Obama set to unleash Keating Scandal website

[dirk digler]

McCain shouldn't have gone there with Ayers as McCain has just as many or more questionable characters and f*** ups in his life.

http://www.keatingeconomics.com/

[bango]

I am going to say just as much.

[HonestChieffan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five

"The Ethics Committee ruled that the involvement of McCain in the scheme was also minimal, and he too was cleared of all charges against him

The report also said that McCain's "actions were not improper nor attended with gross negligence and did not reach the level of requiring institutional action against him....Senator McCain has violated no law of the United States or specific Rule of the United States Senate."

The committee concludes that Senator McCain's actions were not improper nor attended with gross negligence and did not reach the level of requiring institutional action against him. The committee finds that Senator McCain took no further action after the April 9, 1987, meeting when he learned of the criminal referral.
Senator McCain has violated no law of the United States or specific Rule of the United States Senate; therefore, the committee concludes that no further action is warranted with respect to Senator McCain on the matters investigated during the preliminary inquiry.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...=&pagewanted=2


Nothing to see here...move along....

[Mecca]

Considering what the McCain campaign is doing they deserve everything they get back.

[dirk digler]

Nothing to see here...move along....

Nice try

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/

Second, Keating is a story both more and less damaging for McCain than the Ayers story for Obama.
More damaging because the story of McCain and Keating is not guilt by association; it's guilt by guilt. McCain's problem isn't that he knew Keating in activities unconnected to his wrongdoing; it's that Keating, in the course of his wrondoing, gave McCain money and tried, with a bit of success, to use him to influence regulators. It's also part of the case Obama's making that McCain has opposed necessarily financial regulations.

[chiefforlife]

Even less to see on the Bill Ayers front, but that doesnt stop McPhalin from trying to make something of it.

[Mecca]

I like how this is nothing yet they are all cool with basically calling Obama a terrorist.

[dirk digler]

I like how this is nothing yet they are all cool with basically calling Obama a terrorist.

They are called hypocrites

[Mecca]

They are called hypocrites

When you go for a low blow don't be surprised when it's met with a swift kick in the balls in return.

The conservatives around here act like it's perfectly fine for them to do it but cry foul when it comes back.

[dirk digler]

When you go for a low blow don't be surprised when it's met with a swift kick in the balls in return.

The conservatives around here act like it's perfectly fine for them to do it but cry foul when it comes back.

Yep. I like how Obama is fighting this though because he is attacking back.

McCain has alot of sleazy associations so he shouldn't throw rocks while living in a glass house

[Mecca]

They could release a website about McCains swollen left gland hell it's big enough to take up a whole site.

[dirk digler]

They could release a website about McCains swollen left gland hell it's big enough to take up a whole site.

I think Obama should hammer all day long on McCain's age and ask him to release his medical records to the public.

I am curious what McCain is scared of?

[irishjayhawk]

I'm sorry but what happened to Fight the Smears and this anti-negative ad idea?

He's got a commanding lead. Why pull this now?

[T-post Tom]

McCain shouldn't have gone there with Ayers as McCain has just as many or more questionable characters and f*** ups in his life. http://www.keatingeconomics.com/

Ayers is a non-story. Just look at the facts.

[dirk digler]

I'm sorry but what happened to Fight the Smears and this anti-negative ad idea?

He's got a commanding lead. Why pull this now?

He is taking the offensive.

Also the Keating scandal is alot more relevant now since McCain doesn't want regulation and that is what the Keating 5 scandal was about, not regulating the S&L.

They are tying it together and showing that McCain can't be trusted to fix the economy

[HolmeZz]

I'm sorry but what happened to Fight the Smears and this anti-negative ad idea?

He's got a commanding lead. Why pull this now?

I kinda get the strategy. You can't just let McCain's campaign tie Ayers around his neck. By throwing Keating out there and McCain throwing Ayers out there, they effectively negate each other. It's probably a safer move strategically than to sit back and hope people see through McCain's attacks.

[Silock]

I kinda get the strategy. You can't just let McCain's campaign tie Ayers around his neck. By throwing Keating out there and McCain throwing Ayers out there, they effectively negate each other. It's probably a safer move strategically than to sit back and hope people see through McCain's attacks.

Bullshit. It's politics as usual.

Change, my ass.

[HolmeZz]

Bullshit. It's politics as usual.

Change, my ass.

I totally missed your outrage over McCain doing this. Will you please point me in the direction of your posts on that?

