Sweating the Small Stuff
One noticeable pattern throughout this series of debates is that the pundits have given McCain higher marks than the voters have. The key signpost of this is that a lot of liberal pundits have consistently come away surprised by how poorly McCain fares in the snap polls and the day-later reactions. For example, Mike Tomasky says:
And still, voters say Barack Obama slaughtered him.
By 53-22%, 638 uncommitted voters polled by CBS chose Obama as the winner. CNN was a little closer, 58-31%. All those other measures, who’ll do better at blah blah and understands yada yada…Obama, Obama, Obama.
I actually don’t understand it. I didn’t even think Obama was quite on his game. He should have gotten much the better of the economic-crisis debate, but it seemed to me that McCain represented his proposals slightly better than Obama represented his. I even sort of thought that during the abortion segment (although I bet pro-lifers didn’t – McCain may have lost more than a few of them by wandering from the talking points on Roe v. Wade).
To me, the crux of the matter is that McCain can’t get out of the habits that served him very well when he was a Senator building a glowing national reputation largely by talking directly to elite members of the political press. If you watched the previous two presidential debates, plus the VP debate, plus about half of the Democratic primary debates, plus the prime time speeches at the Democratic National Convention, and you’ve seen a dozen Obama surrogates yakking on cable a dozen times each just since Lehman Brothers went under then it gets kind of boring to watch Obama stay calm and repeat his talking points on the key issues.
But the debate is targeted at folks who haven’t watched all that stuff. And a lot of McCain’s best moments will have gone way over the heads of most people.
For example, he alluded at one point to a desire to allow more imports of sugar ethanol. Now if you’re familiar with the details of the ethanol debate, you’ll know that McCain’s stance on this is correct on the merits. And you’ll also know that Obama is a big support of corn ethanol both because they grow corn in downstate Illinois and because they made a big push for the Iowa Caucuses. McCain, by contrast, has a long and principled record on corn ethanol that’s hurt him in Iowa. This isn’t the biggest deal in the world, but it is a nice illustration of some of McCain’s key campaign themes. And yet he didn’t try to explain it at all. Similarly, he’s had a knack for besting Obama on national security issues nobody cares about, like the relationship of US-Colombia trade deals to the US-Venezuela proxy conflict playing out in the Colombian jungle. People figure that Obama seems like a smart guy, and if something important happens involving a guerilla group nobody’s heard of fighting a president nobody’s heard of in a country nobody cares about, that Obama’s up to the task of coming up with a good idea — meanwhile, McCain has no education policy.
What Obama’s good at doing is redirecting conversations to things people care about. He’s good at conveying both with words and body language that when the subject shifts to something people don’t care about, that he’d rather be addressing the things people care about. He’d rather be talking about something else, but unlike McCain he’s not personally affronted that the other side criticizes him. It’s not about how he feels or what he wants but about what normal people want to hear about. By contrast, McCain’s key campaign theme is that McCain is awesome and that the government should spend less money, neither of which have anything to do with real problems in real people’s lives.
54 Responses to “Sweating the Small Stuff”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
October 16th, 2008 at 9:20 am
nice post, i agree.
October 16th, 2008 at 9:20 am
I’ve puzzled over why the majority of the pundits consistently tend to pick McCain as the winner. Yes, there is obviously a leftover pro-Republican bias from the last few years, but I don’t think that completely explains it.
My theory is that the pundits are, by and large, very well off. They are in that famed “top 1%” of the population and thus insulated from the average person’s concerns.
For example, when Obama talks about health care and uses a term like “pre-existing conditions” the punditry nods off, yet nearly every average American has either been stung by the pre-existing conditions rule or knows someone who has. The average American says: this candidate is talking to me.
There are many other issues that strongly reasonate with the average voter but are dismissed by the punditry. Whenever Obama talked about funding for education, especially college education, those little voter perception dials would spike. The same for ending the Iraq War, or targeted tax credits for the middle class.
What McCain says reasonates with the hard-right base but also with the very well-to-do, hence the punditry. What Obama says reasonates very well with the middle class.
