A new 'Teflon-coated candidate'?
Barack Obama has been the target of countless attacks, from countless directions, but seems to be hanging on fairly well. Slate’s Jack Shafer argues that Obama has achieved a level of “superslipperiness,” as something of a “Teflon-coated candidate.”
As long ago as March, the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz demolished charges that the press was soft on Obama by cataloging the tough pieces published by reporters exhuming the candidate's past: his financial relationship with friend and fundraiser Antoin "Tony" Rezko, who is now a convicted felon; his friendship with former Weather Undergrounder William Ayers; his casting of 130 "present" votes as an Illinois legislator; his nuclear energy compromise in the U.S. Senate, said to benefit a contributor; incendiary comments made by his pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright; and more.
To that list add the recent critical dispatches tarring Obama as a flip-flopper. The New Yorker's Hendrik Hertzberg found "the big papers … assembling quite a list of matters on which the candidate has 'changed his position,' including Iraq, abortion rights, federal aid to faith-based social services, capital punishment, gun control, public financing of campaigns, and wiretapping."
What's unique about Obama and his candidacy is that almost none of the stuff the press throws at him sticks. Nor is the press alone in its inability to stick him. Hillary Clinton hurled rocks, knives, and acid at her rival even before the primaries (see this Jake Tapper piece from ABC News) and later upped the ante in desperation. She claimed that he was unprepared to serve as commander in chief and accused him of insulting gun owners and the religiously faithful. The eleventh-hour tactics may have won Clinton votes, but they failed to undermine Obama.
In hoping to explain Obama’s ability to shake off the attacks, Shafer pointed to Obama’s “poise and discipline,” which “allow him to resist whatever bait the press and politicians dangle in front of him.”
Perhaps, but I think the broader argument is flawed, for two reasons.
First, Shafer notes a series of “controversies” that never stuck to Obama, but overlooks the fact that these stories didn’t stick because they were baseless, trivial, or both. Obama answered all the questions about the Rezko matter, and reporters moved on when they realized there was nothing there. Obama was hammered on his “present” votes in the state legislature, until everyone took a closer look and realized why this wasn’t controversial at all. The press went berserk with arguments that Obama had “flip-flopped” on Iraq, guns, and Bush’s faith-based initiative, but it didn’t last because Obama hadn’t “flip-flopped” on Iraq, guns, and Bush’s faith-based initiative.
In other words, Shafer wonders why none of these stories stuck. But it’s not that mysterious — they didn’t stick because there were no real stories there. There was nothing to stick.
Second, I’m not sure if Shafer’s premise is right, either. Nothing negative has stuck to Obama? I seem to recall a few polls showing tens of millions of Americans believing that Obama is a secret Muslim — and the percentage has gone up as more information has become available. Indeed, a Newsweek from earlier this month found 25% of Americans believe Obama was raised a Muslim, and 40% believe he attended a Muslim school as a child. Neither of these claims is true, but they’ve “stuck” thanks to a concerted smear campaign.
For that matter, Obama has been generally consistent on almost everything, but if a CNN poll from earlier this month is any indication, the “flip-flopper” attack was pretty successful in sticking, too (even if the charge obviously applies far better to McCain).
McCain has been in relentless attack mode all week. And guess what happened?
I’d be delighted if none of the attacks against Obama stuck, but as far as I can tell, he’s not that lucky.
Well, here's hoping none of the stuff thrown at him is politically terminal between now
The Foreign Press is painting McPappy as a cranky old man.
Check out Watching America
between now and the election ...
When McCain says his campaign is "just having fun" with their attack ads against Obama, don't you believe it. Read more. http://www.tagg-lines.com/2008/08/whatsamattercant-ya-take-joke.html
what happened was gallup changed the polls
Your second point seems to contradict your first. The Muslim smears* are absolutely baseless - even moreso than Rezko, "present," or flip-flopping. And since when has the (lack of) factual basis for a political smear mattered to how well it stuck?
I think the truth lies somewhere between Shafer and your second point. Many things have been thrown against Obama; it's been difficult to get anything to really stick to him, in part because of his "poise and discipline;" nevertheless, some attacks do stick (in the public consciousness) and do their share of damage.
* - Not that being called a Muslim is, in a vacuum, a smear; however, in the context of an American presidential campaign, in this day and age, it is indeed a smear.
At No Quarter, they're still harping on Obama's "foreign" birth certificate. Which reminds me, why can't McCain's State department produce an I-94 for baby boy Obama born in "Kenya" when his mother brought him "into" the USA?
CoIntelPro for Pronktastic Victory Over SCLM, DIEBOLD, ESS and SEQUOIA! @ 5:
the question is never asked: how far does the SCLM consipracy, against all things (D) or progressive, go?
CNN occasionally debunks a Fux story.
MSNBC has KO.
Then there's the Blogs.
That's it!
I generally agree that there's no 'there' there, Steve. Or it's smaller than he describes. Yesterday's announcement that he'd be open to considering offshore oil drilling is a case in point: it's consistent with Obama's modus operandi in the Illinois legislature: playing the mediator's role to end seemingly impassible logjams. I recommend reserving judgment till we see what concessions he gains in return. Did he flip-flop? No, he said he 'might' alter his opposition, which merely indicates he's open to dealing. It hardly means drilling's a done deal, especially if the GOP is unwilling to make serious concessions of their own.
The charge was also raised on his 16 months out of Iraq pledge. Anyone with common sense recognizes that's a target that could fluctuate some because of conditions the military will deal with during the withdrawal phases. All he's done since is clarify that point of necessary flexibility.
He did flip-flop on telecom immunity and that hasn't been tefloned away. But your main point is spot on: most of the charges of fdlip flops have been baseless, opposition-led claims that the media thought were exploitable, only to discover they were easily refuted. And Obama does have the capacity to explain the difference between a modification or a clarification fairly convincingly.
But some of the non-substantive crap has stuck, despite all that, as you've noted. And will continue to, so long as Fox and Fox Jr (ABC-News) remain pledged as McCain's prom dates.
