October 08, 2008

10/8: A Missed Opportunity For McCain

Following the first Presidential debate, conservative bloggers almost unanimously proclaimed John McCain the winner, whereas liberal bloggers saw a draw or a narrow win for Barack Obama. This time, liberal and conservative bloggers both seem to agree that Obama had the better night, although they disagree about the size of his victory. Most liberal bloggers believe that Obama won the debate convincingly. They're arguing that he came across as calm and confident and that his answers were much more coherent than McCain's. Like they did after the first debate, lefty bloggers are pointing to snap polls to bolster their argument that Obama helped himself more than McCain did.

Most conservative bloggers are also (sadly) concluding that Obama had the better night -- not because he significantly out-performed McCain, but because McCain failed to knock him off his game. Many righty bloggers are frustrated that McCain did not bring up Obama's ties to shady figures such as ex-Weatherman William Ayers, as Sarah Palin has been doing for the past few days. Andy McCarthy complains:

"Memo to McCain Campaign: Someone is either a terrorist sympathizer or he isn't; someone is either disqualified as a terrorist sympathizer or he's qualified for public office. You helped portray Obama as a clearly qualified presidential candidate who would fight terrorists. If that's what the public thinks, good luck trying to win this thing. With due respect, I think tonight was a disaster for our side."

DEBATE: Another Win For Obama

Liberal bloggers overwhelmingly believe that Obama had the better night:

• FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver: "I apologize if I sound like a broken record. But once again, Obama won the debate according to essentially every objective metric. And recall that, even if the debate were a tie, this would not have helped John McCain; he needed a clear win tonight. Instead, he's continued to dig himself into a deeper electoral hole."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "Obama won the debate overwhelmingly. There's no question. This was supposed to be McCain's forum. But, apparently, the town hall format only works for McCain when he's surrounded by adoring Republicans."
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "While the debate was a snoozer, this was a clear win for Obama for me. [...] Barack was not only once again speaking directly to the viewers AND the group in the room, repeatedly referring to them as 'You,' but he also answered the questions thoroughly, with fully formed thoughts, a beginning, middle and an end. McCain was all over the map, shifting focus and I think rarely connecting with the audience (saying we're your friends, Senator, doesn't make it so.) In a word, McCain was erratic."
• TPM's Josh Marshall: "This debate struck me as a marginal victory for Obama on points, but because of the state of the race a substantial victory in terms of the overall race. Obama more than held his own. I think Obama's answers were more coherent. [...] That said, McCain did fine. I think his supporters will think he put in a solid performance. But the bottom line is that right now McCain is losing. He has to shake things up. But he didn't."
• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "I am a homer, but I felt Obama won pretty handily."
• Oliver Willis: "Sen. Obama won this debate the way he did the last one. Strong and steady. He doesn't get hyperactive, and that's what we need."
• Mark Kleiman: "I think this was a decent-sized Obama win, though McCain didn't decompensate as I'd hoped. But it was no worse than a wash, and a wash was all Obama really needed."
• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "I thought Obama won this one -- he was more fluid and fluent and confident, and McCain sounded tired to me. That said, I didn't think it was a blowout. But it didn't need to be. McCain is the one who needs to shake up the race; Obama just needs to solidify is support. And I thought he did a good job at that."
• Daily Kos' georgia10: "[McCain] needed to kneecap Obama. But both candidates came away with mere cat scratches. In being ordinary when the circumstances called for the extraordinary, McCain ensured that the status quo -- which now heavily favors Obama -- will remain in place. And with the clock running out on this election season, that's a very dangerous position for McCain to be in, indeed."

The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan: "This was, I think, a mauling: a devastating and possibly electorally fatal debate for McCain. Even on Russia, he sounded a little out of it. I've watched a lot of debates and participated in many. I love debate and was trained as a boy in the British system to be a debater. I debated dozens of times at Oxofrd. All I can say is that, simply on terms of substance, clarity, empathy, style and authority, this has not just been an Obama victory. It has been a wipe-out.It has been about as big a wipe-out as I can remember in a presidential debate. It reminds me of the 1992 Clinton-Perot-Bush debate. I don't really see how the McCain campaign survives this."

