If Barack Obama wins the presidential election, he’ll be able to thank John McCain for embracing the Republican right just as it was losing its strangehold on American politics. Or so I say in the Guardian.
Tag: Barack Obama
Double digits
Everyone being polled could be lying. John McCain could pull Osama bin Laden’s head out of a bag and hold it up before the TV cameras the weekend before the election. Sarah Palin could be replaced on the Republican ticket by Warren Buffet, who — along with Colin Powell — will renounce his previous endorsement of Barack Obama. So no predictions from me.
But good Lord. John Zogby, whose methodology may understate support for Barack Obama, now has him leading McCain by 10 points, 52 percent to 42 percent. And Pew has Obama up by 14 points among both registered voters (52 percent to 38 percent) and likely voters (53 percent to 39 percent).
Posts on polls are kind of useless, and I apologize. But the campaign has taken over most of my brain cells. I thought it was interesting that what seemed like a slight shift toward McCain a few days ago appears to have been stopped and is now being reversed.
I still think it’s going to be close.
Dial “Z” for poll numbers
I’m allergic to math, but even I can understand why Barack Obama’s eight-point lead in the Zogby tracking poll is bigger than it looks.
Zogby has consistently had John McCain doing better than in many other polls. As Nate Silver explains, it’s because Zogby weights party affiliation based on exit polls from the previous election.
So if the electorate is more Democratic today than it was in 2004 — and it is, by quite a bit — then Obama’s lead is actually understated by Zogby. That is, if the tracking poll is accurate in the first place, which is always a question worth asking.
Slime in historical context
Josh Marshall writes: “I don’t think there’s any question that McCain’s is the dirtiest and most dishonest campaign, certainly in the last 35 years and possibly going much further back into the early 20th century.”
By invoking the 35-year rule, Marshall is leaving open the possibility that Richard Nixon’s re-election effort in 1972 was worse. I’d agree with that. Worse than anything since? Yes, I think so. The worst I can remember George W. Bush doing against Al Gore was taking credit for a children’s health measure in Texas that had passed over his veto. George H.W. Bush ran some notably dirty campaigns in 1988 and ’92, but I think McCain has set a new standard.
Last night Mrs. Media Nation and Media Nation Jr. came back from a trip to the in-laws and reported that several members of the family had asserted that Barack Obama is “a terrorist.” Not even that he “pals around with terrorists.”
You can argue all day that neither John McCain nor Sarah Palin has said anything quite that breathtakingly brash. But they set it in motion, and let pre-existings fears about a black man with a Muslim-sounding name do the rest.
Powell endorses Obama
Anticipated for weeks, if not months, former secretary of state Colin Powell has finally endorsed Barack Obama. Is this as big as everyone thinks it is? My suspicion is that it will prove to be the single most important endorsement of the campaign, yet still fall short of being a transcendent moment.
Powell is a flawed figure tied to the past, and there are those who will discount this on the grounds that both Powell and Obama are African-American. On the other hand, Powell crystallizes principled conservative discomfort with the McCain-Palin ticket.
But it’s certainly bigger than any newspaper endorsement.
So what about those death threats?
What is really going on at McCain-Palin rallies? The Times Leader of Wilkes-Barre, Pa., reports that the Secret Service can find no evidence that anyone shouted “Kill him!” in reference to Barack Obama at a recent Palin event (via Little Green Footballs).
The story was originally reported by a competitor, the Scranton Times-Tribune, which is standing by its reporter, David Singleton:
Mr. Singleton said the remark came from his right, amid booing that followed Mr. Hackett’s mention of Mr. Obama.
“[I] very distinctly heard, ‘Kill him!’ Male voice,” he said. “It was definitely back in the back.”
Mr. Singleton said other people were in the bleachers he was behind and in similar orange bleachers to the right.
He moved toward the area where he thought the remark came from to see if the person who said it would repeat it. That didn’t happen, and he was unable to identify the speaker, he said.
“I didn’t hear anything else at that point,” he said.
