Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Caught Cheating

tom's picture

Doesn't it seem pretty obvious the McCain folks have been caught cheating?

Of course, you know they didn't just listen on the way to the Saddleback Forum.

It seems to me that someone (probably Warren himself) gave them the questions a few days early. That would explain why he kept talking about the "cone of silence" because all of that was a fraud -- and he knew it.

That's the only thing that explains how they got the rehearsed answers out of Mathusaleh the other night.

They weren't that good anyway, just talking points -- but they were far better than they would've been otherwise.

0
No votes yet

Comments

Submitted by lambert on

When Tapper nails the story, sure. But Avarosis? I've got fish to wrap that stink too much for the Times.

I guess I'm pretty soured on cries of cheating -- since I remember when the usual suspects were screaming that NH and NV were stolen -- charges that turned out to be baseless. So the line that Obama can only lose because somebody cheated is very familiar to me, and that Avarosis wheels it out smells like the playbook to me.

Now, if we want to look for the ways to find out whether the story is true, I don't think that Avarosis's preferred approach -- getting the McCain campaign to admit that its staffers actually carry Blackberries and use cell phones -- is the way to go, though it does provide some pleasant riffs on the McCain campaign's technological cluelessness.

Rather, why not focus on Warren, since he or his staffers are the only possible source for the leak? I'd bet Warren's gunning to be the next Billy Graham, and that's more important to him even than sucking up to McCain, so if Tapper gets close, I'd bet Warren throws an "overzealous staffer" to the wolves -- quoting the Bible the whole way.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

remember when Bush said that? clearly he had his press conference questions in advance

we have to insist that McCain not get his debate questions in advance

gyrfalcon's picture
Submitted by gyrfalcon on

questions were so subtle and complex, while simultaneously hard-hitting, that a guy who's been in politics for about 100 years couldn't possibly answer them coherently without having advance knowledge?

WTF?

My apologies. I don't mean to be rude. But do you have any familiarity at all with John McCain other than a few unflattering bits here and there in the current campaign?

Secondly, do you understand that Rick Warren is not Jerry Falwell, Jr.?

The fact that Obama had trouble answering Warren's perfectly straightforward questions promptly and directly is not evidence that McCain and/or Warren were cheating. It's evidence that he can't answer questions promptly and directly on most subjects, something we've seen since the beginning of the primaries. Whether his answers are "nuanced" or incoherent is in the eye of the beholder, but it's always been the way he talks extemporaneously.

tnjen's picture
Submitted by tnjen on

...we're expected to believe that McCain listened in and while he was listening, wrote/prepped answers on the fly. That would make McCain the best crammer on Earth and in his 70's no less! Vote the man in office now if he's that good.

Seriously, this is a bad meme for a number of reasons. (1) Saying McCain cheated is the same as saying McCain kicked Obama's butt. It takes a good performance and turns it into an overwhelming victory for McCain. (2) It makes Obama look like a whiner. "M-o-o-o-o-o-m, I woulda done better but the other guy cheated!" (Nevermind that McCain's performance had no bearing on Obama's) (3) Obama supporters don't need to start thinking that McCain can't possibly be this good. That leads to all kinds of strategic errors and problems down the road.

PB 2.0 - Supplement the wonk!

Corner Stone's picture
Submitted by Corner Stone on

If somehow, someway, this was done on the fly by McCain or his staffers then elect this freakin guy and have him put them to work!
More likely, and as I think will eventually be proven, both sides were given the categories of what would be asked if not the questions themselves.
If that is not true and JSM had the *actual* questions then that needs to be called out - not to complain but just to say these guys are so weak they need a cheat sheet to sound good.
IMO, BHO came into this event at a disadvantage. He should have known it, respected it, prepared for it and blasted his answers loudly and clearly.
This did not happen.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

of time--

"... So it turns out that Pastor Rick Warren, in an effort to increase the candidates’ comfort level with his pioneering format, gave each of them a heads-up on several of the hardest questions he asked Saturday night during his “the Saddleback Civil Forum on the presidency.”

A source close to Warren tells Playbook that the candidates knew in advance they would be asked their own greatest moral failure, America’s greatest moral failure, and the three wisest people in their lives.

