TNR BLOGS

July 04, 2009 | 6:29 PM
July 04, 2009 | 11:58 AM
July 04, 2009 | 11:32 AM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM
June 29, 2009 | 9:09 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
16.10.2008
Good Enough To Hold Off McCain

Obama wasn't close to his best tonight. He was much less crisp and coherent than last week, and generally looked a little fried. Like several of my colleagues, I thought his critique of McCain's health care plan was especially convoluted. All he needed to say was that lots of people would lose employer-based coverage under McCain's plan, and that McCain's $5,000 tax credit wouldn't offset the $12,000 their current plans are worth. Instead Obama threw in a digression about taxing health benefits, which, while true, had nothing to do with the thrust of his response.

Obama also missed a few easy comebacks, as when McCain bristled at Rep. John Lewis's recent comments, which included a (slightly) over-the-top allusion to George Wallace. Obama should have immediately rejected the Wallace analogy; instead, he riffed about how most voters think McCain's running a more negative campaign. Again, that's true enough. But it lacked the emotional punch of a pithy disavowal (which only came after McCain doubled-back to Lewis's comments).

Having said that, Obama was coherent enough when he had to be. His response to the Ayers charge--including a recitation of all the Republicans who served with him and Ayers on that infamous board--should defuse the issue once and for all. And, as was the case last week, tonight left little doubt that he plans to cut taxes for 95 percent of workers.  

More to the point, Obama was much, much more coherent than McCain, who stopped and started and bobbed and weaved so jarringly he looked like a running back evading a swarming defense (often unsuccessfully). Take, for example, McCain's various pleas on behalf of that newly-minted celebrity, Joe the Plumber:

You were going to put him in a higher tax bracket which was going to increase his taxes, which was going to cause him not to be able to employ people, which Joe was trying to realize the American dream.

And later:

Now, Joe, Sen. Obama's plan, if you're a small business and you are able -- and your -- the guy that sells to you will not have his capital gains tax increase, which Sen. Obama wants, if you're out there, my friend, and you've got employees, and you've got kids, if you don't get -- adopt the health care plan that Sen. Obama mandates, he's going to fine you.

Huh? And that's without the various ticks and jerks that accompanied McCain's delivery.

Beyond garden-variety incoherence, McCain had three problems I could detect. First, he had a way of turning talking points into complete non sequiturs by slapping them on the end of unrelated answers. My favorite came at the end of his second pass at Ayers and ACORN, when he added, hopefully: "[M]y campaign is about getting this economy back on track, about creating jobs, about a brighter future for America." Riiiight. Later, McCain appended this to his critique of Joe Biden's foreign-policy judgment: "I want to come back to, notice every time Sen. Obama says, 'We need to spend more, we need to spend more, that's the answer' -- why do we always have to spend more?" I realize the predicate doesn't always have to follow from the subject, but shouldn't it at least be in the same ballpark?

Second problem: McCain has a habit of making jokes and allusions no one else catches; tonight he really outdid himself. At one point Obama used Joe the Plumber to make a point about his health care plan. In response to which McCain blurted out: "Hey, Joe, you're rich, congratulations." Weird stuff. McCain also repeatedly invoked Obama's line about "spreading the wealth around" without explaining what makes it so offensive (beyond his own menacing tone). It didn't strike me as self-evidently damning.

But, as in previous debates, McCain's most glaring defect was his persistent sneering and dismissiveness. Here's McCain on the Colombia trade deal: "Free trade with Colombia is something that's a no-brainer. But maybe you ought to travel down there and visit them and maybe you could understand it a lot better." McCain's take on equal pay for equal work (in its entirety): "Obviously, that law waved the statute of limitations, which you could have gone back 20 or 30 years. It was a trial lawyer's dream." McCain on a health exception to abortion restrictions (again, in its entirety): "He's [for] health for the mother. You know, that's been stretched by the pro-abortion movement in America to mean almost anything. That's the extreme pro-abortion position, quote, 'health.'" Yikes.

I even thought Obama got the better of the moment the pundits deemed McCain's finest--his rejection of the link between him and George Bush. "Senator Obama, I am not President Bush. If you wanted to run against President Bush, you should have run four years ago." It was fine as one-liners go. But, in response, Obama was both magnanimous and devastating. He praised McCain for occasionally breaking with his party on an issue like torture, then lacerated him for hugging Bush on the issues people care most about. "But when it comes to economic policies," Obama said, "essentially what you're proposing is eight more years of the same thing. And it hasn't worked."

That, for me, was the debate in a nutshell: McCain fuliminating angrily, if sometimes effectively; Obama yielding more than he should at times, but still deadly on bottom-line differences. The election obviously isn't over. But McCain came up empty on his last, best chance.

--Noam Scheiber

Posted: Thursday, October 16, 2008 1:09 AM with 64 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

thetraytiger said:

"More to the point, Obama was much, much more coherent than McCain, who stopped and started and bobbed and weaved so jarringly he looked like a running back evading a swarming defense (often unsuccessfully)."

THANK YOU, Noam.

I was going to throw something at my TV/computer if I saw one more pundit go on about McCain's 'win on substance.'  On many occasions, McCain tried and failed to articulate clearly the conservative case for, say, vouchers, subsidized individual health insurance, taxes, etc. Pretty pathetic standard-bearer if you ask me.

