CNN:
Republican John McCain said Wednesday he is directing his staff to work with Democrat Barack Obama's campaign and the presidential debate commission to delay Friday's debate because of the economic crisis.
Or gutless. Or not confident in his policies.
Why on earth postpone the debate? So it can take place when it would be less important? If you believe the Village
-- though I'm not sure I do -- this is the most important financial crisis since the 1930s.
Don't the American people deserve to hear the competing solutions of the candidates before Emperor Paulson's policy is imposed?! [bangs head on desk]
Hey, and how much you want to bet Obama plays along? Instead of challenging McCain?
Because that would make Obama insane, or gutless, or not confident in his policies too!
[continues to bang head on desk]
Leaders lead...
NOTE BTD agrees.
UPDATE Obama staffers say the candidate is inclined to go ahead and have the debate. Assuming that the staffers aren't over-zealous (it's happened before) good for Obama.
UPDATE Joint statement.
- lambert's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 1+[CSE]+#b94+
Front page
Comments
Tricky politics
Ok, McCain asks to delay the debate and it looks like he is putting service to his country above everything else. Obama howls in disbelief that the *debate* is the most important thing in the world and that McCain is chickening out. Hmmm, McCain looks like an adult for putting his senatorial obligations first while Obama looks like a narcissist.
Hillary steps in to save the day?
When will we learn? Republicans are really good at cornering their opponents. The guy who picked Palin (and it might not have been McCain) might have something up his sleeve. They're not amateurs. If they delay the debate, there's got to be an upside for McCain.
Come together at The Confluence
Come together at The Confluence
Stupid, stupid, stupid Obama people
He'll end up looking like the Black Knight with no arms and legs, growling at McCain to come back because he can still bite. Obama can not win this move. He should have beaten McCain to the punch.
Make no mistake. There *will* be a debate. But it will be on the senate floor where the questions are unscripted and Republicans will wheel out another catchy slogan like "cut and run". Obama will be forced to actually, like, do his job. The matter will be made to look like life and death, he'll be put between a rock and a hard place and he'll capitulate to his buddies who gave him money to run this turkey in the first place.
The only question remains whether there will be enough fear that DNC will let the whole shebang get derailed that they will send for the relief pitcher to save the game for Obama.
And if the media start to expose what's really happening politically in order to save Obama's bacon, they are going to run right up against average Americans who are afraid they're on the brink of losing their savings.
So, if I were Obama, I'd cancel the debate and take it up with McCain on the Senate floor. Better yet, dump Biden (I don't think he'll mind actually) and put Hillary in to go toe-to-toe with McCain and the Republicans.
Of course, I *want* Obama to lose so maybe he should just ignore my advice.
Come together at The Confluence
Come together at The Confluence
exactly--he loses both ways--
and he can't just whine about McCain posturing, when the posturing is actually taking action-- and doing his job
I don't know about the Hillary part, but other than that I agree
With McCain starting to tank again, he gets to play the honorable man who puts the country above politics, while Obama looks petty by insisting on keeping the debate date.
The wild card continues to be how the media decides to spin things, because of their history of stroking both of these candidates.
So Far Seen It Spun Both Ways
I've seen the cancel debate headline, but I've also seen it "suspending his campaign" so he can return to Washington to deal with the financial crisis and urging Obama to do the same. Here's Reuters:
What does McCain have to lose, really? A good gamble for him, go back to D.C. and look like you're leading and then either Obama joins you (see him following again in one of the most reactive campaigns ever) or refuses to and you can say he's putting campaigning over governing. Sure, the media might try to call McCain on ducking the debate, but the more McCain puts himself out in front in D.C. on the bailout issue, the harder that is.
The real danger for McCain is that he will commit to something in D.C. that is unpopular, but I suspect that's a minor risk considering the potential upside of looking like a leader, something I suspect many Americans are waiting for.
"Do what you feel in your heart to be right -- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. " - Eleanor Roosevelt
I just spent some time
with a friend who's a dyed-in-the-wool repub. She had some minor damage repaired on her SUV, and we went to the body shop in Ann Arbor to pick it up. She and the guy started talking about the upcoming election and how awful the choices were this year on both sides.
What could I say?
