Self-Parody Watch
| Sun Aug. 24, 2008 1:34 PM PDT
SELF-PARODY WATCH....This is just bizarre. Has any presidential candidate ever before run an ad mocking his opponent for not choosing a particular running mate? I think the folks running McCain's war room are getting cabin fever or something.
But who knows? Maybe an attack ad this transparent will be just the thing to finally get all those ex-Hillary supporters fully on board with Obama. Sort of the way trash talk from the Yankees ends up on the front page of the Boston Globe and fires up even fair weather Red Sox fans. That's pretty much how it would affect me, anyway.
In any case, since this is an ad that's obviously aimed at insiders and the media, not actual voters, Jon Cohn has some pointed advice:
Having said all that, the media has some responsibilty here, as well. Controversy makes for good coverage, I know. But for all the talk of disunity, the really remarkable story about the Democrats right now is the absence of meaningful dissent on the party's agenda. When it comes to substance, the Democrats are arguably more united than they have been since the early 1960s. Yes, you can find divisions on both domestic and foreign policy, on everything from the relative priority of deficit reduction to America's response to Darfur. But these debates don't match the kind we've seen in the past.
That's really true, isn't it? On trade and economic issues, the left and right of the party have both moved in each other's direction since the early 90s and the remaining disageements are pretty moderate. Nearly everyone is united on some form of liberal internationalism as our favored foreign policy stance, and nearly everyone wants to withdraw from Iraq. Social issues have largely sorted themselves out. There's surprisingly broad agreement about what our energy policy ought to look like. And there's virtual unanimity on the broad contours of how we should tackle healthcare.
It's not all sweetness and light, but aside from optics and personality issues, liberals really are remarkably united this year. It's kinda scary in a way. I blame the blogosphere.
FORMATTING NOTE: It took me a while to figure out how to embed YouTube clips over at the old site so that they looked decent, but I haven't quite figured it out here yet. This clip looks fine in Firefox, but it's sort of squashed in Internet Explorer and a complete disaster in Safari. Sorry. I'll fiddle around some more later and try to figure out the magic bullet.
On the other hand, I just noticed that link highlighting works a whole lot better in IE and Safari than Firefox. Win some, lose some, I guess.
Continues Below
Continued From Above
Comments
They point out Obama is a celebrity but is McCain in the throes of Alzheimer's? Some seem to think so.
"Such heart-warming news! High level Republican associates here are talking about the latest ploy on the part of the State of Israel to gain complete control of the United States government. Their idea is to offer the diseased McCain unlimited support from their papers and television stations in return for his putting Joe Lieberman on the ticket as vice president. As McCain is known to be seriously ill and will soon be unable to function, the plan will be for him to retire "for reasons of health" and then Joe Lieberman, loud and persistent Israeli supporter, will step into the Oval Office and America will have her first (unelected) Jewish president. And a firmly dedicated Zionist at that! Many GOP people say putting Lieberman on the ticket will ruin any chance McCain has at the White House. Why? His obvious mental confusion? No, the American public is becoming seriously anti-Semitic and anti-Israel and if McCain attempts to support a universal draft (as he is dead set on doing) and has a rabid Zionist as a running mate, his fall will be great and he will drag the shattered remnants of the Republican Party with him. Thank God!"
TBRNews.org, Voice of the White House
Recent examples of McCain's confusion -- McCain recently talked at length about problems on the "Iraq/Pakistan border" ? the countries are a thousand miles apart. Asked how to deal with Darfur, he mused about "bringing pressure on the government of Somalia". Uh ? it's Sudan, Senator McCain. And he keeps expressing his desire to build up US relations with Czechoslovakia, a country that hasn't existed for 15 years. "
And, we all know by now McCain cannot remember how many houses he owns or even what kind of Car he Drives!
We, the American people, cannot afford to be fooled again with a President who does not have the intelligence and fortitude to shed light and bring real solutions to the many problems facing us today. We were fooled into a war which should have never been waged and will pay dearly for years to come. We have to be on guard this time and demand more, much more from our media, something they did not do after 911.
They point out Obama is a celebrity but is McCain in the throes of Alzheimer's? Some seem to think so.
