All the neo-McCarthyism and demogaguery caused Powell to pick the candidate that reresented an wscape from that He concluded that Obama was the one to lead us away from such nonsense.
With the CEO of Google campainging for him, Colin Powell endorsing him and Warren Buffet advising him, Barack Obama does not look like your typical terrorist-socialist. It is hard to imagine that this continual drum beat character assisination will serve McCain well. It seems to me that he is trading credibility for whatever is to be gained by demagoguery. That seems like a poor bargain as with McCain’s experience and the current crisis of confidence in the president. the loss of credibility would be a critical loss for McCain.
Palin, saying that she has not heard anything inappropriate, stated that threats against Obama were out of line and she would not continue speaking if she heard such things. This seems a little disingenuous since McCain has had to take a microphone away from a woman who was calling Obama an Arab. McCain no doubt correctly intuited that this woman was about to launch into an anti-Arab discourse or discussion of Obama as a terrorist.
She still though insists that it is appropriate to claim that Obama “palls around” with a terrorist. She maintains this position in spite of the fact that this claim has been thoroughly researched and no support for it has been presented. What is strange is that she supports this with allusions to undocumented claims and asays that there has not been a full explaination or disclosure. This sounds a lot like McCain’s claim that Acorn is a threat to democracy. Again no support and all research in circulation supports the opposite conclusion.
These viscious unsupported accusations seem to me to be utterly irresponsible and to bring the McCain ticket’s judgment into sharper question. To me this demonstrates a willingness to engage in the sort of conduct that got us into a war in the Mid-East and has led to the erosion of the credibility of the presidency. More than anything this sort of behavior links the McCain ticket with the current administration.
This sort of thing was tried by Goldwater when he was failing as the election approached. It seems to be wroking aginst McCain and Palin. When it is launched late in the campaign, voters seem to see it for what it is: a desparate attempt to win at any cost. It is hard to imagine a campaign that is farther from the standard of “putting America first.” It fosters hate and suspicion for the goal of getting elected, thereby fracturing a society that very much needs to unify to address its ills.
The Columbian newspaper endorsed Obama recently. This is interesting because it is a fairly conservative newspaper having endorsed Bush last time.
The basis for this endorsement was pretty much the factors that McCain ran on early in his campaign. First, leadership. The newspaper compares the divisiveness that seems to characterize McCain and his supporters with the way in which Obama has been able to unify his party and open it to others, attracting not just independents but according to the newspaper conservatives as well.
McCain has been hammering on the question of Obama’s judgment and it is that issue that The Columbian finds persuasive in supporting Obama. It compares the choices the two candidates have made during the campaign and finds these facts to favor Obama.
The personal attacks on Obama the newspaper finds to be true of McCain as well and it has little trouble discounting the terrorist and Acorn “issues” and it sounds like McCain’s pushing these issues diminishes him in the estimation of the newspaper.
What is interesting about this is that the McCain campaign has been intentionally trying to distract from the issues relating to the economy. (It was barely mentioned during the Republican convention.) McCain strongly prefers to direct attention to “character-related issues.” The Columbian’s endorsement is based entirely on the issues that McCain is pressing. It does not even mention the policy issues on which McCain is most vulnerable.
I’ve been listening to campaign speeches recently and learned that Obama is friendly with terrorists, that we don’t really know who he is and that he is affiliated with a group that is trying to undermine our democracy though voter fraud. You can’t help but admire McCain’s high mindedness when he said that Obama is a decent family man despite these shortcomings.
With Colin Powell endorsing Obama, you have to wonder whether he is in on this too. Come to think of it, this is an area in which the State Department is supposed to be active and Condoleeza Rice has been strangely quiet about this terrorist issue.
The last time that I recall that we had terrorism creeping into the system was 1988, the year Jesse Jackson jumped into the primaries and caused a lot of confusion. As I recall he was taken very seriously until he lost the California primary, although I guess Bill Clinton does not remember it that way. (Jackson’s associations helped us sort that one out too.) Anyway George H.W. Bush was able to defeat Dukakis at least in part by creating an association between Dukakis with the domestic terrorist Willie Horton.
There of course have been other campaigns before McCain in which we have been alerted to domestic terrorist threats. Goldwater, when he seemed to be losing, circulated literature in the South that called attention to the terror some were feeling in connection with the civil rights movement. Mostly though until Obama’s nefarious past came to light, the allusions have been mostly the oblique use of code words.
This age-worn tactic does not seem to be keeping people away from Obama speeches. Here are some amazing pictures of recent Obama rallies.