RSong @ 6:
It seems to Stick mostly on those members of what i call The Moron Factor (the 25% r's that vote constantly against their own personal interest)
There's nothing to stick, but this campaign is following the dirtball models they have inherited, detailed last night by Bill Moyers' Journal. See http://cabdrollery.blogspot.com
the role of the SCLM in this cannot be overlooked.
the "presumptuous" campaign they waged this week was on all networks freetv and cable.
the false meme get repeated without vetting everywhere.
mcC*nt gets free ad distribution and extra speech coverage. some announcer will parrot a response from barack by quoting/paraphrase from a spokesman.
an entire speech or segment from mcCain will be aired vs. an anchor 'quoting' a statement made by barack or a spokesperson.
what is important to focus on is the actual target of thes attacks: the mind of the voters.
CoIntelPro for Pronktastic Victory Over SCLM, DIEBOLD, ESS and SEQUOIA! @ 13:
Many of which have never developed past their Reptilian Brain.
My point exactly!
Now that McCain and the Republicants have pissed off Hollywood with their attack on Obama for being a 'celebrity', I hope they will turn their creative guns towards McCain.
Running While Black
By BOB HERBERT
Published: August 2, 2008: "Whatever you think about Barack Obama, he does not want the race issue to be front and center in this campaign. Every day that the campaign is about race is a good day for John McCain. So I guess we understand Mr. McCain’s motivation. Nevertheless, it’s frustrating to watch John McCain calling out Barack Obama on race. Senator Obama has spoken more honestly and thoughtfully about race than any other politician in many years. Senator McCain is the head of a party that has viciously exploited race for political gain for decades. He’s obviously more than willing to continue that nauseating tradition." 8/3
'No Values Voters' Looking To Support Most Evil Candidate'
☻..Bangkok Bob..☻♫♪ Sawatdee @ 14:
I would not attack or antagonize them. just keep educating them and it will sink in. trust me. they will be proud of themselves when they finally vote for their own self-interest for a change and know that it was their own idea.
Do unto others...good sportmanship...not one lousy politician ever follows these.
I don't think you give Obama enough credit - in the past, baseless (Swift Boat Vets) and trivial (the Dean "scream") stories have lost elections for Dems. Obama's handling of these issues has a lot to do with the stories not sticking.
They didn't stick because the media didn't follow up on them. The media was too busy looking for racist dogwhistles in everything Hillary and Bill said.
Jay Severin Has A small Pen1s @ 16:
I might be grasping at straws but I think that most of the msm knows that McCrazy doesn't stand a chance in November so they mostly ignore his verbal nonsense and concentrate on Obama and even though the "polls" are tight we all know that either the "polls" are rigged or better still they( the "polls") mean nothing, at this point!
I urge everyone to read David Michael Green's piece: Barackis Dukakis?
It's time for Obama to throw a few big punches.
[snip]
This is your swiftboat moment, dude. John Kerry waited three weeks to respond to the crap they threw at him, after which he might as well have gone off windsurfing and not bothered responding at all. Why are you not shredding McCain for lying about your Iraq trip and the canceled visit to wounded soldiers? (Even the media is pointing that out, despite the fact that they love McCain almost as much as they fear the GOP.) Why are you not disemboweling McCain every day of the week, every week of the month, for his outrageous allegation that you are sacrificing lives in order to win an election?
And why aren’t you on the offensive? McCain has given you openings you should be able to drive a Mack truck through, and you need to be saturating the airwaves with these. Why isn’t every other television commercial a viewer sees one of yours, showing Phil Gramm calling Americans "whiners" for feeling economic pain, showing McCain saying "Gramm doesn’t speak for me", then noting that Gramm in fact spoke on behalf of McCain to the Wall Street Journal on that very same day? Why aren’t you running ads turning McCain into George Bush’s long lost Siamese twin? Why aren’t you hammering McCain at his point of greatest strength, undercutting his so-called national security credentials by showing clips of all his errors, including before the war began when he said it would go easily, during the early parts when he said it was going fine, his absurdly bogus Baghdad market walk-through, and his myriad recent gaffes which suggest his brain clicked off sometime in the 1980s?
Despite the fact that the candidate has now issued a semi-strong rebuttal spot two weeks into this ugliness, I must say, I liked the Barack Obama of the primary season better than the current model. I liked his politics and his integrity more, but most of all I liked his fighting spirit, and his immediate response to scurrilous attacks.
Now that the attacks have gotten worse, I’m wondering what happened to that guy?
Hey Barrackis: One Dukakis is per lifetime is more than enough.
McCain and his Gang of Rove have more than transcended the threshold of decency these past weeks, and have done so repeatedly.
It’s time for you to take him down.
It may that the people are forming their own opinion of Obama and not adopting the one offered by McCain and the media.
None of the stories about Gore and Kerry were true either, but boy did they stick. Obama deftly parries these attacks in a way the others simply could not. They don't stick because he brushes them off, frequently with dismissive remarks that reveal how silly the charges are. As Lakoff argues, the truth alone will not set you free, you must change the frame. Obama is a master at doing so.
False Dmitriy @ 26:
and he is not given enough credit.
False Dmitriy @ 26:
Let's admit that the true master of frame changing is KARL ROVE.
Obama has decided to be all things to all people in recent weeks. He needs to go back to his primary self.
But make no mistake, it is a concerted effort by anything remotely Republican with money. Here in the Southwest, in my locality, the only newspaper is a Republican Rag. Always has been, and always will be! On page one, top headline is "Obama considers offshore drilling" then on the Saturday Commentary page just a few pages later, i.e., the editorial page carrys these two bylines: McCain raps Obama over school vouchers and McCain defends Web ad mocking Obama.
The point is that they are slick in their methods of mind control. Most people will not read past the headlines and recognize the absurdity of the notion that it is important to display humor, like the Wiley the Fox mannerisms of Bush, as one seeks the power that has been used to screw us all (except the monied interests that sadly includes some democrats) in the last few decades. They are emboldened and they will be relentless. Their targets are intellectually lazy and child-like.
He is actually handling this in the manner of Sun Tzu's 'Art of War'. Remaining serene but alert while the McWreck machine sputters toward a blown engine.
As for the polls, MyDD's Jerome just posted a very handy trend line summary of ALL the polls where the averages clearly show McCain in a downward trend and Obama on an upward. This has been consistent. Pig media just over reports ONE with the most favorable outcome for McCain while ignoring the other TEN.
