Obama Disappoints Me

Yeah, I'd like to see the high road, but as you say this particular one is relevant.

It's amazing to me that McCain even wants to start talking about guilty associations, given the thin walls of the glass house he lives in. 'Palling around' with Ahmad Chalabi is a disqualifier just for starters.

I think they need to go there.

It is incorrect to characterize this as negative campaigning or swift boating (as I'm sure the Rep's will). The difference between the Palin/McCain accusations of terroristic activities and the Keating deal is that the former is utterly false and offensive, while the latter is actually real and possibly relevant. Let's keep that in mind.

Clearly, Obama has held back, and that is to his credit. But his hand has been forced. One could still argue that you should not do it, but one can also see why this may have to happen. Can't get too mad at Obama/Biden for this....

We are doomed to be disappointed by our politicians. I'm not happy about it, either, but then again, the smears from the McCain are gonna be ugly from here on out, and they could very well be effective. I'm just glad the Obama people saved their "nasty power punch" for the last few weeks. That way we don't need to put up with too much of it.

I think they are more making a point: for every negative, exaggerated point McCain brings up about Obama, Obama can bring up something about McCain that's worse, more relevant, and actually true. I think the actual goal here is to show the McCain campaign that going negative is going to hurt them a lot more than it hurts Obama.

Respect for heteronormatism through which public education was restructured (with corrupt metrics fabricated at every level) is also the Korporate Kulture of domestic and international finance. Our leaders desperately purchase systemic self-esteem. Erecting a coordinate background does not change the outcome.

Guns or butter, it bottom line makes no difference who is elected. Vote for jackbooted State compassion breaking through your door at 0200 hrs or quietly starving to death. Uncle Al personally prefers deathmatches with folks less well armed than himself.

I think that putting up a web video about the Keating matter is a very proportionate response. We're talking about a web video in response to high-profile attacks on prime-time television. In other words, it's a relatively soft answer: it says "Do you really want to argue about personal associations?"

I think they have to fight on many fronts. Obama's got a big machine and lots of people and capabilities.

Stuff like http://www.johnmccainrecord.com/ is worthy of Obama's campaign, and keatingeconomics is just one part of the conversation that needs to be had.

Talking about the economy and how McCain helped bring us to where we are is one of the things Obama's people should do.

On the other hand, I agree there are more important things they could be spending their effort on. I'd like to see them really hammer on this plan of McCain's to tax employer-provided health insurance as income. Surely if everyone knew about this and understood the implications, McCain's support would be around 10%.

I join Greg in #2: They need to go there.
My wife works in a pharmacy, and told me that some customer commented to her that Obama associates with terrorists (apparently that person saw no difference between Ayers and 9/11 terrorists, and is not someone who'll read the blogs to check on facts, and the TV news won't inform him or her better either).
The election still depends on the 'undecided voters,' and those who are still undecided now are definitely uninformed, be it by lack of time or lack of interest, and very susceptible to rumors, innuendos, no matter how false.
Then, after the Keating 5 scandal, McCain apologized, but did he advocate for better thrift supervision after? No, he remained committed to reduce regulations.
Chad's argumentation applies only to well-informed voters, such as those reading these blogs. (These know that McCain is trying to change the subject away from economics, and recognized that Palin, in the debate last week, changed the subject for too many questions so as to read her prepared points instead of answering the question (and the moderator was too polite to point that out, or ask a follow-up question). (Well some 'undecided' apparently saw through Palin at the debate, as the polls show, but still, there are many who forgot the question by the time the well-turned non-answer came from Palin).
So the new Democratic ads are informational, not below the belt, and necessary.

