The McCain campaign’s recent angry tone and sharply personal attacks on Senator Barack Obama appear to have backfired and tarnished Senator John McCain more than their intended target, the latest New York Times/CBS News poll has found.
After several weeks in which the McCain campaign unleashed a series of strong political attacks on Mr. Obama, trying to tie him to a former 1960s radical, among other things, the poll found that more voters see Mr. McCain as waging a negative campaign than Mr. Obama. Six in 10 voters surveyed said that Mr. McCain had spent more time attacking Mr. Obama than explaining what he would do as president; by about the same number, voters said Mr. Obama was spending more of his time explaining than attacking.
Over all, the poll found that if the election were held today, 53 percent of those determined to be probable voters said they would vote for Mr. Obama and 39 percent said they would vote for Mr. McCain......
Voters who said their opinions of Mr. Obama had changed recently were twice as likely to say they had grown more favorable as to say they had worsened. And voters who said that their views of Mr. McCain had changed were three times more likely to say that they had worsened than to say they had improved.
The top reasons cited by those who said they thought less of Mr. McCain were his recent attacks and his choice of Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska as his running mate........
And after nearly eight years of increasingly unpopular Republican rule in the White House, 52 percent of those polled said that they held a favorable view of the Democratic Party, compared with 37 percent who said they held a favorable view of the Republican Party. Voters said they preferred Democrats to Republicans when it came to questions about who would better handle the issues that are of the greatest concern to voters — including the economy, health care and the war in Iraq.......
After several weeks in which the McCain campaign sought to tie Mr. Obama to William Ayers, a founder of the Weather Underground terrorism group, 64 percent of voters said that they had either read or heard something about the subject. But a majority said they were not bothered by Mr. Obama’s background or past associations. Several people said in follow-up interviews that they felt that Mr. McCain’s attacks on Mr. Obama were too rooted in the past, or too unconnected to the nation’s major problems......
The poll found that Mr. Obama is now supported by majorities of men and independents, two groups that he has been fighting to win over. And the poll found, for the first time, that white voters are just about evenly divided between Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama, who, if elected, would be the first black president. The poll found that Mr. Obama is supported by 45 percent of white voters — a greater percentage than has voted for Democrats in recent presidential elections, according to exit polls........
Mr. McCain was viewed unfavorably by 41 percent of voters, and favorably by 36 percent. Ms. Palin’s favorability rating is now 32 percent, down 8 points from last month, and her unfavorable rating climbed nine percentage points to 41 percent. Mr. Obama’s favorability rating, by contrast, is now at 50 percent, the highest recorded for him thus far by The Times and CBS News.......
But roughly 7 in 10 voters said Mr. Obama had the right kind of temperament and personality to be president; just over half said the same of Mr. McCain.
Mr. Obama’s supporters continued to be more enthusiastic about him than Mr. McCain’s supporters, the poll found, and more of those surveyed said they had confidence in Mr. Obama than in Mr. McCain to make the right decisions about the economy and health care. And while more than 6 in 10 said Mr. Obama understood the needs and problems of people like them, more than half said Mr. McCain did not....
How does it feel to be so fucked?
And it's all you extreme crazies on the right with your Bill Ayers, and "Muslim this" and Jeremiah Wright. After election after election of this game, you never stopped to consider that people might start catching on to your game? As their lives worsen (BTW the infant mortality rate here is now abysmal thanks to all the uninsured), you guys continue to further enrich the wealthy at their expense while trying to convince them that someone else's character or who supports gays, is what is really important??
The headlines leading up to tonight's presidential debate hint at the worst for John McCain:
McCain enters 'last chance saloon' in final debate
In Final Debate, Can McCain Rattle an Imperturbable Foe?
McCain May Have Last Chance to Overcome Economy in Final Debate
In short, a lot of pundits are asserting that this is McCain's last chance to close the sizeable gap seen in the polls and stop Obama's electoral tsunami.
But is the gap really as big as everyone thinks it is?
At first glance, the national political mood certainly seems bad for Team McCain. A recent New York Times/CBS poll shows Obama with a 14-point lead. And many Electoral College projection maps show Obama pulling in more than 300 electoral votes. (All you need is 270 to win; anything more than 300 in today's divided political climate is a rout.)
FiveThirtyEight.com
Pollster.com
But there are some grains of salt to be taken here.
First, about the NYT/CBS poll — Nate Silver, the sports-analyst-turned-election-prognosticator, points out something important:
Presently, our best estimate is that Obama has about an 8-point national lead. However, CBS polls have leaned about 3 points more Democratic than the average this year. In other words, our baseline expectation is that a CBS poll should be showing about an 11-point for Obama right now.
In other words, the NYT/CBS poll is an outlier. It has been an outlier throughout the election season, and Silver thinks it continues to be one now.
Individual polls with seemingly inflated numbers are one thing, but what about the overall lead in the national polls? Yahoo!'s own Political Dashboard averages reported poll results, and it shows the 8-point averaged lead Silver is talking about. But when you dig into our map, you see that some states that appear blue may not be too far from red.
A perfect example of this: North Carolina.
Our map shows North Carolina crosshatched in blue, indicating it's leaning Obama. Well, that lean (and North Carolina's 15 electoral votes that go with it) are based off of a 1% averaged poll lead. That's within most margins of error, which run anywhere from 2 to 4 points.
Two things could happen that would wipe away those blue electoral votes: The polls could be wrong (New Hampshire primary, anyone?), or people could just simply change their minds. That's not out of the realm of possibility — North Carolina was safe McCain territory until late September.
And, there are at least eight other swing states — including biggies like Florida, Ohio, and Virginia — that are within McCain striking distance. Their current polls may not be as close as North Carolina, but they definitely aren't behind by the 14 points the NYT/CBS poll shows nationally, either.
Swing states are aptly named. They swing. D.C. pundit king and NBC Political Director Chuck Todd had a fantastic, realistic breakdown of the Electoral College map this morning on "The Today Show."
FL – St. Petersburg Times (Editorial) "McCain's last offensive:" On the same day a new poll showed that voters' confidence in the federal government has reached an all-time low, Obama spoke with a reassuring confidence…But when the questioning turned to campaign attacks by both sides, McCain could not contain his anger and lost much of his momentum. He again floated some dark connection between Obama and 1960s-era antigovernment radical Bill Ayers. When that punch failed to ruffle Obama, McCain ramped up his intensity. The split television screen displayed a candidate who gradually appeared more frustrated, condescending and dismissive of one who would not take the bait. Those facial expressions will not play well in the coming days.