I mentioned before that the Campaign has no modern precedent so comparisons to Kerry and other failures are useless. Apples are not Oranges. The conventions are happening later than usual as well. The GOP convention is being widely abandoned by incumbents and there is huge excitement about the Dem convention.
Remember, it is an unusually dull august, the undecided numbers are the interesting ones and most people are not paying attention compared with the overwrought commentariat.
bigironal @ 23:
the "Polls" neglect an important part of the whole dynamic, many of today's younger people who will be voters do not have a land-line, and since they can't poll Cell-Phones they are missing some important numbers. The DNC should be making moves to make sure the youth vote is important. They need to know they make a great difference in this election.
If you want something that requires Teflon, how about the Keating scandal? How did John McCain make that rotten, burned omelet slide off? Then there's McCain's constant, career-long exploitation of his POW status, which he uses as a talisman to fend off all criticism. Will nothing stick to this man's barbecue?
chicano2nd @ 29:
Forgot to mention, what sticks doesn't stick to Obama because it sticks in the mind-void of the mindless minions!
I understand that Senator Obama has to "Come to the middle" to an extent, to get elected. Ok, I get that.
It's just the more he does it, the harder it is to support him. I'll still support him till this election is over. One way or another.
But this sea sawing on offshore drilling, that's a tough one to accept. Coupled with all the others, and we've got a problem.
I just want to reiterate, that I do understand why he's doing it. But it makes ya wonder sometimes.
Richard @ 25:
It's effin' about time this happened! When people stop thinking the government is taking care of them and realize they've been getting screwed these past (your number here) number of years, they're gonna react. Hopefully Diebold and other voting machine companies haven't rigged things for the republicans yet again.
Did anyone see the press conference Obama held this morning? If you did you know why the stuff doesn't stick to Obama. He addresses it and then raises the level of the conversation to subjects that are important. Of course no tv channel seemed to have time on a Saturday morning to devote to his whole press conference but Fox and MSNBC covered some of the beginning of it. I feel much better after hearing his explanation of why he might include some offshore drilling. I'm certainly not thrilled about it but I think now I understand more about his decision.
Could be the reason for the so called "non stick" capability Obama has acquired is because of his ability to strike back but in such subtle ways it's not recognized as a retaliation. The incident merely evaporates as a news item. Add the fact that McCain can't remember what he said when. If it's an item a day old ... it's gone!
Of course Barack Obama has flip-flopped on several issues and those who want to deny it do so at America's peril.
Oil drilling is just the latest in a string of flip-flops of this chameleon (his favorite color is that of Big Money).
The only real difference between Obama and McCain is a shade of color.
Progressives are going to be highly pissed off when they realize that Barack duped them.
Crazy! I can't believe you don't start your article by stating that you blog for Obama. He hasn't flip-flopped?! Fine. Let's use a different word... he has not stood his ground on many issues that people voted for him on.
I can expect an Obama presidency to continue funding both sides of the Israeli-Arab conflict, see an invasion of Iran, a continuation of every illegal war on the people by the government (a la War on Drugs, War on Poverty, War on Terrorism, etc).
You can say Obama has not changed his position on anything but if it looks like a duck... quacks like a duck, then sir, IT IS A DUCK! DUCK = Obama!
pissed off patricia @ 36:
I didn't catch it P.O.P.
The words I want to hear him say, "Only as an absolute last resort will we drill offshore" That's what I want to hear. Use all other avenues before going off shore.
I sent this out to my mailing list, just in case it wasn't shown by the media.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWRRtslRQuo
pissed off patricia @ 36:
where?
BuelahMan @ 38:
Do you know how to read? Did you see his press conference? Do you really understand the English language? If you did, you would understand that there is only one flip-flopper who is also a devious liar.
mudshark @ 40:
I'm not sure he used the words you would like to hear but he made it part of a compromise possibility. I understood where he was coming from. If the right keeps stomping their feet and saying drill and the left keeps doing the same thing and saying don't drill, we will be getting no where. I wish to hell there was another way, but I can see his point. He isn't talking about saying hey let's drill the hell out of the coast, he's very selective about what he might agree to and why.
CoIntelPro for Pronktastic Victory Over SCLM, DIEBOLD, ESS and SEQUOIA! @ 42:
Where was the news conference? In Florida, maybe Orlando. Where about the drilling? He mentioned nowhere specifically.
I dislike that "Muslim Obama," even if it were true (which it emphatically ain't, the guy's been a Christian for longer than I've been alive), is somehow negative. Islam is the faith of 1 billion people. That Americans have turned a faith of that size and variation into a smearword, is really a sign of how low we've sunk.
Even more disturbing is that it's not only a lying smear, it's stuck to him like shit on a wall...
HectorinMiami @ 39:
Meh, people who actually expected something to change were stupid, that's all I'll say.
McCain is cheer leading for offshore drilling.
Obama is saying he might consider it.
Big difference! At least it looks that way to me.
General_Rennenkampf @ 46:
I could not agree with you more!
P.O.P.@44
I have caught this comment before, sometime during the week. This concerns me greatly. It would be quicker just to force auto makers to install more fuel efficient engines. Switch some engines to natural gas, like all govt vehicles , from the local level all the way up to national. More Vehicles like the Prius. In fact I say use that car as a proto type and expand on it. Wind and Solar.
We don't need to drill offshore, Let them drill on land first, it's cheaper. And "Should " cost us less in the long run. But I won't hold my breath.
pissed off patricia @ 45:
Well, there goes Florida. With 25 electoral Votes.
pissed off patricia @ 48:
Except he pretty much declared it anathema before saying he'd consider it. That's nothing out of the ordinary for a politician, but then I never bought the "change" line, either.
pissed off patricia @ 49:
What's more, I'd like the religious nonsense for selecting candidates to stop, and I say that as a Christian. If you believe in the polka-dotted monster under your bed as your deity, but you make a good President, you get the job. Not if (like a lot of the GOP candidates) your only qualification is how much devoutness of faith you have.