[splatbass]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five

"The Ethics Committee ruled that the involvement of McCain in the scheme was also minimal, and he too was cleared of all charges against him

The report also said that McCain's "actions were not improper nor attended with gross negligence and did not reach the level of requiring institutional action against him....Senator McCain has violated no law of the United States or specific Rule of the United States Senate."

The committee concludes that Senator McCain's actions were not improper nor attended with gross negligence and did not reach the level of requiring institutional action against him. The committee finds that Senator McCain took no further action after the April 9, 1987, meeting when he learned of the criminal referral.
Senator McCain has violated no law of the United States or specific Rule of the United States Senate; therefore, the committee concludes that no further action is warranted with respect to Senator McCain on the matters investigated during the preliminary inquiry.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...=&pagewanted=2


Nothing to see here...move along....

So you are saying it is ok to use guilt by association with Obama but not McCain? Could you be more hypocritical?

[splatbass]

Bullshit. It's politics as usual.

Change, my ass.

Kerry didn't fight back and look what happened to him.

[Direckshun]

Bullshit. It's politics as usual.

Change, my ass.

How can I vote for a candidate with such questionable connections in his past?

[/bullshit artists on Obama]

The fact remains that Obama's fighting back against a charge levied against him by a bunch of people who honestly don't give a shit about the charges.

If you had a better idea for Obama at this point, I am your audience.

[jAZ]

Bullshit. It's politics as usual.

Change, my ass.
Yes, change indeed.

Glad to see he's not sitting back and taking it in the keester like Kerry and Gore did.

Change is refreshing.

[ROYC75]

I expected this, it will get ugly the rest of the way.

Obama has some pretty damaging stuff as well .......

Let the voters decide.

Found something else out tonight, Obama has been in the senate for around 950 days, he has requested 932 million dollars of earmarks for his state, district, etc.

McCain has been in the senate over 7000 days and has requested 0 dollars of earmarks .

And Obama is suppose to clean up the economy ?

That's funny right there, I don't care who you are.

[Mecca]

Do we get to hear about McCains earmark fetish again, you do realize most people voting probably have no fucking clue what an earmark is?

[dirk digler]

I totally missed your outrage over McCain doing this. Will you please point me in the direction of your posts on that?

**crickets**

[DaKCMan AP]

Do we get to hear about McCains earmark fetish again, you do realize most people voting probably have no f***ing clue what an earmark is?

Roy probably doesn't even know what an earmark is.

[penchief]

Bullshit. It's politics as usual.

Change, my ass.

Negative campaigning works and the republicans have won the last two campaigns by perfecting it. Should Obama sit back and allow Karl Rove and his disciples to steal another one? Doesn't Obama owe it to his constituents and the American people to win this thing? It's kind of a catch 22. Change can't come when you don't hold the cards.

I don't like the negative campaigning either but it isn't going to end until the right wing smear machine is put down.

[penchief]

I expected this, it will get ugly the rest of the way.

Obama has some pretty damaging stuff as well .......

Let the voters decide.

Found something else out tonight, Obama has been in the senate for around 950 days, he has requested 932 million dollars of earmarks for his state, district, etc.

McCain has been in the senate over 7000 days and has requested 0 dollars of earmarks .

And Obama is suppose to clean up the economy ?

That's funny right there, I don't care who you are.

Deregulation and corporate welfare have been more harmful than earmarks. And McCain is touting his pro-deregulation record and pro-corporate welfare record. That speaks volumes about how McCain is going to clean up the economy. More of the same.

[J Diddy]

Roy probably doesn't even know what an earmark is.

It's the indention one leaves on their pillow perhaps.

[BigRedChief]

Ayers is a non-story. Just look at the facts.
uhhhh Willie Horton, swift boats....truth doesn't set you free in polititcs when you are close to the election.

You can't take the high road. You have to respond.

[ROYC75]

Deregulation and corporate welfare have been more harmful than earmarks. And McCain is touting his pro-deregulation record and pro-corporate welfare record. That speaks volumes about how McCain is going to clean up the economy. More of the same.


You fear something that will be a non issue. This latest crap, err, bailout is evidence that McCain has to make sure shit is regulated, any president has to do this. It was McCain and a few others in 2005 that brought it up over F & F but the dems blocked it in the house.

Wanna try again ?

Having a liberal loon in the WH with his socialist ideology is a guarantee for further disaster in America.

[dirk digler]

You fear something that will be a non issue. This latest crap, err, bailout is evidence that McCain has to make sure shit is regulated, any president has to do this. It was McCain and a few others in 2005 that brought it up over F & F but the dems blocked it in the house.

Wanna try again ?