Singleton, by the way, is described by his employer as a wire-service and newspaper reporter with some 30 years of experience. In other words, he doesn’t sound like someone out to make a name for himself. As his editor put it, “He heard what he heard.”
Conservatives bloggers today are excited over the possibility that Singleton got it wrong, pointing to it as evidence that McCain’s and Palin’s crowds would never, ever yell out death threats, and that Obama and his supporters are wrong to level that accusation.
“It’s as if they’re just making stuff up to make McCain and Palin look bad,” says the InstaPundit, Glenn Reynolds, referring to the media.
But not only is the jury out on the Times-Tribune story; there are other facts to sift through as well.
The first report that Palin’s crowds were getting out of control appeared in the Washington Post in early October, when Dana Milbank covered a Florida event at which “Kill him!” was clearly heard. According to Milbank, though, those words were apparently aimed at former Weather Underground radical William Ayers, not Obama. Which I guess makes it OK.
But wait. On Oct. 8, MSNBC reported that someone shouted “Off with his head!” at a Pennsylvania event when McCain mentioned Obama’s tax plan. That sounds like a death threat aimed at Obama, does it not? I don’t think Ayers has a tax plan.
Finally, the aforementioned Milbank says the Secret Service is now stopping reporters from interviewing people at McCain-Palin rallies — a censorious action that is most definitely not part of the agency’s mission statement, and that makes you wonder about the veracity of its claims about Singleton’s reporting. Milbank puts it this way:
So they prevent reporters from getting near the people doing the shouting, then claim it’s unfounded because the reporters can’t get close enough to identify the person.
I can understand why the Secret Service would do that. More media coverage means more reports of death threats; more death threats mean more nuts reach for their guns. But I also don’t doubt that the agency would rather keep Obama safe than be completely forthcoming with the truth.
Here’s the scorecard, as best as I can tell:
- “Kill him!” at Florida rally. True, though probably aimed at Ayers rather than Obama. Still, a death threat is a death threat.
- “Off with his head!” True, and almost certainly aimed at Obama.
- “Kill him!” at Pennsylvania rally. Probably true, despite the Secret Service’s inability to find the criminal. Definitely aimed at Obama.
Is this how McCain’s defenders really want to spend their time?
All the rage
In my latest for the Guardian, I find that the pundits, regardless of how they think John McCain did on substance in his third and final debate with Barack Obama, hurt himself big-time with his petulant, angry performance.
Liveblogging the final debate
McCain had two pretty good debates. Obama had three. I don’t think Obama made any mistakes that can be used against him tonight, though it’s too soon to say. He was fluent and fluid, if not particularly inspiring.
McCain, meanwhile, was just awful — rambling, incoherent at times, ineffective in his attacks, petulant and occasionally angry. This isn’t going to move the polls — certainly not in McCain’s direction.
Best performance of the night: Bob Schieffer. Folksy and charming, and he got out of the way.
11:14 p.m. Wow. CBS News’ insta-poll of uncommitted voters shows Obama winning the debate by a margin of 53 percent to 22 percent. To the extent that you can trust such things, that’s huge. CNN’s insta-poll has similar margins, though it’s slightly skewed toward Democratic voters. And that’s it for tonight. I’ll be rounding up media commentary for the Guardian bright and early.
10:39 p.m. Pundits tying themselves in knots to say nice things about McCain. John King: McCain’s best debate! No way. As CNN went to the break, I could hear Bill Bennett in the background, pimping the lie about Obama and infanticide.
10:28 p.m. Seth gives it to Obama, big-time.
10:27 p.m. Whoa! McCain ends on a sarcastic, snappish note. “Got it — heh, heh.”
10:25 p.m. Why does Sarah Palin know about autism “better than most”? That’s the second time McCain has said that. Is he confusing autism with Down’s?
10:19 p.m. Joe the Plumber hits Twitterspace.
10:16 p.m. Judges and abortion — not a ratings hit. But I wonder how it will play that McCain can barely manage coherently to lodge his accusations, and Obama easily swats them away. McCain’s response: Don’t trust Obama’s “eloquence.” What, he’s supposed to sound tongue-tied?