Unfortunately, I think you greatly overestimate the security of Obama's position in the race and the inevitability of McCain's implosion. I also want to see Obama take the high road--and, my God, considering all the garbage that has been thrown at him since the start of the Democratic primary until today, comparatively speaking, he's been a tower of dignity. So this ad is a trifle negative--but it also points to McCain's real performance. This isn't made up, as were the ideas that Obama is a muslim or that he voted to teach sex ed to five year olds or that Obama "pals around" with terrrorists. I mean, holy cow; have they no shame? If the Republicans can get away with that and continually harp upon McCain having been a POW 40 years ago, the Obama campaign should feel free to raise McCain's past involvement in economic issues. That's perfectly legit.

In a rational country, there would be no need to bring up McCain's membership in the Keating Five.

This is not a rational country. This is a country that elected George W. Bush twice (and even if it were stolen, neither election should have been close enough to be stealable). This is a country in which a bunch of well-funded pathological liars were able to successfully impugn the service record of a decorated veteran. This is a country that, for most of the last five years, thought that anybody could live the good life without having to pay for it.

Now the Republicans are trying the fear-and-smear gambit again. Obama remembers what happened to Kerry in 2004 for not responding in timely fashion. He is entirely within his rights to bring up his opponent's past record, especially since the subject is relevant to what we are facing now. Maybe it will turn out to be overkill, but we can't know that until the votes are counted, and the disaster that a McCain/Palin administration would be is too great a risk to run. For now, the election is close enough that with a little luck and a lot of skill McCain's team could still pull it off. Obama's team needs to prevent that from happening.

'Palling around' with Ahmad Chalabi is a disqualifier just for starters.

You liberals are just mad at Chalabi because he wasn't able to schedule the Official Iraq Invasion Flower Parade at a convenient time.

I don't think Obama has any choice. Any campaign that focuses on the amygdala has to be countered with another campaign that focuses on the amygdala. It short circuits the rational thinking process but it is so powerful that politicians have used it for centuries.

I like what Patrick said (#6) about "proportionate response": If the McCain/Palin campaign thinks it's okay to attack Obama with unsupported insinuations and claims about his associations, it's entirely reasonable to point out the factual connections between McCain and felonious influence peddlers. In the absence of a response, the McCain/Palin accusations have the media coverage to themselves. The new Internet video from the Obama/Biden campaign makes it clear that every specious attack from their opponents can be matched with a factual charge against McCain. Good!

"Still, I don't think there's any need for it, particularly not from the Obama campaign directly."

Does that mean indirectly, as Obama's campaign has done throughout the campaign, is ok?

"my God, considering all the garbage that has been thrown at him since the start of the Democratic primary until today,"

ROTFLMAO, speechless.

Does that mean indirectly, as Obama's campaign has done throughout the campaign, is ok?

Yes.
That's what DailyKos, TPM, ThinkProgress, Atrios, etc. are for.

Why shouldn't we talk about the savings & loan scandal? It is timely as you mention.

Senator Obama went up in the polls and has the lead he does because of the troubles with the banking system in the US juxtaposed to McCain's comments that the fundamentals of the economy are sound. Ads from the Democrats (& pro-Democratic groups) have been tying Bush and McCain together on this as well as Republicans running lower down on the ticket (i.e. for the House of Reps and the Senate). It is part of the larger narrative showing the Republicans are out of touch and out of control with regards to running the country, especially the economy.

Playing this video is not about Senator Obama winning per se. It is about enlarging the positive bump Obama will have on races down the ticket (i.e. as many Democrats in Congress as possible). Plus if you are playing to win, you go for the kill not playing it safe.

Of all the things to be disappointed in Senator Obama about, this ranks pretty low IMHO. His vote for the Patriot Act, being against same-sex marriages, etc. ranking much higher.

I think there is a natural rhythm to political campaigns that is part of the accumulated knowledge of how elections are won. So, early in the campaign you try to convince the unconvinced, but in the last month this is too late, and everything is all about making your side actually go out and vote. Therefore we see more effort directed at the partisan crowd, which as far as I can recall is always the case at the end of an election, and not just in the US. I agree though that it is more efficient not to get your hands dirty, and let some proxy deal with this ugliness.

