Obama versus McCain (versus the rest)

[flere-imsaho]

Heh, gotta love articles without a single attributed source.

[JPhillips]

‘George is pushing him to be more “balanced” on issues such as US relations with Israel.

'George is pro-Palestinian. And he is also urging Barack to withdraw unconditionally from Iraq if he wins.

"It’s a very risky relationship. His hope of becoming America’s first black President depends heavily on winning over conservative voters and it would be suicidal for him to be perceived as a tool of a Hollywood Leftie, which is how they regard George.

‘But they text and email each other almost every day and speak on the phone at least a couple of times a week, often more.’

Wolfson, Davis or Penn?

[JPhillips]

dola

This morning, former Iowa Republican Congressman Jim Leach, former Rhode Island Republican Senator Lincoln Chaffee, and prominent lawyer and former White House intelligence advisor Rita E. Hauser will host a conference call to endorse Senator Barack Obama and announce the formation of Republicans for Obama.

Chaffee's no surprise, but I didn't see Leach endorsing Obama.

[molson]

I'm not an actor, but here's my advice to both candidates.

Obama: Don't associate with celebrities.
McCain: Don't talk about your naps or Wheel of Fortune

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Heh, gotta love articles without a single attributed source.

Normally, I'd agree. But this information shouldn't be surprising to most people that have followed the Obama campaign. The relationship described in this article fits perfectly with what we know about Clooney's fundraiser for Obama that's being held in Europe. It's long been known that Clooney is hosting that fundraiser overseas in the hopes that it won't draw the Hollywood relationship attention that Clooney is trying to avoid at all costs. If Clooney were smart, he'd back off in a big hurry to avoid any collateral damage to Obama.

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Heh, gotta love articles without a single attributed source.

Do you think it's not true? As an Obama supporter, do you want him anywhere NEAR Oprah or Clooney?

[Jas_lov]

Leach voted against the Iraq war and he was for campaign finance reform. He still went down in '06 with the other Republicans and I was surprised that he lost.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

Do you think it's not true? As an Obama supporter, do you want him anywhere NEAR Oprah or Clooney?

The article paints a picture, with unattributed quotes, of Clooney acting as one of Obama's closest advisors on a very wide range of topics, including foreign policy.

I find that pretty hard to believe.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Normally, I'd agree. But this information shouldn't be surprising to most people that have followed the Obama campaign. The relationship described in this article fits perfectly with what we know about Clooney's fundraiser for Obama that's being held in Europe. It's long been known that Clooney is hosting that fundraiser overseas in the hopes that it won't draw the Hollywood relationship attention that Clooney is trying to avoid at all costs. If Clooney were smart, he'd back off in a big hurry to avoid any collateral damage to Obama.

There's no doubt that Clooney is supporting Obama and they may well be friends. The implication, however, that Clooney is directing much of Obama's foreign policy is ridiculous. There's just enough truth in the article, but the overall message is still dubious at best.

[molson]

I didn't read it making that bold a statement that he was actually "directing" foreign policy, but even if that's a perception, Obama has to distance himself from it as much as possible. Hollywood's involvement was a net loss for Kerry in '04.

[JPhillips]

It's also clearly a guy that isn't a supporter of Obama. The "first black President" quote, in that context, would never come from someone supporting Obama. This is a story driven by someone with an ax to grind who isn't brave enough to put his name to his quotes. Forgive me if I'm skeptical of his claims.

[flere-imsaho]

I feel confident that the Obama campaign can utilize the support of the Hollywood set far more effectively than what was quite possibly the most anemic Democratic presidential campaign since the 1980s.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I feel confident that the Obama campaign can utilize the support of the Hollywood set far more effectively than what was quite possibly the most anemic Democratic presidential campaign since the 1980s.

The conservative base is likely hoping that Obama has the same belief as you. There's nothing that could screw up an otherwise solid campaign quicker than a Hollywood intervention in any form. It just doesn't make any sense to go down that path when you don't even need to do so.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I feel confident that the Obama campaign can utilize the support of the Hollywood set far more effectively than what was quite possibly the most anemic Democratic presidential campaign since the 1980s.

lol, seriously?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

lol, seriously?

