McCain’s pounding beats Obama’s rope-a-dope debate style

Muhammad Ali mastered the rope-a-dope and beat harder punching sometimes flailing opponents. Obama allowed McCain to hit him with verbal attacks without stinging counter-punches. Perhaps he was hoping McCain would make mistakes to exploit with an effective comeback. He didn’t.

I’m in the 7% of Obama supporters who thought McCain won the debate easily, probably because I know many view the verbal sparring the way they do boxing matches. I guess I’m like the men Nora Ephron describes watching the debate with who want to see “knockout punches” and notes that “women are at a decided disadvantage in conversations of this sort: we have no interest whatsoever in the resemblance of presidential candidates to people like Rocky Marciano and Archie Moore“, the later light heavyweight champion in the 1950s.

Much of my reaction is comes from finding McCain’s personality and style turpitudinously repugnant, and wanting Obama to leap across the stage and slap the arrogant, obnoxious, condescending, scowling, belligerent braggart silly.

I want Barack to float like a butterfly and sting like a bee, I want him to hit him with a Marciano “Suzie Q” right cross.

What can I say?

I took boxing lessons from a Golden Gloves champion when I was a kid, and, like Joesph Palermo, I’m one of those liberal males who are stuck with boxing imagery and metaphors (see his “Floats Like a Butterfly, Stings Like a Bee” from Feb. 2008 about Hillary vs. Barack.)

I remember watching Rocky Marciano beat his idol, Joe Lewis on television, and saw documentaries showing him winning his first championship against Jersey Joe Walcott knocking him out with his famous “Suzie Q” right cross.

Several positive reviews for Obama. A CBS News instant poll finds:

    40% of uncommitted voters who watched the debate tonight thought Barack Obama was the winner. 22% thought John McCain won. 38% saw it as a draw.

    68% of these voters think Obama would make the right decision
    about the economy. 41% think McCain would.

    49% of these voters think Obama would make the right decisions about Iraq. 55% think McCain would.

Two focus groups, one by GOP pollster Frank Luntz and another by Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg, both declared Obama the winner. Here’s video of Luntz, some pretty powerful stuff:

Independents in the MediaCurves focus group “gave the debate to Obama 61-39. They also think he won every individual segment. Republicans gave the debate to McCain 90-10, Democrats to Obama 93-7.”

Reference

I hope the demeanor of McCain as “troll-like” and “grouchy”, the terms Chris Mathews used, has the negative effect some commentators suggest it will.

McCain is a bully and bullies are like trolls and can be grouchy. Unfortunately too may voters like bullies, and may in fact be bullies themselves. They probably find McCain a kindred spirit. I suspect McCain was the kind of kid who sought out the bookish boy with the pocket protector in the schoolyard and taunted him to impress his thuggish friends.

Image of troll trying to eat a cow is copy-free from Wikimedia.

The minute and a quarter split screen video of the blinky McCain’s smirking grin is already is reportedly being circulated all over the Internet.

Perhaps television pundits will replay it, and the Democrats will use it in an ad because it may turn the non-bullies off.

For the undecided Reagan Democrats for whom a good retort is worth 20 IQ points, I thought Obama was too cerebral. I liked that he was cerebral, but the point of the debate isn’t to prove to me he’s far and away the best choice, the only choice, to be president. It’s to get undecided voters to vote for him.

My wife, Betty, thought it was more a draw. My other bed mates, our ten month old Westies, Mac and Duff slept through the debate, and then when I slept an hour later than their usual wake-up time of 6:00 AM Mac wouldn’t stop licking my face until I got up to let them out and feed them.

Life goes on.

(I posted this column a second time so I could add my posting standards as a separate column with the title “Miss Martin’s Classroom Rules of Manners” here. Please review them prior to adding a comment. These guidelines and rules are in addition to those already established for all of Capitol Hill Blue which you should read as well. These are on the bottom of the page.)

32 Responses to "McCain’s pounding beats Obama’s rope-a-dope debate style"

  1. neondog  September 28, 2008 at 12:45 am

    Obama wasn’t speaking to the “red meaters”, he was attempting to create a path for older voters who are having trouble voting for a black man. And he may well have made in-roads into that group.

