RECENT POSTS
- White House State Dinner Party Crashers
- Obama to Lay Out Emissions Goals in Copenhagen
- Free Bird
- The "Good" War
- The Presidential Planner
- Under the Stars, Obama Toasts India’s Prime Minister
- White House State Dinner – Who Made the Exclusive Guest List?
- Admiral Mike Mullen To Geneva for START Talks
- VP Biden to Indian Prime Minister: “You’re the Hottest Ticket in Town”
- FLOTUS on the State Dinner: Like a Swan, "Calm and Serene Above Water, But We're Paddling Like Mad, Going Crazy Underneath"
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
Summit the Mountain
October 27, 2008 8:53 AM
"You could think of this as trying to summit a mountain," a senior aide to Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., tells Byron York in the National Review.
"Both campaigns have to summit the mountain. In most elections, one campaign has some kind of advantage over the other -- maybe they get a ten-minute or a half-hour head start -- but both sides have to climb the same face of the mountain. In this election, we're not climbing the same face of the mountain. They're climbing the side of the mountain with boardwalks and latte stands and playgrounds for the kids, and we're climbing the side of the mountain with axes and ice picks, and one slip and you're dead."
- jpt
October 27, 2008 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (27)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Where I live people get in trouble all the time because they try to climb the mountain in street shoes, or they are in bad physical condition, or they wander off the trail. Sure, they can whine that it was the mountain's fault, but......
Posted by: Precipice | Oct 27, 2008 9:15:02 AM
McCain has the hard climb up the mountain because the press refuses to print the truths about Obama, like...where is this story Jake?!!!!
Barack Obama, in 2001:
You know, if you look at the victories and failures of the civil-rights movement, and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples. So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at a lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it, I’d be okay, but the Supreme Court never entered into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.
And uh, to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution — at least as it’s been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted it in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: [It] says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.
And that hasn’t shifted, and one of the, I think, the tragedies of the civil-rights movement was because the civil-rights movement became so court-focused, uh, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. And in some ways we still suffer from that.
Posted by: samhiguchi | Oct 27, 2008 9:14:27 AM
Sure, it was a toxic year for Republicans, but they didn't exactly have to throw all their ropes and safety nets over the precipice.
They could have been patient, it's not worth stealing the news cycle from Obama for two weeks by picking Palin. They could have vetted the VP pick properly and picked someone who didn't have so many skeletons in the closet. They could have been focussed, and steady on the message instead of whirling around like a demented windmill on Ayers and trying to turn the page on the economy. They could have chosen not to resort to Swift-Boat politics and hatemongering and McCain could have kept his promise, not to "Take the low road to the highest office."
As we have seen, he is not a man of his word.
Posted by: Grey Matter | Oct 27, 2008 9:13:33 AM
To you rocket-scientists pushing the "I'm not interested in the suburbs" quote. Yes, he said that. In 1990. That's 18 years ago (since math is hard.) And he was talking about where he wanted to live and work.
Let's see... oh! In 1990, McCain voted against the Civil Rights Act, which has helped prosecutors fight countless anti-minority hate crimes.
So, if you want to say that Obama is anti-Suburb/anti-middle class from an 18-year-old quote about where he'd rather live at age 28 or so... and extrapolate that to mean he doesn't like "middle class white people," (as if they're the only ones in the suburbs), go nuts.
But then I get to say, based on his views 18 years ago, John McCain is an anti-black racist who supports lynching.
Posted by: Lettuce | Oct 27, 2008 9:13:14 AM
In interviews, Mr. Obama was modest and careful. (In a rare slip, he told The Associated Press: “I’m not interested in the suburbs. The suburbs bore me.”)
_______________________________________________
According to AP - ONE interview when Obama was in college.
If you are in college and you don't find the suburbs "boring" - something is wrong with you.
Posted by: facts DO INDEED matter | Oct 27, 2008 9:11:12 AM
You don't climb a mountain with an 'ice pick'.
Which may have something to do with why they're having trouble climbing the mountain.
Posted by: The Phantom | Oct 27, 2008 9:07:53 AM
In interviews, Mr. Obama was modest and careful. (In a rare slip, he told The Associated Press: “I’m not interested in the suburbs. The suburbs bore me.”)
Suburbs = middle class white people
Translation: Obama doesn't care about the middle class or white people excpet to take their income.
Posted by: geevill | Oct 27, 2008 9:01:18 AM
Post a comment


