McCain's moral cowardice has been one of the subtexts of this campaign ever since he wound up the nomination and turned his attention to Barack Obama. But I did not realize it would reveal itself in such a physical dimension.
The tell came this week as McCain unearthed the Ayers story which, for whatever its merits, was fully aired months ago and has no clear relation to the particulars of October other than McCain's collapsing poll numbers. He's on it. Palin's on it. He's releasing slashing new TV ads like this one. Both of them are ginning their crowds up into spiraling gyres of right-wing delirium -- a ready-made Lord of the Flies (and let's admit that's a gentle allusion, given the tone of these barnburners) if Obama happened into one of the auditoriums at the wrong moment.
He ever swaggered on for a couple days about how he was going to 'take the gloves off' when he met up with Obama in Nashville. But when the two of them were there in each others physical presence ... nothing. By a myriad of gestures and reactions Obama owned him.
Nor is it a matter of shifting off the tactics, because as soon as McCain made his hasty retreat from the stage at Debate #2 he was right back at it. In every other aspect of life, high and low, refined and unlovely, we have a word for that kind of behavior: cowardice.
And now Obama can lightly taunt McCain with that very cowardice, his inability to just say it to his face. And if my take on the inner workings of McCain's mind at the moment is right that should simply unhinge him even more.
Dems have bought into this idea of "showing toughness" or "getting angry" in order to communicate to voters that they aren't chumps. I've never liked people that felt the need to tell me how big and bad
they were. I don't much care about George Bush bellowing into a bullhorn at the ruins of the WTC, when over a half-decade later Osama is still at large.
Frankly, I've always believed that the quickest way to show you're a chump is to run around telling everyone about that aren't one. You want to prove to the American people that you aren't shook? Don't talk them to death. Get in the ring and kick the other guys ass. It's that simple. Screw all this talk about who's tougher than who. Here is what I know: McCain will talk that shit about Ayers and brag about taking the gloves off. He will send his wife and Sarah Palin out to do his dirty work. But when faced with the man who he believes "palls around with terrorist" he played his position.
Don't let these people fool you. Come November, the only tough guy will be the one left standing.
UPDATE: Joe Biden knows what time it is:
"All of the things they said about Barack Obama in the TV, on the TV, at their rallies, and now on YouTube ... John McCain could not bring himself to look Barack Obama in the eye and say the same things to him," Biden said this morning. "In my neighborhood, when you've got something to say to a guy, you look him in the eye and you say it to him."
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
I particularly like Biden's reference to "looking him in the eye" as that was what McCain wouldn't do at the first debate.
I wonder how many bridges will be built in Alaska under the Obama Administration?
The democratic Congress is going to have no love for her ass.
I like Joe's neighborhood. Would you look the other guy in the eye with or without preconditions before you said something to him?
The so-called "tough guys." Even Vladimir Putin felt the need to put out a shameless judo video this week. I, too, have never liked people needing to tell me how big and bad they were. It is not so much cowardice but insecurity that they reek of when they feel the need to talk about their toughness at every opportunity.
"Dems have bought into this idea of "showing toughness" or "getting angry" in order to communicate to voters that they aren't chumps. I've never liked people that felt the need to tell me how big and bad they were."
A brilliant point that gets to the soft-underbelly (spine?) of the Democratic party. Hard to tell when ... um... we first contracted the disease, but I fear that the symptoms were quite visible by 1965.
One of the reasons I've supported Obama so enthusiastically for so long is that he, palpably, doesn't have much to prove.
Thing is, the lame loudmouthed faux toughness of which you speak may seem pathetic to you or me, but it's a cornerstone of Republican's appeal to its increasingly know-nothing base, which loves to trumpet it's own manliness. (You know, it's much more important to talk about "Smoking Bin Laden out of his hole," rather than actually attempt to find him.)
I know you know what I'm talking about, but if you've forgotten, take a stroll over to that sinkhole of gender anxiety, NRO.
