David Frum is a conservative and was one of George W. Bush's speechwriters. He writes for conservative publications and conservative websites. Here's a question he raised in his National Review Online diary:
But question: If it were your decision, and you were putting your country first, would you put an untested small-town mayor a heartbeat away from the presidency?
He also states the following in his diary:
But maybe (and at least as likely) it will reinforce a theme that I'd be pounding home if I were the Obama campaign: that it's John McCain for all his white hair who represents the risky choice, while it is Barack Obama who offers cautious, steady, predictable governance.
The way to respond to the Palin selection as VP is not to focus on her inexperience, but to focus on how her selection doesn't square with what McCain said that he wanted from a VP. He said that he wanted a VP who was ready to become president. Obviously, given his attacks on Obama's supposed lack of experience, he can't say that Palin is ready to be president. So, why select her?
Well, he decided to change his mind on the necessity for experience in his VP pick for the same reason he has changed his mind about reversing Roe v. Wade, or on supporting Bush's tax cuts, or on his own immigration bill: He wants to be President and he will do virtually anything to reach that goal.
As David Frum asks: Are these the acts of a man who puts country first?
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Does McCain Make Reckless Decisions?
McCain has made it a point to argue that he has the better judgment and therefore we should elect him president. So, let's see if the facts bear that out.
This is from an article on Think Progess about McCain:
The New York Times runs a lengthy article today on how the 9/11 attacks contributed to Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) foreign policy, particulary his aggression towards Iraq. “A terrorist resides in Baghdad,” he said in Feb. 2002, adding, “A day of reckoning is approaching”:
Within a month he made clear his priority. “Very obviously Iraq is the first country,” he declared on CNN. By Jan. 2, Mr. McCain was on the aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt in the Arabian Sea, yelling to a crowd of sailors and airmen: “Next up, Baghdad!” […]
“These networks are well-embedded in some of these countries,” Mr. McCain said on Sept. 12, listing Iraq, Iran and Syria as potential targets of United States pressure.
In written answers to the Times, McCain blamed “Iraq’s opacity under Saddam” for any misleading remarks he made about the threat. Weeks after 9/11, McCain told Larry King that he would have named Donald Rumsfeld and Colin Powell to a McCain cabinet. “Oh, yes, and Cheney,” McCain added, saying he would have offered Dick Cheney the vice presidency.
Does wanting to start a war in Iraq, appoint Rumsfeld, and make Cheney Vice-President show sound judgment? Or are they examples of emotional, implusive decision-making?
Now, we have the choice of Gov. Sarah Palin for Vice-President. A woman who, to quote the Associated Press, has "spent more hours fishing than dealing with issues of national security." A woman who. two years ago, was the Mayor of a city of less than 7,000. A woman with two years of gubernatorial experience.
Given this kind of decision making, how can anyone think that McCain has sound judgment?
This is from an article on Think Progess about McCain:
The New York Times runs a lengthy article today on how the 9/11 attacks contributed to Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) foreign policy, particulary his aggression towards Iraq. “A terrorist resides in Baghdad,” he said in Feb. 2002, adding, “A day of reckoning is approaching”:
Within a month he made clear his priority. “Very obviously Iraq is the first country,” he declared on CNN. By Jan. 2, Mr. McCain was on the aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt in the Arabian Sea, yelling to a crowd of sailors and airmen: “Next up, Baghdad!” […]
“These networks are well-embedded in some of these countries,” Mr. McCain said on Sept. 12, listing Iraq, Iran and Syria as potential targets of United States pressure.
In written answers to the Times, McCain blamed “Iraq’s opacity under Saddam” for any misleading remarks he made about the threat. Weeks after 9/11, McCain told Larry King that he would have named Donald Rumsfeld and Colin Powell to a McCain cabinet. “Oh, yes, and Cheney,” McCain added, saying he would have offered Dick Cheney the vice presidency.
Does wanting to start a war in Iraq, appoint Rumsfeld, and make Cheney Vice-President show sound judgment? Or are they examples of emotional, implusive decision-making?
Now, we have the choice of Gov. Sarah Palin for Vice-President. A woman who, to quote the Associated Press, has "spent more hours fishing than dealing with issues of national security." A woman who. two years ago, was the Mayor of a city of less than 7,000. A woman with two years of gubernatorial experience.
Given this kind of decision making, how can anyone think that McCain has sound judgment?
