Is McCain Confused?

Is McCain confused about what he has said in the past, or is he being less than truthful about his previous position on Social Security privatization?:

“Without privatization..." by Cliff Schecter: This is what John McCain said regarding Social Security on November 18, 2004 on C-SPAN's Road To The White House ["...Without privatization, I don't see how you can possibly, over time, make sure that young Americans are able to receive Social Security benefits"]. Why am I telling you this? Because today during a back and forth with an elderly gentleman he said this:

"I am not for privatizing Social Security. I never have been. I never will be."

In other words, here we go again. Honestly, does anyone really believe this guy is a straight-talker anymore? How many more examples of his absolute willingness to say or support anything at any given time do we need?

Ok, you need more? You got it. Here is McCain from March of this year on at least partially privatizing Social Security:

"As part of Social Security reform, I believe that private savings accounts are a part of it – along the lines of what President Bush proposed." [Wall Street Journal, 3/3/2008]

Once again, case closed. McCain has conveniently changed what he believes, because that's just what "straight-talking mavericks" do.

I guess he forgot that he voted for Bush's 2006 Social Security privatization plan.

Here's more "confusion" (this is just two things from today, it's not an exhaustive list by any means). This is part of a discussion of a report from the Tax Policy Center comparing the economic plans of the two candidates. (The report has a graph showing the impact of the plans across the income distribution. Guess which plan is more beneficial to the wealthy, McCain's or Obama's? To the working class?):

Obama And McCain On Taxes, by hilzoy: ...One more interesting note: the Wonk Room points out that this report attributes to McCain some positions that are at odds with his web site and what he's said in the past -- as recently as the day before yesterday, in fact. Most notably, McCain's website says that "John McCain will permanently repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) – a tax that will be paid nearly exclusively by 25 million middle class families." The TPC report, by contrast, says: "Senator McCain proposes to extend permanently the AMT "patch" that has prevented most individuals and families with incomes below $200,000 from being affected by the tax."

This is a big difference. ...

The Tax Policy Center consulted with both campaigns before writing this report. If what they say is accurate, then McCain has changed an important part of his tax policy, but neither his website nor (apparently) McCain himself as of two days ago have caught up with this fact. On the other hand, if the TPC is wrong, and McCain does plan to repeal the AMT, then the TPC's estimates of the cost of his tax plans need to be revised as well.

According to the CBPP, the difference between amending the AMT to exclude people with incomes under $200,000 a year and repealing it altogether is over $50 billion dollars a year. Since the CTP estimates the cost of the candidates' tax plans over a ten year period, if they're wrong about what McCain thinks, we'll just have to tack another half a trillion dollars onto their estimate of his plan's cost.

Confusion and reckless profligacy, or no confusion and even more reckless profligacy? We report; you decide.

Maybe it's just an old guy getting confused on a variety of issues, but it's starting to look like more than that. Social Security was and is a huge political issue. The chance that he is confused about or has forgotten positions he has held in the past is just not credible unless age has started to take its toll. He either knows what he said in the past and intentionally said something else to please a voter, or he can no longer remember crucial details about key issues that happened relatively recently. Either way, it raises big questions.

He deserves the same scrutiny from the media that Clinton or Obama (or Kerry) would get if they were doing these things, but that just isn't happening.

Finally, you have to wonder if this is who you want leading you into the digital age:

Sen. McCain, You've Got Be KIDDING Me!, by Maggie Barker: ...I couldn't help but laugh in disbelief at an interview of U.S. Sen McCain admitting that he doesn't know how to use a computer.

When asked by the Politico's Mike Allen whether he uses a Mac or PC, here's what he said:

Neither. I am an illiterate that has to rely on my wife for all the assistance I can get.

I mean, really? How does he not know how to use one of most simple, yet important, technologies in our homes, workplaces, research labs, schools, universities, and enterprises? ... Sen. McCain simply seems out of touch with the modern ways of the world. And he admits it, with no apologies. How can he envision and plan for America's future when he has no interest in or curiousity of current modes of communication, commerce, and education? Sure, Sen. McCain pre-dates the computer age, but how many of us have parents or grandparents who log on every now and then? I respect Sen. McCain immensely for the sacrifices he's made for this country, but times, they are a-changin'. Sen. McCain's already been left behind.

Update: Now McCain is trying to claim that his plan is not a privatization scheme, therefore what he said is not misleading. However, from TPM:

In the post below I noted how John McCain is now going in for the same Social Security 'privatization' bamboozlement that President Bush did, claiming that calling his policy 'privatization' is some sort of lie or spin.

Here's video of McCain using the word himself in 2004 and then claiming it's all a bum rap just this morning...

More from Think Progress.

Comments

[Dickeylee]

Next January he'll be 72. Do we really want an 80 year old President? Three out of the last four Presidents served two terms, so the possibility is better than 70% that he could be in office until he's 80.

[Andrew]

I have seen it remarked recently that McCain's utter ignorance of the realities of modern technology (along with everything else) are largely responsible for many of his recent gaffes.

YouTube is only a couple of years old. Not too long ago, if a politician made a series of contradictory statements, it was incumbent on journalists to point out the discrepancy, because no one else had ready access to the newsreels. Now, a junior high student with strong Google-Fu can dig up and piece together a montage of outrageous flip-flopping and pandering for millions to view free of charge. McCain just doesn't seem to understand that he can't say whatever the heel he wants anymore and get away with it.

[IdahoSpud]

When McCain said he'd "veto beer", he lost my vote! ;) Not that he was likely to get it before he said that...

[Alex Tolley]

"How does he not know how to use one of most simple, yet important, technologies in our homes, workplaces, research labs, schools, universities, and enterprises? "

Given how hard it is to fly military aircraft, you have to wonder how an ex-pilot has so little interest in computers - they really are very simple. Perhaps we can find out how he uses a cell-phone - does he store numbers, modify it at all, or just use it like a simple two-way radio?