October 16, 2008 1:53 AM

thetraytiger said:

Also,  McCain obviously went in looking to use the "spread the wealth around" line, without much in the way of followup, like Noam mentioned.

Lame. You need a zinger to make that attack connect. Call him Barack 'Robin Hood' Obama or something. A joke, something people would be inclined to retell. Instead he misdelivers the same ineffective phrase like 5 times. Story of the night.

October 16, 2008 1:56 AM

frilz1 said:

The comments McCain made about abortion, especially his sneering air quote, "the health of the mother", will go down in the history of awful debate performances as a classic. If the McCain campaign was not already a completely lost cause, his startling abortion comments would have sunk him. This election is over, only the size of the Obama landslide, as well as the extent of the GOP flameout, is left to determine.

October 16, 2008 5:27 AM

pburton16 said:

I agree Noam.  While I thought McCain's zinger about "perhaps you should have run four years ago" was effective, Obama's rebuttal was devastating.

The moment of the night for me, however, and the one every single news organization and writer has glossed over in the articles I have been reading, was McCain's unbelievable response to the Obama's comments about supporters at McCain/Palin rallies shouting "traitor" and "kill him" when his name was mentioned.  

McCain said, "I'm proud of the people that come to my/our rallies".  Not a single ounce of decency or acknowledgment from the man that displayed any sense of the reality that he and Palin are actively fomenting hate and deepening the partisan divide.

October 16, 2008 6:57 AM

Wandreycer1 said:

I would rather have eaten glass than watch this last night, but watching a clip of t McCain's sneering at women's health doesn't just point to McCain's five alarm sexism - which has always been blatant and especially highlighted in this campaign. What a pig, give that man a snout.

This quote also points to the degeneracy of the Republican party and the vicious, mindless abortion zealots that own it.  If sneering at women's health is code, then these people are truly debased, sick.

From what I've read, McCain's decent in to moral degeneracy is now complete.

October 16, 2008 7:32 AM

fougasseu said:

I think we'd all be crispy after a long campaign. And I agree McCain wasn't at his best. One bit of faint praise for McCain. His anger is authentic. Obama would have had much more difficulty with Reagan. Reagan was a fraud (actor), who with wit and bemusement would have been much more challenging.

I don't agree that Obama was flat. I think we're getting comfortable with this guy, which is good, but forgetting how remarkable he is.

How much information he has at his fingertips on so many issues, his commanding presence and aplomb, his decency, his ability to withstand withering personal criticism, and his consistency. And he has that rare gift that he shares with Bill Clinton, the ability to connect to both the common man and the highly educated.

The Republicans tried to frame him as an elitist, a very smart move on their part, and I think they screwed up by getting off that and settling on Ayers, etc. - but as the polls now show, the common man does relate to Obama.

October 16, 2008 7:34 AM

johnalthousecohen said:

The law "waved" the statute of limitations? How's that? Waved it goodbye?

October 16, 2008 7:35 AM

stgla said:

Finally, someone on hte left who saw the debate the same way I did.  Thanks, Noam.  Well-stated.

October 16, 2008 7:50 AM

Political Animal said:

IT DEPENDS ON WHAT YOU MEAN BY 'FOCUSED'.... The LA Times piece on last night's debate said John McCain seemed "far more ... focused" than in previous forums. I didn't quite see it that way. In fact, one of the...

October 16, 2008 8:04 AM

BHLnyc said:

Excellent assessment, Noam. I agree with every point. Obama was slightly off his game, but still very effective, and McCain had the best one-liner of the night. But he also had the worst sound bite, too, when he put in quotes "the life of the mother" when answering the question about abortion. It was sneering and dismissive and I think that was a huge gaffe that's bound to bite him in the ass with independents and moderate women voters. This seemed comparable to Obama's off-key remark about voters "clinging" to guns and religion and certainly deserves the same kind of scrutiny.

October 16, 2008 9:04 AM

fclowney said:

McCain is looking increasingly like a Ralph Steadman cartoon.  The wild eyes and bloated visage suggest he needs to adjust his medication.

October 16, 2008 9:17 AM

JackCl said:

Obama was on top of his game because of McCain's tepid performance.  Yes, McCain improved slightly on his previous sub par performances, but that just accentuated Obama's dominance.  The Bill Ayers/ACORN allegations were devastatingly rebutted.  McCain had no response to Obama's rebuttal in particular by the calm and intelligent demeanor of Obama's response.  Even as McCain improved he fell into his default behavior of condescension and plain meanness.  He's barely more coherent than his running mate Palin.  Why doesn't anyone wish to see that John McCain is one of the weakest candidates for high political office in recent decades.  He won the nomination of the GOP because of a historic weak field of rivals.  The only reason the Democrats didn't run away with this election from the start had to do with the Obama/Hillary rivalry and the fact that Obama is a political rookie, something he's been able to completely shake off.  Yes, the economic crisis has helped Obama pull way in the polls, but it has not been the only reason for his surge.  

October 16, 2008 9:23 AM

3mjesus said:

I thought McCain's head was going to explode when, after demanding to know how much Obama was going to fine Joe the Plumber for not having insurance, Obama said "Zero."

Seriously, his head explode.

Does McCain even read stuff before he goes rambling on about them?

October 16, 2008 9:25 AM

drdannyu said:

Is it just me, or did McCain look like his face was being manipulated by a system of pulleys?