October 16th, 2008 at 9:22 am
All true, but there is also a simpler factor contributing to the pundit-poll gap. For some reason both conservative and liberal pundits seem to think being aggressively negative in a debate is a good idea (they tend to talk about this with boxing metaphors, e.g. they might talk about McCain “landing punches”). But everything we know about this issue suggests the exact opposite conclusion–people actually hate it when a candidate is aggressively negative in a debate. In fact, in general the more “likeable” candidate almost always wins the election, and therefore the candidate who comes across as less “likeable” in a debate should be the presumptive loser.
But this is such obvious idiocy on the part of pundits that one does wonder where it comes from. Part of the explanation, I think, is just that the pundits are basically like sports reporters, whose primary function is actually to promote the sport. Thus the pundits are trying to reward candidates who make the debates more “interesting”.
But I also think even the more sincere pundits have misread recent political events. Specifically, they are aware that character attacks can in fact work. What they are forgetting is that for such attacks to work, the candidate himself has to stay clean, and let someone else do the attacking. In short, “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” might work, but “Angry John McCain for Truth” will not. And it seems the pundits have overlooked this crucial distinction when evaluating these debates.
October 16th, 2008 at 9:23 am
Don’t forget that the pundits have a vested interest in trying to make this a horserace, in spite of any evidence. It’s pretty ridiculous these days, where they discuss one or two states in an electoral map but won’t even show what the overall projections are.
Concerning McCain, his campaign is much more about why Americans should love him than it is about why he loves America. He thinks he’s the greatest thing since sliced bread, and is astonished that isn’t obvious to everyone. Thus his fantasyland story about how the town halls would’ve changed the tenor of the campaigns. He’s in love with himself.
October 16th, 2008 at 9:27 am
The habits that McCain also can’t get out of are eye-rolling, compulsive blinking, and that weird lizard-tongue thing he does. He looks and talks like the creepy old man that he is.
I don’t know anything about Colombia but Obama sounded a hell of a lot more knowledgeable and reasonable on the subject than McCain, who couldn’t resist finally popping out with the ‘he doesn’t understand’ line, despite obviously have been instructed to keep a lid on that.
October 16th, 2008 at 9:32 am
McCain is an angry man with utter contempt for Obama. That comes across like a lead balloon on a TV debate.
But why weren’t all the candidates on stage last night? The American people are being cheated here…
http://www.sunstateactivist.org/ssablog/
October 16th, 2008 at 9:32 am
In Colombia, Obama is referencing what has been paramilitary and police force action (including assassinations) to deter labor organizing, including in subsidiaries of U.S. owned companies (including Coca-Cola). While assaults on labor organizers happen in other countries as well, Colombia is getting a lot of attention from the human rights community, in part b/c of the free trade proposals b/w that country and the U.S. that would seem to suggest that the U.S. officially sanctions human rights abuses against labor organizers. Obama gets it, McCain doesn’t care.
October 16th, 2008 at 9:35 am
And you’ll also know that Obama is a big support of corn ethanol both because they grow corn in downstate Illinois
Corn is more of a northern Illinois product. By the time you hit Springfield it’s going to be soybeans.
October 16th, 2008 at 9:35 am
I actually have a different take, based on my own reactions. I also always think that McCain will go over better than he has in these debates. And I think it is largely because, over the last — well, basically forever — I have convinced myself that the public reaction to politicians like McCain and Bush will be much more generous than my own. Instinctively, therefore, I tend to focus on Obama’s shortcomings, and McCain’s strengths. In this light, it is interesting that my wife, a new citizen who spent most of her life outside the U.S., always thinks Obama did better than I do.
October 16th, 2008 at 9:36 am
That exchange about Colombia was the one that stuck with me. I understood what McCain was trying to say, but he lost me because of his scattershot rhetoric. I’m in a field where understanding the nuances of this relationship is critical, so I’m probably familiar on a higher level than your average American voter. McCain failed to demonstrate his knowledge, pure and simple. That’s what debates are about.
How about his criticizing Obama’s eloquence, huh? How did he think that was a winning response during a debate?
October 16th, 2008 at 9:46 am
Matt, every time you deviate from the obvious rent-seeking reason, you get colder and colder. All MSM pundits, even liberals, have an occupational interest in a close race.
