McCain Showing His Age?
ByA small gaffe to be sure, but John McCain’s reference to his “fellow prisoners” today in Pennsylvania could not have helped counter the criticism that the Republican nominee looked his age in the face off with Obama last night. John Heileman believes that based on that performance, this race is almost over:
The moment the second presidential debate between John McCain and Barack Obama ended, I quickly tapped out e-mails to a half dozen name-brand Republican strategists not affiliated with the McCain campaign. The response was unanimous: Not a single one of these GOP heavies thought their party’s nominee had won. “Obama presidential … no narrative change,” was one of the replies. Another was, “We gained no ground … the generational contrast was stunning.” The rest were even more downcast. “McCain looked angry and anything but steady,” replied a Republican media maven who has been involved in more than one general-election contest. “Big win for Obama.”
I couldn’t agree more. McCain entered this debate facing a fierce headwind, slipping in both national and battleground state polls, laboring under the weight of a financial meltdown that is definitively not his friend. His central goal in the debate, therefore, was to alter the dynamic of the race in a dramatic way.
What was weird was that McCain not only failed to do so but that he barely seemed to try, contrary to expectations that he would go after Obama hammer and tongs. He seemed to me less irritable, less visibly ticked-off, than he did in the first debate. He expressed economic empathy more effectively, too. But he also came across as older, frailer, more rickety. The town-hall format was supposed to be his metier, but it worked to his disadvantage. He rattled around onstage looking slightly lost, making hokey jokes that fell flat in the hall, offering edgy barbs at Obama (and even Tom Brokaw!), and telling hoary stories that referenced Ronald Reagan, Teddy Roosevelt, Tip O’Neill, and Herbert Hoover  historically significant figures who reinforced the image of the Arizona senator as yesterday’s man. His much-noted reference to Obama as “that one” struck me less as disrespectful and more as grandfatherly (or even grandmotherly, the kind of epithet hurled at a misbehaving teenager by his dismayed nana).
20 Comments
October 9th, 2008 at 12:04 am
john mccain said:
“Nuclear power. Sen. Obama says that it has to be safe or disposable or something like that.”
i would hope so!!!!
October 9th, 2008 at 8:52 am
almost everyone’s up in arms over “that man” remark, but again, if you just take those words and have obama say that, there wouldn’t be as much ruckus over it. I’m not a supporter of either candidates, but people lately tend to pick on every word.
October 9th, 2008 at 9:42 am
Hadn’t seen that, but I think it’s a little . . . odd.
Meanwhile, I enjoyed watching Michelle Obama on John Stewart last night. Stewart brought up a lovely point, in that the campaign’s been going on for 20 months — 20 months of thorough vetting by both Republicans and the Press — how can Palin say “Who is Barack Obama”? In my opinion, that’s bad enough, but even worse coming from a woman who’s barely been vetted at all. It’s the politics of fear, the unspoken “look, he’s black, has a scary name, and is different from you and me.” Except that he’s not that different, just maybe a little less racist.
October 9th, 2008 at 10:26 am
Did you see this promising little anecdote about the undecided racists?
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/undecided-racis.html
October 9th, 2008 at 11:13 am
It’s not the undecided racists I’m worried about . . .
“Worse, Palin’s routine attacks on the media have begun to spill into ugliness. In Clearwater, arriving reporters were greeted with shouts and taunts by the crowd of about 3,000. Palin then went on to blame Katie Couric’s questions for her “less-than-successful interview with kinda mainstream media.” At that, Palin supporters turned on reporters in the press area, waving thunder sticks and shouting abuse. Others hurled obscenities at a camera crew. One Palin supporter shouted a racial epithet at an African American sound man for a network and told him, “Sit down, boy.”
———
Or how about this delightful nugget:
———-
“The reception had been better in Clearwater, where Palin, speaking to a sea of “Palin Power” and “Sarahcuda” T-shirts, tried to link Obama to the 1960s Weather Underground. “One of his earliest supporters is a man named Bill Ayers,” she said. (“Boooo!” said the crowd.) “And, according to the New York Times, he was a domestic terrorist and part of a group that, quote, ‘launched a campaign of bombings that would target the Pentagon and our U.S. Capitol,’ ” she continued. (“Boooo!” the crowd repeated.)
“Kill him!” proposed one man in the audience. ”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/06/AR2008100602935.html
October 9th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Here are a few of the scary freaks:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjxzmaXAg9E&eurl=http://www.netvibes.com/
October 9th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Fox TV News thinks McCain had won the debate. And if you get a chance do watch the Oriley and Hannity whom are spending so much time informing the public with a negative propaganda about Obama.