10:03 p.m. Let the fall health-plan reruns begin. McCain: He’ll fine small businesses! Obama: He’ll tax your insurance! And all of it aimed at Joe the Plumber. What about me?
9:59 p.m. Joe the Plumber! Time for a drink.
9:56 p.m. McCain is singing an ode to President Uribe of Colombia, an ally with a dubious record on human rights.
9:47 p.m. Schieffer’s doing pretty well, I think. Brokaw was sour and obsessed with the clock. Schieffer is not only letting them mix it up, but he seems engaged in a positive way.
9:46 p.m. Now drinking Harvest Moon. This debate isn’t worth anything better.
9:45 p.m. McCain just lied about Biden wanting to divide Iraq into “three countries.”
9:41 p.m. Schieffer throws Obama a high knuckleball that doesn’t break: Why is Biden better than Palin? Obama’s now trotting around second base.
9:40 p.m. Here we go on William Ayers and ACORN. Good grief. McCain can barely make a coherent statement tonight. Obama’s response is devastating in a suitably low-key way.
9:34 p.m. You could look it up: I’ve scored the first two debates as a tie. McCain’s coming off as a doddering old coot tonight.
9:32 p.m. Good for Obama. He’s not only not repudiating John Lewis, he’s giving him some cover.
9:31 p.m. Joe the Plumber! Where is he? If he’s in the audience, bring him up.
9:28 p.m. McCain: “You didn’t tell the American people the truth because you didn’t.” Nyah, nyah.
9:25 p.m. Schieffer: You’ve both been naughty. The dread specter of equivalence rears its head.
9:24 p.m. McCain is coming off as rambling and unfocused. Obama’s not at his sharpest, but he’s better than McCain so far. McCain: Name me one thing on which you’ve opposed your party. Obama: Bing, bing, bing.
9:20 p.m. McCain is peppering Obama with scattershot charges. Should Obama respond to each one, or take a broader approach? He seems to be opting for the broader approach.
9:12 p.m. Plumbers make more money than lefthanded relief specialists. I mean, they deserve it, but I’m not surprised Joe makes more than $250,000 a year.
9:07 p.m. It all comes down to Joe the Plumber.
9:01 p.m. Trader Joe’s microwave popcorn actually tastes like corn.
8:59 p.m. I always get a kick out of seeing the moderator alone on the stage with the crowd dead silent. Thank you, C-SPAN.
This should be interesting. It hasn’t started, and I’m already nodding off on the couch.
Balz puts his thumb on the scale
With three weeks to go, Washington Post political reporter Dan Balz has proposed a truly dangerous idea: subjecting Barack Obama to a tougher level of scrutiny than John McCain on the grounds that Obama is virtually the president-elect.
“McCain is the focus because what was thought to be a close race doesn’t look like one at this moment,” says Balz. “Which is all the more reason that the real focus now ought to be on Barack Obama.”
Guess what? If Obama wins the election, then he’ll be the president-elect. Not until then. Tough questions for both candidates ought to be the goal. Balz’s plea amounts to asking the media to put their thumbs on the scale in order to even things up.
“I’ve heard reporters admit that coverage can be biased for one reason or another — ideology, desire for a close race, personal afinity [sic] for one of the candidates — but I’ve never before seen one openly propose a double standard,” writes Jonathan Chait of The New Republic.
Obama supporters ought to be wary going into tonight’s debate, which will kick off the final leg of this endless campaign. The McCain-Palin operation has fallen apart during the past few weeks, leaving Obama with what appears to be a big lead in the polls. But members of the media don’t like telling the same story day after day, week after week. And some influential players — Balz has already signaled that he’s one of them — are going to try to change the story.
Eric Alterman reminds us that Howard Fineman of Newsweek and MSNBC has openly admitted that the media turned on Al Gore in 2000 at least in part because they didn’t want to cover his “triumphant march to the presidency.”
The danger tonight is that any minor slip-up by Obama will be magnified — and any mistake by McCain will be ignored.