DEBATE II: No Game-Changer For The Mac

Many conservative bloggers thought that the debate was either a narrow Obama win or a draw (which they considered a good result for Obama, since he is currently ahead in the polls):

• Glenn Reynolds: "In retrospect I have to say that I think Obama did better than it seemed at the time. This morning, my strongest impression is that McCain seemed to be trying too hard to close the deal, and frustrated that it wasn't happening. Obama, despite a lot of stammering and some ill-advised references to Delaware, seemed a lot more comfortable. I think he passed the threshold acceptability test with the audience, which -- for people looking for 'change' -- is probably enough."
• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "A win on the visuals and at least a draw on substance (if that's a fair assessment) is a win for Obama at this point. So tonight he moves a little closer to the presidency."
• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "Obama avoided any major stumbles, and McCain didn't have have any big moments to take over the debate. So, in that sense, you have to say this was a good night for Obama."
• NRO's John J. Miller: "It was the white-haired dude vs. the cool socialist. This election basically is a referendum on Barack Obama. Americans want to know if they can trust him with the presidency. Each time he puts in a competent debate performance, as he did last night, he takes a step closer to his goal. A tie goes to the cool socialist."
• RedState's Moe Lane: "No insanely bad howlers this go-round. This was, in fact, kind of boring all around. So, I'm going to say that things are unchanged, which is advantage: Obama."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "McCain performed well, I think, subject to some concern that he may have come across as pretty old. Obama showed, in the first debate and again tonight, that he too can come across well under pressure. He's no longer stammering and indecisive as he once was on the stump. On the whole, he's a plausible rogue and I suspect that he passed muster with most people who aren't knowledgeable about the issues. McCain did fine, but I don't think anything happened that will significantly affect the momentum of the campaign."
• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "The debate was a draw. It seems that both candidates are willing to play it safe -- surprising, at least, for McCain, given that he's behind. His answers were more solid, and better...but, for the most part, he allowed Barack to be his usual, glib self (although I'm not sure that Barack came off as likable as he has in the past). McCain was effective, but there were many missed opportunities and anyone hoping this debate would be a game-changer is bound to be disappointed."
• AmSpec Blog's Quin Hillyer: "I thought that, quite unfortunately, this was a big win for Obama tonight. Not that he did anything great, but that he was very steady while McCain had a very ineffective first two-thirds of the debate. Darn."

A few conservative bloggers thought that McCain won the debate, but not by a significant margin:

• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "McCain won, but he didn't score a knockout by any stretch of the imagination. Is this a game-changer? I think not. It may help narrow the gap a little, but I think the two men are pretty evenly matched in these debates. I wouldn't expect a knockout in the last debate, either."
• RedState's Dan McLaughlin: "Clearly, this was a strong performance by McCain and an OK one by Obama. Probably, given the dynamics of the race, Obama is happier with that outcome."
• RedState's Erick Erickson: "The media will say it went Obama's way because there was no no change. But I suspect that McCain actually will pick up a bit from here. His answers were common sense answers and steady. He did well."

MCCAIN DEBATE: Does He Want To Win Or Not?

Many conservative bloggers were frustrated that McCain did not attack Obama's personal associations:

• Michelle Malkin: "No mention of Ayers. No mention of ACORN. Not even the feeblest attempt to expose Obama's radical roots. Disaster."
• Townhall's Matt Lewis: "I think McCain missed an opportunity to bring up things such as Obama's relationship with Bill Ayers. Some would argue that referencing Ayers would have backfired, but I bet you anything Bill Clinton could have -- and would have -- pulled off that maneuver without looking bad. Of course, McCain lacks that same rhetorical ability -- and that's the problem. McCain did well last night, but he needed to do better than well."
• Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "Barack Obama wants the debates to be dull -- every moment of dullness and non-news is another step closer to victory. It's up to McCain to generate the excitement. But what did he do? John McCain can't bring himself to put together more than a sentence on the connection between Barack Obama and the Freddie/Fannie mess. He refuses to talk about Obama's connections to radicals and his continued dissembling about the same. In lieu of a bold growth oriented new economic plan, he comes up with a mortgage buy-athon by the federal government."
• NRO's Bill Whittle: "The things that will (should have said 'would') have hit Obama in the polls were subjects that were not raised tonight and I see no reason to think they will be raised next time. The news won't cover these issues. It has to come out in the debates. And I don't see much chance that we will see that next time. This was not a great night for our team. It's up to the 527's now I think. I don't know how else to get the negatives about Obama out there."
• NRO's Andy McCarthy: "We have a disaster here -- which is what you should expect when you delegate a non-conservative to make the conservative (nay, the American) case. [...] As the night went along, did you get the impression that Obama comes from the radical Left? Did you sense that he funded Leftist causes to the tune of tens of millions of dollars? Would you have guessed that he's pals with a guy who brags about bombing the Pentagon? Would you have guessed that he helped underwrite raging anti-Semites? Would you come away thinking, 'Gee, he's proposing to transfer nearly a trillion dollars of wealth to third-world dictators through the UN'? Nope. McCain didn't want to go there. So Obama comes off as just your average Center-Left politician. Gonna raise your taxes a little, gonna negotiate reasonably with America's enemies; gonna rely on our very talented federal courts to fight terrorists and solve most of America's problems; gonna legalize millions of hard-working illegal immigrants. [...] Memo to McCain Campaign: Someone is either a terrorist sympathizer or he isn't; someone is either disqualified as a terrorist sympathizer or he's qualified for public office. You helped portray Obama as a clealy qualified presidential candidate who would fight terrorists. If that's what the public thinks, good luck trying to win this thing. With due respect, I think tonight was a disaster for our side."