I respected Senator McCain but after seeing him in recent TV appearances and hearing what comes out of his mouth I have now lost the respect I had for him.
The economy is the problem not Senator Obama.
There is a nice article by Timothy Garton Ash http://tinyurl.com/4jnkcn
October 9th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Cretin Regnant
That is like watching Jean-Marie Le Pen (Front national) during 2002 election, it is pretty scary for anyone with no European name.
October 9th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Where are you Ali & CJ? I can’t find anyone sane on the Internet who still wants to vote for McCain. I miss our little back and forths.
Ermiyas, my former enemy, all is forgiven. Your anti-american, slightly irrational, reactionary leftist views are a breath of fresh air after the last few weeks on here. Can we be friends?
October 9th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
LOL. Back from holiday and a much needed rest. Will continue to annoy soon;)
October 10th, 2008 at 8:47 am
Cretin Regnant
Nous sommes amis
I am not anti-America I love America, but dislike the Bush administration.
October 11th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
exrepublican said: *** john mccain said:
“Nuclear power. Sen. Obama says that it has to be safe or disposable or something like that.â€Â
i would hope so!!! ***
Are you saying it’s not safe? Tell France, they get 80%+ of their energy through nuclear. Obama was against it before he was for it, and he’s not even really for it. Re-using spent fuel itself is a derivative industry of the energy sector that offers great opportunities to our country.
What part of McCain’s energy plan are you people here against? Or have you not really put any thought into “the issues”??
October 11th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Every sane person vacillates on the question of nuclear power. And so they should, there are many pluses and many minuses. Obama has no doubt come to the realization that it is a necessary evil, just as the British government recently has. It is not a panacea and should be used as a stop-gap measure until we can develop cleaner, safer technologies.
October 11th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Michael: “Stewart brought up a lovely point, in that the campaign’s been going on for 20 months  20 months of thorough vetting by both Republicans and the Press  how can Palin say “Who is Barack Obamaâ€Â? ”
LOL. Are you saying this with a straight face? Obama has been “thoroughly vetted” by the press? Which press was that? The one that tried to ask him the 9th question before being told “I just answered, like, eight questions”. http://www.suntimes.com/news/huntley/830209,CST-EDT-hunt07.article
Or perhaps you’re talking about the press that Obama’s campaign blacked out during his Middle East trip? http://newsbusters.org/node/22753?q=blogs/mark-finkelstein/2008/07/21/andrea-obama-trip-what-some-would-call-fake-interviews
Oh wait, I know now, you meant the time that the media thoroughly vetted his tight ass? http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=550_1210277599
And by Republicans you must mean FOX News, which he failed to appear on in any substantive way until the night that McCain gave his speech at the Republican Convention, at which time only a small audience would be watching?
How about debates. Where was Obama after he famously declared back in May that he’d debate McCain any time and any place? How about those 10 town halls that McCain proposed over the summer? Nope, Obama couldn’t make those. But he did suggest instead one debate on the night of July 4th, when everyone would be out celebrating.
LOL. Thoroughly vetted. You really do insult our intelligence.
October 11th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Well, at least I understand now why you are a McCain supporter. You appear to have similar temperaments. I express my opinion without making derogatory comments about those who might disagree with me, but you get all testy because I did so. Interesting. My, my . . .
Everything comes out, CJ. I personally think that the press has been fair on most points. When Rev. Wright made an ass of himself, you couldn’t even read the comics without hearing about it. But let’s assume for a minute that the press is reluctant to thoroughly dig up legal wrongdoing or questionable moral activity on Obama’s side.
First off, though they make no attempt to hide their bias, I was not talking about Fox News when I said “Republicans”. I was talking about, well . . . the party. The GOP. The freakin’ National Enquirer nailed John Edwards, for gosh sakes. The Republicans couldn’t dig up any substantitive problems in Obama’s past? Maybe that, short of DISAGREEING with his policy and the policies of his associates, they don’t have anything. If they’ll call him a terrorist, they’ll certainly be willing to use any truly damning evidence other than (“He knows William Ayers! He knows William Ayers!” — so do a lot of Republicans, btw.)
Do you consider McCain’s camp to be on Obama’s side? If they have damning EVIDENCE of legal wrongdoing, they’d have presented it. How about Hillary? It’s fairly obvious she’d have run with just about anything she could have found out about her.
