Matt: I'm sorry to hear about your sore right knee. I hope it's nothing serious.
What is your take on this whole "that one" controversy?
Jordan: I listened to the debate from the TV, so I didn't catch the 'that one' comment when it occurred. I watched the various post-debate shows and no one mentioned it. Just goes to prove that you can't judge these things right when they end. You need to let it sink in. I don't know how it will play out. I see now on the Huffington Post, which is a left-leaning blogging/news site, that several of their bloggers are writing about the 'that one' comment. The emphasis is that McCain must be a racist, or that he just doesn't like Obama. McCain's aides will denounce the suggestion he's racist and then next reporters will ask Obama what he thinks. So I'm sure it will be a story that last a couple days at least.
M: I don't think McCain is a racist, but I do think his comment showed a lack of respect. Some people are saying it may be in retalliation to Obama referring to McCain simply as "John" during the first debate. I think it's an example of John McCain barely being able to reign in his legendary bad temper.
Are adults really this childish? Say it ain't so, Joe.
J: I don't think McCain likes Obama much. If there is a rift between the two it probably started in 2006 when Obama was a freshman senator.
In a private meeting Obama approached McCain about working with him on McCain's bill to reform ethics and lobbying laws. McCain accepted and said he'd be happy to join forces. But then a few days later Obama changed his mind and wrote a letter to McCain announcing he was switching his position to now just supporting the Democrats' version of the lobbying reform bill.
McCain felt that Obama had been disingenuousness in their meeting and he fired back a sarcastic letter claiming Obama was just another politician who says one thing and does something else.
"I would like to apologize to you for assuming that your private assurances to me regarding your desire to cooperate in our efforts to negotiate bipartisan lobbying reform were sincere," McCain wrote.
The exchange got a lot of attention at the time. You can read about it at Hotline.com (http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2006/02/an_outraged_sen.html)
This event sprung up again this summer at the Saddleback Ranch Forum. Obama was asked about his history of working together with Republicans and Obama cited that he worked with McCain on ethics reform, which McCain and many reporters said was untrue and pointed to the above incident.
M: That's interesting. How do politicians justify stretching the truth? I mean, I guess in a debate where one is supposedly speaking 'off the cuff' it's easy to misspeak, but I don't know...the whole thing seems slightly dubious. Obama knows what he did, so why fudge the facts?
J: Because politicians lie and stretch the truth anyway they can, Matt you gullible little punk! Btw, I need your social security number and mother's maiden name for a super awesome thing I'm doing.
M: Oh, sure. My mother's maiden name was Wolfe and my social security number is...hey, wait a minute! You scamp!
So, politicians stretch the truth, but why? These days it's fairly simple to do a modicum of research and catch politicians in lies and half truths. Is this just a practice that we'll never understand? Is this what they mean when they say "politics as usual?"
J: It is much easier to find out when someone is lying. The late political reporter Jack Germond said never before has politics become more honest because it's so much easier to fact check what people say in public.
But in politics perception is reality. And so parties and politicians will cite half-truths, overexaggerate, and float misinformation out there to confuse people. And they do it on everything. Sometimes a person will slip up and say something without fully thinking it over, but his opponents jump on it and denounce the words used. Even if the speaker follows up with "what I really meant to say was..." the other side goes "No No No, this is what you said..."
Right now Obama's campaign is brining up McCain's involvement in the Keating Five - five senators in the 80s who were investigated for taking money and doing favors for a crooked businessman named Charles Keating. McCain was one of the 5 senators investigated. In the end he was cleared of all wrongdoings. If he was cleared why bring it up? Well many people don't know or remember the 80s that well and if you can slip in enough enuendo about the investigation then that will tarnish McCain's image. So they mention that he was part of a the scandal, but they don't mention how it ended. Also Obama has been campaigning in Ohio with fmr Sen. John Glenn, who was also a member of the Keating 5. So if McCain is bad then why is Glenn good when they were both investigated and cleared?
Likewise, Obama is neighbors with and worked on various education initiatives with William Ayers, a former 60s terrorists who is now a college professor. Ayers set off many bombs in government buildings long ago and later wrote a book and gave interviews expressing unrepentance over what he did and wished that he had done more. The Republicans are all over Obama for knowing and working with Ayers. But Ayers is a very promenient figure in Chicago who has a long history of working with Republicans on education issues as well. But that doesn't get mentioned when they attack Obama.
M: Well, it's all pretty shady.
Quickly, in two sentences or less for each, what do the candidates need to do now to become our next president?
J: McCain - prove Obama is too inexperienced to be president in these tough times.
Obama - connect Bush to McCain and prove McCain is more of the same.