October 16th, 2008 at 9:47 am
Here’s a unified theory of the cosseted, decadent, cynical punditocracy: They don’t care about words but about impressions, and about words only inasmuch as they create impressions. They look for “personality.” They are sophists in the most derogatory sense of the word. Ergo George W. Bush.
Normal people, on the other hand, see one man speaking in calm, deliberate paragraphs of thought. They see his opponent blurting half-baked thoughts, catch-phrases, trying to wrap emotionally jazzed-up rhetoric around his self-concept of a halo-like impression. And they judge accordingly.
I understand why the pundits go on as if these debates are somehow close, based on their obsession with theatrics and histrionics–as you point out, Matt …but I never believed a word of it. I don’t think John McCain ever held a candle to Barack Obama in these face-offs.
October 16th, 2008 at 9:48 am
The oddest thing to me about McCain’s “eloquence” attacks were that the things he seized on were not particularly eloquent (e.g., “health of the mother”, while a reasonably compelling concept, is not exactly poetic in terms of language).
October 16th, 2008 at 9:51 am
Smart post. I think that undecided/persuadable voters look at a debate as a sales situation where two salesmen are trying to get the voter to buy their candidacy. In that sense, the most successful salespeople are likable, positive, optimistic, well-informed, and convince the buyer/voter that the salesman has their best interests in mind. The Best Buy salesman who is angry and dismissive over the Circuit City products does not close the sale. The Circuit City customer who talks about what his TV is the best fit for the voter will get the sale.
THe pundits look at this as a boxing match and are trying to look for the headline grabber to pontificate upon.
In the last quarter-century, I felt that the more optimistic/likable Reagan defeated Carter and Mondale, the more optimistic/likable Clinton beat Bush 41 and Dole, and the more optimistic/likable Bush 43 beat Gore and Kerry. For this very reason, Obama will beat McCain.
October 16th, 2008 at 9:53 am
I think the voters take into account the candidates’ positions when they decide “who won?” in ways that pundits don’t. McCain is arguing from significantly inferior positions. People don’t like his ideas. Pundits disregard this during debates. McCain argues his indefensible points very well, while Obama soft-peddles his good ideas. Pundits see this as McCain winning. Voters don’t.
If Mr. A argues for cannibalism in an eloquent and logical manner, and Mr. B responds, “But its CANNIBALISM!”, Mr. B wins the debate for most people.
October 16th, 2008 at 9:54 am
I think Matt’s analysis is mostly correct. I’d add that McCain’s best moments in the debates, almost universally, have come when he’s given a strong and passionate defense of a conservative ideal. It really shouldn’t be surprising that this performance falls flat when the approval ratings for President Bush and Congressional Republicans are below the freezing point.
Obama’s best moments have come when he’s calmly and clearly explained how his platform will benefit the average American, and why the attack lines against him are false. Therefore, he wins the debate.
I’ve also been thinking for a while now that Democrats have a built-in advantage in Presidential Debates, because Republican campaigns these days are based almost entirely around portraying liberals as scary, dangerous, out-of-touch elitists who don’t care about America. The Democratic candidate can win a debate just by showing up and dispelling this image.
October 16th, 2008 at 9:54 am
As a liberal supporting Obama who always gets the initial impression that McCain won, I think I have an explanation. I know that I’m biased, so whenever I see McCain do something bad, or Obama do something good, I always assume that that’s just my bias coming through instead of assigning those points where they’re due. Similarly, whenever McCain does something even marginally good, or Obama does something marginally bad, I assume it’s much more important than it actually is.
In other words, I overcompensate in order to feel objective.
October 16th, 2008 at 9:58 am
Yes that worked for them with Bush (although I never found his smirking frat boy “personality” anything but odious), but selling that bitter old man on his charisma is going to be tough going.
Obama looked relaxed and his smiles (and occasional laugh at McCain’s whoppers) didn’t look angry and fake. In fact I would like to have a beer with him.
October 16th, 2008 at 9:59 am
I think McCain mixed up the words “eloquence” and “rhetoric”. Over and over I noticed him mixing up words and jamming catch phrases into the middle of real phrases causing neither to make much sense.