    Add in the fact that this debate was intended to be about “Foreign Policy”, McCain’s suppossed strength, and I would say it was a good night for Obama.

  2. sherry  September 28, 2008 at 2:10 am

    Neon, if it makes you feel better to yank out the race card, go ahead.
    There are racists in this nation to be sure. Not every older American supporting McCain is a bigot. My 73 year old mother, retired business woman and life long democrat is voting republican for the first time in her life.
    She was a Hillary supporter. When Obama said the Hillary supporters can get over it, he doesn’t need them, he lost her.
    The bitter people clinging to religion got her again. She is a devout Christian, though I have never known her to be bitter. My late father, a devout Christian owned guns. When he was a boy in the depression, a gun was a great way to obtain dinner on the farm.
    And my dear momma is about as sick of the race card as I.

  3. sherry  September 28, 2008 at 5:02 am

    Zu,
    Comments such as yours remind me all the more why I just absolutely detest the rudeness and anger that has become the democratic party.
    Speaking of facism:

    Blunt, GOP say Obama ‘truth squad’ seeks to squash free speech with police power
    Chad Livengood • clivengood@news-leader.com • September 27, 2008

    SPRINGFIELD, Mo. — Gov. Matt Blunt and Republicans are accusing Barack Obama’s campaign of assembling a “truth squad” with law enforcement officials to intimidate Obama critics from speaking out against the Democratic presidential candidate…..
    The controversy was sparked by a KMOV televion report featuring St.. Louis County Attorney Bob McCulloch and St. Louis City Attorney Jennifer Joyce saying they would respond to paid advertising twisting Obama’s record

    CONTINUED —
    http://www.news-leader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080927/BLOGS09/80927018

  4. Hal Brown  September 28, 2008 at 8:25 am

    Maureen Dowd: Obama lines he could have used

    McCain: “doesn’t quite understand or doesn’t get it.”

    Obama: “Senator, I understand perfectly, I’m just saying you’re wrong.”

    On the surge: You are the arsonist who wants to be praised for the great job you did putting out the fire you started.

    I am sick and tired of you suggesting that I would take funds away from our brave soldiers. I no more voted for that than you did when you voted against our funding proposals that would have imposed a timetable. And unlike you, I did not vote against funding increases for the troops that have come home with devastating physical and mental injuries.

    Read rest of column here.

  5. Hal Brown  September 28, 2008 at 8:45 am

    NY Times as fiction – no wonder a major part of the Rove tactics the McCain campaign is using to discredit the press is focusing on The New York Times.

    Any sensible NcCain supporter would have to think twice about their allegiance to him if they took complex investigative report (LINK).

    Aside from his connections with gambling lobbyists, which many will find difficult to grasp, there’s the more disquieting description of his love of gambling at the craps table:

    Senator John McCain was on a roll. In a room reserved for high-stakes gamblers at the Foxwoods Resort Casino in Connecticut, he tossed $100 chips around a hot craps table. When the marathon session ended around 2:30 a.m., the Arizona senator and his entourage emerged with thousands of dollars in winnings.

    A lifelong gambler, Mr. McCain takes risks, both on and off the craps table. He was throwing dice that night not long after his failed 2000 presidential bid, in which he was skewered by the Republican Party’s evangelical base, opponents of gambling. Mr. McCain was betting at a casino he oversaw as a member of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, and he was doing so with the lobbyist who represents that casino, according to three associates of Mr. McCain.

    McCain has been quoted elsewhere as saying he believes he has a method of beating the odds at craps. He jokes about his love of gambling.

    I’ve done a bit of reading about casino games of chance 1 and while there are different odds of the dice falling in various combinations, in the long run the house always wins.

    I hope Obama puts together an ad with some of McCain’s smirking gambling statements along with images of dice rolling and piles of chips and the voice-over saying something about McCain willing to gamble of your future.

    Footnote

    1. My hometown is poised to have a huge Indian casino built on a tract of wooded land.

  6. gazelle1929  September 28, 2008 at 10:10 am

    The stance by Blunt and his cronies is nothing short of ridiculous. Nowhere does anyone claim that they are going to use prosecutorial or police powers to quash criticism of Obama. All they are doing is announcing that these people are going to be on the alert for the terrible lies, innuendoes, etc., that is so much a hallmark of a campaign run by Karl (Marx) Rove.

