July 31, 2008

7/31: McCain Brings The Nasty

John McCain's recent attack ads against Barack Obama -- specifically his most recent ad comparing Obama to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton -- are dominating the political blogosphere's attention. Liberal bloggers are divided in their views about McCain's "Celeb" ad. Some think the ad is a pathetic attempt to generate free media that won't be effective in swaying public opinion. Others think the ad is a despicable attempt to appeal to people's racist instincts by linking Obama to "oversexed and/or promiscuous young white women". Conservative bloggers, in contrast, are (mostly) pleased by the negative turn that the McCain camp has taken, which they attribute to the recent promotion of strategist Steve Schmidt. They believe that McCain can only win by defining Obama in a negative light, and that the liberal blogosphere's angry response to the "Celeb" ad is proof of the ad's effectiveness.

In other news, liberal bloggers are buzzing about ex-McCain strategist John Weaver's criticism of the McCain camp's recent tactics, which they see as evidence that the McCain camp's negativity is causing a backlash. Conservative bloggers, meanwhile, are linking to Dana Milbank's column that mocks Obama for being "presumptuous." The excitement that Weaver's and Milbank's respective words are generating in the blogosphere illustrates how people in politics are never more influential than when they're criticizing their own side.

MCCAIN: And We've Reached A New Low

Liberal bloggers are harshly criticizing the McCain camp's latest attack ad, which describes Obama as "the biggest celebrity in the world" while showing clips of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. Many liberal bloggers view the ad as a racist dog-whistle:

• TPM's Josh Marshall: "I note with interest today, John McCain's new tactic of associating Barack Obama with oversexed and/or promiscuous young white women. (See today's new ad and this from yesterday.) Presumably, a la Harold Ford 2006, this will be one of those strategies that will be a matter of deep dispute during the campaign and later treated as transparent and obvious once the campaign is concluded."
• Atrios: "He's An Uppity Negro Who Wants To Fuck Your Sister. It is the path that the McCain camp has chosen. They're allowed. But if the word 'presumptuous' comes out of the mouth of a journalist one more time I'm gonna go Elvis on the teevee."
• Ezra Klein: "I seem to remember that midway through the Democratic primary, there was a lot of chatter about how Obama's promise of a 'new politics' meant he couldn't really go on the attack, as that would generate terrible media coverage and sink his campaign. Interestingly, this has not been a problem for McCain. Apparently, McCain proved himself committed to a politics of honor and decency sometime between 2001 and 2004, and can now go around running crypto-racist ads and lying about Obama without any fear of reprisal."
• dday: "Wow, this is just transparent. There's no reason to include Britney Spears and Paris Hilton in this ad. None. It hangs on the word 'celebrity' being included, which means it could have just as well been Brad Pitt and George Clooney. Anyway, all the footage is from Obama's Berlin speech, not the red carpet. This is absolutely meant to juxtapose images of white women with images of a black man. They even dissolve into one another! [...] Right now we have a press narrative entirely focused on Obama, whether or not he's 'ready,' whether or not he's 'presumptuous,' whether or not he's 'equipped to lead.' It's high time there was a bit of focus on McCain, and the truly nasty, racially coded campaign he is now running."

Open Left's Chris Bowers is particularly disgusted by the ad:

"Let's do a quick rundown of the identity politics at work...

• Obama is a girly-man. The ad only compares Obama to female celebrities, which is a direct shot at Obama's 'manliness.'
• Obama will sleep with your white daughters: Paris Hilton and Britney Spears are known for their sexuality as much as anything else. That must go for Barack Obama, too. And the history of attacking African-Americans in association with white women is such a positive one.
• Obama is too young: For a campaign that is hyper-sensitive to attacks on McCain's age, they certainly have no problem attacking Obama's age. Which is what comparing Obama to Spears and Hilton is.
• Obama is a Hollywood liberal: This is also a run of the mill attack on Obama as a Hollywood, liberal elite, in line with decades of conservative backlash narratives.

This is really atrocious stuff, and trying to bring out all of the worst aspects of America in order to win an election. At this point, the McCain campaign is just hitting Obama with whatever it can think of, and seeing if Obama will respond. It works, too, as they get tons of free press out of it. Given that political attacks take on their own life, the best response for Obama is probably to start making attacks of his own."