Yeah, John Kerry and Al Gore ran 'high road" campaigns in response to vicious and baseless character attacks. We see how well *that* worked. I'm not actually advocating getting down in the gutter with Rove, but I do think, with others above, they have to do something.

MKK

I think that if the Obama campaign knew the Dow would crater today, they probably wouldn't have released the video. The thing is that in the modern media environment, playing defense doesn't work. All you get is the media spending a day or three on the charge and the response, and the attack sinks in. What you have to do is give the media something else to talk about. Defense doesn't cut it -- the only thing that cuts through the noise is more attacks. The Obama response (which clearly has been in the can for quite a while) isn't sleazy, and it's not taking anything out of context. As roads go, this is far from the low one; it's barely even meandering into the valley. Maybe this could be the one time in the last who knows how many years that the high road might win, but I wouldn't bet on it.

A "Sierra Club" Republican friend of mine is perturbed that his own father has been persuaded by emails for which the McCain campaign has plausible deniability. The friend's dad is now convinced that: (1) Senator Obama is an Arab Muslim; (2) that Obama himself was in the Weather Underground. The "official" attacks are the tip of an ugly iceberg.

I'd been sure that my friend himself would vote McCain-Palin. But Saturday night, at a potluck dinner at his home, he denied that. "McCain admits that he doesn't understand the economy," the friend (a scientist) said, and I slightly paraphrase. "Obama has not said so. If Obama provides a clear enough economic plan, I'll hold my nose with one hand, and my wallet with the other, and vote for him. I'm still undecided."

This reminds me of when my father, a 2nd generation Wall Street Conservative Republican, refused to vote for George W. Bush. Attack ads lose part of one's core constituency.

I must admit I am puzzled by your disappointment. The logic is simple: Part of making the case that one candidate is more fit for any given public office than another is to point out any relevant facts that make the other less fit for the office. People competing for office are necessarily running on their relative merits - we're going to choose one of them, after all - and the demerits of one are necessarily relevant to the relative merit of the other.

The McCain campaign could have kept focusing on Obama's relative inexperience in Capitol Hill politics and foreign policy, which could be plausibly and honestly argued to make him less fit to lead than someone with more experience. My personal opinion is that McCain's actual track record makes his experience into more of a liability than Obama's inexperience, but attacking Obama's inexperience would still have been a legitimate and fact-driven attack. Yes, it's negative, but it is by no means the "low road." Instead, the McCain camp took the genuinely low road of blatant lies and grotesque distortions from very early in this campaign, pushing the politics of fear in all sorts of ugly ways.

The Obama campaign has consistently attacked McCain on his actual policy positions when they've engaged in any attacks at all: There have been a few cited exaggerations or ambiguous-to-faulty facts about voting records and such, but nothing like a genuine smear or vile character assault. In this particular instance, there is nothing at all questionable as a matter of fact or relevance about attacking McCain's history with Charles Keating. McCain's long-term and consistent party-line support for deregulation, deregulation, and more deregulation - especially deregulation requested by powerful personal friends and campaign supporters like Charles Keating, which deregulation led directly to the S&L crisis - is massively relevant to the current deregulation-fueled financial crisis. It would be an unfair attack if John McCain had actually become a reformer, but he didn't. He co-sponsored a largely ineffective bit of campaign finance reform legislation to save face after the Keating scandal, the much ballyhooed McCain-Feingold bill, but has otherwise carried on his pro-deregulation, favor-granting political business as usual.

Frankly, I just don't understand all this kvetching about the very idea of criticizing a political opponent. Lying about an opponent or distorting an opponent's record is bad; telling the truth about why one's opponent is less fit for office than oneself is not. I consider it my civic responsibility to criticize politicians who make bad decisions and support bad policy - and I certainly don't think a candidate for office should shirk that responsibility, especialy when campaigning against a politician who so richly deserves the criticism.

Do they need to go there to win? Absolutely not. However, I have no problem with drilling into people's heads that deregulation and economic collapses go hand in hand. Maybe this time we might actually remember.

