Hes got Bushheimers disease!! Either that or his wife Cindy is sharing her prescription meds with him. Little Cindy has a past problem with that you know.

Senator McCain, isn't Senator Kerry the man you stabbed in the back after his ill-conceived comment about kids who didn't go to college would end up in Iraq? When was that? Back in 2006 when he was running for President?

You know, the same John Kerry you threw to the wolves - the same John Kerry who WAS YOUR FRIEND AT THE TIME. The man you never reached out to help at a critical moment in the election.

Once in a lifetime someone comes along and challenges the status quo through thoughtful intelligence.  Once in a lifetime someone comes along that speaks with such eloquence other are forced to listen. Once in a lifetime someone comes along who truly cares to empower the average American, instead of placate the privileged few. Once in a lifetime someone comes along that has the courage to challenge the special interest , a dangerous thing to do. Once in a lifetime someone comes along who lifts the spirit of all Americans!  The question is: are you really going to let this-- once in a lifetime-- opportunity --to correct our bought and paid for governments (by special interest)--pass you by?

Oh wait. . .that's Obama--not McCain--Sorry--Not!

Obama’s selective willingness to ‘fight back’
Posted March 7th, 2008 at 11:05 am


Slate’s John Dickerson had an interesting item last night that seemed to summarize the conventional wisdom on intra-party criticism pretty well.

The Clinton team is setting the same trap for Obama my 4-year-old sets for her older brother. She hits him knowing that he’ll get in trouble for hitting back. Right on cue, Clinton’s senior aide Ann Lewis set it up. “I didn’t realize their version of new politics was to recycle old Republican tactics,” she said. If voters put both campaigns in the corner for a timeout, it may hurt Obama more because his claim to be a new kind of above-the-fray candidate means he’s held to a higher standard. If Obama pays no penalty for the fracas, the Clinton folks still take him for a roll in the dirt where he can’t offer his appealing message of hope, change, inspiration, and hope. Clinton, by contrast, reinforces her fighter image.

This is not a new dilemma for Obama. We’ve been talking [about] it for a year. What’s new is that he is under more pressure than ever to punch back. It’s not just that he can’t let Clinton’s attacks hang in the air. He has to show Democrats that he’s a fighter, too…. If he’s going to be the nominee, he’s going to face a lot worse from Republicans — and the barrage will be constant if he’s president.

This is pretty much what everyone knows to be true — Clinton engaged Obama, Obama tried to stay above the fray, Clinton prevailed. Obama therefore is expected to pull off a tricky move — go negative on Clinton while a) enduring Clinton’s mockery about “abandoning the politics of hope”; and b) sticking to the positive message that has gotten him to this point.

But when I read Dickerson’s item last night, I paused on a couple of points that didn’t seem quite right. Obama, for example, “has to show Democrats that he’s a fighter.” That’s true, but I couldn’t help but notice that when Republicans started treating him as the likely nominee, and McCain and Bush started taking a few shots, Obama fought back quickly and quite effectively. (The dust up over al Qaeda in Iraq last week comes to mind.) There didn’t seem to be any hesitation at all.

With this in mind, the problem isn’t necessarily that Obama is reluctant to get aggressive, it’s that he’s reluctant to get aggressive with his Democratic rival.

To be sure, Obama hasn’t exactly been playing bean-bag with Clinton, but I think it’s fair to say that Obama, especially since Super Tuesday, has been restrained in going after his Democratic rival. He had the luxury of doing so — he was winning and had less of an incentive to launch attacks. Clinton needed to catch up, so she became rather relentless. No big mystery here.

On this point, Dickerson argued that Obama has to be able to endure Clinton’s “kitchen-sink strategy,” because it’s only going to get worse. Republicans won’t hold back in the fall, and their unhinged attacks will be more belligerent than anything he’s seen from Clinton. Clinton’s attacks, the theory goes, are a test of sorts — either they’ll “toughen him up” or he’ll fail before it’s too late. If he can’t take it in March, October will be a nightmare.

But just how similar are the circumstances? Jonathan Chait makes a compelling case.