    These people have a right to point out that the McCain campaign is spreading lies about Obama. Do you have any idea how many times I have received email claiming that Obama is a Muslim, the antiChrist, a baby-killer?

    On the latter, you can find ample evidence that McCain’s campaign considered a YouTube campaign using Limbaugh’s ugly fable about Obama’s asking Palin whether she intended to kill her Down Syndrome child before birth or after. If you think that is good politics then you need to go find Rove and Limbaugh and enlist in their tawdry group of people who are not above such gutter abominations.

    It is time to return to civility in politics. The sort of crap that Blunt pulled is vile, despicable, and outrageous. And your post of it with the characterization of the supposed Democratic tactic as fascism (not facism) is contemptible.

  7. Hal Brown  September 28, 2008 at 10:40 am

    Slander and libel allegations are civil court matters. There are no district attorneys, just lawyers representing the plaintiff and defendant. Anyone who watches courtroom dramas knows the difference between a criminal and civil case.

    Nobody bothers bringing presidential candidates to court.

    Here’s an example. McCain keeps repeating, and just this morning said it again on Septhanopolis, that he stands by his ad linking Obama with Franklin Raines. (View McCain ad and Obama’sounter-ad here. Note that the McCain ad removes the Raines quote from context, where in the same interview he said that he never talked to Obama about mortgages or Fannie Mae.)

    This ad is important because it links the amiable non-threatening Obama with another black man with two pictures of Raines that make him look downright evil, and then follow it with the picture of a vulnerable looking white woman. Many pundits have suggested it is an appeal to those who are uneasy voting for a black man.

    McCain denies fact that the ad is a lie with two unrelated justifications.

    One is that the connection between Obama and Raines was reported in The Washington Post. He uses newspapers when it is convenient and in this instance leave out the inconvenient fact that the so-called reporting was first in the Post’s style section and then repeated in two more articles. (Reference).

    Two is another often repeated charge that such ads wouldn’t have been used if Obama had agreed to town hall meetings.

    In other words, it’s Obama’s fault that he uses lies and distortions in ads.

    It would be interesting to see these defenses presented to a jury in a civil slander or libel trial.

    In this election it is the voter who sits on the jury.

  8. neondog  September 28, 2008 at 10:51 am

    Deleted by moderator.

    Note that posters must not only refrain from personal attacks but on my columns using innuendo to imply unacceptable attitudes will result in the entire post being deleted.

  9. sherry  September 28, 2008 at 10:54 am

    Gaz I agree civility needs to return to politics however the argument could be made, law enforcement officials using the term “held accountable” is an intimidation tactic.
    I would be happy if civility returned to this site. Won’t happen. Emotions are running to high. People don’t want to discuss/debate. If there is disagreement, people resort to personal insults (see above)
    Gaz you even commented on the extent of McCain’s disabilities and whether he was faking. For Pete sakes.
    I would really like to get back to issues.
    Currently, I trust McCain more on foreign policy and Obama on the economy. Now the question is not experience, it’s which is the worst? I believe Obama would be a disaster on foreign policy. McCain a disaster on the economy. Both of these issues are demanding our attention.
    Here’s a thought. Why not have both candidates show their cards in terms of their economic/forrign policy teams? That would be a deal breaker for me

  10. almandine  September 28, 2008 at 12:38 pm

    Having rolled those dice too many times… I concur.

    A casino and 400-room hotel has been proposed on Indian “trust” land (it wasn’t reservation land but will become so if the trust is approved) less than a mile from my house. Now, THAT is a gamble on my future… and, no, I don’t want it and they can just shove it.

  11. gazelle1929  September 28, 2008 at 1:18 pm

    “Gaz you even commented on the extent of McCain’s disabilities and whether he was faking. For Pete sakes.”

    Yes, I did comment on it. I said watch his hands. I’ve watched him enough times waving his arms and holding a microphone up to his mouthfor five to eight minutes at a stretch without showing any sign of discomfort.

