« Previous | Main | Next »

Stephanopoulos: Why No Ayers Attack?

Share

October 08, 2008 8:52 AM

ABC News' George Stephanopoulos reports: One thing we didn't hear in last night's debate was John McCain launch the kind of personal attacks against Barack Obama that the McCain campaign has been telegraphing would come.

Obama_mccain_080802_main

On the campaign trail in recent days Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin has sought to tie Obama to 1960s radical William Ayers.

Both campaigns were prepared for a personal attack during the debate from McCain, who is trailing Obama is most national and battleground polls with 27 days to go before Election Day.

But then -- nothing. The worst McCain gave was to reference Obama as "that one" during an exchange over Obama's vote on an energy bill -- not a compelling attack.

This tells us that McCain is worried that if he goes to hard against Obama in the last days before the election, he thinks it might backfire. McCain may be worried about coming off as too bitter or too angry and leaving voters with that lasting impression from the debates. 

The fact that McCain's campaign warned reporters to expect McCain to go on the attack, but then he didn't, is an admission that the McCain campaign doesn't really believe it's going to work.

Right now, McCain is in a box. Obama holds the momentum in this race with President George W. Bush's approval ratings at a historic low, people yearning for change, and a fiscal crisis the likes of which Americans haven't seen since the Great Depression. Obama is outspending McCain 3 to 1 in television ads in many of the battleground states.

Obama's calm demeanor in these debates and the way he handled the bailout bill may be helping him solidify his lead, with more Americans now saying he is better able to handle the economic crisis.

There was nothing that McCain said last night that’s going to change the nature of this race.

The Democratic presidential contender has also done a good job in these last two debates of addressing the questions Americans have had with whether or not he's ready to serve as president.

Going forward, McCain has to try to erode Obama's lead in the polls, but he doesn't want to turn off Americans who are genuinely concerned right now about the economy.

So far this is Obama's race to lose if the polls are giving up an accurate picture. However we've learned in recent presidential contests that the polls aren't always right.

Democratic pollster Peter Hart has made perhaps the most compelling point about what we don't know from the polls. He argues the polls may not be accurately capturing the young people that don't reliably show up to vote but may turnout this time for Obama and the expected dramatic gains in African American voter turnout. But the polls may also not be telling us about the voters who will be held back from voting for Obama because of race, but won't admit it.

Go to George's complete presidential debate report card.

October 8, 2008 in McCain, John, Obama, Barack, Palin, Sarah, Vote 2008: Democrats, Vote 2008: Republicans | Permalink | User Comments (537)

User Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

China has liscensed Johanna Solar Technology to build a plant there. Some of the newest and best technology out of Germany! They are ahead of us.
#293 CTKEY on 10.07.08 at 9:52 pm Did he go to Harvard and Columbia? He can’t speak ! It’s amazing…He’s a lawyer and has trouble making a point.
____________________________Please tell
THAT ONE all about it, he is so stupid!

Posted by: HP Boston | Oct 8, 2008 8:57:43 AM

Good question: Especially in this time of crisis, why should we trust our economic policies to a person who has a long association with an unrepentant terrorist?

With his answers in last night’s debate, Obama has finally completed the Mobius Strip of Illogic which Liberals use in describing fiscal policy.

First:
government spending increases = "investment"

Then:
tax cuts = "wasteful spending"

Now, thanks to Obama:
tax increases = "spending cuts"

Obama: "but actually I'm cutting more than I'm spending so that it will be a net spending cut."

Are you kidding me? Maybe Obama thought he was doing an interview for The Onion.

Posted by: Ask Mister Language Person | Oct 8, 2008 9:01:08 AM

Poor george-couldn't use his prepared attacks against McCain.

Posted by: geevill | Oct 8, 2008 9:10:56 AM

Everything points to an Obama victory. And two of his most potent weapons, money and organization, have not even been fully employed yet. Axelrod has a veritable army of people out there. First their efforts were in voter registration. On Nov. 4 it will be getting out the vote. ORGANIZATION. It is the Chicago way. It got JFK elected, it will get Obama elected. End of story.