Well, inasmuch as I think the Obama campaign can do anything more effectively than Kerry's disasterous 2004 campaign.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Well, inasmuch as I think the Obama campaign can do anything more effectively than Kerry's disasterous 2004 campaign.

LOL......that's like saying that McCain will be a more effective president that George W. Bush. It's probably true, but is that really saying all that much?

[flere-imsaho]

That was kinda my point.

If someone wants to say "Hollywood's involvement was a net loss for Kerry in '04" then basically my response is that given how poorly Kerry did in pretty much every aspect of that campaign, I'm sure Obama's campaign can handle this particular aspect better than Kerry's.

It's not as funny when I have to explain the joke, though.

[CamEdwards]

I know, I know. I'm a blatant partisan yadda yadda. I still stand by this statement:

Virginia Governor Tim Kaine appears to be a colossal tool. This is what he had to say on Fox today.

“It was a bad crisis for the world. It required tough words but also a smart approach to call on the international community to step in. And I’m very, very happy that the Senator's request for a ceasefire has been complied with by President Medvedev.”

A) There is no ceasefire currently in place, despite what Medvedev might say.

B) Does anybody really think that Obama or McCain's statements are making an iota of difference in how the Russians are reacting? To try and claim that his Obamaness was able to achieve a ceasefire just by asking for it is eye-rollingly stupid.

[molson]

I actually had requested a ceasefire before Obama did.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I know, I know. I'm a blatant partisan yadda yadda. I still stand by this statement:

Virginia Governor Tim Kaine appears to be a colossal tool. This is what he had to say on Fox today.



A) There is no ceasefire currently in place, despite what Medvedev might say.

B) Does anybody really think that Obama or McCain's statements are making an iota of difference in how the Russians are reacting? To try and claim that his Obamaness was able to achieve a ceasefire just by asking for it is eye-rollingly stupid.

It's stupid, but certainly no more stupid than McCain supporters that have written the Russians attacked because they knew Obama was an appeaser.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

It's stupid, but certainly no more stupid than McCain supporters that have written the Russians attacked because they knew Obama was an appeaser.

I haven't seen that, but you're right... that's awfully dumb. Has anyone the level of Tim Kaine said something like that?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

That was kinda my point.

If someone wants to say "Hollywood's involvement was a net loss for Kerry in '04" then basically my response is that given how poorly Kerry did in pretty much every aspect of that campaign, I'm sure Obama's campaign can handle this particular aspect better than Kerry's.

It's not as funny when I have to explain the joke, though.

The funny part is that I'm not necessarily sure that he can. I'm sure Obama would do fine on his end, but I'd never limit the ability of the Hollywood crew to screw up a candidate's chances. As mentioned before, the quicker the Democrats figure out that Hollywood is not an ally that they want on their side, the quicker they can start beating average Republican candidates in landslide numbers rather than just squeaking by or losing in the case of the last election.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

“It was a bad crisis for the world. It required tough words but also a smart approach to call on the international community to step in. And I’m very, very happy that the Senator's request for a ceasefire has been complied with by President Medvedev.”

So, now that all doubt has been removed as to who the leading Obama VP candidate is..........

[NoMyths]

Hannity with the pitch, Colmes with the swing...

[Toddzilla]

Wowzzorz - Alan Colmes growing a pair of balls and standing up Hannity? Whodathunkit x 2

[molson]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

B) Does anybody really think that Obama or McCain's statements are making an iota of difference in how the Russians are reacting? To try and claim that his Obamaness was able to achieve a ceasefire just by asking for it is eye-rollingly stupid.

The Obama camp seems to think McCain is just as influential:

McCain too bellicose on Georgia? - 2008 Presidential Campaign Blog - Political Intelligence - Boston.com

"Democratic rival Barack Obama has been more measured, and on Tuesday night, his chief foreign policy adviser suggested that McCain had made the situation on the ground worse.

"Barack Obama, the administration and the NATO allies took a measured, reasoned approach," Obama adviser Susan Rice said on MSNBC. "We were dealing with the facts as we knew them. John McCain shot from the hip, very aggressive, belligerent statement. He may or may not have complicated the situation."