NRO's Lisa Schiffren agrees with McCarthy: "I think McCain put in a very solid performance. But Andy is right that Obama came off as a plausible alternative. Since we have all spent the past few weeks understanding the history and implications of the Obama-Ayers (Khalidi, Said) relationships, that is a tragedy. It would have been awkward to insert that stuff in this format. It would have risked making McCain look oddly hostile and combative. If the McCain campaign is serious about winning, they have to get this stuff out, under their own rubric, not that of 'friendly' journalists. So they better make some kind of arrangement for a high profile event where he can lay it out. And they had better figure out how to get national coverage, because an 8 minute clip on YouTube doesn't penetrate the national consciousness."

The Atlantic's Ross Douthat disagrees: "You know, part of me actually wishes that John McCain had started talking about Bill Ayers, the Annenberg Challenge, Rashid Khalidi, and how the Global Poverty Act will line the pockets of Hugo Chavez. (Maybe in his answer to one of the questions about the economy -- why not?) Because that way we wouldn't have to hear -- as we will hear, from McCarthy and others, for months and years to come -- that the biggest problem with the McCain campaign was that it just wasn't willing to really take the gloves off and call Barack Obama the terrorist sympathizer that he is."

MCCAIN DEBATE II: From The Department Of Bad Ideas

Many conservative bloggers were critical of McCain's proposal to spend $300 billion buying up bad home loans:

• Malkin: "I can't underscore enough what a rotten idea John McCain's ACORN-like government mortgage buy-up is. [...] If Obama had proposed this, the Right would be screaming bloody murder about this socialist grab to have the Treasury Department renegotiate individual home loans and become chief principal write-down agents for the nation."
• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "Here's why this is such a deathblow to McCain's campaign: McCain's support for the bailout was a huge disappointment to conservatives and it's why he went from being tied with Obama to roughly 6 points behind. To make up that gap, McCain needed a game changer that would be popular, that would fire up his conservative supporters, and that would differentiate him from Obama. This proposal seems likely to fail on the first two counts and if, shockingly, the plan turned out to be popular, then Obama would just support a bigger plan."
• NRO's Stephen Spruiell: "McCain's plan is redundant, and it would create significant new responsibilities (and costs) for an already-beleaguered agency. I'm not sure what the campaign was thinking."

Douthat disagrees: "I was gratified by the approach McCain took -- by the absence of personal attacks (though, yes, the dislike still came through), by the attempt to actually engage with Obama on issues like health care, and yes, by the promise to buy up home mortgages, which was exactly the kind of blatantly panderish thing McCain needs to do if he wants to actually win this thing."

MCCAIN DEBATE III: Did He Even Have A Strategy?