October 16, 2008 9:44 AM

ponty said:

When McCain told off Obama and his big mouth with the rejoinder, " if you wanted to run against George Bush, you should have done it four years ago," he should of added, you can call me George Bush but who are you and why do you think you have the right to keep your personal life and ideology private.  Obama has an obsession with privacy.  He, a constitutional law professor, calls privacy an undebatable right like other rights that are outside of the constitution and not debatable, he is simply a fascist.  What he was referring to is the preamble to the constitution and the constitution is a working document, everything debatable and contestable in the law court.  This tiny gnat of a man, who gets hysterical and acts personally wounded with any criticism directed at him, who hides behind the ugly language of his defenders who act like Jonestown followers in their loyalty, doesn't deserve to be considered to be President.  His inability to accept criticism and fanatic stance on law tells me he is a Moslem, unbending and fanatic to his core.  It is amazing to me how similar he is to George Bush in his fanatic beliefs and desire to hide his past.  It is hysterically funny to me how those found at the TNR are his fanatic supporters, a supposedly news and opinion magazine, while not even knowing anything about this mirror-image of GW.  I am amazed by the ignorance demonstrated by Obama followers.  A sophomore in college can see through his ridiculious arguments about government.  The guy is a fraud through and through.  I am a socialist and my cause is the truth and this guy is like a carpetbagger going to Washington.

October 16, 2008 9:56 AM

michael said:

I've insisted that Obama and his unified team Obama's team are indivisible while McCain has only been as good as the best advice he gets from day to day. Whether it's an Army Company or a sport team, no one can appreciate the value of unity and experience until the group is confronted with adversity, a new challenge and a seasoned group with solidarity is always more formidable. Team Obama started small and grew when people joined by understanding and believing the message. Plus they have been stable from day one as McCain fired and filled chairs to meet an immediate need.

Last night we saw a McCain who was a character designed by committee and Barack was the designer of his committee. Obama was the inventor and John was an invention.

McCain only did well when he was using practiced lines that appealed to the wishes of the country but he had too few and he resorted to using them as weapons against Obama. Barack's lines were familiar, approved by consensus over time and his reply to Bob or John was more to solve, console and clarify rather than beat-up McCain. McCain began with an assault that would have rattled many but I could see the wheels turning in Obama's brain. He was calm but resolved and after half and hour his responses inferred "John, you're full of shit and don't care about the middle-class. Pay attention because I have the solutions."

People can claim they're anti-intellectual but they sure as hell appreciate when someone can dilute complex concepts and package an answer so it transcends slogan and rhetoric. Obama's replies shared the common mantra we've heard on the stump, in interviews and in ads. Barack was presenting a plan and McCain was trying to put on a heroic act.

October 16, 2008 10:01 AM

drdannyu said:

Well, ponty, with great thinkers like yourself at the helm, I can only watch with glee as the great ship of American socialism runs aground.

October 16, 2008 10:21 AM

benjamin81 said:

I actually thought Obama won on both style and substance last night, compared with the no-win tie of the second debate and the technical win for McCain in the first. Obama looked serious, knowledgeable, and downright presidential. McCainj looked almost spastic (best line of the night: "Zero?!"). In fact, I kept thinking of the "SNL" sketch parodying the Bush-Dukakis debate of 1988, in which Dukakis' rebuttal consists of "I can't believe I'm losing to this guy!" I think that's how McCain felt all last night.

October 16, 2008 10:28 AM

icarusr said:

Ponty: this was without a doubt one of the most incoherent posts ever - and this is saying something (as we have our share of nutcases).

The problem with a "zinger" or a one-liner like "I am not President Bush" is that ... well, it can come and haunt you.

www.huffingtonpost.com/.../obama-ad-goes-after-mccai_n_135146.html

A perfect jujitsu moment.  You can't, as POWPOW does, boast that you voted more than your Republican colleagues with Bush, and then get all huffy about being compared to Bush.  That line, for all the punch it appeared to contain at the time, will likely go down as one of the dumbest in the debate.

October 16, 2008 10:33 AM

blackton said:

I also loved Gergens other line when asked what McCain should do now: "beats the hell out of me." Wonder how many of McCain's people are saying the same thing.

I watched it on CNN and the split screen just devastated McCain. As 3mjesus mentioned, McCain challenged Obama about the fine, when Obama said zero, it was like McCain was hit square in the face, he visibly rocked back. Never ask a question that you don't know the answer. After that haymaker McCain nonsensically said "Joe you are rich. Spread the wealth around" instead of rebutting Obama about health care.

Also McCain mentioned twice how elequont Obama is. Once after Obama basically, said Lets take a look at the offshore drilling issue, Oil companies must drill on their leases, use it or lose it. And McCain said see how Obama talks he said lets look at offshore drilling, not do it.

Well, one, what Obama said in that exchange wasn't elequount, two he said lets look at the issue, not lets look at offshore drilling, so McCain was so wrapped up in how Obama was talking and not what he was saying. If you bring up the eloquounce issue, at least you should make a comment how Obama wraps up words into shiny packages that have nothing inside, or how he will sell sand to a bedouin. But he didn't. It was as though he thought saying Obama was eloquount was enough of a put down in itself.

About the McCain line that Obama should have run against Bush four years ago, I found it laughable, 4 years ago no one had ever heard of Obama, and his running against Bush would have been ludicrous, but I do wish Obama didn't ask McCain why, if he recognizes Bush is a failure, that McCain didn't run agains Bush? 4 years ago a McCain run would have been putting country first, but now, he waits 3 years and 49 weeks after the last election to distance himself from Bush? 4 years too late.