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

There's nothing that could screw up an otherwise solid campaign quicker than a Hollywood intervention in any form. It just doesn't make any sense to go down that path when you don't even need to do so.

Wait until Obama's close ties with EA Sports come out...

[JPhillips]

I do remember that not so long ago it was near criminal for Obama to take a public stand that was in contrast to the administration's foreign policy.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

Hannity with the pitch, Colmes with the swing...

Wow. That almost never happens. What did he drink before going on the show? You can almost see Hannity is amused by it. I do love how they're dismissing McCain's affair as "a long time and it's been vetted..." as if that has anything to do with the question.

And while I don't think any of this stuff is germane to much of anything, that clip was...funny.

[JPhillips]

It appears Saakashvili is listening to McCain. Having McCain's top foreign policy advisor on the payroll helps.

"Yesterday, I heard Sen. McCain say, 'We are all Georgians now,'" Saakashvili said on CNN's American Morning. "Well, very nice, you know, very cheering for us to hear that, but OK, it's time to pass from this. From words to deeds."

[Noop]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

Hannity with the pitch, Colmes with the swing...

More proof that Republicans are hypocrites. For a party that is suppose to be about values they really have none.

[Flasch186]

but NOOP that was so long ago, the values are different and the vetting is different. Edwards cheated on his wife while she was fighting Cancer!! For crying out loud, I mean, had he cheated on her say, while she was critically laid up in the hospital after a horrific car accident we could all understand. Or say he was mentally unstable because he spent 5 and 1 half years being beaten - hanitty, then we could all understand it! Thank god the benchmark is the same for everyone, whooo........trust us, this has been thoroughly vetted, i mean deeply vetted....it's vetted. Edwards has not been vetted!

[samifan24]

Originally Posted by Noop

More proof that Republicans are hypocrites. For a party that is suppose to be about values they really have none.

Let's not judge an entire political philosophy simply because of a few misguided individuals. Goes for both sides.

[Noop]

Originally Posted by samifan24

Let's not judge an entire political philosophy simply because of a few misguided individuals. Goes for both sides.

Sorry I disagree. In principal the Republican ideals are very good ideas, in practice it is the opposite. They pander to the right for votes but cater to the rich once in power.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Noop

. In principal the Republican ideals are very good ideas, in practice it is the opposite.

Of course, Republicans would say the same thing about Democratic economic ideas.

If only there were a party that made practical sense all around......

[Noop]

Originally Posted by molson

Of course, Republicans would say the same thing about Democratic economic ideas.

If only there were a party that made practical sense all around......

I am in favor of a new party for moderates myself.

[duckman]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

but NOOP that was so long ago, the values are different and the vetting is different. Edwards cheated on his wife while she was fighting Cancer!! For crying out loud, I mean, had he cheated on her say, while she was critically laid up in the hospital after a horrific car accident we could all understand. Or say he was mentally unstable because he spent 5 and 1 half years being beaten - hanitty, then we could all understand it! Thank god the benchmark is the same for everyone, whooo........trust us, this has been thoroughly vetted, i mean deeply vetted....it's vetted. Edwards has not been vetted!

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

It appears Saakashvili is listening to McCain. Having McCain's top foreign policy advisor on the payroll helps.

Well Saakashvili is hoping McCain wins so he may get more backing. Makes sense for him to half praise him.

[JPhillips]

McCain's sent Graham and Lieberman to Georgia and is saying he speaks for all Americans. It's a bit presumptuous if you ask me.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

McCain's sent Graham and Lieberman to Georgia and is saying he speaks for all Americans. It's a bit presumptuous if you ask me.

Just a tad.

Really an interesting/important time in the world right this second with the Russians, Iran, Iraq, the election.

[JPhillips]

Bill Kristol is wrong about almost everything, so I don't know if I believe this. It would be a big endorsement, if true.

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell will endorse Barack Obama at the Democratic National Convention, Weekly Standard Publisher Bill Kristol told FOX News exclusively on Thursday.

“He may well give a speech at the Democratic convention explaining his endorsement of Obama,” Kristol said, citing inside sources. “For whatever reason I think he has decided he’s going to endorse Obama. I think [Powell] has a high respect for Senator McCain, they go back a long way.”