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing when I heard about it on the radio today. Both these guys - Obama and McCain - had promised to run "cleaner" campaigns but gave up rather quickly on that promise. It just further confirms my belief that nothing is really going to change regardless of who gets elected. Washington will still be broken. If there ever was a time for a third party, it's now...

I think it's a warning shot across Mccain's bow, and not much more. There is no new accusation, no new material, no new claims of McCain's unfitness as a result of these events. Obama is merely telegraphing to McCain that if he wants to make character an issue, McCain will get dragged through the same stuff.

And McCain knows more about McCain's shenanigans than anyone else. McCain knows what he's got to lose.

Yeah, John Kerry and Al Gore ran 'high road" campaigns in response to vicious and baseless character attacks. We see how well *that* worked.

In the specific cases of Gore and Kerry, I think there's more to the story than the character attacks. There were external factors that put both of them in a bad position, and ensured that the elections would be very close. Gore was hampered by his attempt to keep the very popular Bill Clinton at arm's length, and Kerry was fighting an uphill battle because the Iraq war was not as obviously a debacle at that point as it is now.

Obama, on the other hand, finds himself running at a moment when Republicans across the board have subterranean approval ratings. Huge majorities think the war was a mistake, the economy has been mishandled, and that everyone associated with Bush in any way is fatally compromised. He's starting from a far better position than Gore or Kerry ever was.

Also, neither Gore nor Kerry had the same positive personal qualities that Obama does. Neither of them cut an inspiring figure, or offered much in the way of rhetorical flair. Obama, on the other hand, has a great deal of personal charisma, and a great message of change.

I think he could win without going on the attack. Especially given the way the McCain campaign seems to be falling apart at the seams. If anything, going on the offensive about character issues risks diluting his personal appeal as a candidate of hope and change.

To be clear, I am not all that worked up about this. My disappointment isn't a "give up on the candidate in disgust" kind of reaction, just a sad and mild disappointment that they've chosen not to be as good as I think they could be.

Do they realize that linking McCain to Keating five scandal also links him to John Glenn, the space hero and ex-senator from Ohio? If the state is on knife edge, why would they want to spend money to give McCain a chance to say "Me and John Glenn" for the next four weeks?

Chad, I'd rather that the Obama campaign do what it takes to win. Whether we like it or not, that means playing to win, not playing nice. Peggy Noonan's calls for restraint and grace are nice and all, but that ship sailed before I was born.

I think that the Obama campaign still maintains the high road in this, pointing out the real differences between his background and John McCain's. If they want to try to taint him, he has to respond, but as others have said, with facts. And that is their advantage. The problem with relying on the liberal muckrakers is that only liberals read them, and in a Hobson's choice, almost all (except for those who plan a cute little protest vote) liberals have all ready made the decision to vote for Obama. The ones that need to be persuaded are the ones who are undecided and would perhaps be swayed by the Palin "heels on, gloves approach" of the shrill attacks by the Veep candidate.

Yes, the Obama campaign has been gaining ground without referring to McCain's tarnished past, but they need to seal the deal in the face of the Republican tactic of looming the ever-effective "Taxes and Terrorists" spectre. They do it because it works, and Bush would not have been re-elected in 2004 without it. I say take no chances.

They can also fire back on taxes, and point out McCain's plan to tax health-care benefits (as they have started doing.) They can also point out that by the same criteria that the Republicans calculate that Obama has raised taxes 97 times, McCain has voted to raise taxes 477 times. They can point out that the market has caused the price of oil to drop far more than expanded drilling off the coast could ever do.

The Obama campaign needs to fire with all guns and destroy the McCain-Palin campaign, but like I said they have the advantage of using the truth to do it, and the Keating Video explains just exactly how McCain was "exonerated;" through intimidation.

You idiots got fooled into voting for this guy. You believed all the hype. Meanwhile, he is destroying the American economy. All I can say to all of you is go to hell you liberal turds. How's that for compassionate conservatism?