The first 30 minutes were McCain, the middle part was a muddle, but Obama completely destroyed McCain the last 30 minutes (half due to McCain). When McCain talked in a way that had highly positive reaction, Obama looked respectfully at him and listened attentively. McCain looked angrily out at...what or who I don't know.

Last thing, did anyone hear about McCain's troop to teachers? He said lets bring them from the battlefied to the classroom without certification or training. Yeah, putting a soldier fresh off the battlefield into a classroom full of 12 year old is a great idea sure to mesh well. Biggest misspeak of McCain of the night (at least I hope so, or hope I misheard him)

oh, and drdannyu, if ponty's post is not satire, then satire is dead. The was either really funny, or this guy ponty was huffing glue during the debate.

October 16, 2008 10:44 AM

WoodyBombay said:

There you have it, National Review: Socialists *hate* Obama!

October 16, 2008 10:53 AM

ponty said:

You guys are falling over each other in the rush of adoration for Obama.  Unfortunately, following the thinking of Obama hasn't worked to stimulate your wit, only other ugly qualities.  I can understand how your personal insult and injury by the Bush failed presidency has led you in seeking an Obama to soothe your bruised egos.  And as to the National Review, I thought I was a subscriber of the New Republic, but I must be wrong.  Such a group of fanatics found here.  What is astonishing is that after the total failure of the clown Bush and the actor Reagan  who led the country to financial ruin, McCain could still make a case for small government and conservative economic theories, which he succeeded in doing in the debate and only because Obama's liberalism is mostly nonsense put out by a guy who hasn't served the public but only campaigned for higher office with his audacity of hope, no experience, no grasp of economics, he only knows who to blame and what to campaign against.  He will prove to be a President on the scale of failure as great as his predecessor Bush.  I don't really care, I live abroad, but being a socialist, I can look honestly and clearly at the mess that is American politics and what I see on these pages only confirms my worst fears.  Grotesque is what I see here and this is what has happened to the left, actually become republicans in smallness of mind and outlook.  What a group of clowns, like Bush clones.

October 16, 2008 11:24 AM

satyendra said:

Dr. Danny, LOL. Yes, I also thought McCain looked like a muppet last night.

If I may ask, Ponty, are you voting for Nader this election?

October 16, 2008 11:36 AM

satyendra said:

Ponty, a lot of the mess you decry came about because people like you thought there was no discernible difference between Bush and Al Gore, casting their votes for Nader instead.

October 16, 2008 11:38 AM

blackton said:

Ponty, wow, way to debate the issue. You are a socialist, but are in favor of small government, you live abroad and "don't care" yet get worked up in such a snit.

I used to like and admire McCain, supported him and donated to him in 2000. TNR even endorsed him back then. He has run a terrible campaign, point blank. His prmary campaign was the one he should have run in the general, but he saw how low he was polling with the base (which split between Romney and Huckabee) and thought he could win by running to the right. I suppose he thought he could hold the middle based on his reputation, but he was wrong. He should have run as a Conservative Democrat, the guy who was offered a spot on Kerry's ticket. He could have owned the center, could have even taken a moderate as his VP. He took Palin, a geniune nitwit.

One other thing, fuck you for calling me a Bush clone. One on one in a debate I would crush you, as would most other people here. I too live abroad, have dedicated half of my adult life to bringing education to some of the worlds poorest communities. I won't be looked down upon by a pissant like you. I don't worship Obama, initially favored Gore, and would be happy if the ticket were switched even now, with Biden being on top. But this is what we have. Obama has run an exceptional campaign, 4 1/2 years ago he was a complete unknown, a black man with the funny name of Barack Hussein Obama, yet he is almost surely going to be the next President. Not to recognize his enormous skill is simple stupidity on your part.

October 16, 2008 11:54 AM

WoodyBombay said:

Let me explain, ponty: The folks at the National Review routinely call Obama a wild-eyed socialist. Here at TNR, we have a wild-eyed socialist who *hates* Obama. Ergo, ipso facto, quid pro quo, veni vidi vici, you do the math.

October 16, 2008 11:57 AM

kagoss718 said:

I agree with frilz1, the scare quotes around "health of the mother" will be the quote that lives on from this debate.  Nasty, sneering, uncaring, condescending...all the worst images of conservatism, summed up in one video clip.  My immediate reaction was "Well f*ck you too, John McCain."  He lost a lot of women with that one, I'll bet.

October 16, 2008 11:59 AM

GSpinks said:

Noam, I don't know that McCain's "garden-variety incoherence" was not the biggest problem. And I think your first two additional issues were part and parcel of McCain's incoherence. My biggest draw from the debate is that he is able to debate and discourse about as coherently as Bush 43, and that, in regards to the intangibles, it would be the same administration with a new figurehead.

icarusr, ITS ABOUT FREAKIN' TIME!!!! The last few seconds of that ad are pure condemnation after what McCain said at the debate.  Looks like Obama one-up'd those of us who have been calling for this footage to hit the ads by holding this zinger for the right moment.

I have to completely agree with michael that McCain only sounded coherent when he was reciting the various slogans and one liners he has been saving up; we've had a president who only talked coherently when reading from a teleprompter or uttering well rehearsed slogans, and I think we've had just about enough of him these last 8 years.