Kristol continued, “This is not an absolute done deal, but these people are very confident that Powell will endorse Obama.”

Kristol said sources told him Powell will “quite possibly” speak at the Democratic convention on the same night as Obama’s vice-presidential selection and former President Bill Clinton.

[JPhillips]

According to The Politico the Clooney story is more bullshit than any of us thought.

Anatomy of a smear
By: Jeffrey Ressner
August 13, 2008 07:54 PM EST

Anyone looking for a good reason why the mainstream media took so long to get onboard with the tabloid-sourced news about John Edwards’ affair need only look to a story that ran this week about Barack Obama and actor George Clooney.

According to the story that ran Tuesday in the Daily Mail, a notorious British tabloid, Obama has exchanged e-mails, phone calls and text messages with Clooney, who was supposedly advising the candidate on everything from body language to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The Obama-Clooney story was concocted from anonymous sources. Yet it spread throughout the world within hours. It was quickly picked up by The Drudge Report and television networks ranging from Fox News to NBC. The overall result served to bolster Republican candidate John McCain’s dubious contention that his rival Obama is a vapid “celebrity” rather than presidential material.

Clooney responded to the article with humor: “"I have never texted or e-mailed Sen. Obama,” he said in a statement. “And I'll offer a million dollars to anyone who could prove otherwise.

“In fact, I've only talked to the senator once in the last year and a half.... on the phone. I've spent more time with Sen. McCain (he did my TV show) than I have with Sen. Obama.

“I would hope that my friend John McCain would join me in condemning this kind of politics. Although I support Sen. Obama, I would never be dumb enough to offer policy advice to either candidate. They seem to be doing fine without me."

The Daily Mail ran Clooney’s statement Wednesday as an “update” to its original story, with the new headline “George Clooney denies texting Barack Obama about foreign policy.” No retraction of its original story, no correction, no sign of regret, no apology for spreading falsehoods.

But, no matter, the Daily Mail story had already done its damage. Colleagues at other British papers such as The Telegraph reprinted the phony “scoop” while dozens of more reliable and mainstream media outlets in the U.S. ran with the Mail’s unsourced story — usually by adding a question mark at the end of their headlines to provide journalistic cover of sorts. And, of course, right-wing blogs referenced the Daily Mail’s story as if it were undeniable fact.

One of the reporters who worked on the Daily Mail malarkey, Sharon Churcher, told Politico that the British tabloid “ran it because we believed it was true.” Said Churcher, “It came in good faith from sources we believed . . . we still trust our sources.”

Because a publicist representing Clooney had said offhandedly that the actor and the candidate had indeed “spoken” in the past, Churcher said in her mind that counted as “a confirmation” from Clooney that he was an official adviser on Middle Eastern affairs and body language and that the two were in constant contact.

“We believed we had confirmation from Mr. Clooney’s representatives,” said Churcher, though she talked to Politico via telephone so it is difficult to confirm whether or not she said it with a straight face. She did laugh, however, when asked if she would take Clooney up on his offer to pay $1,000,000 to the person who could prove her story.

Churcher said she tried to contact the Obama campaign when working on her initial story but didn’t hear back before her deadline. “Had we had their denial we would have done a different story,” she said, though she declined to state whether or not the Daily Mail would have still published the piece.

Clooney’s representative Stan Rosenfield said his office merely confirmed to Daily Mail reporters that, in the past, the actor had spoken to Obama, but he did not give them any details about the conversations. Rosenfield said he thought Republican tricksters might be behind the concocted story. Of course, he added, now that the article is out there, “one of the problems of this world is unringing a bell.”

He added that no one from the Daily Mail had called to take Clooney up on his million-dollar offer. If the story was true, said Rosenfield, “someone is a million bucks poorer.”

Even an American tabloid reporter was quick to scoff at the British paper’s bogus tale. When told the names of the two Daily Mail writers (Churcher and Caroline Graham) behind the Clooney-Obama article, one U.S. tabloid reporter said they were “not the most reliable” journalists working in the gutter press. Both were widely known for “making things up,” said the tabloid reporter who, ironically, refused to be quoted by name.

