I actually wouldn't mind the ad that much until that "too risky" shit at the end. But you're right, making a big deal of it at the next debate wouldn't be good for anyone. Obama just needs to keep showing America just how un-radical he is. You can't paint a man in this way when the country already has the feeling that he's not radical at all. Who's this persuading?
After watching this, I really, really, really want Barack to step to John McCain at the next debate.
Why? McCain trashing his own reputaton isn't good enough? People don't care about the Ayres nonsense. They want talk about the economy and how they'll get new jobs. Why McCain is doubling down on this I have no idea(Actually, I do. It is clear this his campaign has descended into Teh Stopid!!). McCain is going to get his ass kicked come November 4th.
This will, I am afraid, work all too well. The morons in the Appalachia clip will eat this like catnip and the stain in their brains will never go away. People who are still undecided for whatever mind boggling reason will be affected like this.
Shit like this makes Willie Horton look like Beaver Cleaver. Disgusting is too mild a word. I may vomit.
Though as Andrew points out, the non-Ayers details of his mortgage proposal are so nuts even those of us who find mortgages confusing can see they won't work. Now we're all on the same side as Michelle Malkin, of all the weird feelings.
Launching an ad in which we argue about how well Obama knows Ayers is a losing proposition, though. Then it becomes all about Obama and Ayers, which is not a helpful conversation to be having. The McCain people would LOVE that to be the debate for the next 3 weeks. Maybe an ad showing one of those hesitant voters ("I've heard this stuff...") talking to a demographically appealing Obama volunteer who would gently point out the untruths, but make it minimally about Ayers and mostly about he's a regular guy--born here, works, lives, and worships in Chicago, loves his family and his country.
I am done with John McCain. I once admired him; he used to be America's most popular Senator. What he's willing to do for a chance to be president is revolting, and no amount of "I was misled, my friends, and I repent" will win the disaffected back. We came back after the Confederate flag, and this spring there were the "he's pandering, but he's uncomfortable pandering so you know he's an okay guy underneath" punditizing--he's spent his captital.
Look, if the sex ed for kindergarden kids didn't work, this won't. Further, my understanding is that this is only a web ad. There aren't any current plans to run it nationally. Yes, it's despicable, but let's see it for what it is: McCain's desperate attempt to win a media cycle on a single day of the week.
Man... this ad is pure vitriol. It's sad that McCain/RNC have no qualms about such no-conscience campaigning. How do they ever expect to run a country if it's all about divide and destroy? Give me a break, even terrorism falls second to worrying about your 401k/paycheck.
This foolishness wont be rewarded with an electoral victory. It further makes the "R" brand toxic and divorced from reality. I sure would hate to be running down ticket.
Look, its true that Obama and Ayer's have a relationship. And it's true that Ayer's was a terrorist (is it once a terrorist always a terrorist? I don't know. I still consider him a terrorist because he set off bombs in my city and aimed at some of my colleagues).
I am an Obama supporter, but I think these ads are fair game, and that Obama owes the voters a frank explanation for his relationshionship with Ayers. He may, in doing so, call McCain a punk for letting his henchmen do all of his dirty work, but the more important point is that he must confront and explain away this relationship.
I know some of you may say that this gives the issue more emphasis that it is worth and will only serve to draw more attention to it. But it has been a headline for almost a week now and is not going anywhere. Waiting for it to completely blow up and then trying to do damage control could be worse. And as I said earlier, he should address it in any event because its the right thing to do.
"frank explanation for his relationshionship with Ayers."
What has Obama hidden? They were on a board together with Republicans and democrats. The both where active in education circles and knew one another, as well as many other republican and democrats, so what? I suppose any student who took Ayers courses and had a productive experience needs to explain themselves frankly too? Please.
One thing that has been bothering me a lot about the "Obama is a terrorist" line of attack (beyond, of course, the ridiculous thought that Obama is a terrorist) is what this line of attack says about people who support Obama. In particular, I wonder about the lasting and damaging consequences this will have for the country.
When you accuse a politician of being a liar, being in with lobbyists, etc., that doesn't really reflect back on people who support them. You don't really hear about how voters are in cahoots with lobbyists when they support candidate A, but even if you did hear that, it just isn't a big deal.
But by (essentially) saying that Obama is a terrorist, you are either saying that voters have been duped by him (which is what the McCain people are probably trying to say), or that over 50% of Americans are knowingly supporting a terrorist.
Is it really a stretch to think that the rank and file republican base believes the latter, and not the former? If so, where does that leave us as a country? If Obama is elected, will republican congressmen refuse to work with Obama for fear of being branded by their base as working with a terrorist? Will Fox run specials for four years about how the president is a terrorist? Will half of the country look at the other half and think that we have pulled a Palestinian-style election and voted for Hamas?
I realize that this might all seem absurd, but after watching the McCain campaign and their more vocal followers at rallies for the past week, it is hard to imagine everyone from Hannity on down to the gaining-in-fame youtube mccain/palin supporters will suddenly turn off the "Obama is a terrorist" rhetoric if he is elected.
He has addressed it. Several times. As recently as what, yesterday on Gibson. Michelle's addressed it. His surrogates have addressed it. They'll probably keep addressing it. But in the end their relationship was what it was. Whether you or any other voter is o.k./not o.k. with the explanation is something the will be decided on a person by person basis. But my guess is that most folks aren't falling for it. It really is weak, and with so many far far more important and relevant issues on the voters minds, McCain's focus on this total boondoggle make him look even weaker.
I didn't say he hid anything and I don't believe he has. However, given the importance of the issue and its resurgence in past days I think he needs to, personally and in his own words rather than through a surrogate, confront it openly and publically in a way that it will reach the same audience that will see this ad.
If he has already done this, I have not seen it, and neither have most Americans who are aware of Ayer's relationship with Obama.
As for this "I suppose any student who took Ayers courses and had a productive experience needs to explain themselves frankly too?"
Uh, no. This is completely irrelevent since students have an entirely different relationship to Ayers than Obama does and because students are not running for POTUS. That being said, I wouldn't take Ayer's class but to antagonize the c*cksu**er.
I just saw the Gibson interview posted by the host a few minutes ago. This is along the lines of what I thought he should do. Lets all go back to work!
As I stated on another thread, I think that some people are looking for what they believe to be valid reasons not to vote for Obama. They'd rather say that it's because he's secretly a Muslim or point out his relationship to Ayers and the Rev. Wright (or flag pins or hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance, etc.) than admit to others (and themselves) that their real problem with Obama is that he's is black.
McCain and the RNC know this and are willing to provide as many of those "reasons" as possible.
"Uh, no. This is completely irrelevent since students have an entirely different relationship to Ayers than Obama does and because students are not running for POTUS."
Not to get into a running back and forth but.....
The point is that a number of major news organizations have investigated this "relationship" and have come to the conclusion that there is nothing of substance to it. Obama himself has clarified in several instances, most recently with Charles Gibson what type of connection he and Ayers had. What else should he do take a polygraph on national TV, pledge an oath of loyalty? As far as the student analogy the point was to make light of guilt by association, I'm sure you got.
That done, I think the ad fails at the point at which the female husky voice says it's not about the relationship, it's about the judgment. This isn't logical. If Barack Obama were really "friends" with a domestic terrorist, that would be enough said. If that's untrue, then there is no point.
In light of all these dangerous "associates", I wonder if McCain should have to explain his relationship with his "good friend" Henry Kissenger...
If Ayers is a terrorist--a terrorist that killed no one--then what does that make Kissenger? Cthulhu? Emperor Palpatine?
Seriously, for anyone in the clown car who thinks Ayers is anything other than a former rich kid turned wanna be marxist revolutionary, then what do you make of McCain's "good friend" Dr. Kissenger? Who unlike Ayers, actually had a part in the mass murder of several million human beings. There's a man who knows how to get things done.
What's more despicable? Pretending to overthrow the US gov't by blowing up a bathroom? Or being a part of the gov't that dropped several million tons of explosives on civilian targets in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia? Bombs, which to this very day are still killing and maiming people.
Compared to the legions of respectable terrorists and murderers in Washington DC, Ayers is piker. Frankly, I'm a little disappointed that Obama couldn't have made friends with some folks who actually know how to overthrow governments and kill people.
I know . . . it's like I'm at war with myself on how I want Obama to respond. There's a part of me that want him to get in the mud with McCain/Palin and start slinging Keating 5, Troopergate, Wasilla Assembly of God, and every other nasty possible thing right back at those two hateful people because I know he could to it so much better, with wit and sting. But, it's because Obama doesn't do those things that I admire him so much. He's on another, more noble road that I hope leads to the White House.
I read this today on another blog:
"Two paths diverged in the woods
Obama took the one less traveled
and that has made all the difference."
amazing.
i know that americans, generally, have short attention spans, but i'm always shocked when i hear or read reasonably intelligent people evidence the same sort of amnesia.
anyone who doesn't think that this type of attack will not be effective hasn't been paying attention for the last 25 years.
the better question is this: when has it NOT been effective.
one poster mentioned that the earlier "sex ed" ads were not effective, but that reading of events is incredibly mistaken. it was effective. the polling numbers were moving in mccain's direction as a result of the constant barrage of attacks.
the economic crisis, however, reared its ugly head and all of a sudden those attacks receded and barack began his climb in the polls. but to argue that those other attacks were not effective, is simply a misreading of events.
and we are already seeing this type of attack take attention away from the economic crisis. cable news is dying to move away from this boring, depressing economic news and mccain is providing a good excuse, with this line of attack.
mccain is practicing an extreme form of what josh marshall over at TPM calls the "bitch slap theory" of politics. (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/148765.php) unless barack fights back, and fights back hard, his numbers are going to take a quick sharp dive.
the better question is this: why should he AVOID confronting mccain in the next debate?
i'm constantly amused by those who counsel against that type of confrontation. they argue that he shouldn't go there.
then, inevitably, the debates happen and what is seen as a candidate's best moments?
those moments, like in barack's debates, where barack steps up and directly attacks and challenges his opponent.
barack's best moments in the two debates have come when he has directly and forthrightly confronted and challenged mccain.
he needs to do that with this issue.
any MAN - to use the emphasis that palin would use - would react in that fashion. if he allows mccain to attack him in this fashion, without an adequate response, he ends up lookin like dukakis dispassionately answering the question about the fate of his wife's hypothetical rapist.
You've been saying this for a while - and I certainly am glad he's no Kerry or Dukakis, but as the vitrol has risen, so have Obama's figures - he can't go any higher than 11 points realistically.
It's not who he is; Obama likes to knife them and walk away before they can even feel the blade, let alone see the blood.
I think he's going to hit McCain by calmly calling him all but a coward and cooly watch John go batshit at the last debate.
Fair enough, frankie d, but if the Ayers attacks aren't resonating, do you think Obama should bring it up? That doesn't make much sense to me. Although it appears you assume this Ayers attack is going to be effective, we'll probably have a better idea by next Wednesday, right?
1.
Democrats have a better candidate this time. This stuff worked with three rather uncharismatic - IMO - democratic candidates. It won't work with Obama. Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry - all very smart - just didnt have the charisma to inspire large swaths of people. Yes, policies are important. But charisma wins. Just ask all the nice guys complaining about all women want is bad boys.
2.
Times have changed. Dukakis was up against a very popular incumbent after economic expansion. Gore inconclusive. Kerry was up against a war time president who many thought should clean up his own mess.
3. Obama's ground game is superb.
I think more credit is given too these ads than they deserve anyway. But thats what ad people are about: hype. This year is alot like when Clinton won. Clinton had the charisma, the policies, a faltering economy, and the luck of Perot being in the race to siphon of Bush Sr. votes. They threw tons of dirt at him and he still won.