BHL, I think the line was "health of the mother"; I think it speaks to the disregard of the Conservative movement for people who dare to disagree, to dismiss the argument of "health of the mother" as merely a euphemism created by the left to keep abortion legal is to simply ignore everything proponents have actually argued and courts have decided. I am impressed by the brazen disregard for subterfuge exhibited by McCain in setting up this straw man in plain sight of the whole country on national tv; then again, maybe it just speaks to his disregard for anyone who disagrees with his position combined with his need to rely on catch-phrases and slogans to drive his point. Either way, not good for McCain.

TrayTiger, I think "spread the wealth around" is the new euphemism for calling someone a socialist; the difference appears to be that "socialist" has become an effectively neutral appelation thanks to countries like Canada and England who are often derided for their socialist programs and yet whose socialist programs are often widely regarded, and so they have had to resort to actually describing what it is they're deriding.

October 16, 2008 12:01 PM

bhunziker said:

Hold his own? Good enough? Frankly, I thought so too. But really, in light of the polling which shows that Obama was the overwhelming victor in this debate, who care what  think - or a pundit thinks for that matter. This debate was yet another blow to the McCain campaign and there's no other way to spin it. To look at this as Obama just holding his own is to disregard what the vast majority of actual voters think, and that is that Obama won overwhelmingly.

October 16, 2008 12:07 PM

ponty said:

I would never contemplate voting for Nader.  I voted Gore but am voting McCain because he is rational, he isn't just cool, though cool seems to be the standard in politics today.  McCain is rational and logical and if he had been President instead of Bush, the country would be entirely different today.  Bush failed because he is a failure, he is a born loser.  Obama is a born something else, undefined and unspecified and apparently unknowable.  Roosevelt succeeded in helping to curb the damage caused by unbridled free market capitalism and his generation created a stable world economy having learned what happens with radical economics and the cost of insanity and fanaticism.  He saved capitalism because he understood it, he came from within its ranks.  Obama is something else, someone who comes with a history of grievances and an overcompensation of self-importance, not unlike fanatic leaders of the past and present.  His inability to receive criticism shows that he is a dangerous fanatic.  Who would imagine a country putting in power, with his hand on the nuclear button, someone so unknown and so defensive about his past.  Who could imagine such folly?  If Obama was a serious politician he wouldn't ask anyone to trust him on what little there is to go on, he would have waited until he had a record in the US Senate to run on.  I think the fanaticism of his supporters is a thinly veiled need to overcome deep down fears they have about his candidacy.  In desperate times, the most valuable trait of a people is their steadfastness, not voting for change by someone whose personal ideology is hidden from view.  Its too dangerous to ignore his connections with radicals, his preacher, the bomber, Jesse Jackson's statement about his middle east politics, his relationship to the President of Kenya.  It is only fair to know where his heart is and not take for granted that being a liberal he has a heart.  He carries deep resentments and hurt and they will play themselves out the same way Bush's loser character has born fruit.

October 16, 2008 12:16 PM

lymon1 said:

As I haven't been here too much lately (don't get your hopes up people, just busy!), this may have been said already, but if you check out the full youtube of Obama talking to Joe the Plumber, I think it shows Obama at his finest.  Yeah, he's spinning a touch, but it's a far more direct response to a question on his tax plan than I've seen in the debates.  

McCain's last chance was to "straight-talk" after the financial crisis set in, trash *all* tax cuts (or increases) as irresponsible in light of the budget deficit, and do a Bill O'Reilley-styled "I'm going to name Rudy attorney general and throw those CEO's in jail" John Wayne move.  If this race wasn't over after Palin showed she was even less qualified than her resume suggested, it was over after the first debate.

October 16, 2008 12:19 PM

lymon1 said:

P.S.  Lord help us all if at this point McCain *does* win -- it would pretty much prove 1) as a nation we really are racist as hell, 2) blithering nonsense trumps cogent policy arguments and 3) there is no serious penalty for a political party which nearly ruins the nation with less than one decade of control of the federal government.

October 16, 2008 12:21 PM

drdannyu said:

Let's see.  Where's my list of people to not bothering responding to on Talkback?  *pats pockets absent-mindedly*  Ahhhhhhhhhhhh.... here it is.

*scribbling noises*

There we go.  "Ponty."  Right under "jacksondyer."

October 16, 2008 12:29 PM

pamvlies said:

thetraytiger  said:

Also,  McCain obviously went in looking to use the "spread the wealth around" line, without much in the way of followup, like Noam mentioned.

JM didn't follow up because he didn't have to. This was how he signaled to the fiscal conservatives that he was with them. We progressives see this as kind of a moral outrage on a par with how they see abortion - in fact we use their lack of compassion for the poor, unemployed, etc., to prove that their Christian stance is only a cover of sorts, nothing to do with the basic concepts of any religion...it's how we can take God [as an issue] away from the wingnuts of the GOP. Obama did a great job of this.

The people McCain was talking to clearly got his message - he's on their team and the maverick is gone. Palin signaled the same message with her comments about the office of the VP. She was approving of what Cheney has done and perhaps seeks to expand it.

Again, they didn't HAVE to follow up with the people they were talking to - [he got his talking points from them] - it sure wasn't Joe -  And no, personally, I don't think Joe the plumber takes the place of Joe-Sixpack in the voters minds. He is however - his better off cousin - with a wink - and replaces that commonman concept to the upper ranks. They wouldn't have Joe Sixpack in their home to do anything. But yeah, a plumber that makes a quarter of a mil that they might know from seeing him at a soccer game - or hockey, if you must? ANYway - the replacement or addition if you will was subtle, but I think it's there.