MCCAIN II: Race-Baiting? What Race-Baiting?

Conservative bloggers are pushing back against Josh Marshall's claim that McCain's ad is designed to "associat[e] Barack Obama with oversexed and/or promiscuous young white women":

• RedState's Moe Lane: "Oh, Josh. Tell me that you had to drink half a bottle of whiskey to numb the pain of writing that. [...] The message [of the ad] is fairly clear: Barack Obama doesn't want to be with Paris Hilton (what sane man who values his health would?); he is Paris Hilton. I can understand why people don't want to hear that, but that's hardly our fault. Seriously: if the Democrats don't want us to compare their candidates to fairly vacuous celebrities with no history of accomplishments, then they can start nominating better candidates. But full points for doing your part in bringing the word 'uppity' back into the bounds of political discourse, Marshall. Although I think that your Magic Racist-Detector Whistle is broken: I for one can't hear a damned thing..."
• The Atlantic's Ross Douthat: "Look, I understand that liberals are frustrated at Barack Obama's inability to pull away in the polls, despite all the favorable tailwinds he's enjoying and the fact that John McCain is running a staggeringly inept campaign. I'd be frustrated too! But that isn't a reason to make yourself sound like a paranoid idiot."
• NRO's Mark Hemingway: "The recent McCain ad where he makes fun of Obama's celebrity status, happens to feature a picture of Britney Spears to illustrate its point about the vacuousness of fame for fame's sake. [...Marshall is] usually above this sort of thing, so I note with interest his new tactic of baselessly crying 'racism!' where none can be found."

On a related note, conservative bloggers are accusing Obama of "race-baiting" after he made the following remarks about McCain's recent attack ads:

"[Republicans] know that you're not real happy with them and so the only way they figure they're going to win this election is if they make you scared of me. What they're saying is 'Well, we know we're not very good but you can't risk electing Obama. You know, he's new, he doesn't look like the other presidents on the currency, he's a got a funny name.'"

• NRO's Jay Nordlinger: "It's clear [Obama]'s going to play the race card all the way to November, and maybe beyond. If you criticize him, you're a racist, to one degree or another. Obama is the uncriticizable, unopposable candidate: If you breathe a word against him, you must don the scarlet R (for you know what)."
• The Weekly Standard's John McCormack: "Obama Accuses McCain of Race-baiting. [...] I'm sure the Washington Post is hard at work on a front-page story debunking this scurrilous and unfounded accusation."
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "This isn't the first time either that the left has gotten impatient with the lack of racial attacks from McCain and demagogued him anyway just to defibrillate the narrative (as they also did with Hillary), but it's unusual to see the Messiah himself stoop to making the charge instead of outsourcing it to an aide or waiting around for one of his slimier fans to do it for him."

MCCAIN III: Britney Spears? In An Attack Ad?

Other liberal bloggers aren't especially offended by McCain's attack ad; they just find it absurd and ineffective:

• Firedoglake's Blue Texan: "McSame's promise to run an honorable campaign is holding up about as well as his wedding vows to his first wife. [...] But it's hard for me to get riled up about this spot because it's just so lame. It feels like someone in the McSame campaign is trying ever so desperately to imitate big bad Lee Atwater and they just can't quite get it right."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "We've been saying for weeks that the McCain campaign had nowhere to go but negative. But, even in your wildest imagination could you have envisioned that he'd be using Paris Hilton and Britney Spears? Seriously? It's a fricking presidential election in the middle of a war and a recession -- and that's what the GOP nominee is throwing out? It's an embarrassment to this country."
• The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "I have no idea how voters will respond to stupidity like this ad. Maybe they'll find it compelling. Who knows. But it seems to me the ad tells us very little about Obama, and a whole lot about the shell of a man McCain has become."
• The Huffington Post's Jason Linkins: "There's a fine line between smart and clever, and a similar border between clever and stupid, and John McCain's campaign ads keep on standing on all the wrong sides. In their desperate attempts to undo the success of the overseas trip that would probably have never happened if the McCain campaign hadn't dared the Obama team to take it in the first place, McCain's ad people have decided to attempt to try to play Obama's popularity as a bad thing -- comparing the candidate to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. (Which is of real benefit to Spears and Hilton!)"
• Daily Kos' BarbinMD: "Did the McCain camp really think it was a good idea to air an ad that emphasizes how popular Obama is?"
• Firedoglake's Attaturk: "Maybe what really bothers McCain about Obama's ability to pack 'em in -- no matter where he goes -- is the fact that he's pretty much a frustrated celebrity himself. After all, how many Senators trade in on their media-love affairs by appearing in 'Wedding Crashers' AND '24'?"

