Recently in 2008 Presidential Election Category

Dissatisfaction with John McCain among the GOP faithful is legion, and there is steadfast resentment among the netroots over Obama's about-face on FISA, leaving many ready to explore a third-party option.

Third Party Watch (via) notes that a Rueters poll indicating a 7 point lead by Obama over McCain at this point, when Ralph Nader and Bob Barr are added to the mix, Obama's lead jumps to 10 points, nearly all of the defectors to the protest candidates coming from McCain supporters.

The big winner is the Green Party, sort of. For the first time since 1980 (also via), the Marxist-Leninist Workers World Party is not fielding a presidential candidate, but has endorsed the Green's Girl, Cynthia McKinney.

I watched C-SPAN last Sunday when they replayed an interview with Libertarian candidate Bob Barr* and covered the acceptance speeches by the Green Party vice-presidential candidate and presidential nominee McKinney. Barr is hoping to cash in on the Ron Paul Blimpies phenomenon. The Greens were quoting Kanye West**.

*Note to Bob Barr: Ayn Rand wrote fiction, not text books. (Anyone who cites Atlas Shrugged as the guiding influence on their political philosophy loses every ounce of credibility in my opinion.)

**Note to Cynthia McKinney: Double that when it comes to rappers, or any musicians not named Bob Dylan.

Somehow you just know there's a monumental disconnect (and far too many hypersensitive folks out there) when the predominant meme throughout the media and blogosphere the last several days is the nature of satire.

How far can we go in mocking Obama?  Can we get away with mocking McCain more brutally or is he just running a clownish campaign?  Can we explain why McCain and Bush just aren't funny when they try (too hard, too often), but they offer a goldmine of comic material?  As Brad and Gavin try to document, the wingnuttosphere has been a study of parody itself lately.

Here's the deal folks.  McCain is a bumbling buffoon who wants to succeed a complete idiot.  It's not that we aren't allowed to make fun of Obama.  It's that he's not an asshole. 

If a mentally disabled person acted the way the leaders of the GOP do, it would be tasteless to make fun of them.  But since they act like "tards," yet insist they aren't and likewise are not cynically treating the American public like they're mentally challenged, all bets are off.

That said, I'll leave you with one I heard bar-tending the other night.  Warning: this is tasteless, includes a casual racist attitude and all sorts of other bad stuff, but I'm sharing anyway.  One of my customers said the economy is so badly "nigger-rigged," Obama is probably the only one who can fix it.

I told him to take it back, that he knew better, but even the black guy with him giggled, then groaned.

Humor is in the ear of the beholder, and so much of it depends on knowing the intent (if possible) of the person telling the so-called joke.  The joke-teller must also have a keen appreciation for audience sensibilities.  One thing that helps is not caring. 

Politicians care a great deal how they are perceived.  A comic is not so restrained, which is why George Carlin could and Carlos Mencia still does walk up to that line and dance across it.  Their attitude is of course, "screw 'em if they can't take a joke."  Their audience knows that, expects it, and everyone knows that there's room enough for everyone to be offended.

Jim Brown posted a diary over at Daily Kingfish wherein he lays out the case that Bobby Jindal's chances for the VP spot are alive and well.

That might be, but I think that's bad news for the Republicans. Here's why:

First of all, Jim: please provide the link to the article in The Nation that you mention. I'd like to read what qualifies as "accolades" for Jindal in that venerable magazine.

Next, Jindal helps McCain in Ohio vs. Obama-Strickland? Yawn. Refresh my memory -- did the poll occur before or after Strickland removed himself from consideration? Does it matter? How about Obama-Edwards? or any number of other non-Ohio politicians? How does the match-up look then?

Third, Jindal is largely unknown and undefined throughout the country. Once he steps on to the national stage, will he be able to survive the withering gaze of the traditional media? [cough -- exorcist -- cough]

Fourth, any VP candidate of McCain's is going to be viewed in a unique way because -- in the back of everyone's mind -- the specter of McCain's age (translation: death in office) is pretty stark. In other words, people will evaluate McCain's VP as the next president of the United States. Can Jindal survive the scrutiny?

Fifth, politics is 70% how you look, 20% how you sound, 10% what you say. That said...ever watch Jindal on TV with the sound off? Try it some time. We're used to him here. Around the country? Not so much.

Sixth, did I mention we'd be electing a future president who participated in at least one exorcism? Right. And you thought Rev. Wright was a scourge.

Seventh, Jindal makes McCain look even older, if such a thing is possible. If, as Jim says, "older people love youth in others," doesn't that hurt McCain?

Eighth, conservatives love him? That's reason enough to destroy his chances right there. Reaganism: been there, done that. Why are we listening to anything Newt Gingrich has to say on the matter. Next thing you know, Phil Gramm will be pulling the strings in the McCain campaign. Oh, wait...