WI – Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (Editorial) "The attack debate:" John McCain went into the final presidential debate on Wednesday looking for a game-changer, the need to reverse plummeting fortunes as measured by polls and likely fueled by national economic difficulties that do not favor members of the party now possessing the White House. Time - and an election - will tell, but our guess is that McCain missed the mark if that was his goal.
MO – Kansas City Star (Editorial) "Attacks can't shake Obama in debate:" Over the three presidential debates, Democrat Barack Obama has largely answered doubts about his readiness to be president of the United States. His unflappable temperament, thoughtful demeanor and rhetorical abilities were impressive. Republican John McCain's performances were more uneven, becoming increasingly aggressive.
MI - Detroit Free Press (Stephen Henderson) "Striving to get back in the game, McCain looks more desperate": It was probably unrealistic for anyone to believe that Republican presidential candidate John McCain could right the sinking ship of his campaign with a debate performance, but Wednesday night's encounter with Democrat Barack Obama only seemed to reinforce the idea that McCain is badly behind, and desperate. Here was McCain, answering a question about the negative tone of his campaign — and the very frightening tenor of recent rallies for McCain — by talking about the negativity of Obama's campaign, saying Obama's failure to agree to more than 10 town hall meetings was the reason things turned so negative. But overall, it was hard not to think of this campaign as largely over while watching the debate. Of course, anything can happen in the next few weeks, and history says the race will almost certainly tighten. John McCain, though, looked like a guy about to lose and fully aware of the desperation of his circumstances.
Des Moines Register (David Yepsen) "Obama Bests McCain In Final Debate" John McCain lost the final debate of the 2008 presidential campaign Wednesday night…McCain simply needed a breakout performance and he failed to provide one. He went into the forum trailing Obama in polls of the contest and he came out of in the same position. By doing so, McCain missed his biggest remaining opportunity to change the direction of the presidential contest.
MN – Duluth News Tribune (Staff Written) "Local and national online polls give nod to Obama:" News Tribune readers who answered an unscientific online poll Wednesday said Sen. Barack Obama won the third and final presidential debate over Sen. John McCain. Of 112 readers who voted between 9:30 and 11 p.m., 59 percent said Obama won while 41 percent said McCain won. [According to one reader] "I felt that the cool, calm, collected nature of Barack Obama was welcomed and needed in these already stressful and uncertain times of crisis. To me the long-standing reputation of John McCain as a maverick and a reformer was overpowered by his cynicism, sarcasm and smugness." [said] Adam White of Duluth.
OH – Columbus Dispatch (Darrel Rowland) "Undecided's dial it up for Obama:" Fifty women gathered in a Columbus hotel's conference room and got to do what millions of Americans probably wanted to do last night: Tell the presidential candidates exactly what they thought of them….This group of undecided voters' opinions were recorded every second of the 90-minute debate. The result? A major win for Democrat Barack Obama. Seventy-one percent of these undecided voters thought Obama did better in addressing the issues important to them, while only 9 percent felt that way about Republican John McCain. The group slightly favored Obama coming into the debate, but afterward he won support by about a 2-to-1 ratio.
PA – The Philadelphia Inquirer (Larry Eichel) "Some jabs, but there was no knockout:" Republican John McCain, desperately trying to launch a comeback with less than three weeks to go, was on the offensive all night, intense and focused. But Democrat Barack Obama had the same calm and steady presence he'd shown in their two previous encounters, answering some of McCain's attacks and shrugging off others, saying that the voters want to hear about their own problems instead. When it was all over, even though the debate was somewhat more contentious than the previous two, the likelihood was that nothing much had changed in the shape of the campaign. The first round of post-debate polls had Obama the overwhelming winner, as was the case in the previous two.
PA – Philadelphia Daily News (John Baer) It was an often angry, sometimes manic McCain trying to knock Obama off his cool at a time when voters are telling pollsters that they want a calm and steady hand steering the nation out of its economic crisis. Obama was his usual reserved self, often smiling and shaking his head instead of counterpunching. He patiently, even indulgently, explained and defended his programs and his campaign.
New York Post (Kirsten Powers) "Bam Gets Job Done" Even when McCain was substantively on point, his body language and tone were a distraction. McCain's facial expressions were akin to Al Gore's sighs in the 2000 debates with George W. Bush. At times McCain was downright nasty, speaking in sarcastic and condescending tones. Toward the end of the debate when they discussed education, McCain spoke to Obama with something bordering on disgust. Considering polls show that voters already view the McCain campaign as overly negative, this behavior couldn't have won over many people.
Boston Globe (Editorial) "Scattershot McCain" John McCain's fiery performance in the final presidential debate last night may have given a lift to some despondent supporters who have watched the election getting away from them. But it is less clear that McCain's buckshot approach hit its target…The stock market is in freefall. Basic needs are more expensive than ever. The very planet is in peril. These are serious concerns that face America's future. Yet, in a debate that McCain needed to win, he seemed fixated on some deluded throwback from the Vietnam era.
Los Angeles Times (Editorial) "McCain's debatable strategy" Throughout, Obama adopted a look of incredulity, but even his reserve was cracked by McCain's pivot out of the politics of personal attack. Immediately after demanding that Obama provide a full accounting of his relationships with ACORN and Ayers, McCain asserted: "My campaign is about getting this economy back on track, about creating jobs, about a brighter future for America." That disjointed segue was too much for Obama, who laughed.
Boston Globe (Scot Lehigh) "It's not even close": John McCain came into the final presidential debate needing a game-changer, a Ronald Reagan moment, a Jerry Ford-like blunder by Barack Obama, something - anything - that would reverse the strengthening tide now running hard against him. He didn't get it. Not even close.
Boston Globe (Joan Vennochi) "That's it for McCain": Its Over. John McCain still hasn't told the country why he should be president. He has talking points. He is against taxes, earmarks, and pork. But he can't knit what he opposes into a coherent economic philosophy that would inspire voters to get behind him in the final days of this presidential campaign. He has an inspirational life story. But in this campaign, he never connected his biography to his presidential ambition, and he never told voters how it would shape a McCain administration and make him a better president than his opponent.