Having a liberal loon in the WH with his socialist ideology is a guarantee for further disaster in America.

History doesn't prove that accurate. Starting with Keating 5 McCain has voted against regulation almost every time.

[Ultra Peanut]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five

"The Ethics Committee ruled that the involvement of McCain in the scheme was also minimal, and he too was cleared of all charges against him... Because his major violations occurred outside of their jurisdiction, in the House of Representatives.

A federal criminal getting you elected is totally the same as a land deal with a next-door neighbor, right? Guys? Right?

CINDYYYYYYYYY STOP THIS CRAZY THING

[ROYC75]

History doesn't prove that accurate. Starting with Keating 5 McCain has voted against regulation every time.


That's where you are wrong ....... McCain has always wanted the private sector to blossom and has wanted government to keep out of it, but with some restrictions in place to stop the scams and cheating. The Keating 5 incident was a shameful act that taught him to watch things more closely and not to be involved in this crap.

Re-Check your history with the facts.

[Ultra Peanut]

Bullshit. It's politics as usual.

Change, my ass.Fighting back against slanderous charges by making note of the very real connections your opponent has to shady people: HURRR BOTH SIDES R SAME

Try something other than South Park logic sometimes.

[penchief]

You fear something that will be a non issue. This latest crap, err, bailout is evidence that McCain has to make sure shit is regulated, any president has to do this. It was McCain and a few others in 2005 that brought it up over F & F but the dems blocked it in the house.

Wanna try again ?

Having a liberal loon in the WH with his socialist ideology is a guarantee for further disaster in America.

Earmarks are a non-issue compared to deregulation and corporate welfare. Corporate welfare is rampant and costs the country far more than the general welfare does. At least with the general welfare there is a reasonable return on the investment instead of just throwing great gobs of money at business crooks and war profiteers who have no interest in America's well-being, only their own.

Plus, John McCain wants to deregulate corporate health care the way he helped deregulate Wall Street bankers. He said so himself.

Also, regulation needs to be restored on many more fronts than just banking.

Earmarks is the bogus issue. And McCain is hoping it will divert attention away from the real economic issues and the real causes for our current predicament: corporate welfare, deregulation, trickle down class warfare, and corruption.

[dirk digler]

That's where you are wrong ....... McCain has always wanted the private sector to blossom and has wanted government to keep out of it, but with some restrictions in place to stop the scams and cheating. The Keating 5 incident was a shameful act that taught him to watch things more closely and not to be involved in this crap.

Re-Check your history with the facts.

Really?

Writes the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/16/AR2008091603732.html?hpid=topnews&sub=AR):

A decade ago, Sen. John McCain embraced legislation to broadly deregulate the banking and insurance industries, helping to sweep aside a thicket of rules established over decades in favor of a less restricted financial marketplace that proponents said would result in greater economic growth.
...
In 2002, McCain introduced a bill to deregulate the broadband Internet market, warning that "the potential for government interference with market forces is not limited to federal regulation." Three years earlier, McCain had joined with other Republicans to push through landmark legislation sponsored by then-Sen. Phil Gramm (Tex.), who is now an economic adviser to his campaign. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act aimed to make the country's financial institutions competitive by removing the Depression-era walls between banking, investment and insurance companies.
That bill allowed AIG to participate in the gold rush of a rapidly expanding global banking and investment market. But the legislation also helped pave the way for companies such as AIG and Lehman Brothers to become behemoths laden with bad loans and investments.
...
McCain has not always opposed government regulation. He supported efforts to allow the Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco. And he pushed to strengthen the Sarbanes-Oxley Act requirements, which were put in place after the accounting scandals involving Enron and other major firms.
But he has usually reverted to the role of an unabashed deregulator. In 2007, he told a group of bloggers on a conference call that he regretted his vote on the Sarbanes-Oxley bill, which has been castigated by many executives as too heavy-handed.
In the 1990s, he backed an unsuccessful effort to create a moratorium on all new government regulation. And in 1996, he was one of only five senators to oppose a comprehensive telecommunications act, saying it did not go far enough in deregulating the industry.
"I'm always for less regulation," he told the Wall Street Journal in March. He added: "I'd like to see a lot of the unnecessary government regulations eliminated."

[ROYC75]

Earmarks are a non-issue compared to deregulation and corporate welfare. Corporate welfare is rampant and costs the country far more than the general welfare does. At least with the general welfare there is a reasonable return on the investment instead of just throwing great gobs of money at business crooks and war profiteers who have no interest in America's well-being, only their own.

