Vote '08

From Reuters “Tales from the Trail” blog:

HUNTINGTON, W. Va - Republican John McCain appeared to back down on Tuesday in his dispute with his opponent Barack Obama over tire pressure.

Last week in St. Louis, Obama told an audience that steps such as inflating tires to the correct levels could make a difference when it comes to conserving fuel.

Cue gleeful mockery from McCain. Obama was naive, inexperienced and not talking straight to the American people about energy, he said.

His campaign went further, distributing to reporters tire gauges engraved with the words “Obama’s energy plan.”

Predictably, Obama hit back calling McCain’s mockery “ignorant,” arguing his plans were being misrepresented and saying that experts backed his call over tire pressure. Equally predictably, McCain’s camp hit back.

The surprise came during a telephone town hall meeting McCain held on Tuesday with voters in Pennsylvania.

“Obama said a couple of days ago says we all should inflate our tires. I don’t disagree with that. The American Automobile Association strongly recommends it,” McCain said.

But he kept up his broad criticism of Obama on energy: “I … don’t think that that (inflating tires) is a way to become energy independent.”

The United States’ energy challenges will be a central factor in the months leading up to the election. But when it comes to how far to inflate your tires, the air seems to have gone out of the dispute.

You can virtually picture his staff synchronously reaching for the Tums.

Actually, I give McCain credit for going back to common sense. I mean, come on, even NASCAR endorses proper tire inflation. The losers in this debate are the Karl Rove proteges who have apparently taken over the McCain campaign, a development that should cause concerns among Republicans who were hoping for a debate among adults this year. Can’t McCain realize that voters wouldn’t turn away from him if he acknowledged something that he & his opponent could agree upon? This disagree-with-absolutely-everything-Obama-says tactic only coarsens the debate & diminishes McCain’s standing.

EARLIER POSTS ON THIS TOPIC:

Tire-Ade

The Race Gets Muddier

WHAT OBAMA SAID:

“I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions” - speaking to members of Congress yesterday, according to the Washington Post.

REACTION:

“It appears that he is beginning to believe the over-the-top hype that he really is the Obamessiah for America.” - NewsBusters

“Wow, the arrogance in that. The hubris, the astounding hubris of it all is overwhelming to anyone that knows even a tiny bit of human history. This is the sort of thing if said by a Republican would be hung around that candidate’s neck like a mill stone. The epithet of “arrogant” would be the tail pinned forever to him and would appear in every single news story. Should a Republican bespeak of himself in such terms, he’d be branded the next Hitler leading us all to ruin.” - Publius Forum

CLARIFICATION:

“His entire point of that riff was that the campaign is NOT about him,” says a House Democratic staffer. The Post “left out the important first half of the sentence which was something along the lines of ‘it has become increasingly clear in my travel, the campaign, that the crowds, the enthusiasm, 200,000 people in Berlin, is not about me at all. Its about America. I have just become a symbol.’”

Other staffers with whom I spoke back that up, and a Democratic Congressman who isn’t a particular fan of Obama agrees, saying that Obama preceded that quote with something along the lines of, ‘Those people in Germany weren’t excited about me.  They were excited by the prospect of America getting back to being all it could be.” - ABC News’ Political Punch

WHAT McCAIN SAID:

MCCAIN: No, I have said and will say, I will say that everything has to be on the table, if we’re going to reach a bipartisan agreement. I’ve been in bipartisan negotiations before. I know how you reach a conclusion. We all have to sit down together with everything on the table.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So, that means payroll tax increases are on the table, as well?

MCCAIN: There is nothing that’s off the table. I have my positions, and I’ll articulate them. But nothing’s off the table.

I don’t want tax increases. Of course I’d like to have young Americans have some of their money put into an account with their name on it. But that doesn’t mean that anything is off the table…

STEPHANOPOULOS: With their payroll taxes diverted into accounts.