[H]er attacks on Obama are not a fair proxy for what he’d endure in the general election, because attacks are harder to refute when they come from within one’s own party. Indeed, Clinton is saying almost exactly the same things about Obama that McCain is: He’s inexperienced, lacking in substance, unequipped to handle foreign policy. As The Washington Monthly’s Christina Larson has pointed out, in recent weeks the nightly newscasts have consisted of Clinton attacking Obama, McCain attacking Obama, and then Obama trying to defend himself and still get out his own message. If Obama’s the nominee, he won’t have a high-profile Democrat validating McCain’s message every day.

Second, Obama can’t “test” Clinton the way she can test him. While she likes to claim that she beat the Republican attack machine, it’s more accurate to say that she survived with heavy damage. Clinton is a wildly polarizing figure, with disapproval ratings at or near 50 percent. But, because she earned the intense loyalty of core Democratic partisans, Obama has to tread gingerly around her vulnerabilities. There is a big bundle of ethical issues from the 1990s that Obama has not raised because he can’t associate himself with what partisan Democrats (but not Republicans or swing voters) regard as a pure GOP witch hunt.

There’s no reason to think that dynamic will be at all similar in the fall. Obama’s willingness to be confrontational with Republicans seems quite healthy, and I haven’t seen any serious suggestion he’d play patty-cakes with McCain while the Republican Smear Machine is punching him in the mouth. Indeed, the dynamic may very well prove to be the opposite — the GOP will go after Clinton on issues Obama is afraid to touch, meaning she’d have to endure attacks for the first time.

Maybe Obama will effectively engage Clinton in the coming weeks, maybe not. Time will tell. But either way, looking at this as a proxy for what might happen to Obama in the fall seems like a mistake.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14812.html

Scary person to have finger on the "nuclear button".

the Bush syndrome is getting to him.

Wow, he gets that mad about something like this!?!?!?!?  

McWar would probably nuke someone for taking his Viagra if he couldn't find it because of his Alzheimers....which he must be developing if he can't remember.

Bumiller: “But do you recall the conversation?”

McCain: “I don’t know, but it’s well known that I had the conversation.

What a nut job McCain is!

I'm not a McCain supporter, but I don't get this line of questioning.  The original story denied the vice-president offer, but not the conversation.  Then, Senator McCain said everybody knew about the conversation but still said the offer was never made.  Reading the original story http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/15/politics/campaign/15MCCA.html?ei=5007&en=92a150ca5500df54&ex=1399953600&partner=USERLAND&pagewanted=print&position=
                         its apparent he rejected the notion out of hand.  So, why was this reporter beating this poor dead horse so briskly?  Am I missing something here or is the gist of this that Senator McCain gets testy if a reporter doggedly pursues a line of questioning that doesn't seem to have a discernible purpose?

Yep . . . that's the guy we need running the world alright . . . I don't know who is more bipolar . . . McCain or Hillary . . . now THAT's the dream ticket for the Republican Party right there!

The old man is short tempered and nasty? Never would have guessed it.


Bumiller: “But do you recall the conversation?”

McCain: “I don’t know, but it’s well known that I had the conversation. It is absolutely well known by everyone. So do you have a question on another issue?”



so - it's "well known by everyone" except you, John?

It's never easy when you're caught in a lie.

Especially when you have a temper.

And you're running for President. Oops.

And the point is? What was Bumiller getting at? Everybody knows that Kerry was so desparate to win that he tried to entice McCain to join him in his losing campaign.
McCain also knew that it the intention was two fold: 1) entice McCain and stab the Republicans(Bush) in the heart 2)if that didn't work, then at least they would have further strained McCain's relationship with the conservatives of the party by making him seem liberal enough to Kerry to consider him.
It was putrid gamesmanship and all political reporters know it. The only reason to bring it up during this run is to do exactly what the Dems want. to try to stain the heir-apparent.
I would be pissed too if I had been used like that back in 2004 and had that humiliating sequence regurgitated while running for the biggest job in the country. It has nothing to do with McCain's positions, his campaign, his background as it pertains to whether he is qualified to be president.... it pertains to nothing.
McCain in '08

I think McCain needs a nap.

What a difference four years makes.  In 2004, Kerry suppossedly talks to McCain about being his VP and now Kerry supports Barack Obama for President.  I guess Kerry has really changed his views over the last 4 years.