New York Daily News (Thomas M. DeFrank) "Feisty John McCain works hard, can't score" It was John McCain's last big chance to tame the massive headwinds buffeting his fading campaign…Barack Obama came into the Hofstra debate handily ahead. Nothing Wednesday night altered that stark reality for McCain and his dispirited partisans.
New York Post (Carl Campanile) "Barack Rocks With Post Panel" The results are in and the winner is . . . Barack Obama… McCain's decision to attack Obama for his associations with 1960s Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers and the group ACORN backfired with The Post's panel of voters. Upper West resident Anne Maxfield said, "Ayers was a terrorist 40 years ago. We have serious economic problems in this country."
Los Angeles Times (Cathleen Decker) John McCain came into the third and final presidential debate needing to somehow wrestle the campaign out of Barack Obama's arms. He did not do it. There was no single moment that was likely to reverberate in the minds of American voters and change the course of an election that has moved dramatically toward Obama in the last several weeks. But the 90-minute debate was a perfect distillation of McCain's general election campaign, with all of its inconsistent messages.
TIME (David Von Drehle) "McCain Threw the Sink — and Plumber — But Obama Doesn't Falter" The problem for McCain is that no matter how hard or how crisply he punched, it could not last. In the end, the gravity of the debate returned to Barack Obama. The turning point was when McCain finally brought up the issue of Obama's ties to former the anti-Vietnam War terrorist William Ayers. All he accomplished was to swing the spotlight from himself back to the engaging newcomer. Predictably, Obama had a mild answer ready-as straightforward and uncontroversial as it was soothing… Mostly he tried to say that Obama-change is dangerous. Across the table, there sat Obama, looking not very dangerous.
Washington Post (Dana Milbank) Schieffer moved on to another question -- and Ayers and ACORN, after a five-minute cameo, were gone. In those five minutes, the Republican nominee became the man America had seen in his ads, whose slashing personal attacks on his opponent's character have, by most measures, done him more harm than good. Perhaps mindful of that, or perhaps set back by Obama's mild responses to his attacks, McCain, though delivering sharper jabs than he had in the earlier debates, was unwilling, or unable, to mount a sustained effort to undermine Obama's personal standing.
New York Times (Patrick Healy) "Pressing All the Buttons, McCain Attacks, but Obama Stays Steady": But then Mr. McCain began to undercut his own effort to paint Mr. Obama as just another negative politician. Mr. McCain grew angry as he attacked Mr. Obama over his ties to William Ayers, the Chicago professor who helped found the Weather Underground terrorism group. Suddenly, Mr. McCain was no longer gaining ground by showing command on the top issue for voters, the economy; he was turning tetchy over a 1960s radical…It seemed as if Mr. McCain was veering from one hot button to another, pressing them all, hoping to goad Mr. Obama into an outburst or a mistake that would alter the shape of the race in its last three weeks.
Newsweek (Richard Wolffe) "Mad Man" McCain didn't just need a game-changing moment at the debate; the Arizona senator, known in Washington for his sharp temper, needed a character-changing moment… Whatever happens in the next two weeks, the McCain campaign should be happy there are no more presidential debates.
Boston Globe (Todd Domke) "Good, but not good enough": John McCain needed to turn this third debate into a second chance. He needed to persuade undecided voters to look at him in a new, positive way and to look at Barack Obama in a new, negative way. He needed to change the dynamic of the contest because, ever since the economic crisis struck, Obama has had the advantages in message, momentum, money, and media…But it wasn't the dramatic breakthrough he needed, so, in effect, he lost.
The Hill (Sam Youngman) "Debate sees an aggressive McCain and a cool Obama:" With less than three weeks before Election Day, Sen. McCain (Ariz.) had promised to go after Obama more forcefully in their last meeting, and he did just that, accusing the Illinois senator of lying, wanting to raise taxes and associating with unscrupulous people and organizations. The Democrat, however, knowing that McCain needed a knockout blow, seemed to take McCain's best punches, explaining himself when warranted and focusing on the ongoing financial crisis and domestic policy at other times.
Politico (John F. Harris and Jim VandeHei) "Debate III: Edgy McCain sheds no new light": John McCain's challenge at the final debate was to present his case for the presidency in a new light. But over 90 minutes of intense exchanges with Barack Obama—sometimes compelling, often awkward—-there was very little new light, and no obvious reason for McCain to be optimistic that he has turned his troubled campaign in a new direction. To the contrary, what McCain offered at Hofstra University was simply a more intense, more glaring version of his campaign in familiar light —- an edgy, even angry performance that in many ways seemed like a metaphor for his unfocused, wildly improvisational campaign.
Politico (Roger Simon) "McCain fails, Obama is not rattled" John McCain needed a miracle in his final debate with Barack Obama on Wednesday night, a miracle that would wipe away McCain's deficit in the polls and re-energize his flagging campaign. He did not get one.
are you suggesting that we started as apes and returned to apes?
your racism sickens me.
Originally Posted By: rex
Does that mean we're all gonna turn into niggers?
Nice.
I expected this now that the whole Ayers thing was defused by Obama last night. What do you guys have left but the obvious reason. No one but the stupid are still buying the Muslim crap or care about his middle name or his pastor. al you have left is the desperate hope that there are enough racists out there to help McCian defeat Rex's "the nigger".
First there was the $440,000 American Insurance Group Inc. spent entertaining executives days after receiving an $85 billion lifeline from the Federal Reserve, now it's $86,000 for a hunting trip in England as the faltering company reaped another $37.8 billion in taxpayer funded loans.
News of the hunting trip emerged Wednesday as New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo ordered AIG to do away with golden parachutes for executives, golf outings and parties while taking government money to stay afloat.
"Even after the taxpayer-funded bailout of AIG, the company paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for luxurious retreats for its executives, including an overseas hunting party and a golf outing," Cuomo wrote in a letter to the New York-based insurer.
He said the spending could be "fraudulent conveyances" under a state law regarding debtors and creditors and noted that beyond those excesses millions were paid to executives who were running AIG as it faced dissolution with government help.