Didn't we have a similar problem with Bush Snr. - he was clueless about how to use a grocery store?

[Steve J.]

Bush campaigned in Tucson, AZ on 3/21/2005 when he was still trying to push his privatization program and McCain appeared with him.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/03/20050321-7.html

[anne]

"Next January he'll be 72. Do we really want an 80 year old President?"

"Do we really want a woman President?"

"Do we really want a woman President?"

"Do we really want a woman President?"

"Do we really want a woman President?"

"Do we really want a woman President?"

[anne]

"I respect Sen. McCain immensely for the sacrifices he's made for this country, but times, they are a-changin'. Sen. McCain's already been left behind."

Penetrting criticism; lovely.

[pgl]

Confused or dishonest? Over at Angrybear, I tell a story of how a letter from his office directly contradicts McCain's claim that the SS Trust Fund will be "broke" by 2041.

[Chris]

McCain has always been confused. He used to be called "a maverick," but now that it is crucial to know precisely what he is, people begin to see that "maverick" in fact = confused.

[Chris]

One of McCains transparent "confusions" is his claim that spending years in a prisoner of war camp makes him a military strategist and fit to be commander in chief. How he can continue with that meme without being called on it is beyond me.

[OhNoNotAgain]

"Do we really want a woman President?"

What the hell does the above have to do with not wanting a 72-year-old man that doesn't know how computers work as POTUS ?

I think the bigger point here is how it illustrates a total lack of scientific curiosity on his part, and the last thing we need is another science-challenged president. The computer is the single most life-changing device invented in the last 100 years. Without them, we wouldn't have gone to the moon, we wouldn't have the Internet, we wouldn't have mapped the genome, and we wouldn't have anything even remotely resembling the military that we have today. And that's just the stuff I can think of off the top of my head.

[anne]

"Next January he'll be 72. Do we really want an 80 year old President?"

"Do we really want a woman President?"

"What the hell does the above have to do with not wanting a 72-year-old man that doesn't know how computers work as POTUS?"

[Penetrating criticism; lovely.]

[2slugbaits]

"...He either knows what he said in the past and intentionally said something else to please a voter, or he can no longer remember crucial details about key issues that happened relatively recently."

There is a third alternative. It's quite possible that McCain doesn't know what his position is today simply because he has never known what his position has been. I don't think it's an issue that McCain has ever really cared about, so he just mouths whatever words happen to appear on his teleprompter that day. McCain only cares about defense and security issues and not much else. Of course, he's utterly incompetent even in thos issues, but that's another matter.

[me]

Great job Andrew, you beat me to it. These old guys are used to driving from town to town and telling them each something different and never dealing with getting called on it.

Dems learned a long time ago when I believe it was Tom Daschle went home during a reelection campaign and said something to the local press but it was also on national and it contradicted what he was saying and doing back in Washington. McBush hasn't learned that yet.

As far as a woman, some strong women have ruled major powers. Thatcher, Meir, Ghandi, and Merkel. What's the big deal. I love old folks but he is too old to be president.

[Major Mel Funkshun]

Would someone please smack Anne upside the head. I think her victrola os stuck.

[Paul]

I think it's something else. There is a unavoidable fate that is universally shared by all life-long pathological liars. When you've been lying to yourself and lying to others over a very long period of time, you gradually lose the capacity to distinguish truth from falsehood, and are no longer able to keep a tally of the lies you've told. After enough time has passed, you become estranged from reality. After even more time has passed, you begin to believe your own lies. To be estranged from reality and to believe in a false reality is to become confused.

McCain is a very dishonest person who is now paying the price for a lifetime of dishonesty. The price is steep. It is estrangement from reality. And to be estranged from reality is to not only be perpetually confused, it is to live as one who is gravely insane.

There is an old Arabian proverb that says, "God's punishment for those who lie is that they will believe their own lies".

[anne]

"Life-long pathological liars...."

"I love old folks but he is too old to be president."

[I love women but not for president.

Ever more penetrating criticism; lovely.]

[me]

"I love old folks but he is too old to be president."

anne, I often agree with you or defend yo but you are wrong on this one. Ronnie slept walked through history, wasn't one republican doing that enough for you.

[me too]

Anne,

Either you are being disingenuous, or aren't thinking about what you are saying.

A person's gender has no bearing on their capabilities to perform the duties required by the office of the president - ie critical thinking, diplomacy, etc.

Whereas age is pretty critical - it is well documented that a person's mental faculties deteriorate with age. Hence it is a concern that McCain is reaching that age.

[A Little Like McCain]

HEY... quit picking on the old guy... he has enough trouble just finding his marbles much less his opinion of a solution to a complex economic question. Try something easy, like, Hey John THE REPUBLICAN McCain, where do you think you hid your easter eggs... let's go out on the lawn and search for them

[anne]

I understand completely; having spent these many months attacking Hillary Clinton for being a woman, ever more crudely, and in doing so attacking women in general, we will now attack John McCain for being whatever age McCain happens to be. No problem there.

What is important is to figure out just how demeaning the attacks can be, which will take some figuring. Policy is of no importance when we have an "old guy" * to attack.

* Does not even use a computer.

[anne]

"A person's gender has no bearing on their capabilities to perform the duties required by the office of the president - ie critical thinking, diplomacy, etc.

"Whereas age is pretty critical - it is well documented that a person's mental faculties deteriorate with age. Hence it is a concern that McCain is reaching that age."