Liberal bloggers were very critical of McCain's debate tactics:

• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "According to the Republican pre-debate spin, McCain was supposed to use 'humor' to soften the blow of his mighty attacks, but 1) did any of his attacks connect? and 2) can anyone say, in all seriousness, that McCain delivered a single effective laugh line? And earmarks? Does McCain still think anyone outside of the wingnutosphere give a damn about 'earmarks'?"
• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "It's extremely surprising to me, tactically, that McCain didn't try to do something new. Instead, McCain took the same talking points (earmarks bad, tax cuts good, earmarks very bad) that have seen him fall behind and decided to repeat them with less energy. I would be shocked if this exchange gained any ground for McCain and not at all surprised if he just continues to slip."
• Firedoglake's Ian Welsh: "Here's what I don't understand. Essentially McCain made the same sort of mistakes he made last time. Not friendly enough, not calm, awful body language and so on. Not a statesman. Not a reasuring elder who's seen it all and who can be trusted to deal with it now. I don't believe that his handlers don't know this. I don't believe they didn't know this after the first debate. It was dead clear. So, does John McCain not know this? Are they not able to tell it to him? Does he not listen?"
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "After the first debate, John McCain took quite a bit of heat for neglecting to use the words 'middle class,' so I expected him to correct the oversight. He didn't. After the last several days of guilt-by-association attacks, I expected McCain to talk about Bill Ayers and ask who the 'real' Barack Obama is. He didn't do that, either. After many noticed that McCain treated Obama with contempt in their first meeting, I expected McCain to be far more gracious and respectful last night. Instead, he called his Democratic rival 'that one.'"

Several liberal bloggers are buzzing about the moment when McCain pointed at Obama and called him "that one":

• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "McCain was his vintage self -- nasty, nasty, nasty. Calling Obama 'that one'? That's the most memorable line of the evening, and it was condescending, and I suspect some may find it racially tinged as well."
• Mother Jones' Kevin Drum: "What was with his 'that one' reference to Obama? That's not presidential, my friends."
• hilzoy: "It's the way you talk about an annoying child, if you don't much care for children. It was odd, and, I think, revealing."
• Klein: "I didn't think the moment came off as racist. Rather, it was tone deaf. It was Grandpa Simpson. It was cranky. [...He] dismissed [Obama] in the language a busy mother uses for her third child, as if he couldn't be bothered to recall the youngster's name. But the youngster is the leading candidate for President of the United States. And McCain is doing himself no favors by acting unable to treat his opponent with respect."

MCCAIN DEBATE IV: Not A Flattering Contrast

Many liberal bloggers thought that the optics were not favorable to McCain:

• Ezra Klein: "Tonight, even though McCain made no major mistakes, the debate was clearly Obama's. And not only on the merits, though I thought this Obama's best outing on the substance. Rather, it was the visual contrast that proved striking. The constant movement required by the format left McCain looking old and slow and tired. It's not his fault. He moves like a 72-year-old man because he is a 72-year-old man. But that fact was emphasized this evening, and not to McCain's advantage. He had to stand on the stage with Obama, whose physical presence was more confident, more energetic, more commanding."
• MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "McCain had some serious optics problems during the debate. McCain's lurking in the background was truly Cheney-esque, and that's just not a good likeness for the GOP nominee. And McCain's extreme derisiveness towards Barack Obama, unwilling to call him by name, instead only calling him 'that one,' seriously undercuts the notion that McCain can be a cool operator on the world stage. Note also that Obama's jokes did connect with the audience -- he got a nice chuckle towards the end of the debate when he said that Michelle [Obama] could easily list all of the things he doesn't know -- while the only laugh McCain earned during all of his botched jokes over the course of the debate was from Tom Brokaw."

Several conservative bloggers agreed:

• Mirengoff: "I thought that Barack Obama won the 'visuals' of tonight's debate. He looked younger and more vigorous, of course, but, in addition, John McCain did too much moving around. He seemed focused on addressing a 'town hall,' as he has done so well over the years. But in reality, as Obama seemed quicker to appreciate, the audience tonight was in television land. To them, McCain's movement must have seemed a bit aimless."
• Douthat: "For whatever it's worth the physical and generational contrast between the two men was very striking in this setting, and especially in the early going McCain seemed to me be showing his age as he delivered his answers. He improved as the night went on, but the vigor gap was palpable."
• AmSpec Blog's Wlady Pleszczynski: "McCain's movements and gestures accentuated his age, and unlike at the first debate he appeared tired. Or perhaps resigned."

MCCAIN DEBATE V: If You Got Somethin' To Say, Say It To His Face!