    Obama probably should not have used the internet thing in an ad. No question about that. But the point was to show that McCain was not only back in the 20th century he was back in the 19th. Obama is subtly raising McCain’s age and saying it is a detriment to the country. And McCain responds with the POW bit, saying that he cannot use his arms and hands so he relies on others to do his email for him.

    Based on what I have seen I do not believe that response to be accurate. It goes to his veracity. If he is going to lie to the public about the extent of his disability, if any exists, what else is he going to lie about.

    It sounded like whining to me. Do we want a President who whines?

  12. neondog  September 28, 2008 at 1:40 pm

    Hal: I would challenge you to write an “opinion” piece that excludes the use of paranthetic explanation to make a point.

    Make no mistake about it, my reply to “sherry” was “most definately” intended to be desparaging of her “comment” and her posturing.

    Since you have already commented on and suppressed my remarks, I suggest you post my “reply” in its entirety.This would serve as an example of the censorship threshold you maintain and let those who visit CHB decide for themselves whether or not they agree with those boundaries.

  13. Hal Brown  September 28, 2008 at 5:34 pm

    Anyone can rewrite and post deleted comments again adhering to my standards of civility to other posters.

    Rather than censoring out parts of posts, I will delete entire comments which don’t meet my standards for civility towards other posters. Anyone can copy their posts and email them to themselves, an easy way to omit portions and post again.

    As for writing about politicians and others in the news, I don’t expect posters to be more civil than I am.

    I will err on the side being too strict in deleting posts that I think are in the slightest way disparaging of fellow posters.

    To give an example I will leave the above post on, but generally even saying another poster is posturing will be reason enough to delete the entire post. Such language while seeming benign too frequently leads to escalation and then an entire thread can deteriorate into name calling.

    One of these days I will write up my standards so everyone can be clear as to what they are. I will include some examples.

    I am not going to defend every deletion decision I make but I hope most members of this commenting community understand I am not about to suppress any opinions on issues as long as they meet the overall CHB guidelines which are on the bottom of this page.

  14. Jim C  September 28, 2008 at 6:04 pm

    Well Hal , interesting piece but it seems that the majority of viewers disagreed . What you refer to as ” mccains pounding ” apparently came of as mean spirited and nasty to many . His attacks and vitriol didn’t compare well with Obamas trademark calm cool demeanor . As for as your ” rope a dope ” comparison , Forman lost because he fought a stupid fight wearing himself out , plus he wasn’t in proper shape . To quote Joe Frazer who was at ringside ‘ he could never have done that with Marciano ” , refering to the fact that Rocky could bang for 15 rounds nonstop . Obama seems ready to go the distance with a steady measured style which makes him look much more reasuring ( and presidential ) than mccain who appears to be flailing away .

  15. Helen Rainier  September 28, 2008 at 7:08 pm

    Hal,

    I respect your opinion about the Obama/McCain debate. However, that is where our agreement ends. I think that Obama’s strategy for this first debate was excellent.

    He stuck to facts and figures without name-calling and condescension, unlike McCain.

    He was clearly more open and honest in his body language than was McCain who came across as defensive and angry.

    The majority of opinions — both of pundits (both left and right) and voting Americans believe that Obama outperformed McCain in nearly every measurable aspect of the debate.

    I look forward to more of the debates. I have always waited to watch the debates to make my final decision as to who to vote for — although as we get to the debates I’ve already pretty much made up my mind.

    Am also looking forward to the Biden/Palin debate on Thursday evening. This should be a VERY interesting debate.

  16. Jim C  September 28, 2008 at 7:29 pm

    Helen , it will be an interesting debate if mccains camp doesn’t manage to get the rules so tight that no real questions can be asked . You know they’re going to have her programed with prearranged responses . I also hope they look closely for an earpiece .