Lawrence Summers was only a little while ago arguing that gender was the key, but I understand not gender but age age age.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/sexism-who-us/

June 13, 2008

Sexism? Who, Us?
By Paul Krugman

This whole story shouldn't affect peoples' votes in the general election: there are huge substantive issues at stake, and a wide difference between the candidates on those issues. So this is no time for a protest vote. But 2008 was definitely the year in which the progressive movement lost a lot of its innocence.

[anne]

Remember now, the problem is the old guy, because we know what gold guys are like we do we do, even old gals I suppose.

[anne]

Nelsen Mandela became President of South Africa at the age of 75, by the way.

[So?]

criticism over age = sexism [penetrating criticism].

If you haven't seen sommeone deteriorate mentally from 72-80, you haven't been paying attention. It's a distinct possibility, and hence, it's a legitimate factor to consider.

Being a woman doesn't degrade your mind. Being old can. To deny that is not [penetrating criticism].

And what does Mandela prove? If I cite somoen who died in office, does that prove the opposite? Cite as many people as you want, it doesn't change the fact that mental facilities can, and do in many cases, deteriorate with age.

[anne]

Remember what is important is to destroy McCain now, just as Clinton was destroyed. Destroy a person because of age, and be proud.

says...

Konrad Adenauer - 73 when he became Chancellor of West Germany, 87 when he left the job.

[anne]

Among other things, what attacking McCain because of personal characteristics will mean is that there is that much less pressure on Obama to define policy positions as a Democrat. This, especially so when Obama is being advised to become increasingly conservative to soak up Republican support.

Back then to demeaning older people.....

[kthomas]

anne, do you think McCain is too old? That is a legitamite question. Probably, I say. Also, he has a history of cancer. No doubt it's a stressfull job, and I do doubt he will be to handle the pressure.

[anne]

"Konrad Adenauer - 73 when he became Chancellor of West Germany, 87 when he left the job."

Wow; I kind of sort of vaguely knew that. I wonder about Charles de Gaulle (or Chuck to friends).

[anne]

What I care about is asking policies definitions of the candidates so that there is an expectation of legislation and administrative action likely in the coming several years. Where will the possible Presidents take us? The less that is understood, the more disappointed I imagine many of us will be. There is too little I understand of policy just now, and a bent to conservatism that is worrying for me.

[lonesome moderate]

McCain is a very dishonest person who is now paying the price for a lifetime of dishonesty. The price is steep. It is estrangement from reality. And to be estranged from reality is to not only be perpetually confused, it is to live as one who is gravely insane.

Well, being estranged from reality is kind of a prerequisite for getting the Republican presidential nomination, these days. McCain's problem is not that he is particularly dishonest--he strikes me as no more dishonest than Obama or most other politicians. The problem is that he can't resist having opinions about important issues, and saying them in plain English. This catches up with you after you've spent a long time in public life. To avoid this problem, a successful presidential candidate needs to either master the use of weasel words (Clinton, Bush I, Carter), or avoid learning anything substantive about important issues (Reagan, Bush II).

[All's fair in war]

Whatever it takes to keep McCain out of the White House, you got that right. If that means playing the game like Republicans play it, then so be it.

Everyone understands this is the time to try to use coalition power (women in this case) to effectuate change, but be careful how you go about it. You just mjight get what you threaten.

Me, I don't want another life lost, not one more than absolutely has to be given the decisions to this point, and that means keeping McCain and his cronies away from power (the idea tha Obama is the same as Mccain with respect to Iraq/Iran is crazy - and dangerous). The age thing is a legitimate concern for people to have, and if it destroys him and saves the life of some innocent kid - where destroy of course means he doesn't get to be president, he only gets to basque in everything else he has already, both wealth and honor - then again, so be it. If women's issues are important to you, the only value McCain has is as a threat. Actually getting him would be a disaster for women even if it did pave the way for Hillary four years later. Yes, sometimes those threats and then following through are the only way to bring about change in the long-run, but this doesn't seem to be the best way to go about it. You obviously disagree.

The first thing Obama needs to do is get elected, and that means appealing to particualr groups. Show some tolerance for the strategic elements that are forced upon him and do a bit more reading between the lines. You are trying, but I don't think you are reading the right words ... the whole point is to let people hear what they want to hear, that's politics, so of course you can find what you are looking for.

[Julio]

The essence of discrimination (racism, sexism,...) is to take a stereotype (even one with some statistical basis) and apply it to an individual.

There is plenty to criticize, lament, and even make fun of in McCain's behavior and ignorant pronouncements, without treating him as a statistic rather than an individual (and belittling older people in the process).

BTW, Obama, being typical for his age, has two young girls to help raise. He can't put as much effort into his job as an older person, can he? Oh wait, no, raising the children is his wife's job.

And on and on.

[Julio]

The essence of discrimination (racism, sexism,...) is to take a stereotype (even one with some statistical basis) and apply it to an individual.

There is plenty to criticize, lament, and even make fun of in McCain's behavior and ignorant pronouncements, without treating him as a statistic rather than an individual (and belittling older people in the process).

BTW, Obama, being typical for his age, has two young girls to help raise. He can't put as much effort into his job as an older person, can he? Oh wait, no, raising the children is his wife's job.

And on and on.

[anne]

Julio:

"The essence of discrimination (racism, sexism,...) is to take a stereotype (even one with some statistical basis) and apply it to an individual.

"There is plenty to criticize, lament, and even make fun of in McCain's behavior and ignorant pronouncements, without treating him as a statistic rather than an individual (and belittling older people in the process)."

Perfect.

[Barkley Rosser]

Poor John: Victim of Ageism.
Poor Hillary: Victim of Sexism

But Barack? Not poor he, no racism involved at all. Move along folks, even though African-American women went from supporting Hillary to supporting him. Obviously they were deluded sex traitors taken in by sneaky people on his campaign staff.