The manly men of the Republican party must be going wild right now as BO and Biden call out McCain, and I'd expect McCain must be ready to blow a gasket.
One small nit, TNC. You keep misspelling Ayers. I noticed it in a previous post as well.
On the issue of McCain and cowardice, I do think its an effective way to call him out on this but I also don't think it really reveals the underlying truth of the situation.
What is really happening, in my opinion, is that McCain knows this is a bogus charge. He knows that it only works by dark insinuation and half-assed doubt raising. If he were to actually confront the issue with Obama in front of 50-60 million people, the lameness of his unspoken accusation would be exposed and, as even pathetic as it is, he would lose one of his only remaining weapons. Of course, Obama also knows this and so he wants to draw him out. Its lose-lose for McCain. Either he loses the only tactic he has left or he has to explain why that doesn't make him a coward.
Man, I love Joe Biden. I love that he puts it in neighborhood language. We all know who that person is who talks about you behind your back, but won't do it to your face.
Biden made a similar point when Ann Curry asked him if the "that one" moment during the debate was racist. Biden said no, "John" always does that when he's on the attack and feelng off-kilter. Which in a way, was more devastating than if he had simply called McCain a racist: instead Biden just implied that it's just McCain's nature to be a pissypants when things don't go his way. Plays nicely into the "erratic" narrative.
Dear McCain: We don't believe you, you need more people...
biden has the right idea.
confront the bully and don't back down.
now, obama has to take it the next logical step and actually confront mccain.
and again, he doesn't have to be a n@gga about it.
he just has to forthrightly - and nicely if that is his want - state what he told charlie gibson.
that will do more to make reagan democrats comfortable with him than any 10 point plan on health care he can ever come up with.
one added benefit: it will rattle mccain like nothing else and if he does it early enough in the debate, he'll destroy mccain for the rest of the night.
talk about unhinged. mccain will stumble around for the rest of the evening.
btw, obama must imagine that there is some utility in publically confronting mccain, at least through a media surrogate. otherwise, he would have never made that statement to gibson. he must feel that he needs to present a more assertive face.
so, even in his cautious way, he is inching towards a more aggressive stance.
TNC - for the record it's "Ayers"
"beef is when the workin' folks can't find jobs..."
yes, the ayers 'link' is beyond BS. but i personally think the bigger issue is the economy, and the mccain camp's desperate need to steer the conversation in a different direction.
while the dow continues to tank, hammering obama on his supposed associations (when we're fairly certain mccain has so-called shady figures somewhere in his social circle) is nonsense. don't people deserve tough talk on how to fix this shit?
i agree that obama doesn't need to prove some macho bullshit to appear presidential. but at such a crucial time, one who's trying to prove he's ready to lead shouldn't ignore our most significant leadership issue.
damn, TNC, now that song's gonna be in my head all day...
Agree Frankie D and love it, they are baiting him hard and McCain's famous arrogance and temper has trapped him and will force him to go into this at the debate. If he dosen't say it, he gets slammed for cowardice and when he does I imagine Obama has an Uptown Special for his a$$.
Biden always talks about his neighborhood. I get constant amusement from this: he's from the streets, bitch.
Beef is when the working folks can't find jobs.
He knows that it only works by dark insinuation and half-assed doubt raising.
This hits it right on the head. When you come out and say "He served on a board with 9 people that met that met quarterly to review grants," it just doesn't sound all that scary.
I mean, its an almost-sort-of interesting question about what you do when society welcomes back someone that you might not agree with. Do you refuse to participate in charities that they are involved in (but that many other quite worthy people have a stake in)? How much are you responsible for in these sorts of cases?
But here's the funny thing:
The counterpoint to this "controversy" has been the Keating 5 controversy. When the Republican Fighting Keyboardists have taken a break from typing "Ayers," they've been busy claiming that McCain's censure in that scandal was wrongful. It's not as though there has been any introspection about what it meant to be "palling around" in that case, where money and junkets changed hands. If mere knowledge and basic social interaction are enough, McCain comes up very, very guilty in that case.