You don’t need interviews to find out things. Why, just yesterday, without her speaking substatitatively about in one interview, we found out that Sarah Palin abused her powers as governor before she’d been in office a year.
My point is that “Who is Barack Obama” is a question Sarah Palin has no right to ask when her most fervent supporters haven’t known her a year and she’s refused plenty of interviews herself (or, more pointedly, had them refused for her). We’ve had lots of time to figure out who he is. Even you know who he is, as evidenced by your total opposition to every one of his ideas.
Heck, even John McCain knows the answer to the question. He is: “a decent, family man.”
October 11th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Sorry, last word in the 4th paragraph should have been “him” not “her”. As far as I know, however, Hillary didn’t dig up any evidence on herself either.
October 11th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Michael, you do provide good comedy. Cretin has held the title in personal attacks on this blog, calling those who oppose Obama racists, and questioning their sanity. I come along and give you a good dose of sarcasm, and you’ll have us believe that this ammounts to some kind of personal attack on you? Oh spare us the faux outrage.
“When Rev. Wright made an ass of himself, you couldn’t even read the comics without hearing about it.”
Oh really? Wrong. Rev. Wright was not news only to those who get their information from CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, the NYT, the LAT, the WAPO, etc. Rev. Wright was exposed one full year prior to when he became a “scandal” during the primary, much earlier in this year. How did that happen? Simple, the mainstream media didn’t lift a finger to learn about Obama’s past. They either knew about Wright and chose to ignore it, or they were so negligent in their duties that it caught even them by surprise. FOX news ran several hours of programming on Rev. Wright back in 2007.
” The freakin’ National Enquirer nailed John Edwards, for gosh sakes.”
What’s your point? The National Enquirer nailed him as you put it, and you may have noticed that the MSM neglected to cover that story straight until *after* the DNC. They practically had to be forced to start asking him questions or even mentioning it in passing when Edwards’ name came up during other news segments.
“The Republicans couldn’t dig up any substantitive problems in Obama’s past?”
Good gracious, of course they can and did. Where do you get your news? The facts about Obama’s involvement with Ayers and ACORN, as well as his connections to those at the heart of the Fannie/Freddie debacle are well known and have been for a long time. The fact that the media chose to underplay them or ignore them completely does not reflect as much on the Republicans as much as it does on their own total lack of credibility in this election cycle. I’m sorry this is not substantive to you, but it is to many people.
– â€ÂHe knows William Ayers! He knows William Ayers!† so do a lot of Republicans, btw.
Straw man. The problem is not knowing William Ayers, the problem is that Obama collaborated with him on multiple projects, and then *lied* about when he first met him as well as when he first learned of Ayers’ past. There is a question of ideological complicity between Ayers and Obama that his campaign has done everything to underplay and hide. The American people, including our new citizens here, have a right to know to what extent Obama worked with Ayers and why he thought it was OK to be involved with him. Obama even wrote a positive review of one of Ayers’ books, this goes well beyond casual acquaintance. Either you didn’t realize this or you are attempting to offer a very weak argument in his defense.
“â€ÂHe knows William Ayers! He knows William Ayers!† so do a lot of Republicans, btw.”
What’s fairly obvious is that you don’t understand Washington politics, and I don’t mean that as an insult, it’s just becoming increasingly clear. Hillary could not run with the full opposition research file that she built on Obama, for several reasons. The most important reason was that had Hillary gone for broke and decided to truly throw everything she had at Obama, and had Obama still won, she would lose all plausible deniability for responsibility in the event that Obama loses. This would have caused her a great loss of political capital and a much more negative place in the annals of electoral politics.
As for McCain? It’s the same reason. Every time McCain gets near the Wright issue, people (with the media leading the pack) pop up and accuse him of racism. This is of course a totally absurd argument, but that is besides the fact. McCain is already seen as a cranky person, so he has to tread very carefully when dealing with these character issues with Obama. The Obama campaign has built itself a firewall of racial tension, to question him on character and accomplishments is automatically to be construed as being racist. Just look at Cretin’s early attempts to debate me on this blog. He reflexively played the race card due to his own political blind spot.
- “My point is that “Who is Barack Obama†is a question Sarah Palin has no right to ask when her most fervent supporters haven’t known her a year and she’s refused plenty of interviews herself (or, more pointedly, had them refused for her).”
Sure she has a right to ask it, but who asks it is totally irrelevant.
– Heck, even John McCain knows the answer to the question. He is: “a decent, family man.â€Â
Perhaps, but he is not fit for the office he seeks and his governance will have disastrous consequences for our country.