The source said Obama also knew he would be asked if he’d be willing to commit to an emergency plan for orphans, like President Bush has for AIDS. " ..." -- http://www.politico.com/playbook/

Which makes Obama's wandering non-answers and non-preparedness all the more terrible.

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

you mean that he PREPARED his 'three wisest people' answer (his wife, his grandma, and a list of Democrats starting with Ted Kennedy)!?!?! WTF?

Seriously, I assumed it was just a lame, off the cuff answer to a question he didn't know how to respond to in front of that audience. But the idea that he KNEW that question was coming, and picked his wife (for her wisdom in marrying him?) and grandma (for providing him with his own high wisdom quotient?)!?!?! And then adding in Teddy "Chappaquiddick" Kennedy as a font of wisdom?

I always thought that McCain's "John Lewis" answer was a surprise -- but knowing he got that question in advance, its glaringly obvious that McCain was "covering all the bases" with his answer (the military guy, the black Democrat, the female business executive -- I guess that's not all the bases, but where ya gonna find a differently-abled, gay Hispanic Jew?)

gyrfalcon's picture
Submitted by gyrfalcon on

Chappaquiddick have to do with any of this?

And is Ted Kennedy's however-many-decades fight for everything we liberals/progressives/whatevers hold most dear now canceled out because he convinced himself that Obama could be the new Jack/Bobby?

If there's a single solitary Democrat we can and should ought to cut some slack on this, it's Ted Kennedy.

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

Just as Bill Clinton's name will forever be associated with Monica Lewinsky, Teddy Kennedy's will always be associated with Chappaquiddick, especially among the right -- and Chappaquiddick will show up in his obituary before any of his legislative accomplishments. The question was about "wisdom", and citing Teddy for his wisdom in that kind of forum displays such a level of tone-deafness that I still can't believe he knew the question was coming.

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

A constant GOP tactic is to scare Republican and Independent voters by using the "liberal devil" Ted Kennedy. Sure, some may recall chappa-whatever, but the real problem is that Ted Kennedy is already a GOP frame. And a successful one at that.

tnjen's picture
Submitted by tnjen on

...Chappaquiddick is the kind of event that stings a lot of people regardless of politicial affiliation because it invokes both perceived and real class injustices. Rightly or wrongly (and outside of the historical context of the event -- MADD wasn't around and our views as a society regarding drunk driving couldn't have changed more from then til now) a lot of people think about Chappaquiddick and their first reaction is to think that if it were them they'd be in jail.

So yeah, it's tone deaf to bring up Tedddy when you're trying to court a broader audience. That said, I do agree that Teddy should be cut all the slack in the world and is a great Senator in many ways -- I wish the rest of the country could get past Chappaquiddick.

PB 2.0 - Supplement the wonk!

gyrfalcon's picture
Submitted by gyrfalcon on

gqmartinez. Now I get it. And I agree. It was bone-headed. I guess after invoking his mother and his wife, he was grasping for somebody a teensy bit more involved in policy issues and Teddy came to mind.

Corner Stone's picture
Submitted by Corner Stone on

"If there’s a single solitary Democrat we can and should ought to cut some slack on this, it’s Ted Kennedy."

I disagree.

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

Let me get this straight, a panderfest for the Christian right might have been tilted in McCain's favor? Shocking!

The Obama camp agreed to this faith off, which by design favored the GOP since it's basically a contest to pander to the GOP base. It was always going to favor McCain regardless of whether he "cheated" (and judging from the link posted above, it looks like Obama was given some of the same info). So my feelings tend to be, Obama got what he wanted and if that didn't work out quite as he hoped then too fucking bad.

But I admit to being cranky that I can't get a simple request for my vote, which is definitely one Obama could get if he just bothered to fucking ask. Meanwhile, Obama is bending over backwards to woo over the right-wing fanatics who will never vote for him and, if he's elected, will do everything in their power to drive him from office.

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

...are playing directly into Team McCain's hands on this.

They really want to make this 'cheating allegation' to get major play -- amd the more wacky the Oborgian conspiracy theories are (thanx tom! with absolutely no basis at all, you moved the bar to a huge conspiracy involving Warren himself!) the better it is when McCain finally says "of course I didn't cheat." Just like Obama's premature playing of the race card against McCain, this premature accusation of 'cheating' will act to discredit any allegation that the McCain campaign is 'playing dirty'.

