Really, I think it is. I want to see video of the whole thing. Transcript here:
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
This is good, yes!
I keep reading blog posts and comments exhorting Obama to hit harder, to slam McCain, to adopt the same low road tactics the Republicans use. I disagree.
Obama's fundamental fairness is one of the things I admire about him. If it takes dirty tricks to win, we're all screwed.
This is good, yes!
I keep reading blog posts and comments exhorting Obama to hit harder, to slam McCain, to adopt the same low road tactics the Republicans use. I disagree.
Obama's fundamental fairness is one of the things I admire about him. If it takes dirty tricks to win, we're all screwed.
Wow....Great Stuff™
He needs to keep up with those points and drive home the need to talk about the merits.
Everything he says is 100% true, but it will make absolutely no difference in this election. Politics in the US has become tribalism infused with a strong dose of imperial nationalism. In this environment, chest thumping and emotional appeals work and we're all f*cked for it. As the country continues to become less and less secure economically, militarily and politically these kinds of appeals will be more and more tempting. McCain is going to win this thing and we'll all start to see our quality of life seriously begin to plummet in the next 10 years. Mark my words on this.
I'm not happy about it, but at least I have the means/skills to leave this place and watch from afar as Rome slowly burns. It will break my heart too...
this is not good, no.
he is simply continuing to do what democrats have been doing in losing presidential campaigns going back to reagan.
he is allowing mccain to set the terms of the debate. and then he responds, in a complaining, whining manner about the attacks. and the cycle simply repeats itself, over and over again and he is unable to talk about his issues in the way that he wants to talk about them.
he should be attacking mccai -, fairly and honestly about the facts that are hanging out there like a fat pinata - and forcing mccain to respond to him.
obama unwittingly gives force to mccain's attacks by the way that he responds. he always calls mccain an "honorable" man.
so let's see, mccain calls you a scheming, unprincipled scumbag who would betray his country to win an election and you respond by calling him an honorable man.
think about that...
if an honorable man says those types of unflattering things about someone, don't you think that a good percentage of people just might believe those allegations? by buttressing his credibility by calling him "honorable" obama gives credibility and force to the attacks that mccain makes.
that tactic, to this voter, is monumentally stupid.
Frankie D: Once again, you've nailed it.
I know voters don't like pessimistic campaigns, but Obama needs to be attacking McCain left and right over his proposed policies. Folks; unless we right our ship NOW, we are Britain circa 1918. If we continue to piss away our economic resources overseas on conflicts that are not part of our VITAL (and this word is key) strategic interests, while at the same time continuing on with a disastrous long term fiscal policy (which bleeds our coffers dry and puts the fate of our economy in the hands of foreign finance ministries); we are headed down the tubes.
Obama should frame the debate in very simple terms: Do we continue to piss away our resources by getting embroiled in overseas conflicts (which saps our resources from investment desperately needed to keep our economy/standard of living at its current levels) which are not VITAL to our strategic interests, or do we step back from the imperial precipice and return the country to the ideals it was founded on.
The speech was very good on the merits of foreign policy. The "how dare they attack my patriotism" stuff was standard Democrat stuff and I think we're all familiar with the track record.
I have to agree that that the MSM tabloid level coverage of this election is becoming almost totally focused on the right wing smears against Obama. Whatever McCain says, no matter how inane, is dominating the political discussion.
When was the last time anyone mentioned healthcare and the 48 million uninsured who will remain uninsured if McCain is elected? And that is just one issue.
I do not think that Obama can get down in the mud with McCain and win hearts and minds. The Democrats need to bring the real issues back to the front and center of this election, and fast.
This was a speech given to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, a notoriously anti-Democratic forum, and broadcast on FOX News. Yet from the sound of it, Obama got genuine, not rote, applause, and for the content of his speech, not for pandering.
The dignity and intelligence of the man cannot be denied. I want him to challenge McCain in such a way that McCain must respond, but I do not want him to abandon the high road, which has taken him to the nomination, and which -- if he wins -- will give him the stature he will need to govern.
@ frankie d:
I actually think this tactic works because it contrasts the image of McCain that has been projected to us by the media over the years with what he's actually doing. Only people who were already going to vote republican are likely to reject Obama's assertion that he loves our country and didn't take his foreign policy positions for purely political reasons. Swing voters don't like ridiculous personal attacks as much as partisan voters do. Obama can have his cake and eat it too. Call into question McCain's honor by reasserting it as conventional wisdom and contrasting it with what the man is doing. Then McCain looks like scum and Obama looks good. Obama is just far better at this than Gore or Kerry ever were.
