It seems to me that if a merchant has a great product to sell, he or she sells it. For example, a restaurateur purveying great steaks sells the steak -- its flavor, its texture, its tenderness. The guy with an indifferent product sells atmosphere and sizzle, avoiding the topic of steak as much as possible.

Similarly, the McCain campaign is selling nothing but semantics, and Friday night's debate shone a bright spotlight on that fact.

Senator McCain (or as his opponent called him, "John") attempted to sell several points in the debate in an attempt to persuade his audience that Senator Obama's inexperience and naïveté means that he "doesn't get it." Some of the points were:

1) That Senator Obama would hold talks without preconditions while a President McCain would insist on such preconditions;

2) That Senator Obama's plan to withdraw American soldiers with a time table from Iraq would be catastrophic for American foreign policy for years to come while Senator McCain's plan to withdraw the troops when commanders on the ground agree with the prudence of doing so would improve the American position;

3) That Senator Obama's withdrawal from Iraq would be a defeat while Senator McCain's withdrawal will be a victory;

4) That Senator Obama would attack Pakistan.

The fact is that McCain's position on all these topics is indistinguishable from Obama's. The only difference is wording. Senator McCain calls them "preconditions." Senator Obama calls them "preparations." A distinction, if you will forgive the cliche, with no difference.

Senator McCain says his withdrawal plan will require about a year and a half, but Senator Obama's plan would take place in just eighteen months. McCain's differentiation between his "victory" and his opponent's "defeat" appears to be limited to the words themselves.

Senator McCain did not offer an alternative to Senator Obama's plan to strike Osama Bin Laden in the face of Pakistani recalcitrance.

The major political parties have been all about marketing ever since television became the dominant medium, so it is predictable that style would replace substance in both campaigns. But Senator McCain's rather transparent attempt to turn word parsing into a political platform exposes his empty-suit-ness.

Reconsider.

(I am posting this for the third time. The first two times it was not available long enough to engender a response. That could be because you're simply not interested.)

Point: The Democratic candidate for president has voted to legitimize warrantless phone taps on Americans against whom there is no evidence of wrongdoing.

Point: Said presidential candidate's most formidable rival sponsored a bill in such clear violation of free political speech that it caused unity between the ACLU and Antonin Scalia.

Point: If said presidential candidate loses the election, it is likely to be at least somewhat the result of the color of skin.

Point: The Republican candidate for president revitalized his campaign by selecting a corrupt, totally unqualified running mate whose qualifications seem to be that she is a member of an ultra-right Christian cult.

Point: Said vice-presidential candidate is picking up votes from women who formerly supported the Democratic runner-up for the presidential nomination.

Point: In any country where liberalism were viable, this election would have already been a clear runaway in every demographic in every state. It would would make the 1972 and 1988 elections look like photo finishes, but with the other horse in the lead.

Point: The Republican Party is still advancing its causes and candidates by misleading the electorate about Democrats' intentions to raise taxes on the middle class even as the middle class shrinks, wages drop, and services disappear.

Point: The Republican Party is still advancing its causes and candidates by stressing right-wing "values," even when their candidates repeatedly and obviously demonstrate that they hold such values in contempt in their private lives.

Point: If the Republican Party loses the election in 2008, it may very well be because a significant block of its voters defected to an even more radically conservative candidate.

Point: The Democrats managed a take-over of both houses of congress in 2006 mostly by nominating young Democratic conservatives to face unpopular Republican conservatives. One of the Senators the Democrats installed in 2006 was actually a member of the administration of Ronald Reagan.

Point: On this supposedly liberal blog, a number of the more prolific reader/bloggers habitually rail against liberals. One blog recently referred to the "liberal media" twice, the "liberal press" twice, and generic liberals twice. These references were not challenged. A very prolific commenter referred to Washington, DC as "yidland" in a thread authored by TPM Cafe's most iconic Jewish blogger. That commenter's reference was also unchallenged, then mildly and briefly challenged.

Point: The second-most disastrous president in American history, dead for several years now, is still referred to in hallowed terms by Republicans, Democrats and independents.

Point: The most disastrous president in American history keeps his Democratic congressional opposition cowed and keeps them busy financing his imperial and authoritarian wet dreams by allowing them to believe they are pandering to the electorate even when surveys show the public supports the Democrats. Even, in fact, when it is clear the opposition congresspersons were sent to Washington specificly to thwart said imperial and authoritarian wet dreams.

Some think the pendulum is swinging back toward the liberal side of the political trajectory, but the evidence would seem to indicate that the pendulum has fallen from its pivot and is permanently stuck in the ground far to the right of its inflection point.