Several liberal bloggers are portraying McCain as a coward for not attacking Obama's character, even though his surrogates (such as Palin) have been doing so for days:

• Marshall: "Where were McCain's new fisticuffs? Bill Ayers, Obama as a liar, terrorist, all the sludge we've seen over the last 72 hours? Yes, he was aggressive on policy. But that's what debates are about. But McCain didn't take any of the shenanigans from the campaign trail into this debate. Almost like he was unwilling to say any of it to Obama's face. Or at least that he knew he couldn't get away with it in front of a non-party-line audience."
• Cole: "I guess when it boils down to is that, McCain, for all his tough guy talk, is just a tired old wimp. Given ninety minutes to go after Obama like he and his partner and his surrogates have the past few days, and he said nothing. Given all that time to question Obama's patriotism, to question his background, to suggest he does not support the troops, and McCain refused to do it. Why didn't he look him in the eyes and call him Sen. Hussein like his surrogates are doing? Or is that just supposed to be in the background, to make Obama look suspect, to accuse him of being in league with terrorists -- but like every punk and every bully he can't own up to it himself. [...] John McCain was not man enough to say to Barack Obama's face and to the rest of the nation all the things Sarah Palin spouts off 3-5 times a day."
• Willis: "For the last few days, at a distance the McCain campaign has whipped up a frenzy of nativist sentiment against Barack Obama. They've accused him of being strange, not a supporter of America, and of course as a terrorist sympathizer. They've done it mostly through Sarah Palin's forked tongue, but McCain also took a punch at Sen. Obama, powering through an attack as the assembled mob screamed 'terrorist' at Obama's name. Then a funny thing happened on Tuesday night. John McCain had to go into a room with Barack Obama. He had to stand on stage with Sen. Obama and in front of the entire nation. Surely John McCain, a veteran of combat, would take the baton from his running mate, get up in front of the naive Barack Obama and show him who the real American in the race is. Then he fizzled. He shot blanks. The horse never got out of the gate."

OBAMA DEBATE: The Picture Of Cool

Liberal bloggers were very pleased with Obama's performance:

• Moulitsas: "For all the pre-debate stuff about the townhall benefitting McCain, Obama looked far better here. He is at his best when he can speechify, and that's what he was able to do here. And really, Obama is the picture of 'cool'. The side-by-side comparison isn't kind. But even on substance, it wasn't close."
• Aravosis: "There is no question that Obama won tonight. He was smart, measured, and presidential. He presented details when details were called for, and cut down McCain politely and devastatingly when the situation demanded (I'm beyond impressed with Obama's ability to criticize McCain in a manner that doesn't come across as negative)."
• Benen: "I've long seen Obama as a capable but underwhelming debater. Even during the primaries, [Hillary] Clinton and [John] Edwards seemed more comfortable and relaxed in a debate, while Obama struck me as more professorial and detail oriented. Last night, however, the professor schtick worked beautifully -- the hall was his classroom and Obama was in complete control. It was arguably his best debate performance to date."
• TPM's Greg Sargent: "The challenge for McCain was to land a haymaker, and that just didn't happen. McCain launched a hard hit on Obama by repeating his familiar claim that Obama will hike taxes on middle class families and small businesses. But Obama aggressively rebutted those claims at length, with authority and conviction. The bottom line is that the stage mostly belonged to Obama tonight."
• Open Left's David Sirota: "Barack Obama may be the most likeable politician in modern American history. [...] I disagree with him on some issues, and he has really disappointed me at times. But the guy is a terrific communicator; clearly empathetic in a genuine way (as opposed to an annoying Bill Clinton lip biting way); and doesn't talk down to people -- and it makes him a really likeable person. That seemed to especially shine through tonight, as evidenced by CBS News' poll showing a 20 point jump for him on the question of whether he 'understands voters' needs and problems.'"

MCCAIN/PALIN: Running On Hate?