Hillary Clinton spent a year NOT responding to Team Obama's low-ball tactics, and Obama thinks that how the game is played. And now he's gonna be handed his ass AGAIN, just like he was on the 'race card' issue.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

there are actual real things to attack about, and real issues/problems to talk about, but they wanna make this the big story?

ugh.

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

...if the campaign is about issues, he loses.

But because Obama doesn't really understand the issues, he can't really talk about them. He can complain about the state of the economy, but he can't really explain "his" proposals beyond some bullet points. He talks about energy policy, criticizes off-shore drilling because McCain supports this, then reverses course when he figures out that opposition to drilling is politically unpopular. He makes some mealy-mouthed statements about Georgia while McCain is forthright and direct (albeit wrong), and then winds up parroting McCain's own (wrong) position later. And his equivocations on Iraq now have Obama sounding just like McCain on the subject.

tom's picture
Submitted by tom on

some people still haven't got over the Obama-Clinton primary stuff yet. Isn't it about time?

Frankly there were moments this website became the equivalent of what the dailykos site was on the other side. I was hoping you'd have all gotten beyond that by now.

I guess not. I'll keep this in mind when I consider posting here again.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

i think most people are looking at this race--Obama v. McCain--and seeing clearly what games both are playing--and assessing their performances overall, and how well or badly they play this type of accusing shit too.

Also, most people didn't see Hillary as honorable--and didn't care about that at all--most people see McCain as honorable, rightly or wrongly--they don't buy that he cheats, without explicit proof.

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

to link to one of the most overtly sexist of Obama's so-called progressive supporters as a source for an obviously bogus story about McCain cheating, and then go one better to engage in completely baseless speculation about a conspiracy theory to provide McCain with the answer WELL in advance -- and we're supposed to treat that as credible?

Seriously?

McCain had no need to cheat. He'd done this kind of forum in front of this kind of audience for well over a year. He already knew the answers to all the questions, because he'd answered variations on them before for this kind of audience. In fact, his answers were so "canned" that Warren admonished McCain for using his "stump speech".

Obama came off poorly in that forum, and the Oborg can't accept that. Since they have no excuse for Obama, and McCain came off better than Obama, the only possible explanation has to be that McCain cheated -- it can't possibly be that McCain was ready for this audience.

Sheesh. At least the GOP didn't complain about cheating when Obama came off better than McCain to the NAACP.

Submitted by lambert on

Tom writes:

... some people still haven’t got over [sic] the Obama-Clinton primary stuff ...

Translation: "Get over it."

Check, Tom, except you write "Isn’t it about time?" You're gonna have to learn your clichés. You're gonna have to study them, you're gonna have to know them. They're your friends. Write this down: "It's time to move on."

Now, question to you as a professional:

Do historians "get over it"?

Or do they try to reason from past experience?

Do they assess sources?

Do they suggest methods for ascertaining the truth of events?

Because I raised all of those points some hours ago, in the very first response to your post, and I note with interest that none of them have been answered.

I note further that anyone who reads the blog regularly will have seen me, and others, raise similar issues with other posters who post unfavorable material on Obama.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

1. Have you gotten over the 2000 election? If not, why not?

2. Obama sucking as a candidate is not just about Hillary. She's out of the race and he's still a crappy candidate. Are we supposed to get over it?

3. Nice equivalation of Corrente to Kos. I guess we should make our official policy that Obama doesn't deserve to be treated fairly, we should purge Obama supporters, and we should call people who still think favorably of Obama paranoid holdouts. Not that that would be any difference from our current policy, apparently.

Submitted by lambert on

... is that maybe we'll get what I assume is an Obama supporter who'll stick to their guns and keep posting. A man can dream!

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

that Lambert has to make blatantly racist remarks about Obama. I mean, if we're going to aspire to the Kos standard...

scoutt's picture
Submitted by scoutt on

So none of these trivial matters are of any relevance.
At a San Francisco fundraiser this weekend Obama
said, "I will win. Don't worry".
Followed by the disgraceful Madame Speaker stating that
Obama is a gift given to us by God.
Can you imagine if she worked half as hard to bring the Democrats
in congress together to fight for PROGRESSIVE values as she
did to make Obama the nominee.