McCain has found the perfect, for him, strategy. Go completely negative because:
1. The media will only mildly tsk-tsk, and he's convinced the public the media likes Obama anyways
2. Obama won't hit back because he's running a classier campaign
3. IF Obama does hit back, then the media and McCain will turn to him and say, but I thought you were supposed to be doing this at a higher standard? (ignoring that McCain said the same thing)
Obama is in a real rock and a hard place situation and I fear it may be nigh impossible for him to break out of it in the short term.
My hope is that the debates, when the public IS paying attention, will highlight things more positively for Obama, and my belief is whomever comes out ahead after the debates are over, usually ends up winning.
I think we are going to see a time pre-debate where Obama actually falls behind.
General_Rennenkampf @ 52:
yeah, neither did I. But this Offshore thing is a huge issue here in Calif.
I was just down in the Santa Barbara Channel a few weeks ago. Oil all over the rocks. You couldn't walk more that a few feet without seeing more of it.
mudshark @ 50:
I know jack shit about how all this is going to be done, but I do know that the sooner we get started the quicker we can see results.
With the present administration all they are going to do is scream drill. We'll not get an opportunity to make some changes in many directions until after next Jan. Right now my main concern is trying to protect my states coastlines.
If drilling is done under this administration or any repub administration they are going to say to hell with the coastal environment. I do have faith in a dem. administration being at least concerned about the effects on the coast.
mudshark @ 51:
A recent poll in Fla .said six out of ten residents were in favor of drilling off Florida's coast. That's so sad.
mudshark @ 55:
I live near the Gulf Coast, we've had drilling off our shores for years. I have little sympathy, to some degree, with people who want to complain about it while we still deal with it. Of course, it's bad in the long term for the ecosystem as a whole, including man, but until suitable long-term energy is found, we still have drilling off our shores.
pissed off patricia @ 57:
Again, try living in Louisiana, we've had this drilling off our shores for years. It's bad in the long run, but until and unless an alternative energy source is found....
pissed off patricia @ 56:
Sadly P.O.P. I think your state will get it first. What better place to do it, Right in Hurricane alley. I'm not trying to piss you off Patricia : ).
When the oil companies pay their CEOs more than they spend on R&D, we have big reasons to be concerned. Why aren't they drilling on the 68 million acres where they already have leases?
I'm aware of how much offshore drilling there is in this country. In the Gulf, Atlantic and Pacific. This is the time when we should be saying enough with gasoline. We should be pounding home alternative fuels, more efficient engines. Seems to me we're creatures of habit. just going back to the same old. What we need is a leader who'll say Enough! Time to move forward into the 21st century. You Know, A Real Leader.
mudshark @ 60:
I know what you mean and from what I can understand the first place would be in the northern gulf of mexico so that it could tie in to the lines that are already there to the west. I live on the east coast of Florida and I hope they leave this coast alone. We have such a diverse community of wildlife including nesting sea turtles. I know I sound selfish, but it's not about me, it's about the land and the creatures who call the beaches and estuaries home.
mudshark @ 62:
That's exactly what should be done, but remember, no free lunches in nature. In 200 years alternative energy sources will likely prove to have different, equally evil flaws as oil, and then things will be made worse by that.
BuelahMan @ 38:
Repubiscums are going to be very surprised when President Obama and the Democratic controlled Congress begin changing our laws back to where they were befor Chimpy was elected. I expect there are quite a few government employees (loyal Bushies perhaps) who will be looking for jobs come January. I wonder how many corporate America will absorb into their ranks? I mean if I needed a lying, cheating administrator I would most definately hire a former employee of the bush administration just for their experience.
pissed off patricia @ 63:
We have those creatures, including alligators, here in Louisiana. We still have drilling. Alternative energy would be the best alternative, yet....
It's because the American people have ADHD and lose interest. It's only the bullshit lies the right wing makes up that they remember. Like Obama's a Muslim.
General_Rennenkampf @ 66:
Absolutely!
BuelahMan @ 38:
I guess you are not in tune with the reality of politics, which means that sometimes compromise is necessary to get what you really want. If you want a candidate that is ideologically as pure as the driven snow and would never bend, frankly, you are the dupe. Take a look at the bigger picture of this bill they are trying to pass and understand why Barack thought this was needed. I detest drilling but the alternative is to do nothing and have gridlock. We need to get our victories incrementally---and that takes some time. Progressives will get a lot more traction once we convince voters to throw out every Luddite Republican obstructionist in our government. Politics is not a game for the impatient, like it or not.
General_Rennenkampf @ 64:
I would hope that the new technologies would take into account the affects on the environment.
I would hope that we've learned from the past.
But we're talkin big business. So I won't be shocked if they don't take these factors into account.
This is all a ruse cooked up by Cheney with his energy policy. Jack up the prices so they can drill offshore. It's as simple as that.
The Republicans are SO much better at this. The new rule is they can say and do anything, without regard to merit or veracity. Then, they scream, rant and rave over anything that is done to them and the Dems defend themselves and apologize. I wish I was on their side. They are so much better at politics.
McCain says Obama played the race card. He should also claim that Obama played the funny name card and the age card as well. Obama mentioned he has a funny name and that he is young, among other things that would be said about him. That's how screwin' ridiculous this whole thing has become.
mudshark @ 34:
First, its him over the same old bs. Then its hold his admistrations feet to the fire in some semblance of a united front. How? The net has potential.
mudshark @ 70:
The sad part is, people are falling for it.
McCain's campaign is playing to the MSM. They know if they can hand them something negative about the opposition that they can chew on for weeks until finally the public pays attention, that space in time their candidate can just sit back and watch the press work for them for free.
