Actually, I get it: if Goldfarb can maintain that level of smarminess in the next couple days during the interview cycle, he's bound to elicit infuriated responses, and some of those who will be lashing back will have some tangential connection to Obama, and thus...we have our number twos.
I'm not sure he meant Wright. There's no reason for him not to say Wright. He was able to say Ayers, despite his not being an actual anti-Semite. And I agree with @AMT: I can't think of anything Wright's known for that's specifically anti-Semitic.
That whole, "We both know who I'm talkin' about, Rick" stuff seemed to me to be Goldfarb's desire to say a BIG name that would be unretractable, or even actionable, if it were actually uttered (like, say, Voldemort). I'm thinking he's got either Ahmadinejad or Bin Laden in his mental Rolodex.
Kudos to the CNN guy (was that Rick Sanchez?) for forcing Goldfarb to show how utterly baseless the McCain camp's slanders are.
"He's been critical of Israel, which for some, is anti-Semitism."
And he said nice things about Farrakhan. Who in the eyes of many American Jews, though not this American Jew, is one remove from Nazism. If that. So yeah. But back to Goldfarb, this is absurd. They're clearly under directives to not mention Wright, so why hint at him? If you want to use code, use code, but don't be like, "we all know who Number Two is," that's ridiculous.
This is the twit who told Ron Paul supporters to go vote for Obama, right? I'd say he's going to regret that statement, but it's pretty clear he lacks any sort of self-awareness.
Well this does convince me that the avoidance of Wright is sincere and not some sort of ploy.
Of course, even if its been sincere up until now, they may still use it in the next few days.
....
It also shows I think how wingnuts are talking amongst themselves. When talking to like-minded folks, he doesn't have to mention a name, or even expressly imply anti-semitism. They all know what they're talking about. They're just communicating with raised eyebrows at this point, and when they come out of the cocoon, they can't figure out why the rest of us aren't right their with them.
I really can't believe that this grown man got on TV, and a) participated in blatant McCarythism, and b) got his ass handed to him by Rick Sanchez (and pardon me, but why is Khalidi being labeled anti-Semitic?). And by the way, can someone please define for me what being an anti-Semite is? I thought it was a hatred for Jews and/or Israel, but apparently if you are critical of US foreign policy with regards to Israel, or Israeli government's behavior toward Palestinians than that makes you an anti-Semite.
And when did Wright make anti-Semitic statements? Or does his relationship/kind words for Farrakhan automatically mean he is an anti-Semite.
This stuff is crazy. This election has made me start to think every relationship and conversation I ever had. God forbid you have an association with a person that you may disagree with.
From Joe the Plumber to Michael the Clown. Impressive group of buddies you've got there, Senator McCain. Tell me, when do we hear from George the President? Or Ted the Pastor?
This is revealing -- and maybe not just about Goldfarb -- in one very specific way: McCain said Wright was off-limits. He evidently meant it. And he has made it stick.
So why does Goldfarb go on CNN and pull something like this?
He wanted the interviewer to say the name, so he could claim -- to who, McCain? the public? -- that he wasn't the one who brought Wright's name up, "but...."
Lord knows there are a lot of examples now, so the point is that it isn't just Palin's nomination that shows McCain would make a catastrophic President: nobody who has ever run anything would have had a guy like Goldfarb in a position like this pulling this crap less than a week out.
I wonder if Rick Sanchez gets upset having to validate sloppy young know-nothings as "experts."
"My hair is perfect! Gaze upon my veneers in wonder! And you...you don't even use a comb! You can't even tie a tie! And yet I am forced to share a TV screen with you! I didn't go to robo-anchor school for this garbage!"
For me, one sign of McCain's downward spiral has been the decline in quality of his surrogates. Lately it seems like he has to rely on people paid by his campaign to push his stale merch. Romney, Crist, et al bailed long ago. And now he apparently can't even get his own grownups to flack for him. Next it'll be the guy who delivers sandwiches. Joe The Sandwich Guy! Good old Joe.
Yeah, he could have said Wright, but he didn't. In fact, you don't know if he was referring to Wright, Axelrod, Michelle, Malia and Sasha, or Joe Biden's son. That is why he is a chickensh*t, this one. He essentially cast an aspersion on ANYONE who Obama could be said to have "pal-ed around" with, but did not have the stones to name names. The GOP, with this p.o.s., has reached a low that I was not quite sure I would ever see.
They are pretending like they are not using Wright because McCain is above the fray but really Wright is such old news. If you don't know about Wright by now, you must have been the Gov of Alaska for the past year. The NYT used the stock pic of Obama hugging Wright for just about every Obama article for the last 3 months of the primary. Its a blank. The know if they shoot it, it will make alot of noise but there will be no collateral damage.
Karen wins for the Voldemort reference. I want to see someone toss that back at the next McCain apologist. "When you say 'those people, you know who I mean' are you talking about Lord Voldemort? Or possibly Professor Lockhart?"