I'm happy the McCain-Palin-RNC axis is blowing their wad on this stuff. I was actually afraid they'd spend their money trying to salvage what's left of their congressional representation.
stacey and james,
i'd suggest we all watch the polling numbers over the next couple of weeks. my strong guess is that they are going to tighten.
maybe even dramatically.
everyone recognizes that the polling surge obama enjoys now has been pushed along by the economic crisis.
the msm is not going to concentrate solely on this over the next few weeks. that surge is not going to maintain its force.
mccain is now making a desperate move by pushing this line of dishonest attack, almost exclusively. it is all that he has. it will get oxygen, and start percolating around the electorate. even now, it is starting to dominate news coverage of the two campaigns.
ignoring the attacks would be kerry-level disasterous.
merely whining about the attack is ineffective.
mutually assured destruction - as someone else noted on another subject - is the only effective response.
as i've asked many, many times: when has this strategy ever FAILED to work for republicans?
the great thing about this ad is that you can tell all the outright lies. when the narrator makes a statement & no source comes up for it on the screen it's a straight up lie. the other stuff is just distortion. i mean the national review as a source? give me a break. also to call the CAC a radical education org is just farcical. the org they worked together on was funded by a nixon & reagan appointee.
Here was my immediate reaction to this video: If Obama and Ayres are so BFF, why isn't there any picture of them together? Instead of one picture of each, placed side by side, dontchaknow.
Here's a piece no one cared about. Meh, whatever, probably the most enjoyable article I did during my stint at TIME. Premiered a month before I got laid-off. The nail in the coffin? Ya think?
Here's me going after Al. I didn't so much have a problem with him, as I had a problem with media acting like this dude was the go-to guy for everything black.
This was my first real story at time. I was writing for the Business section, a real change of direction for me. At any rate, it's about Wal-Mart's attempts to colonize the inner-city. As much as I enjoyed this piece, I mostly enjoyed going out to Chicago, which is a beautiful, beautiful city.
This a piece I did about the cops just outside our nation capitol, in Prince George's County, a few years back. I wanted to offer a counter to the dumb, conventional wisdom that if you paint your police force black, you could eradicate police brutality. In fact, Prince George's--one of the richest, blackest counties in the country--also had one of the most brutal police force's in the country.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
I actually wouldn't mind the ad that much until that "too risky" shit at the end. But you're right, making a big deal of it at the next debate wouldn't be good for anyone. Obama just needs to keep showing America just how un-radical he is. You can't paint a man in this way when the country already has the feeling that he's not radical at all. Who's this persuading?
After watching this, I really, really, really want Barack to step to John McCain at the next debate.
Why? McCain trashing his own reputaton isn't good enough? People don't care about the Ayres nonsense. They want talk about the economy and how they'll get new jobs. Why McCain is doubling down on this I have no idea(Actually, I do. It is clear this his campaign has descended into Teh Stopid!!). McCain is going to get his ass kicked come November 4th.
This will, I am afraid, work all too well. The morons in the Appalachia clip will eat this like catnip and the stain in their brains will never go away. People who are still undecided for whatever mind boggling reason will be affected like this.
Shit like this makes Willie Horton look like Beaver Cleaver. Disgusting is too mild a word. I may vomit.
McCain economic plan: Obama Obama Obama Ayers
McCain healthcare plan: Obama Obama Obama Ayers
McCain entire campaign strategy: Obama Obama Obama Ayers
Though as Andrew points out, the non-Ayers details of his mortgage proposal are so nuts even those of us who find mortgages confusing can see they won't work. Now we're all on the same side as Michelle Malkin, of all the weird feelings.
Launching an ad in which we argue about how well Obama knows Ayers is a losing proposition, though. Then it becomes all about Obama and Ayers, which is not a helpful conversation to be having. The McCain people would LOVE that to be the debate for the next 3 weeks. Maybe an ad showing one of those hesitant voters ("I've heard this stuff...") talking to a demographically appealing Obama volunteer who would gently point out the untruths, but make it minimally about Ayers and mostly about he's a regular guy--born here, works, lives, and worships in Chicago, loves his family and his country.
I am done with John McCain. I once admired him; he used to be America's most popular Senator. What he's willing to do for a chance to be president is revolting, and no amount of "I was misled, my friends, and I repent" will win the disaffected back. We came back after the Confederate flag, and this spring there were the "he's pandering, but he's uncomfortable pandering so you know he's an okay guy underneath" punditizing--he's spent his captital.