October 11th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
Point the first: I am not cretin.
Point the second: Sarcasm? So I DON’T insult your intelligence?
Point the third: It is actually my understanding that Tucker Carlson ran a tape on MSNBC months before Fox did. My point is that the story did come out, even if it took one biased cable news network to cancel out the supposed biases of the others.
Point the fourth:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/he_lied_about_bill_ayers.html
I’ve posted this in another thread, but I’ll do it again here just to be thorough.
Point the fifth:
You actually made a good point about Washington politics, and it may very well be true in the case of Hillary. I’d actually already considered that, despite my ignorance, and in my opinion she still might have run with anything truly damaging. Nobody would consider her racist if she had some kind of proof that Obama was drinking from the wellspring of Ayers’ ideology. She didn’t. Wright might have been a trickier situation, but, frankly, she didn’t need to push that, because, after the story DID become National news, Obama took such a hit in the polls FROM THE MEDIA REPORTING THE STORY OVER AND OVER that it looked as though it would KO him all by itself.
McCain is a thornier problem. His Ayers attack ads and his Palin attack dog (only a common phrase, though I shouldn’t call her dog because of the lipstick/pig debacle — though surely McCain supporters aren’t playing the SEXISM card here) who that he seems to have no problem going for what he perceives as the juglar. I don’t think he or you are a racist by any means (see point 1) simply because I’ve seen no proof of such, but I don’t think the Obama camp has once explicitly stated that McCain’s camp (or Hillary’s camp for that matter) were making racist arguments when bringing up Wright, Ayers, or anything else. Please let me know if I am wrong on this. Pundits have, but then it’s pundits on the other side that are talking about how Barack thinks everyone who disagrees with him is racist, and I don’t buy either argument.
Point the sixth:
You are right. It’s Sarah Palin’s right to ask any thing she wants to.
Point the seventh:
I disagree on Obama’s fitness for office, obviously, but we already know what 90% of John McCain’s governance would look like — the past 8 years. I admired him once, but he has either changed or revealed enough of his true nature that disturbs me, and I honestly believe that he will continue the failed policies of George Bush and further damage this nation.
I’ve been voting for 22 years now, and John McCain obviously wasn’t vetted enough for me. I am fully willing to admit that something will come to light that will change my opinion of Obama, but so far it has not, and until it does, I am voting with my head and my conscience. I am not voting out of fear, or distrust, or hatred, or spite. I want to believe the same of you, CJ, and the last sentence of your post gives me hope that you feel the same.
The tone of your posts (and, I’m sorry, yours too, cretin) give me pause, however. You may not hate the candidate you are not voting for or their supporters, but you write as if you do — not with sarcasm but with bitterness, and frankly that’s why I continue to engage you in this discussion, I guess. Not to convince you, but to try to balance the discussion out.
October 12th, 2008 at 1:02 am
No offense taken Michael, you voted for Bush in the last election, so nothing you say could affect me that much. Do I hate McCain? My feelings towards him are a mixture of disgust, pity and bewilderment. I suppose that could be construed as hate. The video Paul posted the other day made me want to believe he is capable of decency.
CJ, I just want to know where you are coming from. I am genuinely intrigued. Why did you abandon the democrats? Why are you unable/unwilling to explain? What happened to you? Am I naive asking this question? If so, why?
October 14th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
Michael, here’s something you need to know. About that Factcheck link regarding Obama having lied about Ayers? It’s wrong.
And know what else? Factcheck may very well be in Obama’s pocket. Take a look: http://www.patterico.com/2008/09/25/the-annenberg-foundationobamafactcheckbrady-center-connection/
Now I am not going to use that as an argument as to why this is BS:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/he_lied_about_bill_ayers.html
Instead I will debunk the factchecking personally. Easily I might add.
– “In a Web ad and in repeated attacks from the stump, McCain describes the two as associates, and Palin claims they “pal around” together. But so far as is known, their relationship was never very close.”
Then explain this quote from Obama’s chief campaign strategist David Axelrod:
“they’re certainly friendly.”
Or how about this quote from Chicago Mayor Dailey:
“They’re friends. So what?”
And you know what else? Obama didn’t just lie about the nature of his relationship, he lied incontrovertibly about *when he knew of Ayers past*.
Obama’s campaign is already engaged in active damage control. First Obama said that he didn’t know about Ayers’ past. Then when it became impossible to defend this ridiculous assertion, he changed his tune and claimed that he had thought Ayers had been rehabilitated.
