The ‘McCain is Rich’ strategy is going to backfire on Obama. This is a stupid attack. And it opens the door to McCain re-opening the Rezko connection to Obama’s own house, and to Obama’s association with Jim Johnson, who is implicated in corruption having to do with the mortgage crisis.
It also opens Obama up to the charge of class warfare, which plays well to his base but which turns off republicans and independents. And as we’ve seen with Edward’s massive home and high-living lifestyle, and Gore’s using 20 X more power than the average citizen in his home while calling for conservation, and Kerry’s fabulous wealth, this stuff just does not have traction with the voters. Even when it whiffs of hypocrisy, as it does with these three fabulously wealthy liberals. Everyone yawned when Republicans tried to play the wealth card.
Obama’s ‘brand’ is based on him being a new kind of politician. One who won’t run the same old kind of campaign, who won’t resort to smears and innuendo and other dirty tricks, and who will bring a new high-minded tone and civility to Washington. Every time he pulls one of these stunts, it hurts his brand. If he becomes just another Washington pol clawing for power, and not someone who’s bringing change and a new kind of leadership, he’s toast.
Also, his campaign is starting to look a little desperate and afraid, and that’s also not a good thing for him to project.
I asked this in another thread: How is it a “smear” to remind people McCain is rich? What “innuendo” is actually being asserted? Arguing that a politician may be “out of touch” with everyday voter’s interests and perceptions is not a character attack (or if it is, than “character attack” loses all real-world meaning).
McCain is dipping into the Rezko trough and you’re calling Obama desperate? :rolleyes:
The problem with the NY Times story is that it suggest arugula is some kind of foreign substance in Iowa, when in fact, it’s farmed in Iowa and sold in Farmer’s Markets across the state.
Funny, I was just thinking that McCain’s campaign is looking deperate and afraid.
When campaign representatives start accusing the opposition and their supporters of being “concerned with the price of arugula” and being a “Dungeons & Dragons crowd…in mom’s basement,” that reeks of desperation-- attempting to belittle is just school-yard bullshit.
I still don’t get the whole arugula-eating thing. Maybe if McCain’s people wanted to slam Obama for shopping at Whole Foods, that would make more sense-- that’s a little more elitist.
I bet more Americans eat arugula than don’t know how many homes they own today.
So what? How many people pay attention to either party’s platform anyway? All these pols make compromises like this to get elected. Do you really think Obama is opposed to Same Sex Marriage? I doubt it. Hillary probably isn’t, either.
If McCain is such a maverick, willing to buck his party and reach across the aisle, why isn’t he willing to do what he tried to do back in the good ole’ days (2000)? Having a party platform that opposes all abortions, even in instances of rape, incest, and when the mother’s life is at stake, is not something you can argue as “centrist” or “moderate”, and it is something that will get plenty of airplay in the media–to his candidacy’s detriment when it comes to swing voters.
Probably because he lost to Bush in the primaries in 2000.
Yeah, like it did in 2004, right? Besides, what makes you think any Republican buys into the entire party platform? Since the topic of debate here is whether or not McCain is “forked” yet, I’ll just say that this is no indication of his forkedness.
At this point, I think everyone knows nobody will be “forked” for many weeks still–it’ll be a close race for a while. But there are things that help and things that hurt–and supporting an unpopular, zero-tolerance position about an emotional subject will not help McCain when fighting with Obama for the voters populating the middle ground (whom McCain needs to get elected).
This and this link kind of show that any counter-attacks that McCain tries to make on this front are pretty much DOA. What with the presumably multi-million dollar Arizona ranch redecoration in 2005 that landed the McCains on the Cover of Architectural Digest to the $1 million condo in La Jolla to the part ownership of the Diamondbacks, to the million dollar parking lot, the private jet, the homes in Arlington and in the Carribean, McCain has a lot of trouble proclaiming that he’s for the little guy, especially since he’s toeing Phil Graham’s economic line quite steadily and to cut taxes for the wealthy. It is indeed a fairly strong economy for the obscenely rich.
Obama immediately leapt on this with a commercial and in his campaign speeches. Ironically, McCain’s shootback ad, as well as going back to the ‘elitist’ well (point-headed, arugla-eating, gun and bible hating, etc…) and the Razko well, mentions that Obama made $4 million last year - not even enough to meet his own definition of rich this past Saturday evening. Ok, and of course it mentioned that McCain was a POW, which apparently canonizes everything he’s ever done since.
I think this is a huge break for Obama, and he may very well postpone his Veep announcement until Saturday morning to let this news ride on its own for as long as possible. Then the Sunday pundits will have two stories for the price of one.
On the contrary; it neatly pulls the fangs of McCain’s attempts to paint him as an out-of-touch elitist.
Stuff like this (and the $5 million definition of “rich” wisecrack, and the “I don’t disagree” response to a questioner who said that we should reinstate the draft) suggest that McCain needs to work on his ability to think on his feet and keep those feet out of his mouth.