• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Obama campaign to release Keating Five video

Will Obama hit Mccain with the Keating business tomorrow night first chance he gets, or will he wait for Mccain to go "Ayers" on him?
 
Tricky said:
Correct, or as The Painter points out:

McCain exercised poor judgment. While it sounds innocuous, that is a very important consideration in choosing a president. It is not in any way dirty politics to point out that McCain was officially chastised for showing poor judgment. Indeed it is quite relevant. Admittedly, this was many years ago, but recent decisions by McCain have not demonstrated to me that he has overcome his problem of showing bad judgment.
Click to expand...

I agree... the fact that the economy is TOP of the list for voters now makes this relevant. This isn't dirty politics, it's talking about a banking scandal that McCain was involved in, a bank scandal that the government had to bailout.

Again, poor judgment involving regulation of a financial institution.
 
Fyi, there's a short 35-second trailer version of the video on Youtube...

 
Last edited:
BenBurch said:
I think he will open with it if possible. Put the opposition on defensive from the start.
Click to expand...

But he's got the "good guy" image to maintain. I think he keeps it in reserve, hoping some townhallee asks Mccain, "What's with the sleazy personal attacks?"
 
Malerin said:
Will Obama hit Mccain with the Keating business tomorrow night first chance he gets, or will he wait for Mccain to go "Ayers" on him?
Click to expand...

BenBurch said:
I think he will open with it if possible. Put the opposition on defensive from the start.
Click to expand...
My guess is that it won't come up. Neither side wants to drag the campaign slime onto the debate stage because there is too much potential downside and not much upside. Obama would risk his carefully crafted image of above the fray and McCain risks looking angry and his temperment is already lurking around the edges of this contest.

ETA: for Malerin: My understanding is that the questions have to be submitted ahead of time and Brokaw will winnow them down to the "best" whatever that means. He will not allow such a one-sided question.
 
Last edited:
SezMe said:
My guess is that it won't come up. Neither side wants to drag the campaign slime onto the debate stage because there is too much potential downside and not much upside. Obama would risk his carefully crafted image of above the fray and McCain risks looking angry and his temperment is already lurking around the edges of this contest.
Click to expand...

He needs a gamechanger though, and there's been some reporting he's going to go after Obama hard tomorrow. I think we'll see Mcnasty in rare form.
 
Loss Leader said:
About damn time.

The mistake Kerry made during the Swiftboat attack was attempting to rise above it. It's good to see the Democrats finally fighting dirty. It's still not as dirty as the Republicans, but it's a start.
Click to expand...

It's not as dirty as it could be:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/09/can-mccain-be-redefined-as-crook.html

Keating was influence peddling, contributing heavily to the election campaigns of the five senators. They met with federal banking regulators and lobbied for favorable treatment for Lincoln Savings and Loan. This happened during George H.W. Bush's term and he pushed through the S&L bailout and then his son Neil Bush was charged with criminal wrongdoing in the case of Silverado S&L. He was sentenced to 3.5 years in jail for pleading guilty to $8.7 million in theft. (You'd get more jail time for holding up a gas station for $50.)

When you take the information about how the whole S&L scandal went down and compare it to what is happening now you find that McCain's campaign manager, Rick Davis, a longtime lobbyist, was head of the Homeownership Alliance, a coalition of banks and housing industry interests led by Fannie and Freddie to stave off regulations. McCain's confidant and adviser Charlie Black, whose firm worked for Freddie Mac for several years ending in 2005, and the deputy campaign finance chairman, Wayne Berman, a vice president for Ogilvy Worldwide and a former Fannie Mae lobbyist. Six members of the Republican lobbying firm Fierce Isakowitz & Blalock, all Fannie Mae lobbyists, have given McCain $13,250. The New York investor Geoffrey Boisi, a member of Freddie Mac's board, contributed more than $70,000 to McCain and Republican Party committees working for his election. Both he and Richard Hohlt, a Fannie Mae lobbyist, are among the McCain "bundlers" who have raised $100,000 to $250,000 from others, according to the campaign Web site... And it looks like there is still influence being peddled even if there's no known crime... yet.
 
chipmunk stew said:
Damn right. If Obama wasn't willing to fight back, the slogan may as well be: "There's no hope for change."
Click to expand...

Fight back? Obama started the fight way way back with the 100 years war smear.