What I like is the "Attacking Obama: McCain's New Gambit" title. That's all they've done. Marc posted their pollster's optimistic memo, and it mentioned McCain 4 times, Palin 0, Obama 19, and Biden 1. Their campaign is all about the other guy, and their failure to light on any other issue is killing them.
Maybe what happened was Goldfarb goes "I think we all know who He-who-cannot-be-named is" and then the interviewer hit him with a petrificus totalus. If you watch it again I think you can just barely hear him say it under his breath.
"Their campaign is all about the other guy, and their failure to light on any other issue is killing them."
I mean, Bush is killing them. The economy's killing them. I know people on your side would like to think that you really handed a drubbing to the Republicans this time around, but that isn't what's happening. What's happening is that Bush was a bad President. Bush is a Republican. So is McCain. Voters don't want a Republican. They want a Democrat. That's why the vast majority of Obama voters are voting for Obama. Should the economy not improve for Obama by 2012, his campaign skills, as great as they are, won't be able to save him. Just as even the most brilliant of Republican campaigns couldn't have elected McCain.
Who is this guy? In fact, who are any of these guys they're constantly putting on air for "expert" analysis? I mean it, literally, who ARE they?
The other night, Jon Stewart did a piece on pundits, and I googled one of the ones he mentioned, a woman from the Caddington(?) Group. And lo and behold, her "group" consisted of ... her! and her friend! Their bios revealed absolutely nothing to recommend them as "experts" at anything!
Just FYI there was more to the interview. Rick Sanchez doesn't get quite all his due for his total PWNAGE of Goldfarb in the abbreviated clip. Try this one.
I wonder if there is anybody in the McCain camp that doesn't get PWNED on a regular basis. Tucker Bounds just gets laughed at now. Nancy Pfotenwhatever has gone into hiding. We all know what happened to Michele Bachmann. And we need to get the child support people to search for Carla Fiorina. I just can't see how Americans could reward such mismanagement
"Just as even the most brilliant of Republican campaigns couldn't have elected McCain."
We'll never know, but I think this is just wrong. Despite the fact that McCain's campaign has been an absolute train wreck, he's still not that far behind.
McCain has a good chance to win this election, all he had to do was:
1.Not act like grandpa simpson
2.Be consistent
3.Play up the country angle
4.Play the tax and spend angle
5.Stay mostly positive with hints about Obama's bad judgment (wright, ayres) without overplaying it
6.Be white
Apparently, he only had success with #6, which is why he is still not that far behind.
The sad thing in all of this is the sort of naturalization of racism and prejudice.
I would love to know what Khalidi has said that has had him universally penned as an anti Semite. The guy is a Palestinian who supports a 2 state solution to the point of being asked by the US to be an advisor to the peace talks. Even the ADL cannot find anything that he has said that is anti-Semitic.
And yet every major news organization accepts that without even blinking an eye. This sort of anti-Arab, anti-Muslim prejudice has gotten so naturalized by our media and institutions that even patriotic Arab Americans and Muslims have internalized it, having to point to how they go above and beyond others in their patriotism (as if it would be ok to discriminate against those without a flag bumper sticker or so on).
The real question is why the McCain campaign put a cringing kobold on screen, rather than finding a half-way respectable ogre. Or was Joe the Plumber still hiding out in the cave behind the waterfall?
"My hair is perfect! Gaze upon my veneers in wonder! And you...you don't even use a comb! You can't even tie a tie! And yet I am forced to share a TV screen with you! I didn't go to robo-anchor school for this garbage!"
I think you guys and gals are giving Goldfarb too much credit. He wasn't thinking Wright or anyone else. He was (unexpectedly) caught making shit up, and his response was embarrassed weaseling. There's no second anti-Semite (if there's even a first) just like there's no second terrorist.
Just read that the PAC that has been running the Wright ads in some swing states will now be running them nationwide for the next five days. This may be why Goldfarb didn't want to say Wright (not saying he's an anti-semite, but he certainly meets the right wing criteria by being critical of Israel). McCain wants to be able to distance himself from the ad.
Rick's closing statement should have been, "Michael, if you ever manage to summon the courage to back up your slander, we'll gladly have you on again. Until then, you've forfeited your seat at the grownups table."
I agree with Skyhook. And I wasn't thinking Wright. Goldfarb makes it seem like it's some big behind the scene's story that people know about, but the liberal media won't discuss (kinda like McCain's temper). It could be anyone, even Biden, except it's really not anyone.
""Michael, if you ever manage to summon the courage to back up your slander, we'll gladly have you on again. Until then, you've forfeited your seat at the grownups table."
Nice thought, but that's not how it works. For better or worse the proliferation of news outlets means that they are forever in need of people to put in the chair Goldfarb is sitting in. I've been asked to be a "expert" on all sorts of things that barely relate to anything I actually know about (if at all). The first time I said "No" I thought I'd never hear from anybody again. Then the day comes when the seat needs filling and sure enough, the phone rings. It's just the way it is.