Turn the challenge around and stick it to McCain
What Obama should do (WOSD, another game?) is put it right back at MCain and refuse to postpone the debate.
"A president has to be able to manage more than one serious issue at a time. While the economic policy questions before us are critical and deserve close consideration, I am prepared to give them all the attention they require and participate in this debate as scheduled. Hopefully Senator McCain will be able to join me."
Nevermind
hit post before I meant to.
"Do what you feel in your heart to be right -- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. " - Eleanor Roosevelt
WOSD would be a great game
I've been trying to get the OFB
to play it for months and months, but they think "if it's perfect, don't fix it."
I'm not sure what you're suggesting is an especially strong play. The economy meltdown is The One Great Issue of the Moment, so attention on anything else looks like poor prioritization.
This one's all in the hands of the pundits (not that it ever isn't), and if they want to nail Obama on it, they surely can, or they can make McCain look like it's desperate gamesplaying. It's the Village
's ball, so what play will they call?
it's "issue #1" and they're
all about this--this is the village community theater they all know and love--it's a made for tv-news movie--and fully-scripted from start to finish.
see this--
(reposted from other other thread, but the WP already cut it out of their original post)
http://www.correntewire.com/campaign_upd...
"... “… McCain’s gambit puts Obama in a tough place. Agree with McCain’s call to suspend the campaign and Obama looks like a follower, not a leader. Reject the move and Obama runs the risk of losing the high ground on post-partisanship and the need to change the way Washington does business. ...."
D'OH
should have read other posts and the WP before my comment below. Pay me no attention.
Only tyrants rig elections.
well, you beat the Fix
by a day--they posted today, and already edited it out from earlier this afternoon...
Postponing campaign or postponing the debate
I mentioned yesterday that I'd like to see Obama come out and show leadership by suspending the campaign for a few days and camping out in the Senate chamber to address this in some fashion. That would be a political winner, IMO.
If McCain just wants to postpone the debate, Obama can ding him. However, if McCain actually takes days off from campaigning, then it makes it hard to criticize him if he does postpone the debate. The debate is seen primarily as a campaign sideshow so treating it as such doesn't really hurt.
Of course, McCain has Palin who can be out on the campaign trail while the Senators do their, er, jobs. But McCain can't be too pushy on "doing their jobs" because he's missed more votes than almost everyone this session. Make no mistake though, this is now framed in a favorable way for McCain (if he does postpone the campaign). McCain being the first out of the gate on this means Obama looks like a follower if he goes along. If Obama tries to fight this, he risks being seen as overly political. It mostly depends on how McCain frames it.
Only tyrants rig elections.
Ruh-roh, Ed Rendell thinks it was a good move?
According to JustSayNoDeal's flash page, Rendell gave a phone interview with Fox News where he spoke about McCain's decision. That says to me that the natives are getting restless and very impatient with the Obama campaign. The honeymoon is over. Come together at The Confluence
Come together at The Confluence
he never acts or speaks decisively--
not even now.
He only reacts to what the GOP and McCain does and says---always.
A little imagination
There's only one moderator this time, Jim Lehrer, and McCain is always whining about wouldn't it be so much fun to go Old School so give it to him. Restage Kennedy-Nixon.
"We don't need a fancy stage or 16 different camera angles. We'll do it here in DC, in one of the Senate conference rooms, with Senator McCain and myself and Mr. Lehrer and one camera. I'm sorry for having to cancel at Ole Miss. We'll set up a big-screen there so everyone who wants to can watch us live at the auditorium, and I promise that just as soon as I can I'll come down to Ole Miss and have a town hall meeting with y'all where you can ask me questions directly and we can get to know each other. These are extraordinary times, and we need extraordinary leadership to see our way through them. I hope Senator McCain will join me in this."
Or something like that. The point is that there's a way to turn this around, to show Obama as the vigorous smart flexible and creative one determined to do everything needed to get everything done, and McCain as slower and less creative and certainly less able and willing to do more than one thing at a time.
Turning it around
Definitely possible to turn it around a bit. However, Obama is now playing catch-up. McCain can say something like, "let's have this debate in the Senate". Or a Hillary type proposal of a Lincoln-Douglas debate may be a big move, preferably in D.C. The thing is, it has to be tied to Congressional work, not the campaign, at least IMO.
