McCain says Obama is “a decent person and a person you don’t have to be scared of as president”

Well well, either McCain realized that his attacks on Obama’s character were sending his poll down instead of up or McCain wanted to stave off any more stories about his “dangerious” rhetoric and decided to say something nice about Obama today:

A man in the audience stood up and told McCain he’s “scared” of an Obama presidency and who he’d select for the Supreme Court.

“I have to tell you. Sen. Obama is a decent person and a person you don’t have to be scared of as president of the United States,” McCain said as the crowd booed and shouted “Come on, John!”

“If I didn’t think I’d be a heck of a lot better, I wouldn’t be running for president of the united states.”

So now we have a couple of questions: why did McCain change his tune (and his own supporters booed him for saying even this about Obama!)?  Damage control? A change in direction?  It’d be hard to go out and say that Obama is “a person you don’t have to be scared of as president” while at the same time assaulting him for “associating with terrorists.”  At least not without turning the Ayers attack from being an implicit suggestion of Obama supporting domestic terrorism to – at the absolute most – a question similar to “what did Obama know and when did he know it?”

McCain has tried to paint the question of Obama’s relationship with Ayers in a “he’s not telling the whole truth” fashion, but the way his campaign has addressed the issue, by saying things like “Obama has worked with domestic terrorist Ayers” makes it sound more like they’re implying that Obama has actually personally been involved in terrorist activities himself.

I think what comes out of the McCain campaign over the weekend will answer the question of whether McCain will try to go more on a “about the issues” campaign (hell, after this I almost long for the days were McCain was attacking Obama as being a tax and spend liberal) or whether it was merely a damage control measure.  The other things coming out of the campaign so far today haven’t been too promising, however.

P.S., if I were Obama, I would get out a statement saying something along the lines of “I appreciate Senator McCain’s statement and I sincerely hope that it is a sign that the McCain campaign is once again prepared to debate the real issues which Americans care about.”

Today Show: “Debunks” Biden Statements He Never Made

What I saw on the Today Show this morning was astonishing.  I sat there watching it thinking “do they even pay attention to what Biden has said?”

I’ll try to put up the video whenever they put it online, but basically the things they debunked were things like “Biden is middle class” and “Biden is just like you.”

Well, shit.  Biden has never said, to my knowledge, that he’s middle class right now, but that he was raised in a middle class family.  He said as much at the Vice-Presidential debate:

I’m much better off than almost most Americans now. I get a good salary as a United States Senator.  I live a beautiful house that’s my total investment that I have, so I am much better off now.

Of course, that’s just ripped out of his answer where he talked about being a single father, but obviously Biden isn’t saying that he’s middle class right now, and, as I said, I don’t think he ever has.

That isn’t necessarily the case with Governor Palin, who tries to sell herself off as Joe Sixpack right now, despite the fact that she herself made $170,000 last year.  Yes, that’s still less than Biden, and probably makes her “upper middle class,” but I still don’t know many “Joe Sixpacks” who make six figures.

This piece just felt like someone was like “hey, we haven’t done a hit piece of Biden in a while.  See what you can come up with,” and so they found whatever they could and slapped it together.  I mean, if the worst thing they can find is that Biden didn’t give as much to charity as they think he should have, then I’d say he’s pretty much in the clear.

Update

Here’s the video:

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/26184891/vp/27114648#27114648 (apparently wordpress doesn’t like the way NBC embeds video)

McCain camp explicitly calls Obama a terrorist

There is no other interpretation of this series of lines in their new web ad:

Barack Obama and domestic terrorist Bill Ayers. Friends. They’ve worked together for years.  But Obama tries to hide it? Why?

As TMP notes, the syntax of these sentences suggest the following:

1. Ayers is currently or was recently a domestic terrorist.
2. Obama was “friends” with Ayers while he was a terrorist.
3. Obama “worked together for years” while Ayers was a domestic terrorist.
4. Obama is trying to hide the fact that points 2 and 3 are allegedly true.  This is especially the case given that Obama has been open that they’ve worked on the same charitable foundation.  But the McCain camp insists that there is “more” there.  What “more” do they believe is there?