Cuomo said he has the power under state business law to review and possibly rescind any inappropriate AIG spending as long as the Federal Reserve is propping up the huge insurer with almost $123 billion in loans announced since Sept. 16.
Company officials said the hunting trip in the English countryside was an annual event for customers that had been planned months before the bailout. The company pledged — as it did following the September trip — to do everything possible to end such extravagances. They declined to say which AIG executives attended.
"This was an annual event for customers of the AIG property casualty insurance companies in the U.K. and Europe, and planned months before the Federal Reserve Bank of New York's loan to AIG," company spokesman Peter Tulupman said Wednesday morning.
In a prepared statement later in the day, the company said, "We will continue to take all measures necessary to ensure that these activities cease immediately. AIG's priority is to continue focusing on actions necessary to repay the Federal Reserve loan and emerge as a vital, ongoing business."
The company said last week it would stop "all nonessential conferences, meetings and activities that do not clearly maximize value and service given the current conditions."
Last month, and just days after the U.S. government stepped in to save AIG with the $85 billion taxpayer-funded loan, the company picked up a $440,000 tab for a weeklong retreat at the posh St. Regis Resort in California for top-performing insurance agents.
Lawmakers investigating AIG's meltdown said they were enraged that executives of AIG's main U.S. life insurance subsidiary spent a lavish amount on the retreat, complete with spa treatments, banquets and golf outings. Last week, White House Press Secretary Dana Perino called the event "despicable."
At that time, AIG issued a statement saying that the "business event" was planned months before the Sept. 16 bailout and that it was held for top-producing independent life insurance agents, not AIG employees. Of the 100 attendees, only 10 worked for the AIG unit hosting the event, it said.
The insurer said Chief Executive Edward Liddy sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson "clarifying the circumstances" of the event. In the letter, Liddy assured Paulson that AIG is "reevaluating the costs of all aspects of our operations in light of the new circumstances in which we are all operating."
The insurer then said it canceled a future California retreat that was to be held later this month.
Regarding the recent hunting trip, "We regret that this event was not canceled," Tulupman said Wednesday
This is exactly why McCain's plan for buying troubled loans from homeowners should have been the route taken. You give these lenders the money and they'll blow it on themselves. Obama and Bush bowed to the lobbyists and forked over the dough to AIG's instead of the Mom and Pops.
FL – St. Petersburg Times (Editorial) "McCain's last offensive:" On the same day a new poll showed that voters' confidence in the federal government has reached an all-time low, Obama spoke with a reassuring confidence…But when the questioning turned to campaign attacks by both sides, McCain could not contain his anger and lost much of his momentum. He again floated some dark connection between Obama and 1960s-era antigovernment radical Bill Ayers. When that punch failed to ruffle Obama, McCain ramped up his intensity. The split television screen displayed a candidate who gradually appeared more frustrated, condescending and dismissive of one who would not take the bait. Those facial expressions will not play well in the coming days.
WI – Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (Editorial) "The attack debate:" John McCain went into the final presidential debate on Wednesday looking for a game-changer, the need to reverse plummeting fortunes as measured by polls and likely fueled by national economic difficulties that do not favor members of the party now possessing the White House. Time - and an election - will tell, but our guess is that McCain missed the mark if that was his goal.
MO – Kansas City Star (Editorial) "Attacks can't shake Obama in debate:" Over the three presidential debates, Democrat Barack Obama has largely answered doubts about his readiness to be president of the United States. His unflappable temperament, thoughtful demeanor and rhetorical abilities were impressive. Republican John McCain's performances were more uneven, becoming increasingly aggressive.
MI - Detroit Free Press (Stephen Henderson) "Striving to get back in the game, McCain looks more desperate": It was probably unrealistic for anyone to believe that Republican presidential candidate John McCain could right the sinking ship of his campaign with a debate performance, but Wednesday night's encounter with Democrat Barack Obama only seemed to reinforce the idea that McCain is badly behind, and desperate. Here was McCain, answering a question about the negative tone of his campaign — and the very frightening tenor of recent rallies for McCain — by talking about the negativity of Obama's campaign, saying Obama's failure to agree to more than 10 town hall meetings was the reason things turned so negative. But overall, it was hard not to think of this campaign as largely over while watching the debate. Of course, anything can happen in the next few weeks, and history says the race will almost certainly tighten. John McCain, though, looked like a guy about to lose and fully aware of the desperation of his circumstances.
Des Moines Register (David Yepsen) "Obama Bests McCain In Final Debate" John McCain lost the final debate of the 2008 presidential campaign Wednesday night…McCain simply needed a breakout performance and he failed to provide one. He went into the forum trailing Obama in polls of the contest and he came out of in the same position. By doing so, McCain missed his biggest remaining opportunity to change the direction of the presidential contest.
MN – Duluth News Tribune (Staff Written) "Local and national online polls give nod to Obama:" News Tribune readers who answered an unscientific online poll Wednesday said Sen. Barack Obama won the third and final presidential debate over Sen. John McCain. Of 112 readers who voted between 9:30 and 11 p.m., 59 percent said Obama won while 41 percent said McCain won. [According to one reader] "I felt that the cool, calm, collected nature of Barack Obama was welcomed and needed in these already stressful and uncertain times of crisis. To me the long-standing reputation of John McCain as a maverick and a reformer was overpowered by his cynicism, sarcasm and smugness." [said] Adam White of Duluth.
OH – Columbus Dispatch (Darrel Rowland) "Undecided's dial it up for Obama:" Fifty women gathered in a Columbus hotel's conference room and got to do what millions of Americans probably wanted to do last night: Tell the presidential candidates exactly what they thought of them….This group of undecided voters' opinions were recorded every second of the 90-minute debate. The result? A major win for Democrat Barack Obama. Seventy-one percent of these undecided voters thought Obama did better in addressing the issues important to them, while only 9 percent felt that way about Republican John McCain. The group slightly favored Obama coming into the debate, but afterward he won support by about a 2-to-1 ratio.
PA – The Philadelphia Inquirer (Larry Eichel) "Some jabs, but there was no knockout:" Republican John McCain, desperately trying to launch a comeback with less than three weeks to go, was on the offensive all night, intense and focused. But Democrat Barack Obama had the same calm and steady presence he'd shown in their two previous encounters, answering some of McCain's attacks and shrugging off others, saying that the voters want to hear about their own problems instead. When it was all over, even though the debate was somewhat more contentious than the previous two, the likelihood was that nothing much had changed in the shape of the campaign. The first round of post-debate polls had Obama the overwhelming winner, as was the case in the previous two.
