But you would agree that he was a POW, right?

McCain's myth of "honor" is finally being shown to be just that -- a self-made myth.

His behavior in Vietnam was NOT honorable. He broke and gave information to the enemy.

Not the name of the defensive line of the Pittsburg Steelers OR the Green Bay Packers, but names of his command.

I'm sure he was under extreme pain, and I don't condone that and I feel sorry for him, but there is NO corroboration of his stories of what happened to him in prison, and there IS independent evidence that he collaborated with the enemy there.

His "maverick" status in Congress is due to his unwillingness to "go along" with this party, but he's unwilling to "go along" with ANYONE else. It is and always has been his way or the highway.

He is the most petulant, emotionally stunted, quick to anger person I have ever seen run for the office of President. He's worse than Perot OR Bush II.

His campaign perfectly reflects his personality, as does Obama's.

It HAS worked with some voters, though, by reinforcing the "Otherness" of Obama. In that respect, the fact that it's all over the map hasn't hurt -- it's yet another reason you should be scared of him.

I was at a family reunion this weekend and had rational people asking me why I wasn't "scared" of Obama. And after explaining why I was scared of Republicans and Republicanism, and how it really couldn't get any worse -- with which they generally agreed -- they would still ask, but aren't you scared of Obama?

They want to be scared, and they'll grab at any reason to justify that.

Yes.
.

I'm not sure about this...

Is it sleazier to admit to attack ads or to pretend you aren't responsible?

I think it matters that swiftboating was approved of at the highest levels. If it was, I think full credit for sleaze goes to that campaign.

I'd also wonder if Bush 2000 didn't qualify given the accusations of interracial love against McCain. Racist-baiting AND salaciousness. It's two, two, two irrelevant sleazy topics in one!

I mean, let's be fair, if McCain wins this contest, it's by a nose.

Has the media acknowledged to itself that the image of McCain they had tried to pass off on the public was of their own creation?

McCain's claim to have bucked his party, seems to counter his spectacle of pointing out that Obama had not done the same of his own.

Acknowledging your parties failures does not necessarily correlate with the qualities of the opposing party. One might suggest that if one (R) were wrong, the other (D) might be right; hence no need for the candidate to oppose his party's leadership.

But I'd never expect the republicans to think through any line of attack.

In my guest post to this guy's blog last week, I rebutted all this "disgraceful campaign" nonsense in my trademark mavericky way.

They have settled on one consistent message, however, which is that Obama is a negro, and that seems to have considerable traction as the campaign collapses onto the Republican base of racists, religious fanatics, and general ignorant louts.

McAint aint a 'maverick' or 'hero'! What he IS is a protected son of influencial lineage - how else could you account for him ditching SEVEN PLANES and STILL be allowed to fly? If it had been you or me, we would have been grounded after the second ditch at the latest! Besides, he caved in to the enemy something like 3 months into his ordeal and squealed like a pig. (I am not dissing him for this, because I do not know how *I* would have reacted if I had been in his place!) They featured him in numerous propaganda movies.

Actually, Thomas Jefferson ran the nastiest, sleaziest campaign in history. In fact, if there had been decent libel and slander laws, John Adams could've put Jefferson in the poorhouse.

Not arguing. Just sayin' ... ;-)

What I find most dangerous is the aftermath of this ugliness -- McCain, and the GOP in general, is doing everything he can to make sure an Obama presidency is seen as illegitimate by his core supporters (read: insane morons).

Lying about ACORN, lying about "paling around with terrorists," stoking xenophobia and racism ... all are being done not to defeat Obama in two weeks, but to hang a cloud over his presidency.

If you all think what the right did to Clinton was ugly, just wait until you see what these folks will do to Obama.

Read more about McBush: http://groups.google.com/group/total_truth_sciences/browse_thread/thread/a8593239684ca3dc

"I was at a family reunion this weekend and had rational people asking me why I wasn't "scared" of Obama."

That means, "You know, he's black."

I'm not sure I'd say McCain's campaign is working. The people its working with would have problems with Obama's race if he was running unopposed. McCain's campaign gives them cover to be "scared" or "concerned" rather tham merely racist.

In a way its good that this poison is be flushed out into the open. I think there are a whole lot more people who feel a sence of shame over rather than agreement with McCain's campaign.

McCain... any relationship to the biblical Cain (and Abel)? Just wondering, since he is such a traitor himself...

