John McCain's YouTube Nightmare

[Plane]

The newsreel of McCain lowlights has zoomed up the YouTube charts in the last week, with more than 1.5 million views. "John McCain's YouTube Problem Just Became a Nightmare" is the video's title, which might be dismissed as partisan hype but for one thing: It's true.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/30/la-times-john-mccain-has_n_104407.html

[Plane]

McCain is running on his foreign policy credentials. Clinton is running on her readiness on day one/commander-in-chief credentials. McCain?s questionable grasp of the fundamentals in the Middle East (or, if you consider Todd?s even more disturbing ?truncated talking point? theory, his effort to purposely blur these fundamentals?Shiite, Sunni, Al Qaeda, Iranians, all the same?in the minds of the American electorate) is at least as urgent or ?pounce?-worthy (dare I suggest more so, particularly in light of recent developments?) as Clinton exaggerating an account of a trip she took a dozen years ago. And by the way, which is it? Did McCain have a senior moment(s) or is he deliberately ?blurring? two groups? Shouldn?t reporters push for a clarification of that?

Of the reporters who have copped to Todd?s the media will let McCain get away with it mentality, perhaps most disturbing was Susan Page of USA Today who on MSNBC went so far as to offer a (feeble) excuse for McCain: ?Most Americans can?t tell you the difference between Sunnis and Shiites, either.?

http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/whats_good_for_the_goose.php



[][][][][][][][[][][][][][][]][][]][]][


?I had a uncle who was one of the, who was part of the first American troops to go into Auschwitz and liberate the concentration camps and the story in our family was is that when he came home, he just went up into the attic and he didn?t leave the house for six months?Now obviously something had really affected him deeply but at that time there just weren?t the kinds of facilities to help somebody work through that kind of pain,? he said

The story was quickly picked up in the conservative blogosphere, which picked apart Obama?s story. His mother was an only child. The Soviet Army liberated Auschwitz. This afternoon, the RNC emailed a statement out to reporters. ?Barack Obama?s dubious claim is inconsistent with world history and demands an explanation. It was Soviet troops that liberated Auschwitz, so unless his uncle was serving in the Red Army, there?s no way Obama?s statement yesterday can be true.?

So what?s the deal?

Obama?s maternal grandmother?s brother, Charlie Payne, served with the 89th Infantry Division that liberated Ohrdruf, a subcamp of Buchenwald concentration camp. ?Yesterday he mistakenly referred to Auschwitz instead of Buchenwald in telling his personal experience of a soldier in his family who served heroically,? an Obama spokesman said in a statement.


http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/05/27/obama-camp-admits-misspeak/

[][][][][][][][][][][][]


Quote:
Originally Posted by http://www.telegraph.co.uk/
In an interview with ?USA Today?, Mrs Clinton said: ?There was just an AP article posted that found how Senator Obama's support among hard-working Americans, white Americans is weakening again and how the whites in both states [North Carolina and Indiana] who had not completed college were supporting me.?



What does she mean by this? It seems like she is talking about blue-collar whites supporting her, but some have construed this as implying that blacks aren't hardworking. I think it's an unfortunate choice of words, like Obama's "guns and religion" comment. I don't perceive the Clintons as racist by any means, but I get a sense that alot of their campaign's rhetorical choices have a tendency to pander to the unspoken prejudices of middle America. They are smart enough to mince words with an anticipation of how their comments will be received, and it seems to me that they are opting to take a low and cynical road.


http://forums.thestranger.com/showthread.php?t=17293


[[]][][][[][[][[[][[][][[][][[][[]][[][][][]


A perfect depiction of the witty remark from George Costanza from Seinfeld fame: ?It?s not a lie if you believe it?.

Senator Clinton claims to have ?misspoken? because she was sleep-deprived. To believe that claim, one would also have to believe that Hillary is ?sleep-deprived? almost every time she gives a speech on her foreign policy experience. Why? Simply because that story has been repeated time and over again, in reference to her experience, in various campaign speeches.

http://en.afrik.com/article12955.html


[][][][][][][][][][][]
-- for attendees at a San Francisco fundraiser, Obama described small town Pennsylvanians who "fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

The Huffington Post first reported the story; you can listen to the audio here.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/04/mccain-clinton.html

[Xavier_Onassis]

McCain screws up bigtime, and you continue to quibbe whether Barak Obama was referring to Buchenwald or Birkenau, as a part of Auschwitz was called, that a relative visited.

I would tend to think that whether a candidate understood economics NOW is a lot more important than whether he  misstated the name of a defunct concentration camp that a relative liberated.

[Plane]

McCain screws up bigtime, and you continue to quibble whether Barak Obama was referring to Buchenwald or Birkenau, as a part of Auschwitz was called, that a relative visited.

I would tend to think that whether a candidate understood economics NOW is a lot more important than whether he misstated the name of a defunct concentration camp that a relative liberated.

Is there any evidence that Senator Obama understands economics ?

I agree that a gaffe or two should be of little importance , but if you can use such a slip against my favorite I can use a similar slip against yours , that should keep us busy , all of the candidates are human beings and prone to mistakes in statements made impromptu.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Whether or not Obama understands economics adequately and  right now, is a lot less important than whether he will be able to follow the advice of the best advisers once he is president. Juniorbush's economics advisers have been mostly ignored during his terms.

Reagan was supposed to have worked miracles on the economy, and yet, before he was elected, about all he did was blather on and on about how the dollar was only worthy thirty-four cents of what it was back in some good old day, and how irresponsible government was pissing away vastly amounts of money beyond what it received in taxes, and how this was running up an astronomical national debt.

After the Old Geezer was elected, the government he led ran the national debt up to way over double what it had been since George Washington left office. This was called 'Reaganomics' and supposedly it was a great thing.

Of course, Juniorbush has far outdone Reagan in piling on the national debt.

The fact is that, although economic policy is important, we cannot predict what a future president will do. Based on governments since Nixon, we can justify the opinion that the Democrats will do more to limit the growth of the national debt than the Republicans. Statistically, the stock market is more likely to advance under a Democrat like Clinton than under a Republican such as Juniorbush.