I can't stand these people any more.
I'm going to go donate to PUMA right now.

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!

Hillary Clinton, The Man of My Dreams

DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

if McCain cheated it is a legitimate issue. If we remain silent it is in effect saying taht double standards are OK. Double standards are not OK. This has nothing to do with what you think of Obama, it has to do with what you think of cheating and double standards.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

were given questions and topics in advance--that's fact.

now show any facts --or even credible rumors or shreds of evidence -- about McCain cheating.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

their actual answers and non-answers -- and from how well or badly they did.

maybe that's the desired objective--but it's not the objective of those responding here, nor is it what is important.

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

what is being propagated is that Obama did poorly, and McCain did well. The whole bogus controversy is being described in terms of Obama's lack of focus and equivocation, and McCain's "direct" answers to tough questions.

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

I didn't watch the forum and didn't care to hear about it. No one I know watched it or cared about it.

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

..is whether the Obama campaign has any cause to accuse McCain of cheating.

The fact that they leaked the allegation to reporters as what Team Obama was "saying privately" suggests that the accusation has little or no merit.

I mean, seriously, if you were McCain, would you allow yourself to be treated like a contestant on some game show, forced to sit in an isolation booth for an hour?

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

According to your logic it seems that we can just through out allegations with little proof and "investigate them". By that standard, the press was totally right to investigate Whitewater and to raise questions about Vince Foster's death.

This is becoming a joke.

Submitted by lambert on

And indeed VastLeft already posted on it, so there's no question of silence.

However, for some reason the poster morphed it into a "Hillary supporters can't get over it" thread, and give and take on the legitimate issues vanished.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

This stupid argument is going to hurt Obama if it continues. I was just watching Hardball--Hardball!!--and the panelists said that the allegations show that Obama and his supporters are arrogant and other such words for not being able to admit that they didn't do so well.

No one was watching this forum and these childish and allegations only serve to get this out to a wider audience.

Tell me again how Obama has run a good campaign?

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

at least my reaction doesn't. It's not even just about Obama.

Obama decided that his first "debate" with McCain would be one focused on making the religious right happy and, when Obama apparently didn't do very well, comes the complaint that the religious right didn't play fair with Democrats. Well, duh.

I guess if this is true (which I'm not sure it is given that it appears both sides were given advanced info), I should be angry about it. But that's like being angry with a bee that stings you when that's just what they do. This is what the GOP does.

I'm sick of Democrats who play the GOP's game every damned election season and then whine about it. If you're going to play the GOP's game, then you better be able to beat them at it. If you can't, then make them play your game by talking about the economy (which is what people really care about) or at least try to.

But every four years we get this shock over GOP tactics as if nobody in the Democratic Party had ever sat through a Presidential election in the last 20 years. And instead of some hard hitting campaign designed to beat the crap out of the GOP, we always get this - the whining about the unfairness of it all.* People on unemployment don't care about whether life is fair for Democrats, they want to know what the Democrats are going to do to make life fair for them. Perhaps if Obama focused on telling them that instead of winning over the GOP base, McCain would be the one whining.

* And I do think it's whining. Rick Warren isn't a journalist and this wasn't one of the sanctioned debates. It was a forum on religion designed to appeal to Christian voters. Yes, it's important to document the atrocities, if they're true, but whether McCain cheated or not, it was almost guaranteed that it would be better for McCain than Obama because it was aimed at McCain's base. Obama is never winning that base. McCain isn't Alan Keyes. So the entire thing was set up to put the Democrat in a defensive position. Whether it was hubris or stupidity, I don't know, but given the wide range of things that could've been the focus of the first GE meet up, this was playing right into the GOP hands. Something I've watched too many Democrats do in my voting lifetime. I'm sick of it.

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

I’m sick of Democrats who play the GOP’s game every damned election season and then whine about it. If you’re going to play the GOP’s game, then you better be able to beat them at it.

