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

Just sayin

24, count 'em, mentions of McCain's houses on -- let me wipe my hands off, here; there! -- Cheetopia's front page right now. Recommended diaries, story after story.

Sure, I get the angle that we're owed payback for the windsurfing thing, I truly do. Sure, I get the angle that we can pre-empt a charge of elitism with our own charge of elitism. Sure, I get that we need our own Mighty Wurlitzer. Whatever works.

I just never imagined we'd try to defeat the Republicans by morphing into them.

Although, given the nature of Obama's primary campaign, I don't know why I'd be surprised.

UPDATE Over at WKJM's place, 23. I certainly hope all these people get jobs in the new administration: they will have earned it!

No votes yet


badger's picture
Submitted by badger on

(as if more proof was needed) that what drives the blogosphere - left or right - is simple hatred. If you give people some way to focus their hatred, as this does, they go berserk.

On the other hand, if it's just their future or their children's future that's at stake, that's not particularly compelling.

George Orwell was no fool.

OxyCon's picture
Submitted by OxyCon on be literally taking his campaign advice from the most virulent, partisan, vulgar, disgusting far left websites?
The blowback is coming. Count on it.
Now Obama can be labeled with all of the disgusting material found on KOS and TPM, since he's letting them run his campaign.
The next McCain commercial will most likely involve George Obama, Barack's brother, who doesn't own a house and lives off of $1 a month.

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

The next McCain commercial will most likely involve George Obama, Barack’s brother, who doesn’t own a house and lives off of $1 a month.

If I was a McCain supporter, I'd be setting up a George Obama Web-a-thon fundraising site...

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

is that liberals and their ideas thrive in the environment that this level of political discourse dominates. Oh, wait.

Bob Somerby said it best I think:

In our view, it has been a bit embarrassing this week—watching Obama campaign against McCain’s joke. In our view, you suspect a candidate has little to say when he campaigns in that fashion. But as the press corps starts pimping Obama’s new narrative, you see the shape of an important new fact: Major elements of the mainstream press are, at long last, switching sides. It has been a very long time since they flung poo to the right.

“McCain couldn’t remember how many houses he owns!” It isn’t clear that this is accurate, and the narrative it serves is largely inane. But you live on a planet of chimps; it’s driven by people who just can’t get serious. This morning, poo is being flung in a new direction. Your discourse got even dumber this week. And good lord! Some chimps have switched sides!

So, yay!, they're flinging poo* at the right and serious issues and solutions still won't be discussed. Obama wins! It's only the rest of us who continue to lose as our culture marches steadily over the cliff.

* Note the Somerby sets out why the poo is the usual truthy narrative that's factually inaccurate. But that's totally okay becasue it's about McCain. So let people once again make their voting decisions not on boring things like policy or who will be best for America, let them make it on a bullshit narrative that the media peddles. It's worked so well for the past 30 years, why not continue it this year.

Arthur Silber is right, progressives are stupid.

Submitted by jawbone on

the Republican presidential candidate himself dishing the dirt--that was left to somewhat removed spokespeople or pundits. Now, I realize we Dems don't have our own pundits, but, still: Do we really want the Standard Bearer of the Democratic Party doing this kind of campaigning?

I was uncomfortable when the Repubs and pundits went after Kerry for having a rich wife, for Edwards having a big house, for Gore having been born the son of a senator and living in a hotel room in DC (misrepresented, at that), and for the Clintons finally having made some money. Do we need to play that part of the game?

Because that's just how politics are done? But what about the Hopey Change (aka Changey Hope)?


amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

the actual houses, it would have worked better--CNN's been ignoring it all day.

they could have strung together his ignorance on that with his ignorance on the economy and so so many other things...

another lost opportunity.

Davidson's picture
Submitted by Davidson on

It got all that talk of Obama tanking and needing HRC off the top headlines. August 20th: "Shit, Obama's in trouble!" August 21st: "McCain's so rich he doesn't know how many mansions he has!"

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

tv has always made sure to bring Rezko in whenever they talk about it--always.