I could go on and on.

Bottom line: I welcome a Jindal candidacy. His tenure in the governor's mansion is so short that he is vulnerable to having the highlights skipped over rather quickly. Then it's on to all sorts of gut-wrenching stuff.

Listen up: issues do NOT move voters. Emotions move voters. And when it comes to Bobby Jindal there's plenty there to scare the bejeesus out of people. Sorry to have to put it that way, but it is what it is.

Mark makes some pretty good points below. This one jogged my memory:

We won't stay home, know better than to get burned by the Nader protest vote again in this lifetime, and don't have enough clout to bring about real change.

Ah, Nader. Let me ask you a question, Mark: Why did Al Gore not gain the White House in 2000? Was it that Bush stole Florida?

Or was it that Gore did not talk more about (for example) climate change, thereby drawing the Nader vote more decisively?

Or was Gore's problem something else: that he lost Tennessee, his own home state, because the voters there thought he was too liberal?

When you have the answers to these questions, then we can talk some more about Obama's conduct in this campaign.

In the meantime, I don't have any easy answers here. At best, I guess I could say that things would have been different had Gore v. Bush been run in the context of today's Blogville. So maybe we have more power now than we think.

On the other hand, campaigns are always about winning elections, not leading movements. The time to lead a movement is after you get elected -- otherwise it ends up meaning a whole lot less than we all hoped it would.

UPDATE: If you choose "Other" below, be aware that you can (and should) enter some explanatory text in the text box directly below the radio button.

It's next to impossible this Independence Day not to be reminded how far we still have to go in building this "more perfect union" when the leader of the more liberal political party, uhm . . . evolves his positions almost immediately upon securing the nomination -- something he accomplished in no small part due to the support of the most ardent progressives and the liberal online community.

And he's walking it back, all those things we "hoped" he would be, but really never was.

What really is mystifying, or rather simply infuriating is how easily and predictably we are again left at the alter. McCain, the "Maverick" has done somersaults moving to appease his extreme right base, and the Democrats tag along for the drift to the right as well, despite clear evidence that this of all years, such a "safe" move is unnecessary.

What the politicians don't see, because there is no contrary evidence to convince them, is that the "safe" move to the right is actually dangerous, if not to the nation then to their ambition. There are no consequences for the progressive movement being ignored. We simply aren't perceived as offering the same credible threat of backlash as do evangelicals or obsessive tax-cutters and militarists. Our attention to detail, engagement and enthusiasm present a different dynamic. We won't stay home, know better than to get burned by the Nader protest vote again in this lifetime, and don't have enough clout to bring about real change.

Today the blogosphere is abuzz with Barack Obama's online address on the FISA issue. This is promising, but not heartwarming.

Yes, he used our medium to talk directly to those of us who are most vocal in our opposition to his support of this obviously flawed position. But since he didn't change his stance, Glenn Greenwald thinks the statement was "worthless," Paul Rosenberg at Open Left doesn't think Obama's statement will fool any of us that are paying attention, and Marcy Wheeler doesn't think Obama knows what he's talking about.

I agree with them all, but unsaid is that Obama knows exactly who he's talking to, and it ain't you my dear over-informed blog reader. He's talking to the under-informed, as usual. This time he's just not doing it through the usual media filter. He added a step. But his target, ally and nemesis is always the Versailles Villagers on the Potomac -- or does Digby have to spell it out for you again?

And this is because our political narratives are written by corporate conservatives and disseminated by their rich celebrity employees who actually seem to believe their "values" are shared by Real Americans. One of the most brilliant narratives was the notion that "the left" is unpatriotic. After all, suppressing dissent on that topic has kept the bipartisan Military Industrial Complex gravy train rolling for more than 50 years. It's perfectly natural that the new Surveillance State would be folded into that at the first opportunity, and the corporations that provide all the technology would necessarily want a piece of that action. There's huge money to be made in government contracts and the idea that any corporation would do something to endanger such possibilities over something so trivial as the constitution is naive. They agreed to work together for very good reasons and they do not want any interference.

But it isn't just about money it's also about political power. The effect of this decades long propaganda program has been to inculcate the idea among many Americans that liberalism itself is unserious. It's become so reflexive that any Democratic politician is automatically granted respect from the political establishment for the mere act of defying his own voters. It is considered a sign of courage and gravitas and a necessary right of passage.

What Obama considers important is winning. Not your petty concerns about the rule of law or following the Constitution. It's not like he sat down and took on commenters in a free-for-all exchange at a site like Daily Kos -- and he would have been foolish to do so. He doesn't need to. What he does need to do is have the corporate media report that he engaged us laptop hippies, was nice enough to stoop to our level for which we should be duly impressed, and still supports the "adult" position. NAFTA, Iraq, the list of rightward tacking grows daily.