Liza: Great points. If the Democrats fail to do this (again) then they're showing themselves to be so weak and feckless, they will share equally share culpability with the Republicans for this country's decline.
I was a died-in-the-wool, red-blooded American until this country strayed so horribly from its ideals. Now I'm starting to wonder if revolution (a real one)isn't a better option.
Then again; I'm in a real fucking cranky mood today.
Sorry for hijacking the comments section of this topic. I'll shut up now and get off my soapbox.
This is fine and Obama needs to call out MMcCain on these points, but he really needs to go negative on the issues and on McCain's record. *Hammer him on his support of the war.
*Hammer him on his flip-flopping support for tax cuts.
*Hammer him on supporting Bush's disastrous economic and environmental policies.
*Hammer him on care for veterans and his opposition to the GI Bill.
*Hammer him on the GOP's record on energy prices, which have gone up 300% since Bush took office.
*Hammer him on the fact that his policies are drawn up by advisors who are paid representatives of foreign corporations and governments.
*Hammer him on the Republican record on deficits and government spending.
*Hammer him on the Bush economy and the crappy stock market.
*Hammer him on eating birthday cake with George W. Bush while New Orleans flooded.
There are so many issues where McCain is out of the mainstream and has been nothing but a Bush hack, but voters will not realize it until Democrats make a concerted effort to make people aware of his record and his policies. And, one last thing, every single ad needs to feature pictures of McCain hugging, kissing, folding, eating birthcake et.c with Bush.
jbentley. I agree that Obama needs to point out McCain's many failings and misjudgments, and do it "wigh vigor". That is NOT going negative. These are legitimate topics for campaigning. It is what campaigning IS.
Going negative means, at least for me, impugning character, as opposed to decisions on issues, and using the slimy tactics that Republicans are using now.
Contrary to popular belief, I do not believe the American people are stupid. If Obama keeps hammering on McCains CHOICES on the issues, he will be heard.
I agree that it is good as theater. Obama handled himself beautifully--not smiling in front of this audience was genuis--but from here he needs to start defining what this election is about, not letting McCain and the Republican thugs define it for him.
On foregin affairs, McCain should be confronted in ads with his own words. Obama needs to ask of whether McCain is ready to lead, and then show clips of his flipping, his mistakes, his confusion, and especially his willingness, his eagerness, to involve us in new military conflcits.
'We are all Georgians' ? I don't think so.
Then Obama needs to go back to jobs, to health care, to the economy, to an energy policy that will create jobs.
He's got that beautiful voice, dignity, intelligence--letting Americans see that while he addresses domestic issues will work to elect him--and other Democrats.
Obama presents best when he doesn't joke around. Let the joking be a rare occurrence, maybe for one on one situations. In this clip he looks profoundly serious, and it's a damn serious situation we are in, even if it is ultimately pretty hopeless.
Let McCain be the joker. Let Obama give McCain the flat dead-eye when he is joking. Without an audience, McCain wil look like the goof-ball he is, more of the George Bush angry adolescent rule of America,
I think Obama is right on with this. He's taking the high road at a time when people are so tired of the same old politics that both parties had to nominate change agents. Also, I get the feeling that the Obama campaign is biding their time until after the convention and will slam McCain in October. By then, all of the stuff the McCain campaign is saying now about Obama will sound trite and overused and everything Obama says will sound a lot fresher and will be much more effective with swing voters.
Swing voters don't like ridiculous personal attacks as much as partisan voters do.
I think this is wrong. The last couple of presidential elections, the networks have put up "focus groups" of undecided voters to critique the debates. And after the debates, what do these people all say? Things like "I just think he is more trustworthy" or "He really seems to understand me."
Basically, they are all about the soft judgments, some of which are formed in the debates, and some of which are formed now, or through ad campaigns, or media manipulation.
Thing is, sometimes it is valid to fight a bit negatively. Why should Keating 5 be off the table, for example? It was a real, genuine scandal, and it speaks volumes to someone's character. Why not do a little questioning of integrity? There are certainly big enough targets for Team Obama to go after.
I think modern political jujitsu requires both. Obama can be above the fray, and even help move the perception of the value of these attacks over the long term. But he can't win this election without employing these sorts of shady attacks at least a little (through surrogates, of course). Would that make him a hypocrite? Only to the same level that every other politician is.