In the end, purity tests are boring because nobody comes up clean. Why, these days it seems like everyone has a close relation (such as a spouse) that stole some drugs they shouldn't have, or has sketchy political affiliations to secessionist parties.
This is hilarious! Do I sense a bit of voter angst here? The amount of barely under-the-skin anxiety - over whether or not the American people will ask for more information about the Obama-Ayers connection - is almost palpable. McCain is a meanie!!! HA HA HA... just please don't look any further into Obama's past - it's just not fair!!!
Ayers is an unrepentant terrorist and Obama was more than happy to partner with him on whatever project might promote Obama's political exposure. $100 million - wait a second, let me repeat that - $100 million dollars funneled into ACORN and the Annenberg project to promote what Bill Ayers called "a greater awareness in education to the public responsibility to revolutionize capitalist government" And Obama has not once denied his association with Ayer's "social revolution" agenda.
Seriously, is this what you want for America? Obama WILL NOT tell the truth about his associations with Ayer's - in fact, he has substantially MISLED the public about his contacts and affiliation with Ayers. Not in my country, thank you very much.....
M,
Well done. Go and get your McCain points and get closer to that cap you've been wanting.
Your nonsense above isn't working with low-information voters. Why on earth would it work here?
It's quite entertaining though.
"Beef is high blood pressure, and bad credit;
Need a loan for your home but you're too broke to get it."
If only they were!
Still, best beef song... ever.
McCain's a cheesedick. I wonder how many of his supporters will fail to vote for the old dog once they realize he's all bark but no bite.
James:
Actually, if you will read the growing concerns in the blogosphere, you will see that it IS working... The truth is Obama's worst enemy. Which is why he is so reluctant to discuss it.
Wow M, that sounds bad. So bad, in fact, that I'm sure that any minute now we will hear McCain rejecting the endorsement of Leonore Annenberg, wife of William, funder of terrorists.
Right?
"the growing concerns in the blogosphere"
as opposed to the growing margin in the polls?
http://www.gallup.com/poll/111052/Gallup-Daily-Obama-52-McCain-41.aspx
It's terrifying M. Hope you're brave enough to stick around and answer Kat.
Actually, if you will read the growing concerns in the blogosphere
LOL. I don't usually engage trolls and I almost never toss about insults but this is just too funny. Anyone, and I mean anyone, who points to their subjective impressions of "concerns" in the blogosphere as evidence of anything at all is almost too stupid to be believed. Seriously, try thinking harder next time.
"the growing concerns in the blogosphere"
You don't have growing problem. You have a GOING problem!
Your candidate's hopes are GOING straight down the shitter, along with his reputation, integrity, and honor.
Kat:
Nice try, as if William Annenberg had any say in how Obama disbursed the funds that were SUPPOSED to go to public schools ( but instead went into Bill Ayer's "Peace School" and other Socialistic ideological "experiments"). Let me repeat it again - $100 MILLION dollars.
Obama held the purse strings for the Woods foundation and others - he knew exactly where the money was going, he had to of known. And that it was NOT going to where it was intended by the Annenberg foundation - to help more kids learn how to read, write, and 'rithmatic.
I wrote elsewhere that I thought Sarah Palin was as much a racial pick as a gender one. She would be able to go after Obama while triggering in white voters the image of an "innocent" white woman at risk of being attacked by a black male. The lynching symbolism, if you will. The Britney and Paris ad was only further confirmation-- "he's after our women!"
There was a part of me last week that was still thinking my hypothesis was extreme. But now that Cindy "Charlotte's Web" McCain, the thieving drug addict, is attacking Obama on the stump, I feel vindicated. Why put your wife up there to take direct shots at your opponent? The only reason is that you hope Obama will take a direct shot back, and white voters bring a rope into the voting booth. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if McCain's daughter (the blond one, naturally) took a shot somewhere in the next couple of weeks.
Steve Schmidt will be showing "Birth of a Nation" before rallies by Nov. 1.