In a day and age when all of the collective members of the media informed the world exactly when and where the race for the Democratic nomination was over -- because the saintly Tim Russert said it was so -- the progressive online community has a long way to go to be more than a curiosity or a prop in their play.

The lesson is, we just have to keep plugging away.

I like Chuck Todd (and his posse of deputies Mark Murray and Domenico Montanaro) but I think they're off in the tall grass on this:

[...[D]oes this entire episode remind anyone else of John Kerry’s botched joke before the 2006 midterms -- when Kerry’s mangled swipe at President Bush got twisted into a slap at US troops?

That's a misreading of what's happening here because Clark's point was made with far more intelligence and articulation than Kerry's (despite Obama calling it "inartful" but that's another story).

Here's how I see it:

McCain, trailing badly by most meaningful metrics, wants the Obama camp to hit him hard. Why? Three reasons:

1. So that he can get as much free media as possible, but more importantly...
2. So he can play the aggrieved victim, which leads to...
3. Drawing the Republican base closer to him (McCain) in his defense.

That's it. So how's he doing? Not so good.

Obama is not the candidate that will lash out at his opponents. McCain should know this by now -- Obama is preternaturally cool (for a national politician) -- it is McCain who is the hothead. Instead of lashing out, Obama has repeatedly stated how much he honors McCain's sacrifice, but...that isn't enough to qualify McCain to be president. The longer McCain strikes back, the weaker and more petty he looks.

I think I know what McCain is trying to do: he (consciously or otherwise) is trying to take a page out of Richard Nixon's campaign playbook circa 1967. Back then, Nixon was perceived as a has-been, a loser that no one in their right mind would listen to. But Nixon figured out that if he could goad LBJ into lashing out at him personally, he could elevate his stature to that of the sitting president. And (more importantly) he could paint himself as a victim/outsider being picked on by the bully/insider. Nixon understood the simmering resentment against Johnson and knew that as soon as Johnson struck back it would draw the Republican base closer to him. It worked for Nixon back then.

But it won't work for McCain today because Obama isn't a bully and McCain isn't an outsider. Oh, he'll draw the Republican base closer to him because these are the same people that give Bush a 60% approval rating and they'll believe just about anything. But as far as getting the independents and disaffected Democrats...not so much.

Furthermore, the free media thing isn't working out so well either. For one thing, Wesley Clark has made his point with clarity ... and humility: Clark honors McCain's sacrifice, but will not concede that it automatically makes McCain the superior candidate for president. In my book, this makes him a decent candidate for Secretary of Defense or Chariman of the Armed Services Committee ... but not Chief Executive of the United States. Of course, McCain's camp simply won't accept that and continues to play the "sacrifice card" and the "military experience" card. But that misses the point and gives Clark yet another chance to repeat his point.

And you know what? Every day that this story stays alive cuts against McCain by allowing Clark's argument to be discussed in greater detail. It gives Sen. Webb a chance to weigh in. It gives McCain another opportunity to screw up by bringing in the bad actors from the Swiftboats for Slime -- the guys who trashed Kerry by trashing his military career.

Bad move Senator McCain: now YOU look like the bully. Can't you see? No one is trashing your military career. Not Clark, not Webb, not Obama. They are simply making a simple case: Being a hero yesterday does not punch your ticket to the Presidency...tomorrow.

Everyday that this issue is discussed AGAIN is another day where we get to consider whether we elect a president based on his judgment instead of his sacrifice. Hillary tried to frame her fight with Obama in a similar way -- experience versus judgment. She lost. If McCain wants to fight that battle again, he's going to lose just like Hillary did.

Elections are about the future, not the past. If McCain doesn't know that by now, he's doomed.

• McCain playing defense: I saw the headline, McCain campaign launches new 'Truth Squad', and thought to myself he could go one of two ways: he'd be on offense if he was supplying "truth" about Obama; or he'd be on defense if he was offering "truth" about his own record. Too bad for the hapless McCain campaign: they're offering the latter which means he's been dragged off message.
• Speaking of McCain and the "truth": What's the harm in Gen. Clark giving his opinion on McCain's readiness to be president? Just because you were a hero 40 years ago doesn't guarantee your good judgment today...or tomorrow. If you agree with Gen. Clark, sign this petition and thank him for speaking up.
• God's way of telling you you're too rich: you forgot to pay the taxes on one of your seven homes. Hey, didn't Republicans spank Al Franken for exactly the same thing?
• Vote Obama & die: Lieberman predicts terrorist attack in 2009.
• Speaking of Lieberman: Kos goes to the DLC annual meeting, calls Lieberman an "asshole" ... and is cheered! Go figure.