MCCAIN IV: Seriously, Stop It, You're Embarrassing Yourself

Liberal bloggers are buzzing about ex-McCain strategist John Weaver's criticism of the McCain camp's recent tactics:

"With the release today of a McCain television ad blasting Obama for celebrity preening while gas prices rise, and a memo that accuses Obama of putting his own aggrandizement before the country, Weaver said he's had 'enough.' The ad's premise, he said, is 'childish.'

'John's been a celebrity ever since he was shot down,' Weaver said. 'Whatever that means. And I recall Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush going overseas and all those waving American flags.' [...]

He added: 'There is legitimate mockery of a political campaign now, and it isn't at Obama's. For McCain's sake, this tomfoolery needs to stop.'

Liberal bloggers are using Weaver's comments to bolster their argument that McCain is damaging his own image with his recent attacks on Obama:

• The New Republic's Jonathan Chait: "Over the last few years, McCain gave up nearly every substantive position that undergirded his maverick image. But he did retain the basic image that made him so popular among moderates -- the jocular yet dignified bipartisan figure who had a core sense of decency. (I acknowledged as much in a recent column.) Now, I think McCain is in danger of losing that as well, and that's why you see people like Weaver taking the extraordinary step of complaining in public."
• The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "It sounds like longtime McCain advisor John Weaver agrees that McCain's campaign is in imminent danger of going overboard."
• Benen: "What's striking about this is that Weaver sees McCain as a hero. An example of American greatness. [...] Weaver, to borrow a phrase, is a true believer when it comes to McCain -- all McCain needs to do is show voters what's in his heart, and he'll do just fine. But McCain has clearly chosen a different path, and in the process, done something Dems have wanted to do for years -- make McCain appear small, self-indulgent, and rather ordinary."
• BarbinMD: "I'm guessing that McCain will now begin questioning Weaver's loyalty since that would be much easier than questioning his own decision to embrace Rovian tactics in his 'respectful' run for the presidency."

Conservative blogger Ramesh Ponnuru agrees with Weaver: "Weaver's right. McCain's recent ads are juvenile."

AmSpec Blog's Robert Stacy McCain slams Weaver: "The past two weeks have (finally) seen something like a spark of life in the John McCain campaign, for which Steve Schmidt deserves credit. So, now that Team Maverick has seized the initiative and started scoring points against Obama, who's complaining? The guy who ran the McCain campaign into bankruptcy last year."

Townhall's Matt Lewis thinks ex-McCain advisers like Weaver should "shut up": "For the first time this general election cycle, John McCain is driving the message. The reason? There has finally been, I believe, a tacit admission that John McCain cannot win a beauty contest against Barack Obama -- but that he can 'win ugly' -- as they say in football. [...] No doubt, this strategy is the result of the promotion of Rovian adviser Steve Schmidt. It will be decried as 'negative,' but as they say, 'politics ain't beanbag.' Rove managed to win two elections doing exactly what Schmidt is now attempting, and at the end of the day, it's merely a smart political strategy. [...] Sadly, some Republican talking heads -- and former McCain advisers -- are criticizing this strategy. In my estimation, these folks should shut up. One piece of advice the McCain folks ought to adhere to is to simply not allow these naysayers to influence his team's message and strategy. [...] If [McCain] gives into the criticism, in my estimation, he has lost."

MCCAIN V: Bravo, McCain Campaign!