There is nothing wrong with a candidate going in front of unsympathetic audiences if its done right. Hillary hit it out of the park in her interview with O'Reilly, and McCain impressed the NAACP with his willingness to take questions from the floor, and deliver straight answers. Neither won many votes from the core audience -- but both won the respect of the audience for their willingness to treat the audience with respect.

Obama doesn't seem to know how to do that -- his Fox interview with Shephard was an embarrassing festival of attempting to pander to the Fox audience by glossing over the differences, and the same goes for the Warren forum.

As a result, Obama winds up with the worst of both worlds -- he's stuck with positions that are anathema to the audience which makes his pander all the more obvious.

apolitiko's picture
Submitted by apolitiko on

"I guess not. I’ll keep this in mind when I consider posting here again."

As usual, when confronted, an Oborg member just smears and blames the crowd for being skeptical of their 'argument' and then runs away.

Tom, you offer barely a mention of proof for your post and then you don't even stick around to defend what you said. Really? Way to abuse your front page posting abilities.

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

That, and McCain's age? What is going on? Seriously. This blame game is exactly what Bush does. That's not leadership I'm comfortable with. I'm tired of excuses for his crappy debates.

DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

and the panelists said that the allegations show that Obama and his supporters are arrogant and other such words for not being able to admit that they didn’t do so well.

the celebrity press corps says this everytime we call the Republicans on cheating, that or conspiracy theory, that does not mean we shouldn't call them on it.

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

but only when you have evidence to back up the accusation.

Democrats have a hard enough time of getting accusations of GOP election fraud, and low-ball, dog-whistle politics taken seriously. Team Obama is doing a great deal of damage to that effort by making false accusations -- the race-boating and RFK crap about Hillary, and the accusation that the McCain "celebrity" ad was racist, and now this nonsense.

It worked with Clinton, because she was unwilling to go negative in response to Team Obama's tactics until late in the campaign -- and by that time, the unanswered smears had acquired the status of folk legends. Team McCain is obviously not going to be so charitable to Obama, and will exploit every opportunity to characterize Obama based on this kind of thing.

Corner Stone's picture
Submitted by Corner Stone on

Where's the proof of that? If he had this staged pre-show then by all means figure out the best way to pull him down on it. Otherwise this looks like the weaker person complaining to the teacher about a bully. Nobody will respect that at the end of the day.
Sorry for the bad analogy.

DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

speaking only for myself, I hope to hear more from Tom, Leah, and all the others.

Submitted by lambert on

Plenty of reasoned arguments to respond to, right here on this thread. "Take what you like, and leave the rest" works in a lot of situations.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

jjmtacoma's picture
Submitted by jjmtacoma on

I must be missing some great important point here - but it looks like both were given the questions in advance and obama forgot to read them?

So, the conspiracy here is that McCain read the questions, prepared some answers, um... help me out here? Oh... I see - that MUST be racist!

And... NO, I would NOT be a McCain supporter, this is just a really silly hand wringing exercise.

Submitted by lambert on

Let's follow Tapper and see what he comes up with.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

is this what Obama's campaign chooses to attack with? Why is this the topic of the day from the campaign?

Why not actual statements made by McCain during the forum or positions taken, etc?

Why this kind of accusation and nothing of substance that actually was discussed?

That's what i ask myself, and it tells me that they don't wnat to discuss any issues or positions at all, or even attack McCain based on video or McCain's actual words from the event. Gigantic mistake.

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

is this what Obama’s campaign chooses to attack with? Why is this the topic of the day from the campaign?

you're assuming that the Obama campaign wanted this to be the big topic today. But it wasn't the "some Omaba people say privately" accusation that made this a topic for discussion -- instead it was Team McCain's vigorous response to the allegation --- including accusations of bias on the part of NBC -- that put this on the radar.

That was the right-wing noise machine's cue to make Obama's accusation an issue.... and when the right-wing noise machine starts making noise it determines what gets covered.

IMHO, Team Obama made a huge mistake -- its related to the kind of mistake that lawyers are never supposed to make. Just as its a truism that a lawyer should never ask a witness a question that he does not know the answer to, the Obama campaign seems to have put out an accusation that it can't back up. But the accusation was supposed to be 'under the radar' -- the actual story was not that Obama people were saying that McCain cheated, but rather that they thought he might have cheated.

