Horror! Obama says McCain would be better than status quo
posted at 7:34 am on April 21, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
Will Democrats finally see Barack Obama for what he is — a crypto-McCainiac? The AP and other news outlets jumped all over a statement made by Obama yesterday that gave John McCain some credit for being an improvement over the Bush administration, which puts a stake through the heart of the DNC’s “McSame” campaign. Will Hillary Clinton take advantage of this opening?
Democrat Barack Obama, who often argues that John McCain is the same as President Bush, said Sunday that the Republican presidential candidate would be an improvement over Bush’s eight-year reign.
“You have a real choice in this election. Either Democrat would be better than John McCain. And all three of us would be better than George Bush,” Obama said.
“But what you have to ask yourself is, who has the chance to actually, really change things in a fundamental way?” Obama asked as he wrapped up a town-hall style event at Reading High School in central Pennsylvania.
That’s a good question. Which candidate has the better chance to make fundamental changes? Would it be the candidate who has authored many pieces of legislation with the other party on high-profile issues, sometimes in opposition to his own party? Or would it be the one with only three years’ experience in the same body, no track record of taking on his own party, and who has already started hedging his political capital with his allies?
Oh, let’s not always see the same hands.
AP’s unbylined analyst sees this as an “opening for Clinton”, but that seems absurd. Hillary drew reams of criticism when she highlighted McCain’s “lifetime of experience” along with hers, and noted that Obama only “gave a speech once”. Yesterday she had the nerve to say, “We need a nominee who will take on John McCain, not cheer on John McCain,” which is baldly hypocritical after her own flirtation with McCain when she wanted to be seen as the reasonable candidate best positioned to oppose McCain in the general election.
Meanwhile, Democrats must wonder why their candidates seem so fickle about McCain. First he’s the Second Coming of George Bush, then he’s a great guy who’s better than the other Democrat. McSame, McNotSame. The only real constant is the flow of effluvium and spin coming from the Democrats, while McCain just remains himself and focuses on the issues.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
I’m hopeful that McCain as president will reverse some of George Bush’s Progressivism. Even though I’m generally supportive of Bush,(enforcing U.N. resolution 1441, a president finally willing to take on Islamo-terrorists,defending the U.S.) I am not happy that Bush TRIPLED government spending in education(money hole) and doubled the size of government and government spending. I’d like McCain to reduce the size of government by 75%, enact the FairTax, and enforce the 10th amendment to the chagrin of the Democratic party. Thomas Jefferson said the government that governs least governs best, and it’s been a hundred years of unconstitutional Progressive/Socialist governance to create a superior political class. Take away the politicians money(power) by instituting the FairTax, and give the power back to the people where it belongs. It’s nice to imagine anyway…My Two Cents….
adamsmith on April 21, 2008 at 7:46 AM
Crazy Idea:
If Hillary loses the nomination, could McCain pick her as VP?
Hope that didn’t make you spitttake your cheerios.
Nethicus on April 21, 2008 at 7:49 AM
there..
DaveC on April 21, 2008 at 7:57 AM
As disappointed as I am in Bush, either of the Democrats would be worse. Bush has spent too much and expanded government too much. Obama or Clinton would spend way too much and expand government way too much and cripple our efforts in Iraq (or else be seen as cynical liars) and appoint bad judges.
rbj on April 21, 2008 at 8:10 AM
Here is a healthy dose of reality: (normblog)
Seven types of defection from the left:
David Edgar has a piece in yesterday’s Guardian about defectors from the left, whom he also refers to as apostates - a piece which his subeditors have chosen, not unreasonably, to present as being about a ‘new generation of renegades’. There’s a full and most sufficient response to Edgar from Andrew Anthony, which I urge you to read. These are merely observations of my own of a supplementary nature.
1. Who would want to defect from the kind of left that after September 11, 2001, could not bring itself to condemn this in plain speech as a crime of mass murder, but was full of the language of ‘yes but’ and ‘blowback’ and ‘comeuppance’? Why, if I belonged to such a left, I would want to defect from it.
2. Who would want to defect from a left that could see no reason at all in favour of getting rid of a genocidal tyrant like Saddam Hussein, and that in opposing the Iraq war therefore treated support for the war from within the left as precisely renegacy? Me - that’s a left I’d have no desire to be part of.
3. And who could dream of defecting from a left that treated the wanton targeting of Iraqi civilians in opposing the US-led occupation as the understandable tactics of a resistance one could not be too choosy about and should offer one’s support? Yup, sign me right up. That’s a left I’d want to defect from if I belonged to it.
4. Who ever would defect from a left that responded to the July 7 bombings in London with more apologias for the killers of the type that had followed 9/11? Include me in. I defect. I defect.
5. Could there be, anywhere, defectors from a left that, in a world by no means short of tyrannies, torturers, rank abusers of human rights, widespread poverty, extensive hunger, episodes of genocide, was obsessed above all with two countries, both of them democracies, as the source of all political evil - the United States and Israel? Just watch my dust: it’s a left to be left.
6. Who could even think of defecting from the kind of left that still speaks in terms of ‘defection’ and ‘apostasy’, as if it possessed a truth given to it from some higher source and had the power to excommunicate? Now, that’s a left I would find my way out of if I had to.