Friday, August 29, 2008
Barack Obama Stands and Delivers in Denver
Now, that was one hell of a speech. If you missed it last night, please take the time to view it now. You will not be disappointed.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
McCain Plays the POW Card Time and Time Again
Okay, so if Obama and the Democrats can be accused of playing the so-called "race card" every time we point out that the Obama campaign is subject to a lot of racial prejudice, why can't Democrats point out that McCain plays the POW card? Every time someone brings up a point that McCain doesn't want to answer, he says, in effect, "hey, that doesn't matter, because I was a POW."
Questions about the economy, his answe is that "I was a POW."
Questions about his fidelity to his first wife, his answer is that "I was a POW."
Questions about his support of Bush in the Senate, his answer is that "I was a POW."
Questions about his owning 7, or 8, or 11, or whatever number and how that reflects on his ability to understand the problems of ordinary Americans, his answer is that "I was a POW."
An example of this was seen in an interview with a Pittsburgh radio station on whether he is out of touch with the economic problems of working families:
McCain: Well you know I have town hall meetings all the time, everywhere across this country, and I hear from people....
And in all due respect my friends, I know what it's like to not have a house, I know what it's like not to have a kitchen table. I know what it's like not to have a table or a chair. For five and a half years, I sat in a cell with nothing but concrete floor and three boards to sleep on.
The question is not why McCain does it, that answer is obvious. He does it because as Talking Points Memo points out, he doesn't want this election to be about policies, he wants it to be about character. Not just character, but character as defined by McCain.
The real question is why the media lets him get away with this stuff. When is some journalist going to stand up and ask him just what in the hell being a POW has to do with the economy and his policies?
Questions about the economy, his answe is that "I was a POW."
Questions about his fidelity to his first wife, his answer is that "I was a POW."
Questions about his support of Bush in the Senate, his answer is that "I was a POW."
Questions about his owning 7, or 8, or 11, or whatever number and how that reflects on his ability to understand the problems of ordinary Americans, his answer is that "I was a POW."
An example of this was seen in an interview with a Pittsburgh radio station on whether he is out of touch with the economic problems of working families:
McCain: Well you know I have town hall meetings all the time, everywhere across this country, and I hear from people....
And in all due respect my friends, I know what it's like to not have a house, I know what it's like not to have a kitchen table. I know what it's like not to have a table or a chair. For five and a half years, I sat in a cell with nothing but concrete floor and three boards to sleep on.
The question is not why McCain does it, that answer is obvious. He does it because as Talking Points Memo points out, he doesn't want this election to be about policies, he wants it to be about character. Not just character, but character as defined by McCain.
The real question is why the media lets him get away with this stuff. When is some journalist going to stand up and ask him just what in the hell being a POW has to do with the economy and his policies?
Senator Joe Biden Accepts the 2008 Democratic Vice-Presidential Nomination
Here is Senator Joe Biden's acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention given on August 27, 2008 at Denver, Colorado:
The Big Dog Lays It Down at the 2008 Democratic National Convention
Take a look at President Bill Clinton's speech at the 2008 Democratic National Convention. He made the case for Senator Barack Obama and framed the issues in a very constructive way. Take a look at it:
A Wadsworth Dem's Reflection on Obama's Nomination
Wadsworth Democrat Joe Arpad sent us this reaction to the historic nomination of Senator Barack Obama. He gave us permission to share it with you. Please take the time to read it.
I just watched an historical moment that I never thought I would experience in my lifetime.
In 1960. I first became involved in the Civil Rights Movement when my friend, Rafer Johnson, who at the time was President of the Student Body at UCLA, was attacked by a new group, called the Black Muslims, because he was not acting as a Black Muslim but as an All-American athlete and an intellectual student at UCLA. Rafer was a Christian, and didn't need to change his name to become accepted by the community.
My experience with Rafer and the Black Muslims caused me to seek work in the Civil Rights movement. The reason I chose Duke as the place to seek my Ph.D. was that it was in the South and I could work on the voter registration in North Carolina.
At the time, Jessie Helms was the manager of WRAL TV in Durham, a dedicated Dixiecrat, who would announce the KKK meetings on the evening news so everyone could attend. Few people remember it now, but the only persons in the Republican Party in the South at the time were the blacks, because it was the Party of Lincoln. The Democrats controlled everything, and whoever won the Democratic primary was a shoo-in for the general election.