But this speculation was clearly given to the media with the intention of raising questions about McCain's integrity in a sub rosa fashion. It was 'low-ball' politics... and Team Obama got caught doing it.

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

Obama choosing to make his first forum with McCain a panderfest to the Christian right is bad for progressives. That it looks like he got screwed over by the GOP and the Christian right is not something I feel like saving Obama (or any other Democrat) from because it only helps encourage this kind of unhelpful behavior to begin with. He tried to play the GOP game and got smacked around for it. Maybe it'll teach him that the GOP doesn't play fair and there's no dealing with some of these right-wing people. A lesson that, I for one, would be happy for more Democrats to learn.

I'm sick of defending Democrats who do stupid things that hurt progressive causes simply because they're Democrats. This was a stupid thing that hurt progressives and if Obama gets stung because of it, maybe he'll think twice next time. I'm beginning to think the only thing most of our leaders understand is pain and I have no interest in saving them from pain that comes from sucking up to the GOP base while ignoring their own.

Now, I'm happy to call the media on its crap no matter what because they are every bit as much of the problem as the Democrats, but it looks like the media is already reporting on the "story" to the extent there even is one (it's unclear to me that there's any evidence McCain had an advantage beyond simply being a Republican) and this event was not held by or moderated by a news organization, it was held by a church and moderated by a pastor.

Submitted by lambert on

If there was a leak to the McCain campaign of the questions to Obama (which is the point of the latest haka, as I understand it), then there are two ends to the leak, yes?

The sender (Warren or his staff) and the receiver (McCain or his staff).

And both would be equally to blame, yes? (Cue Jesuitical musings on which is most to blame.)

But the Obama campaign and the OFB can't go after the sender, Warren, because that would negate the political purpose of pandering to the Christianists, which is why Obama went to Saddleback in the first place.

So they have to go after the receiver only, McCain.

No wonder it's hard to have an honest discussion of this story. I'd wondered why Avarosis was yammering about McCain's Blackberries and cellphones without ever asking who was on the other end of the line. Now I know.

Reach me that bucket, wouldja, hon?

NOTE * Making my initial comment, hours ago, jejune, but sheesh, do I have to do all the work around here, including pointing out my own mistakes?

UPDATE "Cone of silence"? Whaa? I loved Get Smart, don't get me wrong, but... Does anyone know whether the cone had serifs?

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

dupager's picture
Submitted by dupager on

If anyone thinks Obama's lame answer to the stealth question, "when does life begin" was a result of not having the questions in advance, I despair for the future of this nation. The man's answer was a word fog, a haze, a simulacrum of a whiff of an answer cogitated on for all of 3 seconds. "It's above my pay grade.." and gee isn't it complex.. what a complete loser. I hope the super dels were watching and are going to stop the madness.

Here's my bottom line: if Barack Obama (or Axelcreep) did not know or have any INKLING that a right wing, Southern Baptist preacher would ask him "when does life begin?" at a RELIGIOUS town hall "conversation" and did not set the minions to to work thinking up a better answer than "that's above my pay grade" the man seriously doesn't deserve to be a Senator let alone President.

Barry volunteered himself to go to this panderfest. What did he just show up, having had no time to be briefed cuz he was running on the beach in Hawaii for a week? Doh, who could have imagined they'd ask us a question about LIFE.. in the WOMB... at a Religious Nut meeting...???

McCain didn't need the questions in advance to say, "at conception." Doh! That's what you SAY to those people. BO couldn't say that, of course, but he sure as hell needed to PREPARE something!! Do you think Hillary hasn't thought long deep and hard about how to answer that question to a religio crazy at a town hall?? Again, it speaks to her and McCains experience, being in these pander fest theatres, getting broadsided by these questions and then learning to never let it happen again. What a naif is our Barry.

seriously.. how does Avaroisis think that Obama can try to outfox PUTIN? Chavez?? but he can't anticipate Warren asking him "gee, Barack, when do you think life begins??"

AARGH! My senator is a self-obsessed idiot.

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

That will be the epitaph of this election.

You can almost feel sorry for Obamanation, the tactics that worked so well against Hillary get no traction against McCain.