I'd like to see either of the candidates come out and mention something about the hurricane aftermath. People are still pretty glum about that as well, according to my friend in an effected area.
McCain outplayed Obama here, and there is little question about that, but Obama can try to one-up McCain. I don't like Obama or McCain, but I wouldn't mind each of them playing a game of showmanship if it means calling more attention to some of our problems. I new Edwards wasn't what he was billed at, but he served an important role in the primary by pushing the debate. We need something/someone like that now.
Only tyrants rig elections.
"if i can be helpful"
ugh-- so weak.
"... Regarding McCain's call to join him in Washington to help participate in the debate over the economic recovery plan, Obama said, "If I can be helpful then I'm prepared to be anywhere, any time ... [I] don't want to infuse Capitol Hill with presidential politics." ..." -- http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/24/campaign.wrap/index.html
Pie, all I hope for
is that you close your italics tag.
Walking and Chewing Gum
Is Obama really comparing Working on the Financial Crisis & Bailout at the same time as Campaigning to Walking and Chewing gum?
That sounds incredibly dismissive. And blasé.
McCain's talking points on this--
Politico has em-- http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/Suspension_The_talking_points.html?showall
and what's Reid's game?
He demanded that McCain act and talk about this yesterday, and now wants McCain not to act or come to DC.
"The Senate Majority Leader is urging McCain to stay away from Washington.
But, as Republicans note, he had a very different message yesterday.
“So we need, now, the Republicans to start producing some votes for us," Reid said at a press conference. "We need the Republican nominee for president to let us know where he stands on what we should do.”" -- http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0908/Reids_mixed_messaging.html?showall
more Reid (& Pelosi): "“We need Republican votes to help us,”
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/pelo... -- Pelosi won’t jump alone
But She Is Willing to Jump
so the only thing stopping this clusterfuck is the GOP. Niiiice.
"Do what you feel in your heart to be right -- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. " - Eleanor Roosevelt
Obama tells McCain to buzz off
after McCain tries to pull a fast one.
Obama:
Harry Reid issued a statement saying that it would not be helpful to have the candidates in the middle of the negotiations, "injecting politics". He also said that if McCain does not back what ever plan is settled on, then neither will the Democrats. That leaves McCain in the position of being the one to scuttle the whole deal - and bear responsibility for whatever happens to the economy next - or giving up on his attempt to step away from Bush and paint the Democrats as being part of the problem. Good.
Again, BIO, let's admit
That the media chooses the narrative, and the narrative chooses the president.
As the old Boston TV song went, "Star of the day, who will it be?"
The choosing was done in the primaries
Don't you think? From a functional standpoint, it probably doesn't much matter to the Village
or the MSM/Corporatists which one of these two wins, governance will be from somewhere center-right to right, not much change for their interests, steady on. McCain is already solidly within the Village power structure and Obama will just be happy to be there, my my look at all the pretty lights.
My push is for the Party, not Obama; I think Progressives have a better chance at influencing the Democrats than we do with the Republicans, and I think that as the new reality imposes itself - and it will - Democrats will be more flexible in dealing with the worsening situation.
Both the Village and the MSM/Corporatist interests think the fun will just roll on forever but it won't. It isn't that I'm actually hopeful with the Democrats in office, as much as I am less terrified.
Choosing was done in the primaries, fer sure...
... but who's to say the choosing is done? I agree that they aren't too panicked about it turning out one way or the other, but they always get their men (or, perhaps man+woman), so their preference is key, and so far I'd say it clearly leans Obama... but if he keeps looking weak -- which they despise -- they'll turn on him in a heartbeat.
And, seriously, based on what do you see Dems having any leverage with Obama? McCain picked his VIP with (obviously) an eye to Democrats' concerns. Obama, not so much.
Other than only slightly backing away from Roe v. Wade, his ultimate leverage issue, in what way has Obama shown the slightest interest in and respect for what Democratic voters think during this campaign?
Choosing done in the primaries
Well, despite the media narrative after February, Hillary won the last several months of the campaign. There is absolutely no question about that. Us common folk, for better or worse, have yet to accept the pro-Obama media narrative. First Hillary's butt kicking in the latter part of the primary and then the inability to force Palin out of the race.