All this changed in 1968, when the faculty at Duke, UNC, and NC State formed the first ACLU chapter in the South, mobilized students to work for taking the control of the Democratic Party out of the hands of the segregationists and into the hands of union workers and black people. The 1968 result was the ouster of Jessie from the Democratic Party (he left on his own accord) and the transformation of the 5 counties in the piedmont of NC into non-segregationist Democratic districts.
In the fall of that year, we elected the first black Congressman since Reconstruction. I say all of this because I never thought I would see the day when a black would be nominated to be the President of the United States, and further, would actually have a chance of winning.
In 1968, Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke at Duke, two weeks before he was assassinated. That day, when he was assassintated, April 4, 1968, at 5:04 p.m. EST, was a turning point, a crushing heart-wrenching moment that ended the black struggle to become part of the middle class America. The moment has returned, thanks to Obama.
In this context, it was infuriating to change channels from CSPAN to Fox News and the other news networks to hear the commentators trashing the nomination that had just taken place. I still had tears in my eyes. These guys had only venom to spew.
Please join with me in rejoicing for this historic moment, for this historic opportunity, to transform years and years of blind prejudice and racism in the U.S. and elect Barack Obama as our next President. I never even dreamed this could happen in my lifetime. Forty years after all that work, it's now a possibility. Miracles do happen. And can happen.
Thanks for listening, Joe
I just watched an historical moment that I never thought I would experience in my lifetime.
In 1960. I first became involved in the Civil Rights Movement when my friend, Rafer Johnson, who at the time was President of the Student Body at UCLA, was attacked by a new group, called the Black Muslims, because he was not acting as a Black Muslim but as an All-American athlete and an intellectual student at UCLA. Rafer was a Christian, and didn't need to change his name to become accepted by the community.
My experience with Rafer and the Black Muslims caused me to seek work in the Civil Rights movement. The reason I chose Duke as the place to seek my Ph.D. was that it was in the South and I could work on the voter registration in North Carolina.
At the time, Jessie Helms was the manager of WRAL TV in Durham, a dedicated Dixiecrat, who would announce the KKK meetings on the evening news so everyone could attend. Few people remember it now, but the only persons in the Republican Party in the South at the time were the blacks, because it was the Party of Lincoln. The Democrats controlled everything, and whoever won the Democratic primary was a shoo-in for the general election.
All this changed in 1968, when the faculty at Duke, UNC, and NC State formed the first ACLU chapter in the South, mobilized students to work for taking the control of the Democratic Party out of the hands of the segregationists and into the hands of union workers and black people. The 1968 result was the ouster of Jessie from the Democratic Party (he left on his own accord) and the transformation of the 5 counties in the piedmont of NC into non-segregationist Democratic districts.
In the fall of that year, we elected the first black Congressman since Reconstruction. I say all of this because I never thought I would see the day when a black would be nominated to be the President of the United States, and further, would actually have a chance of winning.
In 1968, Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke at Duke, two weeks before he was assassinated. That day, when he was assassintated, April 4, 1968, at 5:04 p.m. EST, was a turning point, a crushing heart-wrenching moment that ended the black struggle to become part of the middle class America. The moment has returned, thanks to Obama.
In this context, it was infuriating to change channels from CSPAN to Fox News and the other news networks to hear the commentators trashing the nomination that had just taken place. I still had tears in my eyes. These guys had only venom to spew.
Please join with me in rejoicing for this historic moment, for this historic opportunity, to transform years and years of blind prejudice and racism in the U.S. and elect Barack Obama as our next President. I never even dreamed this could happen in my lifetime. Forty years after all that work, it's now a possibility. Miracles do happen. And can happen.
Thanks for listening, Joe
John Kerry Kicks Butt at Dem Convention
Although it wasn't picked up by the networks in their coverage of the Democratic National Convention, Senator John Kerry gave an excellent speech last night, (8/27/2008). If you haven't seen it, take about 13 minutes and watch it. You will be glad you did.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
More Stupidity from Maureen Dowd
This is just incredible, even by MODO's standards. She writes a column today and quotes a person she describes as a former McCain staffer on the supposed mood of the Democratic National Convention. Not surprisingly, this guy has decided that the mood of the Democratic convention is "submerged hate", meaning hatred of Obama supposedly coming from Clinton supporters. Here is a quote from the article:
But this Democratic convention has a vibe so weird and jittery, so at odds with the early thrilling, fairy dust feel of the Obama revolution, that I had to consult Mike Murphy, the peppery Republican strategist and former McCain guru.
“What is that feeling in the air?” I asked him.
“Submerged hate,” he promptly replied.