Kyd70, he didn't get pissed when the Bush campaign portrayed him as half a bubble off center in SC in 2000.  McCrazy seems to be pretty selective in his anger when humiliated.

I heard he insisted to the pilot that this reporter would be thrown off the plane ... before the landing.
When the pilot replied that was not acceptable unless they would fly over open sea, McCain took the co-pilot hostage and demanded a gun.

Does the president have access to the country's nukes ?

Retraction: 2006 was when Kerry made the blunder; anyone with a brain knew what he was trying to say.

John McCain knew too, but opted not to come to his defense.

McCain continues to exhibit the same "qualities" that his good buddy, GW Bush has shown for years:  Testiness,  denial, flip-flop-flip-flop, and situational ethics.  He and the rest of the Republican Party have no vision, no plan except continuing their "Liberal" harangue while watching the results of their disastrous economic and war making policies finally coming home to roost.  McCain and Bush have nothing but war and sour economics in common.  They fail to see that billions spent in Iraq is at the heart of the deepening recession.  They've watched the dollar slide while oil prices skyrocket because they have no plan for the economy or energy other than bellicose statements which are summarily rejected by the rest of the world.  It's obvious that McCain, like Bush can't stand to be asked hard questions.  They'd rather do silly shimmy dances and sing "Bomb Iran" songs than face the fact that their policies have been a disaster. Can the nation really endure four more years like the last eight?  Absolutely not.

What I see is going on in this election folks is that the far right and far left extremists are trying to hijack this election,yet again. We had a weak willed fool know nothing Bush who got pushed around and manipulated by the rightwing nuts. Now we have this know nothing Obama guy who doesn't really know where he stands...so we got the extreme leftwing nuts taking over him and his election. The Clintons have pulled toward the middle, where they should be and poor old fool McCain is being dragged(like Bush) to the extreme right again. This is why Hillary is THE best candidate.

Moderate dem wrote "Hes got Bushheimers disease!! Either that or his wife Cindy is sharing her prescription meds with him. Little Cindy has a past problem with that you know."

I'm a moderate republican and i think obama should be indidted for doing business with a slum lord...but i'm moderate right moderate dem?

Come on McWar....let's see that famous temper we'd all love to see......THAT'S real Presidential! Let's show your "base" why they should all run toward Barack Obama!

Well, to say he is a conservative republican, that is just a hoot.  Not even officially awarded the nomination and already lying, kind of gives you a peek at what his White House would be like now wouldn't it? No change in this old tune.

Who cares if you have experience if your judgement is flawed?

Scary person to have finger on the "nuclear button".

Somebody should ask McCain if he agrees with his enthusiastic supporter, John Hagee, that the Catholic Church is a whore. I'll bet McCain would get REALLY testy, then. If he gets angry over a softball question like the one about Kerry, he must have a temper that's too dangerously out of control to allow him to get anywhere near the nuclear "football." Bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran.

Will he be able to control the temper when there is a foreign leader in the White House or when he is visiting one?  Can he learn to be diplomatic with other heads of states?  This should be a concern for people in the fall.  I wonder if he is for mental health parity with physical health?

MSNBC and First Read are still fawning over Obama. Hasn't Chuck Todd noticed that it is soooooo passe' to worship at the feet of Obama? Didn't he watch Saturday Night Live??

Jonathan Capehart (Washingtonpost.com) is an idiot. Every time he comes on he says really stupid things based on really stupid logic. Please, MSNBC, show some kind of disclaimer before you interview this guy. You know, like, "The following segment contains an idiot being interviewed by a talking head who has no discernable depth. Switch to CNN for the next 3 minutes in the off chance their empty talking head might be interviewing someone with a credible opinion."

john j, texas: thanks for the article. Perhaps that is what's going on afterall.

Barack Obama appears quite strong as the article rightly points out - we have seen him go after McCain and Bush in an instant.

He's no lighweight as people have tried to portray him. He'll make an intriguing democratic nominee.

Obama/Webb 2008

Once considered as VP for Kerry.  Now staunchly endorsed by Hillary Clinton.  No wonder he's getting testy.

IT LOOKS LIKE HILLARY IS KNOCKING AT THE WHITE HOUSE DOOR

'I'm a moderate republican and i think obama should be indidted for doing business with a slum lord..."