The reason the McCain people don't mention Wright is because they can generate media coverage merely by mentioning that they're not gonna talk about Wright. Video images of the pastor's work is burned into most minds. They know it's a dead story and they'll be branded hypocrites for resurrecting it. But by constantly inferring Wright - they increase the dark emotional resonance and keep the story alive.
I would very publicly like to punch Michael Goldfarb in the face. He can bring Jonah Goldberg for backup; I'll kick his ass too, just on general principle.
Farrakhan's primary subject is injustice and wrongdoing, and 95% of what he says is true - except when he gets to causation, which he says is numerology, Dr. Yacub, and 'the Jews'. His demonization by the corrupt, racist establishment tends to persuade his flock that he's right about that stuff too.
I didn't think they could find someone worse than Tucker Bounds, but low and behold they did. I guess some people just aren't cut out to defend outright lies.
What strikes me is just how third-rate and pathetic the McCain surrogate crew is: Goldfarb, Ptofenhaour, Michelle Bachman, Carly Fiorino, and of course Miss Alaska herself. Would you let any of those fools even order lunch for you?
I know people on your side would like to think that you really handed a drubbing to the Republicans this time around, but that isn't what's happening.
My point was that McCain (and other Republicans, e.g. Bachmann) are handing themselves a drubbing--they take a bad situation and rather than attempting to channel Hagel and a positive vision of the future they double down on the worst excesses of the most virulent part of the base.
What's happening is that Bush was a bad President. Bush is a Republican. So is McCain. Voters don't want a Republican. They want a Democrat. That's why the vast majority of Obama voters are voting for Obama. Should the economy not improve for Obama by 2012, his campaign skills, as great as they are, won't be able to save him.
I agree with all of this.
Just as even the most brilliant of Republican campaigns couldn't have elected McCain.
These polls for all levels of office that ask "who do you like, Dem or Rep" always go to the Dems until the question switches to "who do you like, Smith or Jones;" then suddenly it's real people and the Republicans' enviable ability to win elections boosts them up, or boosts the Dem candidate down. I brilliant Republican campaign could, I think, have gotten him close. A few points, enough for the photo finish the media wants, enough for any last minute gaffe from Obama or an outside event (economy brilliantly recovers!!) to tip things over. McCain needed to take some risks, but he would have been much better served taking carefully weighed, strategic risks. Instead he took Palin. And was so comically clueless on the economy--Will today excoriates him for having a bored briefing with an expert that finished up, to the expert's dismay, with "so who's the villain?"
I want Obama to win, so I'm happy to watch McCain make bizarre decisions that end badly. (Unless Palin actually winds up in the White House, which terrifies me.) But in terms of my team--I'm an independent. I voted for McCain in 2000 (largely anti-Bush; I was prescient) and until sometime late spring--the torture flip--thought that was the guy running this time around. I sanguinely envisioned a McCain presidency as a not-at-all-bad second choice.
I've voted for Weld (who just endorsed Obama, and could still get elected tomorrow in MA). I want the Republicans to emerge from the wilderness as a better, stronger party without the wingnuts, anti-intellectuals, Christianists, neo cons, etc. But if they take over, maybe there will be a new party of the libertarians, fiscal conservatives, and small government types.
I'm happy to heap blame on Dems in general (the summer's "I don't agree with 2 of Obama's positions, I don't know, maybe I don't like him" whining was particularly irritating). But Obama's campaign has been 95% brilliant (seal of roadkill excepted) and Dean's 50-state strategy is paying off. Those two things I'll praise. McCain has not been 95% brilliant. (And if he had been and Palin was the 5%, she'd still count for more than 50% unbrilliant.)
Major Israeli newspapers have English-language websites. Per Joe the Plumber or this Michael asshole, Israelis should be in deep panic over the prospect an Obama presidency. But the newspapers are there for your perusal, and there is no such panic -- unless you open certain columns in the Jerusalem Post which is a right-wing outlier with stronger-than-recommended ties to AIPAC and the nutty Evangelical pro-Zionist establishment.
The two main Israeli papers' websites in English are: http://www.ynetnews.com http://www.haaretz.com/
(The second-largest Hebrew newspaper has an Hebrew website at nrg.co.il but the English version was closed down)
Since Israelis are not in any kind of panic, and actually people like Biden are highly regarded in Israel, what is this shyte about? Why people do not go out and inform themselves? It's so effing easy these days! People taking that for granted would be bad enough (I would have killed to have Internet in my college days) but this is worse: having the resource at zero cost and ignoring it! Yikes.
To those asking what Wright has said, you're missing the point:
IF he says Wright, he gets asked, OK what's Wright (unlike the nutjob in AK) actually said?
But if he smugs and smarms (with all the "that's Wright, we're not talking about rev. Wright, though you have every Wright to think of him and please exercise your Wright to talk about how we're not talking about Rev Wright talk) he leaves the implication.
So, to recap, he says what he can't say by loudly not saying it. See, it leaves us to "suspect," and that's the theme of the anti-O commercial du jour.