There are two different types of "teflon" candidates. In both cases what ever is said about the candidate does not seem to stick to them. The difference is in the details. In the case of Senator John McCain it seems that anything he says, no matter how stupid, how wrong, how deceitful, how misinformed or how manipulative his remarks or comments or his answers are the MSM does not care. They will still call him that maverick, that straight shooting man of integrity who speaks with straight tongue. The guy who salutes the flag, helps little old ladies across the street. The guy who makes sure HIS Vets are treat both medically and with the proper respect that they richly deserve. It the case of Senator Obama it seems that the sleazy lies put out by the talking points of the RNC and the talking heads on Cable and Broadcast networks has not had as much impact as they had hoped for. If you keep throwing mud on the the wall some of it will stick. In the case of Senator McCain the mud is thrown at the candidate by either the candidate himself or the candidates own staff.
mudshark @ 51:
what network covered it?
mudshark @ 74:
It's pretty effective. Squeeze people's purses and they howl.
qazplm @ 54:
1. some in the media have actually pushed back
2. Obama does respond and the media generally ignores, mutes or paraphrases it.
3. has been proven to be a false argument. what has been done is the false equivalence attack: somehow both candidates are going negative, some have said!?!?
mudshark @ 74:
They've sort of been forced into it. I called this shot a long time ago. I said the price of gas would go up so high people would say "uncle" and then we would hear the words offshore drilling relentlessly.
The first clue was when the repubs began talking about getting off foreign oil. There was no mention of oil or domestic oil, only foreign oil.
This is cheney's farewell gift to his oil buddies.
Seems to me Obama has the benefit of having gone through Penn and Teller's insensitivity training, if you caught their show last night.
pissed off patricia @ 72:
Obama originally mad that comment in June. Delayed reaction? or the added presence of Rove?
CoIntelPro for Pronktastic Victory Over SCLM, DIEBOLD, ESS and SEQUOIA! @ 77:
check my comment #36 on this thread.
CoIntelPro for Pronktastic Victory Over SCLM, DIEBOLD, ESS and SEQUOIA! @ 82:
Yep it fit in nicely with the other negative stuff they had planned for this past week. Use it when needed.
Obama's first week back from his trip so keep him off message with negative attacks he has to respond to over and over.
Does it appear to anyone else that the McCain insane campaign is shooting its load early? What are they going to have left when October rolls around?
General_Rennenkampf @ 78:
Yeah, It's affective alright. They know wtf they're doing.
But this is also an opportunity to start convincing people about alternative energies
I honestly think Obama is just buying time. So once he gets in office, he can start the alternative energy policies.
I really don't see him being pro offshore drilling. I see him as more alternative. But hey, What ever it takes.
The C&L piece says that the Obama attacks have been baseless and that's why they haven't stuck. Wrong. Republican attacks are usually baseless, but that hasn't stopped them from being extremely effective in turning the electorate against countless democratic candidates, congress, or Presidents.
Obama is indeed different because of his 'poise and discsipline'. He never says anything nasty and continues to run a 'different kind of campaign' -- his own campaign, whatever the others are doing around him. The longer he survives, the better he looks.
Teflon is not the best analogy for Obama. Rubber is. Stuff doesn't just 'not stick', it bounces back to the thrower, making he or she look like an idiot -- as it has done so far with both Hilary and McCain.
lj @ 85:
That should be about time to resurrect Rev. Wright again.
McCain says his ad comparing Obama to moses, or whoever that was who parted the sea, is just about having a sense of humor. Maybe McCain could use that sense of humor when Obama describes himself as not looking like other presidents on our currency?
Off to work now, Have a nice one folks.
lmab @ 71:
Got that right. While the Republicans go for the jugular, Democrats go for coffee.
Take care, mudshark. I'm outta here too.
mudshark @ 70:
You are exactly right! I haven't read The Shock Doctrine, but this whole todo about off-shore drilling seems to fit into that category. Confabulate a crisis into existence and then profit mightily from finding a so-called fix.
There is no urgent need to drill for oil offshore or in other protected areas. We do not have enough refinery capacity in this country to refine more oil than is already available anyway.
The urgent need is to rein in speculators and robber barons.
The urgent need is to create a REAL energy policy, one that addresses the real needs of the people, the economy and the environment - not just the money grubbing oil men - pals of Cheney & Bush.
The urgent need is to incentivize folks who have the expertise to develop new and better means of energy utilization as well as exploring already existing technologies that have been passed over due to pressure form the oil barons ( I remember reading somewhere about a dicsovery by N. Tesla a century ago that might be useful in today's world).
There is an urgent need for someone - hopefully Obama - to stand up and speak the whole truth about these issues. He's come closer than most politicians, but.....
pissed off patricia @ 88:
Yes, and have you noticed how many times they use "oh, come on it was a joke--have a sense of humor" to cover slurs, and other Rovian stuff. How would they react to senility jokes on McCain's behalf?
This should be the yard stick for any type of accusation: Apply it to both sides, then compare & contrast. then cite the source and the full story, since McCain is lying right & left to try to smear Obama. I bet that mcCain would suddenly run a "civil" campaign on the issues, when he gets held up to the same yardstick as he hold up to Obama.
HectorinMiami @ 39:
Excellent, excellent points. Perhaps the biggest misconception regarding Obama is that he is somehow to be regarded as a "true progressive". This ignores Obama's stance on health care [does not support single payer], his refusal to back Congressman John Murtha's early withdrawal plan from Iraq, his desire to leave anywhere from 32,000 to 80,000 troops in Iraq even after his phased withdrawal is finally complete, his desire to send, incredibly, MORE troops into Afghanistan, which will lead to more misery for the Afghani people, his ties to Big Business [Goldman Sachs, UBS AG, Lehman Bros., J P Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, etc.], his imperial positions on Israel/Palestine, Columbia, Chile, the previously mentioned militaristic attitude toward Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran, his desire to add more troops to the military as well as increasing the military budget. His world view of the United States seems illusionary at best if not outright dangerous, as when Obama was quoted in Parade magazine a few weeks ago as proclaiming that "The greatness of our country" lies in "its victories in war." Obama seems to have great faith that the vast majority of the American electorate will pay no attention to the fact that he supported the Patriot Act and the wiretapping of U.S. citizens as well as being against the impeachment of one of the most criminal administrations in this country's history.
Those who consider themselves to be of the left should acknowledge that Obama and McCain are more similar than dissimilar. Both candidates believe in America's right to use the military as they see fit, in order to serve America's "strategic interests." Obama has said that "We lead the world in battling immediate evils and promoting the ultimate good" with McCain basically concurring by stating that "We must lead by building a 21st century military... to advance the security of all peoples." Obama says that he would go after "terrorists" by attacking Pakistan while McCain would be in agreeing with that statement. Both candidates swear their fealty to Israel at the expense of the suffering of the Palestinian people.
