to clean the black guest's house and mow his lawn. When you hire you are the one in power and in the superior position. Surely there are black people qualified for those jobs for Obama. Or maybe he's trying to assure everybody he won't appoint blacks to all the cabinet seats and important posts if he's president. You just never know -- and that's our problem with him.

Anonymous said...


What a disjointed pile of nothingness.

If Obama hates white people, it's entirely logical to conclude he would not hire them to run his campaign and far more likely than the convoluted theory "you never know" (of course, you never know... John McCain could be a Communist agent planted by the Vietnamese to destroy us).

Try sticking to the facts. They typically paint an accurate picture.

Anonymous said...

4:09 All the white people who hire black people hire them because they like them. Since, early on after slavery, all the people who hired were white so there is no history of racism, according to your reasoning.

And in my small southern town all the white people hire black people to cut their lawns, because they like them, accroding to your reasoning.

And conversely, since Obama has not hired black people to run his campaign, he must not like black people, according to your reasoning.

And that Obama has flip-flopped on the government spying on us, on drilling for oil, on the surge, on withdrawal of troops in Iraq, on separation of chruch and state. on gun control and some I can't remember, we are not to logically conclude that we just can't tell what he's going to do on any issue, according to your reasoning.

And, since McCain has always served the government in the military or the legislature and never been caught at treason, and since, even if he were planted by the Vietnamese to destroy us, he surely has changed his mind after all these years; yet, we are to believe we justn't can't know for sure he's not a mole, according to your reasoning.

And according to your thinking it is possible to make a pile of nothing. And according to your thinking a "fact" can "paint a picture." Even metaphors require some logic.

Anonymous said...

Obama's gonna lose.

It doesn't matter who says it or what color their skin is or what color the skin of their POTUS choice is...

Save your time and breath.

Obama's gonna lose.

Obama is his own worst enemy and America IS waking up.

Anonymous said...


If I, as a white person not named David Duke, hire a black person does that somehow mean David Duke does not hate black people (as a representative of "all white people")? Of course not. But then you knew that as a scholar of logic, right?

Pathetic. As is your attempt at a literal defense of the incredibly stupid "you never know" statement of belief. My claim that "you never know" if McCain is a Manchurian Candidate is every bit as logically consistent as the dolt's claim that "you never know" if Obama will appoint an entire cabinet of African-Americans.

Most metaphors are logically false, my friend. Now go grab a glass of milk and head off to bed.

Anonymous said...

David Brooks, of the NY TIMES, has written an excellent, non-partisan, probing article about understanding, or not, Obama