To (Not really) John McCain. Ooh that was good! I can not wait for the insiders to start spillin' the beans after McNasty is sent back to Arizona and Caribou Barbie goes back to slaughtering wolves. It will be a bloodbath of fingerpointing.

The basic problem for McCain is that the politics of biography are, ultimately, a dead end. You can only extol your character, heroism and judgment so much before people begin to feel cut off from the narcissitic drift of the monologue. Like or not, politics is always about real things, not just daydreams of personal glory. This is where McCain failed: he never linked his own story to the tangible, nuts-and-bolts policies that impact the lives of real people. Rather, he kept sroking his own laurel wreath when he did talk about issues. This is why he's so angry. Issues are supposed to reflect favorably on himself, regardless of their political merit. It's not so much a campaign strategy he devised as a primal scream of entitlement.

"I've suggested more than once that the McCain/Palin campaign is the most dishonest of the last few decades. Today, Josh Marshall goes further, calling the Republican campaign the sleaziest of the last 35 years"

Is that really "further"? I always thought that a few was about 3-5, so a few decades should be 30-50 years, whassa difference?

And the obvious point is that the substance of the attacks themselves didn't really matter since they were dropped as soon as they were proven not to work. So, the only thing that mattered was finding something that stuck. Which, again, just goes to show how unprincipled the McCain campaign is. William Ayers is "just a washed up terrorist" so let's talk about William Ayers. Or not.

Ever since the conventions, I've been expecting the really ugly ads from the 527's to start. But they don't seem to have started yet.

Is McCain being forced to the 527's dirty work himself because the 527s don't have much money in this election cycle? It's a fact that Boone Pickens has cut back his scheduled donations to Oklahoma State University because of current economic conditions.

Or is the worst still to come, in the week before election day?

The problem with the McCain campaign is the attempt to stoke the fires of ignorance and fear.

Ignorant folks can't fathom the fact that someone with different levels of melanin in their skin is also human.

Fearful folks believe that some humans are something less.

We live on a planet with billions of others. Stoking the flames of ignorance and fear does nothing to help us gather 'round the same fire pit and respect our differences.

The fault of the McCainites is to think that dividing us all is the only way to conquer the hearts of (enough) voters.

You could be right, although for once we've got a candidate who is prepared for that.

I think it is time to let the McCain/Palin sleave machine just run on, without our comment. Where the effort is most needed is with the MSM, the corporate-run media and its darlings. Let us start slashing and burning the mouthpieces, including Tom Brokaw, Bob Shieffer(sp), Jim Lehrer, Chris Wallace and their owners: CBS, NBC(including MSNBC, who "balances" the Maddows and Oblermann's with Andrea Mitchell, Buchanan, Gregory, Chris Matthews, etc)ABC, FOX, AP and YahooNews. The "fact" that McCain/Palin is running a close race with Obama/Biden is totally the result of the false and biased/unbalanced reporting of their campaigns. The Socialist meme on Obama is to over the top as to be ludicrous. I don't even think the reporters/news readers even know what socialism is vs. Socialism/Communism. There needs to be a FactCheck on every news report issued.

I highly recommend all who read this blog to write you favorite MSM operator and tell them you are ceasing watching them and let them know where you are getting your "real" news: The Washington Monthly, Salon.com(ugh), HuffPost, Pacifica, etc.
Just some thoughts,
peace,
st john

But you would agree that he was a POW, right?

I don't often agree with Michael Moore, but I heard him on C-SPAN over the weekend, saying, if John Kerry's war record was fair game, don't dare tell me that McCain's isn't.

I guess I'm so used to blatant, insulting levels of hypocrisy from the right that this point just passed me by. It's kind of obvious. :)

Arguing over whether McCain 2008 is more or less sleazy than Bush 2004, Bush 2000 or Bush 1992 is nit picking.

They are all sleazy.

In particular, McCain 2008 is following almost exactly the script followed by Bush 2000 and Bush 2004:

1. Run a campaign of filthy sleazy character assassination and lies against the opponent combined with blatant, preposterous lies about one's self ("compassionate conservative" and "reformer with results" in 2000; "strong commander in chief keeping America safe" in 2004; "maverick" and "reformer" in 2008).

2. Count on the corporate-owned mass media working in close cooperation with the Republican Party and the openly partisan right-wing media to transmit #1 to the electorate.

3. Count on #1 and #2 to get you close enough to steal the election with voter disenfranchisement, intimidation, obstruction and fraud.