Plus, John McCain wants to deregulate corporate health care the way he helped deregulate Wall Street bankers. He said so himself.

Also, regulation needs to be restored on many more fronts than just banking.

Earmarks is the bogus issue. And McCain is hoping it will divert attention away from the real economic issues and the real causes for our current predicament: corporate welfare, deregulation, trickle down class warfare, and corruption.


OK, you believe in anything I see here ........ I have some ocean front property in Arizona, you wanna buy it ?

Come on Pete, No president alive, no future President could have stopped what was going to happen after 911 . Get a grip, we were destine to economic hardship because of it. Experts at the time said we could suffer from it.

Costly Wars
Fannie & Freddie
Troubled banks
Increasing supply and demand for oil.
The rising cost of inflations, our dollar.

It was all set up for a meltdown, Bin Laden seen this long ago. Experts did to and warned of it when Bin Laden made numerous attempt at the WTC before 911. He knew that to bring America to it's knees was thru finances, what better way was it than the WTC ?

Go ahead and blame Bush all you want, as imperfect as Bush was in somethings,it's not all on his shoulders.

[ROYC75]

Really?


Selective ? Where is the bill that he was co - sponsored brought up the regulation of F & F in 2005 ?

[dirk digler]

Selective ? Where is the bill that he was co - sponsored brought up the regulation of F & F in 2005 ?

Cmon Roy. Yes he has supported some regulation but 90% of the time he votes against more regulation. It is just a fact.

He even stated he wanted to deregulate the banking industry even more and see where that got us.

[Iowanian]

So much for Hoperah being "above this stuff".

Good. Get the dirt out.

I can't see how Dems can say much though.....you've elected Marion Berry after he was caught with coke and hookers, Ted Kennedy after he Killed poor Mary, Barney Frank after he ran a boi-prostitution ring from his home and on and on.

Hell....McCain would probably gain some street credibility if he'd get caught taking a hit off of pipe, he could then claim Obama's experience in the drug issues in the debate.

I agree with the left on some mud though.....Bush did cocain, and he's been a failure in most eyes....Why vote for another former coke-snorter-American in Obama?

[BigRedChief]

Over the weekend, John McCain's top adviser announced their plan to stop engaging in a debate over the economy and "turn the page" to more direct, personal attacks on Barack Obama.

In the middle of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, they want to change the subject from the central question of this election. Perhaps because the policies McCain supported these past eight years and wants to continue are pretty hard to defend.

But it's not just McCain's role in the current crisis that they're avoiding. The backward economic philosophy and culture of corruption that helped create the current crisis are looking more and more like the other major financial crisis of our time.

During the savings and loan crisis of the late '80s and early '90s, McCain's political favors and aggressive support for deregulation put him at the center of the fall of Lincoln Savings and Loan, one of the largest in the country. More than 23,000 investors lost their savings. Overall, the savings and loan crisis required the federal government to bail out the savings of hundreds of thousands of families and ultimately cost American taxpayers $124 billion.

Sound familiar?

In that crisis, John McCain and his political patron, Charles Keating, played central roles that ultimately landed Keating in jail for fraud and McCain in front of the Senate Ethics Committee. The McCain campaign has tried to avoid talking about the scandal, but with so many parallels to the current crisis, McCain's Keating history is relevant and voters deserve to know the facts -- and see for themselves the pattern of poor judgment by John McCain.

So at noon Eastern on Monday, October 6th, we're releasing a 13-minute documentary about the scandal called "Keating Economics: John McCain and the Making of a Financial Crisis" -- it will be available at KeatingEconomics.com (http://keatingeconomics.com/), along with background information that every voter should know.

Watch a preview right now and share it with your friends. (http://my.barackobama.com/page/m2/55c13552/50743095/6d6cbf17/1188b949/3290373524/VEsE/)

The point of the film and the web site is that John McCain still hasn't learned his lesson.

And this time, McCain's bankrupt economic philosophy has put our economy at the brink of collapse and put millions of Americans at risk of losing their homes.

Watch the video to see why John McCain's failed philosophy and poor judgment is a recipe for deepening the crisis:

http://my.barackobama.com/keatingvideo (http://my.barackobama.com/page/m2/55c13552/50743095/6d6cbf17/1188b949/3290373524/VEsF/)

It's no wonder John McCain would rather spend the last month of this election smearing Barack's character instead of talking about the top priority issue for voters.

But if we work together, we can make sure the focus stays on the economy -- and how to fix it.

Please forward this email to everyone you know.