Your thoughts, TNC?
Ah, here we go, that's more like it!!! :) The insults were quick to come as well as the name calling. HAHAHAAHA - let's see Hmmmmm. We have "troll" , and we have "stupid". My, my how quickly we descend into the sticks and stones discourse. Boy, you folks must REALLY be worried. LOL
Is that a faint sound of crying I hear? Could it be the ObAma - Messiah has stumbled and it might be a storm I see on the horizon? Hmmmm..
The tough guy attitude is precisely the reason women are flocking to Obama.
Also, I believe political campaign tactics have a lifecycle. For example, an extramarital affair killed Gary Hart's campaign, but not Bill Clinton's, partly because people had a been-there-done-that attitude, they wanted something else to talk about. Karl Rove's tactics have worked in the past two election cycles, but people are tired of the swiftboating tactics. This is part of the "change" people are craving in this election season.
At least that's my viewpoint (but I have a hunch a lot of people feel the same way).
I'm enjoying the "say it to my face" meme.
Everyone gets that one. Even if you're a Republican.
I have to admit, the folks on this post today have mastered the fine art of appearing to be intellectual and thoughtful, while still showing the true signs of intolerance. You seem to have a demeaning label for everyone! Cindy McCain is a "thieving drug addict" !!?? Goodness, I'm so happy that it is deep-thinking individuals like those here today that are responsible for helping to select the next President of the United States...
My, my how quickly we descend into the sticks and stones discourse. Boy, you folks must REALLY be worried. LOL
==
I think I speak for most Obama supporters when I say please, please don' go an tho' me in that briar patch, Mister McCain.
One thing some Dems learned from the Howard Dean Experience(tm) is that plenty of issues that fire up the base have very little resonance with the larger public, leaving you puzzled and sad when you lose on election day and don't even understand why.
The Dow lost another 700 points today. So please, keep pushing the Ayers thing. Spend lots of time, energy and money on it. I'm sure that it is foremost in people's minds.
So, let's say for a minute that the conspiracy-theory version of the Obama-Ayers connection is true. Obama is a secret radical Marxist terrorist and the moment he gets to the White House, he will rip off his cool center-left pragmatist mask, and do all sorts of insidious radical things.
Well, all the information that supports this "theory" has been out there for a long time. There's nothing new here.
So what does that say about John McCain? He knew his opponent was a one-man sleeper cell, and chose not to say anything until a month before the election, when he was tanking in the polls? What kind of judgment is that? I don't want a president who waits till the last minute to speak out against dangerous anti-American extremists in our midst!
And Republicans wonder why they lost in 2006, and are going to lose in a landslide in a month...
A little introspection into the tactics "M" thinks will work on people losing their jobs and houses and retirement savings would do them well.
Talk about not knowing the difference between a tactic and a strategy; they really do just think trying to win news cycles is the way to win an election.
You are entirely missing the point - which may expain your reactions and unwillingness to understand why this is going to become a major issue in the campaign. Everyone knows that Barack Obama is not a terrorist. Everyone knows that he is not a "secret radical Marxist terrorist". But his willing and eager association with Ayers and others that OPENLY profess a disgust and hatred for America, speaks volumes about his vision of America, and the direction he wants to take it. Or, at the very least, it speaks volumes about who he is willing to grant audience to when it comes to input on issues. I mean really, do you think it shows good judgement to even associate with people like Ayers?
And BTW, Hillary Clinton was trying to bring this out in the open as well (or do you think that Hillary was just trying to pull a "political stunt" also, as you are accusing McCain)?
Yes, I do think Hillary was trying to pull a political stunt. It backfired then, just like it will backfire now. There's no there there.
"speaks volumes about his vision of America, and the direction he wants to take it."
This is just more innuendo. Until you can articulate what you think this direction is, it's impossible to take anything you say as more than a vague scare tactic.
"Or, at the very least, it speaks volumes about who he is willing to grant audience to when it comes to input on issues."