Posted by: William J. LePetomaine | Oct 8, 2008 9:12:37 AM

Or maybe somebody was gonna bring up McCains association with the G Gordon Liddy's and Ollie Norths of the last Neocon botch job..

Posted by: Duh huh?? | Oct 8, 2008 9:14:09 AM

This should have been Barack’s chance to steal 2nd base and get to third. He is caught now between throw backs from the third base player and second base player, not to mention the shortback is giving mixed signals and there was a 3rd rank pitcher in play. Barack is on the run both back and forth. McCain is in place at third base to put him out with Palin as catcher to seal the deal. This debate was “the link.” Barack went no where except where his paid followers and pundits put him. This is the last inning of a long ball game that we know WE CAN WIN, but waiting for that pivotal play. It will play out! Don’t rush the action of the guy on third base and his catcher….and remember…there are booos and claps/cheers going on on both sides that add to the mix. Barack should be on third base. Barack is NOT on third base. Barack is on the run. John did what he had to do…….AND he is on third base waiting

Posted by: HP Boston | Oct 8, 2008 9:15:04 AM

HP, the polls would suggest otherwise. McCain will be stranded on third base and will fold faster than the Chicago Cubs.

Posted by: William J. LePetomaine | Oct 8, 2008 9:17:35 AM

Because Mccain is a coward or perhaps he didnt want obama to bring up his associations keating five, mafia mob his vp anti-american husband as well as her friends seems to me obama was waiting and ready for the ayers thing you know what they say if you cant tell someone to their face dont tell at all

Posted by: angie | Oct 8, 2008 9:18:53 AM

OH and THAT ONE would have cried! His shiny thing in his ears were dist rating and he refused to shake Senator McCain's hand.
THAT ONE, just his usual ignorant self!

Posted by: HP Boston | Oct 8, 2008 9:19:10 AM

Mccain is a very disrespectful person look how he talked to the one voter insulting his intelligence on the mortgage giants Mccain is definatley NOT PRESIDENTIAL!

Posted by: angie | Oct 8, 2008 9:21:24 AM

Who didn't shake whose hand? I must have missed something.

Posted by: mak | Oct 8, 2008 9:23:18 AM

Posted by: William J. LePetomaine | Oct 8, 2008 9:12:37 AM

"Axelrod has a veritable army of people out there. First their efforts were in voter registration. On Nov. 4 it will be getting out the vote. ORGANIZATION. It is the Chicago way. It got JFK elected, it will get Obama elected."

Very amusing analogy William, especially since the first Mayor Daley commanded a veritable army of DEAD Chicago voters to steal Illinois for JFK in 1960. Voter fraud is the Chicago Way!

Posted by: Smokes for Obama | Oct 8, 2008 9:24:19 AM

McCain looked awkward enough. Attacking Obama on some obscure connection in the face of crisis would have been viewed negatively by all but the most die-hard conservatives. Bottom line is McCain looked old, did not connect with average Americans, and quite frankly seemed cranky in his answers. He also demonstrated some of his temper and impulsive behavior by demeaning Obama with his "that one" comment and his own lame dismissal of his "Bomb, bomb, Iran" comment as a joke. His lame attempt at humor also felt forced and fell flat.

Posted by: indy_voter | Oct 8, 2008 9:24:51 AM

Hp Boston
Were you Watching the same Debate as the rest of us?

Posted by: angie | Oct 8, 2008 9:25:23 AM

Who didn't shake whose hand? I must have missed something.


I watched the video. They both missed a handshake. Obama first stuck out his right hand and McCain wasn't looking so he shook hands with Cindy McCain. At the same time McCain stuck out his left hand and then looked away into the audience. These two are not the best of friends that is obvious. But anyone who tries to read more into this than what it is are doing so to promote an agenda (dis Obama or dis McCain). It is a non issue.

Posted by: indy_voter | Oct 8, 2008 9:31:15 AM

I thought Obama and Michelle staying and greeting the crowd said it all.McCain has total contempt for the regular guy.

Posted by: linda n carolina | Oct 8, 2008 9:31:35 AM

Why didn't he bring up Ayers? We can reference this back to the school yard days.

It's hard to lie about someone to their face!