Thanks,

David

David Plouffe
Campaign Manager
Obama for America

[ROYC75]

Cmon Roy. Yes he has supported some regulation but 90% of the time he votes against more regulation. It is just a fact.

He even stated he wanted to deregulate the banking industry even more and see where that got us.


I agree with some of this, but your previous post was ...... every time.

Which I disagreed with .

Neither of these 2 are perfect ....... But Obama scares me in many ways more than McCain does.

[DaKCMan AP]

OK, you believe in anything I see here ........ I have some ocean front property in Arizona, you wanna buy it ?

Come on Pete, No president alive, no future President could have stopped what was going to happen after 911 . Get a grip, we were destine to economic hardship because of it. Experts at the time said we could suffer from it.

Costly Wars
Fannie & Freddie
Troubled banks
Increasing supply and demand for oil.
The rising cost of inflations, our dollar.

It was all set up for a meltdown, Bin Laden seen this long ago. Experts did to and warned of it when Bin Laden made numerous attempt at the WTC before 911. He knew that to bring America to it's knees was thru finances, what better way was it than the WTC ?

Go ahead and blame Bush all you want, as imperfect as Bush was in somethings,it's not all on his shoulders.

Any competent administration would have avoided a costly, unnecessary war in Iraq based upon false pretenses. That is squarely upon Bush's shoulders.

[BigRedChief]

Any competent administration would have avoided a costly, unnecessary war in Iraq based upon false pretenses. That is squarely upon Bush's shoulders.
Correct, terroism, 9/11 not George W.'s fault but Iraq is and was his baby. $10 billion a month for years and for what? help a bunch of people that hate us to get rid of a dictator?

[Ultra Peanut]

Correct, terroism, 9/11 not George W.'s fault but Iraq is and was his baby. $10 billion a month for years and for what? help a bunch of people that hate us to get rid of a dictator?And provide a wonderful opportunity for angry young men to finally funnel their frustrations into action by coming to Iraq and fighting Americans. We created them.

That definitely made us safer.

[WilliamTheIrish]

$10 billion a month X 6 years in March = *drumroll* 720 billion. Yet, when asked about that figure, some will pooh-pooh that saying: "It's only 3.4% of the GDP".

Amazing.

[ROYC75]

LOL So Obot thinks that since this happened, McCain will let it happen again.

So much for learning from your mistakes ?

[irishjayhawk]

I kinda get the strategy. You can't just let McCain's campaign tie Ayers around his neck. By throwing Keating out there and McCain throwing Ayers out there, they effectively negate each other. It's probably a safer move strategically than to sit back and hope people see through McCain's attacks.

I get the strategy behind it. However, there's something to be said by taking the high road, and if the polls start to slip, you basically nuke it with the Keating 5 website and publicity.

However, with such a commanding lead and most people realizing that McCain is in full out panic mode, I don't see why you pull it.

Bullshit. It's politics as usual.

Change, my ass.

I agree. (Though, HolmeZz's point in his response is true as well.)

LOL So Obot thinks that since this happened, McCain will let it happen again.

So much for learning from your mistakes ?

What are you talking about?

[DaKCMan AP]

LOL So Obot thinks that since this happened, McCain will let it happen again.

So much for learning from your mistakes ?

Learning from your mistake would equal not voting for a third Bush term (McCain).

[ROYC75]

Learning from your mistake would equal not voting for a third Bush term (McCain).


Bush isn't eligible for a 3rd term .........

[penchief]

Bush isn't eligible for a 3rd term .........

No, but his policies are.

[triple]

If Barack Obama is so outraged at John McCain’s involvement in the Keating Five scandal, why is John Glenn, another Keating Five member, doing surrogate work for Obama?

Obama’s presidential campaign released a scathing documentary on Monday detailing McCain’s ties to the Savings and Loan crisis on the 1980’s. Five U.S. senators were named in the scandal: Sen. Alan Cranston (D.-Calif.), Sen. Dennis DeConcini (D.-Ariz.), Sen. John Glenn (D.-Ohio), Sen. John McCain (R.-Ariz.) and Sen. Donald Reigle (D-Minn.).

"The Keating scandal is eerily similar to today's credit crisis, where a lack of regulation and cozy relationships between the financial industry and Congress has allowed banks to make risky loans and profit by bending the rules," reads a trailer for the video on a website created by the Obama campaign to attack McCain, www.keatingeconomics.com. "And in both cases, John McCain's judgment and values have placed him on the wrong side of history.