[Patricia Shannon]

Anne reminds me of a man I knew several years ago, who was had been a truck driver. We were in a group that was talking about the traffic congestion in Atlanta and ways to deal with. There had been several cases of accidents involving cars and big trucks, where people in cars were killed while the truckers got minor, if any, injuries. A simple matter of physics. When someone mentioned that separate roads for trucks and cars on the high-traffic highways had been proposed, he got all upset, said it was "segregation". He was African-American, and any kind of "segregation" had to be bad. The word itself created a reflex reaction in him that totally closed his mind to any other aspect of the situation.

[Patricia Shannon]

On the subject of whether or not McCain is "confused", his being a supposed straight-talking person is propaganda made up by the press long ago.

[anne]

"Poor John: Victim of Ageism.
Poor Hillary: Victim of Sexism.

"But Barack? Not poor he, no racism involved at all."

Notice the insinuating rottenness; nutty.

[anne]

"Poor he, poor he, poor he, poor he, poor he, poor he, poor he, poor he, poor he, poor he, poor he."

[OhNoNotAgain]

Uh, Anne, you'll notice that I qualified what I said:

What the hell does the above have to do with not wanting a 72-year-old man *******that doesn't know how computers work**** as POTUS ?

I don't have a problem with a 72-year old man, by itself. However, given that he has demonstrated publicly that he has issues with his mental faculties, especially memory, *combined with* the fact that he doesn't know how to use a computer, tells me that he won't be learning any time soon. And I'm sorry if this intrudes upon your Obama hate fest, but any man who is 72 *and doesn't know how to use a computer* is wholly unqualified to be POTUS in 2008. It's an indication of his ability to mentally handle the workload of a modern presidency and make decisions based upon a lot of technical information.

My Dad is about the same age and has a *lot* of issues with his mental faculties. He used to use a computer all day, every day, but won't even touch one now that he is retired because of his decreased mental faculties. He's just lost all curiosity about the world and seems to be just drifing off.

[anne]

"And I'm sorry if this intrudes upon your Obama hate fest, but any man who is 72 *and doesn't know how to use a computer* is wholly unqualified to be POTUS in 2008."

Obama hate fest, Obama hate fest, Obama hate fest, Obama hate fest, Obama hate fest, Obama hate fest, Obama hate fest?

[anne]

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/sexism-who-us/

June 13, 2008

Sexism? Who, Us?
By Paul Krugman

No sexism here [Cartoon]

The 2008 campaign has been a very disillusioning experience for a lot of people. You can make a very good case that Barack Obama was the right person for the Democrats to nominate, and Hillary Clinton the wrong choice. But the way we got there was terrible. The raw sexism, * in all too many cases coming from alleged progressives — see above — was part of it. So, too, was the inability of many alleged progressives to see that the news media created the narrative of Hillary Clinton as race-baiter in much the same way that, 8 years ago, they created the narrative of Al Gore as congenital liar — by assembling a montage of quotes taken out of context and willfully misinterpreted....

[anne]

"I don't have a problem with a 72-year old man, by itself. However, given that he has demonstrated publicly that he has issues with his mental faculties...."

Hate fest, fest, fest, fest, fest?

[anne]

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2008/06/michelle-goldbe.html#comment-117841280

June 6, 2008

Blogs I have read daily since 2004 and found unreadable because of offensive misogyny since November 2007: Daily Kos; Talking Points Memo; comments in Washington Monthly (Kevin Drum) - not blog itself; Eschaton (last 2 months). Now that the selection of Obama is settled, maybe I can safely return. The hate will now turn on McCain. Voice of sanity throughout: Bob Somerby on Daily Howler.

-- MaryLou

Right.

[Barkley Rosser]

anne, L.H. (that is "Lying Hypocrite," folks, and for those of you who have not been following this so far, you can see here why this fits for our dear anne).

"Obama hate fest" ??? Yes, anne, L.H., that does seem to be what you are engaged in. Again, the evidence is that the racism Obama has faced has been far worse than the sexism Hillary faced and even worse than the ageism that McCain has just barely begun to face.

As far as his confusion goes, I do not care if it his age or what, but I was quite taken aback by his failure five times in a row to keep the Sunnis and Shi'a straight. Of course, this does not bother most Americans because they cannot do so either. Not like working a computer, which he really does not need to do.

And, just for the record, I have actually met McCain and have a great deal of respect for him personally. For those who have been following my comments, I have made it clear that I am not going to vote for him, but I have avoided slamming him particularly hard. I do not see his age as an issue that much, but his confusion, whatever its source, is an issue.

anne, go see a doctor, the sooner the better.

[anne]

http://www.newstatesman.com/north-america/2008/05/obama-clinton-vote-usa-media

May 22, 2008

Hating Hillary: Gloating, unshackled sexism of the ugliest kind has been shamelessly peddled by the US media, which - sooner rather than later, I fear - will have to account for their sins.
By Andrew Stephen

History, I suspect, will look back on the past six months as an example of America going through one of its collectively deranged episodes - rather like Prohibition from 1920-33, or McCarthyism some 30 years later. This time it is gloating, unshackled sexism of the ugliest kind. It has been shamelessly peddled by the US media, which - sooner rather than later, I fear - will have to account for their sins. The chief victim has been Senator Hillary Clinton, but the ramifications could be hugely harmful for America and the world.

I am no particular fan of Clinton. Nor, I think, would friends and colleagues accuse me of being racist. But it is quite inconceivable that any leading male presidential candidate would be treated with such hatred and scorn as Clinton has been. What other senator and serious White House contender would be likened by National Public Radio's political editor, Ken Rudin, to the demoniac, knife-wielding stalker played by Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction? Or described as "a fucking whore" by Randi Rhodes, one of the foremost personalities of the supposedly liberal Air America? Could anybody have envisaged that a website set up specifically to oppose any other candidate would be called Citizens United Not Timid? (We do not need an acronym for that.)