I also think McCain, and republicans in general tend to put too much emphasis on personal stories. Joe the Plumber is the perfect example of that. I hear this kind of rhetoric from Bush a lot too. He’ll tell a story about some soldier who was in Iraq telling him not to surrender and blah blah blah. I think most people see through this rhetorical ploy.
They’re trying to make things seem more personal, but like the testimonials in an infomercial, I think most people perceive these ploys as disingenuous. I mean, anybody can find 1 person to say anything. And any policy will have at least 1 beneficiary and at least 1 person who stands to lose–at least 1 detractor and at least 1 promoter. Again, like those products in the infomercials, most people don’t buy it.
October 16th, 2008 at 10:02 am
Great post Matt.
I moved to the DC area a few years ago and started working for CFR. It was astonishing to have sudden access to the conversations inside the beltway bubble. On both sides of the aisle in politics and in media these people are out of touch. The pundits are just a prime example of that. Inside the beltway the election serves as their reality tv. For the rest of the country there are more direct effects on day-to-day living.
October 16th, 2008 at 10:04 am
Meta-comment: A very impressive thread. I liked Matt’s original post and then found I got something thought-provoking from almost all of the comments. Kudos.
October 16th, 2008 at 10:05 am
“He’d rather be talking about something else, but unlike McCain he’s not personally affronted that the other side criticizes him. It’s not about how he feels or what he wants but about what normal people want to hear about. By contrast, McCain’s key campaign theme is that McCain is awesome and that the government should spend less money, neither of which have anything to do with real problems in real people’s lives.”
Excellent point, Matt, and I think this ties in well with Matt Bai’s point in his article about Obama’s lack of “pathetic neediness”. Bai seems to think this has positive and negative effects, but against someone like McCain, I’d say this is more of an advantage.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/magazine/19obama-t.html?pagewanted=6&ref=politics
I think McCain’s neediness, unlike Bill Clinton, is not that he wants to be liked or even loved; he needs his honor and decency to be validated. He needs us to see him as a brave and honorable man, which I guess he has been most of the time in the past, even when he is doing less than honorable things. Hence the personal affront – ‘how dare you subscribe those awful motives to me, don’t you know I live and die by honor and decency’.
Bai talks about Obama’s “inner security” and not needing people to “fall in love with him”. He seems to think this might be a negative when trying to persuade the white working class voters. Maybe, but I think that is definitely an advantage when it comes to governing the country. The last thing we need right now is an needy and insecure president who needs us more than we need him.
October 16th, 2008 at 10:11 am
No, funding the deforestation of the Amazon by shifting more crop and ranching operations out of the southern agricultural heartlands of Brazil in favor of sugar plantations is not the correct position on its merits.
Indeed, and it is entirely accidental, the ethanol import restriction is just about the only part of current US Energy policy that would be part of a policy aimed at ecologically sustainable Energy Independence.
October 16th, 2008 at 10:18 am
I may be way off here, but I noticed during McCain’s explanation of Obama’s Columbia-Free Trade Agreement opposition, he circled back to his support for free trade and Obama’s qualified opposition to some free trade deals. If it were me falling behind in Pennsylvania and Ohio, and I needed desperately to win them both, I wouldn’t focus on my unqualified support of free trade during my last national television appearance before the election. McCain may be right, free trade may be a net positive for America, and Obama’s opposition may be pandering, but thats the game, isn’t it? Anyone want to clear this up for me, because I honestly was confused about it.
October 16th, 2008 at 10:22 am
I think Joe Klein has a pretty good blog post on the pundits/voters disparity:
http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/10/senator_government_v_joe_the_p.html
October 16th, 2008 at 10:37 am
lobastakilla is right–and Joe Klein is right. And after perusing the pundit-reaction clips, I think I definitely overstated my beef above. People–and even the pundits, by and large–do get it. My earlier post was a reaction watching the first equivocating cable-news wankers last night–but let’s somebody give a shout-out to Chris Mathews for instantly stomping McCain’s contempt for “the health of the mother”! Wow. I look forward to being less bitter for the next little while…. It’s good for the soul.