When Bush and Cheney get indicted for Constitutional and war crimes.

It becomes more evident everyday that that republicans have made a mistake by not choosing Romney.  He was the only real person with real credentials to lead us out of recession, systematically out of war after winning it, and stopping illegals.  We'll get a second chance in four years after the dems have royally screwed things up.  Maybe next time Republicans will wise up.  

By the way if the Dems get a new primary here in Florida, then we should redo the Republican one people are wiser now and Romney would win, then we could redo all of Super Tuesday, then we could redo March 4th..... then we could redo landing on the moon, then we could redo....  it is ridiculous!
Quit whining Hillary!

Great, McCain = temper

Clinton = unstable, inconsistent

Obama - stable, consistent, calm

Now, who do we really want answering the phone (any phone)?

Obama/Edwards 08 beats McCain/Clinton 08

What is it about Americans, in the past few years, with our vaunted "democracy" that, we, the people, seem to demonstrate a preference for ruthless

monsters?

Is it because we have become frightened of our own shadow?

I'm an Obama supporter... but I gotta say, I don't see the point of all this.  What was the reporter trying to get at?  It sounds to me like the reporter was just trying to stir the pot on a non-issue, like all reporters do.  How about Bumiller focus on something more valuable to his time?

Obama '08!

Dirk [[MSNBC and First Read are still fawning over Obama. Hasn't Chuck Todd noticed that it is soooooo passe' to worship at the feet of Obama? Didn't he watch Saturday Night Live?]]

The media has never "fawned" over Obama; they just hate Clinton. With the dirty campaign tactics she's used lately, I'm beginning to hate her, too. And I was totally neutral between the two of them back in January when 80% of Democratic voters said they would be satisfied if either she or Obama won. Now that figure is down to only 40% according to a poll taken a few days ago.

And if you're complaining about Obama because you're a compaign fan, not to worry. Most of the media are giving McCain a pass on his smelly lobbyists doing deals on his Double Talk Express bus, his embarrassing lack of any coherent domestic policy, and his many flip-flops like the one he did from anti-torture to pro-torture. Obama will have the media against him if he wins the Dem nomination almost as much as Clinton would.

I've been saying for some time now that I find it hard to believe that someone can spend 5 years in the Hanoi Hilton and not come out with some baggage. While I do believe John McCain is a true American hero and I have genuine respect for him, I'm not sure he is the right man to have his finger on the button.

ATTENTION COMMENTERS:

Instead of copying and pasting an entire article from another site, how about you add a link to that article and a summary with some encouragement to go check it out.

Thanks, my finger is cramping scrolling by this stuff.

Great, McCain = temper

Clinton = unstable, inconsistent

Obama - stable, consistent, calm and ROOKIE

Now, who do we really want answering the phone (any phone)?

Obama/Edwards 08 beats McCain/Clinton 08
Lisa from New Britain, CT (Sent Friday, March 07, 2008 2:26 PM)

My Grandpa used to get like this.  We just left him alone with his bottle of Crown for a while, and he was ok after a while.

OMG!!


Hey dont mess with McCain dude, everybody is not a wimp like Obama....

Why would anyone want to compare the two, McCains a real man and Obama is well I'm not sure what Obama is, and for the most part, neither does anyone else, really know who Obama is.

That's why he lost in Ohio and Texas, nobody knows who he is....

Now McCain, a real man, a history of fighting for what he believes in, does not expect a few cute words to carry the day.  

That's for the Obama white high income guilt ridden wimps, and the (9 out of 10) blacks that vote for Obama. Of course blacks of all economic strata don't vote for Obama just because he's black, that would be, blatant racism. They vote for Obama 9 out of 10 of them because he is the best candidate.

Well, well, well.  McCain is finally showing his true colors.  Forgetful, easy to fluster, AND prone to anger.  I am SO looking forward to the first debate.  Obama will have no trouble with this guy.  


Change we can really believe in –


Obama/Webb 08

Moderate honesty "When Bush and Cheney get indicted for Constitutional and war crimes."