I will come to the reasons why I fear such unabashed misogyny in the US media could lead, ironically, to dreadful racial unrest. "All men are created equal," Thomas Jefferson famously proclaimed in 1776. That equality, though, was not extended to women, who did not even get the vote until 1920, two years after (some) British women. The US still has less gender equality in politics than Britain, too. Just 16 of America's 100 US senators are women and the ratio in the House (71 out of 435) is much the same. It is nonetheless pointless to argue whether sexism or racism is the greater evil: America has a peculiarly wicked record of racist subjugation, which has resulted in its racism being driven deep underground. It festers there, ready to explode again in some unpredictable way.

To compensate meantime, I suspect, sexism has been allowed to take its place as a form of discrimination that is now openly acceptable. "How do we beat the bitch?" a woman asked Senator John McCain, this year's Republican presidential nominee, at a Republican rally last November. To his shame, McCain did not rebuke the questioner but joined in the laughter. Had his supporter asked "How do we beat the nigger?" and McCain reacted in the same way, however, his presidential hopes would deservedly have gone up in smoke. "Iron my shirt," is considered amusing heckling of Clinton. "Shine my shoes," rightly, would be hideously unacceptable if yelled at Obama.

Evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, American men like to delude themselves that they are the most macho in the world. It is simply unthinkable, therefore, for most of them to face the prospect of having a woman as their leader. The massed ranks of male pundits gleefully pronounced that Clinton had lost the battle with Obama immediately after the North Carolina and Indiana primaries, despite past precedents that strong second-place candidates (like Ronald Reagan in his first, ultimately unsuccessful campaign in 1976; like Ted Kennedy, Gary Hart, Jesse Jackson and Jerry Brown) continue their campaigns until the end of the primary season and, in most cases, all the way to the party convention.

None of these male candidates had a premature political obituary written in the way that Hillary Clinton's has been, or was subjected to such righteous outrage over refusing to quiesce and withdraw obediently from what, in this case, has always been a knife-edge race. Nor was any of them anything like as close to his rivals as Clinton now is to Obama.

The media, of course, are just reflecting America's would-be macho culture. I cannot think of any television network or major newspaper that is not guilty of blatant sexism - the British media, naturally, reflexively follow their American counterparts - but probably the worst offender is the NBC/MSNBC network, which has what one prominent Clinton activist describes as "its nightly horror shows". Tim Russert, the network's chief political sage, was dancing on Clinton's political grave before the votes in North Carolina and Indiana had even been fully counted - let alone those of the six contests to come, the undeclared super-delegates, or the disputed states of Florida and Michigan.

The unashamed sexism of this giant network alone is stupendous. Its superstar commentator Chris Matthews referred to Clinton as a "she-devil". His colleague Tucker Carlson casually observed that Clinton "feels castrating, overbearing and scary . . . When she comes on television, I involuntarily cross my legs." This and similar abuse, I need hardly point out, says far more about the men involved than their target....

[anne]

"----, go see a doctor, the sooner the better."
"----, go see a doctor, the sooner the better."
"----, go see a doctor, the sooner the better."
"----, go see a doctor, the sooner the better."
"----, go see a doctor, the sooner the better."

Ah, the definitive sexist response.

[Barkley Rosser]

anne,

The schedule is different than it used to be. I have read that when the late Tim Russert accurately pronounced on the evening of the IN/NC primary that Hillary had lost the race, "the air went out of the room" from where her leading campaign staffers were sitting. She continued to run for the benefit of her fervent supporters, and that was fine. Indeed, many have noted that, as has been the case with other candidates, that once it was clear she had lost, which she and her staff accepted after Russert's pronouncement, she ran better than she ever had because she was able to "be herself."

While I have criticized her positions and some of her positions, I have never attacked her in a personal way.

As for you, anne, L.H., you have not remotely addressed the problem that most people view the racism that Obama faced as far worse and far more serious than the sexism Hillary faced. The occasional article like this you have quoted does not address that issue.

If you are going to go on like this further, you need to address this yourself. Others are rasing the point, anne. Are you a racist? Are you? Did you ever march for civil rights? Have you ever done anything with regard to African Americans other than vilely savage the first serious African
American candidate for president?

Are you a racist? (and repeating this a whole bunch of times without answering it substantively will simply prove that you are)

Prove that you are not a racist. It sure as hell looks like you are.

[anne]

"Prove that you are not a racist. It sure as hell looks like you are."
"Prove that you are not a racist. It sure as hell looks like you are."
"Prove that you are not a racist. It sure as hell looks like you are."
"Prove that you are not a racist. It sure as hell looks like you are."
"Prove that you are not a racist. It sure as hell looks like you are."

McCarthyism!

[anne]

http://warner.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/05/woman-in-charge-women-who-charge/

June 5, 2008

Woman in Charge, Women Who Charge
By Judith Warner

But 16 months of sustained misogyny? Hey — she asked for it. With that voice, ("When Hillary Clinton speaks, men hear, 'Take out the garbage' " Fox News regular Marc Rudov, author of "Under the Clitoral Hood: How to Crank Her Engine Without Cash, Booze, or Jumper Cables," said in January). With that ambition, and that dogged determination ("like everyone's first wife standing outside a probate court," according to MSNBC commentator Mike Barnicle) and, of course, that husband (Chris Matthews: "The reason she's a U.S. Senator, the reason she's a candidate for president, the reason she may be a front-runner is her husband messed around."). Clearly, in an age when the dangers and indignities of Driving While Black are well-acknowledged, and properly condemned, Striving While Female – if it goes too far and looks too real — is still held to be a crime.