What's happening is that Bush was a bad President. Bush is a Republican. So is McCain. Voters don't want a Republican. They want a Democrat. That's why the vast majority of Obama voters are voting for Obama. Should the economy not improve for Obama by 2012, his campaign skills, as great as they are, won't be able to save him.
I disagree with the first part. I think McCain's abysmal performance over the past 6 months would have caused him to lose even in a year with economic growth.
1.
McCain brought nothing to the table besides offshore drilling and doing away with the gas tax for the summer. Both of which are dumb policies that don't really solve Joe the Plumber's problems.
2.
McCain did not start distancing himself from Bush until last week. He had a two month head start. He blew it.
3.
McCain did not tap into the overwhelming sense of frustration, anger, and hopelessness in the electorate as Obama did. His message in the beginning was about him: I'm a POW. I deserve to be President.
4.
No one wants Sarah Palin to the decider even in good times.
The second part. It depends on his opponent. If its Sarah Palin, he's a two term president no matter what.
Well, John, it's true that McCain could easily have lost this election had Bush been more popular; as he's so fond of reminding us, he's not Bush. But some of your points don't really go towards arguing that. I mean, Point 3 - "overwhelming sense of frustration, anger, and hopelessness" - if the economy were good, there wouldn't be such hopelessness. The bad economy put McCain in an awkward position. His big ideas, the only ones he really knows how to sell, are earmark reform, tax cuts, fighting preemptive wars - none of that really addresses our problems. He's uncomfortable talking about mortgages and health insurance and whatnot. I mean, he has a wage insurance proposal buried Better economy, and people might be more receptive to his small-bore issues.
Well, John, it's true that McCain could easily have lost this election had Bush been more popular; as he's so fond of reminding us, he's not Bush. But some of your points don't really go towards arguing that. I mean, Point 3 - "overwhelming sense of frustration, anger, and hopelessness" - if the economy were good, there wouldn't be such hopelessness. The bad economy put McCain in an awkward position. His big ideas, the only ones he really knows how to sell, are earmark reform, tax cuts, fighting preemptive wars - none of that really addresses our problems. He's uncomfortable talking about mortgages and health insurance and whatnot. I mean, he has a wage insurance proposal he mentioned in his convention speech once, and we haven't heard about it since.
What a punkass coward. And what a shame that the MSM isn't defending Khalidi.
The MSM hasn't tried to defend anybody targeted in the "guilt by association" anti-Obama smear machine. The attack on Rev. Wright, his church and theology had been going on for months before any of the YouTubes showed up.
By contrast, compare the MSM response to Imus.
Beyond that, the MSM acts like they are spectators vs. perpetrators of smears and character assassinations by proxy as the sit back and generally allow almost any kind of allegation fly/stand against people they don't know or whatever their issue is.
All I know is Charlie Rose is in danger (of much of nothing) for having Khalidi on his show(s).
It occurs to me that the McCain camp is not being done any favors by this boy speaking on their behalf.
The fact that we are having the discussion about who the hell he meant by that smug "we both know" means that this it isn't nearly as obvious as he wants to make it out to be. I hate the wink, wink, nugde, nudge strategy. It reeks of weakness.
This is revealing -- and maybe not just about Goldfarb -- in one very specific way: McCain said Wright was off-limits. He evidently meant it. And he has made it stick.
Is this the only time the McCain campaign has ever had message control, I wonder?
His big ideas, the only ones he really knows how to sell, are earmark reform, tax cuts, fighting preemptive wars - none of that really addresses our problems.
And that's the fault of his campaign, not the political climate. People don't vote on earmark reform.
Wow. No sense and no honor. What kind of cognitive dissonance must be going on to let someone like this think he has opinions worth listening to? I don't care whom he was referring to (I doubt even he knows), what gets me is how he can go on with his days after so thoroughly playing the fool.
Shallow, frivolous comment: What's up with Goldfarb's shirts? Can't the dude find a v-neck if he's going to go all tieless with a blazer? I mean, is he wearing white tube socks, too?
Shallow, frivolous comment: What's up with Goldfarb's shirts? Can't the dude find a v-neck if he's going to go all tieless with a blazer? I mean, is he wearing white tube socks, too?
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 
Or he knew he couldn't back up his answer, so he chickened out.
Wright's said alot of controversial things, but I can't remember him saying anything anti-Semetic. Did I miss something?
Actually, I get it: if Goldfarb can maintain that level of smarminess in the next couple days during the interview cycle, he's bound to elicit infuriated responses, and some of those who will be lashing back will have some tangential connection to Obama, and thus...we have our number twos.
"Wright's said alot of controversial things, but I can't remember him saying anything anti-Semetic. "
He's been critical of Israel, which for some, is anti-Semitism.
I'm not sure he meant Wright. There's no reason for him not to say Wright. He was able to say Ayers, despite his not being an actual anti-Semite. And I agree with @AMT: I can't think of anything Wright's known for that's specifically anti-Semitic.
That whole, "We both know who I'm talkin' about, Rick" stuff seemed to me to be Goldfarb's desire to say a BIG name that would be unretractable, or even actionable, if it were actually uttered (like, say, Voldemort). I'm thinking he's got either Ahmadinejad or Bin Laden in his mental Rolodex.