True progressive should realize with Obama, all that glitters is not not gold.
The attacks being pure bullshit has nothing to do with whether or not they stick. Just ask John Kerry.
If Obama goes negative, then may as well charge McSenile with being ... SENILE!
there is ample evidence of his "gaffs" and not knowing what the hell he is talking about.
Do we want a senile old man who can't remember Shia from Sunni or invents artificial borders and countries and artificial facts inside his head about oil drilling bringing results in 2 years or can't answer a question on women's rights without checking "what his last position was?"
Do WE??
That would make a nice dirty ad that hits home at how ridiculous it is to even think about electing Mr. McGoo/McCain!!
A Teflon-coated candidate? I call it CLASS
How in the world can anyone judge whether the smears are sticking or not?
I'd venture a guess that many of them ARE sticking, otherwise, Obama would have double-digit leads in just about every poll. The Emcee Same crowd isn't actually backing him because they thing he rocks the house, they're just voting against Obama.
Wow, the air must be pretty thin up there on planet Obama. BO has been the dandy of the press for over a year now. CNN and MSNBC, you know the two networks who sold us Bush and the Iraq War, are working overtime to peddle this empty suit to the voters. Unfortunately, for them, it's not working. This week's race baiting and flip-flopping are taking a toll. Obama is running dead even against the worst campaigner in decades.
Erroll @ 94:
Most sensible progressives understand quite well that Obama's not "the golden one." The reality is, given two options: Emcee Same or Obama, we pick the more progressive option, Obama.
What's your solution, pray tell? Vote for Emcee Same? Not vote at all?
Johnny @ 99:
Yeah, and the shit must be pretty thick down there on planet Johnny!
The world is hoping that sanity will prevail in the USA and folks see McCain for exactly what he is. A bitter, silly and mean person who will do and say anything to get his way.
Not all that different from the 2000 and 2004 campaign
Johnny @ 99:
However, the Air is cleaner up here
Johnny @ 100:
um.....the iraq war cheerleading was led by *gasp*faux snooz.yes all networks followed the cheerleading but to accidentally forget faux snooz in your accusation against the eeeevil msnbc smells more than a bit trollish.
I just got back from a town hall meeting in Brevard Co. fla. Part of the reason is the easy offhand manner in which Obama deflects these childish ads and smears. He makes it seem (rightfully so) that they are acts of a desperate befuddled man with no clear vision of what he will do only try to scare the shit out of people willing to vote for a black man. For many in the south Obama's education and charisma are a threat to the status quo It's hard to maintain that fried chicken and watermelon mentality when the speaker is obviously a hellava lot smarter than you are
I don't know about Obama being Teflon:
A small study of people's reactions to the Britney-Paris ad suggested, however, that while people don't like the ad, it caused them to doubt Obama, and small percentages who'd said before viewing the ad that they'd vote for him said afterword that they wouldn't.
Those declines didn't result in more support for McCain; doubting Democrats and Republicans instead moved into the undecided column. Independents who moved away from Obama did say they'd vote for McCain.
The study was conducted among self-reported Democrats, Republicans and independents by HCD Research and the Muhlenberg College Institute of Public Opinion.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/46165.html
konchster @ 106:
Well said
rekroc @ 101:
"... given two options..." Is one actually supposed to take that statement seriously? What you are doing is repeating the lie that is handed out not only by the mainstream media but now, apparently, by the so-called liberal blogs. Believe it or not, there are actually more than two options for progressives. There are candidates such as Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney, Gloria LaRiva. Your bizarre statement could be taken straight from Orwell's Animal Farm- 2 legs good, four legs bad. In this case, according to you, one can vote for any candidate one wishes, as long as that candidate is either a Democrat or a Republican. But as I attempted to point at comment #95, apparently to no avail, Obama and McCain are more similar than dissimilar.
"Given two options." I seriously doubt come November that one will see on one's ballot, only the names of Obama and McCain. As Kucinich has correctly pointed out, if one votes for the lesser of two evils, one still ends up with an evil. Obama may be presented in a more palatable package than McCain but he is still a corporate tool who is willing to use the military to further his own imperialistic ends. You may choose party over principle but I will not. I made the incredibly stupid decision to vote for Kerry in 2004. I will not be making that same mistake in voting for a Democrat in 2008. I will, instead, be voting my conscience, along with my head and my principles, in 2008.
Obama has run a very clean high road campaign. McCain, on the other hand, gets slimier by the ad and out right lies about Obama's statements on the campaign trail. So far, Obama has simply brushed off McCain's tactics as juevinile, but I think after this week he is going to have to hit back hard with something cutting and powerful. He could do a factual ad with all McCain's gaffes. Use McCain's own words and video clips against him. It would be much more powerful than anything the Obama campaign could do or say. Let McCain hang himself with his own clips. McCain's campaign demonstrates he has no more character than Bush and we can't take another Bush. The country wouldn't survive.
Erroll @ 109:
Umm... no. I'm actually being pragmatic. You know damn well that there is no candidate who has a chance in hell of winning this election other than McSame or Obama. By voting for Nader, McKinney, etc. you are, in essence, voting for nobody because your vote will mean nothing and it will accomplish nothing.
But feel free to proudly convince yourself otherwise.
I hear that when McCain gets humiliated in November he's going to leave politics and get a job with the NOAA where'll he be responsible for determining which way the wind is blowing: Windsock McCain. Normally you can also use a windsock to estimate the wind velocity, but since a McCain Windsock has virtually no spine, it always hangs sort of limply.
McCain is either shamelessly unprincipled or a baldfaced liar or some combination of the two; his irrational temper makes fellow GOP senators worry about putting the power of the US military at his command. A McCain presidency would probably have us longing for the days of the Shrub!
Obama is a slightly left-of-center moderate, alas. He strikes me as a thoughtfull pragmatist who wants the government to do good, but knows there is a limit to how much it can do unless the people get behind it. If the electorate starts looking out for itself rather than letting themselves be led around by the corporations and the zealots then Obama can be brought deeper into the progressive fold. We need to ensure that not only is Obama elected but that the current crop of corporate GOP shill is sent packing. The government needs to once again start serving the general welfare rather than the powerful few.