Unlike their liberal counterparts, conservative bloggers like McCain's latest attack ad:

• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "A strong ad from the McCain folks."
• Robert Stacy McCain: "[The ad has] very well-focused message...More evidence of the improved effectiveness of Maverick's campaign since Steve Schmidt came aboard. Making the election 'all about Obama' -- a referendum on the Democrat's character and qualifications, with John McCain running as the Not Obama candidate -- is really the only hope for the GOP this year."
• Allahpundit: "[The ad is] surprisingly savvy. This is the third ad in nine days to spoof the cult of Obama but the first one to employ it to any useful end, pairing it with the shots of celebutante nitwits to make him look like a 'famous for being famous' lightweight per the hot-button coup de grace. The true stroke of brilliance, though, is how it plays the media. Team Maverick is very shrewdly trying to close the money gap by using gimmicky spots that they know will be buzzed about -- with the requisite free airplay -- on cable news. Britney and Paris guarantee that this will end up on crap like Hardball."
• Michelle Malkin: "The McCain camp and I on the same page for once? Yes, it's true! They released an ad called 'Celeb' mocking Obama as the biggest, emptiest celebrity in the world and taking on Obama's opposition to offshore drilling. Good stuff."
• Lewis: "Critics who deride the 'celebrity' ad as puerile are majoring in the minors. They should realize this one ad is merely part of a larger strategy. You can't make everyone happy with every message of the day, but the larger narrative is what matters. This is not going to be pretty, but the election is going to be a referendum on Barack Obama, like it or not. The real question is whether or not McCain, himself, has the stomach to allow his team to run this sort of campaign. Winning will probably mean that he is viewed by the media as having 'changed' and gone 'negative.' McCain has often said he would rather 'lose an election than lose a war.' My question is whether he would rather lose an election than lose his popularity with the media elites. To beat Barack Obama, he can't have both."
• The Weekly Standard's Dean Barnett: "Like Britney and Paris, Barack Obama hasn't earned the status that He (like they) so enjoys. [...This ad] has annoyed many people. Most presidential campaign ads this cycle, especially the drearily self-righteous ones excreted by the spendthrift Obama campaign, have come and gone with no one either noticing them or caring about them. Why are people talking about this one? Because it hits close to home."

The Next Right's Patrick Ruffini gently critiques the ad: "The ad leads off with a great first half. And the 'more foreign oil' line is killer. Where it trails off is that the portrait doesn't match the frame. After framing up Obama's celebrity perfectly, the ad transitions into a standard Republican litany on taxes and gas prices. What exactly this has to do with Obama being like Paris Hilton isn't clear. The ad would have been more thematically seamless if it honed in on the one or two best examples of Obama's naivite or selling American interests down the river to please the adoring Berlin crowds. Obama's 'without preconditions' quote on Iran would be a perfect example. The theme: Obama's celebrity naivite isn't just misguided. It's dangerous."

MCCAIN VI: The Post Calls BS

On Tuesday we noted that liberal bloggers were criticizing the major news organizations for describing McCain's latest attack ad without mentioning that the ad's most inflammatory charge -- that Obama cancelled a scheduled visit with U.S. troops in Germany because "the Pentagon wouldn't allow him to bring cameras" -- is false. Yesterday, The Washington Post's Michael D. Shear and Dan Balz earned praise from liberal bloggers when they wrote a front-page article entitled, "McCain Charge Against Obama Lacks Evidence":

"For four days, Sen. John McCain and his allies have accused Sen. Barack Obama of snubbing wounded soldiers by canceling a visit to a military hospital because he could not take reporters with him, despite no evidence that the charge is true."

Liberal bloggers are praising Shear and Balz for declaring that McCain's charge wasn't supported by the facts:

• TPM's Greg Sargent: "Progress! Today's Washington Post comes through with a great front-page piece devoted entirely to debunking McCain's false attack on Obama's canceled troop visit. [...] The sweet sound of journalism, ladies and gents."
• Obsidian Wings' publius: "Good for the Post -- this is what the press should do. No one's asking the media to pick sides -- we're just asking them to call BS to (1) create incentives to tell the truth and (2) inform a busy public who doesn't always have time to investigate the truth. If the Obama campaign does something similar, the Post should slap it on page A1 too."
• Benen: "From the 'credit where credit is due' file, I argued the other day that news outlets were repeating the McCain campaign's demonstrably false smear about Barack Obama and wounded U.S. troops in Germany, but neglecting to point out reality. As far as the public was concerned, McCain was making an attack; Obama said the attack is false. Who's right? It's apparently the media's job to pass along press releases, not report the news. But I'm pleased to note that some outlets have been responsible about this. NBC's Andrea Mitchell told viewers this week that the McCain campaign attack 'literally is not true.' The NYT ran a decent story yesterday, and the WaPo has a very good front-page item today."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "In a front page story in today's Washington Post, the paper comes as close as they can to saying that John McCain is outright lying about Barack Obama in an attempt to smear him as unpatriotic. [...] McCain's strong suit is his 'maverick' status. Now he's become just another dirty, lying (Republican) politician, and the media, his 'base' as he calls them, has suddenly abandoned him (for the first time that I can recall). These kind of attacks can work, but only when the media agrees to play along (see: the media's quiescence to the Swift Boat attacks against [John] Kerry). In this case, the media, starting with NBC's Andrea Mitchell, refused to play along, and insisted, instead, on reporting the facts. That's when this kind of negative campaigning can go horribly wrong for a candidate, essentially blowing up in their face. And in McCain's case, it just has."

