<p>Ilsa - are you saying that Obama can only respond to things that McCain says? Are you saying he can’t point out racism and bigotry that is directed at him? One thing learned from the Kerry compaign is that candidates can’t ignore what is being said about them - he was criticized more for not attacking the Swift Boaters than he was for the substance of their claims. Will Obama have to get down in the mud as you suggest? Maybe, but that is better than rolling over in it.</p>
<p>Ilsa’s got an intersting standard: if Obama fails her personal test of absolute saintliness, he’s a phony, a fraud. And for him to even think he’s worthy means he’s additionally guilty of “hubris.” Ilsa goes beyond moving the goalposts when it comes to Obama - there’s literally nothing he can do or say - or fail to do or say - which won’t constitute “proof” of his failure in her eyes.</p>
<p>Interesting.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m sure he’s referring to all those possible entities operating on behalf of the Republican nominee, the vast majority of whom will be Republicans. Obama may be “arrogant” and “egotistical” (:eek:—imagine a politician exhibiting such traits!:eek:), but he’s no dummy. And more’s the pity, isn’t it?
He’s not “injecting” race into this campaign. It’s been part and parcel to the right wing smear machine for decades. The right wing radio jockeys aren’t even trying to be subtle, the viral videos making the rounds via email aren’t pulling any punches, and a cursory check of many internet blogs and sites makes the truth of his statement abundantly clear.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What makes you think he’ll move to the right? The far-right conservatives aren’t going to jump over him to vote for Obama, and besides that, w/ Obama being as far left as he is, it would benefit McCain to remain/move to center.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is condemning the Republican for doing what they SAY they’re gonna do - not what they’ve actually DONE or what they’ve said they’re gonna do!</p>
<p>In fact, both of these posts are arguing against conjecture! 
</p>
<p>It’s not like this was something new or unexpected.</p>
<p>Obama has been stepping away from public financing for the past 8 months! And it isn’t like this is a situation where we don’t know where his money is going to come from. It’s coming from an impressively large grass roots fundraising campaign made up of small donors. </p>
<p>I agree that, in itself, this is a non-issue.</p>
<p>bz2010 - What conjecture? They’re already doing it. Have you been napping?</p>
<p>The GOP has been the party of fear and debt for decades now. It’s all they’ve got to offer, as far as I can see.</p>
<p>What makes me think McCain will move to the right? Because past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior and he started shifting to the right as soon as he anticipated becoming a candidate.</p>
<p>cartera - shoring up the base of one’s party isn’t the same as shifting policy. Other than changing his position on offshore drilling, how has McCain shifted POLICY?</p>
<p>kluge - I don’t agree w/ your last post. As a “party” I would not say that “fear and debt” have been the modus operandi of the RP - in fact that accusation could more easily be laid at the feet of the dems (“They want to take away your Social Security”, “If you vote republican, you benefits will decline”, “McCain wants to stay in Iraq for 100 yrs.”, etc.). Dems have been playing of the fears of people for years!</p>
<p>Not to mention Obama has proposed a lot of expensive programs.</p>
<p>Well, gosh, when I can’t explain my positions well enough, I can always count on kluge and poetsheart to do it for me.