In a culture that's reached such a level of ostensible enlightenment as ours, calling a powerful woman "castrating" – however you choose to put it – ought to be seen as just as offensive as rubbing your fingers together to convey a love of gold coinage when you talk about a Jew. It's nothing other than an expression of woman-hate — and the degree to which such expressions have flourished, in the mainstream media and in the loonier reaches of cyberspace this year, has added up to be a real national shame....

[anne]

"Are you a racist? Are you?

Are you a racist? (And repeating this a whole bunch of times without answering it substantively will simply prove that you are.)

Prove that you are not a racist. It sure as hell looks like you are."

"Are you a racist? (And repeating this a whole bunch of times without answering it substantively will simply prove that you are.)"

"Are you a racist? (And repeating this a whole bunch of times without answering it substantively will simply prove that you are.)"

"Are you a racist? (And repeating this a whole bunch of times without answering it substantively will simply prove that you are.)"

The definitive McCarthyism.

[anne]

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/05/ugliness/

June 5, 2008

Ugliness
By Paul Krugman

Read the first paragraph of this, * then read this, ** and you'll have the essence of what happened in the Democratic primary campaign.

* http://blogs.ft.com/maverecon/2008/06/random-thoughts-about-the-democratic-primaries/

The US primary season is over, but for the final shouting. Senator Clinton has lost. She deserved to lose. She ran an ugly campaign. Just one vignette. When asked (again) on the CBS show 60 Minutes whether she believes Obama is a Muslim (a ludicrous rumour spread by right-wing bloggers and media in the US), she replies: "No, no why would I — there's nothing to base that on — as far as I know". She said this with a strong emphasis on the last 'I'.

-- Willem Buiter

** http://mediamatters.org/columns/200803110002

Less than one second. That's how long it took Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to answer, "Of course not," to Steve Kroft's question on 60 Minutes about whether she thought Sen. Barack Obama was a Muslim. You can time it yourself by watching the clip *** at YouTube.

Still, that didn't stop MSNBC's Chris Matthews from complaining on-air last week that it took Clinton "the longest time" to answer Kroft's question.

*** http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHFREDHB-nQ&e

-- Eric Boehlert

[Icarus]

Hillary was defeated for appearing insincere, and ready to make any argument, at any time, however absurd and demeaning. The people got repulsed.

McCain's problem is that he just appears dumb. Yes, dumb. He sounds ill-informed, uncertain, and disconnected.
I don't know enough his naval upbringing, but is he bright? Wikipedia says he graduated 894/899 at west point. That doesn't sound too presedential, or competent. Is this guy a dipshit who became famous for crashing a plane and surviving torture?

[anne]

"Is this guy a dip---- who became famous for crashing a plane and surviving torture?"

"Is this guy a dip---- who became famous for crashing a plane and surviving torture?"

"Is this guy a dip---- who became famous for crashing a plane and surviving torture?"

"Is this guy a dip---- who became famous for crashing a plane and surviving torture?"

"Is this guy a dip---- who became famous for crashing a plane and surviving torture?"

[Barkley Rosser]

I apologize to anne (and to Mark Thoma and all readers) for demanding that anne "prove" that she is "not a racist." One cannot disprove a negative.

But, the question remains why anne has never raised a peep about Hillary bragging about her appeal to "white voters," a clear appeal to racist voters, when no one has accused of Obama of uttering a single remark remotely comparable in terms of sexism, while she continues to effectively identify any criticism of Hillary as evidence of sexism.

I agree that Hillary suffered from sexism, including in the media. Chris Matthews has been only one example, if one of the worst. But, Obama also has clearly suffered from racism from many people, and, anne, you have yet to address why it is that the group that experiences both seems to have decided that racism has been worse than sexism by shifting their support from Hillary to Obama.

The one piece of evidence that anne has arguably provided was that poll that supposedly had more people saying they did not want a woman prez than said they did not want a black prez. But that poll is tainted by the "Bradley effect," that people in exit polls have been shown to say they voted for a black candidate when they did not do so, whereas there has never been any evidence of a similar gender-related "Bradley effect," (and very little evidence of people voting against Hillary because she was a woman, despite all the snarky remarks by Matthews and others, whereas we have seen voters on TV outright saying they did not vote for Obama because of his race).

As for McCain and ageism, the ageism issue cuts both ways. Indeed, in the primary, the age divide between Obama and Hillary was greater than any other, gender, racial, income, education, whatever. Young people like Obama and are enthusiastic about him, while some older people do not like Obama because he is perceived as "inexperienced," (code for ageism against the young?). This divide is likely to worsen in the general election.

I do not think physical disability on the part of a president is necessarily such a big deal, as long as they have a good VP in place to take over. However, gradual mental decline is a concern. In this regard, if it can be seen that McCain is more confused now than he used to be, that might well raise concerns.

Again, the one that bothers me, whether it is getting worse or not, was McCain's goof on Sunnis and Shi'a. One such slip would have been no big deal. It might not even be such a big deal that he did it five times in a short period. But he did it shortly after being corrected for it. This is not good, whether it is age-related or he has always been that confused since he was in the Naval Academy.

Of course anne may view such confusion by McCain as no worse than Hillary's remark about obliterating Iran...

[anne]

http://www.newstatesman.com/north-america/2008/05/obama-clinton-vote-usa-media

May 22, 2008

Hating Hillary
By Andrew Stephen

Here we come to the crunch. Hillary Clinton (along with her husband) is being universally depicted as a loathsome racist and negative campaigner, not so much because of anything she has said or done, but because the overwhelmingly pro-Obama media - consciously or unconsciously - are following the agenda of Senator Barack Obama and his chief strategist, David Axelrod, to tear to pieces the first serious female US presidential candidate in history.