"Such heart-warming news! High level Republican associates here are talking about the latest ploy on the part of the State of Israel to gain complete control of the United States government. Their idea is to offer the diseased McCain unlimited support from their papers and television stations in return for his putting Joe Lieberman on the ticket as vice president. As McCain is known to be seriously ill and will soon be unable to function, the plan will be for him to retire "for reasons of health" and then Joe Lieberman, loud and persistent Israeli supporter, will step into the Oval Office and America will have her first (unelected) Jewish president. And a firmly dedicated Zionist at that! Many GOP people say putting Lieberman on the ticket will ruin any chance McCain has at the White House. Why? His obvious mental confusion? No, the American public is becoming seriously anti-Semitic and anti-Israel and if McCain attempts to support a universal draft (as he is dead set on doing) and has a rabid Zionist as a running mate, his fall will be great and he will drag the shattered remnants of the Republican Party with him. Thank God!"
TBRNews.org, Voice of the White House
Recent examples of McCain's confusion -- McCain recently talked at length about problems on the "Iraq/Pakistan border" ? the countries are a thousand miles apart. Asked how to deal with Darfur, he mused about "bringing pressure on the government of Somalia". Uh ? it's Sudan, Senator McCain. And he keeps expressing his desire to build up US relations with Czechoslovakia, a country that hasn't existed for 15 years. "
And, we all know by now McCain cannot remember how many houses he owns or even what kind of Car he Drives!
We, the American people, cannot afford to be fooled again with a President who does not have the intelligence and fortitude to shed light and bring real solutions to the many problems facing us today. We were fooled into a war which should have never been waged and will pay dearly for years to come. We have to be on guard this time and demand more, much more from our media, something they did not do after 911.
I've read that the media has a vested interest in keeping this a horse race, Do you think this ad is directed at them for this reason. And that we'll see more ads aimed towards them? To keep controversy or a "faux" controversy in the news?
Submitted by Rick Alber (not verified) on Sun Aug. 24, 2008 2:19 PM PDT.
So the ad seems to criticize Barack for not putting Hillary on the ticket and then demonstrates exactly why Barack didn't choose her to be VP. Is John McCain's senility spreading to his top staffers?
Submitted by Ron Byers (not verified) on Sun Aug. 24, 2008 2:49 PM PDT.
I keep looking for all the Hillary supporters who have switched or might switch to McCain. So far I have found very few.
Most Hillary supporters are committed feminists. Feminism is something John McCain does not embrace. We all need to remember that John comes from the Tailhook community. He is absolutely horrible on every single woman's issue. Over the years John has flip flopped on just about every position except his anti-feminist agenda.
I doubt that come November he is going to attract a lot of feminists who are holding a grudge because Hillary lost. The best he can hope is that Hillary loyalists stay home. With the Supreme Court at stake, that's not likely.
I think this ad is a gift. Why?
1) It's ineffective and transparent, as Kevin notes. More importantly,
2) It will serve as a springboard for the media to write about Democratic unity.
Yes, some Hillary supporters at the convention may be resentful or disgruntled, but they are also Democratic Party convention delegates. Few, if any, will be willing to voice their dissatisfaction with the nominee to reporters.
And given that Hillary and Bill will be giving pro-Obama speeches on consecutive nights (and both are strong, evocative speakers), the overwhelming story will be, "Yes, the Clintons and Obama are reconciled, and the party is unified."
This ad will serve as a perfect foil to turn that unity message into "bad news for McCain." His campaign would have done better to say that everyone should expect fake unity from the Democrats, so that he would be in position to undermine their unity messaging on Friday--but they blew it with this ad. Now, when Clinton doesn't undermine Obama, it will be "contrary to Republican expectations..."
I am surprised at how wrong everyone here, including Kevin, is in reading the McCain "Hillary ad". It is not directed towards PUMAs. It has nothing to do with Hillary Clinton supporters. It is about calling Barack Obama a nancy-boy, period. It is a prototypical Republican attack that tries to emasculate and feminize the Democrat. McCain is not trying to pull one over on Hillary supporters, he is trying to pull one over on non-Hillary supporters by calling Obama a fag. Here is the key passage in the ad giving away its purpose. "The truth hurt, and Obama didn't like it." The concluding line is that Obama is a wimp. He was afraid of a girl.
"The truth hurt. And Obama didn't like it."
I have a different take -- This ad is aimed at men.
Seems to me the real thrust of the ad is to paint Obama as weak, thin skinned and afraid of a woman; afraid to be overshadowed by a woman.
Watch it again -- the real theme is Obama is a sissified weenie who was bullied by a girl.
Talk about disunity within the party. Pat Buchanan has gone ballistic over McCain's Georgian advisor:
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Buchanan_accuses_McCains_neocon_warmonger_...
Barack's a sissy because he didn't put the woman on his ticket? That's just... incoherent. And I don't meant that as an insult to Steve in Sacto. It just, literally, doesn't make any sense.
