It's been interesting watching the TPM take on McCain's "Elitist!" push; I've been wondering why Obama wouldn't just completely level that whole issue with an honest "Hey, uh, we're both wealthy dudes. Americans are not idiots. They know this. WTF McCain?" approach. Long-haul dangerous, I suppose—shining a light on the fundamental classist divide between ordinary Americans and viable Presidential candidates might be a big no-no—but it'd certainly make for a refreshing slap across the face.
Obama wouldn't just completely level that whole issue with an honest "Hey, uh, we're both wealthy dudes. Americans are not idiots. They know this. WTF McCain?"
I'm not sure anyone can do that to McCain without appearing to be beating up on the old, honored war veteran. Generally Obama's been doing good to be the respectful younger man, but he does need to start pointing out some of the foolish that McCain has been spouting, especially his seemingly eager willingness to butt heads with Russia. McCain should be asked "Do you want to start another war?"
This is fucking awesome. This is a massive gaffe from McCain, and a real gift for Obama, particularly on the weekend he introduces his running mate and gears up for the convention. There's blood in the water.
Yeah, the McCain camp has already responded to this (ARUGULA AMIRITE???). I don't think it's a huge help to Barack, but it definitely hurts the McCain machine's constant attempt to paint BO as an "elitist." I mean, yeah, these guys are both freakin' US Senators, meaning they're loaded. But only one of them has such an incredible hard-on to paint the other as a latte-swilling, organic produce purchasing fairy.
Well, I can understand not being able to answer immediately because, really, how are we defining our terms? Do we include guest houses that are separate from the main mansion, or rental properties on one of the ranches? Do we include all the homes on whose deeds our names are on, no matter if they are inhabited by our no-account relatives? How about inherited property that's sitting uninhabited until we work out a deal with the developers?
Do jets count? We slept in the jet overnight once, do we count that?
This is a complex issue, and deserving of our complete attention. We'll have our staff research the issue.
Someone willing to favor bite over taste could really dive in with a parodic "trapped in that bad deal on the Miami property for FIVE AND A HALF YEARS" riff. Ill-advised, I think, but doable.
I think I missed my calling as a third-string SNL hack.
Liberals are crazy if they think this is a gaffe. I know people who would vote for the one with the most houses. I also know people who would consider the reply to be evasively humble and the question to be a form a class warfare. But I just think he has Alzheimer's.
This doesn't seem all that bad too me, at least in theory. He might have a couple or even several properties as investments or family properties. Even to the ignorant I don't think it's much shock that McCain is more than independently wealthy.
cortex: I've been wondering why Obama wouldn't just completely level that whole issue with an honest "Hey, uh, we're both wealthy dudes. Americans are not idiots. They know this. WTF McCain?"
As I understand it, the Obamas aren't nearly as wealthy (see this story on their 2006 tax return). Their income got a big boost from his book deals.
I love how the DNC/Wonkette image here has the Cessna Citation calming coming in for a landing, like a little, unnoticed flourish on the side of the page.
After seeing the tax return, Obama needs to come out and say that he's one of the least-wealthy members of the Senate. He's already not even close to the insane threshold for wealth McCain threw out there.
brandonb: Generally Obama's been doing good to be the respectful younger man, but he does need to start pointing out some of the foolish that McCain has been spouting, especially his seemingly eager willingness to butt heads with Russia.
I'm no political strategist either, but my understanding is that going negative involves "defining" your opponent's image and then making it stick--the way Bush accused Kerry of being a flip-flopper in 2004, and McCain is currently accusing Obama of being an empty suit (latest variation: a celebrity like Paris Hilton or Britney Spears).
The most promising line of attack against McCain appears to be that Bush's policies for the last eight years have been a disaster, and that McCain would continue them: reckless unilateralism abroad, reckless borrowing and deregulation at home. The US needs a major change of direction, and McCain simply can't repudiate Bush's policies.
That would be the main attack. Charges that he's out of touch and not altogether with-it (as in this gaffe) would be subsidiary attacks.
The reason I think this is so big is that it's easy for all those people who haven't yet started really paying attention - the millions of non-primary voters, those called low information voters - to grasp, totally and utterly.
The guy doesn't know how many houses he has. WTF? Everyone gets that. Everyone.
So then, apart from the out of touch richie rich stuff, you get into the Forgetful Old Man stuff, and the Left Crippled Wife to Marry Rich Cheerleader stuff. None of which is pleasant for McCain.
It doesn't play into the best Democratic attack on McCain, which is that he is just a replay Bush, but it's very damaging on the edges. And, importantly, it seems to me to kill any chance of continuing the McCain attacks on Obama as an elitist Harvard arugula guy, which were (stunningly) working.
Here's a roundup of network news clips sent out by the Obama camp to show how the story is playing.
Also, forgot to stress that as gaffes go, it's generally a good rule of thumb to try not to make one specifically about houses when the country is in the middle of a foreclosure crisis.
While it is still early to tell what the effect of over-housed McCain will be, it does seem to have had an effect on the over-use of the POW talking point:
McCain drives? Or is driven? I always assumed Senators and the like got driven around. I mean that seriously-- they seem to more or less give up things driving by the time they're that important because they're getting escorted by security and aides and whatnot.
There's a hell of a lot to say about McCain that's negative. I just don't get the focus on an obviously rich man not remembering all of his possessions. His house is not like our houses. It's one of several. That's true of anyone who runs for president at this point in time, and I don't think pointing it out makes him look particularly bad unless maybe that's a true surprise for people. It's a potshot.
Being knowledgeable about his incredibly wealthy wife's real estate holdings wouldn't have made him a better candidate for president. Here's hoping this is a politically costly gaffe, but all this hullabaloo is stupid, right?