But Obama doesn’t seem to have any quarrel with Glenn. The former Democratic Ohio senator introduced Bruce Springsteen at a benefit concert for Obama in Ohio on Sunday, October 5. He's also done other surrogate work for Obama as well. According to Obama's presidential website Glenn held a conference calls with reporters for Obama in August.

A day after Glenn urged people to register to vote for Obama in Ohio, Obama’s campaign began a multimedia campaign to remind the public McCain was one of the “Keating Five” although he was eventually cleared of all charges.

Like McCain, Glenn was also found not guilty of violating any Senate rules.

Attorney John Dowd, who represented McCain during the Senate Ethics investigation, said Senate Democrats conducted a "classic political smear job" on McCain in the Keating Five scandal.

"When it was discovered Keating was pushing too hard, he [McCain] threw Keating out of his office and ended all relations with him," Dowd said.

[ROYC75]

We have heard that McCain is desperate........

Obama is desperate since McCain is on to Obama's shady cast of characters .

[Taco John]

I'm sorry but what happened to Fight the Smears and this anti-negative ad idea?

He's got a commanding lead. Why pull this now?



In my estimation, this is the most effective move Obama can make right now. McCain is ramping up for 31 days of offensive, with the hopes that he can take Obama off message and focus his campaign on answering questions about his past. If it worked, it would utterly sink the Obama campaign because anytime someone starts to answer questions about their past, no matter how trivial, the only thing it does is raise more questions about that person's past (no matter who it is), and thus raise more doubts. That's a losing game for Obama, and that's why he's doing it.

What the Obama team has done is said, "alright, we're going to play nice - but we're going to put this Keating thing in our back pockets. If McCain is still going negative in October, then we'll hit him on Keating and force him to be the one answering the questions about his past."

It's great strategy. How it plays out with Americans might be something else though.

[BigRedChief]

What the Obama team has done is said, "alright, we're going to play nice - but we're going to put this Keating thing in our back pockets. If McCain is still going negative in October, then we'll hit him on Keating and force him to be the one answering the questions about his past."

It's great strategy. How it plays out with Americans might be something else though.
But taking the high road and getting swiftboated and Willie Hortonized hasn't worked for the dems either.

[irishjayhawk]

We have heard that McCain is desperate........

Obama is desperate since McCain is on to Obama's shady cast of characters .

Neutralizing arguments is now desperation?

[ROYC75]

Neutralizing arguments is now desperation?


Nope , I was just making a blanket statement like the dems were making prior too .

[ROYC75]

In my estimation, this is the most effective move Obama can make right now. McCain is ramping up for 31 days of offensive, with the hopes that he can take Obama off message and focus his campaign on answering questions about his past. If it worked, it would utterly sink the Obama campaign because anytime someone starts to answer questions about their past, no matter how trivial, the only thing it does is raise more questions about that person's past (no matter who it is), and thus raise more doubts. That's a losing game for Obama, and that's why he's doing it.

What the Obama team has done is said, "alright, we're going to play nice - but we're going to put this Keating thing in our back pockets. If McCain is still going negative in October, then we'll hit him on Keating and force him to be the one answering the questions about his past."

It's great strategy. How it plays out with Americans might be something else though.

Agreed, Obama has too or he can kiss his chance good bye.

[irishjayhawk]

Nope , I was just making a blanket statement like the dems were making prior too .

What?

[Silock]

I totally missed your outrage over McCain doing this. Will you please point me in the direction of your posts on that?

I'm not outraged by either of them doing it.

I'm merely pointing out that it's politics as usual and Obama is really no different than any other candidate. I don't have a problem with him doing this, as it's what campaigns all do now. I just have a problem with him saying he's running a different kind of campaign, a clean campaign, and then not doing so.

[VAChief]

We have heard that McCain is desperate........

Obama is desperate since McCain is on to Obama's shady cast of characters .

Do you really think McNasty would be bringing this up if he had something different to offer that would appeal to the American people? The only thing left he has is fear.

If I were Obama I would call him on it everytime. McNasty wants to talk about the past, parade his hookers, call girls, sluts, shady dealings and contributions with Keating for the public to see clearly. Cite the POW and veterans he served with who claim he is basically a selfish, spoiled brat.

[Silock]

How can I vote for a candidate with such questionable connections in his past?

[/bullshit artists on Obama]

The fact remains that Obama's fighting back against a charge levied against him by a bunch of people who honestly don't give a shit about the charges.

If you had a better idea for Obama at this point, I am your audience.

I'd just stay out of it. Defend yourself, but there's no reason to launch a smear campaign on McCain at this point. He's already sunk. Let him sink himself, and not drag you down with him.