Look, it has been clear for some time that Dowd doesn't like most Democrats. In fact, it is almost impossible to find a Democrat she has liked since the death of John and Robert Kennedys. She doesn't like either of the Clintons, she doesn't seem to like Obama, and she doesn't seem to like any other Democrat either. Since she is an opinion columnist for the Times, she is apparently allowed to say any stupid thing she wants.
It would seem, however, pretty obvious even to someone as anti-Democrat as Dowd that quoting a Republican about the mood of the Democratic national convention to support your position doesn't make a lot of sense. What in the hell does she expect him to say, the Dems are having a great convention?
Even by MODO's standards, this is just incredible hackery.
But this Democratic convention has a vibe so weird and jittery, so at odds with the early thrilling, fairy dust feel of the Obama revolution, that I had to consult Mike Murphy, the peppery Republican strategist and former McCain guru.
“What is that feeling in the air?” I asked him.
“Submerged hate,” he promptly replied.
Look, it has been clear for some time that Dowd doesn't like most Democrats. In fact, it is almost impossible to find a Democrat she has liked since the death of John and Robert Kennedys. She doesn't like either of the Clintons, she doesn't seem to like Obama, and she doesn't seem to like any other Democrat either. Since she is an opinion columnist for the Times, she is apparently allowed to say any stupid thing she wants.
It would seem, however, pretty obvious even to someone as anti-Democrat as Dowd that quoting a Republican about the mood of the Democratic national convention to support your position doesn't make a lot of sense. What in the hell does she expect him to say, the Dems are having a great convention?
Even by MODO's standards, this is just incredible hackery.
Hillary Clinton: "No Way. No How. No McCain"
Hillary Clinton made a great speech last night. Here's Senator Clinton's speech in its entirety.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Sherrod Brown: "Looking out for your family trumps race."
The American Prospect has a short article up on its website that is questions to Senator Sherrod Brown, (D-OH), about what Obama has to do to carry Ohio. In his answers, Senator Brown states the following: Looking out for your family trumps race. Looking out for your family trumps guns, or abortion, or gay marriage.
Senator Brown states in the interview that Obama will win or lose Ohio in cities like Mansfield, Marion, and Lima. Cities that trend Republican, but can be reached by a Democrat who stresses a economically populist message. Senator Brown points out that in 2004, John Kerry lost those cities and the counties they were in, but that in the 2006 election, he carried them.
Click on the link above and check out the interview. It is well worth your time.
Senator Brown states in the interview that Obama will win or lose Ohio in cities like Mansfield, Marion, and Lima. Cities that trend Republican, but can be reached by a Democrat who stresses a economically populist message. Senator Brown points out that in 2004, John Kerry lost those cities and the counties they were in, but that in the 2006 election, he carried them.
Click on the link above and check out the interview. It is well worth your time.
Are You Satisfied with the Obama/Biden Ticket?
We are interested in knowing whether you are satisfied with the Democratic ticket of Senators Barack Obama and Joe Biden. Click here to take our survey: http://survey.constantcontact.com/survey/a07e2cn1od0fkcgpx0b/start
Friday, August 22, 2008
Great Connie Schultz Column on Represenative Stephanie Tubbs Jones
Earlier this week Connie Schultz, Pulitizer prize winning columnist for the Cleveland Plain Dealer, wrote a memorial column about the late Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones. It is a great column. Ms. Schultz captured Representative Tubbs Jones' spirit, warmth, and enthusiam for life. Please take the time to read it.
Obama Ad on McSame's Seven Homes
You may have already seen this, but here is the ad that the Obama is putting up on national cable systems about McCain not knowing how many houses he owns.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
NYT Article About Obama Negative Ads
On Friday, August 15, 2008, we posted an entry about the timing of negative ads that the Obama campaign is running. Our perception was that the Obama campaign was going quietly negative and that it had waited until McCain went negative first before running negative ads.
On August 19, 2008, the New York Times ran an article on Obama's negative ads. The article had the headline of "Obama’s Ads in Key States Go on Attack". This is a quote from the article:
Mr. Obama has begun the drive with little fanfare, often eschewing the modern campaign technique of unveiling new spots for the news media before they run in an effort to win added (free) attention. Mr. Obama, whose candidacy has been built in part on a promise to transcend traditional politics, is running the negative commercials on local stations even as he runs generally positive spots nationally, during prime-time coverage of the Olympics.