Look, if the sex ed for kindergarden kids didn't work, this won't. Further, my understanding is that this is only a web ad. There aren't any current plans to run it nationally. Yes, it's despicable, but let's see it for what it is: McCain's desperate attempt to win a media cycle on a single day of the week.
I forgot to ask before. Is McCain paying for this ad to actually air? Or is he just hoping tools like David Gregory show it over and over again?
Man... this ad is pure vitriol. It's sad that McCain/RNC have no qualms about such no-conscience campaigning. How do they ever expect to run a country if it's all about divide and destroy? Give me a break, even terrorism falls second to worrying about your 401k/paycheck.
This foolishness wont be rewarded with an electoral victory. It further makes the "R" brand toxic and divorced from reality. I sure would hate to be running down ticket.
Look, its true that Obama and Ayer's have a relationship. And it's true that Ayer's was a terrorist (is it once a terrorist always a terrorist? I don't know. I still consider him a terrorist because he set off bombs in my city and aimed at some of my colleagues).
I am an Obama supporter, but I think these ads are fair game, and that Obama owes the voters a frank explanation for his relationshionship with Ayers. He may, in doing so, call McCain a punk for letting his henchmen do all of his dirty work, but the more important point is that he must confront and explain away this relationship.
I know some of you may say that this gives the issue more emphasis that it is worth and will only serve to draw more attention to it. But it has been a headline for almost a week now and is not going anywhere. Waiting for it to completely blow up and then trying to do damage control could be worse. And as I said earlier, he should address it in any event because its the right thing to do.
"frank explanation for his relationshionship with Ayers."
What has Obama hidden? They were on a board together with Republicans and democrats. The both where active in education circles and knew one another, as well as many other republican and democrats, so what? I suppose any student who took Ayers courses and had a productive experience needs to explain themselves frankly too? Please.
I like Obama's response to this line of attack with Charlie Gibson.
He straight out calls McCain a punk: "Why won't he say that to my face?"
Brutal. And I think effective.
One thing that has been bothering me a lot about the "Obama is a terrorist" line of attack (beyond, of course, the ridiculous thought that Obama is a terrorist) is what this line of attack says about people who support Obama. In particular, I wonder about the lasting and damaging consequences this will have for the country.
When you accuse a politician of being a liar, being in with lobbyists, etc., that doesn't really reflect back on people who support them. You don't really hear about how voters are in cahoots with lobbyists when they support candidate A, but even if you did hear that, it just isn't a big deal.
But by (essentially) saying that Obama is a terrorist, you are either saying that voters have been duped by him (which is what the McCain people are probably trying to say), or that over 50% of Americans are knowingly supporting a terrorist.
Is it really a stretch to think that the rank and file republican base believes the latter, and not the former? If so, where does that leave us as a country? If Obama is elected, will republican congressmen refuse to work with Obama for fear of being branded by their base as working with a terrorist? Will Fox run specials for four years about how the president is a terrorist? Will half of the country look at the other half and think that we have pulled a Palestinian-style election and voted for Hamas?
I realize that this might all seem absurd, but after watching the McCain campaign and their more vocal followers at rallies for the past week, it is hard to imagine everyone from Hannity on down to the gaining-in-fame youtube mccain/palin supporters will suddenly turn off the "Obama is a terrorist" rhetoric if he is elected.
He has addressed it. Several times. As recently as what, yesterday on Gibson. Michelle's addressed it. His surrogates have addressed it. They'll probably keep addressing it. But in the end their relationship was what it was. Whether you or any other voter is o.k./not o.k. with the explanation is something the will be decided on a person by person basis. But my guess is that most folks aren't falling for it. It really is weak, and with so many far far more important and relevant issues on the voters minds, McCain's focus on this total boondoggle make him look even weaker.
Karl asks: "What has Obama hidden?"
I didn't say he hid anything and I don't believe he has. However, given the importance of the issue and its resurgence in past days I think he needs to, personally and in his own words rather than through a surrogate, confront it openly and publically in a way that it will reach the same audience that will see this ad.