Kudos to the CNN guy (was that Rick Sanchez?) for forcing Goldfarb to show how utterly baseless the McCain camp's slanders are.
Maybe he didn't say Wright because officially McCain doesn't bring up Wright, maybe he didn't say it because you can't argue with an insinuation.
"He's been critical of Israel, which for some, is anti-Semitism."
And he said nice things about Farrakhan. Who in the eyes of many American Jews, though not this American Jew, is one remove from Nazism. If that. So yeah. But back to Goldfarb, this is absurd. They're clearly under directives to not mention Wright, so why hint at him? If you want to use code, use code, but don't be like, "we all know who Number Two is," that's ridiculous.
Things are not looking up for your camp when you have this frat boy reject getting his shit handed to him by a haircut in a suit.
Not looking up at all ....
This is the twit who told Ron Paul supporters to go vote for Obama, right? I'd say he's going to regret that statement, but it's pretty clear he lacks any sort of self-awareness.
"frat boy reject"
I'm not a huge fan of frat boys, but you're insulting them when you lump this douche in with them.
Well this does convince me that the avoidance of Wright is sincere and not some sort of ploy.
Of course, even if its been sincere up until now, they may still use it in the next few days.
....
It also shows I think how wingnuts are talking amongst themselves. When talking to like-minded folks, he doesn't have to mention a name, or even expressly imply anti-semitism. They all know what they're talking about. They're just communicating with raised eyebrows at this point, and when they come out of the cocoon, they can't figure out why the rest of us aren't right their with them.
I really can't believe that this grown man got on TV, and a) participated in blatant McCarythism, and b) got his ass handed to him by Rick Sanchez (and pardon me, but why is Khalidi being labeled anti-Semitic?). And by the way, can someone please define for me what being an anti-Semite is? I thought it was a hatred for Jews and/or Israel, but apparently if you are critical of US foreign policy with regards to Israel, or Israeli government's behavior toward Palestinians than that makes you an anti-Semite.
And when did Wright make anti-Semitic statements? Or does his relationship/kind words for Farrakhan automatically mean he is an anti-Semite.
This stuff is crazy. This election has made me start to think every relationship and conversation I ever had. God forbid you have an association with a person that you may disagree with.
I think TNC and Stephen are correct - the McCain Campaign can't officially say "Wright" but they can insinuate.
Truly, Goldfarb is subtle and quick to anger.
From Joe the Plumber to Michael the Clown. Impressive group of buddies you've got there, Senator McCain. Tell me, when do we hear from George the President? Or Ted the Pastor?
This is revealing -- and maybe not just about Goldfarb -- in one very specific way: McCain said Wright was off-limits. He evidently meant it. And he has made it stick.
So why does Goldfarb go on CNN and pull something like this?
He wanted the interviewer to say the name, so he could claim -- to who, McCain? the public? -- that he wasn't the one who brought Wright's name up, "but...."
Lord knows there are a lot of examples now, so the point is that it isn't just Palin's nomination that shows McCain would make a catastrophic President: nobody who has ever run anything would have had a guy like Goldfarb in a position like this pulling this crap less than a week out.
Actually, it might not be Voldemort. It might be Beetlejuice. But it's OK to say his name ONCE!
I wonder if Rick Sanchez gets upset having to validate sloppy young know-nothings as "experts."
"My hair is perfect! Gaze upon my veneers in wonder! And you...you don't even use a comb! You can't even tie a tie! And yet I am forced to share a TV screen with you! I didn't go to robo-anchor school for this garbage!"
For me, one sign of McCain's downward spiral has been the decline in quality of his surrogates. Lately it seems like he has to rely on people paid by his campaign to push his stale merch. Romney, Crist, et al bailed long ago. And now he apparently can't even get his own grownups to flack for him. Next it'll be the guy who delivers sandwiches. Joe The Sandwich Guy! Good old Joe.
Yeah, he could have said Wright, but he didn't. In fact, you don't know if he was referring to Wright, Axelrod, Michelle, Malia and Sasha, or Joe Biden's son. That is why he is a chickensh*t, this one. He essentially cast an aspersion on ANYONE who Obama could be said to have "pal-ed around" with, but did not have the stones to name names. The GOP, with this p.o.s., has reached a low that I was not quite sure I would ever see.
They are pretending like they are not using Wright because McCain is above the fray but really Wright is such old news. If you don't know about Wright by now, you must have been the Gov of Alaska for the past year. The NYT used the stock pic of Obama hugging Wright for just about every Obama article for the last 3 months of the primary. Its a blank. The know if they shoot it, it will make alot of noise but there will be no collateral damage.
Karen wins for the Voldemort reference. I want to see someone toss that back at the next McCain apologist. "When you say 'those people, you know who I mean' are you talking about Lord Voldemort? Or possibly Professor Lockhart?"