This three-part plan worked for Bush in 2000 and 2004 and it is not at all clear at this point that it won't work for McCain. If the election is close, the Republicans have already positioned themselves to steal it with disenfranchisement and fraud schemes that will dwarf Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004.

If Obama is to become president, he will have to win with a theft-proof margin in a massive blowout. With the polls tightening, that's not at all a sure thing.

Aw c'mon. I respect you guys, but worse than Ronald Reagan, who started his campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi, where three civil rights workers were murdered by the Klan? Who called his campaign "Morning In America" and then proceeded to turn out the lights?

Worse than George Jr., who let Karl Rove provide the model for all this?

Worse than George "I'll stand in the doorway" Wallace, who actually was considered a mainstream candidate in some parts of the country?

Worse than "I have in my hand" Tailgunner Joe McCarthy, who was as much a war hero as Joe the Plumber is a plumber? Worse than "Pink Lady" Nixon and Lee Atwater?

No, all these guys (and some gals) are of a piece. The McCain campaign is just a little more desperate because the same old stuff is finally wearing thin. What's inspiring is that, outside of the base, which they have already, none of this stuff is sticking. People don't care. They're so scared of the immediate threats before them that this bs doesn't seem as scary as it once did. And they're used to it. We all are.

Huh? Why is it sleazy to say Obama is too inexperienced to be President. Quite possibly it's hypocritical, given Palin choice, but it's certainly a legitimate point of debate.

Why is it sleazy to say Obama is a partisan Democrat? This is not a DLC-type Democratic who's pushed back on Liberal groups. Obama should be able to defend his positions.

Why is it sleazy to argue Obama holds positions that most folks serving in Iraw would oppose? It's irrelevant (soldiers dont get extra votes), but it's not sleazy.

I'll grant you the sex ed ad is sleazy.

Why is it sleazy to accuse Obama of poor judgement in working with Ayers? It might not be compelling, but if McCain been on a bunch of committees with David Duke, I'm sure it would be a legitimate discussion.

Why is it sleazy to call Obama a socialist? From all his rhetoric, Obama does not sound like a fan of capitalism. "Spreading the wealth around" (as opposed to "equality of opportunity") has the whiff of socialism about it. Let Obama defend his ideas.

There is a very nasty tendency toward authoritarinism on the left this year. Any hint the other guy is engaging in "politics" draws accusations of sleaziness.

Very sad.

========================
Obama's a rookie. That didn't work? OK, he's a "celebrity." That didn't work? How about, he's a partisan Democrat who won't stand up to his party. Nothing? All right, he's insufficiently supportive of the troops. Or he's a pervert who wants to bring sex-ed to kindergarteners. Or a terrorist-sympathizer. Or he's a socialist. All the while, the subtext of McCain/Palin rhetoric vacillated between Obama's race, patriotism, and/or being "foreign," but it's never come together in a coherent way.
========================

Obama needs a margin that is not just theft-proof, but is beyond accusation of having itself been achieved by theft. The Republicans are already laying the groundwork for this with the accusations against ACORN and of broader voter fraud.

There will be a group that will swear there is fraud no matter what - probably about the same percentage as the dead-enders who still approve of Bush - but if the election is close enough for these voting fraud accusations to seem possibly plausible to a larger group, it will hurt Obama's ability to govern by undermining his legitimacy.

Sleaziest? It's a matter of taste, but the key thing to understand is that the McCain approach is evidence of Obama's strength as a candidate. Bush 2004 stuck with swift boats because that was enough. McCain 2008 veers wildly because nothing really sticks. The same thing is behind the constant negative din from McCain's advertising. McCain's positive message—whatever that might be—has no traction. Who wants to hear about his health plan, or his promise to load the Supreme Court with anti-choice justices, or anything else he has to offer? What can you do when the negatives don't stick and the positives don't attract?

By the way, I can imagine McCain thinking it is more honorable to put his name on the attack than to use the anonymous smears that W used against him. The butter-wouldn't-melt-in-my-mouth style really isn't any less sleazy than being open about what you're doing.

Pinata politics...I love it. Hope it sticks as a meme.

Thanks Steve for articulating my thoughts.

I think it's degenerated to a point that it's become less about whether or not one is attracted to the Obama-Biden ticket; at this point the McCain-Palin vitriole has become abusive, offensive and insulting to our intelligence and values as a nation.

kaplan37 wrote: "Why is it sleazy to accuse Obama of poor judgement in working with Ayers?"