In other words, suppose Obama had put Hillary on the ticket; what would they be saying about him then? Yeah, I thought so.
This morning on "Le Show" Harry Shearer did one of his dead-on "Clintonsomething" bits on the PUMAs (Party Unity My Ass).
I think Shearer's right: Obama's dead meat. Right this moment, Clinton's charting her 2012 run against McCain, because Obama's going to lose. He started out great guns but, like Howard Dean, he's not going to make it.
Too bad, really.
Actually, I'm thinking there may be a backlash among some Clinton supporters for using her in a Republican ad. See, for instance, the hardcore Clinton supporter Alegre (who organized a strike against Daily Kos) who today says:
"Mac's latest ad using footage of Hillary stepped over a serious line. Shes a big girl and can fend for herself. She doesn't need McCain to take up her part re: BHOs veep selection. Hell, for all he knows, BHO offered it to Hillary and she turned him down."
and
"Hillary was right to speak out against the way the repugs used her in an ad. After the witch hunts the pugs led against her and Bill, I don't blame her for objecting to this BS."
http://alegrescorner.soapblox.net/showDiary.do?diaryId=751
Having grown up in North Carolina, I remember the infamous Jesse Helms ad against Harvey Gantt, where the pair of white hands crumples up a letter, and the voice-over explains that the job has gone to the affirmative action applicant. In a more subtle way, the Hillary ad that McCain is running plays that same tune. It implies that Obama, being a "too-sensitive" minority, couldn't handle hearing the "truth" from her, and passed her over, when she deserved that job. I don't think the ad is meant to convince Hillary feminists to vote McCain--it's to aggrieve lower-income whites who resent preferential treatment for minorities, and resent minority "touchiness" about certain issues. In other words, it's the same old appeal to latent racism that we saw for years in North Carolina.
As angler says, this was the ad they would have run had she been chosen, but big deal they were going to make these same points anyway.
Should Obama play no ads of Romney or others cutting down McCain in similar ways? Or is this whole post a non-post.
Regarding no fighting in the Democratic Party -- do you consider that a good thing?
I don't.
Question Authority. No fighting tells me no one is questioning authority. Is our agenda really that great and correct?
So Biden's views on IP, on the war, on privacy, and on domestic violence are the party views and no one should dare discuss why they might be wrong? Um, maybe in your party, but are you then sure you're based at the right URL?
Kevin @7:35pm, no offense taken and you're exactly right -- if he had picked Hillary they'd be spinning that he was weak because he gave in to her. It's not about arguing facts -- it's about spinning and advancing the common GOP theme that Dems are weak and won't stand up for themselves or the country.
That ad closing -- "The truth hurt. And Obama didn't like it." -- has a 'He took his ball home and cried' undercurrent. The affirmative facts for choosing Biden or not choosing Clinton don't matter. The message is Obama is a weak, crying weenie.
They are really trying hard to drive a wedge between the Democrats, and have the media play the game. And at least some media people are playing along.
Russia's invasion of Georgia gave McCain an anvil to hammer away at Obama's inexperience, CNN senior political analyst Bill Schneider said.
"The McCain campaign believes that some of Hillary Clinton's tactics, especially questioning whether Obama is ready to lead, can be a real winner," Schneider said.
Clinton nearly overtook Obama during the primary campaign after she started airing ads asking whom voters would rather have answering a 3 a.m. call to the White House.
"The McCain team has been very open that they went to school on the Hillary Clinton campaign, that they learned from that," Gergen said.
"And, on this 3 a.m. ad, what's very striking, as some have pointed out over the last few days, is that Barack Obama was winning a steady streak of victories against Hillary Clinton," Gergen said.
"And then she ran that ad, and she really went on the attack on the experience question. And she won the bulk of the primaries thereafter in the closing months of the Democratic primaries and won 500,000 more votes than he did and almost took it away from him."
When Russian troops invaded Georgia two weeks ago, McCain vigorously denounced the action and warned of consequences. Obama's reaction was more measured, and potential voters noticed, Schneider said.
"Which candidate do voters believe is better qualified to deal with Russia? McCain by better than 2 to 1," Schneider said. "More experience in military matters and foreign affairs."
That argument may be even more effective for McCain than it was for Clinton, said political analyst Marc Halperin, a former Democratic strategist.
McCain is "going after more centrist voters, more swing voters, more conservative voters who will be a much bigger deal in the general election than they were in those primaries and caucuses," Halperin said.