What I like is the "Attacking Obama: McCain's New Gambit" title. That's all they've done. Marc posted their pollster's optimistic memo, and it mentioned McCain 4 times, Palin 0, Obama 19, and Biden 1. Their campaign is all about the other guy, and their failure to light on any other issue is killing them.
Maybe what happened was Goldfarb goes "I think we all know who He-who-cannot-be-named is" and then the interviewer hit him with a petrificus totalus. If you watch it again I think you can just barely hear him say it under his breath.
"Their campaign is all about the other guy, and their failure to light on any other issue is killing them."
I mean, Bush is killing them. The economy's killing them. I know people on your side would like to think that you really handed a drubbing to the Republicans this time around, but that isn't what's happening. What's happening is that Bush was a bad President. Bush is a Republican. So is McCain. Voters don't want a Republican. They want a Democrat. That's why the vast majority of Obama voters are voting for Obama. Should the economy not improve for Obama by 2012, his campaign skills, as great as they are, won't be able to save him. Just as even the most brilliant of Republican campaigns couldn't have elected McCain.
Who is this guy? In fact, who are any of these guys they're constantly putting on air for "expert" analysis? I mean it, literally, who ARE they?
The other night, Jon Stewart did a piece on pundits, and I googled one of the ones he mentioned, a woman from the Caddington(?) Group. And lo and behold, her "group" consisted of ... her! and her friend! Their bios revealed absolutely nothing to recommend them as "experts" at anything!
Just FYI there was more to the interview. Rick Sanchez doesn't get quite all his due for his total PWNAGE of Goldfarb in the abbreviated clip. Try this one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5OTQUe397I
I wonder if there is anybody in the McCain camp that doesn't get PWNED on a regular basis. Tucker Bounds just gets laughed at now. Nancy Pfotenwhatever has gone into hiding. We all know what happened to Michele Bachmann. And we need to get the child support people to search for Carla Fiorina. I just can't see how Americans could reward such mismanagement
"Just as even the most brilliant of Republican campaigns couldn't have elected McCain."
We'll never know, but I think this is just wrong. Despite the fact that McCain's campaign has been an absolute train wreck, he's still not that far behind.
McCain has a good chance to win this election, all he had to do was:
1.Not act like grandpa simpson
2.Be consistent
3.Play up the country angle
4.Play the tax and spend angle
5.Stay mostly positive with hints about Obama's bad judgment (wright, ayres) without overplaying it
6.Be white
Apparently, he only had success with #6, which is why he is still not that far behind.
We all may know who No. 2 is; the real question is who does he work for?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UwEmoiRNdg
The sad thing in all of this is the sort of naturalization of racism and prejudice.
I would love to know what Khalidi has said that has had him universally penned as an anti Semite. The guy is a Palestinian who supports a 2 state solution to the point of being asked by the US to be an advisor to the peace talks. Even the ADL cannot find anything that he has said that is anti-Semitic.
And yet every major news organization accepts that without even blinking an eye. This sort of anti-Arab, anti-Muslim prejudice has gotten so naturalized by our media and institutions that even patriotic Arab Americans and Muslims have internalized it, having to point to how they go above and beyond others in their patriotism (as if it would be ok to discriminate against those without a flag bumper sticker or so on).
The real question is why the McCain campaign put a cringing kobold on screen, rather than finding a half-way respectable ogre. Or was Joe the Plumber still hiding out in the cave behind the waterfall?
"My hair is perfect! Gaze upon my veneers in wonder! And you...you don't even use a comb! You can't even tie a tie! And yet I am forced to share a TV screen with you! I didn't go to robo-anchor school for this garbage!"
Wife and I in tears at this!
I think you guys and gals are giving Goldfarb too much credit. He wasn't thinking Wright or anyone else. He was (unexpectedly) caught making shit up, and his response was embarrassed weaseling. There's no second anti-Semite (if there's even a first) just like there's no second terrorist.
Oh No!!!
Michael Goldfarb has finally figured out who is behind Barack Hussein Obama!!!
Mel Gibson!!!
Just read that the PAC that has been running the Wright ads in some swing states will now be running them nationwide for the next five days. This may be why Goldfarb didn't want to say Wright (not saying he's an anti-semite, but he certainly meets the right wing criteria by being critical of Israel). McCain wants to be able to distance himself from the ad.
Rick's closing statement should have been, "Michael, if you ever manage to summon the courage to back up your slander, we'll gladly have you on again. Until then, you've forfeited your seat at the grownups table."
I agree with Skyhook. And I wasn't thinking Wright. Goldfarb makes it seem like it's some big behind the scene's story that people know about, but the liberal media won't discuss (kinda like McCain's temper). It could be anyone, even Biden, except it's really not anyone.
""Michael, if you ever manage to summon the courage to back up your slander, we'll gladly have you on again. Until then, you've forfeited your seat at the grownups table."
Nice thought, but that's not how it works. For better or worse the proliferation of news outlets means that they are forever in need of people to put in the chair Goldfarb is sitting in. I've been asked to be a "expert" on all sorts of things that barely relate to anything I actually know about (if at all). The first time I said "No" I thought I'd never hear from anybody again. Then the day comes when the seat needs filling and sure enough, the phone rings. It's just the way it is.