  17. sherry  September 28, 2008 at 7:43 pm

    I was surprised to hear AB Stoddard of “The Hill” indicate that Palin did very well in her prior debates.
    The problem is, Palin is woefully inexperienced on foreign policy. She may do well on the economy as she does have a budget surplus in Alaska.
    Alaska however has decided advantages over about every other state in terms of oil revenues.
    So I am not sure even that experience would apply.
    I dunno. It will be interesting to watch. Or perhaps just painful

  18. Hal Brown  September 29, 2008 at 3:40 am

    I posted this column a second time so I could add my posting standards as a separate column with the title “Miss Martin’s Classroom Rules of Manners” here. Please review them prior to adding a comment. These guidelines and rules are in addition to those already established for all of Capitol Hill Blue which you should read as well. These are on the bottom of the page.

    Please continue comments here.

  19. sherry  September 27, 2008 at 7:15 pm

    Way to go Hal, the big boys are stealing your ideas!
    I remember my father watching Ali when I was a kid. My father was an armchair coach :)
    When you updated with a pic, I was hoping it was the Westies. Instead I get a troll. Thanks a lot!

  20. pstern  September 27, 2008 at 10:24 am

    And what debate were you watching?

    McCain is an old, beaten man. Even the WSJ’s reader poll agrees that Obama won the first debate.

    The Wall Street Journal has a reader poll to determine which candidate won the first debate and 57 percent voted for Obama.

    This was my reasoning for voting Obama:

    “Obama has much more substance, knowledge of issues and is more intelligent than McCain. McCain’s management style is too close to that of Bush and the current administration. Americans need to get away from that ASAP! In addition, McCain uses far too much rhetoric while Obama deals in facts and reality-based resolutions for urgent issues. Generally, McCain has a difficult time responding directly to questions. He repeatedly rambles on and diverts answering. McCain also voted with the Bush administration to provide financial industries with “carte blanche” deregulation, which turned out to be a big mistake. Clearly Obama is the best selection for president. Obama won the first debate hands-down!”

    Peter Stern

    To place your vote go to:

    http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/09/26/who-won-friday-nights-debate-on-foreign-policy/

    P

  21. almandine  September 27, 2008 at 11:24 am

    “And what debate were you watching?”

    To merely opine is the aphrodisiac… it matters not the true substance… bees will wing to the rhetorical blossoms… seeking to rub their hairy little legs together.

  22. zuzumamu  September 27, 2008 at 12:59 pm

    I think we’re so used to inept and grade D leadership, we have forgotten to put trust in a potential leader’s abilities. As I’ve said often before, I have to believe that Barack is a better chess player than John McCain (or his handlers). Obama played this quarter, like the New England Patriots: Let’s see what the other side’s got, keep the game plan close to the chest, and let the opponent show more than they intended as they become hopeful they have the upper hand. Obama’s theme this debate, was proving better Judgement. He succeeded, without dragging out any heavy artilary. I too became frustrated, just as I do when watching a potentially difficult game open between the Patriots and a decent team, when I saw Obama miss opportunities for inflicting major wounds. Like when McCain brought up his sappy dialogue about how he loves the troops, I thought that was an opening to clear up McCain’s recent vote against the GI bill, which Bush clouded with deception in a press conference after it passed.Or a clear and concise introduction to the Keating Five scandal moving the tax discussion to the corruption discussion. Then I thought, he’s saving his powder. No need to nail him (McCain), yet~there’s two more debates and a month of potential changes ahead in both the markets and the world(Israel IS going to attack Iran). In the end Obama “won” the debate..he showed a better temperament, judgement, and obviously an ability to grasp intellectually, whatever situation comes up. I think the Rove strategy this week was to essentially “ice” Obama pre-debate, with being dragged to DC and being kept not knowing whether McCain was going to show up or not.It may have worked a bit in terms of Barack’s optimism going into it. Rove is used to shoveling imbeciles into power, so utilizes complex underhanded schemes to achieve success, rather than banking on an authentic candidate who might actually have the country’s best interests at heart; but then Rove, actually has a lot of disdain, as does McCain, for the American people or our plight.

  23. Pablo  September 27, 2008 at 1:15 pm

    I was puzzled too.
    Why didn’t Obama point out the hypocrisy when mccain claimed to be the one to support our veterans? Did it not occur to him? It had to have, but why the hell he just let him make his deceptive statements is beyond me.