Does Obama really need to go the smear and fear route to get elected? This isn't the transformative candidate the primary voters were sold by far. He's pulling ahead but releasing the video just means it looks like he's part of the mudslinging and not above it. I highly doubt he has to attack McCain like this to win at this point.
 
not_so_new said:
I agree... the fact that the economy is TOP of the list for voters now makes this relevant. This isn't dirty politics, it's talking about a banking scandal that McCain was involved in, a bank scandal that the government had to bailout.

Again, poor judgment involving regulation of a financial institution.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't go as far as the bolded. But I agree it has the air of plausible relevance, and that makes it good dirty politics.
 
corplinx said:
Fight back? Obama started the fight way way back with the 100 years war smear.
Click to expand...
Yes, fight back. I didn't mean it as a "who started it". If you elbow your way in front of a guy, and he decks you in the back of the head, you can fall flat on your face and let him walk over you or you can fight back. Maybe I should have just said, "If Obama wasn't willing to fight, ..." and left it at that. The idea is the same.

corplinx said:
Does Obama really need to go the smear and fear route to get elected? This isn't the transformative candidate the primary voters were sold by far. He's pulling ahead but releasing the video just means it looks like he's part of the mudslinging and not above it. I highly doubt he has to attack McCain like this to win at this point.
Click to expand...
Hope and Change were never the cuddly, pink slogans anti-Obama people thought they were. Obama supporters always new that defending Hope and Change would require fight.
 
chipmunk stew said:
I wouldn't go as far as the bolded. But I agree it has the air of plausible relevance, and that makes it good dirty politics.
Click to expand...


Exactly. The Keating Five mess is relevant to the economic crisis we face today. When you look at how McCain participated (while not found to be illegal), it doesn't look good. It allows Obama to slam McCain with some slime with legitimacy. As you basically said, it's good dirt with a message people can grab on to.
 
Last edited:
Pookster said:
Exactly. The Keating Five mess is relevant to the economic crisis we face today. When you look at how McCain participated (while not found to be illegal), it doesn't look good. It allows Obama to slam McCain with some slime with legitimacy. As you basically said, it's good dirt with a message people can grab on to.
Click to expand...
As is often the case, the Devil's Dictionary of Ambrose Bierce has a relevant definition:

DEFAME, v.t.
To lie about another. To tell the truth about another.
​
 
Last edited:
Tricky said:
McCain exercised poor judgment. While it sounds innocuous, that is a very important consideration in choosing a president. It is not in any way dirty politics to point out that McCain was officially chastised for showing poor judgment. Indeed it is quite relevant. Admittedly, this was many years ago, but recent decisions by McCain have not demonstrated to me that he has overcome his problem of showing bad judgment.
Click to expand...

Show me one person, only one person, who has never, repeat never, shown poor judgment at least once in their life, including Obama. Was it poor judgment when Clinton got a BJ in the oval office? Or Nixon's cover up of Watergate? Or Carter sitting in the Rose Garden until the hostages were release? Or Reagen's Iran contra crap. Come on name just one person. I dare you.
 
Malerin said:
Will Obama hit Mccain with the Keating business tomorrow night first chance he gets, or will he wait for Mccain to go "Ayers" on him?
Click to expand...


Obama will hold onto it if he can, and only unleash it if he thinks he's being attacked for his past associations. But, tonight is a "town hall" debate. It's possible that somebody will ask a question like, "Why have you gone negative?" or "What's up with all this Keating Five stuff?" Then there will be little either candidate can do to avoid it.
 
The Painter said:
Show me one person, only one person, who has never, repeat never, shown poor judgment at least once in their life, including Obama.
Click to expand...
You miss the point. Show me the recovering alcoholic you would trust for four years with the keys to the liquor cabinet.
 
Upchurch said:
You miss the point. Show me the recovering alcoholic you would trust for four years with the keys to the liquor cabinet.
Click to expand...


And that is the legitimate point Obama has with this. I seriously doubt the Keating Five issue would've had any real traction in a different election year. But in this one with banks failing and CEOs getting called out for big bonuses and such ... well ... it's gonna leave a mark.
 
Last edited:
The Painter said:
Show me one person, only one person, who has never, repeat never, shown poor judgment at least once in their life, including Obama. Was it poor judgment when Clinton got a BJ in the oval office? Or Nixon's cover up of Watergate? Or Carter sitting in the Rose Garden until the hostages were release? Or Reagen's Iran contra crap. Come on name just one person. I dare you.
Click to expand...
Funny. You cite examples that in most if not all cases would have caused the Pres to be voted out.

But here's a case where the abysmal judgment is known ahead of time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom