Yes, that same bs story has been front page on Yahoo! for the entire day. And it's a day old...

Posted at September 2, 2008 4:08 PM in response to More And More Polls Show Obama's Lead Expanding

He did misfire, in that he said McCain had no leadership experience in the military and that his time as a POW did not qualify. This allowed his remarks to be smeared as "elitist"...

Wrong, wrong and wrong.

Clark gave a straight, accurate, no-nonsense refutation of Schieffer's question. The only misfire came from Clark's Democratic colleagues who failed to counter-attack on his behalf with double the intensity.

You know and I know that if a Democrat criticizes McCain's comb-over, The Right will hyperventilate that they're disrespecting his POW experience. The merits of what any Democrat says is irrelevant; the Right will simply distort and fabricate anyone's words to spin it as an attack.

You draw the erroneous conclusion that if Clark had only used different words the Right wouldn't have smeared him.

Wrong.

Had Clarke's erstwhile allies --especially fellow veterans-- stood by him with double the intensity, the event would have ended positively for Obama and negatively for McCain.

Posted at August 21, 2008 12:44 AM in response to Wake Up, Obama Camp

John McSame is a confused and increasingly-desperate old man.

Around Hispanic voters, he's for immigration reform. But in front of angry right-wingers, he's against it.

He thinks Czechoslovakia is still a country, and claims the "surge" started the Anbar Awakening.

Down in the polls among women, he says he's open to a pro-choice VP. But one day of talk radio hysterics later, he's against it.

He says "agents of intolerance" like Jerry Falwell have no place in the GOP. But when polling poorly among right=wing fundamentalists, he delivers the commencement address at Falwell's university.

He was against Al Gore's proposals for alternative fuel cars before he was for them, for Donald Rumsfeld before he was against him, against offshore drilling before he was for it, and against Bush's tax giveaways to the rich before he was for them...

No wonder John McSame is so confused about whether that cross story happened to him or Solzhenitsyn. He flip-flops, panders and exaggerates so much, he can't remember what he said to who anymore.

Posted at August 20, 2008 3:18 AM in response to Solzhenitsyn Biographer: Cross-In-Dirt Gulag Story Never Happened

Steve - I think you've raised something important, and it should be happening in more places than just TV ads.

Obama is portraying himself as a leader of change, unity, hope and optimism. His campaign uses every possible method to associate Obama with these qualities in the public consciousness: his language, logo, endorsements, photos, public appearances, use of surrogates, ads, etc.

In the private sector, this is called branding, and it only succeeds when done with ruthless consistently and thoroughness.

In presidential politics, the same is true for "branding" your opponent. Each campaign has no choice but to talk about the other, so the only question is whether they use all the means available to them to communicate a counter-brand --with the same ruthless consistency and thoroughness as their own brand.

Even if Team Obama has made a strategic decision to not air ads associating McCain with Bush --temporarily or not-- they clearly aren't using all the other means available to reinforce voter perception that McCain = Bush. I'm talking here about the language of his spokesmen and surrogates, comments in press releases, images on the web, in collateral materials, and ads, etc. They should append every mention of McCain's name with "George Bush," show only pictures of McCain with Bush, and regularly describe him as a "Bush enabler."

As a private sector marketing person, I can tell you that Obama's passivity on this is a mistake.

Public perception about a brand must be maintained through constant cultivation and repetition; it always can be changed by external forces and aggressive counter-branding (something right-wing Republicans do very well). Team Obama is essentially ceding a significant amount of branding territory to McCain --territory he should dominate with very little effort, as voters are disgusted with Bush and the GOP.

The ads are important too, but Obama isn't even doing the little things to seize this advantage.

Posted at August 17, 2008 1:11 AM in response to Where the Hell are Those Ads Linking McCain to Bush Everyone Thinks He Should Run?

Clearly another Idaho Republican to avoid in the airport men's room.

Posted at August 15, 2008 11:00 PM in response to GOPer's Spokesperson: My Boss Would Never Say Oil Grows On Trees

Why do you say this is perplexing, Greg? It makes perfect sense.

The troops on the ground know that invading Iraq without sufficient troops, equipment, allies or an exit strategy was a historic act of bad judgment.

They know that John McCain was cheerleader-in-chief for this erroneous decision, despite massive evidence Iraq would end up being the quagmire & killing fields it is today.

They know they have been lied to by Bush Administration apologists about every aspect of the mission.

They know America is wasting money, lives and credibility occupying a foreign country we never should have invaded.