Last night on Fox 8 News out of Cleveland there were two such negative spots during the six PM newscast and one negative spot for McCain. According to the NYT article this practice of quietly going negative is happening in many battleground states. This is a quote from the Times article:
In Des Moines; Tampa, Fla.; Paducah, Ky., and at least 10 other cities, Mr. Obama is running a spot for a mock book, “Economics” by John McCain: “Support George Bush 95 percent of the time; keep spending $10 billion a month for the war in Iraq.”
On Sunday alone, Mr. Obama’s campaign spent nearly $400,000 to run those two spots more than 600 times, accounting for roughly two thirds of the commercials he ran that day, according to the Campaign Media Analysis Group.
Nearly 85 percent of Mr. McCain’s 650 spots that day featured attacks against Mr. Obama, according to the service, which reports that Mr. Obama has spent $48 million on advertisements in the last two months and that Mr. McCain has spent $34 million, with the Republican National Committee spending another $3 million.
The bottom line for Obama supporters who want Obama to go negative is that he is, but you just aren't hearing about it from most of the national news media. This is, of course, exactly the point.
On August 19, 2008, the New York Times ran an article on Obama's negative ads. The article had the headline of "Obama’s Ads in Key States Go on Attack". This is a quote from the article:
Mr. Obama has begun the drive with little fanfare, often eschewing the modern campaign technique of unveiling new spots for the news media before they run in an effort to win added (free) attention. Mr. Obama, whose candidacy has been built in part on a promise to transcend traditional politics, is running the negative commercials on local stations even as he runs generally positive spots nationally, during prime-time coverage of the Olympics.
Last night on Fox 8 News out of Cleveland there were two such negative spots during the six PM newscast and one negative spot for McCain. According to the NYT article this practice of quietly going negative is happening in many battleground states. This is a quote from the Times article:
In Des Moines; Tampa, Fla.; Paducah, Ky., and at least 10 other cities, Mr. Obama is running a spot for a mock book, “Economics” by John McCain: “Support George Bush 95 percent of the time; keep spending $10 billion a month for the war in Iraq.”
On Sunday alone, Mr. Obama’s campaign spent nearly $400,000 to run those two spots more than 600 times, accounting for roughly two thirds of the commercials he ran that day, according to the Campaign Media Analysis Group.
Nearly 85 percent of Mr. McCain’s 650 spots that day featured attacks against Mr. Obama, according to the service, which reports that Mr. Obama has spent $48 million on advertisements in the last two months and that Mr. McCain has spent $34 million, with the Republican National Committee spending another $3 million.
The bottom line for Obama supporters who want Obama to go negative is that he is, but you just aren't hearing about it from most of the national news media. This is, of course, exactly the point.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Hillary Clinton's Rich Supporter Willing to Throw Working Americans Under the Bus
There is an interesting article in the London Times about Lynn Forester, Lady de Rothschild, who, despite her British title and her 22 years older husband, is supposedly a Democratic Party activist. She and her husband have deep ties to the Clintons. As the article notes, they spent their wedding night in the White House's Lincoln Bedroom. She is also very bitter about Obama winning the nomination over Clinton.
This is what Rothschild thinks about Senator Barack Obama's chances of winning the presidency: "
This is why she says she is against Barack Obama:
Now, of course, the idea of a woman who apparently is the trophy wife of a titled Brit telling us that Obama is an elitist would be laughable if it wasn't for the fact that it represents a bigger problem. That problem is what Leon Panetta, former Chief of Staff for Bill Clinton, calls a "a sense of entitlement that almost seems to be inbred."
Obviously, of course, the Lady de Rothschild doesn't really need the Democratic Party and its commitment to working class Americans. She doesn't need universal health care; she doesn't need Social Security; she doesn't need Medicare; or any of the other social programs on which millions of Americans depend. She can afford to throw her hissy fit because Obama defeated Hillary Clinton by running a smarter, better, and more focused campaign. She, and other rich HRC supporters, are willing to throw the people that Hillary Clinton was supposedly fighting for under the bus to satisfy their sense of frustrated entitlement.
Lady de Rothschild's attitude illustrates why a lot of people had problems supporting Hillary Clinton. Too often it seemed like her campaign was all about her, about her wanting to be the first woman to be elected president. Now that she didn't win, her supporters want to take their ball and go home. Talk about an elitist attitude!
This is what Rothschild thinks about Senator Barack Obama's chances of winning the presidency: "
My loyalty is to the Democrats winning. Barack Obama is going to have a serious problem getting elected, for good reason. “The party needs to face the fact that without Hillary Clinton on the ticket, the Democrats will probably lose.”