MCCAIN: I say that everything is on the table that has to be on the table, the way Tip O’Neill and Ronald Reagan did. - Interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s This Week last Sunday

REACTION:

“This statement was particularly shocking because you have been adamant in your opposition to raising taxes under any circumstances…. your comments yesterday send American taxpayers and businesses a mixed message about where you stand on this issue.” - an open letter to McCain from the Club for Growth

“Such mistakes also help explain the continued lack of enthusiasm for Mr. McCain among many conservatives. Meeting with us last December, before the primaries, he declared that “I will not agree to any tax increase,” repeating the phrase for emphasis. He did not say any tax increase with the exception of Social Security. If Mr. McCain can’t convince voters that he’s better on taxes than is a Democrat who says matter-of-factly that he wants to raise taxes, the Republican is going to lose in a rout.” - today’s editorial in the Wall Street Journal

CLARIFICATION:

(Tucker Bounds, McCain spokesman, on Fox News - key soundbite starts at about 2:05 in - saying McCain didn’t really mean what he said when he said it)

Your turn, dear reader! Which gaffe was the bigger one? Which will cause more damage? Tell us in the comments section!

The above two photos proportionally represent the amount of media coverage each candidate is getting this week.

Obama has been criticized by members of the right wing for making the trip. Yet these same folks were running a countdown on the days it’s been since Obama visited Iraq or Afghanistan.. in fact, that countdown still remains on the main page of GOP.com. To those who criticize Obama for making this trip, I ask you: what’s your proposed alternative? That he not go? Isn’t that what you criticized him for in the first place?

Many have criticized the media for adding to the Obama-overseas-mania for having all three network news anchors visit him while he’s abroad. Dee Dee Myers, former Bill Clinton press secretary & Hillary Clinton 2008 supporter asks in Vanity Fair “Is the Media Trying to Elect Obama?” One could make that case, but please tell me the last time you thought the three network news anchors were relevant in any way. Far fewer people consider “the big 3″ when getting their news these days than ever before. Those who would inflate this trip as a pure example of media bias would do well to remember this.

It is news. You can’t not cover it.

Plus look at this poll from ABC News that shows Obama lags far behind McCain in terms of who’d make a better commander-in-chief. This trip is necessary for any candidate, Democrat or Republican, who faces those numbers.

& besides, McCain should consider himself lucky that he’s out of the spotlight a little more this week:

p.s., Senator McCain: Czechoslovakia doesn’t exist anymore. He had better be careful with these gaffes, because there is a good chance that the media will start paying closer attention to them as November draws near.

What do you think? Is the coverage of Obama’s overseas trip unbalanced? Should he have just stayed at home? Time for you to weigh in!

…refreshes doubts about McCain’s commitment to women’s issues, that is.

Planned Parenthood has revived McCain’s 8-second stumble in an interview last week when asked whether he has any thoughts about insurance plans that cover Viagra & don’t cover birth control. (the issue was raised by his own economic adviser, former Hewlett-Packard exec Carly Fiorina, earlier in the day)

Frankly, we’re stumped as to why he took so long to say anything. I don’t get why saying “that’s not right, & should be changed,” & be done with it, should be so hard, unless he’s calculating what words could potentially damage his standing with the religious right. Not a good 8-seconds for McCain here. He does remember more women turn out to vote than men, right?

Our assignment manager Melydia is convinced that something’s afoot with the stars (”Jupiter is now opposite the Earth”) & causing some general crazies to come out; current evidence that makes this case:

1. We’ve had a gentleman call the newsroom repeatedly telling us about a premonition he’s had that aliens are about to arrive & achieve world peace & reduce our dependency on foreign oil,

2. Our newsroom has received approximately 136,372 e-mail messages from an apparent organized campaign to “bring the makers of Red Bull to justice” (please - don’t ask),

3. Jesse Jackson making some crazy remark that I won’t reprint here about Barack Obama that’s (unfortunately) dominating the current news cycle, &

4. The topic of this post, Phil Gramm, former advisor to John McCain, who has said that America is not in an actual recession but rather a “mental recession.” Quote:

“You’ve heard of mental depression; this is a mental recession,” he said, noting that growth has held up at about 1 percent despite all the publicity over losing jobs to India, China, illegal immigration, housing and credit problems and record oil prices. “We may have a recession; we haven’t had one yet.”