They know stop-loss and other extensions of their combat tours are entirely political.

Obama was right, McCain was wrong --it's that simple. Any soldier smart enough to give a contribution while deployed abroad is giving it to the guy who was right.

BTW --the study makes a false claim that there is a "historically Republican bent among the military." Historically, party preference among the military has varied considerably, and closely resembles the general population by race, gender, geography, age, rank, volunteer vs. draftee, income level, etc.

Posted at August 14, 2008 2:15 PM in response to Study: Troops Deployed Abroad Gave Six Times More To Obama Than To McCain

The Politico's pro-GOP bias reminds me of John Stewart's take on a Yogi Berra quote:

Nobody goes to Obama rallies anymore, they're too crowded."

Obama is up again in the latest Gallup Poll, is surpassing Kerry and Gore among Latino's, and is beating McCain among those working-class white folks he supposedly couldn't get.

McCain is playing defense in VA, CO, NH, NM --even MT and NV. Nice try, Politico!!!

Posted at August 6, 2008 10:04 PM in response to More Rightwing Hackery from The Politico

The fact such an exchange occurs on national TV is as much a failure of Team Obama as it is the deliberate bias of pro-McCain elites in the Corporate Media.

While the McCain camp and fellow Bush apologists for months aggressively re-framed Iraq into a debate about the surge, Team Obama and his supporters (including Democratic leaders) did absolutely nothing to shape the debate.

Obama and his supporters should be talking about WMDs and the failed Iraq invasion plan every time Iraq is mentioned:

"John McCain supported without question George Bush's decision to invade & occupy Iraq. He was dead wrong."

"John McCain uncritically supported George Bush's failed plan to invade and occupy Iraq, and therefore lacks the requisite sound judgment to be president."

"John McCain was one of the loudest cheerleaders for George Bush's reckless choice to unilaterally invade and occupy Iraq without sufficient troops, equipment, allies, occupation planning, or an exit strategy. There were no WMDs in Iraq. John McCain can run but he can't hide from his poor judgment: he was dead wrong."

"To talk about the surge 'working' when in truth there were no WMDs in Iraq and no Saddam-al Qaeda partnership is an insult to every American."

"When it came to invading Iraq, John McCain ignored the likes of Brent Scowcroft, Gen. Wes Clark, Gen. Anthony Zinni, Jim Webb and Gen. Merill McPeak, and instead followed George W. Bush
and Dick Cheney. John McCain was wrong and America is paying the price."

Posted at July 23, 2008 11:06 PM in response to McCain Gets Another Pass

I don't buy it.

For someone who is allegedly "progressive," you throw around the label "far left" (interchangeably with "Commie" and Dem") as cartoonishly as Rush Limbaugh.

Ralph Nader is an absolutist. So are/were party-crasher's Bob Barr, Pat Buchanan, Strom Thurmond and George Wallace. If you think today's blogger's are "far left" and "absolutist" you truly need some historical perspective.

Part of what makes new info technology so powerful and democratizing is that it allows voters to stay informed and give fast, direct feedback to elected leaders. When candidates screw-up --as Obama did with FISA-- they'll get feedback right away. It's their job (and the job of fellow supporters) to put that feedback in perspective, not attempt to silence their critics.

Posted at July 5, 2008 12:50 AM in response to Absolutism, The Far Left, and the Abandonment of Reason

It's quite plausible to me that Clark might resent McCain's political success, and especially that his military service is viewed as such an asset, when his own far more relevant service wasn't enough to help his campaign.

I think you've got it backwards.

McCain more likely resents Clarke's military success. McCain's father and grandfather both attended the US Naval Academy and earned the rank of 4-star Admiral; his father commanded US forces in Vietnam. But McCain's time at Annapolis was undistinguished and he left the military as a Captain when it was clear he would never make Admiral.

Clark, by contrast, earned a spot at West Point without any family connections, graduated top of his class and went on to become a Rhodes Scholar. He earned a Silver Star for combat bravery in Vietnam, was Supreme Allied Commander during wartime, and retired a 4-star General.

Sure, Clarke's presidential campaign was unsuccessful, but if you remember he entered a crowded race late when no other candidates were attracting broad appeal. While Clark declined to run a second time, McCain is on campaign #2 after getting smeared into submission by a draft-dodging George W. Bush. So much for his military service being an asset...

Posted at July 1, 2008 4:57 PM in response to Gen. Clark Makes "News".