There is no doubt.  McCain is explicitly calling Obama a terrorist now.

Palin: Freedom of the Press a “privilege”?

She not only seemed to say that, but that it was also good to “fight against” the freedom of the press, well, whenever it got in the government’s way:

“As we send our young men and women overseas in a war zone to fight for democracy and freedoms, including freedom of the press, we’ve really got to have a mutually beneficial relationship here with those fighting the freedom of the press, and then the press, though not taking advantage and exploiting a situation, perhaps they would want to capture and abuse the privilege. We just want truth, we want fairness, we want balance.”

OK, just as with any Palin quote, trying to figure out what the hell she is saying requires a panel of Nobel Laureates, but I’ll try.

First there is this gem:

we’ve really got to have a mutually beneficial relationship here with those fighting the freedom of the press

Now, there a side of me – and I’m sure this would be their response if they were called on it – that Palin meant that “we’ve got to have a mutally beneficial relationship here with those fighting for the freedom of the press.”  If that’s all she had said, I probably would have just shrugged it off as that.  But she didn’t.  She continued on to say:

the press, though not taking advantage and exploiting a situation, perhaps they would want to capture and abuse the privilege.

Again, you have to pull out your English to Alaskan grammar translation guide, appears to be saying that the press would try to “capture and abuse” the “privilege” of the, ahem, freedom of the press in situations where, I guess, we’re fighting for freedom and democracy, though she notes that she doesn’t think that they are “taking advantage and exploiting” the situation.

Now, I’m not even necessarily sure what her point is here.  She goes on to say “We just want truth, we want fairness, we want balance.”  Other than advertising for Fox (where she said this.  You know, fair and balanced and all), yes, we would like the press to be all those things, but I’m not sure how this ties in to…whatever her point was.

And of course, this is part of the problem with Palin: she spouts out a lot of gibberish and no one has any clue what the freaking hell she’s trying to say.

Sarah Palin thinks you’re stupid (especially women)

This is a nice gem from Palin’s rally today in California (what is she there for? Nice waste of a day):

Sarah Palin alluded to her recent interview with CBS News’ Katie Couric, calling it “not too successful” and adding that Couric asked her questions that made her think, ‘C’mon, let’s start talking to the American people about the issues you guys want to know about.’”

Well sure, but questions like “what magazines and newspapers do you read” and “what are some Supreme Court cases you disagree with” aren’t fluff questions meant to fill time.  They’re meant to figure out what her worldview is – something which isn’t irrelevant, especially if they’re going to start attacking Obama for living on the same planet as al qaeda.  Also, one of her biggest mistakes in the Couric interview was her rambling on when Couric asked about the bailout.  Is she suggesting that the bailout isn’t “an issue [people] want to know about”?

She also made the argument that the media isn’t being fair in letting her talk about what she wants to talk about by asking all these questions like “are you prepared to be President” and the like:

Palin said that if she had her druthers, she would have rather told Couric about her plans for reform, putting government on the side of the people, and winning the wars.

Which of course, having complained about not being able to talk about the issues she went ahead and…didn’t talk about the issues:

Then she promptly transitioned into attacking Barack Obama for his relationship with William Ayers, a founder of the Weather Underground movement in the 1960s.

But her biggest act of thinking you are stupid is targeted towards women, doing a “well, I thought I would say this, but someone else said it, so don’t attribute it to me” thing:

Palin regaled the cheering crowd with a story about how she was reading her Starbucks mocha cup yesterday, which featured a quotation from former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.

“Now she said it, I didn’t,” Palin said of Albright. “She said, ‘There’s a place in Hell reserved for women who don’t support other women.’”

Of course, she misquoted Albright, and the quotes is similar enough that Palin can claim that it’s “close enough” I’m sure, but the quote is actually “There’s a place in Hell reserved for women who don’t help other women.”  And, naturally, the line had nothing to do with politics and probably had to do with either the international situation of women (since she was Secretary of State) or domestic violence.

However, even if she had quoted Albright correctly, it’s pretty bad to even insinuate that women will “go to hell” for not voting for you for being a woman.  I think this is going to be more damaging to Palin than she thinks.