Submitted by skippy (not verified) on Sun Aug. 24, 2008 7:51 PM PDT.
i wonder two things:
one) is mccain going to name huckabee his vp choice, based on the same logic as in the ad?
two) how come you don't have skippy on your new blogroll, kevin? i'm crushed!
I'd like to know exactly how these polls are carried out that claim to show 15-25% of former Hillary supporters will vote for McCain. It just sounds ridiculous. What pool are they sampling? How have they identified them?
I voted for Obama and have great respect for Hillary. But there is a side of her I can't fathom. Why in the world would she even consider the vice-presidency? Why would her supporters want her to have it? I think she would have more power, autonomy and respect as a senator from New York.
I'd like to know exactly how these polls are carried out that claim to show 15-25% of former Hillary supporters will vote for McCain. It just sounds ridiculous. What pool are they sampling? How have they identified them?
This is something that didn't get hashed out properly in the primaries, but should have been. Keep in mind that there are women who would have voted for Hillary just because she is a woman. They are otherwise up for grabs, but gender-centered nationalism would have gotten their votes. There are also a lot of working class people who remember Bill Clinton's presidency fondly, and would have voted for Hillary hoping for more of the same. With no Clinton tie-in, they also move to the "up for grabs" column. I personally know a lot of Hispanics like this -- they were big Hillary supporters, but not necessarily a lock vote for the Democrats otherwise. The
Obama people apparently are aware of this, which is why they are allowing the Clintons so much visibility at the convention, but it's just a start, particularly with the women, who are ultimately going to decide this election in my view. And I don't see that Obama has a clear cut plan to win those women, unlike McCain, who has been after them like a stalker since the primary was decided.
Let's look at the math. In order to put himself in a position to win, McCain needs >45% of the women vote (Bush got 43% in 2000, and an astonishing 48% in 2004), and if Obama doesn't get off his butt and develop a marketing plan and execute on it, McCain is going to get that, maybe more.
The McCain people are running these ads for a reason, and though they might seem clumsy, they show that the McCain campaign understands the math of this election, and is trying to make it work in their favor. I just don't see a similar level of sophistication in the Obama campaign -- "Change Change Change", besides sounding like a song the Byrds decided not to record, is getting a little shopworn. The gun went off a few months ago, and Obama is just now coming out of the blocks. Fortunately, he had a head start, but that's all used up. He's being outcampaigned, Drum's amusement at these ads notwithstanding.
That's funny, HT, because I voted for Obama and have great respect for Biden. But there is a side of him I can't fathom. Why in the world would he even consider the vice-presidency? Why would his supporters want her to have it? I think he would have more power, autonomy and respect as a senator from Delaware.
Full disclosure. I didn't vote for Obama (though I definitely will in November), and don't have a whole lot of respect for Biden APART from the enormous efforts he took to be a father to his kids. I'd have more respect for Biden if he would understand that married fathers doing exactly the same thing as he has done, would almost certainly still lose their kids in a custody fight because their wives could successfully claim that all that time spent away from the kids during the day is what makes the mothers a "better" parent for the kids to be with.
I think it's that sort of willful ignorance on Biden's part that explains in part his bad decisions regarding the war, ip issues, privacy issues, and bankruptcy issues.
Submitted by Blue Girl (not verified) on Sun Aug. 24, 2008 11:24 PM PDT.
Obama and McCain are virtually tied in the polls, and yet Obama has a 20-25 point lead on InTrade. This has been true for weeks. Can anybody explain this?
I'll suggest one answer to that. Polling methodology. Telephone polls are conducted only on land-line phones with listed numbers - ie, your grandpa and his peers. Cell-only households and VOIP households are excluded. And the people most likely to have that technology but no land-line are the demographic most likely to support Obama. Not only that, their numbers have seen a six-fold increase in voter registration.
There seem to be no comments here by people who're Democrats resistant to voting for Obama. I'm a lifelong Democrat, a Hillary supporter, I'm a man and not PUMA, but I have serious reservations about Obama. There seems, across the blogisphere and political shows and elsewhere, to be a disrespect by Democrats for Democrats who remain undecided. Big mistake. McCain capitalizing on that mistake by his opponents is smart.
As for the Democratic Party being unified as Jon Cohn and Kevin Drum suggest, I think it's a dangerous misperception. True liberals and progressives, by nature, question authority and are disinclined to fall in line like sheep. The Democratic Party is supposedly split, right now, between Obama and Clinton supporters, but the differences are more substantive than personality or gender issues. Shutting down discussion (by Obama supporters being dismissive of the rest of us) of what's really at the core of it is, I think, a big reason Obama's numbers are not soaring as one would expect if he really were what his supporters claim.