  24. sherry  September 27, 2008 at 1:19 pm

    Hal, I appreciate the commentary. I can’t comment on the debate as I had a date with my teen age neices. When we attempted to watch the last few segments, it was impossible because they are, shall we say, chatty??
    A friend called to say Obama looked good on the economy, while McCain looked better on foreign policy.
    The most telling though is the fact your Westies slept through it. My Westie liked baseball, the Smurfs and Green Acres (I used to leave TV Land on while at work)
    My late Max was all about gamesmanship, therefore, I will take your Westies word for it… It was a sleeper!!
    That said, it is so refreshing to hear honest commentary. Objectivity is for the most part dead in this country. If you are for Obama, he won. If you are for McCain, he won.
    If you were to give Obama a few pointers, he might just give McCain the ol smack down in the next debate.
    Obama is smarter than McCain, he just doesn’t always deliver.
    Kerry was smarter than Bush by far, but Bush was the more
    warm and fuzzy in the debates. ugh. It just kills me to write that.

  25. Pablo  September 27, 2008 at 1:31 pm

    Holy lack of democracy Batman!
    Where were the other candidates? They certainly would have made the debates much more substantive. I just heard Obama trying to convince the people that he will continue the vicious military-industrial cycle, very very disappointing. I also heard him propagating mainstream deceptions regarding Israel, Georgia and Iran. At least if the debates were democratic we would have somebody questioning our bad international attitudes and policies. I’d love to see somebody calling those two on their international bullshit and deception!

    Don’t get me wrong, perhaps Obama is just trying to show everybody how middle-of-the-road he can be because he knows that ultimately he only has to win over the ignorant undecided voters to win this election, voters who don’t vote on substance, and definitely not for somebody that will speak about and do what’s right. We can only hope he’s just playing the game and once he’s in will do what’s right.

    Obama is an excellent and impressive speaker and diplomat. However, the international policies he presents only qualify him as the lesser of two evils.

  26. almandine  September 27, 2008 at 1:58 pm

    Interesting take, Pablo… and unfortunately, spot-on.

  27. zuzumamu  September 27, 2008 at 3:45 pm

    I agree Pablo..I was for Kucinich, and voted for Barack in the Primaries because Dennis endorsed him. I am always disturbed by Obama’s seeming so militaristic, and gullible about the perspectives of this administration about various countries and their leaders. I agree that he seemed not to understand what went on in Georgia, but agree, that Putin’s response was an uncivilized one,that he should have chosen a different reaction, that the one he chose negated any empathy he might have garnered from Nato countries..he played right into the Oil Politicos’ hands. I’m convinced Obama’s stances on these tender issues are political at this point; he has to stay alive to get elected,(as in not get assassinated), and, he is trying, to bring people together rather than creating an uproar just for the sake of staying pure for the voters who are already in the bag.Look how far Kucinich got for instance. We forget what sort of “information” our Congress is fed by the Intelligence community, all under the thumb of Cheney and the rest of the Cons. Like I said above, I’m hoping he’s as smart as he seems, that his mission is honorably motivated, and we can trust him to actually bring this country back together, and start redeeming our besmirched reputation in the world, and get us on our way into this new global century. I gotta Hope.

  28. CheckerboardStrangler  September 27, 2008 at 4:18 pm

    Hal with all due respect I didn’t see much in the way of pounding.
    I did see McCain score some “points”, if you can call them points.
    When McCain accused Obama of being the most liberal member of the Senate he’s ever tried to work with, he made it sound like the curse word it has become.

    The degree to which it remains one is something only time will tell of course, and Obama has the opportunity to show that he has more moderate roots of course, but for now the stink and stigma of the “L word” still applies.

    There were other points scored by McCain which carry more real and practical significance with regard to presidential politics but I highlight this one because it stands out as the hallmark I imagine we could expect McCain to offer the world if he ever dons the mantle of the office.

    And that’s something I think the world is fed up with after eight years of Bush.

    We still think of ourselves as the sole superpower but we might be in for a very rude awakening once we realize that economic warfare can easily trump military warfare in some cases, and an American statesman who acts like a Cowboy Kruschev might be the straw that breaks the camel’s back and leads to a day where the rest of the free world decides it is time to teach America a long overdue lesson in humility.