JM was clearly signaling to the intellectual conservatives that he needed the cash to get him through the next 19 days and he would do whatever they wanted. He did great last night and now I'm really worried about what the October surprise might be.

October 16, 2008 1:00 PM

GSpinks said:

Ponty, you may, indeed, be a socialist; but I would have to say you are either a partisan shill who uses opinions loosely associated with actual circumstances to make wild leaps in logic, while avoiding coherent trains of reason altogether, or you are yet another in a long line of victims of America's public education system.

You claim McCain is rational; what instances of reason and logic were exhibited by McCain in last night's debate, beyond being able to select choice slogans which were sometimes relevant to the topic of the debate? I didn't see much, and in fact I was largely unsurprised when he was unable to present his reasoned argument for why Ayers is some sort of big issue.

After months of extensive investigation, including the Annenburg files, performed especially by people with a personal and/or vested interest in finding _anything_ that might incriminate Obama, there is no such evidence.And yet McCain insists that Obama has not been forthcoming in regards to the relationship, that he is concealing some sort of damning evidence.

It is absolutely irrational for McCain to assert that there is an extended relationship with Ayers about which Obama has been lying to the American people in the face of a plethora of evidence to the contrary.

And for someone like you to state as God's Truth that McCain is "rational" speaks of a signficant disconnect with reality; a special brand of partisan schizophrenia, perhaps.

October 16, 2008 1:27 PM

icarusr said:

GSpinks: POWPOW once again referred to "Canada and England" as countries with a dysfunctional health care system.  I have had two catastrophic illnesses in the family in the past two years, and both have been dealt with quickly and well - and the sum total of our expenditure: $300 for co-insurance and hospital parking over the course of eight months' worth of treatment. (With bells and whistles, as a few things went wrong along the way.)  There is not a single corporation in Canada that would exchange the special health levy for providing health insurance; our small businesses do not have to worry about it; and of course health care is transportable across the country (with some minor limitations to prevent abuse).  The only time I got mad was when he snickered something about Canada; luckily the peanut bowl missed the TV.

DrDan: I'm there with you, but I have one more line for Ponty.

Ponty: You mentioned "his relationship to the President of Kenya".  I think your nickname is hiding your true name, which is Joe Corsi.  You can't seriously be a "socialist" and want to vote McCain because he is "logical"; or you can be, if you have no fucking idea what a socialist is or what logic entails.  Any way, in all the stuff you listed, you forgot the biggest, grandest, reason to not vote for Obama: "I ain't gonna vote for no nigger."  Your angry attacks on what is a well-educated and HIGHLY diverse crowd bespeaks of hidden demons.  Take a Valium or, better yet, go to the nearest bridge and jump off - best way to get rid of your anger.

October 16, 2008 1:29 PM

icarusr said:

Ponty: incidentally, you do know, don't know, that enemas are not to be taken orally?  As you can surely attest, they can induce verbal diarrhea.

October 16, 2008 1:42 PM

maxblum13 said:

Good evening. This is BBC Rome with a breaking news bulletin.  Fascist leader Benito Mussolini pledged his undying support today for what he termed "the individual's right to privacy" at a major rally of supporters, stating that he would immediately disband the Italian secret police and begin drafting a new constitution.  Mussolini's erstwhile ally Spanish General Francisco Franco chalked up the comments to what he termed "a long night on the town" the two apparently enjoyed in Berlin yesterday evening.  Francisco then declared war on Italy and began a comprehensive bombing campaign of naval targets on the island of Sicily, killing and maiming thousands.

For analysis we go now to our guest tonight, Ponty, a political science professor at the University of WTF who specializes in fascism and actually predicted Mussolini's surprise move...

October 16, 2008 2:31 PM

adaglas said:

Damn you, DrDan! I've been trying to make that list for months - MONTHS! - and this newbie comes along and gets the golden shun right away?  Where is the justice, I ask you!

October 16, 2008 2:36 PM

drdannyu said:

adaglas, I could never shun you.  You're like a clever pet that amuses me with your playful monkeyshines, a budgie that's learned to swear at the mailman, say, or a juggling macaque.

Here.  *crinkling noise*  Have a toffee, and run along.

October 16, 2008 2:47 PM

ponty said:

I am a socialist in looking for a third way, where everyone is right and there isn't a competition between the public and private sectors.  This was tried with supply side economics and it has failed, but the effort was the same, to end "class warfare."  My theory is a dialectic approach and based on the philosophy of Husserl and transcendental idealism.  These are confusing times,exemplified by Bush's chief speechwriter having believed in communism at one time.  

McCain is correct in saying that his approach to weathering this economic crisis is logical.  Obama is not responding directly to the crisis, he is imparting beliefs that he would implement under any economic scenario.  It just shows that Obama is amateur hour once again, following Bush.  Obama is on a personal journey of discovery and politics is secondary to what is supremely important to him, himself.  To solve a problem one has to not be part of the problem, otherwise the problem becomes unsolvable.  Obama gets in the way of his being objective in leading the country and solving problems. WHen he runs out of people to blame, what will be left for him to do?