Liberal bloggers are buzzing about the various reports of inflammatory outbursts occurring at recent McCain/Palin events. They are accusing McCain and Palin of deliberately stoking these ugly sentiments in their supporters:

• Marshall: "John McCain's latest gambit is to juice up his and Palin's crowds into calling Obama a 'terrorist', hurling racial epithets at black reporters (presumably, there aren't many in attendance as supporters), or just random calls for murder."
• The New Republic's Christopher Orr: "'Terrorist!' 'Kill him!' 'Sit down, boy!' None of these obscenities was uttered by anyone directly affiliated with the McCain campaign, but they are a clear consequence of the ugly turn it has taken -- and shamelessly announced it would take! -- over the past few days. If [McCain strategist] Steve Schmidt and the other architects of this increasingly disgraceful candidacy didn't anticipate such an outpouring of violent, racist bile, they are imbeciles. If they did, they are worse."
• Benen: "McCain/Palin have reached a point where they have to decide whether whipping right-wing activists into a frenzy, based solely on lies, is the responsible way to seek national office. The Republican candidates are not literally calling for violence against their political rivals, but they're nevertheless standing by, saying nothing, while their supporters are shouting words like 'kill,' 'terrorist,' and 'treason' at their rallies. And given that this rage-filled hatred is in direct response to the McCain/Palin campaign lying to their supporters, now would be the ideal time for these candidates to take a look in the mirror and consider the consequences of a relentlessly negative, breathtakingly dishonest, anger-driven campaign."
• Cole: "In the last few days, the McCain campaign has decided to go full on sleaze, and we now have the spectacle of major party candidates routinely, in their stump speeches, questioning the patriotism of the opposition. Not only questioning the patriotism, but insinuating, quite clearly, that Sen. Obama is in league with terrorists. [...] And the base is reacting. Whipped into a froth by their venomous cheerleading vice-jingoist in chief, a self-styled pitbull in heels, they are now shouting 'treason' and 'traitor' and even getting one fellow inspired enough to yell 'kill him' in regards to Bill Ayers. She was even unable to stop bashing Joe Biden as he was today attending his mother-in-law's funeral -- she found time to spew out some more of her home-spun bile with a smile as she continued to recite her litany of nonsense and babble."
• Daily Kos' BarbinMD: "As both McCain and Palin continue their Swift Boat campaign, using innuendo, half truths and outright lies against Barack Obama, their crowds are looking more like mobs than political supporters. [...] In every case, McCain and Palin ignored the hate that they were whipping up. And why wouldn't they? After all, that's the whole point. The only thing they have left to run on is fear and hate."
• TAPPED's Adam Serwer: "I'm not sure if the McCain campaign is really aware of what they are drawing forth from their supporters. They see the crowds and the enthusiasm, and maybe they can't see the ugliness. But mostly I think they don't care, as long as they win. To be sure, the attacks they are making would be leveled at any Democrat. But this Democrat happens to be a black man, and I don't think they really understand the level of primal fear and hatred they are abetting."

MCCAIN/PALIN II: Playing With Fire?

Several liberal bloggers are worried that McCain and Palin's harsh attacks on Obama's character could drive their supporters to commit acts of violence:

• The Atlantic's Ta-Nehisi Coates: "I don't hold McCain or Palin accountable for the incredible hatred that we've seen at their rallies as of late. Let me rephrase -- I don't think they're accountable for everything they're knucklehead supporters say, anymore than Obama is accountable for every comment on DailyKos. But they should be shook by the people they're attracting. We are getting a good look at the elements of the base now. These are not people just posting anonymously in internet forums -- these are people who literally believe Obama is a terrorist and showing up at rallies. [McCain and Palin] need to watch what they say. Somewhere, slumbering in this country, there are men who aren't clued in that this whole 'terrorist' thing is mere strategy. They have guns, and all their lives they've wanted to be famous. Don't give them a reason. This is still America. We are never that far from the past."
• Klein: "When Sarah Palin says 'our opponent...is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect, imperfect enough, that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country' she's talking to the cameras. [...] But then that news is broadcast to millions of people. Some of those people love Sarah Palin and John McCain. They take their statements very seriously. They already believe Barack Obama a Muslim educated in extremist Islamic academies that instilled him with a deep hatred of America. Now they are told by a credible witness that he so mistrusts this country that he happily associates with terrorists. To move from that statement to an act of political violence is not so much a leap of logic as a simple application of literalism. We have spent the past seven years cheering a war on terrorists. Now it seems that a particularly silver-tongued extremist has ascended to the highest step in American politics. Why would you not act? As Coates says, I do not hold McCain and Palin responsible for who attends their rallies. But I do hold them responsible for what they say. And they are not being responsible. Not even close."
• Obsidian Wings' Eric Martin: "I'm trying not to veer too far in the direction of hyperbole, but at a certain point the hateful rhetoric being disseminated by the McCain camp (especially Sarah Palin, doggone it!) crosses a threshold and becomes incitement to violence; a poison recklessly injected into the bloodstream of our body politic by a cynical Republican ticket in search of the next short-term political fix."
• Jack & Jill Politics' Jack Turner: "I was at Obama's rally at Independence Square in Philadelphia back in April. When he mentioned Hillary Clinton's name, the crowd booed, and he told them to stop. Barack Obama intervened when his supporters booed his opponent. He called for civility. Yet, when faced with supporters who label senators terrorists and call for their assassination, John McCain and Sarah Palin said nothing. This is how evil spreads, from domestic violence to genocide. People in a position to stop it choose to do nothing."

