Lot’s of internet noise on the Obama / Ayers connection, spurred by this YouTube video. This has given rise to an ad by the Obama camp to try and deflect from the criticizm of his association with the former (?) radical. The ad is dumb and misses the mark. Here’s a sample of Â criticism from The Corner:
I don’t have an encyclopedic recall of every Presidential ad ever run, but I would have to think that Obama’s new Bill Ayers ad (hat tip to Politico via our own Jim Geraghty, who provides us just about every useful insight possible on the race) would have to rank up there (or down there) as one of the worst Presidential political ad ever made. It apparently is a response to a harsh and quite effective ad by a 529 group that highlighted the Obama-Bill Ayers connection. Obama’s response ad only reinforces the connection. It starts with: “Why is John McCain talking about the Sixties?” Well, McCain wasn’t talking about anything; it was an unrelated (but supportive) group. “Why is McCain trying to link Barack Obama to radical Bill Ayers?” asks the ad? As Jim points out, this seems to be the first time Obama has described his seemingly close associate as a radical. Â The ad explains that Obama “denounced Ayers’ crime.” Whether that is true or not, his recent association with Ayers is not addressed. And again, Obama suggests that it is somehow relevant that the crimes were committed when he was just eight years old. As I recall, Charles Manson was committing crimes in the same time frame, but are any Presidential candidates jumping on the Manson express?
I find it appalling that the Dems are giving Ayers a pass on his transgrassions during the 60’s…. uhm, wasn’t the weather underground active during the 70’s? Anyway, if they want to give Ayers and Dorhn and Obama a pass, fine. But I don’t want to hear the Democrats whine and moan when, in fifteen years or so, a Republican Pres candidate has a “casual friendship” with a former abortion clinic bomber.
Hat Tip: Althouse.
My God! The blogosphere is having a field day!
Two failed presidential bids! (no link needed)
And now, some ties to Rezko.
It takes many weeks to choose the VP candidate. What was the vetting committee doing all this time – trying to figure out how many licks it takes to get to the center of a tootsie-pop???
This will give McCain some leeway on his choice for VP. Could he do worse? (Don’t answer that).
Hat Tip for many of the links: Insta-P.
Â Or would that be “bumped”? As in “bumper sticker”?
Drudge is presenting evidence that Sen. Evan Bayh is Obama’s pick for VP. No, the evidence is not a stained blue dress (now THAT would be news!). The evidence comes in the form of bumper stickers. A plant that produces political bumper stickers (invented them, they say) has been caught printing “Obama / Bayh 08” stickers. Even though Mr. O has been tight lipped about the pick, this, if true, would be the perfect give away. Why?
In economics, there is a metric called a leading indicator, which gives the first signs of changing economic conditions. If, for example, you want to see if the economy is recovering,Â you would look at companies that produce uniforms and janitorial services. If those companies are showing an increase in business, then that indicates that people are being hired and need uniforms, and workload is accelerating which needs janitors to keep the workplace clean. One metric involes positive employment trends, and the other indicates productivity is on the rise. Positive changes in these two metrics will usually show up in economic analysis much sooner than sustained positive employment rates and other measures of economic health will. That is why they’re called leading indicators.
The bumper sticker plant is, in this case, very much a leading political indicator. It was a stroke of brilliance to have someone snooping around there, and If this turns out to be true, the guy or gal who came up with the idea to stake out the bumper sticker plant should get a hefty bonus. And if, as MSNBC is reporting, it’s NOT Bayh, and the stickers turn out to be one of the greatest head-fakes in political history – lets face it, Obama has p-l-e-n-t-y of cash to waste on this kind of deception – then someone on Obama’s staff should get a VERY hefty raise, maybe go to Hawaii, go wind surfing, buy a house….
UPDATE:Â It’s a head-fake! Good Job!!! The VP? Joseph Biden!!!All in all, not a bad choice.
I don’t find this all that interesting myself, but it could hurt him at a time when things are looking up. McCain could break out the John (I was in Vietnam) Kerry SUV line “those aren’t mine, they belong to my wife”, but that probably wouldn’t go over too well.
PS. Just curios – why do you need three houses in Los Angeles?
Hat Tip: Sire Says!
The problem with Obama? Andrew Sullivan, unknowingly nails it: “Fascinating to see how many themes remain the same,…”
Obama’s primary campaign was centered around grand themes, and yes, the themes haven’t changed much. There wasn’t that much difference concerning policy positions between Obama and Hillary, so the change “theme” was the deciding factor in the primaries. Obama – The Theme Candidate! He did mention policy positions but they were never really explored, as the theme was the central focus. Now in the national election, he is finding a hard time selling the theme to a half eager public. Those paying attention want solutions based on hard policy, and those not paying attention much are probably bored with the “theme”. You can olny get so much milage out of the thing before you run out of political gas. Obama’s “theme” can’t provide a hiding space to distract for his less-than-solid policy positions.
Lets examine the energy issue. McCain jumped on the drilling platform early (pun intended) and got a big advantage there. Though it can be called a flip flop by some, as McCain was against off shore drilling in the past. But the Democrats have been so successful at painting Republicans as being in the back pocket of “Big Oil”, McCain’s current position on the energy problem actually feels more natural, whereas Obama’s recent semi-conversion to drilling feels a lot like just another political weather-vane policy swing employed so often by the last Democratic inhabitant of the White House. Obama has changed course on so many issues as of late (drilling, Iraq, FISA, rejecting public financing of his campaign) he is starting to lose the confidence of the voters who helped him win the nomination. His positions on the issues are becoming more and more uncertain in the public mind, and his nuanced performance in the round table thing the other night didn’t help clarify things. People like a solid, mater-of-fact stand on the issues, without all the endless rational to explain why. It is what it is. That is why McCain won the other night, and why Bush was able to get within striking distance of Al Gore in 2000. Obama still has plenty of “themes”, but not a lot of solid policy ground left on which to stand.
PS. Besides the themes, there is something else that hasn’t changed. When I watched the video posted at Sullivan’s site, I was struck by two things:
A) Obama says “Uh” a lot, on a topic which should be very familliar and not require a whole lot of thinking, and
B) Watch how the journalist interviewing Obama absolutely fawned over him. Fascinating! The more things change, the more things stay the same!!!
OK. Three things – I think Obama has gotten better looking with age. This has nothing to do with anything, I just though I would point it out.