I don't really know who this gaffe is supposed to convince. It's not news that he's old, his wife's rich, and he sometimes doesn't know what he's talking about. (This was a linearly dependent gaffe.)
Great: now I want to catalogue the sorts of gaffes that people don't seem to update their voting preferences on, and back out the priors of different voting blocs. (Oh alcohol and math, why do you mix so sweetly?)
Any idea if that kind of thing is polled for? I'd love to know how many people really don't know the McCains are rich... vs. how many know but don't care. (That is: that it doesn't interrupt their Obama is arugulist narrative.)
The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press does a survey of general political knowledge. It's not very high. As of 2007, 69% of people could name the Vice President, 36% could name the President of Russia (Putin, not Medvedev), 21% knew that Robert Gates was Secretary of Defense, 37% knew that John Roberts is conservative, 32% could name the Sunni branch of Islam.
Among "low knowledge" respondents (those who scored in the bottom third), when asked if they enjoy keeping up with the news, 16% said "a lot"; 32% said "some"; 52% said "not much", "not at all", or "don't know". So at least a third of potential voters aren't paying much attention.
A story like this is entertaining even to people who don't pay much attention to politics, so I'd expect it'll spread pretty widely.
It's been interesting watching the TPM take on McCain's "Elitist!" push; I've been wondering why Obama wouldn't just completely level that whole issue with an honest "Hey, uh, we're both wealthy dudes. Americans are not idiots. They know this. WTF McCain?" approach. Long-haul dangerous, I suppose—shining a light on the fundamental classist divide between ordinary Americans and viable Presidential candidates might be a big no-no—but it'd certainly make for a refreshing slap across the face.
IANA political strategist. I am so NAPS.
I'm not sure anyone can do that to McCain without appearing to be beating up on the old, honored war veteran. Generally Obama's been doing good to be the respectful younger man, but he does need to start pointing out some of the foolish that McCain has been spouting, especially his seemingly eager willingness to butt heads with Russia. McCain should be asked "Do you want to start another war?"
Yeah, the McCain camp has already responded to this (ARUGULA AMIRITE???). I don't think it's a huge help to Barack, but it definitely hurts the McCain machine's constant attempt to paint BO as an "elitist." I mean, yeah, these guys are both freakin' US Senators, meaning they're loaded. But only one of them has such an incredible hard-on to paint the other as a latte-swilling, organic produce purchasing fairy.
The whole thing puts a smile on my face.
Obama's "Seven" ad.
Do jets count? We slept in the jet overnight once, do we count that?
This is a complex issue, and deserving of our complete attention. We'll have our staff research the issue.
I think I missed my calling as a third-string SNL hack.
That deserves a FPP, here or at MeFi (or both).
As I understand it, the Obamas aren't nearly as wealthy (see this story on their 2006 tax return). Their income got a big boost from his book deals.
After seeing the tax return, Obama needs to come out and say that he's one of the least-wealthy members of the Senate. He's already not even close to the insane threshold for wealth McCain threw out there.
I'm no political strategist either, but my understanding is that going negative involves "defining" your opponent's image and then making it stick--the way Bush accused Kerry of being a flip-flopper in 2004, and McCain is currently accusing Obama of being an empty suit (latest variation: a celebrity like Paris Hilton or Britney Spears).
The most promising line of attack against McCain appears to be that Bush's policies for the last eight years have been a disaster, and that McCain would continue them: reckless unilateralism abroad, reckless borrowing and deregulation at home. The US needs a major change of direction, and McCain simply can't repudiate Bush's policies.
That would be the main attack. Charges that he's out of touch and not altogether with-it (as in this gaffe) would be subsidiary attacks.
The reason I think this is so big is that it's easy for all those people who haven't yet started really paying attention - the millions of non-primary voters, those called low information voters - to grasp, totally and utterly.
The guy doesn't know how many houses he has. WTF? Everyone gets that. Everyone.
So then, apart from the out of touch richie rich stuff, you get into the Forgetful Old Man stuff, and the Left Crippled Wife to Marry Rich Cheerleader stuff. None of which is pleasant for McCain.
It doesn't play into the best Democratic attack on McCain, which is that he is just a replay Bush, but it's very damaging on the edges. And, importantly, it seems to me to kill any chance of continuing the McCain attacks on Obama as an elitist Harvard arugula guy, which were (stunningly) working.
Here's a roundup of network news clips sent out by the Obama camp to show how the story is playing.
"In danger of trivializing"
"Constant invocation...is weird, bordering on irrational"
"Becomes a running joke"
Robin Leach defends McCain houses gaffe
There's a hell of a lot to say about McCain that's negative. I just don't get the focus on an obviously rich man not remembering all of his possessions. His house is not like our houses. It's one of several. That's true of anyone who runs for president at this point in time, and I don't think pointing it out makes him look particularly bad unless maybe that's a true surprise for people. It's a potshot.
Most of the people who ran for president this year only have one house. Obama only has the one - he also rents an apartment in DC.
I don't really know who this gaffe is supposed to convince. It's not news that he's old, his wife's rich, and he sometimes doesn't know what he's talking about. (This was a linearly dependent gaffe.)
It's not news to us political junkies that his wife is rich, but it might well be news to people who don't pay that much attention to politics.
Among "low knowledge" respondents (those who scored in the bottom third), when asked if they enjoy keeping up with the news, 16% said "a lot"; 32% said "some"; 52% said "not much", "not at all", or "don't know". So at least a third of potential voters aren't paying much attention.
A story like this is entertaining even to people who don't pay much attention to politics, so I'd expect it'll spread pretty widely.
The New York Times has a story on Cindy Hensley McCain's family wealth.