If he has already done this, I have not seen it, and neither have most Americans who are aware of Ayer's relationship with Obama.
As for this "I suppose any student who took Ayers courses and had a productive experience needs to explain themselves frankly too?"
Uh, no. This is completely irrelevent since students have an entirely different relationship to Ayers than Obama does and because students are not running for POTUS. That being said, I wouldn't take Ayer's class but to antagonize the c*cksu**er.
Pretty sure this is a web-only ad, since it is a strange length (1:41, I think).
I just saw the Gibson interview posted by the host a few minutes ago. This is along the lines of what I thought he should do. Lets all go back to work!
I think it's hilarious that they trying so hard to link Obama with a scary white man.
Also, I'm not even sure this is about trying to win an election but rather to weaken him for when he is the POTUS.
As I stated on another thread, I think that some people are looking for what they believe to be valid reasons not to vote for Obama. They'd rather say that it's because he's secretly a Muslim or point out his relationship to Ayers and the Rev. Wright (or flag pins or hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance, etc.) than admit to others (and themselves) that their real problem with Obama is that he's is black.
McCain and the RNC know this and are willing to provide as many of those "reasons" as possible.
"Uh, no. This is completely irrelevent since students have an entirely different relationship to Ayers than Obama does and because students are not running for POTUS."
Not to get into a running back and forth but.....
The point is that a number of major news organizations have investigated this "relationship" and have come to the conclusion that there is nothing of substance to it. Obama himself has clarified in several instances, most recently with Charles Gibson what type of connection he and Ayers had. What else should he do take a polygraph on national TV, pledge an oath of loyalty? As far as the student analogy the point was to make light of guilt by association, I'm sure you got.
Barf.
That done, I think the ad fails at the point at which the female husky voice says it's not about the relationship, it's about the judgment. This isn't logical. If Barack Obama were really "friends" with a domestic terrorist, that would be enough said. If that's untrue, then there is no point.
In light of all these dangerous "associates", I wonder if McCain should have to explain his relationship with his "good friend" Henry Kissenger...
If Ayers is a terrorist--a terrorist that killed no one--then what does that make Kissenger? Cthulhu? Emperor Palpatine?
Seriously, for anyone in the clown car who thinks Ayers is anything other than a former rich kid turned wanna be marxist revolutionary, then what do you make of McCain's "good friend" Dr. Kissenger? Who unlike Ayers, actually had a part in the mass murder of several million human beings. There's a man who knows how to get things done.
What's more despicable? Pretending to overthrow the US gov't by blowing up a bathroom? Or being a part of the gov't that dropped several million tons of explosives on civilian targets in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia? Bombs, which to this very day are still killing and maiming people.
Compared to the legions of respectable terrorists and murderers in Washington DC, Ayers is piker. Frankly, I'm a little disappointed that Obama couldn't have made friends with some folks who actually know how to overthrow governments and kill people.
I know . . . it's like I'm at war with myself on how I want Obama to respond. There's a part of me that want him to get in the mud with McCain/Palin and start slinging Keating 5, Troopergate, Wasilla Assembly of God, and every other nasty possible thing right back at those two hateful people because I know he could to it so much better, with wit and sting. But, it's because Obama doesn't do those things that I admire him so much. He's on another, more noble road that I hope leads to the White House.
I read this today on another blog:
"Two paths diverged in the woods
Obama took the one less traveled
and that has made all the difference."
Here's hoping.
amazing.
i know that americans, generally, have short attention spans, but i'm always shocked when i hear or read reasonably intelligent people evidence the same sort of amnesia.
anyone who doesn't think that this type of attack will not be effective hasn't been paying attention for the last 25 years.
the better question is this: when has it NOT been effective.
one poster mentioned that the earlier "sex ed" ads were not effective, but that reading of events is incredibly mistaken. it was effective. the polling numbers were moving in mccain's direction as a result of the constant barrage of attacks.
the economic crisis, however, reared its ugly head and all of a sudden those attacks receded and barack began his climb in the polls. but to argue that those other attacks were not effective, is simply a misreading of events.