I will agree that it is not "sleazy" to attack Obama for working with Ayers, as soon as John McCain denounces and repudiates Leonore Annenberg -- who in addition to endorsing John McCain for president, was a close personal friend of Ronald Reagan, served in Reagan's State Department, and hired Bill Ayers to serve on the board of her foundation's education reform project where Obama worked with him.

By the way, I think concern trolls like yourself are also sleazy.

Kaplan: I think Obama has been defending his positions.

But to your larger point - I think what's being called "sleazy" here is (a) all of the blatant, provable lying that both McCain and Palin have done, and (b) the divisive rhetoric being used by the campaign to paint Obama as foreign, muslim, sympathetic to terrorists, and all the rest.

Interpreting "knows a former terrorist" to mean "approves of terrorism" is sleazy.

Suggesting that muslims are foreign and aren't to be trusted is pretty blatantly racist, and thus, sleazy.

When Palin says that Obama "doesn't see America as we do", she's not talking about his policies or even his judgment, but is instead portraying him as a subversive and anti-American. That's sleazy.

And I'm sorry, but you have to be essentially an anarchist to think that taxes are socialist. The idea that Obama's policies amount to socialism is ridiculous, so it's not being advanced for its merit. Given the way that socialism is viewed by the right (ie, not in theoretical terms, but in demonizing ways), saying that Obama is a "socialist" only serves one purpose. You're right people should be able to discuss economic theory like adults - but people who chant "socialist! socialist!" don't qualify. Giving these loons something both false and inflamatory to chant is sleazy.

HTH.

This is not fair. For five years, John McCain could not run a sleazy, smear campaign.

kaplan37 wrote: "Why is it sleazy to accuse Obama of poor judgement in working with Ayers?"

It's not sleazy. IT'S FUCKING STUPID TO DO SO.

I mean, what's so wrong with working with a citizen of the year for Chicago who just received millions of dollars from a Republican-funded foundation?

Do you have an IQ above room temperature?

kaplan37--

Why is it sleazy to say Obama is too inexperienced to be President. Quite possibly it's hypocritical, given Palin choice, but it's certainly a legitimate point of debate.

It's sleazy for two reasons:

1.) Obama has just as much executive experience as McCain has. McCain may have more political experience, but that wasn't the angle. The angle was that, somehow, McCain had more executive leadership experience. He doesn't.

2.) McCain proved he didn't really give a crap about experience with the Palin pick.

In other words, McCain willingly lied and tried to paint his opponent in a false light based on that lie. In my world, lying is sleazy. Maybe it's not in yours ... ?

Why is it sleazy to say Obama is a partisan Democrat? This is not a DLC-type Democratic who's pushed back on Liberal groups. Obama should be able to defend his positions.

Being a "partisan Democrat" isn't sleazy. What is sleazy is McCain and others on the right acting like it is. They do the same with the whole "He's a Muslim!" thing, acting as if something is bad when, in reality, it's not. In fact, 40% of Americans consider themselves Democrats, while only 30% consider themselves Republicans. If anything, the GOP's cries of "He's a liberal!" only help Obama.

And Obama has constantly -- and effectively -- defended his positions time and time again. McCain, on the other hand, has not -- all he does when questioned is turn around and attack Obama, or the person asking the question.

Why is it sleazy to argue Obama holds positions that most folks serving in Iraw [sic] would oppose?

It's sleazy because, over here in reality, troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan are donating to Obama 6 to 1. Officers and retired service members support McCain more often, but those who have actually been in Iraq or Afghanistan are supporting Obama.

That says a lot.

I'll grant you the sex ed ad is sleazy.

Good to know you at least recognize overt sleaze. Either that, or even you couldn't defend it.

Why is it sleazy to accuse Obama of poor judgement [sic] in working with Ayers? It might not be compelling, but if McCain been on a bunch of committees with David Duke, I'm sure it would be a legitimate discussion.

Because Obama only "worked with Ayers" on the board of a non-profit. That's it. The guy has zero influence on policy. None.

Also, the non-profit board not only had Republicans on it, but was also funded by a guy who supports McCain!

So ... if it's okay for McCain to question Obama about Ayers, then it's okay for Obama to question McCain's association with Annenburg. After all, Annenburg hired Ayers, and Annenburg supports McCain. Using McCain's (and your) "logic," McCain pals around with folks who fund terrorists.