Letters

This is a fascinating exchange of letters that took place between Barack Obama and John McCain in the Senate in early 2006 on the issue of ethics reform in the senate.

First it’s Obama thanking McCain for holding a meeting on the matter and having a couple of suggestions:

Thank you for inviting me to participate in the meeting yesterday to discuss lobbying and ethics reform proposals currently before the Senate. I appreciate your willingness to reach out to me and several other Senate Democrats to discuss what should be done to restore public confidence in the way that Congress conducts its business. The discussion clearly underscored the difficult challenge facing Congress.

…

As you know, Senator Harry Reid and others in the Democratic Caucus have taken an important step by introducing S. 2180, the Honest Leadership Act, which imposes many of the same disclosure requirements for lobbyists that you have proposed, while also strengthening enforcement, eliminating “pay to play” schemes, and imposing more restrictive rules on meals, gifts, and travel that Members and their staff can receive from special interests that advocate before Congress.

…

I know you have expressed an interest in creating a task force to further study and discuss these matters, but I and others in the Democratic Caucus believe the more effective and timely course is to allow the committees of jurisdiction to roll up their sleeves and get to work on writing ethics and lobbying reform legislation that a majority of the Senate can support.

What is McCain’s response? Basically “get off my lawn”:

I would like to apologize to you for assuming that your private assurances to me regarding your desire to cooperate in our efforts to negotiate bipartisan lobbying reform legislation were sincere. When you approached me and insisted that despite your leadership’s preference to use the issue to gain a political advantage in the 2006 elections, you were personally committed to achieving a result that would reflect credit on the entire Senate and offer the country a better example of political leadership, I concluded your professed concern for the institution and the public interest was genuine and admirable. Thank you for disabusing me of such notions with your letter to me dated February 2, 2006, which explained your decision to withdraw from our bipartisan discussions. I’m embarrassed to admit that after all these years in politics I failed to interpret your previous assurances as typical rhetorical gloss routinely used in politics to make self-interested partisan posturing appear more noble. Again, sorry for the confusion, but please be assured I won’t make the same mistake again.

…

You commented in your letter about my “interest in creating a task force to further study” this issue, as if to suggest I support delaying the consideration of much-needed reforms rather than allowing the committees of jurisdiction to hold hearings on the matter. Nothing could be further from the truth. The timely findings of a bipartisan working group could be very helpful to the committee in formulating legislation that will be reported to the full Senate.

What’s going on here?  First off, the entire attitude of McCain’s letter is angry and cynical.  Apparently a single letter where Obama suggests a couple of ideas and submits a couple of his opinions is enough to “disabuse” McCain of any of the thoughts he had after face-to-face meetings.  Well, that’s interesting.

Second, McCain appears to think that, since Obama doesn’t think they should do it completely McCain’s way, that Obama no longer wants to work in a bipartisan fashion and wants to use the ethics reform to bash Republicans in 2006.  However, Obama suggested nothing of the sort on either count.  Obama still clearly wanted to work in a bipartisan matter and with McCain, but thought that committee hearings was more productive than McCain’s idea of having a “task force” study the issue (what is it with McCain and his fondness for comissions and task forces?).  Nor did Obama even suggest using the issue for political gain.

What it looks like, to me, is that McCain was afraid that Obama was pulling the rug out from under McCain when it comes to taking credit for ethics reform.  Remember, by this point John McCain almost certainly knew he wanted to run for President in 2008, while Obama hadn’t.  In fact this was a mere two weeks after Obama had gone on Meet the Press to say he had no intention of running for President in 2008.

So what do we have here? Perhaps a power struggle for credit.  I’m sure McCain desperately wanted to be front and center and to take credit for passing an ethics reform bill in the Senate so he could make it the centerpiece of his 2008 run for President.  Leading a task force to investigate the matter, which would then lead to a bill passing Congress would be a good way to be at the front of the issue and to show leadership on it.

But suddenly here is this new whipper snapper, Barack Obama, who may very well be looking for his first big issue that he can hang his hat on and take credit for so he can build his resume for what most people even thought at the time would be an eventual Presidential run, whether that was 2012 or 2016.  And again, what better way to get started than a big victory on ethics reform?