“We have sort of become a nation of whiners,” he said. “You just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline” despite a major export boom that is the primary reason that growth continues in the economy, he said.

“We’ve never been more dominant; we’ve never had more natural advantages than we have today,” he said. “We have benefited greatly” from the globalization of the economy in the last 30 years.

Mr. Gramm said the constant drubbing of the media on the economy’s problems is one reason people have lost confidence. Various surveys show that consumer confidence has fallen precipitously this year to the lowest levels in two to three decades, with most analysts attributing that to record high gasoline prices over $4 a gallon and big drops in the value of homes, which are consumers’ biggest assets.

“Misery sells newspapers,” Mr. Gramm said. “Thank God the economy is not as bad as you read in the newspaper every day.”

Let’s forget completely for the moment whether or not Gramm has a point (for the record, I think he’s wrong) so we can make this one: Americans of all political stripes are not happy with how gas prices are eating into their pocketbooks these days, & none of them likes to be told by anyone that they’re “just a bunch of whiners.”

It’s only natural that the Obama campaign took advantage of this low-hanging fruit:

“One of Senator McCain’s top economic advisors may think that when people are struggling with lost jobs, stagnant wages, and the rising costs of everything from gas to groceries, it’s merely a ‘mental recession’. And Senator McCain may think it’s sufficient to offer energy proposals that he admits will have mainly ‘psychological’ benefits. But the American people know that our economic problems aren’t just in their heads. They don’t need psychological relief – they need real relief – and that’s what Barack Obama will provide as President,” said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton.

& so, as you can imagine, just as Barack is doing so with Jesse, John McCain took pains to distance himself from Gramm’s remarks:

“Phil Gramm’s comments are not representative of John McCain’s views. John McCain travels the country every day talking to Americans who are hurting, feeling pain at the pump and worrying about how they’ll pay their mortgage. That’s why he has a realistic plan to deliver immediate relief at the gas pump, grow our economy and put Americans back to work.”

One last point on Gramm - it’s pretty amazing to me that the McCain camp kept Gramm on board with the campaign as long as he did. When he was a Senator in the late 90s, he was instrumental in deregulating the housing industry, which helped contribute to the housing crisis we’re in today.

What do you think? Are these tough economic times all in your head? Let us know by posting a comment!

OBAMA-JACKSON
Jackson apologizes for comments about Obama

CHICAGO (AP) - The Reverend Jesse Jackson says he’s “very sorry” for comments he made about Barack Obama during what he thought was a private conversation with a reporter.
Jackson tells The Associated Press he doesn’t remember “exactly” what he said after a Sunday interview about health care with a Fox News reporter when asked his opinion about Obama speaking in black churches.
Jackson says the comments were “a side light in a broader conversation about urban disparities.”
He issued a written statement Wednesday apologizing “for any harm or hurt that this hot mic private conversation may have caused.”
He says his support for Obama’s campaign is “wide, deep and unequivocal.”

What did he say? Oh, I’m not gonna go there. You can find it on the internets if you try a little.

Not gonna spend too much time on this as it’s quite the non-story .. except to say that this is nothing but a plus for Obama. He will win points with anyone considering him who doesn’t like Jesse Jackson, & lose support from … well, no one, actually.

What do you think?

UPDATE: Dan Balz of the Washington Post explains why this is such a boon to Obama:

“Obama did not have to rebuke an important constituency himself to define himself as different from the Jackson-Sharpton wing of the Democratic Party. Being attacked by Jackson was more than enough to get across the point. Whatever people may know or think they know about Obama, they can no longer mistake him as a direct descendant of old-style black politics.”