Also, I haven't heard much about McCain being buddies with G. Gordon Liddy (convicted felon who gave advice on how to kill FBI agents) ... or Charles Keating ... or Pastor Hagee ... or lobbyists for Saddam Hussein ... or many, many others.

So, yes, continually bringing up something proven to be a non-issue, that has proven to be nothing of importance, and continuing to act as if it's a huge deal, is sleazy.

(Oh, and I have links for the McCain associations I listed for those interested. Not sure how WashMon handles links.)

Why is it sleazy to call Obama a socialist?

The 1950s called. They want their fear mongering back.

**rolls eyes**

It's simple, really: Those using the term have no fucking clue of its definition.

Please tell me where, exactly, Obama has said he wants the government to overtake all means of production. Until that happens, the cries of "Socialist!" do nothing but expose the ignorance of the person yelling it.

Oh, and progressive taxation is not "socialism." Anyone who says otherwise should read a history book or do some study on economic issues before commenting. (Or, they could go ahead and comment and look like an ignorant tool. Their choice.)

There is a very nasty tendency toward authoritarinism [sic] on the left this year. Any hint the other guy is engaging in "politics" draws accusations of sleaziness.

And there is a very nasty tendency toward willful ignorance, hate and racism on the right this year. Any hint of the other guy engaging in "policy" draws vicious attacks based in fantasy land.

Very sad.

Very pathetic.

kaplan37: "Why is it sleazy to accuse Obama of poor judgement in working with Ayers?"

gwangung: It's not sleazy. IT'S FUCKING STUPID TO DO SO.

Yes. Questioning Obama's judgment with respect to Ayres is stupid. But what Kaplan doesn't understand is that this is not why Ayres is being brought up. McCain/Palin aren't questioning is judgment, they're saying that Ayers means that Obama is sympathetic to terrorism.

And THAT is what's sleazy.

Grand Moff, this is where Obama blew it in drying up money for left-leaning 527s like MoveOn.

Sarah Palin's pregnancy lies should have been 527-ed long ago.

Kaplan 37, I've got a different critique, as a left liberal.

Obama WILL BE, sadly, a Bill Clinton neoliberal. Calling him a socialist is untrue, whether sleazy or not.

Iraq positions? You're making a lot of assumptions about what grunts in Iraq do and do not believe.

Mark D, the 1800 campaign had PLENTY of Adams side sleaze. Jefferson was repeatedly called an atheist, for example.

Add to this Palin doing robocalls voiceovers herself.

McCain's myth of "honor" is finally being shown to be just that -- a self-made myth.

But it wasn't Obama who destroyed McCain's self-made myths. He was much to generous a candidate to do that. After all, it would only cheapen his victory. No, having his myths exposed was one thing John McCain accomplished entirely on his own.

Mark D, the 1800 campaign had PLENTY of Adams side sleaze. Jefferson was repeatedly called an atheist, for example.

Well, to be sure, there was nastiness on both sides.

But much like this election, it's a matter of degrees -- what Jefferson had written and said about Adams was lightyear's worse than what Adams did, much like some of Obama's questionable ads (e.g. the whole "McCain doesn't know how to use a computer") are nowhere near as scumbaggish as McCain's (insinuating Obama is a pedophile).

But yes -- no one's hands were truly clean. Thanks for the update.

(Honestly -- thanks!)

A great cartoon lambasting this Obama = Socialist phenomenon on the Reasons To Be Cheerful, Part 3 blog...

Pass it along: 9:00 o'clock (daily) a united
MOMENT OF COURTESY

In these final days before ALL THE CITIZENS OF our country vote, some of the worse emotions seem to be surfacing: fear, blame, anger, greed etc.

Let us take just a moment to let go of all but the most serene, sincere, compassionate, heartfelt willingness to understand and be kind to each other.

The Obama/Biden administration offers unity and solutions - both of which are very much needed worldwide To solve the issues we face.

Please join US in taking a moment when we all come together - no matter where you are, morning or night, whatever your religion, background, race, creed or differences of opinion - - -

LET’S LIVE THE DREAM AND BE ONE IN PRAYER AND GRATITUDE - SEEING THE DAY CLEARLY WHEN OBAMA'S LEADERSHIP OF HOPE IS A REALITY AND WE CAN ALL WORK TOGETHER FOR POSITIVE CHANGE

LET THE LIGHT AND VIRTUE OF COURTESY
GUIDE US TO THE POWER OF UNITY!

THY WILL BE DONE...