This could also be where McCain was complaining about using the issue for the 2006 elections.  He probably feared that if the Democrats were on front on the issue and it was their bill which passed, the Democrats could be like “see, we passed ethics reform!”  Not only could that give Democrats a benefit in 2006 (though they benefited from it anyway since no ethics reform passed the Senate until 2007), but he probably feared that his primary Democratic rival in the 2008 race – Hillary Clinton – could then take credit for it, and thus take it away from McCain.

So you can see why McCain was running on this task force idea (since he wasn’t on the committee that dealt with the issue, and thus he wouldn’t have been involved in that aspect) and why he might have been so touchy about someone threatening to mess up his plans to take credit for it.

However, perhaps the best part of this letter exchange is Obama’s final call out and smack down of McCain:

During my short time in the U.S. Senate, one of the aspects about this institution that I have come to value most is the collegiality and the willingness to put aside partisan differences to work on issues that help the American people. It was in this spirit that I approached you to work on ethics reform, and it was in this spirit that I agreed to attend your bipartisan meeting last week. I appreciated then – and still do appreciate – your willingness to reach out to me and several other Democrats.

…

I confess that I have no idea what has prompted your response. But let me assure you that I am not interested in typical partisan rhetoric or posturing. The fact that you have now questioned my sincerity and my desire to put aside politics for the public interest is regrettable but does not in any way diminish my deep respect for you nor my willingness to find a bipartisan solution to this problem.

Ouch!

The interesting thing in all of this is that these letters, if released today, would almost fit in with the current campaign.  Included among this is McCain’s contention that Obama used “rhetorical gloss,” a.k.a. he’s all hat, no cattle a.k.a. he talks the talk, but doesn’t walk the walk, etc.  This fits right into McCain’s attacks on Obama that he’s a “celebrity” and is all talk, but no action.  These letters suggest that this isn’t something that the McCain campaign is putting out just to score political points.  McCain himself may very well believe it himself, saying that he won’t “make the same mistake again” when it comes to Obama’s words.

This shows that the mistrust and disain between the two candidates, or at least by McCain towards Obama, may have started as early as nearly 3 years ago during this ethics reform battle – something which Obama ultimately was able to take credit for due to democrats taking over Congress in 2006.  Is all of McCain’s attitude and strange “celebrity” attacks against Obama all coming from the fact that McCain is bitter and angry that Obama is the one which possibly prevented him from taking credit for ethics reform in 2006 and ulimately was able to take credit for it in 2007?  These letters certainly suggest that that might be the case.

The next big government bailout: California?

You know things are getting bad when the federal government has to start bailing out it’s own states:

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, alarmed by the ongoing national financial crisis, warned Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson on Thursday that the state might need an emergency loan of as much as $7 billion from the federal government within weeks.

The warning comes as California is close to running out of cash to fund day-to-day government operations and is unable to access routine short-term loans that it typically relies on to remain solvent.

California is probably only the first because it’s the biggest.  If the credit market doesn’t improve, expect more states to be added to the list of people needing a bailout.

And for those wondering why states need short-term loans when they have tax money, it’s just like a business – an expense, this time payments to schools, may cost more than what the government has on hand at that moment, but the government will be able to repay the loan once more tax money comes in.

Opposition to the bailout gets irrational

Well, it was already partly irrational, but now it’s full-throatedly irrational now.  Unfortunately this new bevy of non-thinking is coming from Daily Kos:

The public, faced with what they see, rightly or wrongly, as a giveaway “bailout” to big corporations that made profoundly stupid decisions, is irate. So what do you suppose would be the single worst thing you could do, at this point? I mean, the very, very worst — something that screamed “we’re going to fleece you all for every penny, and if you object we’ll drive the economy into the ground around you.”

I’d say “pair the bailout with more tax cuts” is probably right up there, on the Screw The Public scale…

Of course. Naturally — when in doubt and you have a sucky plan, make it much, much worse in order to attract a few whining, petulant House Republicans who couldn’t find their asses with two hands and an ass-finding device.

Soooo…we’re making the bailout “much, much worse” by attaching it to a Senate bill which passed in the Senate 93-2, which includes many tax cuts Democrats actually like, such as incentives for creating alternative energy, which the House only rejected because all the tax cuts weren’t offset?