The McCain ad is a good ad because it speaks to voter concern about Obama's readiness, in terms of maturity, principles, experience and substance, to be POTUS. Obama's ad about McCain's houses, by contrast, was a dumb ad because the people he's trying to pull in don't give a rat's patootie about another rich politician's houses. They're all rich compared to the voters Obama's trying to appeal to now, including Obama and Biden.
I'll suggest one answer to that. Polling methodology.
This has been a frequently trotted out explanation, and in the past it was more solid. There are a couple of schools of thoughts on the present situation, with many polling operations now insisting that they're weighting to account for cell-only households. Insofar as there's a current consensus, it seems to be that non-landline users are still getting missed by some small percentage, but we should be increasingly cautious about overestimating how much.
Did anyone see the helicopter views of Biden's estate? And he's supposed to be one of the least wealthy Senators? Expect the housing meme to continue, The Corner is now writing about how Biden's house was purchased by a lobbyist, although not the firm that pays his son more than $100K per month. Change we can believe in?
They point out Obama is a celebrity but is McCain in the throes of Alzheimer's? Some seem to think so.
"Such heart-warming news! High level Republican associates here are talking about the latest ploy on the part of the State of Israel to gain complete control of the United States government. Their idea is to offer the diseased McCain unlimited support from their papers and television stations in return for his putting Joe Lieberman on the ticket as vice president. As McCain is known to be seriously ill and will soon be unable to function, the plan will be for him to retire "for reasons of health" and then Joe Lieberman, loud and persistent Israeli supporter, will step into the Oval Office and America will have her first (unelected) Jewish president. And a firmly dedicated Zionist at that! Many GOP people say putting Lieberman on the ticket will ruin any chance McCain has at the White House. Why? His obvious mental confusion? No, the American public is becoming seriously anti-Semitic and anti-Israel and if McCain attempts to support a universal draft (as he is dead set on doing) and has a rabid Zionist as a running mate, his fall will be great and he will drag the shattered remnants of the Republican Party with him. Thank God!"
TBRNews.org, Voice of the White House
Recent examples of McCain's confusion -- McCain recently talked at length about problems on the "Iraq/Pakistan border" the countries are a thousand miles apart. Asked how to deal with Darfur, he mused about "bringing pressure on the government of Somalia". Uh it's Sudan, Senator McCain. And he keeps expressing his desire to build up US relations with Czechoslovakia, a country that hasn't existed for 15 years. "
And, we all know by now McCain cannot remember how many houses he owns or even what kind of Car he Drives!
We, the American people, cannot afford to be fooled again with a President who does not have the intelligence and fortitude to shed light and bring real solutions to the many problems facing us today. We were fooled into a war which should have never been waged and will pay dearly for years to come. We have to be on guard this time and demand more, much more from our media, something they did not do after 911.
Great to find your blog again, Kevin. On the YouTube clip, I have Safari (and Mac OS 10.5) and it came through OK on mine. The version that you have to click to get to full screen is a bit cramped, but I don't see that as a disadvantage.
That said, my God, what a lame McCain ad. Is this all his people can come up with? Can anyone in this country be so ignorant as to respond to this one with anything but derision and contempt? I used to think that McCain was the least bad of the available Republican candidates -- not that I would ever consider voting for any of them -- but I'm beginning to think there were better.
I disagree that it's only for insiders - I think it was meant to solidify the divisions between the Hillary supporters and the rest of the voters on the Dem side.
Exactly.
And the genius is that it works not by giving Hillary supporters any reason to vote for McCain, but rather it fuels the feud within the Democratic Party. It doesn't compel anybody to vote for McCain, it compels Obamaites to continue their disrespect of Hillary supporters who didn't jump on the Obama bandwagon, which only makes those Clinton Democrats less likely to inch toward Obama.
The Obama supporter nastiness (using words like dead enders or whatever) towards Hillary supporters is all McCain needs to exploit.
I got here through a link on RealClearPolitics, and as a lifelong Democrat aligned, in many ways, with Zaladonis (who posted at 6:10 am on the 25th), I thought you might be interested to hear what you--as a group--sound like from the perspective of an "outsider."