This is why she says she is against Barack Obama:
“We’re not going to win by pretending problems with Barack Obama don’t exist. He has a huge problem connecting with ordinary Americans, who think, ‘He doesn’t understand me.’ He is not modest; he is arrogant. He radiates elitism.”
Now, of course, the idea of a woman who apparently is the trophy wife of a titled Brit telling us that Obama is an elitist would be laughable if it wasn't for the fact that it represents a bigger problem. That problem is what Leon Panetta, former Chief of Staff for Bill Clinton, calls a "a sense of entitlement that almost seems to be inbred."
Obviously, of course, the Lady de Rothschild doesn't really need the Democratic Party and its commitment to working class Americans. She doesn't need universal health care; she doesn't need Social Security; she doesn't need Medicare; or any of the other social programs on which millions of Americans depend. She can afford to throw her hissy fit because Obama defeated Hillary Clinton by running a smarter, better, and more focused campaign. She, and other rich HRC supporters, are willing to throw the people that Hillary Clinton was supposedly fighting for under the bus to satisfy their sense of frustrated entitlement.
Lady de Rothschild's attitude illustrates why a lot of people had problems supporting Hillary Clinton. Too often it seemed like her campaign was all about her, about her wanting to be the first woman to be elected president. Now that she didn't win, her supporters want to take their ball and go home. Talk about an elitist attitude!
Monday, August 18, 2008
New PPP Poll has Ohio Tied
So the new Public Policy Polling has Ohio tied at 45% to 45% with 10% undecided. This poll also has McCain winning 18% of the African-American vote and winning 17% of the Democratic vote. Last month's Public Policy Polling, however, had McCain winning only 6% of the African-American vote and had McCain winning the white vote by a margin of 4%. This latest poll shows McCain winning the white vote by 11%. So, here's the question: how did McCain effectively triple his African-American vote and more than double his lead among white Ohioans?
Well, the answer may have less to do with McCain ads and more to do with the people being polled. This is from the PPP media release on the poll:
PPP surveyed 950 likely voters from August 12th to 14th. The survey’s margin of error is +/-3.2%. Other factors, such as refusal to be interviewed and weighting, may introduce additional error that is more difficult to quantify.
Obviously the people being polled this time are not the same as the people being polled last time. So the question is which poll is off? Was it the July poll, which had McCain getting only 6% of the African-American vote and Obama getting 42% of the white vote? Or was it the August poll, which has McCain getting 18% of the African-American vote and Obama only getting 39% of the white vote? Well, if we knew the answer to that question, we would be in the polling business.
Of course, the best answer may be not to worry about polls at all. In David Broder's column on Sunday in the Washington Post, an Obama staffer said that right now he doesn't worry about polls, he worries about increasing the number of registered voters. He said that increasing the number of registered voters is how they are going to win this election in places like Ohio, Florida, and other battleground states.
Well, the answer may have less to do with McCain ads and more to do with the people being polled. This is from the PPP media release on the poll:
PPP surveyed 950 likely voters from August 12th to 14th. The survey’s margin of error is +/-3.2%. Other factors, such as refusal to be interviewed and weighting, may introduce additional error that is more difficult to quantify.
Obviously the people being polled this time are not the same as the people being polled last time. So the question is which poll is off? Was it the July poll, which had McCain getting only 6% of the African-American vote and Obama getting 42% of the white vote? Or was it the August poll, which has McCain getting 18% of the African-American vote and Obama only getting 39% of the white vote? Well, if we knew the answer to that question, we would be in the polling business.
Of course, the best answer may be not to worry about polls at all. In David Broder's column on Sunday in the Washington Post, an Obama staffer said that right now he doesn't worry about polls, he worries about increasing the number of registered voters. He said that increasing the number of registered voters is how they are going to win this election in places like Ohio, Florida, and other battleground states.
Sunday, August 17, 2008
McCain, Rape, and When Life Begins
Let's suppose that you have a daughter, a wife, a mother, an aunt, a cousin, or any other close female friend or relative. Let's suppose that she is raped. She wants to go to a medical clinic and take the "morning after" pill to avoid conceiving a child. Should the goverment let her, or should it oppose her having that option?
If you are John McCain, and if you are consistent with your answer to Rich Warren during his appearance at Warren's church, you want the government to oppose her getting that pill. That's because, according to McCain, life begins at conception and "human rights" attach to a fertilized egg.