October 16, 2008 2:58 PM

adaglas said:

You goddamned northeastern liberal elitist!  I'm no simpering simian you can just boss around and -- oooh, candy!  

You win this round, organ grinder.

October 16, 2008 3:06 PM

boneill said:

Good.  In serious times we need transcendental idealism.  

October 16, 2008 3:14 PM

drdannyu said:

Paula Abdul, you sneaky minx.  After having heard you all these years, offering "advice" to American Idol contestants that has only a nodding acquaintance with sanity, do you think I wouldn't recognize your inimitable rhetorical style?  "Ponty," indeed.   "Obama is on a personal journey of discovery and politics is secondary to what is supremely important to him, himself" is a dead give-away.

Now, get back out there and judge some warbling.  America needs you in these troubled times.

October 16, 2008 3:18 PM

tomeg said:

"Hi. My name is PONTY and I am a socialist and my cause is the truth..."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...

October 16, 2008 3:18 PM

tomeg said:

"Hi. My name is PONTY and I am a socialist in looking for a third way, where everyone is right and there isn't a competition between the public and private sectors."

Hi, Ponty, are you married to a robocall?  Just asking.

October 16, 2008 3:22 PM

tomeg said:

"Hi. My name is PONTY, and my theory is a dialectic approach and based on the philosophy of Husserl and transcendental idealism.  These are confusing times..."

Keep on truckin', PONTY, you'll be there any day now, or my name isn't PONTY.

October 16, 2008 3:26 PM

icarusr said:

Speaking of monkeys, Ponty is living proof that if a monkey sits behind a keyboard for a long enough time, it can string apparently coherent sentences in an incoherent sequence.  DrDan should simply stop giving him candy.

"transcendental idealism" and "McCain is logical" in the same paragraph.  Whodda thunk it possible?  Methinks the "socialist" has been reading Justice "Windbag" Kennedy too much.

October 16, 2008 3:29 PM

tomeg said:

"Hi. My name is PONTY. To solve a problem one has to not be part of the problem, otherwise the problem becomes unsolvable."

I'm not making this up, y'know. Word.

October 16, 2008 3:34 PM

MichLib said:

GSpinks writes: "or you are yet another in a long line of victims of America's public education system."

Talk about liberal elitism. Way to play into the stereotype. And liberals are supposed to be all about public education, but you trash those who use it.

I went to a public school and turned out quite well. As did many (MOST) of my colleagues and peers. GSpinks, you are just playing into the stereotype of liberal elitism and its pretty apalling. Think before you type next time.

October 16, 2008 3:48 PM

Nusholtz said:

When I watch the debates it reminds me of two wizards conjuring spells at one another.  It's just words and it doesn't mean anything unless one of them turns into a rodent.

October 16, 2008 5:01 PM

mundye said:

Wait, there's candy being given out around here?  How can I get some?

October 16, 2008 5:06 PM

GSpinks said:

MichLib, thank you for pointing that out! The intent was to denigrate one who did not avail themselves of the education that was provided, but instead I denigrated the educational institution for the students lackluster achievement. Mea culpa!

October 16, 2008 5:17 PM

vestokes said:

Speaking of stances on the abortion issue, why didn't Obama bring up McCain's running mate's opinion. Now I'd have LOVED to see McCain stutter and stumble around that issue.  

October 16, 2008 5:36 PM

GSpinks said:

MichLib, in my own defense, I would like to assert my displeasure with the tendency of public schools to matriculate unqualified students; and while it is no fault of the school should a student decide to resist their education, I think it is a failure on their part to condone such behavior through matriculation. It is along the line of thought that Ponty was allowed to graduate without having exhibited appropriate competencies that I made my statement. Having said that, I again apologize for undue denigration of public education. :)

October 16, 2008 5:44 PM

blackton said:

Tomeg, you are killing me. Too freaking funny. Ponty is evidently a first year Philosophy student, so perhaps it is possible to forgive him for being a pretentious little shit. He must be a real chore to be around.

October 16, 2008 5:53 PM

blackton said:

GSpinks, ah, forget it. I am in education (I taught Americans children at an Int'l school in China) and I didn't remotely take offense to it. My father was also a Middle School principal and my sister an Assistant Principal. I also have a few teacher friends. In some places the public school system is a disaster, why pretend otherwise, and in others it is exceptional. It is a combination of money, parental involvement, environment, and the schools themselves, etc. Your joke was so low on the offensiveness scale I don't really think many or even any educators would take offense to it. I think Michlib's offensive antenna is a little too high.

October 16, 2008 6:01 PM

phargle said:

re:  lymon 1, who said:

"P.S.  Lord help us all if at this point McCain *does* win -- it would pretty much prove 1) as a nation we really are racist as hell"

You've got a decent argument for point two and three, but I don't think point one is fair.  A McCain victory will not prove that our nation is racist. Your assertion means this must be true:  that some voters WOULD vote for a Democrat based on their support of universal health care, or his tax plan, or his position on Iraq, or his pro-choice stance, or his position on Iraq, or any other collection of issues. . . but they decide to vote for McCain because they don't like black people.  And there must be enough of these voters that it will swing the election.  

Imagine a racist who believes in universal health care, or abortion rights, or wealth redistribution.  Where do they live? What states will they swing?  There are seven Bush states where a win for Obama means he wins the election.  It's really unreasonable to state that those states, all which voted for a Republican in 2004 and 2000, are racist because they are voting for a Republican in 2008.  Those voters didn't want Democratic positions in 2004 and 2000, and Obama is espousing those same positions now. If they reject him, it will be because he's a Democrat, not because he's black;  after all, they rejected two white Democrats, too.