"What's particularly saddening," says Paul Krugman, professor of economics and international affairs at Princeton and a rare dissenting voice from the left as a columnist in the New York Times, "is the way many Obama supporters seem happy with the . . . way pundits and some news organisations treat any action or statement by the Clintons, no matter how innocuous, as proof of evil intent." Despite widespread reporting to the contrary, Krugman believes that most of the "venom" in the campaign "is coming from supporters of Obama".

But Obama himself prepared the ground by making the first gratuitous personal attack of the campaign during the televised Congressional Black Caucus Institute debate in South Carolina on 21 January, although virtually every follower of the media coverage now assumes that it was Clinton who started the negative attacks. Following routine political sniping from her about supposedly admiring comments Obama had made about Ronald Reagan, Obama suddenly turned on Clinton and stared intimidatingly at her. "While I was working on those streets watching those folks see their jobs shift overseas," he scolded her, "you were a corporate lawyer sitting on the board at Wal-Mart." Then, cleverly linking her inextricably in the public consciousness with her husband, he added: "I can't tell who I'm running against sometimes."

One of his female staff then distributed a confidential memo to carefully selected journalists which alleged that a vaguely clumsy comment Hillary Clinton had made about Martin Luther King ("Dr King's dream began to be realised when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964") and a reference her husband had made in passing to Nelson Mandela ("I've been blessed in my life to know some of the greatest figures of the last hundred years . . . but if I had to pick one person whom I know would never blink, who would never turn back, who would make great decisions . . . I would pick Hillary") were deliberate racial taunts.

Another female staffer, Candice Tolliver - whose job it is to promote Obama to African Americans - then weighed in publicly, claiming that "a cross-section of voters are alarmed at the tenor of some of these statements" and saying: "Folks are beginning to wonder: Is this an isolated situation, or is there something bigger behind all of this?" That was game, set and match: the Clintons were racists, an impression sealed when Bill Clinton later compared Obama's victory in South Carolina to those of Jesse Jackson in 1984 and 1988 (even though Jackson himself, an Obama supporter, subsequently declared Clinton's remarks to be entirely inoffensive).

The pincer movement, in fact, could have come straight from a textbook on how to wreck a woman's presidential election campaign: smear her whole persona first, and then link her with her angry, red-faced husband. The public Obama, characteristically, pronounced himself "unhappy" with the vilification carried out so methodically by his staff, but it worked like magic: Hillary Clinton's approval ratings among African Americans plummeted from above 80 per cent to barely 7 per cent in a matter of days, and have hovered there since.

I suspect that, as a result, she will never be able entirely to shake off the "racist" tag. "African-American super-delegates [who are supporting Clinton] are being targeted, harassed and threatened," says one of them, Representative Emanuel Cleaver. "This is the politics of the 1950s." Obama and Axelrod have achieved their objectives: to belittle Hillary Clinton and to manoeuvre the ever-pliant media into depicting every political criticism she makes against Obama as racist in intent....

[Barkley Rosser]

anne,

Well, this piece looks like something leaked by the Clinton campaign. Pretty one-sided it is.

The comments about LBJ and MLK by Hillary were indeed "clumsy" and opened her to criticism, even though they were not technically incorrect, just as those by Obama about Reagan were similar.

It was Bill Clinton's remarks about Jackson that really tilted things, and those were not sneakily advertised by the Obama campaign. Everybody heard them. They tilted Teddy Kennedy to Obama by most accounts. Jackson may have been diplomatic, but he and Sharpton were jealous as all get out of Obama displacing them as the main leader of African Americans.

In that debate where Obama said a nasty about Hillary and her board activities, she said a nasty about him and Tony Rezko (which turns out to be pretty much of a big zero, but this article conveniently leaves that out).

Needless to say the article somehow fails to mention Hillary's own remark about her appeal to "hardworking Americans, white Americans." If that remark is not racist, then what is, please? And her people were well known to be encouraging the endless playing of the tapes of Rev. Wright's sermons on various outlets, irrelevant as they were.

Regarding Bill Clinton, Hillary's supporters have always wanted to have it both ways. On the one hand she is to get credit and reflected glory, her "experience," from his years as president. However, she was not to be held responsible for any bad statements or actions on his part. No further comment on what that sort of attitude is, but it has been labeled here before.

[anne]

Obama will be President.

[Barkley Rosser]

anne,

Now we must all face true Keynesian uncertainty (regarding which I have academic pubs, multiply cited). So, we must all expect the unexpected; that is the expected, which means it itself is unexpected (which would mean you are right; Obama will be president).

But, reality may well hit us with unexpected exogenous shccks that could completely upend and alter the standard forecasts between now and early November. Let us not be conventionally stupid; and I have pointed out that Obama's willingness to have a variety of views is a sign that he is as well prepared as any presidential candidate for what might come, which may well humble all of us and render most of our previous discussions a ludicrous child's play.

[lonesome moderate]

I don't consider Andrew Stephen's paraphrase of the debate exchange between Clinton and Obama to be accurate or fair, a partial transcript is available at http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jan/22/uselections2008.

[anne]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/21/AR2008012102584.html?hpid=topnews

January 22 2008

Democratic Presidential Candidates Debate in South Carolina

CLINTON: You talked about admiring Ronald Reagan and you talked about the ideas...

OBAMA: Hillary, I'm sorry. You just...

BLITZER: Senator...

CLINTON: I didn't talk about Reagan.

OBAMA: Hillary, we just had the tape. You just said that I complimented the Republican ideas. That is not true. What I said -- and I will provide you with a quote -- what I said was is that Ronald Reagan was a transformative political figure because he was able to get Democrats to vote against their economic interests to form a majority to push through their agenda, an agenda that I objected to. Because while I was working on those streets watching those folks see their jobs shift overseas, you were a corporate lawyer sitting on the board at Wal-Mart.