But without that, we have bestsellers accusing Obama of being a secret Muslim communist black separatist (and his minister is crazy!), and McCain getting a free ride. Losing with integrity is still losing, and rough play is the cost of doing this particular business.
The Obama campaign has, so far, made very few mistakes and I have to believe that there is a post-convention strategy.
The fact is, Obama's nomination is history in the making. His acceptance speech before 75,000 people in Denver is going to break all the records for a political speech watched in this country and around the entire world.
Obama has an opportunity to do what McCain can never do, and that is to disseminate his message to the largest political audience ever, and we have every reason to believe that the world class orator is going to take full advantage of the historical moment.
I believe that the campaign strategy will be much more aggressive from that point forward.
The Obama campaign has, so far, made very few mistakes and I have to believe that there is a post-convention strategy.
The fact is, Obama's nomination is history in the making. His acceptance speech before 75,000 people in Denver is going to break all the records for a political speech watched in this country and around the entire world.
Obama has an opportunity to do what McCain can never do, and that is to disseminate his message to the largest political audience ever, and we have every reason to believe that the world class orator is going to take full advantage of the historical moment.
I believe that the campaign strategy will be much more aggressive from that point forward.
I seem to recall people saying similiar things in the primary. Obama needed to attack, he wasn't being aggressive enough. Calm down people it's August. He's going to lay the gloves on McCain right after the convention all the way till November. It's like in boxing, you can come out and try to knock your opponent out in the first round, but if he is still standing after your barrage, then you are going to be tired and seriously in trouble.
i have a very simple question for posters who keep arguing that obama needs to stay positive and avoid going "negative" on mccain because it enhances his stature.
can you point to a single presidential election where that strategy has worked?
i'm serious.
i'm simply trying to recall if that strategy has been successful.
americans are infamous for bemoaning negative campaigning, but the dirty little secret is that it works very well.
Obama needs to find a way to make the it's the economy stupid argument. He's pretty much doomed otherwise.
@ frankie d
I think there are different ways to go negative. You can attack the opponent's record or policies, or point out their contradictions and destructive politicking. I think most everyone can agree that such tactics are legitimate and helpful to voters in making a decision. I agree with you that it's foolish not to talk about the other candidate and attack them on legitimate grounds (some people seem to think this comprises going negative, I think it's so standard that there may not be much use in distinguishing it from "positive" campaigning).
It's where you attack the other candidate on illegitimate or deceptive/unhelpful grounds that I would label it dirty. My dichotomy has problems, and there are very fuzzy boundaries, but I think most of us know it when we see it. (McCain's black baby, swift boats, claims that McCain had a lavish and whoretastic lifestyle in the POW camp, Obama as a secret Muslim, he'd choose defeat in Iraq over defeat in November, etc.) My understanding is that these more explicitly tasteless or baseless attacks do more to send a shiver up the base's leg than to turn out swing voters. I may be mistaken about this, and certainly identity politics can cut across swing voter/rabid partisan distinctions.
I think Obama definitely needs to start hitting McCain hard on issues, policies, and crazy/insulting/stupid claims he's been making during the campaign (the cross in the dirt, "I fought for MLK Day in Arizona" = WTF, but let surrogates handle these). However, I don't think Obama needs to turn to the same tactics McCain has been using of late. Take control of the campaign and define McCain down based on his policy positions and statements. No need to break out the black babies, Vietnamese hookers, or claims that he too is a secret Muslim. Keating I would seriously consider exploiting because it's a well documented scandal, and that is fair game.
"One of the things we have to learn in this country is that we can disagree without challenging each other's character or patriotism".
He got very good applause on that line, it seemed quite sincere.
"Let me be clear, I will let no one question my love for this country. I love America..."
Cheers and applause. From the VFW.
This is not John Kerry. He followed a strategy of "ignore it and play your game". Obama seems to be following "confront it and play your game".
It's different. It feels different. Pay attention to non-verbals.
@ frankie d
I think there are different ways to go negative. You can attack the opponent's record or policies, or point out their contradictions and destructive politicking. I think most everyone can agree that such tactics are legitimate and helpful to voters in making a decision. I agree with you that it's foolish not to talk about the other candidate and attack them on legitimate grounds (some people seem to think this comprises going negative, I think it's so standard that there may not be much use in distinguishing it from "positive" campaigning).