October 16th, 2008 at 10:38 am
Pundits score McCain well because the chattering class is owned by the ruling class and they always support the Republicans, unless overwhelming popular support for the Democrats makes it impossible. No one listening to McCain’s rambles about capital gains tax and pork-barrel spending would think he had the slightest idea how to do anything about unemployment, or health care, or anything else. But the pundits had decided in advance that they would say Obama was “flat” and McCain was “energetic,” or whatever. But the people made overwhelmingly clear that this is utter nonsense, and so they had to abandon it.
The pundits are still dumb enough to maintain that Ronald Reagan’s line, “there you go again,” was the most brilliant insight ever provided by a living human being. Apparently even Newton’s laws of motion and his co-invention of the calculus do not compare to the visionary, far-sighted vision expressed in the phrase, “there you go again.” Occasionally people can even be brainwashed into believing such nonsense.
But not when times are actually bad.
October 16th, 2008 at 10:42 am
forgive me, my previous remark had a few loose ends, as do all such quickly written messages. The prhase “visionary, far sighted vision” perhaps could have been rewritten as, “visionary, far-sighted intelligence,” or something like that…
oh well
October 16th, 2008 at 10:43 am
Dan Riffle makes a good point, the summary of which is:
I think it’s this type of intellectual honesty, or at least self-awareness, that partially explains the reactions of many left-leaning pundits and/or Obama supporters after the debates. In some sense, we’re more prone to step outside of ourselves and our own biases to try to objectively assess the situation. In part, this probably has to do with the fear that something is going to go horribly wrong, McCain is going to pick up on it and hammer it home, and we’re going to lose in November just like the past eight years. So, we look for any slight misstep that might trip the chances of a win up; that’s why the first half of the debate was scary.
It’s a type of honesty and awareness that is missing from much of the right punditocracy; so, when the snap polls show that Obama handily defeated McCain, the can react with genuine incredulity as they did over at The Corner, because, obviously, that young, upstart, corrupt senator from Chicago hasn’t had a good idea once in his life, much less in the debate. And this lack of honesty and awareness has served them well in getting their candidates elected, because if you act that way enough, it will begin to sow the seeds of doubt in those who are more honest and aware.
Sometimes, I take comfort in the left’s (self-proclaimed) honesty, awareness, and semi-objectivity even if it arises out of some deep-seated fear of losing. But, fuck if I don’t want to win this year.
Obama wiped the floor with that angry old man.
October 16th, 2008 at 10:51 am
When I teach campaign basics, I use a maxim: just about the point when you have gotten nauseated repeating or arranging for repetition of your main message, the people you want to reach have finally noticed that message. Keep hammering.
McCain never got that — an observation that proves that he never had to run a serious campaign.
October 16th, 2008 at 11:01 am
It strikes me that the public response indicates that Obama has already made the sale. A majority of the public is now tuning McCain out, and is pre-disposed to view whatever he says in a negative light. Even if McCain has an occasional good point, people don’t like or trust the man and don’t like the way he makes those points.
October 16th, 2008 at 11:08 am
Which people?
Both candidates are addressing the concerns of the groups they think are important and central not just to their campaigns but to their view of America. It’s their definitions of those groups that diverge.
Especially when backed into a corner, McCain fought hard for his peers’ interests. No matter that his peers are incredibly well-off, and that their interests might not dovetail with average peoples’ — that they may even be at odds with “Joe the Plumber’s” core concern. Conservatives have had decades of conditioning to convince themselves otherwise.
What’s best for the upper class is best for America. If you disagree, you’re a traitor — to both, natch.
Country Club First
October 16th, 2008 at 11:54 am
This is a good post and I think your insight into the peculiarity of the pundit mindset is really a useful idea.
I was reading Ambinder’s blog and one of the things he said struck me: “Good line from McCain: “Nobody likes taxes? Then let’s not raise any taxes.”