MCCAIN VII: Pants On Fire

Several liberal bloggers noted that the McCain camp appeared to back away from its charge that Obama cancelled his visit to a military hospital because "the Pentagon wouldn't allow him to bring cameras":

"McCain's camp, accused in the New York Times and the Washington Post this morning of distorting Obama's canceled trip to a military hospital in German, seems to have backed off the core of the charge: That he canceled the trip because 'the Pentagon wouldn't allow him to bring cameras.'

'It does now seem that Barack Obama snubbed the troops for reasons other than a lack of photo-op potential,' writes McCain blogger Michael Goldfarb this morning, contradicting his campaign's televised ads and his candidate's statements."

• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "It didn't take them long to back down. Front page stories in the Washington Post and the New York Times today apparently did the trick. McCain can't afford to lose his 'base' over this."


• Aravosis: "McCain's blogger: Our attack ad and message for the past 4 days has been false. With bloggers like that, who needs the liberal blogosphere. Of course, that was before McCain's blogger, Michael Goldfarb, said that 'Barack Obama snubbed the troops.' So apparently the McCain campaign has decided it's not time to stop the lies."

Meanwhile, TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat argues that "dirty politics works" and that Obama isn't attacking McCain enough: "So John McCain is being bashed for his mendacious ad about Obama not visiting the troops because he could not bring cameras. Whoop dee doo. The problem is for three days that ad got run on free media. Dirty politics works and McCain has now shown who will go as far down in the gutter as it takes. And why not? Dirty politics works. The Gallup tracker now has a once 9 point gap Obama held down to 4. Rassmussen has its Obama 7 point gap down to 2. Three guesses how that happened. Keep waiting for the 'new' politics and see where it gets you. Here is where Obama has lost his way -- not in the positive side of his campaign, that's worked well. It is in his negative branding, or lack there of. When is the last time you have heard the Obama campaign use the words Bush and McCain together? This ain't rocket science. If the Obama campaign is not saying 'Bush's third term' half the day, it is not doing its job. That's politics folks. Wishing won't make it not so."

digby adds: "Just a little reminder. It was precisely this time of year in 2004, the lull before the Olympics and the conventions, when they rolled out the swiftboat smear. It's when the media are hungry for something juicy and mean and the Republicans are ready to feed it to them. And don't think because they have been somewhat sympathetic to Obama up to now that they won't run with this stuff. Remember, it doesn't matter if they agree with it, if they stage a hissy fit, if they write long denuncuations of McCain or run fact chacks. All that matters is that they get it out there for the McCain campaign. The swift boat liars never did a big ad buy. They got almost all their play through pimping the controversy and having the media show their ads for free."

MCCAIN VIII: Who's The Elitist?

Liberal bloggers are mocking McCain after The Huffington Post's Isabel Wilkinson reported that the AZ senator wears $500 Italian shoes:

"This summer John McCain is traveling in style. He has worn a pair of $520 black leather Ferragamo shoes on every recent campaign stop -- from a news conference with the Dalai Lama to a supermarket visit in Bethlehem, PA. The Calfskin loafers, with silver-tone 'Gancini' buckles, are imported from Italy. In response to Barack Obama's foreign tour, McCain spent much of his energy last week emphasizing his focus on domestic issues. What better way to show his American pride than to tour the country in Italian leather?"