BTW, VL, you don't have to worry about me showing you the "right" path with some nonexistent future post with numbers and graphs. I don't question your intelligence or competence ;).
Only tyrants rig elections.
Well, VL My Friend; Let me say this about that...
We see the Democratic Party differently, you and I, and I do mean to have that conversation with you one day soonish with numbers and charts and graphs and everything, but for now...
In my view: There are three main parts to what functions electorally as the Democratic Party in the loosest sense, that is registered Democrats and Independents who tend to vote Democratic. Together they make up close to half the nation. Roughly a third are Liberal
/Progressives, choose your name but they are people you and I could agree with on essentially everything. Another third or so are social conservatives but economic liberals; they want to see government as a solution rather than a problem but they are not in favor of one or more of what we would consider Progressive/Liberal goals or ideals. The other third are economic populists, the working poor and middle class who want a bigger share of the economic pie as their dominant political driver and see the Democrats as more likely to get that for them than Republicans; they are also broadly conservative and fixedly so on at least one and usually more than one L/P issue.
Obama and both of the Clintons, as center-right moderate conservatives, reflect the overall makeup of the modern Democratic Party. In fact, and take a deep breath, the majority of self-described Democrats rate themselves as more conservative than either Obama or Hillary and actually see themselves as politically closer to McCain than either of the Dems.
When you say "Democratic Party" I think - I think - you are talking about the Liberal/Progressive wing. It is only a third of the whole Party, a third of the vote that Obama needs to get elected. The very sad fact is that if he embraced all of the values and goals that you and I hold dear and see as simply proper and correct, he would plummet in the polls and McCain would win in a landslide. I can't tell you how much that frustrates me, but I believe it is true.
The Republican Party, on the other hand, is at its core a criminal conspiracy supported by bigots and fools. The Rs are skilled liars, however, and have in the past manipulated public opinion of actually centrist Democratic contenders towards seeing them as holding Liberal/Progressive positions and thereby acquired enough votes by scaring the conservative Middle to pull off a series of victories.
That victory margin has gotten smaller since Reagan, and started shrinking during his second term. If we can just survive the next ten years - and we can do that with Democrats in charge but not with Republicans - the shift will continue and the percentage of Liberal/Populists will start to dramatically increase; The center of balance will shift and the argument will no longer be between conservative Democrats and reactionary authoritarian Republicans as it has been but between conservative Democrats and Liberal/Progressive Democrats. We, the Liberal/Progressives, will I feel certain gain control of the direction of the country in a decade and have it firmly running on sound moral governance in twenty years at most - if the country survives.
Obama is what we must do to have a chance at surviving. He will try to govern center-right, as would have Hillary, but events will overtake him and Congress and the pressure to move further Left as the middle of the country moves Left will be more than he or the Democratic Party can resist. We can, I believe, move them. The Republicans, in contrast, will just continue to lie while they pillage and take us all down in flames.
I guess the other difference between us is I have never seen Hillary as some great progressive leader, any more than Bill was, so I don't from a policy standpoint feel much disappointment in Obama; they are in my view just not that far apart on anything. The Republicans, however, all of them, frighten and repulse me completely; in comparison, I can deal with either Obama or Hillary and feel much better than what will happen with McCain. Palin, for hell's sakes, is a complete creepy Christianist
fanatic disaster; next to her Biden is a secular saint.
hah! Obama Accepts Bush Invitation To Meet In Washington
-- the GOP gets its way-- and is still calling all the shots -- http://www.wnbc.com/news/17551484/detail.html
Yes, and they will never forgive her for that either!
But they were still pissed about not getting any fresh baked cookies on the plane.
Well Maybe
they should get back to DC and do their day job for once.
And Bringiton, If the big O still wants that debate...send a stand in, his VP nominee. While he's busy saving the American economy, Obama can have his debate with McCain's second. I know she'll be associating with someone who doesn't know how to run anything bigger than a campaign with maybe 2500 staff members. But she'll do just fine with all that executive experience managing the state's 25,000 staff.
That was a funny one, that Majority Leader Reid calling for McCain's leadership and not Obama's, then telling McCain it's not needed a day latter. That will make a great ad for returning leadership to Democrats this year.
peter