Why is this necessarily a bad thing?
hubcap, the "Howard Dean Experience" was a great '60's power trio wasn't it. I especially loved their cover version of "The Weather Underground" song "Sweet Jane".
M:
The Ayers-Obama connection can be compared to other relationships by other politicians, and the minutia of each explained in an unsavory light, such as:
McCain-Oliver North
McCain-Falwell
McCain-Keating
McCain-Iseman
If you don't like those comparisons, pick some others, there are plenty. I'm sure Rudy Guliani could tell you a story or two of the people he has worked with, either to get elected or to get things done. This is just reality. The point is, you could a magnifying glass on virtually every politician in America, especially big city politicians, and find links to unsavory characters, and exploit them.
That's mostly why this is a non-story, in my opinion.
Nice try, as if William Annenberg had any say in how Obama disbursed the funds that were SUPPOSED to go to public schools ( but instead went into Bill Ayer's "Peace School" and other Socialistic ideological "experiments").
Wait, what? If you're going to claim Walter (not William, super sleuth) Annenberg had no say in regards to how his foundation's funds were appropriated, you'd better have a legit source.
Extraordinaary claims, and all that.
And for those who want to claim that the economy is the most important thing so quit talking about Ayers, etc - everyone knows the economy is the most important thing and please hold Obama to the same standard. In other words, Obama has STILL not addressed the economy in any substantive way, he is still just using the "won't work " approach. Whatever McCain suggests won't work, it's all Bush's fault, the failed policies, etc.
Please! I challenge all of you deep thinkers and intellectuals here to actually research the causes of the current crisis, including the role that prominent Democrats in Congress played in INSISTING that sub-prime loan practices continue without any additinal oversight. The facts are there for anyone to see if you want to actually do the work and look...
And "granting audience" of course, implies that in some way Bill Ayers provided guidance for Obama's political career, which is just not true.
When you're working on public education in Chicago, "granting audience" to someone who is considered an expert on public education in Chicago doesn't seem a particularly outlandish move.
"And BTW, Hillary Clinton was trying to bring this out in the open as well (or do you think that Hillary was just trying to pull a "political stunt" also, as you are accusing McCain)? "
Yes. Hillary was blatantly pulling a political stunt with Ayers, the bitter comment, etc. She was doing this because the states upcoming at the time were Ohio and Pennsylvania, which had many low-income rural white voters with whom it might connect.
"I mean really, do you think it shows good judgement to even associate with people like Ayers?"
I don't know; why don't you ask all the Republicans who serve on boards with him and come to fundraisers at his house? Why don't you ask the faculty and leadership of the conservative University of Chicago, where he's been gainfully employed for some time now? Hell, ask anyone with connections in Chicago. Either hundreds of political leaders of both parties have a vague sinister direction they want to take America, or John McCain (like Hillary) is saying literally anything he thinks will help him win votes. I don't for a second believe John McCain thinks Obama has a vague sinister direction he wants to take the country. He just really, really desparately wants to win, and he's been advised that painting his opponent as a scary un-American terrorist sympathizer is the only path left to possibly do that.
Simon:
"Why is this a bad thing? " Are you serious!!!!??? Why is it a bad thing to accept input on issues from someone whos idea of social expressin was to blow up bombs? Surely, you're joking...???
And BTW, Hillary Clinton was trying to bring this out in the open as well (or do you think that Hillary was just trying to pull a "political stunt" also, as you are accusing McCain)?
I doubt that the people here, even Clinton supporters, doubt for a second that Clinton was trying to pull a political stunt. In fact, the entire context in which she framed the issue, that she was only bringing it up because she knew the Republicans would be slimy and craven enough to do so and she lamented that, gives the lie to your entire point in bringing her up. But hey, you haven't made a single reasonable or truthful statement yet so why should you start now, huh?
Yes, M, do tell us why it's a bad thing. And try not to use the punctuation marks of a middle schooler.
Adam:
Your point is well taken about people trying to win votes, even if I don't agree with the moral equivalency you seem to think ALL associations have.