 

Reconsider. Point: The Democratic candidate for president has voted to legitimize warrantless phone taps on Americans against whom there is no evidence of wrongdoing. Point: Said presidential candidate's most formidable rival sponsored a bill in such clear violation of free political speech that it caused unity between the ACLU and Antonin Scalia. Point: If said presidential candidate loses the election, it is likely to be at least somewhat the result of the color of skin. Point: The Republican candidate for president revitalized his campaign by selecting a corrupt, totally unqualified running mate whose qualifications seem to be that she is a member of an ultra-right Christian cult. Point: Said vice-presidential candidate is picking up votes from women who formerly supported the Democratic runner-up for the presidential nomination. Point: In any country where liberalism were viable, this election would have already been a clear runaway in every demographic in every state. It would would make the 1972 and 1988 elections look like photo finishes, but with the other horse in the lead. Point: The Republican Party is still advancing its causes and candidates by misleading the electorate about Democrats' intentions to raise taxes on the middle class even as the middle class shrinks, wages drop, and services disappear. Point: The Republican Party is still advancing its causes and candidates by stressing right-wing "values," even when their candidates repeatedly and obviously demonstrate that they hold such values in contempt in their private lives. Point: If the Republican Party loses the election in 2008, it may very well be because a significant block of its voters defected to an even more radically conservative candidate. Point: The Democrats managed a take-over of both houses of congress in 2006 mostly by nominating young Democratic conservatives to face unpopular Republican conservatives. One of the Senators the Democrats installed in 2006 was actually a member of the administration of Ronald Reagan. Point: On this supposedly liberal blog, a number of the more prolific reader/bloggers habitually rail against liberals. One blog recently referred to the "liberal media" twice, the "liberal press" twice, and generic liberals twice. These references were not challenged. A very prolific commenter referred to Washington, DC as "yidland" in a thread authored by TPM Cafe's most iconic Jewish blogger. That commenter's reference was also unchallenged, then mildly and briefly challenged. Point: The second-most disastrous president in American history, dead for several years now, is still referred to in hallowed terms by Republicans, Democrats and independents. Point: The most disastrous president in American history keeps his Democratic congressional opposition cowed and keeps them busy financing his imperial and authoritarian wet dreams by allowing them to believe they are pandering to the electorate even when surveys show the public supports the Democrats. Even, in fact, when it is clear the opposition congresspersons were sent to Washington specificly to thwart said imperial and authoritarian wet dreams. Some think the pendulum is swinging back toward the liberal side of the political trajectory, but the evidence would seem to indicate that the pendulum has fallen from its pivot and is permanently stuck in the ground far to the right of its inflection point.

Reconsider.

Point: The Democratic candidate for president has voted to legitimize warrantless phone taps on Americans against whom there is no evidence of wrongdoing.

Point: Said presidential candidate's most formidable rival sponsored a bill in such clear violation of free political speech that it engendered agreement between the ACLU and Antonin Scalia.

Point: If said presidential candidate loses the election, it is likely to be at least somewhat the result of the color of skin.

Point: The Republican candidate for president revitalized his campaign by selecting a corrupt, totally unqualified running mate whose qualifications seem to  member of an ultra-right Christian cult.

Point: Said vice-presidential candidate is picking up votes from women who formerly supported the Democratic runner-up for the presidential nomination.

Point: In any country where liberalism were viable, this election would have already been a clear runaway in every demographic in every state. It would would make the 1972 and 1988 elections look like photo finishes, but with the other horse in the lead.

Point: The Republican Party is still advancing its causes and candidates by misleading the electorate about Democrats' intentions to raise taxes on the middle class even as the middle class shrinks, wages drop, and services disappear.

Point: The Republican Party is still advancing its causes and candidates by stressing right-wing "values," even when their candidates repeatedly and obviously demonstrate that they hold such values in contempt in their private lives.

Point: If the Republican Party loses the election in 2008, it may very well be because a significant block of its voters defected to an even more radically conservative candidate.

Point: The Democrats managed a take-over of both houses of congress in 2006 mostly by nominating young conservatives to face unpopular Republicans. One of the Senators the Democrats installed in 2006 was actually a member of the administration of Ronald Reagan.

Point: On this supposedly liberal blog, a number of the more prolific reader/bloggers habitually rail against liberals. One blog recently referred to the "liberal media" twice, the "liberal press" twice, and generic liberals twice. These references were not challenged. A very prolific commenter referred to Washington, DC as "yidland" in a thread authored by TPM Cafe's most iconic Jewish blogger. That commenter's reference, as of this writing, also went unchallenged.

Point: The second-most disastrous president in American history, the conservative Ronald Reagan, is still referred to in hallowed terms by Republicans, Democrats and independents.

Point: The most disastrous president in American history keeps his Democratic congressional opposition cowed and keeps them busy financing his imperial and authoritarian wet dreams by allowing them to believe they are pandering to the electorate even when surveys show the public supports the Democrats. Even, in fact, when it is clear the opposition congresspersons were sent to Washington specificly to thwart said imperial and authoritarian wet dreams.

Some think the pendulum is swinging back toward the liberal side of the political trajectory, but the evidence would seem to indicate that the pendulum has fallen from its pivot and is permanently stuck in the ground far to the right of its inflection point.

 

I heard that TPM Cafe offered interesting debate and a workable interface. Tried it for a week. Found neither.

The drivel on this blog consists of whining, crowing, and insulting. No place for a thinking person to hang out.

And the interface? If this post takes, it will be on the third attempt. No place for a bad typist to hang out.

You people must be some unthinking typing wizards.