Please do not hold your breath for that.  That is something that will never happen because the facts do not support that theory I know you want them to I know you want them to suffer because you don't agree with them or that your misguided but it's time to grow up and let go of your hate and anger...and come over to the dark side...LOL!  Aint gonna happen and if that makes you mad that makes me happy!

“Hes got Bushheimers disease!! Either that or his wife Cindy is sharing her prescription meds with him. Little Cindy has a past problem with that you know.”

Moderate dem (Sent Friday, March 07, 2008 1:46 PM)

----------

I'm a life-long Democrat and I'm also a recovering alcoholic.  What you wrote here is disgusting ... Grow up!  Unless you've been in her shoes keep your big trap shut, and crawl back under the rock you just came out from under!  You need your empathy gene checked!

They make a great pair.

McCain / Clinton 08

Status Quo for 4 more years
--------
Obama supporters pass the word.

Post McCain / Clinton 08 on your comments.

"because the facts do not support that theory "

Damn right!

Thanks for corrupting my posting Patty...(see above a few postings).  She added rookie to my characterization of our candidates on the "red" phone.

Of course, we're still trying to understand all of Hill's experience and how that is impacted by her inconsistent and unstable campaign staff and personality.

And many of us will take a wealth of good judgement over traditional machine politics experience any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Have a nice day.

Obama 08  WoOT!

Anti [[Of course blacks of all economic strata don't vote for Obama just because he's black, that would be, blatant racism. They vote for Obama 9 out of 10 of them because he is the best candidate.  ]]

And 100%  of the Pub candidates are angry old white guys who aren't very bright because those are  the best candidates they could come up with. Kind of sad, isn't it?

There are some interesting polls out there which suggest Senator Clinton’s “big state” argument is baseless.  Here are the numbers from SurveyUSA:

http://www.surveyusa.com/electionpolls.aspx

New York:  while Senator Clinton beats Senator McCain 52% to 47% (5%), Senator Obama beats Senator McCain by much more -- 21% points, 57% to 36%.

California:  while Senator Clinton beats Senator McCain 58% to 35%, Senator Obama beats Senator McCain by more-- 61% to 34%.

Virginia:  while Senator Clinton is defeated by Senator McCain by 3% points (45% to 48%), Senator Obama wins Virginia by 6% (51% to 45%).

New Mexico:  while Senator Clinton defeats Senator McCain by 5% points (50%-45%), Senator Obama defeats Senator McCain by 15% points (55%-40%).

Ohio:  to be fair, Senator Clinton does beat Senator McCain by more in Ohio (52%-42%), but Senator Obama still wins (47%-44%) but once Ohio realizes that they were sold a lie about NAFTA these numbers for Obama will rise.

There are also some interesting swing state numbers:

Iowa:  Senator Clinton loses to Senator McCain in this swing state by 9%  points (41%-52%), while Senator Obama beats Senator McCain by 10% points (51%-41%).

Minnesota:  Senator Clinton does beat Senator McCain here by 4% points (49%-45%), but Senator Obama wins overwhelmingly by 15% points (55%-40%).

Oregon:  Senator Clinton is defeated by Senator McCain here by 8% points (41%-49%), while Senator Obama wins, though close by 1% (48%-47%) and Senator Obama has not yet campaigned there.

Interesting notes on close so-called red state numbers:

Texas:  Senator Obama is currently running 1% behind Senator McCain, while Senator Clinton is running 7% behind Senator McCain.  This BIG red state could be in play.

Kansas:  In this supposedly reliable red state, Senator Obama is just 5% (44%-50%) behind Senator McCain.  Senator Clinton, conversely is well out of range in Kansas by 24% points (35%-59%).

These numbers show that Senator Obama could win big in November, whereas Senator Clinton may not be able to win at all (look at those Iowa, Oregon, Minnesota and New Mexico numbers!)  If we want victory in November, we need to get behind Senator Obama and reject Senator Clinton’s petty attempts to bloody him up.  Remember folks, a “bloodied” Senator Obama as nominee is exactly what Rush Limbaugh said he wanted when he told the folks who call themselves his “ditto-heads” to “go out and vote Clinton in Texas”.  Guess what?  Limbaugh's self-labelled "ditto-heads" did go vote for Senator Clinton and are a major part of her victory there.  

We can do this -- no matter what the Clinton campaign says -- Yes we can!

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):