Actually, it's more likely how much devoutness of faith you can fake.
What would Zeus do? @ 113:
Regardless, quality of faith is not at all a guarantee of quality of leadership, as I'm sure you agree. Better a skilled, well-talented atheist than somebody like Bush, who has nothing to show for his faith except clumsiness.
rekroc @ 111:
Talk about someone being in denial. You seem to believe, like so may other Obamamaniacs, that your candidate will somehow magically transform himself into a progressive or a true peace candidate, despite all evidence to the contrary. When you state ... "there is no candidate who has a chance in hell of winning this election other than McSame [sic] or Obama" it then becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, does it not? But if enough people and those in the media said that Nader and McKinney and LaRiva could win, then their chances would increase exponentially.
You claim that "my vote will mean nothing." On the contrary, it would mean that I would be voting for a candidate of principle and integrity who, unlike your idol, is not enthralled with the idea of American militarism and being beholden to the corporate interests. As I previously stated, voting for an Obama is still voting for the lesser of two evils. To borrow from what you had written, that would end up accomplishing nothing.
I always thought 'are you a teflon candidate?' is one of those superficial questions trumped up by the media as a distraction from content (another is 'are you experienced?') The idea is X is a teflon candidate if no matter how many 'negative points' are thrown out by the media X's popularity does not waver. But this begs the question of whether the negative points have substance or not. When Fox news repeatedly screams "Hey, this guy's middle name is Hussain" and it does not stick, it's for the right reason.
But being teflon is ambiguous and there's another definition of teflon: X is a teflon candidate if the media love X so much they refuse to pursue any negative points about X. In this sense, McCain seems currently to be more of the teflon candidate. His brand of teflon is called "Viet Nam POW".
On the whole, though, I think the whole debate over which candidate is teflon is a waste of energy.
Nothing's sticking to Obama? He is supposed to be waaaaay ahead in the polls and he has been losing momentum since Clinton beat him in Ohio. Everything points to a Democrat this year and yet the latest Gallup poll has McCain and Obama TIED. Obama has not come back from Rev. Wright despite months of MSM adulation and millions of dollars being spent by his campaign. Rev. Wright and his rants, Michelle Obama and her lack of patriotism and harsh mouth, Obama's own "Americans cling to their guns and religion out of bitterness" and now "McCain's tying to make you fear me 'cause I look diffferent," the faux presidential seal (!!!!), the motorcades around D.C. and this over-the-top world tour are ALL sticking to Obama. McCain just needs to keep running his ads showing how fatuous and out of touch this immature and unseasoned "fist-bumper" really is and will be the 44th President of the United states of America. Thank God.
I don't know how they can say Obama is not being hurt by all of these attacks. The two candidates are neck and neck in a gallup poll! How can Americans be so f*cking gullible? The right is pushing Obama to the middle so he will lose the far left vote. If you vote for a 3rd candidate you will be helping put McCain in office.
If 44% of the people even CONSIDER electing another republican it just shows what a bunch of idiots the citizens of the US are. It makes me feel very very sad. People should be whining more about the cost of health insurance than the cost of gas. At least you can walk, ride a bike, inflate your tires... blah blah blah, but there's not a damn thing you can do about the cost of health insurance. Half my paycheck goes to pay for my family's health insurance and it's going to get my son on the free lunch list this year. What a damn fine country we live in. Of course Obama isn't going to fix everything magically but at least he won't continue on the same course we are on now.
maureen rehg @ 117:
Maureen
Well said. As Ralph Nader correctly observed, if the Democrats cannot defeat a war hawk like McCain, then they should pick up their marbles, go home, disband their party and start all over again. It would seem that the logical thing to do in order to beat McCain would be for Obama to veer left but instead he is shifting more and more to the right, which would seem to be clear evidence that Obama has become just as militaristic and just as beholden to the corporate interests as his Republican colleague. All the more reason to believe that there is little of substance to separate the two major candidates from each other.
I guess you've all heard that Barack has now said he supports off-shore drilling. Will one of you libs please tell me how you can stand this? The Barack Obama of this summer is NOTHING like the Barack Obama of last fall and winter. He is as craven, and flip-flopping and politics-as-usual as any politician in my lifetime. What happened to the "we're the change we've been waiting for?" The only change coming from Obama is that he's moving to the right, leaving his left-wing supporters where he left his white grandmother....under the bus. John McCain will be the 44th President of the United States and whatever his policies, he has earned this office for more than the bait-and-switching Obama. Does anybody really know who this guy is anymore?
This article is a joke! There is nothing teflon about Obama. He is slipping almost daily in the polls and will continue his downfall. If Obama and the libs continue to defy the voice of the American people on offshore oil drilling he will lose without a doubt. Barrack Obama and Nancy Pelosi need to go the hell home. Oops, does that make me a racist? I better go properly inflate my tires.
Hey Ali, maybe Americans don't want a socialist running our country. A man who doesn't give a damn about this country. I guess you want the government to take care of your problems. I'm not whining, but I am pissed off at these American hating libs in congress and the one running for president. Barrack Hussein Obama is his name.
Hayes @ 121:
Hey, you don't mind if they drill close to your house do you?
I mean c'mon, lets get real here. There are millions of acres leased for drilling. And it's more cost effective to drill on land.
So why don't we drill close to your home? Sounds good to me.
Erroll @ 115:
A few simple questions for you, Erroll: Who do you plan to vote for in this election? Do you honestly think the candidate you're voting for has a chance of winning? If you vote for a candidate that has no chance of winning, are you accomplishing anything with your vote?
Hurling out pejoratives like "Obamaniac" and "your idol" is comical, because they don't apply to me by any stretch of the imagination. Like it or not (and I'll openly admit that I'm not completely satisfied with the situation), either Obama or Emcee Same is going to be our next president. I refuse to throw away my vote if I can actually make it count towards a president who may do something to reverse the disastrous course we've been barreling down these past seven years vs. somebody who's made it perfectly clear that he'll stay the course.
You, on the other hand, are completely comfortable just wasting your vote on a non-entity. That way, you can absolve yourself of any blame if either candidate happens to fuck up. You can simply argue, "Well, don't blame me, I didn't vote for him!" And if somebody points out that a vote for Nader may as well have been a vote for McSame because it helped Obama lose, you can insist, "Obama would have been just as bad!" Nice.