But we do have a big scoop for the Daily Mail: According to “sources,” McCain will be soon be selecting BatBoy for his vice president.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I'm surprised this wasn't posted yet. The upward trend for McCain's campaign continues. The Electoral Vote website ( Electoral-vote.com: President, Senate, House Updated Daily ) now has McCain with slight leads in Nevada, Colorado, and Ohio. In addition, Minnesota and Indiana have been moved from solid Obama to slight Obama leans. Only good change for Obama was that Virginia was moved back to a tie rather than a slight McCain lean.

It's shocking to me to see how similar the polling trends are to the 2004 election. Obama really needs to make a good impact at the convention and pick a great VP to get his numbers moving back in the right direction.

[JPhillips]

As has been explained above, Electoral Vote just takes the most recent poll and gives the state to the leader. For any number of reasons this doesn't produce a very predictive map. I'd also note that even with the changes Obama is credited with 275 EV.

Pollster.com is much better in that it averages out a number of recent polls. It has the same states as battlegrounds, but instead of giving it to one or the other over one poll, it gives a much clearer picture of where the race may stand.

If you dig into the trend lines at Pollster you'll find that things have been pretty stable for a few weeks now. It appears that for all the money they're both spending, most people aren't paying attention.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

For those who might be interested, I did a little research on the most reliable and least reliable bellweather states to watch in the upcoming election. I included all elections since 1912 (the first year there was 48 states). Below are the top 5 and bottom 5 with their percentage accuracy of voting for the winner.

Top 5 bellweather states

1. Missouri (100% accuracy)
2. Nevada (95.8% accuracy)
3. New Mexico (91.7% accuracy)
4. Ohio (91.7% accuracy)
5. Tennessee (91.7% accuracy)

Worst 5 bellweather states

1. District of Columbia (36.4% accuracy)
2. Vermont (54.1% accuracy)
3. Maine (54.1% accuracy)
4. Hawaii (58.3% accuracy)
5. Alabama (58.3% accuracy)

Looking at the bellweather state polls on the various sites provides an interesting perspective at this point.

--Electoral-vote.com has McCain leading in 4 of the 5 top bellweather states (Obama leads in only New Mexico).

--Fivethirtyeight.com has McCain leading in Missouri, Nevada, and Tennesse. Obama leads in New Mexico. Ohio is listed as a toss-up.

--Pollster.com has McCain leading in Tennesse. Obama leads in Ohio and New Mexico. Nevada and Missouri are listed as toss-ups.

So, if we combine the results at this point for these 5 states over the three polling sites, McCain leads in eight states, Obama leads in four states, and three states are considered toss-ups.

[Fighter of Foo]

Correlation and causation aren't the same thing.

[NoMyths]

Hawaii was certainly a poor bellweather state in 1912. We now have 50 states, so you may want to look at the 1960 elections onwards.

Alternately, Fighter of Foo is on the money.

[larrymcg421]

To be fair, four of those states are key battleground states. The one that's ridiculous is Tennessee. I don't care how accurate it's been since 1912, it certainly isn't a bellwether state this year. If you take Tennessee out, then McCain's lead across the three polls shrinks to 5-4.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

Correlation and causation aren't the same thing.

Of course, but correlation at least raises the possibility of a prediction tool (which is different than causation).

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

To be fair, four of those states are key battleground states. The one that's ridiculous is Tennessee. I don't care how accurate it's been since 1912, it certainly isn't a bellwether state this year. If you take Tennessee out, then McCain's lead across the three polls shrinks to 5-4.

Certainly. My point wasn't to say that McCain is somehow ahead. It's just a good measuring stick to see how things progress.

I do think your point about Tennessee not being a bellweather state is a bit faulty. It doesn't have to be a battleground state to be a bellweather state. A bellweather state is a state which usually supports the winner. Also, Tennessee proved to be an extremely accurate bellweather state in the 2000 election when they voted 51-47 in favor of Bush and against Al Gore, the home-state candidate. Bellweather states usually have a good mix of races and urban/rural population that mirrors the overall U.S. Tennessee's last miss was in 1924. That's a pretty impressive track record.