One final point:  McCain is polling half as well among African-American voters as Bush did in 2004.  That's worse than his numbers have slipped among every other demographic.  Is THAT racism?  

October 16, 2008 6:28 PM

GSpinks said:

"where everyone is right and there isn't a competition between the public and private sectors." - by definition, it is not possible for the public and private sectors to operate in a state other than competition.

"based on the philosophy of Husserl and transcendental idealism" - there is the majority of your problem right there; the majority of your problem appears to stem from a lack of understanding of that which you are preceiving.

"McCain is correct in saying that his approach to weathering this economic crisis is logical." - that depends on which economic philosophy McCain is embracing today; being logical is a subjective valuation that requires an external point of reference, such as the theories of economics to which one subscribes. I cannot say McCain has been illogical, but I do assert that what he has proposed will not provide the intended benefits and cost more than anticipated.

"he is imparting beliefs that he would implement under any economic scenario." -- this is because he asserts that the propositions would invariable lead to the best possible economic scenario, sustained long-term economic and cultural growth, while repairing many of the near and mid-term problems plaguing the financial prospects of Americans.

"WHen he runs out of people to blame, what will be left for him to do?" - as for the rest of your argument, I think my response here should suffice across the board; thus far, the only blame Obama has assigned is to the Conservative Economic Ideology as it has been practiced during the Bush administration. To insinuate otherwise, as you do by referring to "when obama runs out of people to blame", is to completely ignore what has been said, and disavow your philosophy by ignoring the phenomena which exist in favor of the phenomena you have conjured with your imagination. This, it would seem, is your modus operandi; in almost every argument or assertion you begin from the standpoint of not what is known (through various methods of documentation currently available, like videos and articles written by reporters) but what you believe to be the case, due either to a lackluster effort to become informed on that which is available to be known or through limited faculties; the remainder of your argument is little more than a series of exercises in rationalizations. In short, you need to spend more time observing and less time concluding.

Blackton, thanks for the moral support!

October 16, 2008 6:29 PM

ironyroad said:

phargle raises an interesting question:  "One final point:  McCain is polling half as well among African-American voters as Bush did in 2004.  That's worse than his numbers have slipped among every other demographic.  Is THAT racism?"

I'd like to say, it's not.

In 1928 Al Smith was the first Catholic to run for the presidency.  He was defeated primarily because enough Protestants in the south and midwest simply refused to vote for a Catholic under any circumstances.  Was this anti-Catholic bigotry?  IMO, yes.

In 1960 there was a significant tendency among voters of Irish Catholic descent to massively (but not completely) favor JFK.  Was this anti-Protestant bigotry?  No.

Why is it bigotry not to vote for Smith because he was an Irish Catholic, but not bigotry to vote for JFK because he was an Irish Catholic?

It's a difficult question, but it seems to me the only half-way valid answer is that a positive vote in favor of a member of the tribe finally making it feels better than a negative vote against a member of another tribe to prevent him getting in.  Positivity is generally positive, negativity generally negative.  The nation in a psychic/spiritual sense was a better place after JFK's election than after Smith's defeat, and not just for Americans of Irish Catholic descent.

Hence a positive vibe in favor of Obama, as the first black (or biracial) man to have the White House in his reach is not entirely the same thing as a negative vibe against him because of him being black (or biracial).

October 16, 2008 9:29 PM

GSpinks said:

ironyroad, It is interesting you bring up Al, since the candidates are at a fund-raiser in his honor tonight. I caught McCain and Obama on Maddow's show; they were both very good, but Obama about had me in tears.

btw, well said.

October 16, 2008 11:53 PM

phargle said:

re:  ironyroad

I agree!. :)  You're right, but it's a side-ways point.  I think it is racism, but it may not be bigotry, as you say.  Although I would also add that, while I have experienced anti-semitism anonymously from any number of people (almost all before I turned 18, I should add), I only experienced racism and bigotry personally once, and that was while doing relief work for Hurricane Katrina.  I'm white. My personal assessment is that, if the election falls within 1% either way, it will have been decided by bigots - anti-white or anti-black.

October 17, 2008 10:52 AM

jobeek2 said:

In lieu of a trackback:

Spread the wealth around!

Observationalism

observationalism.com/.../spread-the-wealth-around

Summary:

McCain laid into Obama's line about "spreading the wealth around," which he wants you to see, Daniel Nichanian notes, as "code words for socialism".

Considering the state of the economy, his warnings may not resonate with voters. They do, however, play right into media preconceptions.

The pundit class lives in a prosperous bubble of its own, which has skewed its perspective on typical standards of living. (Watch this Fox News clip with a sobering illustration of this.)

These news professionals determine in what terms voters hear of socio-economic proposals, so their elite perspective constitutes a real obstacle for progressive economic politics.

Quote of this post:

" The weird thing about these invocations is that, as Noam Scheiber pointed out, he “repeatedly invoked Obama’s line about ’spreading the wealth around’ without explaining what makes it so offensive (beyond his own menacing tone).” As Scheiber adds, “it didn’t strike me as self-evidently damning.” "

October 18, 2008 10:21 AM

jobeek2 said:

Oh wait - am I too late for the candy?

October 18, 2008 10:34 AM