[HolmeZz]

I'd just stay out of it. Defend yourself, but there's no reason to launch a smear campaign on McCain at this point. He's already sunk. Let him sink himself, and not drag you down with him.

The point isn't to drag down McCain. This is more about negating the media coverage the McCain campaign wants geared towards covering Ayers. Essentially you're muddying up the news cycle. It's not designed to swing any votes.

[Silock]

The point isn't to drag down McCain. This is more about negating the media coverage the McCain campaign wants geared towards covering Ayers. Essentially you're muddying up the news cycle. It's not designed to swing any votes.

I guess. I just don't see it being necessary.

[penchief]

LOL So Obot thinks that since this happened, McCain will let it happen again.

So much for learning from your mistakes ?

What did McCain learn from the S&L scandal and his role in the Keating Five? Nothing. Otherwise, Phil Gramm wouldn't be his economic guru.

[Taco John]

I'm not outraged by either of them doing it.

I'm merely pointing out that it's politics as usual and Obama is really no different than any other candidate. I don't have a problem with him doing this, as it's what campaigns all do now. I just have a problem with him saying he's running a different kind of campaign, a clean campaign, and then not doing so.


I think they ran a clean a campaign as anyone could hope for, especially given the drumroll of negative attacks coming out of the McCain campaign from the get-go.

Obama's campaign focused on himself and his vision for the country for the duration. The fact is, they have no choice BUT to go negative right here, given the way McCain has conducted his campaign or face losing - which is exactly what would happen if they tried to stay on the high road at this point. The Obama team has to have a strategy to take the focus off the negative mud-slinging your opponent is doing. Does anyone see any way around this?

[Taco John]

I'd just stay out of it. Defend yourself, but there's no reason to launch a smear campaign on McCain at this point. He's already sunk. Let him sink himself, and not drag you down with him.


I'm sorry, but I just can't accept this.

The very second, in that moment, that Obama takes the focus off of his message and starts to personally answer questions about his past, he will have lost the election. Going out and "defending himself" is the recipe to lose at this point. It's parodoxical, but it's the truth. At this point, the more questions a presidential candidate answers about themselves, the more questions it will raise, and thus, doubt.

Whichever of these candidates is forced to start answering questions about his past - just watch - that's the candidate who will lose.

[banyon]

I'm sorry, but I just can't accept this.

The very second, in that moment, that Obama takes the focus off of his message and starts to personally answer questions about his past, he will have lost the election. Going out and "defending himself" is the recipe to lose at this point. It's parodoxical, but it's the truth. At this point, the more questions a presidential candidate answers about themselves, the more questions it will raise, and thus, doubt.

Whichever of these candidates is forced to start answering questions about his past - just watch - that's the candidate who will lose.

I agree with this totally. That was Bush's forumla for success: "I'm born again now, so that stuff don't count."

[Silock]

I'm sorry, but I just can't accept this.

The very second, in that moment, that Obama takes the focus off of his message and starts to personally answer questions about his past, he will have lost the election. Going out and "defending himself" is the recipe to lose at this point. It's parodoxical, but it's the truth. At this point, the more questions a presidential candidate answers about themselves, the more questions it will raise, and thus, doubt.

Whichever of these candidates is forced to start answering questions about his past - just watch - that's the candidate who will lose.

I just don't think anything is going to derail the Obama train at this point, not even this, but why chance it?

[Friendo]

I think they ran a clean a campaign as anyone could hope for, especially given the drumroll of negative attacks coming out of the McCain campaign from the get-go.

Obama's campaign focused on himself and his vision for the country for the duration. The fact is, they have no choice BUT to go negative right here, given the way McCain has conducted his campaign or face losing - which is exactly what would happen if they tried to stay on the high road at this point. The Obama team has to have a strategy to take the focus off the negative mud-slinging your opponent is doing. Does anyone see any way around this?

nope, but I did say that right after the RNC the Dems should have taken on the Culture War, and this is a prime example. I do believe that win or lose, they are going to have to fight that battle eventually. Fortunately Letterman and SNL are there to paint these freaks for what they are, but it's going to have to go more mainstream at some point imo. The Christian Church sure as hell ain't the source for morality. Maybe SNL can start up a "Church-mocking" segment.

[BIG_DADDY]

I'm sorry, but I just can't accept this.

The very second, in that moment, that Obama takes the focus off of his message and starts to personally answer questions about his past, he will have lost the election. Going out and "defending himself" is the recipe to lose at this point. It's parodoxical, but it's the truth. At this point, the more questions a presidential candidate answers about themselves, the more questions it will raise, and thus, doubt.