Now, if McCain was being consistent, he would also oppose embryonic stem cell research using embryoes created, but not implanted, during ex utero procedures. Instead, however, he told Warren that he has suppported such research and voted to fund such research.
So, here's the problem for women who are concerned about access to the morning after pill in case of sexual assault, or in case a condom breaks during intercourse, which McCain is going to be president? The McCain that believes that life begins at conception, or the McCain that apparently has exceptions to that belief?
It's not just rape victims, either, who have cause to be concerned. There have been attempts by the Bush Administration to equate common forms of birth control with abortion. Here is a quote from the article linked to above:
So, while McCain earned points with those in the so-called religious right that are convinced that legally protected life begins at conception, it is open to question how much help his answer gives him with those woman who both support him and are pro-choice.
If you are John McCain, and if you are consistent with your answer to Rich Warren during his appearance at Warren's church, you want the government to oppose her getting that pill. That's because, according to McCain, life begins at conception and "human rights" attach to a fertilized egg.
Now, if McCain was being consistent, he would also oppose embryonic stem cell research using embryoes created, but not implanted, during ex utero procedures. Instead, however, he told Warren that he has suppported such research and voted to fund such research.
So, here's the problem for women who are concerned about access to the morning after pill in case of sexual assault, or in case a condom breaks during intercourse, which McCain is going to be president? The McCain that believes that life begins at conception, or the McCain that apparently has exceptions to that belief?
It's not just rape victims, either, who have cause to be concerned. There have been attempts by the Bush Administration to equate common forms of birth control with abortion. Here is a quote from the article linked to above:
The proposal could potentially redefine birth control as abortion. The proposal classifies abortion as "any of the various procedures -- including the prescription, dispensing and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action -- that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation." That last part is critical because some argue that hormonal birth control and emergency contraception can prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg.
So, while McCain earned points with those in the so-called religious right that are convinced that legally protected life begins at conception, it is open to question how much help his answer gives him with those woman who both support him and are pro-choice.
Saturday, August 16, 2008
McCain Weaknesses: Social Security and Roe v. Wade
Yesterday we posted an entry dealing with the negative ads that the Obama campaign is running against McCain in several states, including Ohio. These ads are focused on the economy, which is the single biggest issue on voters' minds. There are two other issues, though, on which McCain is vulnerable and which could hurt him with two distinct groups of voters.
The first is Social Security. McCain has referred to Social Security as a "disgrace". This could be a big problem for McCain down the road. One of the turning points in the political fortunes of the Bush Administration was when it tried to "privatize" Social Security. The backlash against that move took a lot of the wind out of The Decider's sails. Indeed, his Social Security plans combined with the utter incompetence displayed by his response to Hurrican Katrina helped set up the Dems' victories in 2006.
An ad featuring McCain's comments about Social Security being a disgrace would be very powerful. It would also help move the over 65 group of voters in Obama's direction. If Obama was pulling the same percentage of over 65 voters than Kerry got, he would probably have about a 10 point lead in the polls, and this race wouldn't be seen as close at all.
The second issue is Roe v. Wade. In 2000 and 2004 Rove was careful to have Bush speak in coded language about the Roe decision and the right to an abortion. Indeed, when asked directly if he wanted Roe reversed, he avoided giving a direct answers. (As an aside, I always thought that Kerry's failure to call him out on the fact that he didn't answer that question directly was a big mistake.)
Recent polls show that white women who lean toward McCain are much less likely to vote for him once they realize his position on Roe. A lot of women who are personally pro-life don't want the right to an abortion taken away for other women. Getting the word out about McCain's position on this issue will important for the Obama campaign.
Incidentally, there is more than one way to take the attack to McCain. Direct mail will be a very big weapon for both political parties in the November election. Already the AFL-CIO has dropped one mailer, and possibly two, against McCain in Ohio. Direct mail tends to fly below the radar of the media. Don't think that just because you aren't seeing negative television ads that an anti-McCain message isn't being delivered.
The first is Social Security. McCain has referred to Social Security as a "disgrace". This could be a big problem for McCain down the road. One of the turning points in the political fortunes of the Bush Administration was when it tried to "privatize" Social Security. The backlash against that move took a lot of the wind out of The Decider's sails. Indeed, his Social Security plans combined with the utter incompetence displayed by his response to Hurrican Katrina helped set up the Dems' victories in 2006.