PA – Philadelphia Daily News (John Baer) It was an often angry, sometimes manic McCain trying to knock Obama off his cool at a time when voters are telling pollsters that they want a calm and steady hand steering the nation out of its economic crisis. Obama was his usual reserved self, often smiling and shaking his head instead of counterpunching. He patiently, even indulgently, explained and defended his programs and his campaign.
New York Post (Kirsten Powers) "Bam Gets Job Done" Even when McCain was substantively on point, his body language and tone were a distraction. McCain's facial expressions were akin to Al Gore's sighs in the 2000 debates with George W. Bush. At times McCain was downright nasty, speaking in sarcastic and condescending tones. Toward the end of the debate when they discussed education, McCain spoke to Obama with something bordering on disgust. Considering polls show that voters already view the McCain campaign as overly negative, this behavior couldn't have won over many people.
Boston Globe (Editorial) "Scattershot McCain" John McCain's fiery performance in the final presidential debate last night may have given a lift to some despondent supporters who have watched the election getting away from them. But it is less clear that McCain's buckshot approach hit its target…The stock market is in freefall. Basic needs are more expensive than ever. The very planet is in peril. These are serious concerns that face America's future. Yet, in a debate that McCain needed to win, he seemed fixated on some deluded throwback from the Vietnam era.
Los Angeles Times (Editorial) "McCain's debatable strategy" Throughout, Obama adopted a look of incredulity, but even his reserve was cracked by McCain's pivot out of the politics of personal attack. Immediately after demanding that Obama provide a full accounting of his relationships with ACORN and Ayers, McCain asserted: "My campaign is about getting this economy back on track, about creating jobs, about a brighter future for America." That disjointed segue was too much for Obama, who laughed.
Boston Globe (Scot Lehigh) "It's not even close": John McCain came into the final presidential debate needing a game-changer, a Ronald Reagan moment, a Jerry Ford-like blunder by Barack Obama, something - anything - that would reverse the strengthening tide now running hard against him. He didn't get it. Not even close.
Boston Globe (Joan Vennochi) "That's it for McCain": Its Over. John McCain still hasn't told the country why he should be president. He has talking points. He is against taxes, earmarks, and pork. But he can't knit what he opposes into a coherent economic philosophy that would inspire voters to get behind him in the final days of this presidential campaign. He has an inspirational life story. But in this campaign, he never connected his biography to his presidential ambition, and he never told voters how it would shape a McCain administration and make him a better president than his opponent.
New York Daily News (Thomas M. DeFrank) "Feisty John McCain works hard, can't score" It was John McCain's last big chance to tame the massive headwinds buffeting his fading campaign…Barack Obama came into the Hofstra debate handily ahead. Nothing Wednesday night altered that stark reality for McCain and his dispirited partisans.
New York Post (Carl Campanile) "Barack Rocks With Post Panel" The results are in and the winner is . . . Barack Obama… McCain's decision to attack Obama for his associations with 1960s Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers and the group ACORN backfired with The Post's panel of voters. Upper West resident Anne Maxfield said, "Ayers was a terrorist 40 years ago. We have serious economic problems in this country."
Los Angeles Times (Cathleen Decker) John McCain came into the third and final presidential debate needing to somehow wrestle the campaign out of Barack Obama's arms. He did not do it. There was no single moment that was likely to reverberate in the minds of American voters and change the course of an election that has moved dramatically toward Obama in the last several weeks. But the 90-minute debate was a perfect distillation of McCain's general election campaign, with all of its inconsistent messages.
TIME (David Von Drehle) "McCain Threw the Sink — and Plumber — But Obama Doesn't Falter" The problem for McCain is that no matter how hard or how crisply he punched, it could not last. In the end, the gravity of the debate returned to Barack Obama. The turning point was when McCain finally brought up the issue of Obama's ties to former the anti-Vietnam War terrorist William Ayers. All he accomplished was to swing the spotlight from himself back to the engaging newcomer. Predictably, Obama had a mild answer ready-as straightforward and uncontroversial as it was soothing… Mostly he tried to say that Obama-change is dangerous. Across the table, there sat Obama, looking not very dangerous.
Washington Post (Dana Milbank) Schieffer moved on to another question -- and Ayers and ACORN, after a five-minute cameo, were gone. In those five minutes, the Republican nominee became the man America had seen in his ads, whose slashing personal attacks on his opponent's character have, by most measures, done him more harm than good. Perhaps mindful of that, or perhaps set back by Obama's mild responses to his attacks, McCain, though delivering sharper jabs than he had in the earlier debates, was unwilling, or unable, to mount a sustained effort to undermine Obama's personal standing.
New York Times (Patrick Healy) "Pressing All the Buttons, McCain Attacks, but Obama Stays Steady": But then Mr. McCain began to undercut his own effort to paint Mr. Obama as just another negative politician. Mr. McCain grew angry as he attacked Mr. Obama over his ties to William Ayers, the Chicago professor who helped found the Weather Underground terrorism group. Suddenly, Mr. McCain was no longer gaining ground by showing command on the top issue for voters, the economy; he was turning tetchy over a 1960s radical…It seemed as if Mr. McCain was veering from one hot button to another, pressing them all, hoping to goad Mr. Obama into an outburst or a mistake that would alter the shape of the race in its last three weeks.
Newsweek (Richard Wolffe) "Mad Man" McCain didn't just need a game-changing moment at the debate; the Arizona senator, known in Washington for his sharp temper, needed a character-changing moment… Whatever happens in the next two weeks, the McCain campaign should be happy there are no more presidential debates.
Boston Globe (Todd Domke) "Good, but not good enough": John McCain needed to turn this third debate into a second chance. He needed to persuade undecided voters to look at him in a new, positive way and to look at Barack Obama in a new, negative way. He needed to change the dynamic of the contest because, ever since the economic crisis struck, Obama has had the advantages in message, momentum, money, and media…But it wasn't the dramatic breakthrough he needed, so, in effect, he lost.