And McCain's houses doesn't at all fit the standard narrative/image of McCain--it's not like he's a Bush, where wealth and country homes/ranches/etc, loom large. Or a Kerry or an Edwards, where the media had already been painting them as rich and focusing on material things like houses or elite leisure activities, etc.

and the vp teasing is still the big story (non-story, actually) all day.

Davidson's picture
Submitted by Davidson on

I only got out of my isolation tank yesterday to scan some media coverage of the house bullshit so I didn't know they were still obsessing over the VP story (Bayh or Biden most likely now).

I still don't get how the media assumes that because McCain doesn't know how many houses Cindy "he" owns it automatically means he's not sympathetic to the economic plight of common people. Does that translate in real life? All the papers I read swear that it does: "McCain is suffering because of this housing crisis, say commentators."

Obviously, his economic policies are batshit and because of that I doubt he's anything but callous towards the rest of us, but he actually comes across as sympathetic on the stump. I saw a clip of him on News Hour this week discussing drilling and he made sure to highlight how higher gas prices affect the poorest using specifics (e.g., food prices, commutes to work, heating), presenting his energy policy as moral more than anything (Contrast him with other Republicans who typically talk about it in terms of national security or American entitlement to low gas prices).

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

that's it since i turned it on late morning today--lots of Biden and Hillary stuff too--and a little walking around the convention floor--CNN has a set on the floor, but Delegates/States are not all on the floor--they're in the grandstand/high up, apparently.

Submitted by lambert on

... for those who can stand the toxicity. I'm betting that every round of this causes a little bit more of an erosion of those who care.

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

Davidson's picture
Submitted by Davidson on

I'm guessing that's the majority of Clinton supporters who are currently standing this one out, the ones Obama needs. I kept getting the impression that this nonsense basically only keeps each side riled up without convincing anyone else really. Perfect distraction. Only potential drawback: it could come across as just two rich guys slamming each other (i.e. alienating).

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

I just wish he wouldn't do it using truthiness and would fight over something that matters. This kind of discourse is destroying our country. That doesn't change just because it comes from a Democrat.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

his team--that's why he doesn't fight on issues, and in fact caves in to whatever the GOP and media say--whether it's drilling or FISA or faith or trade, etc.

he's fighting 20 years of McCain brand-identity too, which is not like when he was smearing Hillary and Bill, and working-class voters, etc. The media gladly propagated and smeared the Clintons but won't help him now on this shit--they built the McCain brand and have lovingly polished it for ages--elitist and multiple mansions don't fit the image they always push of him.

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

7 of the eight front page posts were about McCain's house, and while I was commenting on that fact, ANOTHER McCain's house post went up.

I remember when I used to read FDL all the time, and looked forward to new posts. I got out when they brought in too many people who weren't jane or christy. I'm glad I did now, because its simply embarrassing how that blog has deteriorated.

badger's picture
Submitted by badger on

Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. In my Father's house there are many mansions: If it were not so I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

Apparently that guy didn't know how many mansions he had either. Doesn't seem to have hurt his prospects much. (John 14:1-2).

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

it's this other stuff that's going to kill him - it kills democrats every four years. They move to the center and refuse to paint the Republicans as dangerous extremists, then get defined as some sort of lightweight who doesn't really believe in anything.

People hate the Republicans right now, even a lot of Republicans. But instead of painting McCain as some delusional, lying, flip-flopping war monger who wants to help the rich and hurt the poor, we're arguing over rich men's houses (and not as part of a larger attack on McCain favoring the rich over the rest of us).

I've seen pics of McCain's house and let me say, if I'm voting based on who has the most awesome house, I'm voting for McCain.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

that it's not issues.

Axelrod has repeatedly said so explicitly, too-- this explains it all-- NYT Magazine-- -- Obama's Narrator --

"... Axelrod’s is a less grand, postideological approach, and his campaigns are rooted less in issues than in the particulars of his candidate’s life. For him, running campaigns hitched to personality rather than ideology is a way of reclaiming fleeting authenticity. It is also, more and more, the way of the Democratic Party. Its 2006 Congressional campaign strategy — run by Axelrod’s close friend Emanuel, with the Chicago consultant acting as principal sounding board — did not depend on any great idea of where the party ought to go, like the last political cataclysm, Newt Gingrich’s 1994 House “revolution.” As they have reclaimed power, the Democrats have done so not by moving appreciably to the left or the right; rather, they have done so by allowing their candidates to move in both directions at once. “What David is basically doing — and this is somewhat new for Democrats — isn’t trying to figure out how to sell policies,” says the Democratic media consultant Saul Shorr. “It’s a matter of personality. How do we sell leadership?” ...

he learned that the smoothest way to beat back a staunch social conservative message is to attack not the content but “the over-the-top negativism” that often accompanies it. ...

The lesson he took was that the party shouldn’t get too wrapped up in the issue of the moment. ...

DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

the only reason to go over there is to recommend the remaining diaries that discuss issues. at least until dcblogger is banned.

Damon's picture
Submitted by Damon on

I went from watching the OFB talking about how wonderful Obama was for avoiding "old politics", and then just yesterday on another site I belong to, the OFB was talking about how great it was to see Obama launching these attacks, and why didn't he do it sooner? Many even suggested, with absolutely no shame, that they should go after his age, and even went so far as to say they should find folks who were imprisioned with McCain to diminish his time as a POW.

Talk about Pavlov's dogs. It's simply amazing to see he OFB talking about how dirty McCain has been, but then when their leader tells them that it's ok, they do a complete 180 as if history doesn't exist. It's like they completely block out everything they said the second before.

That said, I'm really not against this stuff. In fact, my concern with Obama is that he set the bar so incredibly high for himself that it simply shatters his images into a million little pieces when he launches this stuff.

McCain, who makes no illusions about how he plays (i.e. self-proclaiming himself "McNasty"), can get away with this stuff. He can largely get away with chipping away at Obama's character.

It's kind of hard for a Messiah to turn into a demon, no?

Submitted by lambert on


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

elixir's picture
Submitted by elixir on

looks like it might get some action. Too bad Obama can't get any type of positive story going right now, it almost seems like they've lost their steam or have run out of ideas. Yeah, that's it, they've run out of ideas. Maybe they could focus on some type of human interest story for him - how he helped increased voter registration when he was a volunteer in Chicago. That might bring out one of his strengths. Then again, they'd need to be careful that this didn't remind people of how he gamed the system in the Texas and Iowa caucuses.

I love this job!

Damon's picture
Submitted by Damon on

The Obama campaign seems to believe that they can win this thing by simply running out the clock like they did against Hillary. If that is their strategy, they are in for a surprise. I was just telling someone this, yesterday, but it is McCain, not Obama, who wins this thing simply by biding his time and chipping away at his opponents character.

In the case of a tie in a year so greatly weighted towards a Democratic victory, the victory goes to the underdog Republicans. McCain is doing well despite his party affiliation, and Obama is squandering just about everything his party affiliation has afforded him to spend, this year.

Your average undecided is completely over human interest stories, now, if they weren't already. They want solutions and extreme wankiness, and they want it now. In the absence of either candidate offering that (and neither McCain nor Obama is offering that) they are going to choose the person they trust the most, and that ain't Obama.

Valhalla's picture
Submitted by Valhalla on

lobbing tomatoes at the castle wall. It makes a mess but it doesn't do much to win the battle.

Republicans start with the question: "What don't Americans trust about Democrats?" and go from there.

Democrats start with the question: "What have Republicans said that I can play the junior high debate club game with?"

Many Obama supporters are pushing the attack mode, and in particular, tying McCain to Bush. Superficially, this looks like finally adopting the Republicans' long-winning strategies.

But it's not. Gotcha attacks may intellectually satisfy Cheetopia, but they are not effective. Tying McCain to Bush seems like it would work, but not if you don't tie him to the specific reasons for his low ratings. As much as the fauxs may wish for it, people are not mad at Bush for getting us into a war (or McCain for voting for it), they're mad and disgusted that the war drags on and has been incredibly badly managed. There's no traction to be gotten if you can't tie McCain to the bad management.

It's like watching the Charge of the Light Brigade in terms of uselessness, except at least the 600 had a tragic nobility. This is just tragic stupidity.