OK, I admit it: this one could be really bad. But then again it could be really good too. Anyway, it's about politics so I sat up and paid attention. Watch the trailer and tell me what you think:

The on-screen talent is pretty good, but I think it's a first-time director so there's that. And then there's all the cameos from people playing themselves: Bill Maher, Larry King, Willie Nelson, Campbell Brown, Chris Matthews, Mary Hart Arianna Huffington, Richard Petty, Lawrence O'Donnell, Tucker Carlson, Aaron Brown, Tony Blankley, and god-knows-who-else.

Like I said, it could be really good ... or really bad.

"Even if you never met him, you know this guy. He's the guy at the country club with the beautiful date, holding a martini and a cigarette that stands against the wall and makes snide comments about everyone who passes by."

--- Karl Rove, describing Barack Obama

When I first read about this comment, my immediate reaction was that I couldn't think of a single country club that would admit a black man named Barack Hussein Obama. Then I thought Rove was doing his usual shtick, i.e., take his greatest weakness and ascribe it to his opponent. In other words, I felt that he was describing George W. Bush at the club, not Obama. Makes much more sense that way, given Bush's history with alcohol -- and his smart mouth. It was much the same technique Rove used to destroy John Kerry's Vietnam war record in 2004, all but accusing the nominee of being a liar and a coward. All this while Bush was hiding his "war record" in plain sight.

But a commenter at Talking Points Memo unpacked Rove's comments differently than me and I think he nails it:

The key to the statement is that (in the image) he is with "a beautiful date." Not Michelle Obama or, in the abstract, his wife, i.e. a wife like Michelle Obama. When you think of a "beautiful date" specifically at a country club, do you picture an African-American woman? Would Rove's target audience?

Or do you picture him there, a black man, smoking a cigarette indoors at a country club, with a white woman on his arm?

When I thought of this, I got a chill. When you think of Obama's vulnerability, I think the primaries showed that race remains a real and very serious obstacle, particularly with white Americans over 50. When you think of where we are with racism in this country, I think its a pretty safe bet that the final freak-out factor to overcome may be black men dating white women, in particular, one's daughter.

If I were a completely amoral Republican operative, I'd try to find some white women that Obama dated before Michelle and get them into the public's stream of consciousness anyway I could. Its a tactic so vile I don't even like speculating about it, but if you want to be ready for the worst, I think Rove just tipped his hand at where they plan to go.

In all fairness, I have to ask if there is (or isn't) the analogous scenario that an "amoral Democratic operative" could spring on McCain? Remember, in order for it to work, it has to resonate at the emotional level and be absolutely radioactive in the extreme. It has to address a fundamental fear that the electorate has about McCain.

I believe I'm on record being pissed enough with the Ass Press for the documented bias (especially Liz Sidoti) on behalf of John McSame, or at least their slip-shod reporting transcription of Republican Party talking points (a feat they no doubt learned in the run-up to the Iraq War), well before the latest flap over blogger's fair use of their copyrighted materials.

The drum-beat goes on.

Parroting the conventional wisdom, AP's Liz Sidoti wrote an "analysis" today slamming Obama's decision to forsake public campaign financing. It's quite sanctimonious. But guess what Ms. Sidoti failed to include? John McCain's campaign finance criminality. You'd think that an AP reporter writing an analysis about campaign finance might mention the fact that John McCain's illegal attempt to remove himself from the campaign finance system, after financially benefiting from it, is punishable by five years in jail. But you'd be wrong. Now, there was an AP article about McCain's campaign finance scandal just two days ago. Someone at AP knew about it. But, the facts might interfere with Sidoti's analysis.

And he's at it again. This is the baffling part. McCain was campaigning in Canada today.

It's one thing to spend most of the week in Texas fundraising, where he at least can try and sore up his edge in winning the Longhorn State's electoral votes and putting the squeeze on the rest of the Gulf Coast with some offshore drilling bamboozlement.

On a side note, why is Mean Jean Schmidt so damn wrong about this, and hows-a-come the AmericaBlog braintrust has all the good linkage tonight?

Florida CFO on drilling: "shortsighted approach to put our economy at risk"

Meanwhile, back in the Great White North, following the lead of the Procrastinator In Chief, Johnny "Ace" to a swing at Barack Obama on trade, ignoring the old saw that politics stops at the water's edge, even if that water is the Great Lakes.

Not content to engage in the unseemly airing of America's dirty laundry in front of the neighbors (and this is the good part), he probably was in violation of the Hatch Act on top of his thwarting of campaign finance laws since the affair was hosted by the U.S. Ambassador to Canada, something he's forbidden to do under Federal Law.

Note that all this reporting we lowly bloggers pass on was freely obtainable via the Edmonton Sun and the Globe and Mail exposing of McSame skating some of the basic ethical and legal behavior required of public servants, yet no mention whatsoever in the self-important Associated Press.

Who needs 'em.