Now I am sure Marc thinks that this actually stupid. A very cookies for dinner sort of simplification. But he calls it a good line. Why? Because he thinks people are even dumber than they are. People know far less than most pundits/reporters about matters of fact and details of policy. This is mostly because it’s not their job to know these things. It doesn’t much matter to them. Media types take this practical ignorance as proof of being really really dumb. After all the media type is surrounded by this stuff all the time and to miss it would require being really really dumb. But people aren’t nearly that stupid. They just have better things to do with their time than to spend all day going over policy detail when they spend about an hour a year having any impact on policy.
October 16th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
II was surprised at the polls giving Obama a decisive win in the first debate because my initial reaction was that neither candidate had a “big win”. What I thought then, and still think, is that a majority of people have made their decision to support Obama and have stopped listening to the candidates, that no matter what either candidate said, a majority would agree with Obama. I think in part that’s what been happening in the last several weeks, particularly in reaction to the debates. A majority have decided that Obama is the guy for the job and McCain is not, and nothing is going to change their mind (save, of course, any live girl/dead boy issues.) It’s been over for McCain for several weeks.
October 16th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Great post.
This is exactly right and explains something I have observed in McCain. Even now, losing badly, and being totally tone-deaf in the debates, McCain constantly gives the impression that he thinks he is really a big hit, that his zingers are knockin’ ‘em over, that everyone loves him. I think he imagines that his audience is those elite members of the political press, not the millions of voters watching on the TV.
October 16th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
You said it before, it’s not a boxing match. You don’t score every round. You score the economy and healthcare 80%, Iraq 10%, miscellaneous 10%. The press loves McCain’s miscellaneous bullsh!t but voters think it’s just, uh, miscellaneous bullshit and respond accordingly.
October 16th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Mr. Yglesias,
Before I agree that allowing importation of Brazilian ethanol is a good idea, I would want to know where and how it’s produced.
If it’s produced by family or cooperative farmers in the South, Centre-West or Northeast, then that’s one thing. Those areas are already fairly heavily populated and farmed, and are not that ecologically important. If it’s produced on recently deforested land in the Amazon, especially if it’s being produced on huge plantations owned by exploitative landlords, then that’s quite another. Clean energy is crucial but it shouldn’t come at the cost of environmental protection or economic justice.
October 16th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Similarly, he’s had a knack for besting Obama on national security issues nobody cares about, like the relationship of US-Colombia trade deals to the US-Venezuela proxy conflict playing out in the Colombian jungle.
Huh? Just how does our proxy war against Venezuela protect our national security?
October 16th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Another aspect, I think, is that the pundits are watching the candidates all the time: the actual substance of their policy differences is old news to the pundits. So when Obama describes his healthcare plan, or McCain talks about earmarks, or whatever, they aren’t actually hearing anything new – the ONLY new thing, if you’re a pundit, is HOW they describe their plans and attack or defend their ideas.
But the average undecided voter has simply not been following the election that closely; their most common complaint about Obama, after all, is that he “hasn’t given enough specifics”. Why do they say that? Because the media filter through which they perceive what little of the campaign they have been seeing, (a) doesn’t tell them much about Obama’s specifics and (b) tells them, in so many words, that Obama doesn’t have specifics.
So the undecided voters watching the debate aren’t watching to see which candidate does the most eloquent job defending or attacking the positions they already know he holds. They’re watching to actually learn what the positions are. The pundits, meanwhile, aren’t even aware that that’s a possible way to watch a debate, apparently.
October 16th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Matt,
Good insights.
October 16th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
This is easy and your post is right, but it leaves out one crucial thing. Because of the previous love affair between the media and McCain, it is assumed that McCain is a likeable guy. He’s the Straight Talk Express guy that everyone loves. Just gosh darn it, he can’t catch a break and Obama is too good. Wrong. Obama is doing fine, but what the media is missing is that McCain just isn’t a likeable guy. None of us have b.s.ed with him in the back of the bus. None of us have shared a whiskey at the crap tables with him. We haven’t seen how funny and personable he apparently is, and it isn’t coming through in his events or in his debates. Believe it or not, most people aren’t political junkies and don’t know the ins and outs of his political career. McCain said, “The American people know me.” No, they don’t. The last six weeks is the most exposure they’ve ever had with him and they don’t like him. It’s that simple.
October 17th, 2008 at 6:45 am
Not sure what pundits everyone else here listens to, but I really don’t hear hardly ANYONE giving McCain credit for much of anything, other than his “blunders”.