Totally non-important PostScript: This is a true story. In the summer of 1992 I was an intern at CNN in Washington, D.C. It was a pretty menial & somewhat pointless exercise but I did manage to have a lot of brushes with celebrities. As interns, we were instructed never to approach any of the famous “talent,” & at the time Jesse Jackson was in that group, hosting a show called “Both Sides with Jesse Jackson.” One day he interviewed Ross Perot, who that summer was giving both George H.W. Bush & Bill Clinton a run for their money. So just to say I did, I waited at the outside courtyard in front of the CNN studios to shake Perot’s hand (for the record, I was not a fan of Perot, but it was hard to pass up the opportunity). So finally Perot walks out of the building with Jesse Jackson all alone. No guards or assistants, just them. The height difference was remarkable. I believe Jackson is about 6′ 4″ or so & Perot stands about 4′ 10″ (just a guess). I approached them both, & remembering my earlier edict about not approaching “talent,” I said to Mr. Perot, “Mr. Perot I’m a big fan! Can I shake your hand?” He said “You’re very kind” & shook my hand & gave me an autograph. Jackson said nothing. I hope he didn’t take it personally - I just didn’t want to get in trouble if he saw me later.

Anyway, that was my brush with Jesse Jackson & Ross Perot. At the very least the above news story has given me a chance to tell that tale.

Okay, count Wes Clark off the list of potential Obama Vice Presidential candidates. Fast-forward to about 1:30 into this interview, where you’ll hear him say of McCain “I don’t think getting your plane shot down is a qualification for President of the United States.”

I’ve had enough of this from both parties. This whole “that’s not enough,” “he’s not qualified” folderol gets us nowhere in solving the nation’s problems. As far as I’m concerned, the moment a person swears an oath to defend this country at the risk of their own life, they are automatically qualified to be President.

But that’s a qualification, not a requirement. That’s what’s great about this country, & why someone who chooses not to serve deserves an equal shot.

Both candidates are qualified to be president. Let’s start talking about where they want to take the country, not whether they’re up to the job. The primaries settled that question.

Barack Obama should repudiate the comments Clark made above as soon as is possible, and refrain from having Clark be his advocate in the future.

UPDATE: Obama addressed the issue in his speech on patriotism in Independence, Missouri (of which more later) thusly:

“For those who have fought under the flag of this nation – for the young veterans I meet when I visit Walter Reed; for those like John McCain who have endured physical torment in service to our country – no further proof of such sacrifice is necessary.

And let me also add that no one should ever devalue that service, especially for the sake of a political campaign, and that goes for supporters on both sides.“

UPDATE #2: McCain addresses the issue today in Pennsylvania at a news conference:

John McCain has had to back-pedal today thanks to a comment his top aide, Charlie Black (above, with McCain), gave to Fortune Magazine:

The assassination of Benazir Bhutto in December was an ‘unfortunate event,’ says Black. ‘But his knowledge and ability to talk about it reemphasized that this is the guy who’s ready to be Commander-in-Chief. And it helped us.’ As would, Black concedes with startling candor after we raise the issue, another terrorist attack on U.S. soil. ‘Certainly it would be a big advantage to him,’ says Black.” 

The Obama campaign responded:

“Barack Obama welcomes a debate about terrorism with John McCain, who has fully supported the Bush policies that have taken our eye off of al Qaeda, failed to bring Osama bin Laden to justice, and made us less safe. The fact that John McCain’s top advisor says that a terrorist attack on American soil would be a ‘big advantage’ for their political campaign is a complete disgrace, and is exactly the kind of politics that needs to change. Barack Obama will turn the page on these failed policies and this cynical and divisive brand of politics so that we can unite this nation around a common purpose to finish the fight against al Qaeda,” said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton.

When asked about the matter at a news conference today, McCain seemed unaware his aide had made the remark:

Black later apologized:

“They were inappropriate,” Black told reporters at a fundraising event, according to a pool report. “I recognize that John McCain has devoted his entire life to protecting his country.”