I don’t know if Factcheck is in the bag for Obama, although the connections to shared interests are now documented. I do know that they are doing a very shoddy job and leading people like you astray.
Maybe for once you guys will open your eyes and realize how badly you are being played for fools by the DNC and Obama. You may not realize that we probably share some political beliefs, although clearly not many. But you should not let your enthusiasm for this polished politician cloud your ability to see the total bullsh*t being shoveled onto your plate. I don’t say that with bitterness or sarcasm (although I am known for sarcasm). I say this with serious concern.
– I don’t think he or you are a racist by any means (see point 1) simply because I’ve seen no proof of such, but I don’t think the Obama camp has once explicitly stated that McCain’s camp (or Hillary’s camp for that matter) were making racist arguments when bringing up Wright, Ayers, or anything else. Please let me know if I am wrong on this.
Really? John Lewis is most definitely part of Obama’s camp and he said the other day that McCain reminds him of George Wallace. That is about as inflammatory as you can get, and its sick considering that McCain earlier in the year listed Lewis as someone he would invite into his cabinet. I have other examples, but one is enough based on your request.
– I disagree on Obama’s fitness for office, obviously, but we already know what 90% of John McCain’s governance would look like  the past 8 years.
Have you looked at those votes? How many of those were controversial? McCain has a proven record as one of the few Senators to buck Bush on controversial issues. McCain took on Bush on issues that cost him political capital. It’s imperative that we elect a man or woman who has a record of not just rolling over for his party. Obama is not only unable to show such record, he has no experience in Washington, and I don’t mean leadership experience (he has none of that either). Instead I am talking about political experience. He will be played like a fiddle by Pelosi and Reid.
Think they’ve done a good job? They have run Congress for two years and they have the lowest approval rating in the country’s history. Democrats, although I share many of their political views (abortion, gay marriage rights), have done a gross disservice to our economy. The Community Reinvestment Act was their screwup under Clinton.
I think you should go over those votes, those 90% and see how many of them you actually disagree with. Don’t you owe it to yourself?
– My point is that the story did come out, even if it took one biased cable news network to cancel out the supposed biases of the others.
Michael, the story was out there for a year and the greater media *never* investigated it, never aired it, never did anything with it. That is gross negligence. You cannot be serious in saying that they did their job on Obama.
Speaking of which, forgetting for a second about Ayers’ terrorist activities. Have you taken a look at the educational platform that he tried to push through the Annerberg Challenge? The very program that Obama was hired to be the CEO of, in which Obama spent tens of millions? Do you know the results of that program? Do you know that Obama spent millions on very radical educational doctrine for Chicago school children, doctrine that comes right out of the model used by Hugo Chavez and trumpeted by Ayers? Did you know that Ayers once spoke at a ralley with Chavez in Venezeulla? I bet you didn’t know any of this and why would you. It’s not like any of this is being covered by *anyone* in the mainstream media.
Here is the opening of Ayers speech in Venezeulla:
– November , 2006
President Hugo Chavez, Vice-President Vicente Rangel, Ministers Moncada and Isturiz, invited guests,comrades. I’m honored and humbled to be here with you this morning. I bring greetings and support from your brothers and sisters throughout Northamerica. Welcome to the World Education Forum! Amamos la revolucion Bolivariana!
This is my fourth visit to Venezuela, each time at the invitation of my comrade and friend Luis Bonilla, a brilliant educator and inspiring fighter for justice. Luis has taught me a great deal about the Bolivarian Revolution and about the profound educational reforms underway here in Venezuela under the leadership of President Chavez. We share the belief that education is the motor-force of revolution, and I’ve come to appreciate Luis as a major asset in both the Venezuelan and the international struggleâ€â€I look forward to seeing how he and all of you continue to overcome the failings of capitalist education as you seek to create something truly new and deeply humane. Thank you, Luis, for everything you’ve done.
–
Do you understand that Obama and Ayers collaborated on educational reform? Maybe Obama was 8 when Ayers was in his bombing habits, but Obama was a grown man when he worked with Ayers to further these kind of radical programs in Chicago schools.
Michael, I wish you luck on your vote. If you really want to learn more about Obama I will be happy to point you to more information. Stanley Kurtz has been doing a lot of investigative reporting on this, and nobody has debunked it. Obama’s campaign is silent. I only wish you would seriously step back and examine your issues with McCain and consider you could be incredibly mistaken about Obama.