(APPLAUSE)

OBAMA: I was fighting these fights. I was fighting these fights. So -- but I want to be clear. So I want to be clear. What I said had nothing to do with their policies. I spent a lifetime fighting a lifetime against Ronald Reagan's policies. But what I did say is that we have to be thinking in the same transformative way about our Democratic agenda. We've got to appeal to Independents and Republicans in order to build a working majority to move an agenda forward. That is what I said.

(APPLAUSE)

OBAMA: Now, you can dispute that, but let me finish. Hillary, you went on for two minutes. Let me finish. The irony of this is that you provided much more fulsome praise of Ronald Reagan in a book by Tom Brokaw that's being published right now, as did -- as did Bill Clinton in the past. So these are the kinds of political games that we are accustomed to.

CLINTON: Now, wait a minute. Wolf, wait a minute. Wait a minute. Just a minute.

BLITZER: Senator Edwards, let them wrap up. Then I'm going to come to you. Yes?

CLINTON: I just want -- I just to clarify -- I want to clarify the record. Wait a minute.

EDWARDS: There's a third person in this debate.

BLITZER: Wait a minute, Senator Edwards. Hold on. There has been a specific charge leveled against Hillary Clinton, so she can respond. Then I'll bring in Senator Edwards.

CLINTON: I just want to be sure...

OBAMA: Go ahead and address what you said about...

BLITZER: We have got a long time to. You'll have a good opportunity.

CLINTON: We're just getting warmed up.

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: Now, I just -- I just want to be clear about this. In an editorial board with the Reno newspaper, you said two different things, because I have read the transcript. You talked about Ronald Reagan being a transformative political leader. I did not mention his name.

OBAMA: Your husband did.

CLINTON: Well, I'm here. He's not. And...

OBAMA: OK. Well, I can't tell who I'm running against sometimes.

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: Well, you know, I think we both have very passionate and committed spouses who stand up for us. And I'm proud of that. But you also talked about the Republicans having ideas over the last 10 to 15 years.

OBAMA: I didn't say they were good ones.

CLINTON: Well, you can read the context of it.

OBAMA: Well, I didn't say they were good ones.

CLINTON: Well, it certainly...

OBAMA: All right, Wolf.

[anne]

http://www.newstatesman.com/north-america/2008/05/obama-clinton-vote-usa-media

"What's particularly saddening," says Paul Krugman, professor of economics and international affairs at Princeton and a rare dissenting voice from the left as a columnist in the New York Times, "is the way many Obama supporters seem happy with the . . . way pundits and some news organisations treat any action or statement by the Clintons, no matter how innocuous, as proof of evil intent." Despite widespread reporting to the contrary, Krugman believes that most of the "venom" in the campaign "is coming from supporters of Obama".

But Obama himself prepared the ground by making the first gratuitous personal attack of the campaign during the televised Congressional Black Caucus Institute debate in South Carolina on 21 January, although virtually every follower of the media coverage now assumes that it was Clinton who started the negative attacks. Following routine political sniping from her about supposedly admiring comments Obama had made about Ronald Reagan, Obama suddenly turned on Clinton and stared intimidatingly at her. "While I was working on those streets watching those folks see their jobs shift overseas," he scolded her, "you were a corporate lawyer sitting on the board at Wal-Mart." Then, cleverly linking her inextricably in the public consciousness with her husband, he added: "I can't tell who I'm running against sometimes."

-- Andrew Stephen

[anne]

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/17/headlines#9

January 17, 2008

Obama Appears to Laud Reagan for Confronting 1960-70s "Excesses"
By Amy Goodman

In campaign news, Senator Barack Obama is coming under criticism for appearing to slight the civil rights and feminist movements while expressing admiration for former President Ronald Reagan. * In an interview with the editorial board of the Reno Gazette, Obama lauded Reagan's challenge to what Obama called the "excesses" of the 1960s and 1970s.

Senator Barack Obama: "I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path, because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown, but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people—he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing."

Obama did not specify what he believes those "excesses" were. But Reagan is widely credited with leading a rightwing backlash against the gains of the civil rights and feminist movements that preceded his 1980 election.

* http://www.nytimes.com/ref/us/politics/21seelye-text.html

[anne]

Barack Obama will hopefully become President. Obama is terrrific; I know.

[anne]

Barkley Rosser was completely right, I was wrong.

[anne]

I voted for Obama, but wished to defend Clinton. I was also wrong to push Obama too much on policy. Obama will hopefully be President.

[anne]

Barkley Rosser:

"I agree that Hillary suffered from sexism, including in the media.... But, Obama also has clearly suffered from racism from many people, and, anne, you have yet to address why it is that the group that experiences both seems to have decided that racism has been worse than sexism by shifting their support from Hillary to Obama."

Barkley Rosser is completely right as shown here, I was wrong.

[Ryan Vann]

This isn't confusion, just typical and frankly predictible center reaching rhetoric necessary to win the general election. This is clearly a Florida panhandling, which will once again be a hotly contested state.

If one wants to delude themselves into thinking McCain is some sort of fool, that is their perogative. In the ADHD world we live in, I rather accept the notion that McCain knows what he needs to say to win. Most people aren't going to remember his contradictory statement of 4 years ago.

[Barkley Rosser]

anne,

Thank you.

[calmo]

Nice little tap-dance opti.
Do you expect the readers of Economisty to swallow your piece of ..."rhetoric", some might call it...others, more demanding.
That would be me.
Time to demonstrate that
--unlike the NPR interviewee who described McCain as a descendant of warriors (unlike his own descendants who were enablers of unspeakable caliber), and unlike The Governator that he, Arnold, is not a real action hero (witness the present precarious state of California) like the certified (unlike w for instance who the Pentagon established as uncertifiable) POW...
that this old fart can still "fight" and not merely bark like an old dog that missed his period...unlike Arnold who may see the WH yet, given the likes of you.