lol
You could try responding to the links I post put out by “journalists” instead of attempting to smear (you like that word, don’t you?) me personally.</p>
<p>More “goal post movers”:</p>
<p>[Obama</a> alienates the editors - Kenneth P. Vogel - Politico.com](<a href=“http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11242.html]Obama”>Obama alienates the editors - POLITICO)</p>
<p>[Factcheck.org:</a> Obama’s Lame Money Claim | Newsweek Politics: Campaign 2008 | Newsweek.com](<a href=“http://www.newsweek.com/id/142399]Factcheck.org:”>http://www.newsweek.com/id/142399)</p>
<p>[FactCheck.org:</a> Obama Polishes His Resume](<a href=“http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_polishes_his_resume.html]FactCheck.org:”>http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_polishes_his_resume.html)</p>
<p>^All 3 are interesting articles.</p>
<p>are they “goal post movers”? No.</p>
<p>I’ve been an Obama supporter from day one. I’ve contributed to his campaign, I have his bumper sticker on my van, I voted for him in the primaries, I’ll vote for him in November, and I anticipate he’ll be the next President. But on this issue, I feel just like Ilsa Belter. The great allure of his movement was change from politics as usual. I was proud when he wouldn’t buy into the phony and manipulative gas tax holiday idea. Now politics as usual seems to be dictating his action. I have no problem in principle with taking either position on federal campaign financing, but having originally taken the position in favor of it, Obama made a mistake in changing positions. Here’s the litmus test - if he’s fundamentally opposed to the way it’s currently done, would he have turned down the federal funds had his campaign not shown the capacity to out-raise the federal formula? No.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What would his alternative have been?</p>
<p>What Obama has shown, which was not in the cards when federal financing was enacted, is that it is possible to fund a campaign based entirely on small contributions by individual donors and not rely on and be beholden to lobbyists and powerful donors.</p>
<p>Let’s face it. Either candidate will do what it takes to get elected. Principles be d**ned. It sad but true. I don’t even blame them for it. They are responding to the way the voters vote. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The alternative would have been to stay with the public financing system if he really believed in it. Win or lose but we know that can’t happen. It’s an all or none scenario.</p>
<p>Indeed. But McCain had several advantages.: his wife’s corporate jet (and perhaps some other freebies that have not been reported). The RNC’s much greater funding (perhaps a result of the funds all going to Obama or Clinton); the advantage of being able to get into presidential campaign mode several months ahead of Obama. So the field was not level. That McCain does not seem to have been able to capitalize on his advantage (vide his disastrous speech on the night Obama clinched the nomination) is neither here nor there.</p>
<p>I have in the past supported public financing; but seeing the primary campaign and the ability of small donors to really make a difference, and the brake imposed on large donors by the $2,300 cap is changing my mind about its real value.</p>
<p>EDIT: From Wikipedia
</p>
<p>Getting back to the “flip-flopping” issue. I’ve never understood why it’s considered a high crime for a political figure to change his or her mind on something. At least in some cases, it shows they’re capable of re-thinking an issue and admitting they were wrong, both of which are admirable qualities. What’s so great about blindly latching onto an idea with a death-grip and refusing to consider anything else? Give me a thoughtful and humble flip-flopper any day over an iron-clad idealogue who knows what he knows what he knows–even if he’s wrong.</p>
<p>Oh, bz! Just wanted to let you know that my Hunger for Change (Baking for Barak) event went pretty well today. Not great, but OK. (This IS Kentucky, afterall.) Afterwards, I considered sending a donation to the McCain campaign because of your articulate plea. But I decided, nah.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Where did I attempt to “smear” you, Ilsa?</p>
<p>Thought you were harking back (your “arrogant” and “egotistical” in quotes) to when you implied (no, <em>said</em> actually) that what I <em>really</em> thought of BHO is that he is “uppity.” Your word. A racial slur which I did not use. A smear on me.</p>
<p>There is no way to discuss any of this. Sadly. I thought Bush came across as “arrogant” more times than I can count. I doubt I’d be excoriated for that opinion on these threads. LOL.</p>
<p>I was too young to vote for JFK of course, but I might have thought he was “arrogant” also. In fact, I’m sick to death of the little JFK mannerisms that BHO has appropriated for himself. The little buttoning of the suit jacket every time he rises. The reaching into his inside jacket pocket. The flinging of his jacket over his shoulder as he walked off the plane recently (that was hilarious). Yep he comes across as arrogant to a lot of people. McCain comes across to many people as many different things, but arrogant is not usually listed as one of them. Just the way it is.</p>
<p>Of course, no one would care if he had given himself 10 more years of seasoning, and 10 more years in which to actually accomplish something spectacular before he ran for president. Then a little arrogance might be in order.</p>
<p>P.S. Does he even own a pair of jeans?</p>
<p>[The</a> Trouble With Obama’s Arrogance - March 18, 2008 - The New York Sun](<a href=“http://www.nysun.com/national/trouble-with-obamas-arrogance/73137/]The”>http://www.nysun.com/national/trouble-with-obamas-arrogance/73137/)</p>
<p>Calm down, ilsa. We like you–even the liberals among us.</p>
<p>I don’t know about jeans, but I’ve seen him in sweat pants.</p>