MCCAIN/PALIN III: Kill The Traitor!

Pro-Obama bloggers are buzzing about the latest outburst to occur at McCain/Palin rally, as reported by The Huffington Post's Nico Pitney and Seth Colter Walls:

"In the latest instance of inflammatory outbursts at McCain-Palin rallies, a crowd member screamed 'treason!' during an event on Tuesday after Sarah Palin accused Barack Obama of criticizing U.S. troops.

'[Obama] said, too, that our troops in Afghanistan are "air raiding villages and killing civilians,"' Palin said, mischaracterizing a 2007 remark by Obama. 'I hope Americans know that is not what our brave men and women in uniform are doing in Afghanistan. The U.S. military is fighting terrorism and protecting us and protecting our freedom.'

Shortly afterward, a male member of the crowd in Jacksonville, Florida, yelled 'treason!' loudly enough to be picked up by television microphones."

• Yglesias: "It seems that Sarah Palin doesn't just inspire her supporters to hurl racial slurs, her quote doctoring is inspiring those foolish enough to believe her to ever-higher levels of Obama hatred. [...] Palin and McCain can't be held responsible for the fact that racists are part of their base, but now she has people thinking Barack Obama is a traitor purely because she's misleading them into thinking them that he is. This is on her."
• Benen: "Part of this really is Palin's fault. She's blatantly lying to her supporters, leading them to think Obama really is condemning U.S. troops in Afghanistan. The charge was debunked 15 months ago when Republicans first used it, and it hasn't improved with age. If Palin is capable of shame -- an unlikely scenario, to be sure -- now would be a good time for it."
• Turner: "Everything we need to know about John McCain and Sarah Palin is summed up by their reaction to these incidents. [...] Not only do they bring out the worst in people, but they feed the worst in people. They are basing their campaign on painting Obama as a terrorist and monster. They are cultivating prejudice, racism, fear and ugliness. America has been down this path before, and it is the exact opposite of what this country needs right now."
• Sullivan: "The Palin-McCain campaign's attempt to define Obama as a terrorist traitor to his country seems to be catching on among their base."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Snap Polls Vs. Spin

Moulitsas is a big fan of the post-debate snap polls:

"I made this point below, but I'll make it again -- the snap polls completely short circuit the ability of the right-wing noise machine to ramp up the 'our guy won because the Democrat sighed' b.s. It's hard for the right-wing pundits on the air to make the case that McCain won when the numbers are so starkly in opposition. This was particularly in display during the vice-presidential debate, when the enraptured Right wanted to proclaim her the Second Coming, while a secondary effort attempted to create outrage over a supposed Biden 'sigh'. Yet all of that hit a brick wall after the snap polls emerged. There's no way to spin that stuff. When the American people say 'Obama won' or 'Biden won', it sort of settles the debate conclusively."

LEST WE FORGET: Congress Can't Remember Last Time It Got Together And Legislated Like This

From The Onion:

"WASHINGTON -- In the midst of negotiating the largest economic bailout ever proposed, congressional leaders agreed Friday that the chaos and volatility of the past week has rekindled a sense of excitement for legislation many had thought lost forever.

'We worked through the weekend, pulled a few all-nighters, and just got back into the whole legislating groove again,' Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) said. 'After all these years of not making a difference, it's nice to know we still got it, baby.' [...]

'Being able to really bang it out like this -- man, it's what being a public servant is all about,' said Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV), who claimed the historic bailout made him feel like he was 46 years old again. 'The air inside the Senate chamber has been electric. Folks haven't been this fired up since Strom Thurmond tried to pass anti-miscegenation legislation back in '59.'"

Posted by Ian Faerstein at October 8, 2008 12:52 PM