The reason the McCain people don't mention Wright is because they can generate media coverage merely by mentioning that they're not gonna talk about Wright. Video images of the pastor's work is burned into most minds. They know it's a dead story and they'll be branded hypocrites for resurrecting it. But by constantly inferring Wright - they increase the dark emotional resonance and keep the story alive.
I would very publicly like to punch Michael Goldfarb in the face. He can bring Jonah Goldberg for backup; I'll kick his ass too, just on general principle.
Farrakhan's primary subject is injustice and wrongdoing, and 95% of what he says is true - except when he gets to causation, which he says is numerology, Dr. Yacub, and 'the Jews'. His demonization by the corrupt, racist establishment tends to persuade his flock that he's right about that stuff too.
Behold, Ta-nehisi!
Even the guyz at The American Scene are starting to get it.
By disparaging Khalidi, is Goldfarb himself not being anti-Semitic? After all, both Israelites and Arabs are Semitic people.
I didn't think they could find someone worse than Tucker Bounds, but low and behold they did. I guess some people just aren't cut out to defend outright lies.
What strikes me is just how third-rate and pathetic the McCain surrogate crew is: Goldfarb, Ptofenhaour, Michelle Bachman, Carly Fiorino, and of course Miss Alaska herself. Would you let any of those fools even order lunch for you?
"If you don't know about Wright by now, you must have been the Gov of Alaska for the past year."
-giggles like school girl (after recovering from jaw dropping stupidity of the above video clip)
I know people on your side would like to think that you really handed a drubbing to the Republicans this time around, but that isn't what's happening.
My point was that McCain (and other Republicans, e.g. Bachmann) are handing themselves a drubbing--they take a bad situation and rather than attempting to channel Hagel and a positive vision of the future they double down on the worst excesses of the most virulent part of the base.
What's happening is that Bush was a bad President. Bush is a Republican. So is McCain. Voters don't want a Republican. They want a Democrat. That's why the vast majority of Obama voters are voting for Obama. Should the economy not improve for Obama by 2012, his campaign skills, as great as they are, won't be able to save him.
I agree with all of this.
Just as even the most brilliant of Republican campaigns couldn't have elected McCain.
These polls for all levels of office that ask "who do you like, Dem or Rep" always go to the Dems until the question switches to "who do you like, Smith or Jones;" then suddenly it's real people and the Republicans' enviable ability to win elections boosts them up, or boosts the Dem candidate down. I brilliant Republican campaign could, I think, have gotten him close. A few points, enough for the photo finish the media wants, enough for any last minute gaffe from Obama or an outside event (economy brilliantly recovers!!) to tip things over. McCain needed to take some risks, but he would have been much better served taking carefully weighed, strategic risks. Instead he took Palin. And was so comically clueless on the economy--Will today excoriates him for having a bored briefing with an expert that finished up, to the expert's dismay, with "so who's the villain?"
I want Obama to win, so I'm happy to watch McCain make bizarre decisions that end badly. (Unless Palin actually winds up in the White House, which terrifies me.) But in terms of my team--I'm an independent. I voted for McCain in 2000 (largely anti-Bush; I was prescient) and until sometime late spring--the torture flip--thought that was the guy running this time around. I sanguinely envisioned a McCain presidency as a not-at-all-bad second choice.
I've voted for Weld (who just endorsed Obama, and could still get elected tomorrow in MA). I want the Republicans to emerge from the wilderness as a better, stronger party without the wingnuts, anti-intellectuals, Christianists, neo cons, etc. But if they take over, maybe there will be a new party of the libertarians, fiscal conservatives, and small government types.
I'm happy to heap blame on Dems in general (the summer's "I don't agree with 2 of Obama's positions, I don't know, maybe I don't like him" whining was particularly irritating). But Obama's campaign has been 95% brilliant (seal of roadkill excepted) and Dean's 50-state strategy is paying off. Those two things I'll praise. McCain has not been 95% brilliant. (And if he had been and Palin was the 5%, she'd still count for more than 50% unbrilliant.)
What a punkass coward. And what a shame that the MSM isn't defending Khalidi.
Rick Sanchez's sarcasm at the end really made that clip.
Major Israeli newspapers have English-language websites. Per Joe the Plumber or this Michael asshole, Israelis should be in deep panic over the prospect an Obama presidency. But the newspapers are there for your perusal, and there is no such panic -- unless you open certain columns in the Jerusalem Post which is a right-wing outlier with stronger-than-recommended ties to AIPAC and the nutty Evangelical pro-Zionist establishment.
The two main Israeli papers' websites in English are:
http://www.ynetnews.com
http://www.haaretz.com/
(The second-largest Hebrew newspaper has an Hebrew website at nrg.co.il but the English version was closed down)
Since Israelis are not in any kind of panic, and actually people like Biden are highly regarded in Israel, what is this shyte about? Why people do not go out and inform themselves? It's so effing easy these days! People taking that for granted would be bad enough (I would have killed to have Internet in my college days) but this is worse: having the resource at zero cost and ignoring it! Yikes.