So given your statement, are you willing to admit that Obama is almost certainly doing the same thing, and then are you willing to think about the obligations he will have towards those that were intrumental in getting him where he is today? Such as Ayers...?
@M: Yes, Dems played a role. So did Republicans. Hell, Mudd even had Wall Street hollering at him to get Fannie Mae in on that sub-prime goodness.
But really, do keep congratulating McCain for changing the subject. If Obama really has no answers to give about the economy, McCain's bellowing is simply turning off the shot clock for the rest of the election.
Not too good for your boy, though.
Also, still insisting our current crisis is due to SPM instead of CDS is like claiming you beat your wife because your dad was an alcoholic. Yeah, it certainly played a role, but there's a whole mess of bad decisions in between that played a far larger role.
"are you willing to admit that Obama is almost certainly doing the same thing"
Uh...what? He's talking about McCain's similarities to Bush in order to win votes. He's putting forth plans on health care and the economy to win votes. He's certainly not saying that McCain cheated on his disfigured wife, or that Cindy stole pills from her charity, or that Palin had a witch doctor bless her. McCain would no doubt be saying all of those things. So what exactly do you mean?
"are you willing to think about the obligations he will have towards those that were intrumental in getting him where he is today? Such as Ayers...?"
So let me get this straight: hosting a single fundraiser at your house for a state senate run now means that Obama is...what? Owes a blood oath to the man when he runs for president 12 years later? That Ayers is going to demand the Pentagon be blown up and Obama has no choice but to say ok? Do you have any idea how utterly ridiculous you're sounding? *This* is why you've completely lost independent and moderate voters. They're tired of Rove-style politics. It's a shame you can't see it until after the fact.
Adam:
Incidentally, my punctuation is completely correct and proper - perhaps your education is the question, rather than my application of the correct sentence structure and grammar. Sorry, but you had to be insulting, so I thought I might help you with your ignorance of proper sentence construction.
I'm sorry, I was unclear. What I was referring to was this:
"Are you serious!!!!???"
That's the kind of thing you typically see on myspace, not on an intelligent political blog. Hysteria doesn't impress anyone.
Adam:
Two simple questions.
1) Do you think that Obama should have associated with a known domestic terrorist who is so idealogically twisted that he stated in an interview ( on September 11, 2001 of all days)that he didn't do "enough" whe nhe was blowing up buildings and people?
2) Do you think that Obama should have associated with a known domestic terrorist who, upon finding out that the government's prosecution case against him was being dismissed on account of a technicality, was quoted as saying " guilty as sin, free as a bird, it's a great country!" ?
"Everyone knows that Barack Obama is not a terrorist. Everyone knows that he is not a "secret radical Marxist terrorist". But his willing and eager association with Ayers and others that OPENLY profess a disgust and hatred for America, speaks volumes about his vision of America, and the direction he wants to take it. Or, at the very least, it speaks volumes about who he is willing to grant audience to when it comes to input on issues. I mean really, do you think it shows good judgement to even associate with people like Ayers?"
Is your argument that you believe Obama is opposed to the senseless miltary imperialism of the United States and the rightward slide of the last 40 years, but not to the point where he will condone or carry out violent terrorist acts, but instead will seek change through the established electoral process?
Sign me up for that.
"1) Do you think that Obama should have associated with a known domestic terrorist who is so idealogically twisted that he stated in an interview ( on September 11, 2001 of all days)that he didn't do "enough" whe nhe was blowing up buildings and people?"
First, what Ayers said he didn't do "enough" of was effective protesting of the war, not blow up more empty buildings.
That being said, in an ideal world, should he have associated with him? Perhaps not. Is it possible to advance in Chicago politics without interacting with many unsavory characters? Not really. I'm fairly sure he joined the church for the same reason; you grease hands with the people who can get you places. It's called politics.