    We’re NOT an empire now, we’re a bankrupted failed empire, and we’re not only dependent on the kindness of our friends, we’re so arrogant we don’t even realize the lengths to which we’ve stretched the friendship.
    A McCain presidency will snap that slender thread to the breaking point, a point where new alliances, some already in the making, will overshadow our importance at a critical time when we need our friends the most, like on the day after another terrorist attack.

    McCain thinks he is a rough riding cowboy, but he lacks the subtle nuance of a Teddy Roosevelt and wears the badge of a spoiled Navy brat instead.
    Now add the irritating ball of mock sunshine that is the Palin ouevre and you have something that can only emanate from the bowels of a bad Hunter S. Thompson acid trip chapter accidentally inserted into Doctor Strangelove.
    Oh wait, perhaps I repeat myself!

    Another squirrely rich kid is not what the world wants now from the United States.
    They want a cool head and a cool hand, and now more than ever, we need as many friends as we can get.

    No way,
    Nohow,
    No McCain.

    Jeff H in Occupied TX

  29. pstern  September 27, 2008 at 4:32 pm

    Obama did NOT pursue McCain’s voting record on Veterans Affairs because it was not in his best interests to focus on that topic, since McCain is a POW and a Veteran. I respect McCain for his surviving that. I am a Disabled Vietnam Veteran myself. I also respect Obama for not focusing on this issue.

    Meanwhile, except for his POW status McCain’s military record is mediocre, mundane.

    In his book “The Faith of Our Fathers” McCain points out that his father and grandfather were Admirals, whose individual careers were distinguished — unlike his own.

    In fact, McCain barely got out of the Naval Academy. He was at the bottom of his class at Annapolis!

    As a Senator for more than 20 years his career has been mediocre. What exactly has he done to gain distinction for his senatorial career? Not much.

    The facts are the facts. Read them.

  30. zuzumamu  September 27, 2008 at 4:58 pm

    I think it’s time for Vietnam Vets to stop coddling John McCain. We all sympathize with the miserable treatment the Vets received after the Vietnam war, but let me tell you, the people trying to stop that debacle were trying to save your lives, and were taking a lot of flack back home for it too. What drives John McCain is his shame about betraying his country by confessing war crimes after being tortured. The Vietnamese filmed his confession and played it all over Asia..Look, the Admiral’s son, no honor. If he would only forgive himself, as all of us have with little convincing, maybe the old bastard would just go home to die in peace. But no, he insists upon continuing to dishonor his family name by STILL not doing his homework and therebye not able to fathom the intricacies of exactly what has gone down here for the last 8 years. Because he IS so mediocre intellectually, I truly don’t think he understands how he’s been used by the traitors running our country. I wish, for the sake of all of us, he’d get a clue.

  31. Hal Brown  September 27, 2008 at 5:55 pm

    Thanks for all the thoughtful comments. Having been reading comments on some other websites recently I continue to be impressed those who post here regularly. I always look forward to what you have to say about my columns.

    Often you inspire me to update a column, in this instance you inspired me to add a picture. Check it out (it’s clickable).

    I discovered the other day that if I put a picture in a column sometimes Google News includes it in their listing.

  32. Hal Brown  September 27, 2008 at 6:19 pm

    Beating Newsweek –
    \
    Not to brag, you KNOW how I hate that, but others have been using the Muhammad Ali metaphor beside me, but I think I got mine online first, “Sen. Obama, You’re No Muhammad Ali” by
    Howard Fineman in Newsweek for example.

    Perhaps Fineman will turn out to be right (below). We’ll find out Nov. 5th:

    Maybe boxing is the wrong metaphor. Maybe voters are fed up with leaders who start wars without studying the possible consequences. Maybe voters are tired of the kind of presidency that blows off Congress and its critics as unpatriotic. Maybe voters are tired of my-way-or-the-highway thinking.

    Surely, this is Obama’s own calculation. His operative metaphor isn’t boxing, but bodysurfing. He is the product of Hawaii, where they learn to wait for and ride the wave. He thinks he is riding the Big Curl now: a new generation, a new demographic, a new global framework at a time when voters urgently want “change” and Obama, by default, is the only one who plausibly can provide it.

Comments are closed.