Obama is a smooth operator, poised, well spoken…too bad he is a lying, fraudulent, do nothing, socialist.
October 17th, 2008 at 7:00 am
Obama is a smooth operator, poised, well spoken…too bad he is a lying, fraudulent, do nothing, socialist.
You know, I don’t have any beef about the lying and fraudulent part, sure, it’s possible that rational, sane people (even though I think they are completely wrong) could think this.
But to call Obama a socialist? Come on, that is just blatant stupid fear mongering. Obama’s more a centrist than anything. Ok, maybe left-of-center. I’m not sure you can even call him liberal.
October 17th, 2008 at 7:34 am
Re: nearly every average American has either been stung by the pre-existing conditions rule or knows someone who has.
Very few people are actually stung by this, because most people are healthy, the severely unhealthy tend to be on Medicare or Medicaid, and most people are covered by group policies which can’t (usually) discrminate on the basis of pre-existing conditions.
The problem is more subtle: people fear they could develop a chronic health condition and that limits their choices. While you can change jobs now without a worry (assuming both jobs have health coverage) you can’t become unemployed or self-employed.
Obama has exactly the right proposal here: a public “fall back” plan which leaves everyone’s current arrangements untouched but gives them a back-up in case they need it.
October 17th, 2008 at 7:44 am
I thought the same exact thing as Joe Klein. When McCain said, in that sarcastic, snide tone of his: “he wants to spread the wealth,” I thought it was his “let them eat cake moment.” Because, how is that a bad thing these days? Yes, John McCain, he does. And guess what? Most of us want him to.
John McCain is losing this election for several reasons:
1. His campaign is all about him. He’s running on biography and is visibly incensed that the rest of us are too worried about our own asses to care about his self-absorption and that we’re kinda put off by the fact that he doesn’t realize that we’re too worried about the price of milk and gas and heating oil and the fact that our incomes are shrinking EVERY DAY. (He’s jealous because he’s not “the one.” And doesn’t realize being enthused about Obama isn’t about misplaced hero worship or celebrity, but about excitement over the future he presents FOR US).
2. He comes off as a nasty mean angry volatile person. When I see him I think “scary.” I don’t think that when I see Obama, despite what McCain wants me to believe. Scary might have been comforting after 9/11, but I even doubt that ’cause I remember wanting to hug Giuliani for his calm. I worry that McCain would really do scary things for this country from losing his temper. Also, he’s always running by the seat of his pants. Ever since he started the campaign two years ago he’s careened around with no large vision, no sense of theme or purpose. It’s exhausting and frightening. People want somebody organized and steady in these uncertain times. Somebody who makes them feel secure, not nervous.
3. Because liberal is no longer a bad word and mccain is running like it still is. He’s running an anachronistic campaign.
4. Because Obama’s visionary and has the pulse of the nation and has had it from way before the pundits or the Republicans. And he’s run his campaign for two years as a twenty first century campaign about twenty first century concerns understanding twenty first century Americans.
5. Because Obama has a stunning smile and McCain has a scary one.
October 17th, 2008 at 9:29 am
because you can call and place a vote before the freakin debate even starts and you have all the little kids on their cells dialing in and creating a mass vote fraud you know like acorn, what amazes me is that you need me to tell you the obvious, thought you were all college kids, guess the country is screwed anyway bye
October 17th, 2008 at 9:30 am
elizabeth you sound like youre doing real good in english 101, keep up the good work
March 1st, 2009 at 6:35 am
viagra
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
March 2nd, 2009 at 6:00 am
levitraIf you have to do it, you might as well do it right
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:33 am
tramadol
Incredible site!
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:40 am
buy viagra online
It is the coolest site,keep so!
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:47 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
buy cheap viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 8:29 am
I bookmarked this site, Thank you for good job! viagra
April 16th, 2009 at 10:08 pm
Greeting. If men could only know each other, they would neither idolize nor hate.
I am from Syria and learning to write in English, give please true I wrote the following sentence: “Shop for cheap airline tickets to south africa with south african airways airline tickets to south africa.”