The Hill (Sam Youngman) "Debate sees an aggressive McCain and a cool Obama:" With less than three weeks before Election Day, Sen. McCain (Ariz.) had promised to go after Obama more forcefully in their last meeting, and he did just that, accusing the Illinois senator of lying, wanting to raise taxes and associating with unscrupulous people and organizations. The Democrat, however, knowing that McCain needed a knockout blow, seemed to take McCain's best punches, explaining himself when warranted and focusing on the ongoing financial crisis and domestic policy at other times.
Politico (John F. Harris and Jim VandeHei) "Debate III: Edgy McCain sheds no new light": John McCain's challenge at the final debate was to present his case for the presidency in a new light. But over 90 minutes of intense exchanges with Barack Obama—sometimes compelling, often awkward—-there was very little new light, and no obvious reason for McCain to be optimistic that he has turned his troubled campaign in a new direction. To the contrary, what McCain offered at Hofstra University was simply a more intense, more glaring version of his campaign in familiar light —- an edgy, even angry performance that in many ways seemed like a metaphor for his unfocused, wildly improvisational campaign.
Politico (Roger Simon) "McCain fails, Obama is not rattled" John McCain needed a miracle in his final debate with Barack Obama on Wednesday night, a miracle that would wipe away McCain's deficit in the polls and re-energize his flagging campaign. He did not get one.
are you saying black people are fucking monkeys!!!!!!!!
britneyspearsatemyshorts annoyed Moderator Co-owner of the RKMBs, & Patriot 15000+ posts Fri Oct 17 2008 02:20 PM Reading a post Forum: Politics and Current Events Thread: McCain in 08?
He now has hired a racist who told voters McCain's daughter was a "black baby" in 2000. Interesting that McCain is interested in the skills of a slime merchant who peddles racism. Now that's hate you can believe in. From ABC's Jake Tapper:
Quote:
ABC News has learned that Warren Tompkins, one of the strategists of then-Gov. George W. Bush's South Carolina campaign in 2000 -- which Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., blamed for his family being slimed -- is now a part of the McCain-Palin campaign team, albeit in an "unofficial" role.
Tompkins, a protégé of Lee Atwater, has been dispatched to North Carolina to assess the state for the McCain-Palin campaign, Southern GOP strategists tell ABC News.....
The news of Tompkins being brought on board the McCain campaign brings to a total of three the number of GOP operatives McCain now is using despite the fact that he once held them responsible for the ugly campaign that contributed to his South Carolina primary defeat, a campaign in which McCain's wife Cindy was attacked for her past addiction to painkillers, and the McCains' adopted Bangladeshi daughter Bridget was targeted as his illegitimate black baby....
Eight years ago, of course, McCain was much chattier on the subject of these types of calls.
"A lot of phone calls were made by people who said we should be very ashamed about her, about the color of her skin," McCain told one interviewer. "Thousands and thousands of calls from people to voters saying 'You know the McCains have a black baby.' I believe that there is a special place in hell for people like those."
Now the people who slimed McCain's own daughter have a special place in John McCain's campaign. Way to defend your kid.
It's beyond clear that desperate McCain is now willing to go anywhere, do anything to achieve his own selfish personal ambitions. Hopefully Obama will hit him hard on his latest debasement of himself at the expense of his own family.
Al-Qaida supporters suggested in a Web site message this week they would welcome a pre-election terror attack on the U.S. as a way to usher in a McCain presidency.
The message, posted Monday on the password-protected al-Hesbah Web site, said if al-Qaida wants to exhaust the United States militarily and economically, "impetuous" Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain is the better choice because he is more likely to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"This requires presence of an impetuous American leader such as McCain, who pledged to continue the war till the last American soldier," the message said. "Then, al-Qaida will have to support McCain in the coming elections so that he continues the failing march of his predecessor, Bush."
It's funny watching someone get hit with their own boomerang.
But seriously, this is something I've been saying for a while now. Osama Bin laden doesn't specialize in terrorism, he specializes in bankrupting superpowers. And Bush/McCain are the type of imbeciles who think strutting macho-like all over the middle east and refusing to leave until there is some vague "victory" (that even Patraus said is the wrong way to look and define it), makes sense even when one of our own past operatives (bin Laden) used the same stubbornness against the Soviets to great success.
Al-Qaida supporters suggested in a Web site message this week they would welcome a pre-election terror attack on the U.S. as a way to usher in a McCain presidency.
The message, posted Monday on the password-protected al-Hesbah Web site, said if al-Qaida wants to exhaust the United States militarily and economically, "impetuous" Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain is the better choice because he is more likely to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"This requires presence of an impetuous American leader such as McCain, who pledged to continue the war till the last American soldier," the message said. "Then, al-Qaida will have to support McCain in the coming elections so that he continues the failing march of his predecessor, Bush."
It's funny watching someone get hit with their own boomerang.
But seriously, this is something I've been saying for a while now. Osama Bin laden doesn't specialize in terrorism, he specializes in bankrupting superpowers. And Bush/McCain are the type of imbeciles who think strutting macho-like all over the middle east and refusing to leave until there is some vague "victory" (that even Patraus said is the wrong way to look and define it), makes sense even when one of our own past operatives (bin Laden) used the same stubbornness against the Soviets to great success.
but ain't it funny....
No link.
November 6th, 2012: Americas new Independence Day.
whomod content User some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts 10/22/08 01:31 PM Making a new reply Forum: Politics and Current Events Thread: Re: Al-Qaeda endorses McCain !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Al-Qaida supporters suggested in a Web site message this week they would welcome a pre-election terror attack on the U.S. as a way to usher in a McCain presidency.
The message, posted Monday on the password-protected al-Hesbah Web site, said if al-Qaida wants to exhaust the United States militarily and economically, "impetuous" Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain is the better choice because he is more likely to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"This requires presence of an impetuous American leader such as McCain, who pledged to continue the war till the last American soldier," the message said. "Then, al-Qaida will have to support McCain in the coming elections so that he continues the failing march of his predecessor, Bush."
It's funny watching someone get hit with their own boomerang.