Whichever of these candidates is forced to start answering questions about his past - just watch - that's the candidate who will lose.

McCain is still going to win

[Silock]

McCain is still going to win

I seriously doubt it, unless the Bradley effect goes into overdrive.

[|Zach|]

McCain is still going to win

Big Daddy...hard at work making an Obama presidency more likely by his great insight alone!

http://www.popandpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/crystal-ball.jpg

Are you excited?

Hail to the Chief.

http://www.gemzies.com/upload/page_thumb/barack_obama.jpg

[Dave Lane]

So much for Hoperah being "above this stuff".

Good. Get the dirt out.

I can't see how Dems can say much though.....you've elected Marion Berry after he was caught with coke and hookers, Ted Kennedy after he Killed poor Mary, Barney Frank after he ran a boi-prostitution ring from his home and on and on.

Hell....McCain would probably gain some street credibility if he'd get caught taking a hit off of pipe, he could then claim Obama's experience in the drug issues in the debate.

I agree with the left on some mud though.....Bush did cocain, and he's been a failure in most eyes....Why vote for another former coke-snorter-American in Obama?

You think McCain hasn't???? Dude :)

[BIG_DADDY]

Big Daddy...hard at work making an Obama presidency more likely by his great insight alone!

http://www.popandpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/crystal-ball.jpg

Are you excited?

Hail to the Chief.

http://www.gemzies.com/upload/page_thumb/barack_obama.jpg

Don't worry I am sure you will still get to marry your boyfriend sometime soon.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

McCain is still going to win

How about 4000 dollars in Casino cash and a year's worth of avatar ownership to back that up?

[|Zach|]

Don't worry I am sure you will still get to marry your boyfriend sometime soon.

So, on top of being a bad prediction guy you are unaware of the canidates' positions on issues?

Double threat over here.

[BIG_DADDY]

So, on top of being a bad prediction guy you are unaware of the canidates' positions on issues?

Double threat over here.

They are both against gay marriage. Doesn't change why you don't like the right.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

They are both against gay marriage. Doesn't change why you don't like the right.

Sometimes, I almost feel sorry for you...

[|Zach|]

They are both against gay marriage. Doesn't change why you don't like the right.

And it makes you sound like a bigger idiot to bring it up because it has no relevance.

Not everyone is a one issue guy like yourself. Maybe you are too busy creating faux fear and dramatic falsehoods to look into other issues than gun control?

[BIG_DADDY]

And it makes you sound like a bigger idiot to bring it up because it has no relevance.

Not everyone is a one issue guy like yourself. Maybe you are too busy creating faux fear and dramatic falsehoods to look into other issues than gun control?

I have listed all the areas I don't like both candidates on more than once.

[VAChief]

And it makes you sound like a bigger idiot to bring it up because it has no relevance.

Not everyone is a one issue guy like yourself. Maybe you are too busy creating faux fear and dramatic falsehoods to look into other issues than gun control?

McCain will take away your porn!

[Taco John]

I just don't think anything is going to derail the Obama train at this point, not even this, but why chance it?


Because your wrong. At least in my opinion. McCain doesn't need to derail the Obama campaign. He needs to create *just* enough doubt to carry the right combination of states. An Obama victory is not sealed until the votes are counted.

[bango]

Because your wrong. At least in my opinion. McCain doesn't need to derail the Obama campaign. He needs to create *just* enough doubt to carry the right combination of states. An Obama victory is not sealed until the votes are counted.

I have to agree with TJ. There is only one month left. There is still a month left. A lot can happen in one month. Like many people I do think that this is Obamas to lose.

[jidar]

Oh sweet, it's a Big Daddy rape party. I don't feel bad for him though, he deserves it.
He brings this shit on himself with his double digit IQ inspired insights into complex systems.

[irishjayhawk]

I seriously doubt it, unless the Bradley effect goes into overdrive.

Nate of 538 had a pretty good summary on why the Bradley effect is no longer an issue.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/08/persistent-myth-of-bradley-effect.html

[|Zach|]

McCain is still going to win

Bump.

Ya know, for the kids.

[Silock]

Nate of 538 had a pretty good summary on why the Bradley effect is no longer an issue.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/08/persistent-myth-of-bradley-effect.html

I agree that I don't think it will be an issue. I was merely making the point that that's the ONLY way that Obama will lose now, and it'd have to be crazygonewildoverboard.

[DaneMcCloud]

Sometimes, I almost feel sorry for you...

Never feel sorry for someone who's made decision to put themselves in their position.