Who wins if terrorists strike our soil between now & November? None of us do. Folks, think back to the days after 9/11 & try to remember that we were not seeing how that event played politically. We (correctly) saw that as an attack on all of us - Democrats, Republicans & everyone else. This campaign would do well to refrain from speculating on “which candidate the terrorists want to win.” Arguments could be made for either candidate, but they get us no further in solving the problem.

What do you think?

From the CNN Political Ticker blog:

(CNN) – Barack Obama’s communications director said Monday that the presidential seal the campaign unveiled last week at a meeting with Democratic governors won’t be seen again.

“That was a one time thing for a one time event,” Robert Gibbs told CNN.

Pegged to Obama’s rostrum at Friday’s meeting was his campaign’s version of the presidential seal – a bald eagle clutching an olive branch and arrows in its talons, but instead of a shield covering the center of the eagle’s body, Obama’s had the campaign’s trademark “O.” Rather of the words “Seal of the President of the United States” around the circumference, “Obama for America” and “www.barackobama.com” lined the top and bottom.

The Latin “Vero Possumus” was arched between the eagle’s wings, meaning “Yes we can,” an Obama slogan and rally chant.

Many wondered whether a seal – with Latin phrasing no less - was the best idea for a candidate fighting for the working class vote and trying to fend off allegations of elitism.

…ya think?

& here’s more on this from Marc Ambinder:

I’ve had my fun with the Obama campaign’s seal, and now that fun ends. I’m told that Obama recognizes that it was a silly mistake, that the universal reaction at Wacker and Michigan was, “Boy, was that dumb,” and that they don’t think the seal staging will matter to actual voters.

Does the press think Obama is arrogant? Yes. Does the seal represent arrogance? Only tangentially, actually. The worry for Obama’s image managers is that it gives the press a pretext to call Obama arrogant, an example for them to add to a list of arrogant moments, and a way to distract them from what Obama is saying. Obama, as I’ve written, is certainly more confident than the average Democratic presidential candidate. He doesn’t particularly care about making nice with his traveling press corps, and he is personally disciplined and self-contained. Just like McCain’s staff is remarkably sensitive to how the press covers their candidate, Obama’s staff is hyperattentive to Obama’s public image. They want him to appear strong and presidential; they want him to appear loyal and patriotic and down-to-earth; they take a broad view of history and try to make sure that Obama falls on the right side of it; they are protective to a fault; unlike McCain, Obama generally does not operate outside his comfort zone, and his political instincts are very cautious and risk-averse. Some Obama aides are enraptured by the idea of an Obama brand that transcends politics; others, including most of those who are actually close to the candidate, are much, much more concerned with the type of hubris that all the talk of an Obama brand actually encourages.

All of which is to say that if you were to exchange brains with your typical Obama staffer, you can kind of see how designing a new seal seems cool and presidential, and you can also realize that those closest to the candidate don’t vet every single stage prop that appears with the candidate, and you can feel a little sympathy for the staffer who has to explain to Valerie Jarrett just what the hell he or she was thinking when the seal was approved.

Our take: What a bad idea! What do you think?

UPDATE: That goes for these logos, too!

Get rid of all seals with eagles on them, so we have no confusion! Who’s with me? 

As has been pointed out here, here, here, here, here, & here, Obama made the mistake of saying on the stump that his “uncle liberated Auschwitz.” It’s an historical impossibility unless his uncle was a member of the Soviet army.

Late yesterday Obama’s campaign said he was mistaken, that his uncle was actually at Buchenwald.

I think the more damaging (& funny) (dare I say “Bushian?”) gaffe from Obama on Memorial Day came when he said “On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes—and I see many of them in the audience here today—our sense of patriotism is particularly strong.”

As we’ve said before, this is a new kind of election - one that the internet is magnifying to a degree we’ve never seen before. Will this be the last gaffe a candidate makes on the trail? Absolutely not.

What do you think?