But seriously, this is something I've been saying for a while now. Osama Bin laden doesn't specialize in terrorism, he specializes in bankrupting superpowers. And Bush/McCain are the type of imbeciles who think strutting macho-like all over the middle east and refusing to leave until there is some vague "victory" (that even Patraus said is the wrong way to look and define it), makes sense even when one of our own past operatives (bin Laden) used the same stubbornness against the Soviets to great success.
but ain't it funny....
Well, now it makes sense...
figures Osama would back McCain since McCain has said that he'd let Osama go free... if he's in Pakistan.
Wow. Probably the biggest gaffe McCain has ever made, saying that he'd refuse to catch Osama bin Laden if he had him in his sights. Specifically, McCain and Palin have said that if they knew where bin Laden was hiding in Pakistan, and the Pakistani government refused to go in and get him for us, McCain and Palin would let bin Laden go free rather than going in and getting him ourselves.
Let me repeat: McCain and Palin would refuse to grab Osama bin Laden if he were in their sights because it would offend Pakistan, a sovereign nation. (Talk about being beholden to the UN crowd!)
Barack Obama has said that he would grab bin Laden. This infuriated McCain and Palin (though Palin, to be fair, agreed with Obama, twice, a month ago - she's just catching up on her bin Laden lessons at McCain University). McCain is all worried about hurting Pakistan's feelings, or something. It's really quite astounding, McCain would let a mass murdering terrorist go free. Good luck justifying that one to the American people.
I can't understand why the Obama people haven't jumped on this more strongly (sic Biden on it). I can see Obama or Biden now, saying something like this:
Quote:
My opponent and I have a fundamental disagreement. If I had Osama bin Laden in my sights, I would grab him. John McCain and Sarah Palin have said, vehemently, that they would let Osama bin Laden go free. We just fundamentally disagree on this point. John McCain and Sarah Palin are more worried about hurting a foreign government's feelings than catching the man who mass-murdered nearly 3,000 Americans. When McCain and Palin told us they were putting country first, we should have asked them which country. Talk about erratic.
The media needs to ask McCain and Palin, point blank, would you or would you not let Osama bin Laden go if you had him in your sights? Don't let them worm out of it - they've said quite clearly that they would let him go if the Pakistanis said "no." Ask them again and make them defend this horrendous admission.
Seems to me McCain is a bit soft on terror there, eh Rex?
Many Americans consider the Nov. 4 presidential election to be by far the most important one of our lifetime, a historic turning point for our nation.
We are divided over our involvement in wars overseas, shaken by the collapse of financial institutions and the weakened economy, uncertain about our families' future well-being, and seemingly more polarized on partisan, cultural and regional lines than ever.
This is a time for a president with deep experience and proven character, a president who thrives in the great, good, honest middle ground in which most Americans live, a president forthright enough to tell us what we'd rather not hear, a president with the courage to follow his convictions and the grit to persevere.
This is Sen. John McCain's time.
We endorse the Arizona Republican for president.
McCain offers up his compelling biography as a war hero, his admirable candor and his centrist independence in an increasingly polarized political environment. A McCain administration would chart a wiser course on the economy than one led by his Democratic opponent, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois. McCain's campaign has recently found a sharp focus on economic and tax issues, allowing voters to draw clear distinctions with policies Obama would pursue.
And as president, McCain would fill the need for some semblance of partisan balance in Washington, keeping what promises to be a more heavily Democratic Congress from running roughshod on business policy, unions, free trade, health care and more.
This endorsement comes with an acknowledgement - a celebration, really - of the historic nature of this campaign. Obama, the first African-American presidential nominee for a major party, stands poised as the front-runner to help America take a step thought unimaginable in previous decades.
Since bursting upon the national scene four years ago, the Illinois Democrat has become a formidable figure, employing his personal brilliance, political savvy and persuasive powers. We believe his candidacy has had a positive effect on how we are perceived abroad - and how we perceive ourselves. Because of Obama, American society is changed forever, and for the better.
But on a range of policies, McCain stands far closer to positions The Enquirer has taken over the years. With his experience and reputation as a skilled legislator, he'd be more effective than Obama - most of whose brief Senate career has been spent running for president - in working with Congress to craft sound bipartisan legislation.
Moreover, he has more consistently taken strong positions, and had the courage to stick with them, than Obama, who has tended to waffle, equivocate or simply wait to see which way the wind was blowing. When Russia invaded the republic of Georgia recently, for example, McCain issued a strong, well-reasoned policy statement with a tone of reassuring authority. Obama said nothing substantive, then later issued a belated "me too."
And let's not forget McCain's early, consistent support for the troop surge in Iraq when that plan was highly unpopular. His campaign for the GOP nomination seemed dead in the water, but McCain persevered and won his party's nod anyway. He was proven to be correct on the surge - a fact Obama has very grudgingly acknowledged.
Unlike Obama, McCain isn't a smooth, effective campaigner. But his record of leadership suggests he will be a far better president than candidate.
The recent dialogue between Obama and "Joe the Plumber," Ohio resident Joe Wurzelbacher, illustrated to voters Obama's focus on "spreading the wealth" through taxes rather than growing the nation's wealth by encouraging middle-class Americans to aspire upward, creating more businesses, jobs, income - and more tax revenue. "A strong government hand is needed to assure that wealth is distributed more equitably," Obama says. That's a zero-sum, central-control mentality.
That is a stark difference that McCain has seized upon. He would cut the nation's corporate tax rate, now the second highest in the world, to help keep jobs here. Obama would increase taxes on Americans making over $250,000, which includes small businesses that create most of the nation's new jobs, since 90 percent of small businesses file as individuals. Obama says only 2 percent of small businesses would be affected, but that 2 percent represents the largest such businesses, accounting for 56 percent of all small-business income and employing 16 million people.
Particularly disturbing is Obama's support for a pending bill, strongly advocated by labor, to institute a union check-card system that would allow the intimidation of employees and could, in effect, create a system of forced unionization. If Obama is elected, this will become law, to the detriment of our business climate and personal freedoms.
Obama's barely veiled attacks on free trade also are unsettling. And his plans to punish businesses that "take jobs overseas" may have a satisfying populist ring to many Americans, but the truth is that it would hurt the efforts of companies that produce substantial income overseas to sustain jobs here at home, such as Cincinnati-based Procter & Gamble, where many local jobs are tied to sales abroad. Obama's policy actually could send more jobs overseas.