How is this making it worse again?  It’s not like they’re cutting capital gains taxes or something.

Not to mention that the “everyone is against the bailout!” line is old now, given that many members of Congress have reported that the number of calls for the bailout have equaled, if not exceeded, the number opposing it now.  It seems the more the people learn about the bailout, the more they’ve come to accept it.

Unless you have an ideological axe to grind, of course.

Palin can’t even name a newspaper she reads regularly?

It’s becoming flat out painful to watch anymore:

COURIC: And when it comes to establishing your world view, I was curious, what newspapers and magazines did you regularly read before you were tapped for this — to stay informed and to understand the world?

PALIN: I’ve read most of them again with a great appreciation for the press, for the media —

COURIC: But what ones specifically? I’m curious.

PALIN: Um, all of them, any of them that have been in front of me over all these years.

COURIC: Can you name any of them?

PALIN: I have a vast variety of sources where we get our news.

She can’t even name one?  She can’t even pull the New York Times or the Alaska Daily News? Time? Newsweek? Anything?  She either isn’t smart enough or fast enough (or both) to even think of a name to lie about on the spot.  Hell, the Washington Times would be good enough.

Palin is either just like Bush and just doesn’t read, or the newspapers and magazines Palin does read would instantly send horror and fear into any rational, thinking American.  Unfortunately, I’m afraid it’s the second, given what we know about her policy positions.  Her positions are in the extreme wing of the extremist part of the Republican Party, so it wouldn’t be shocking if her favorite material was some of the most off the wall right-wing crap as well.

But you know, at this point, my hysterical laughter about Palin has turned into pain and pity more than anything else.  Palin could have had a future on the national scene had she swallowed her hubris and admitted to herself – and John McCain – that she isn’t freaking ready to be Vice President right now – that 6 years as a small town mayor and 18 months as governor just doesn’t cut it.

If she had just sat where she was and spent 8 years as governor and moved onto the Senate or something, she could have run for President in 2020 or something.  But Palin’s ambition, which has been on full display all the way (to the point of outshining McCain at his own rallies, and glorisly taking full advantage of it) has sent her head first into a race which is increasingly looking like the end of any possible national career she may have ever wanted to have.

Of course, the election isn’t over, and McCain may find some way to pull in a win out of his ass in the next 35 days, but barring that, I don’t see how Palin is anything other than a political joke outside of Alaska from this point onward.

McCain at it again: More lying ads

Were you longing for the days of McCain’s blatantly false and lying ads? Have to fear, for they have returned, and they are as shameless and untruthful as ever:

Oh noes! Obama said the fundamentals of our economy are strong, just like McCain!

Oops, no he didn’t:

I have said it before and I’ll say it again: we need to pass, after this immediate crisis is over, an economic stimulus plan. Right now. For working families – a plan that will help folks cope with rising food and gas prices, that can save one million jobs by rebuilding our schools and our roads, and help states and cities avoid budget cuts and tax increases. A plan that would extend expiring unemployment benefits. For those Americans who have lost their jobs and have been working hard to find a new one, but haven’t found one yet. That’s part of the change we need.

And then after this immediate problem, we’ve got the long-term fundamentals that will really make sure this economy grows. Change means a tax code that doesn’t reward the lobbyists who wrote it, but the American workers and small businesses that deserve it. As president I am going to eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses and start-ups. That’s how we’ll grow our economy and create the high-wage, high-tech jobs of tomorrow.

Color me surprised.  There are basically two ways to read this, and I’d probably have to see a video to see which way, but neither way is the way McCain wants to read it.  Obama is either saying that all the stuff in the first paragraph will create the fundamentals, or he’s saying that after the “immediate problem” then he’ll address the fundamentals (I end to favor the first interpretation, and appears to be the one that I think Obama is using).

In any case, McCain one again shamelessly lies about Obama.

As someone on dkos said, we’re now just waiting for them to find some video where Obama says “some emails out there are saying that I’m secretly a Muslim” and then have them cut out “I’m secretly a Muslim” and stick it in an ad or something.