It's where you attack the other candidate on illegitimate or deceptive/unhelpful grounds that I would label it dirty. My dichotomy has problems, and there are very fuzzy boundaries, but I think most of us know it when we see it. (McCain's black baby, swift boats, claims that McCain had a lavish and whoretastic lifestyle in the POW camp, Obama as a secret Muslim, he'd choose defeat in Iraq over defeat in November, etc.) My understanding is that these more explicitly tasteless or baseless attacks do more to send a shiver up the base's leg than to turn out swing voters. I may be mistaken about this, and certainly identity politics can cut across swing voter/rabid partisan distinctions.
I think Obama definitely needs to start hitting McCain hard on issues, policies, and crazy/insulting/stupid claims he's been making during the campaign (the cross in the dirt, "I fought for MLK Day in Arizona" = WTF, but let surrogates handle these). However, I don't think Obama needs to turn to the same tactics McCain has been using of late. Take control of the campaign and define McCain down based on his policy positions and statements. No need to break out the black babies, Vietnamese hookers, or claims that he too is a secret Muslim. Keating I would seriously consider exploiting because it's a well documented scandal, and that is fair game.
my bad on the double post
Savage, it would have worked in the primary had Hillary started it earlier. Obama was hanging on by the skin of his teeth at the end. And I'm an Obama guy saying this. He couldn't resort to negative attacks because it would have backfired with woman, but the gloves should have come off once he clinched the nomination. I thought he could have ended Hilary much earlier by simply saying the only reason she was even competitive was due to her last name but that's why I don't run political campaigns, I'd actually tell the truth.
The bottom line is that he's being painted as a pansy now, and the 'why's he hitting me' routine is not going over well. Maybe there's some post convention strategy that's going to turn up the heat but somehow I'm not seeing it. I think he really believes him even being at this point is proof that the 'positive only' stuff is working.
I'm a McCain supporter, so maybe I'm just being blindly optimistic here, but I tend to think that this kind of appeal is on way too high a plane to move many voters. Besides, it defies common sense to believe that politicians choose their election year foreign policy positions solely on the basis of what they think is best for the national interest. When Obama promises that we'll be out in 18 months, that's not based on some sort of sober calculation of what's best for national security. It's based on polling. Similarly, when Bush said in 2000 that he was against what he liked to call nation-building, I don't think he was even being honest. Even in the case of McCain, where I think there aren't many differences between his campaign rhetoric on foreign affairs and what he really thinks, he probably isn't going to say when he really thinks we can leave Iraq, or what his China policy would really look like. So, too high-minded, unrealistic, and even a little dishonest.
The election is shaping up, in part, as a referendum on Iraq and BHO has *clearly* staked out a more antiwar position than McC, successfully enough that he has shifted the whole debate toward a deadline for withdrawal. Indeed BHO defeated HRC in part because of their difference over the war, because he was the only credible candidate who had a well-worked out, consistent, and long-standing opposition to it -- he was not a last-minute convert.
Voters also understand that actual policy is the result of complex pressures and not a single immaculate vision that springs from the inmost recesses of a president's mind, which is why they ask for pledges during campaigns, like deadlines, that will make it harder for folks to reverse course.
So the fact that political pressure exists on candidates to say things does not mean that their utterances are meaningless, and Asher's argument disintegrates. *If* BHO says one thing and then does another we can retrospectively call him dishonest, but "dishonest" is a serious charge to make on the basis of sweeping generalities about the nature of politicians.
On the larger question, I agree BHO is playing a difficult hand about as well as he can. It's best to make specific attacks (which he's doing -- aren't people paying attention?) and leave it up to voters to draw larger conclusions about character. I also think people underestimate the rhetorical power of contrasting what people do/say with a higher potential or best nature.
Asher, there's voters and then there's voters. Lots of voters are swept along in the narrative set by more influential voices (media, other politicians, whatnot), and you're right that Obama's message here might be aimed at too high of a level for them to hear it. But he's not just aiming at them, he's aiming at the narrative setters.
That's why this speech works now. Same words out of Kerry's mouth against Bush, no one would have cared because everyone knows Bush, Rove & Co. play in the gutter. They didn't have an honorable reputation to challenge. But this speech and others like it aimed at McCain, who is blessed by an increasingly inaccurate narrative of being all mavericky and full of straight-talkedness, is going to be effective.