My thought, too, TNC.
To those asking what Wright has said, you're missing the point:
IF he says Wright, he gets asked, OK what's Wright (unlike the nutjob in AK) actually said?
But if he smugs and smarms (with all the "that's Wright, we're not talking about rev. Wright, though you have every Wright to think of him and please exercise your Wright to talk about how we're not talking about Rev Wright talk) he leaves the implication.
So, to recap, he says what he can't say by loudly not saying it. See, it leaves us to "suspect," and that's the theme of the anti-O commercial du jour.
What's happening is that Bush was a bad President. Bush is a Republican. So is McCain. Voters don't want a Republican. They want a Democrat. That's why the vast majority of Obama voters are voting for Obama. Should the economy not improve for Obama by 2012, his campaign skills, as great as they are, won't be able to save him.
I disagree with the first part. I think McCain's abysmal performance over the past 6 months would have caused him to lose even in a year with economic growth.
1.
McCain brought nothing to the table besides offshore drilling and doing away with the gas tax for the summer. Both of which are dumb policies that don't really solve Joe the Plumber's problems.
2.
McCain did not start distancing himself from Bush until last week. He had a two month head start. He blew it.
3.
McCain did not tap into the overwhelming sense of frustration, anger, and hopelessness in the electorate as Obama did. His message in the beginning was about him: I'm a POW. I deserve to be President.
4.
No one wants Sarah Palin to the decider even in good times.
The second part. It depends on his opponent. If its Sarah Palin, he's a two term president no matter what.
Well, John, it's true that McCain could easily have lost this election had Bush been more popular; as he's so fond of reminding us, he's not Bush. But some of your points don't really go towards arguing that. I mean, Point 3 - "overwhelming sense of frustration, anger, and hopelessness" - if the economy were good, there wouldn't be such hopelessness. The bad economy put McCain in an awkward position. His big ideas, the only ones he really knows how to sell, are earmark reform, tax cuts, fighting preemptive wars - none of that really addresses our problems. He's uncomfortable talking about mortgages and health insurance and whatnot. I mean, he has a wage insurance proposal buried Better economy, and people might be more receptive to his small-bore issues.
Well, John, it's true that McCain could easily have lost this election had Bush been more popular; as he's so fond of reminding us, he's not Bush. But some of your points don't really go towards arguing that. I mean, Point 3 - "overwhelming sense of frustration, anger, and hopelessness" - if the economy were good, there wouldn't be such hopelessness. The bad economy put McCain in an awkward position. His big ideas, the only ones he really knows how to sell, are earmark reform, tax cuts, fighting preemptive wars - none of that really addresses our problems. He's uncomfortable talking about mortgages and health insurance and whatnot. I mean, he has a wage insurance proposal he mentioned in his convention speech once, and we haven't heard about it since.
What a punkass coward. And what a shame that the MSM isn't defending Khalidi.
The MSM hasn't tried to defend anybody targeted in the "guilt by association" anti-Obama smear machine. The attack on Rev. Wright, his church and theology had been going on for months before any of the YouTubes showed up.
By contrast, compare the MSM response to Imus.
Beyond that, the MSM acts like they are spectators vs. perpetrators of smears and character assassinations by proxy as the sit back and generally allow almost any kind of allegation fly/stand against people they don't know or whatever their issue is.
All I know is Charlie Rose is in danger (of much of nothing) for having Khalidi on his show(s).
It occurs to me that the McCain camp is not being done any favors by this boy speaking on their behalf.
The fact that we are having the discussion about who the hell he meant by that smug "we both know" means that this it isn't nearly as obvious as he wants to make it out to be. I hate the wink, wink, nugde, nudge strategy. It reeks of weakness.
This is revealing -- and maybe not just about Goldfarb -- in one very specific way: McCain said Wright was off-limits. He evidently meant it. And he has made it stick.
Is this the only time the McCain campaign has ever had message control, I wonder?
His big ideas, the only ones he really knows how to sell, are earmark reform, tax cuts, fighting preemptive wars - none of that really addresses our problems.
And that's the fault of his campaign, not the political climate. People don't vote on earmark reform.
The Jewish Telegraphic Agency, of all groups, was defending Khalidi. Link from Yglesias's blog, I believe.
Wow. No sense and no honor. What kind of cognitive dissonance must be going on to let someone like this think he has opinions worth listening to? I don't care whom he was referring to (I doubt even he knows), what gets me is how he can go on with his days after so thoroughly playing the fool.
Shallow, frivolous comment: What's up with Goldfarb's shirts? Can't the dude find a v-neck if he's going to go all tieless with a blazer? I mean, is he wearing white tube socks, too?
Shallow, frivolous comment: What's up with Goldfarb's shirts? Can't the dude find a v-neck if he's going to go all tieless with a blazer? I mean, is he wearing white tube socks, too?