An ad featuring McCain's comments about Social Security being a disgrace would be very powerful. It would also help move the over 65 group of voters in Obama's direction. If Obama was pulling the same percentage of over 65 voters than Kerry got, he would probably have about a 10 point lead in the polls, and this race wouldn't be seen as close at all.
The second issue is Roe v. Wade. In 2000 and 2004 Rove was careful to have Bush speak in coded language about the Roe decision and the right to an abortion. Indeed, when asked directly if he wanted Roe reversed, he avoided giving a direct answers. (As an aside, I always thought that Kerry's failure to call him out on the fact that he didn't answer that question directly was a big mistake.)
Recent polls show that white women who lean toward McCain are much less likely to vote for him once they realize his position on Roe. A lot of women who are personally pro-life don't want the right to an abortion taken away for other women. Getting the word out about McCain's position on this issue will important for the Obama campaign.
Incidentally, there is more than one way to take the attack to McCain. Direct mail will be a very big weapon for both political parties in the November election. Already the AFL-CIO has dropped one mailer, and possibly two, against McCain in Ohio. Direct mail tends to fly below the radar of the media. Don't think that just because you aren't seeing negative television ads that an anti-McCain message isn't being delivered.
Friday, August 15, 2008
The Obama Campaign and the Timing of Negative Ads
Over the last several days there have been reports of more and more negative ads coming out from the Obama campaign. There are two negative radio ads playing in Wisconsin and Ohio; a negative television ad in Ohio aimed at the potential DHL job cuts; a negative television ad in Indiana on the economy; a negative television ad in Nevada on the proposed Yucca mountain nuclear waste disposal facility; and the ad titled "Embrace" which depict as a Washington inside celebrity.
Now, of course, none of these ads are getting the attention of the Beltway pundits, at least not to the extent of McCain's ads attacking Obama as a celebrity. They are flying below the radar, seemingly aimed at key states where Obama is either slightly ahead (Ohio); slightly behind (Nevada); or states which Obama is attempting to put into play (Indiana).
This lack of relative attention may be the point. On the one hand all the publicity about the Paris Hilton/Britney Spears ad helped McCain. On the other hand, according to polls like one from Pew Research, the public perceives McCain as running more negative ads than Obama. By waiting until McCain went negative first, the Obama campaign looks like it is only responding to McCain's own negativity.
The reason why that is important is that there has been a lot of chatter from the talking heads that if Obama goes negative he runs the risk of looking as something "different". According to the talking heads this appearance of "different" is what attracts relatively younger voters to his cause. (Such an analysis, by the way, is rather insulting to younger voters. Here's a thought: maybe, just maybe, they are fed up with a government that gets us tied down in a needless war in Iraq; transfers billions of dollars from the poor and middle class to the wealthy; and can't even competently run the goverment.)
So, this way, Obama has the best of both worlds. His campaign gets to run negative ads, but doesn't take the heat for being the ones to initially go negative. So, the question is, was this intentional or was it just luck?
We will probably never know, or if ever do know, it will be long after the campaign when people are writing their memoirs. Given the intelligent way, however, the Obama campaign has conducted itself so far, it probably was very intentional.
Now, of course, none of these ads are getting the attention of the Beltway pundits, at least not to the extent of McCain's ads attacking Obama as a celebrity. They are flying below the radar, seemingly aimed at key states where Obama is either slightly ahead (Ohio); slightly behind (Nevada); or states which Obama is attempting to put into play (Indiana).
This lack of relative attention may be the point. On the one hand all the publicity about the Paris Hilton/Britney Spears ad helped McCain. On the other hand, according to polls like one from Pew Research, the public perceives McCain as running more negative ads than Obama. By waiting until McCain went negative first, the Obama campaign looks like it is only responding to McCain's own negativity.
The reason why that is important is that there has been a lot of chatter from the talking heads that if Obama goes negative he runs the risk of looking as something "different". According to the talking heads this appearance of "different" is what attracts relatively younger voters to his cause. (Such an analysis, by the way, is rather insulting to younger voters. Here's a thought: maybe, just maybe, they are fed up with a government that gets us tied down in a needless war in Iraq; transfers billions of dollars from the poor and middle class to the wealthy; and can't even competently run the goverment.)
So, this way, Obama has the best of both worlds. His campaign gets to run negative ads, but doesn't take the heat for being the ones to initially go negative. So, the question is, was this intentional or was it just luck?
We will probably never know, or if ever do know, it will be long after the campaign when people are writing their memoirs. Given the intelligent way, however, the Obama campaign has conducted itself so far, it probably was very intentional.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)