Also, I think it's BS to just asset a priori that Obama's Iraq plan is poll-driven. He's been consistent about it all along and the citizenry has caught up to him, not the other way around. If you can put together some actual evidence that Obama's plan fit well with public sentiment when it was first proposed, you might have a shot at convincing me/us. Otherwise, it's just a stupid (partisan) meme that needs to get challenged.
jay,
i pretty much agree with you.
the problem, as i see it, is that obama seems to go out of his way to even avoid criticizing mccain.he seems to avoid anything that could be seen as direct criticism, and i simply do not understand the logic.
for instance, i cannot imagine why obama does not mention phil gramm and whining and mental recession in every speech. that should be the initial point of reference for every discussion about economic issues. some people might consider that negative, though i do not.
but, amazingly, obama DID NOT MENTION gramm in a speech he day after gramm's comments hit the news. i was floored.
phil gramm should be the gift that keeps on giving, with multiple references to deregulation and enron and the mortgage crisis and international banking and whining and the entire 9 yards.
but, for reasons that mystify me, obama has seen fit to avoid discussing gramm and related issues.
@frankie d
I think Bill Clinton ran a relatively positive campaign. Yes, he pointed out relevant contrasts, but I don't think he smeared. Granted he had help from Ross Perot in 1992 and 1994 and the opponents imploded as well.
Bush I was supremely out of touch economically. I think the "glancing at the watch during the debates" and the "economy is doing great because I'm buying socks" press really hurt him. Dole was just too mean.
I am beginning to think that the McCain campaign is overdoing it on the spin to the point where they are insulting a pro-McCain press. The "cross in the dirt" story can't be proven but it is suspicious enough for the press to stop taking his word for granted. Same with the "cone of silence" story. Did McCain get the Saddleback questions in advance or not? They are really playing cute with the answer.
Ok, he's not been convicted of being dishonest in the sense of Hillary's Bosnia moment, but the circumstantial evidence is building up and its only a matter of time before it catches up with him. He's toast if it just so happens that the Vietnamese post a Christmas video of him on Youtube and the event did not take place. And trust me now that the press think they are on to something, they are going to keep digging.
Jim, I actually agree that he should have been more aggressive to end the primary. I was talking specifically about the run up to the caucus in Iowa. I remember a lot of Obama supporters were getting antsy and saying he should attack Hillary more aggresively at that time. I think people confuse the idea that Obama talks about a new type of politics as meaning he won't attack. It seems like to me he has mostly refrained from personal attacks. I think he will definitely be launching policy attacks and is already running counless negative ads throughout battleground states.
"If you can put together some actual evidence that Obama's plan fit well with public sentiment when it was first proposed, you might have a shot at convincing me/us."
It fit extremely well with Democratic sentiment a year or so ago, and after all, it was rolled out during a Democratic primary. Wasn't Hillary for even more rapid withdrawal? As for American sentiment at large, I think polling's always showed overwhelming support for withdrawal. For example, in a January '07 LA Times poll, 19% wanted to withdraw right away, 46% wanted withdrawal within the next year, and only 30% were for "staying as long as it takes to win the war." By June of '07, only 26% were for staying as long as it takes, and 68% were for withdrawing right away or withdrawing within the next year. Similarly, in a Wall Street Journal poll conducted in April of this year, 55% of Americans were for withdrawal by the beginning of 2009. Obama isn't even going that far; he's taking a position that nearly three quarters of the country supports. So I'd have to say that Obama's plan is, if not polling-driven, just what looking at polls would lead him to propose.
Oh, and those polls and many others can be found here:
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
I kinda think Obama might be fucked.
He sold "change you can believe in" for the primary and I have no idea where he is now. Understand this: Before his U.S. senatorial campaign, I'd met him and worked in a tangent for his Illinois campaign. I worked for his U.S. Senate campaign. I got lazy on his presidential bid because it seemed masturbatory to even bother in his district. He just *might* be able to pick me out of a crowd and remember who I am.
He should have stayed with who he was. Point blank. That guy was so much better than this abstract theory on Russia. It takes fifty paragraphs and no one except the politically obsessed will read all that.
"Who the fuck wants to get into a shooting war with Russia over a backwater in Georgia" works great. No one is going to argue with that. Krauthammer wants to boycott the Olympics in a dozen years over it, but even that moron doesn't want to start a hot war with Russia over it.
I kinda think Obama might be fucked.
He sold "change you can believe in" for the primary and I have no idea where he is now. Understand this: Before his U.S. senatorial campaign, I'd met him and worked in a tangent for his Illinois campaign. I worked for his U.S. Senate campaign. I got lazy on his presidential bid because it seemed masturbatory to even bother in his district. He just *might* be able to pick me out of a crowd and remember who I am.
He should have stayed with who he was. Point blank. That guy was so much better than this abstract theory on Russia. It takes fifty paragraphs and no one except the politically obsessed will read all that.
"Who the fuck wants to get into a shooting war with Russia over a backwater in Georgia" works great. No one is going to argue with that. Krauthammer wants to boycott the Olympics in a dozen years over it, but even that moron doesn't want to start a hot war with Russia over it.
john henry,
i understand what you are saying and i wish that you were correct.
however, i keep hearing people say that mccain is going to be hurt by going negative, and i recall past instances where people wring their hands about going negative because of a potential backlash.
and guess what?
IT NEVER FREAKIN HAPPENS!!!
this mythical voter backlash in reaction to negative campaigning and a particular campaign going too far never ever happens!!!!
as i've said before, can anyone point to an instance in presidential politics or even at the senatorial level where a candidate was punished by the voters because they went negative?
i cannot think of one instance, and i would be happy to consider the possibility that it has happened.
i do not believe that it has.
the msm feeds the myth that negative campaigning hurts candidates, and dumb democrats incorporate that myth into their tactics while republicans laugh all the way to anb electoral victory.
Asher-
All well and good, but I just don't see how that adds up to 'poll-driven.' Correlating to public opinion doesn't indicate a policy is poll-driven. If that evidence evidence was included with evidence that Obama's plan did not coherently fit within an articulated foreign policy, THEN you would have a good case for the 'poll-driven' claim. (Which, lets be honest here, is a slur that fits particularly well within the Republican tactics of stating that all Dems are incompetent flip-floppers.)
Why can't Obama just say: "John McCain is an honorable veteran caught up in the middle of a dishonorable campaign."
In addition to being spot on, it suggests that McCain isn't in charge of his own campaign (and, he isn't).
Even the rubes at the VFW know that McCain didn't question Obama's patriotism - he said Obama's brand of patriotism sees an American loss as humbling and productive in the long run. People that attend VFW events don't share the wife-beater brand of patriotism Obama shares with most of the left and this kind of huffing and puffing prissy response will not help him counteract McCain's jab.
Even the rubes at the VFW know that McCain didn't question Obama's patriotism - he said Obama's brand of patriotism sees an American loss as humbling and productive in the long run. People that attend VFW events don't share the wife-beater brand of patriotism Obama shares with most of the left and this kind of huffing and puffing prissy response will not help him counteract McCain's jab.
@ frankie d:
Here's an interesting post from The Monkey Cage about personal vs. political attacks in presidential campaigns. the Monkey Cage is a wonderful blog on political science and what it has to say about current events/campaigns. Hope you find it interesting (confirms the sense that dems have been somewhat less personal in attack ads, but doesn't have info on the volume of overall attacks, would probably have to check out the book)
http://www.themonkeycage.org/2008/08/post_109.html
Yeah, I know he needs to hit back hard. I know he needs to go negative. I know that's how the game of politics is played.
But in my head, the satisfying scenario in the fall, including the debates, would be for Obama to pound McCain on all the troubles that face our country -- the war, other international issues, the economy -- and keep asking McCain why he doesn't he talk about taxes or the environment or any policy issues that matter or explain anything positive ideas he has for our country instead of wasting our time on who's a bigger patriot or who's a celebrity or other foolishness.
In my head, enough voters get as irritated as I am about the insubstantial nature of this election and punish McCain on Election Day.
(sigh) I can dream, can't I?
Obama needs to run ads about McCain showing his flip-flops on major issues. For example, there is documentation of McCain saying one thing about the Katrina disaster and just 2 days later denying he said it. There is another one in which he says the matter of raising taxes would be on the table, and just 1 or 2 days later he denies it. It would be a good idea to show the dates when he flip-flopped.
Obama would only have to state his own positions, while quietly using McCain's own words against him on important issues.
He could also show the examples of McCain
voting against veterans' benefits while he
wraps himself in a mantle of patriotism due
to having been a POW.
McCain needs to be exposed with all of his inconsistencies, flip-flops, and the dishonor
of his campaign.