Posted by: Dem4Life | Oct 8, 2008 9:34:45 AM

Does Gang Violence Qualify as Terrorism?

Gov. Palin has been warning us of the danger of electing a President who "Pals around with terrorists..."

I would ask Gov. Palin how she feels about the military recruiting policies which John McCain has actively supported since 2003, and who her son may be forced to pal around with as a consequence. She might want to consider the experience of another Mom with a son in our military, Stephanie Cockrell, as reported by CBS News:

(CBS) U.S. Army Sgt. Juwan Johnson got a hero's welcome while home on leave in June of 2004.

"Not only did I love my son - but my god - I liked the man he was becoming," his mother, Stephanie Cockrell, remembers.

But that trip home was the last time his family saw him alive. When Johnson died, he wasn't in a war zone, he was in Germany.

"He had finished his term in Iraq," his mother said. "I talked to him the day before his death. He said, 'Mom, I'm in the process of discharging out. I'll be out in two weeks'."

On July 3, 2005, Sgt. Johnson went to a park not far from his base in Germany to be initiated into the 'Gangster Disciples,' a notorious Chicago-based street gang. He was beaten by eight other soldiers in a "jump-in" - an initiation rite common to many gangs.

"My son never spoke of joining a gang," Cockrell told CBS News correspondent Thalia Assuras. Johnson died that night from his injuries. His son, Juwan Jr., was born five months later.

(link: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/28/eveningnews/main3107316.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_3107316)

Since 2003, the military has granted 'moral waivers' to over 125,000 enlistees. Those waivers have been, in most cases, for serious criminal activity, including significant numbers of convicted felons, many of them gang members. The FBI conducted an investigation into this subject, and here are highlights from it's report:

-- Gang-related activity in the US military is increasing and poses a threat to law enforcement officials and national security. Members of nearly every major street gang have been identified on both domestic and international military installations.

-- Some gang members may also enlist to receive weapons, combat, and convoy support training; to obtain access to weapons and explosives; or as an alternative to incarceration. Such military training could ultimately result in more organized, sophisticated, and deadly gangs, as well as an increase in deadly assaults on law enforcement officers.

-- Gang incidents involving active-duty personnel on or near US military bases nationwide include drive-by shootings, assaults, robberies, drug distribution, weapons violations, domestic disturbances, vandalism, extortion, and money laundering.

(http://www.militarytimes.com/static/projects/pages/ngic_gangs.pdf)

As I read this body of facts, I wonder about the scope of the damage which has been done to this country since 9/11 by our own ill-considered initiative in Iraq. If the larger goal was to deter terrorism, why are we providing combat training to thousands of gang members, and providing them access to our most sophisticated weaponry? Even more insidious, for any ordinary American contemplating enlisting in the military, the prospect of serving with comrades in arms who are also Crips, Bloods, or members of the 'Gangster Disciples' would, in my opinion, be reason enough to opt out, regardless of any other incentives there might be.

If Gov. Palin insists on continuing to warn us away from Senator Obama because of his casual association with Mr. Ayers, I think she owes us an explanation as to why we should support a candidate who's policies over the last 5 years have materially increased the potency of domestic gangs to terrorize neighborhoods all over this country.

Posted by: ted in pdx | Oct 8, 2008 9:35:12 AM

McSame is a coward. He sends the shrew little neophyte out to do the dirty work, but standing right next to Obama he declines to make the 'terrorist friend" reference face to face. I would not vote for Mcsame/pal-in-comparison for dog catcher.

Posted by: Dante | Oct 8, 2008 9:37:35 AM

angie, just because people don't take the same impression from the debate as you and other folk do, does not make their viewpoints wrong.

I personally thought that both danced around the questions, and there were personality traits of both candidates that gave me pause.

Quite frankly, I found the 'debate' maddening. There are more than a few follow-up questions that should have been asked but because of the format it didn't happen.

I wish the candidates would have a town hall meeting near me. I would love to have the opportunity to ask questions, WITHOUT THE MSM FILTER AND SELF-BLOVIATING ANALYSIS, and get some answers from these prancers.

Posted by: mak | Oct 8, 2008 9:39:20 AM

Post a comment