• The Nation's Christopher Hayes: "If I were a right-wing blogger, and I found out that Barack Obama was wearing Ferragamo loafers that cost $520, I would spend about 50% of my waking hours making sure everyone knew this. I would mock him for being an out-of-touch elitist and make jokes like, 'If you think that's a lot, you should see how much his purse costs.' I would send the link to Drudge and wait for Instapundit to pick it up, and then watch gleefully as Fox News ran segments about how Barack Obama's $500 loafers vitiate his entire economic platform. But of course, I'm not a right-wing blogger. And the $520 shoes belong to John McCain. And frankly, I don't think how much his shoes cost matters one whit for how he'd govern the country."
• Benen: "If Barack Obama paid $520 for a pair of Italian loafers, every voter in America would know about it. Every media outlet would report it and every Republican would talk about it. I'm reminded, of course, of John Edwards' $400 haircuts. Last year, that story was everywhere, with the Washington Post writing multiple articles about it. 'How could Edwards relate to regular folks if he has that kind of lifestyle?' the media asked, over and over again. Indeed, the media seems to go to great lengths to look for evidence to bolster the far-right meme that Obama is some kind of outsider. From bowling to orange juice to arugula, reporters love to characterize Obama as something less than a 'real' American. Well, McCain has a half-dozen homes and spends on shoes what some families spend on rent. All the while, he advocates more tax cuts for millionaires, opposes increases to the minimum wage, and tells Americans their economic problems are in their heads. Which candidate is outside the American mainstream?"
• The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "The big challenge facing Barack Obama is whether or not ordinary people can relate to him. After all, he's a big-time elitist. He thinks that it's better, all things considered, to speak two languages rather than one. Meanwhile, John McCain continues to flaunt his regular guy attributes, showing off his $520 Salvatore Ferragamo Pregiato Moccasins in a variety of settings in much the same spirit that the legendary straight talker once traveled, like a man of the people, in the First Class car on the Acela to Philadelphia."

OBAMA: Even Dana Milbank Finds You Presumptuous, Obama!

Conservative bloggers are still buzzing about Dana Milbank's Washington Post column arguing that Obama is "presumptuous":

• Allahpundit: "Free advice for Obama: If even [Keith] Olbermann's regulars think it's time for a hubris check, it's time for a hubris check."
• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "Given that even the likes of Dana Milbank are beginning to get tired of the arrogance that now emanates from the Obama campaign, there is the possibility that the media will regain its sobriety. The question is whether it will be able to do so before Election Day."
• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "Some time ago, it seemed clear from emerging trends in press coverage that the meme of EgObamania presented a potential threat to Barack's campaign, as I noted here, back in March, and also here, more recently. Well, Dana Milbank has picked up the theme -- in a column titled 'President Obama Continues Hectic Victory Tour' -- and run with it like an Olympic track star. What's truly remarkable is how quickly the press can turn on a candidate that it has lionized. Perhaps the reason for the increasingly hostile coverage lies in a sentence at the end of a paragraph deep in Milbanks piece: '[T]here are signs that the Obama campaign's arrogance has begun to anger reporters.' What kind of ineptitude does it take to turn a press contingent once panting with adoration into a vicious pack of attack dogs? Could it be one more sign that the Obama campaign isn't quite ready for prime time?"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Macro Factors Vs. Micro Factors

Ezra Klein:

"The crude way to look at the last few years of presidential elections is that, in general, Republicans win when foreign threats are most salient, and Democrats win when the focus is on domestic issues. Of the last four presidential elections, Republicans have won the popular vote exactly one time: The election that came three years after 9/11, one year after the invasion of Iraq, and a few days after bin Laden released another taped threat. Democrats won the other three. All of which is to say, flip-flopping may have helped explain why Kerry lost, but it's just not that powerful a charge. People give too much credit to the campaigns politicians run and not enough credit to the conditions in which they run. If Bush had called Kerry a flip-flopper exactly as many times, but there was no bin-Laden tape, or economic growth was a half point worse, Kerry would have won, and the charges he levied -- that Bush was out of touch and dim -- would've been considered brilliantly effective political attacks."

LEST WE FORGET: Touche!

From Overheard in New York:

Little guy to big guy wearing fur hat: "You know, wearing fur is murder."
Big guy wearing fur hat: "So is me pushing you off the train."

-- A Train

Posted by Ian Faerstein at July 31, 2008 01:22 PM