I am, frankly, astonished at the inbred, self-congratulatory tone of the comments here. You sound...exactly like the Obama campaign!--condescending, dismissive, rhetorically vapid, over-confident, ostrich-like, smug. Your convoluted psychoanalysis of the McCain ad (with it's "nancy boy" subtext--as overly subtle as the "racist" subtext Bob Herbert found in "Celebrity") would be simply laughable if it weren't so wrong.
It, like the current Biden ad, plays strongly to the central theme of the McCain campaign--which is that Obama is not ready to be president.
In these ads, it's not Republicans who are saying so. Clinton says so, Biden says so, and when Clinton and Biden say otherwise this week at the Convention, viewers will remember the flip-flop and understand that Clinton and Biden are doing what they have to do and not what they really believe to be true. I bet you also thought the "Celebrity" ad was lame.
As for those of you who think that the tightening in the polls is nothing--who want to cling to your cell-phone theory--keep fiddling. What do you think all those "undecideds" really feel?
The Democrats have done it again, in a year when I wouldn't have thought it possible--they've snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
If any of you wants to understand why a real true dyed-in-the-wool Democrat (who has never voted for a Republican in his life, and who is now almost 60) has deep qualms about Obama, I suggest you read the excellent Sean Wilentz essay "A Liberal's Lament" just published in Newsweek.
ANd I strongly suggest that you get over yourselves and pray that Obama does likewise.
Amused--If you really came here from RCP, then I don't have to tell you that the tightening in the polls is already loosening, and the Convention hasn't started yet. Don't forget to come back here November 5th and congratulate us on our victory.
Thanks for the reference showing us that a liberal doesn't like Obama. I thought I may have heard somewhere that there's a conservative or two who doesn't like McCain.
re: Polling methodology
Pollster.com says they are missing almost all cell and VOIP users. I don't think the gap has closed in the six weeks since the article linked was posted.
Of course, polling companies are going to say they are accurate, just like tobacco companies say that their product doesn't cause cancer.
As a Clinton supporter who will not be voting for Barack Obama, you've provided a lot of insight into Reagan Democrats/Clinton Republicans.
We are becoming well aware of why the familiar refrain keeps popping up every election year: "We didn't leave the Democratic Party; the Democratic Party left us."
Here's the money quote:
"But for all the talk of disunity, the really remarkable story about the Democrats right now is the absence of meaningful dissent on the party's agenda."
This "remarkable story" is only a remarkable story because the Democrats have such a remarkable history of political suicide. The fact that over *40%* of the herded cats are on the same page for a moment or two is, yes, truly remarkable.
Does "over 40%" win elections? It didn't in 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000, or 2004. When is the last time Democrats won without a Clinton on the ticket?
Yeah, 1976.
How many in Obama's cult were even born in 1976? I have a feeling they are getting ready to understand the frustration of watching yet another election slip through their hands via the utter stupidity of the DNC.
I thought 18 million votes + 18 million votes added up to a damn fine ticket.
Instead, 18 million votes added to Joe's 18,000 votes equal another yet another DNC flustercluck.
Only Democrats could possibly manage to snatch Defeat from the jaws of Victory by flipping off 18 million voters... who also, btw, supported the only twice-elected President from the Democratic side of the aisle since World War II.
Do Democrats ever get embarrassed about the foolish decisions they make; or do they actually believe in their souls that they are just smart losers and the Clintons are just dumb winners?
If you're going to use historical arguments, please include the fact that nobody has won the Presidency by picking a VP who had done well in the Primaries in the last 20 years. How many votes did Cheney get in the 2000 Primaries? How about Gore in 1992? Quayle in 1988? In the case of the last time someone with a decent number of votes did become the actual VP, please tell us how effectively the Democrats used the voodoo economics quotes to discredit Reagan.
If you're going to quote polls, check out the Princeton Election Consortium.
Reino--Why would you doubt I got here through the link on RCP? (See Best of the Blogs--Self-Parody Watch.) I'd think you'd know how lame and tame my post was compared to those posted by Republican trolls, and certainly weak compared to those by Obama trolls threatening murder against anyone who doesn't get in line.
As for your comment about the "loosening" in the polls--another perfect example of whistling in the dark.
USA Today/Gallup: Obama +3!
CNN: TIE!
ABC News: Obama + 4!
Of particular amusement, of course, is RCP's (also in the tank) constant shuffling of Battleground States so that it never seems as though McCain is not winning in too many at any given time.
Indiana is long gone. So is Virginia. Obama will lose Ohio and Florida, and probably Michigan (Detroit News has Obama + 2!) and maybe Pennsylvania.
But keep repeating: Obama may win Colorado!
Denial is such a marvelous and necessary human trait.