On energy, McCain has been out in front, supporting measures to combat global warming and promote alternative sources as part of an "all of the above" strategy that includes more drilling and nuclear energy. Obama offered token support for drilling only when it became clear most Americans favored it.
McCain took heat for suspending his campaign last month during the financial meltdown, but his high-stakes gambit helped focus the public's attention on the crisis - and Congress' handling of it. He called for a solution to address the housing market and help homeowners with their mortgages, which the Fed this past week finally started to do.
Obama's record lies to the left of most Americans, yet he is running as a centrist who can reconcile a range of viewpoints. But can we have confidence he will govern from the middle? Will he even need to, or be able to, with a Congress heavily controlled by Democrats, perhaps with a filibuster-proof Senate? He would be under great pressure to approve a long list of measures - the union card-check proposal, elimination of limits on lawsuits and more - that have so far been blocked by the Senate.
It is much easier to see John McCain standing up to a Nancy Pelosi or vetoing a bad bill than Obama. McCain would preserve divided government, which has consistently produced better results for the American people - and which we have long advocated on the state as well as federal level. The prospect of unchecked one-party rule is disquieting.
Obama has run on a theme of change, but ironically McCain could be a more effective change agent on issues such as health care. His plan is clearly more progressive than Obama's, with tax credits stimulating competition, encouraging consumer responsibility, and countering the traditional employer-provided coverage subsidies that are unfair to those who don't have such coverage. McCain's strategy is one that Obama's now-chief economic adviser, Jason Furman, advocated two years ago. Obama would continue the current path of incremental steps toward a completely government-controlled and -rationed care system.
While the campaign has focused mainly on the issues, it has brought Americans some ugly rhetoric from the extremes on both sides. Both candidates have ably risen above it. McCain has consistently rebuked those who would insinuate racial prejudice into the equation. Yet the nation remains sharply divided country on partisan, ideological, cultural and racial lines. We urge the winning candidate to invite the loser to help him advance the nation's agenda.
America needs an experienced, skilled hand in the White House, someone who can exercise a moderating influence, someone who can summon the courage to change and the consistency to stick with his convictions. That someone, we believe, is John McCain.
Contrarian that I am, I'm voting for John McCain. I'm not talking about bucking the polls or the media consensus that it's over before it's over. I'm talking about bucking the rush of wet-fingered conservatives leaping to Barack Obama before they're left out in the cold without a single state dinner for the next four years.
I stand athwart the rush of conservative ship-jumpers of every stripe -- neo (Ken Adelman), moderate (Colin Powell), genetic/ironic (Christopher Buckley) and socialist/atheist (Christopher Hitchens) -- yelling "Stop!" I shall have no part of this motley crew. I will go down with the McCain ship. I'd rather lose an election than lose my bearings.
First, I'll have no truck with the phony case ginned up to rationalize voting for the most liberal and inexperienced presidential nominee in living memory. The "erratic" temperament issue, for example. As if McCain's risky and unsuccessful but in no way irrational attempt to tactically maneuver his way through the economic tsunami that came crashing down a month ago renders unfit for office a man who demonstrated the most admirable equanimity and courage in the face of unimaginable pressures as a prisoner of war, and who later steadily navigated innumerable challenges and setbacks, not the least of which was the collapse of his campaign just a year ago.
McCain the "erratic" is a cheap Obama talking point. The 40-year record testifies to McCain the stalwart.
Nor will I countenance the "dirty campaign" pretense. The double standard here is stunning. Obama ran a scurrilous Spanish-language ad falsely associating McCain with anti-Hispanic slurs. Another ad falsely claimed that McCain supports "cutting Social Security benefits in half." And for months Democrats insisted that McCain sought 100 years of war in Iraq.
McCain's critics are offended that he raised the issue of William Ayers. What's astonishing is that Obama was himself not offended by William Ayers.
Moreover, the most remarkable of all tactical choices of this election season is the attack that never was. Out of extreme (and unnecessary) conscientiousness, McCain refused to raise the legitimate issue of Obama's most egregious association -- with the race-baiting Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Dirty campaigning, indeed.
The case for McCain is straightforward. The financial crisis has made us forget, or just blindly deny, how dangerous the world out there is. We have a generations-long struggle with Islamic jihadism. An apocalyptic soon-to-be-nuclear Iran. A nuclear-armed Pakistan in danger of fragmentation. A rising Russia pushing the limits of revanchism. Plus the sure-to-come Falklands-like surprise popping out of nowhere.
Who do you want answering that phone at 3 a.m.? A man who's been cramming on these issues for the past year, who's never had to make an executive decision affecting so much as a city, let alone the world? A foreign policy novice instinctively inclined to the flabbiest, most vaporous multilateralism (e.g., the Berlin Wall came down because of "a world that stands as one"), and who refers to the most deliberate act of war since Pearl Harbor as "the tragedy of 9/11," a term more appropriate for a bus accident?
Or do you want a man who is the most prepared, most knowledgeable, most serious foreign policy thinker in the United States Senate? A man who not only has the best instincts but has the honor and the courage to, yes, put country first, as when he carried the lonely fight for the surge that turned Iraq from catastrophic defeat into achievable strategic victory?
There's just no comparison. Obama's own running mate warned this week that Obama's youth and inexperience will invite a crisis -- indeed a crisis "generated" precisely to test him. Can you be serious about national security and vote on Nov. 4 to invite that test?
And how will he pass it? Well, how has he fared on the only two significant foreign policy tests he has faced since he's been in the Senate? The first was the surge. Obama failed spectacularly. He not only opposed it. He tried to denigrate it, stop it and, finally, deny its success.
The second test was Georgia, to which Obama responded instinctively with evenhanded moral equivalence, urging restraint on both sides. McCain did not have to consult his advisers to instantly identify the aggressor.
Today's economic crisis, like every other in our history, will in time pass. But the barbarians will still be at the gates. Whom do you want on the parapet? I'm for the guy who can tell the lion from the lamb.
my father linked me to the article. and because he's smarter than me, i posted it here.
While I respect McCain's experience, economics isn't really his thing. Economic crises have toppled countries. This one will weaken us. Krauthammer would be voting republican reguardless of who the GOP put up. It could have been a pet rock & he would have had a smartly written column supporting that rock.
where will his bigotry and hatemongering end?