and we are already seeing this type of attack take attention away from the economic crisis. cable news is dying to move away from this boring, depressing economic news and mccain is providing a good excuse, with this line of attack.
mccain is practicing an extreme form of what josh marshall over at TPM calls the "bitch slap theory" of politics. (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/148765.php) unless barack fights back, and fights back hard, his numbers are going to take a quick sharp dive.
the better question is this: why should he AVOID confronting mccain in the next debate?
i'm constantly amused by those who counsel against that type of confrontation. they argue that he shouldn't go there.
then, inevitably, the debates happen and what is seen as a candidate's best moments?
those moments, like in barack's debates, where barack steps up and directly attacks and challenges his opponent.
barack's best moments in the two debates have come when he has directly and forthrightly confronted and challenged mccain.
he needs to do that with this issue.
any MAN - to use the emphasis that palin would use - would react in that fashion. if he allows mccain to attack him in this fashion, without an adequate response, he ends up lookin like dukakis dispassionately answering the question about the fate of his wife's hypothetical rapist.
frankie,
You've been saying this for a while - and I certainly am glad he's no Kerry or Dukakis, but as the vitrol has risen, so have Obama's figures - he can't go any higher than 11 points realistically.
It's not who he is; Obama likes to knife them and walk away before they can even feel the blade, let alone see the blood.
I think he's going to hit McCain by calmly calling him all but a coward and cooly watch John go batshit at the last debate.
Fair enough, frankie d, but if the Ayers attacks aren't resonating, do you think Obama should bring it up? That doesn't make much sense to me. Although it appears you assume this Ayers attack is going to be effective, we'll probably have a better idea by next Wednesday, right?
1.
Democrats have a better candidate this time. This stuff worked with three rather uncharismatic - IMO - democratic candidates. It won't work with Obama. Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry - all very smart - just didnt have the charisma to inspire large swaths of people. Yes, policies are important. But charisma wins. Just ask all the nice guys complaining about all women want is bad boys.
2.
Times have changed. Dukakis was up against a very popular incumbent after economic expansion. Gore inconclusive. Kerry was up against a war time president who many thought should clean up his own mess.
3. Obama's ground game is superb.
I think more credit is given too these ads than they deserve anyway. But thats what ad people are about: hype. This year is alot like when Clinton won. Clinton had the charisma, the policies, a faltering economy, and the luck of Perot being in the race to siphon of Bush Sr. votes. They threw tons of dirt at him and he still won.
John Henry,
You might be right - the two where it did the most damage were two appalling candidates who never should have got the nomination in the first place.
I'm happy the McCain-Palin-RNC axis is blowing their wad on this stuff. I was actually afraid they'd spend their money trying to salvage what's left of their congressional representation.
stacey and james,
i'd suggest we all watch the polling numbers over the next couple of weeks. my strong guess is that they are going to tighten.
maybe even dramatically.
everyone recognizes that the polling surge obama enjoys now has been pushed along by the economic crisis.
the msm is not going to concentrate solely on this over the next few weeks. that surge is not going to maintain its force.
mccain is now making a desperate move by pushing this line of dishonest attack, almost exclusively. it is all that he has. it will get oxygen, and start percolating around the electorate. even now, it is starting to dominate news coverage of the two campaigns.
ignoring the attacks would be kerry-level disasterous.
merely whining about the attack is ineffective.
mutually assured destruction - as someone else noted on another subject - is the only effective response.
as i've asked many, many times: when has this strategy ever FAILED to work for republicans?
the great thing about this ad is that you can tell all the outright lies. when the narrator makes a statement & no source comes up for it on the screen it's a straight up lie. the other stuff is just distortion. i mean the national review as a source? give me a break. also to call the CAC a radical education org is just farcical. the org they worked together on was funded by a nixon & reagan appointee.
read my ayers/obama relationship debunking here:
http://cointelpol.blogspot.com/2008/10/ayers-obama.html
Here was my immediate reaction to this video: If Obama and Ayres are so BFF, why isn't there any picture of them together? Instead of one picture of each, placed side by side, dontchaknow.
Lame.