Almost

------------------------------------------------
“But hysteria is all the rage these days, I guess” - gqm

tnjen's picture
Submitted by tnjen on

...helicopter parents? IIRC, they were parents that hovered around their kids even in college and who were so annoying that their presence was disruptive and damaging to their children's education and personal growth. That's how I think of a lot of members of the OFB. They are hurting him with love by not allowing him essential experiences that would help him in the long run.

PB 2.0 - Supplement the wonk!

FrenchDoc's picture
Submitted by FrenchDoc on

that the media was cheering on as they savagely attacked HRC... that's not happening with McCain who's always been a media favorite.

So now, when the Obama campaign pulls basically the same stuff they pulled against HRC, instead of media patting them on the back, they get some criticism against which they are not prepared.

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

and the questions really were softballs.

Maybe they'll let Teh Precious use a Teleprompter from now on whenever he speaks

------------------------------------------------
“But hysteria is all the rage these days, I guess” - gqm

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

Who Knew What When? -- http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/...

"... A spokesman for Mr. Warren, A. Larry Ross, said that Mr. Warren, founding pastor of Saddleback, had assured both candidates in advance that he was not going to play “gotcha” with them. He gave them some of the questions, Mr. Ross said, because he wanted to put them at ease and alleviate any concern that the forum would be a “Christian litmus-test” for president. ..."

(and Obama actually got more questions ahead of time, too)

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

... it's better if we say that McCain cheated. "Print the legend," as they said in "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance," and in today's new, improved Left!

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

Obamanation shoulda STFU instead of drawing attention to this beauty contest.

The "cross in the dirt" story is even worse. This is the message:

"McCain is a totally awesome patriotic war hero but he lied about some guard drawing a cross on the ground while he was being tortured for five years"

------------------------------------------------
“But hysteria is all the rage these days, I guess” - gqm

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

The problem with this angle is that it's impossible to prove McCain lied. Now, he probably lied, the chances that he had a guard do the exact same thing to him as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn? Extremely slim, I'd say. But it's hard to prove without tracking down witnesses, who aren't exactly easy to access. Of course, if McCain were a Democrat there would be no need to track down witnesses or have any proof whatsoever that McCain is a liar because Democrats lie, everybody in the media knows that. But they aren't going to apply that standard to McCain.

The other issue with this lie is that having gone with the McCain cheated story, it would now look lame to change to this story after the first one failed to work. And I do think the Warren explanation will end this, even if Warren is lying, Obama can't call him on it. Which is why Democrats shouldn't do these kinds of things in the first place. They cannot win. I'm sick of them trying. It's bad politics and bad policy.

It's too bad because I think it's much more helpful to progressives generally and Obama particularly to unravel the McCain as sainted war hero storyline than try to show that Rick Warren of all people didn't play fair with the Democrat. Ripping off someone else's prison guard story is pretty sleazy and it sure looks like that's what McCain did.

I feel like I'm watching the Kerry campaign all over again. The only question is whether the GOP has become so weak that even a lousy, inept campaign can beat them in November. Bah.

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

McCain says a guard untied him from a stress position for several hours, then the next day (Christmas) drew a cross in ther dirt before wiping it out.

In Solzhenitsyn's story it was another prisoner who drew the cross, and there was no torture involved.

The dumbass part of making an issue of the story is that it keeps reminding people that McCain was a POW who was tortured, but expects us to believe he is lying about something minor like the guard drawing a cross in the dirt.

It's a no-win issue.

------------------------------------------------
“But hysteria is all the rage these days, I guess” - gqm

Submitted by lambert on

Crosses, "cone of silence," et cetera, and I just know it will come to me... Oh, yeah:

"Pie fight."

Except this really is a pie fight.

Ya now, when the McCain campaign claims that Obama wants him assassinated, which is the equivalent of Obama's RFK smear against Hillary in the so-called Dem pie fight, I'll get excited about all this.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

and part of that is because at this point you can't challenge McCain on anything related to his service. That's because liberal pundits and Democrats have sat silent for the last ten years during the creation of St. McCain. You can acknowledge his POW history and still call him on bullshit. Or you could've if you hadn't spent the past decade agreeing and endorsing the bullshit.