Yes, but there is a clear failure in all of this on the Democratic side: Why are there not Democratic leaders out there EVERY DAY expressing outrage taht Obama's statements are being lied about by McCain and his surrogates? There needs to be a chorus on every point -- and on every rebuttal. But the conservatives are doing that better this week than the Democrats -- and that seems ALWAYS to be true. Say reasonable things once seems to be the Obama/Democratic approach, and that is not going to work in an attack campaign!

Posted at July 22, 2008 4:38 PM in response to McCain Falsely Claims That Obama Is Denying The Success Of The Troops

The TIMES and other papers also require that an OpEd have something new (facts, ideas, arguments), so publishing an exact regurgitation of what McCain says every day hardly would have cut it.

Posted at July 21, 2008 4:49 PM in response to New York Times To McCain: Cut The Crap

I think this post is too alarmist about the Washington Post story. It is tardy on the Iraqi stand, to be sure, and it stresses the alleged eight month gap. But 2010 is 2010 -- and most voters will hear that the Iraqis want the US to withdraw by roughly the same time Obama does. This is a huge difference from making no time commitment at all.

It is time for everyone to recognize the real difference here: not about this month or that, or about "horizons" versus "timetables" (though it is easy to make the point that horizons always recede and are never reached). The real difference is between Obama/Iraqis declaring victory and leaving Iraq in the hands of its government, versus McCain desire for a permanent and very expensive military opperation there, embroiling the USA directly in Middle East wars for the long run. That is the difference. Let's debate it.

Posted at July 21, 2008 2:37 PM in response to Washington Post Spins Iraqi Official's Call For Troops Out By 2010 As Against Obama

McCain and his campaign are going to do one extreme thing after another, because they are freaked out that they are losing. McCain clearly has no respect for Obama, and he always believes in his own patriotic righteousness no matter what. So expect a lot of bad stuff from now on.

The media and the punditry SHOULD jump on this. But the standards for Democrats and Republicans are completely different.

Posted at July 18, 2008 6:10 PM in response to No Word Yet From McCain Camp On McCain's Discussion Of Obama Trip Timing

Boston has not been great, but is getting better. Chicago, ironically, does do much better, perhaps because after the Harold Washington candidacy, the machine did transform itself -- and the city itself works as an amalgam of neighborhoods. Black neighborhoods have gained some ground in recent times, and blacks are part of the city's poltiics and culture. Not perfect, but better than NYC.

Posted at July 16, 2008 4:32 PM in response to Nagourney Responds: We Are "Comfortable" With Our Story, Though Headline Was Imperfect

There is no getting around the fact that this article was really bad -- as social science and as analysis. It also feeds a toxic narrative: look at AOL which features when you log in "Poll indicates trouble for Obama" ! This is what the TIMES prompts with this toxic article. Amazing that when longstanding racial differences in attitudes remain in place that somehow becomes an issue for the black candidate. This is racial stereotyping pure and simple, as is Nagourney's claim that Obama's candacy makes race "central, to this election.

The truth is that Obama has been, all along, making transracial arguments about concerns and issues SHARED by Americans of all backgrounds. He is not playing race cards -- and the question is why are the NYC institutions (Times, New Yorker) insisting on doing so? It raises real questions about the culture of that city, where racial tensions have not been well handled compared to many other major U.S. cities.

Theda S.

Posted at July 16, 2008 3:58 PM in response to Nagourney Responds: We Are "Comfortable" With Our Story, Though Headline Was Imperfect

The TIMES today was awful. It provided a much less thorough and honest overview of Obama's foreign policy speech -- and the McCain moves to imitate Obama -- than did the Wall Street Journal! And the race article was utterly wierd -- trying to promote racial divisions that their own data just do not show. One expects better from Adam Ngourney. What is wrong?

The Obama campaign will have to push back fast and thoroughly on stuff like this -- all the time.

Posted at July 16, 2008 9:41 AM in response to Obama Campaign Criticizes New York Times Story On Poll

Just so the facts are clear: I started out as an Edwards supporter, and switched to Obama only after Edwards, to my disappointment, failed to make progress. Had Obama faded, I would have been happy to support HRC or any other winning Democrat.

If Obama had been in Clinton's position after February,he would have faced a chorus of calls for withdrawal -- and the Superdelegates would have moved fast. In my view, in that scenario, he should not have insisted on continuing, just as she should not, after May 6. At that point, the outcome was totally clear and unity the order of the day.

If Obama in HRC's position had lost after hanging in beyond May 6, no one that I can imagine would be calling on Clinton to pay his bills! If everyone thinks about this calmly, they will realize how bizarre it is that some fat cats seem to think that Mark Penn should be paid off with funds from Democrats needed for the general election.

Posted at July 12, 2008 4:34 PM in response to Can Progressives Unite, or Will It Be the Same Old Bit-Politics Story?

Some have suggested that it is "racist" to disagree with Jesse Jackson and to emphasize the basic value of responsible parenthood widely shared by Americans of all races and classes. I completely disagree that there is anything racist about this.

Racism,sexism, anti-Semitism, and other forms of vile prejudice all exist for sure. But invoking them as casual epithets in the context of normal political give and take devalues the serious ills they respresent. It is not sexism every time a male criticizes a female, even with tough or coarse language if such language is typical of the sphere of activity involved. Politics is not a tea party. Woman are tough enough to do it, and they can take -- and give -- blows. Hillary Clinton demonstrated that, and she was no "victim."

Posted at July 12, 2008 4:26 PM in response to Can Progressives Unite, or Will It Be the Same Old Bit-Politics Story?

My immediate previous post was directed to Roger Bigod, not Thrasymachus, with whom I agree. Sorry for the confusion.

Posted at July 11, 2008 10:51 PM in response to Can Progressives Unite, or Will It Be the Same Old Bit-Politics Story?