If anything, you're the one looking for the mythical "idol" as your candidate to lead us all to the promised land. Get real, man.
Drill near my home Mudshark it will be good for America! Sounds fine to me. Maybe we can use switchgrass ethanol to power our cars. Nevermind, it doesn't exist.
Hayes @ 125:
Cool, then we don't need to drill offshore.
Rekroc
As I attempted to previously explain, apparently to no avail, that in 2008, unlike 2004, I am going to vote my conscience instead of voting for party over principle, which means that I will be voting for Ralph Nader. I fail to see how anyone who claims to call him or her self a liberal could possibly vote for an Obama over someone like Ralph Nader. Your criteria seems to be that one should vote for Obama because he has a better chance of winning than a third party candidate. As I also tried to explain earlier, if enough people say that a third party candidate cannot win, then it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, doe it not? You do not seem to be all that bothered that your candidate is calling for a phased instead of an immediate withdrawal of American forces from Iraq. Or that even after his phased withdrawal finally takes place, he still wishes to keep between 32,000 and 80,000 troops in Iraq as well as shifting troops from Iraq to Afghanistan, This does not exactly strike me as the best way of supporting those troops, now does it? Or that more troops in Afghanistan means that there is even more of a chance that Americans will be dropping their 500 lb. bombs on Afghan villages and homes, thereby ensuring that more Afghan families will be torn asunder. While this does not seem to bother you [apparently not enough to not vote for this alleged agent of hope] it certainly gives me a great deal of concern and apprehension which, again, is the reason why I cannot in good conscience vote for a war hawk like Barack Obama.
I simply cannot cast my vote for someone who has stated [in Parade magazine] that "those who have signed to fight for our country in distant lands inspire me..." and who declared in the same article that "the greatness of our country" lies in "its victories in war." While you may vote for this war hawk [one wonders if this hawk would be so inspired if his daughters were risking their lives and their limbs if they were stationed in a combat zone in Iraq or Afghanistan] I prefer to give my vote for someone who believes that U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East is anathema to all things which are moral and just. You claim that I am "wasting my vote." On the contrary, my vote would mean that it was not cast for two war mongers who care little that Iraqis and Afghanis have been needlessly slaughtered by American bombs and bullets, as well as economic sanctions in the past. To use your puerile expression, get real, man.
Gee, Erroll, you didn't seem to directly answer any of my very simple questions. Why is that?
Enough with this "self-fulfilling prophecy" nonsense. (I don't deal in prophecies, I deal in reality.) One of these so-called "war mongers" is going to be our next president. Nader is NOT, no matter how many times you close your eyes and tap your little red shoes together. A vote for Obama is a vote for a possibility of change. A vote for McSame is a vote for an extension of the Bush regime. A vote for Nader is a vote for washing your hands of the system so you can consider yourself blameless no matter what happens.
I'm done with this conversation. If you want to throw your vote away, that's certainly your right.
rekroc @ 128:
You claim that I did not answer your questions. You may wish to reread what I had written. I told you that I [horror of horrors!] will be voting for Nader. I also informed you that I do not believe that I am throwing away my vote since my vote would not be ensuring that one of two war hawks will be elected president. As with other Obama acolytes, you are pinning your hopes that a "vote for Obama is a possibility for change" despite all evidence to the contrary. You certainly are correct when you state that [unlike Obama's supporters], I cannot be held accountable for what Obama will do to this country and the rest of the world, such as his desire to add more misery and destruction to the citizens of Afghanistan.
How magnanimous of you to allow me to vote for Ralph Nader who, unlike Obama, is a genuine progressive who is not bought and paid for by the vested interests.
Erroll @ 129:
Oh, hell. I'm not finished. I just can't resist.
Ralph Nader is a narcissistic buffoon. You probably relate to him quite well!
Oh, and good luck with that Nader ballot. I'm sure your vote will make all the difference in the world!
Oh, hell. You know what? I'm still not done with this. Because I'm simply amazed that someone who describes himself as a progressive/liberal could espouse a point of view as narrow-minded as a hardline conservative.
America is a huge country. Our population is made up of a wide variety of people covering the gamut of political leanings, sexual orientations, religious affiliations and ethnicities. Our government is supposed to represent ALL of us, not just some minor segment of it. That's why we have elections.
I, myself, am a "far left" liberal. I'm married, I'm a parent, I'm a pacifist, an atheist, I'm for gun control, for legalizing drugs, for universal health care, I'm pro-choice, a feminist, I abhor racism, and I support gay rights. My ideal presidential candidate would embrace all of these ideals and more. But, you know what? Someone like me is but a micro-minority in this country, so my ideal candidate wouldn't have a chance in hell of ever getting nominated, much less elected, unless he/she completely duped the electorate.
I'm also not going to delude myself into thinking that my personal views, regardless of how noble I intend them to be, should be adopted wholesale by an entire population. Attempting to shove them down everyone else's throat would make me no better than your typical neoconservative. So when I cast my ballot, I vote for whichever candidate most closely represents my ideals (none of them are ever very close) and who REALISTICALLY has a chance of winning. Because if I vote for somebody who's polling in the single digits, my ballot will be meaningless and will have absolutely no influence on the direction of our country. If my only realistic choices represent a possible slight improvement vs. certain damage, I pick a possible slight improvement. What I won't do, however, is look at my only realistic choices, scream "These choices SUCK!" and throw my ballot in the trash.
To accuse me of abandoning my principles because I refuse to waste my ballot and vote for a sure loser is absurd. No, Obama won't represent my ideals as well as I'd like, but he'll represent them better than McCain will. And he'll certainly represent the entire population better. And that's what our federal government is supposed to do: represent the ENTIRE population. Not just you, not just me; the ENTIRE population.
Oh, and by the way, did I mention that I think Nader is a narcissistic buffoon?
-My Mom
Rather than disagree with or even discuss this teflon-assessment, we should promote this mem. Encourage this thinking. The press will start assuming that Obama is a teflon candidate and react accordingly.
Comments are closed on this entry