7. But then who would want to defect from a left which saw itself as uniting certain universal values, values like freedom and equality and justice, with the interests and struggles of the unfree, the wronged and the oppressed everywhere? Well, I don’t know who would want to defect from this kind of left. But when I ran into them I’d try to persuade them not to defect. I’d tell them that there’s a left worth belonging to, and that those who belong to it should limit their defections to parting company with the lefts that discredit its values and its better traditions.
Keemo on April 21, 2008 at 8:20 AM
The upside of the decade-long love affair between the big media outlets and John McCain — done because they wanted to praise a Republican for annoying other Republicans — is while it’s driven many conservatives up the wall and to the point they can’t stand the thought of voting for Maverick, it also means Hillary and Obama can’t attack McCain in the usual fashion, because it fails to sync up with the image shoved down the public’s throat since the late 1990s.
That’s why they’re hoping that the “McCain Is Old” or “McCain Is A Hothead” charges gain traction, because the Democrats have joined the media over the years in lauding McCain, and face the prospect of having their own sound bites thrown back at them if they push the “McCain is Bush” theme.
jon1979 on April 21, 2008 at 8:25 AM
In the last two weeks, Barack has given Clinton more “openings” than there are at the FLDS Ranch in Texas.
E L Frederick (Sniper One) on April 21, 2008 at 8:28 AM
There is something I have wondered about. The Democrats took Congress in 2006 and they promised all sorts of things which they did not deliver. The deficit stopped declining, gas prices went up faster than before and the economy slowed and we are still in Iraq.
Why would anyone think a Democrat in the White House would change things when the Demcrat Congress has been such a disaster. It would seem to me that the Republicans could use that somehow.
Terrye on April 21, 2008 at 8:47 AM
We’re going to need about 20 years of time to get the full, accurate view of the Bush presidency. IMHO, and even taking into account that many “historians” are radical lefty revisionists, I think you’re going to see that Bush’s presidency stacks right up there with the most important. Clinton’s 8 years will be seen as an uneventful joke, in which a slimy politician spent 8 years getting laid and putting his finger to the wind for political expediency.
Had this country been promised on September 12, 2001 that it would ride out the rest of the Bush presidency without a follow-up attack, we would have agreed to make Bush the fifth face on Mt. Rushmore. It’s been an all-consuming fight for Bush that has left him vulnerable (some by his own doing) on many issues. But on the issue that matters most, he got it right. That will become clearer as the years go by.
Sugar Land on April 21, 2008 at 9:00 AM
McCain is not my favorite, but the (official) democrat party alternatives are unthinkable and intolerable.
.
On the strength of Obama’s endorsement, I plan to make the maximum contribution to McCain’s primary campaign, so I can give more for the general. We need to kick the democrat’s a**!
Right_of_Attila on April 21, 2008 at 9:03 AM
Excellent point, Terrye. In that the Dem contenders are focusing on “change” as their mantra, why have they not effected (must less introduced) the kind of legislation that they think is so vital for America these past several years? Doesn’t this failure demonstrate a lack of initiative and leadership?
onlineanalyst on April 21, 2008 at 9:39 AM
More pictures like this of Obama and McCain together, and McCain will have no chance.
freevillage on April 21, 2008 at 9:47 AM
Obama Supports McCain- says ‘better than Bush‘
profitsbeard on April 21, 2008 at 9:48 AM
freevillage:
Oh please. People are either complaining that McCain is too nasty or they are complaining because he has not punched Obama in the nose.
Terrye on April 21, 2008 at 9:51 AM
McCain has just received the kiss of death.
OldEnglish on April 21, 2008 at 9:57 AM
You left one out-the Democrat meme that McCain will be nothing more than Bush Term 3. Which of course is horse-hockey, as he has for a long time staked out views contrary to those of the evil Bush.
And Ed, I still think the screenplay for “The Graduate” deserved to win 1967’s Best Adapted Screenplay Oscar, just for that “plastics” word alone. Sad to say it lost to “In the Heat of the Night”.
Del Dolemonte on April 21, 2008 at 10:14 AM
Great point and I would also like to know from the truthers, why if the Bush Administration staged 9/11, that they did not stage follow up attacks? Or plant WMDs in Iraq (which would have been far easier and far less hideous than staging the 9/11 attacks).
As far as Obama’s backhanded compliment, it’s fairly meaningless, because as far as the brain dead, luntatic left BDS sufferers are concerned, no one could be worse than President Bush.
NoDonkey on April 21, 2008 at 10:15 AM
I meant he looked so old. I don’t think he needs to be nasty. He can and should drive home legitimate points such as Obama’s lack of any qualifications, opposition to genuinely good things such as trade etc. That has nothing to do with being nasty.
freevillage on April 21, 2008 at 10:26 AM
It’s precisely what should scare Americans, Obama’s Marxist version of “fundamental change”. We’re looking for change, but not this kind.
Entelechy on April 21, 2008 at 1:30 PM
I see the pic and I think McCain is saying, “You need to check your fly…”
CynicalOptimist on April 21, 2008 at 1:45 PM