Now, if you want to actually convince anyone, you need to say why that disqualifies him, in light of the unsavory connections virtually everybody in politics has, Biden, McCain and Palin alike. We can play the "who's got more shady acquaintences" game all day long (and McCain certainly loses that one, not that it matters), and all it's going to do is make partisans more partisan and everyone else completely disgusted with politics.
You know damn well Obama doesn't hate America or have sinister plans. McCain knows it. We all know it. It's just all about throwing mud to try to win votes in the hopes that unintelligent people who don't pay attention to politics get scared. You could at least admit that much.
M,
You've convinced me. I'm going to vote McCain.
Now, could you help me and define what McCain's plan for the economic meltdown is? I've probably missed it with the more important stuff like Ayers.
Thanks!!!!
"Now, could you help me and define what McCain's plan for the economic meltdown is?"
He's going have the government pay banks above market value to buy up every mortgage they don't feel like keeping. How can you vote for a socialist?! Why does John McCain want to sell us out to the Chinese? Is he the Manchurian candidate?
Forgive me, but I get tired of this so I have to take exceptin to your post. You used the term "military imperialism" in reference to America's policies over the last 8 years.
Imperialism involves permanent occupation of a country and is synonymous with the idea of Colonization. America has never, including the present circumstances, been an imperialistic country. You absolutley cannot, wioth any degree of historical integrity, describe the actions of the U.S as imperialistic. The only way to even remotely describe actions as imperialistic is to look at a temporary snapshot of time, such as the occupation of Germany and Japan after WWII. Germany and Jaapan are not American Colonies today, just as Iraq and Afghanistan will never be American Colonies in the future.
This is a hodover from the Cold War and accusatins of the old Soviet Union, reminescent of Krushev and communist propaganda.
I agree M.
Can you tell me about the economic plan now? I need to get it straight if Obamatons ask me.
Ok, M, fair enough. You say that Obama's association with Ayers is troubling, and on some level it is. Now how is that different from McCain's association with G. Gordon Liddy? I have yet to see anything that proves you aren't just echoing the current right wing talking points. We could spend forever talking about Ayers, Wright, Keating, Liddy, and the Alaskan Independence Party, but it would get us absolutely nowhere. Every politician that rises high enough has some unsavory characters in their past. I think that Obama used Ayers and his church as political stepping stones, and I have come to terms with that. So I don't hold McCain's seedy past against him either. There is simply no reason we should be talking about this with wars to fight and our economy down the tubes.
So, once again: in what sinister "direction" do you think Obama wants to take America?
Your argument is all distraction and hand-waving unless you answer this question directly.
"You absolutley cannot, wioth any degree of historical integrity, describe the actions of the U.S as imperialistic."
Let's see:
"The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations."
So what did the US actually do? They invaded a country that posed no imminent threat, toppled the government, directly or indirectly caused the death of over a million citizens, and wished to stay indefinitely and set up many permanent bases despite the explicit wishes of a democratically elected government of said occupied country to the contrary.
Territorial acquisition, not really (unless you count the attempt to get permanent bases). Economic and political hegemony seems dead on to me though. I think the adjective works fine, but your mileage may vary.
M, you're a hammerheaded idiot who nitpicks minor rhetorical turns in order to avoid the larger point.
You don't believe Obama is a radical Marxist terrorist like Ayers. By definition this means that you believe Obama will consider ideas but not to the point where he will enact radical and violent tactics to acheive those ends.
The example on the right would be a pro-life, but not to the point of being Eric Rudolph.
Now get your head out of your ass.
"Your argument is all distraction and hand-waving unless you answer this question directly."
That is, of course, because he's implying that Obama is a Manchurian candidate that wants to destroy the country. But to say that would be directly accusing a presidential candidate of treason, and once he actually says what he's getting at the people he's trying to convince realize how ludicrous the argument is. It only works if there's some unspecified scary accusation; shine light on it and it's revealed to be all hand-waving. The same reason McCain never mentioned it to Obama's face.
Commenter activity seems to be in inverse proportion to the success of their candidate.
The upside to the recent anti-Obama blogging is that it keeps folks off the street.
(Unfortunate that the folks in the youtube a couple posts ago can't be given computers.)
M --
No amount of trolling will help your candidate in the polling.
McCain won't say this crap to Obama's face because (1) he doesn't believe it and (2) he's got far more relevant skeltons in his own closet. And folks shouldn't waste their time arguing with M. S/He believes that Obama is lying. Why? Because that's what s/he wants to believe. It's like a person's religious beliefs. S/he believes what they can't prove. M can't prove that Obama is hiding anything. Hell, all M KNOWS about Obama is a result of the full vetting of this relationship. If there was something there, Clinton would have found it and used it--and she ran a FAR better campaign than McCain.
This is the end game folks. They've run out of things to talk about, so they make sh*t up. Obama can't prove that my unsupported assertions are wrong, well then my unsupported assertions must be true! It's idiotic. If they had better ideas and a better plan for America, they'd offer it. They don't. So they can't.
Does anything McCain say have any credibility these days. Yeah lets highlight our records on judgment. Did you give back the Annenberg donations? She hired that terrorist Ayers. Yeah, and wasn't she close with Ronald Reagan. So, that makes Reagan a terrorist sympathizer too right. Didnt he negotiate directly with Iran?
Thanks, John, another intellectual cul de sac. Next!
All I know is the Dow is on life support :( and the Troopergate report comes out tomorrow. :)
I want to see Obama throw down in the last debate. Challenge McCain to say it to his face on live TV and explain the cowardly smear that he's a danger to the nation.
Well, I seem to have missed quite a bit of trolling. I still think we should put in for Wonkette's Nader troll. To quickly hit some major points:
Those of us who have followed the election since the primaries had already heard about Ayers. Ho hum. The Chicago papers did the due diligence. The argument that it can't have been due diligence if they didn't find dangerous terrorist associations to nail him with sounds remarkably similar to the argument that we needed 8 investigations of Whitewater to finally, at long last, nail Bill Clinton for screwing a consenting adult a decade after Whitewater. Just because you want there to be smoke doesn't mean there's a fire.
As for Ayers obviously knowing nothing about education policy because he blew up some buildings before almost everyone posting here was born--that's not actually a logical connection. For all I know he has great ideas on education. I DO know that he has become a thoroughly enmeshed figure on education in Chicago, and if you work on public education at the policy level there you will probably at some point work with Ayers. Or refuse to do anything if it means you ever have to come within a mile of him, sure, but that's sounding like the Bush doctrine of sitting home with the ball until the world transforms to our liking.
As for calling Cindy McCain a drug-addicted thief--I like Cindy McCain, am sad to see what she's become of late, greatly admire her work with charities especially Smile Train, and yet will admit that she has been a drug addict and a thief. That's just a really weird point to take exception to.
I am glad Obama is directly calling McCain out for his shady tactics. This whole Ayers business is ridiculous to say the least.
Beef is oil prices, and geopolitics
Beef is Iraq, the West Bank, and Gaza Strip
Folks
1. Quick Translation of Obama and Biden:
McCain is a pu_ _ y.
2. If McCain tries to bring it up at the next debate, expect a comeback that states, "I have consistently rejected stuff Ayers did when I was 8. He turned himself in. The gov't f-- up his prosecution. He has sought redemption by fixing education in Chicago and has gotten credit by Dems and Repubs. To not forgive someone who seeks redemption and a second chance is not just un-American, it is un-Christian. And at a time we need leadership and calm in this economic crisis, this is irresponsible.
McCain is cutting and running from Obama...
This should be said over and over and over and over and over and over by every single person associated with the campaign on TV that McCain is a coward for not saying this to Obama's face. The word coward should be used liberally.
And like someone else said, obama should challenge McCain right there on stage in the last debate. Force him to own the issue once and for all in front of millions of people.
You guys are funny. I just converted seven people today to vote for McCain. While you guys argue, I make the case on a personal level... Just like the rest of my buddies across these key states are working to do in the last days before the election.
Thanks,
Tom