The Baumgarten Report

They aren’t so much John McCain supporters as they are Barack Obama detractors. But the are hurting McCain much more than they are Obama.

Unintended collateral damage to the candidate they reluctantly support.

The constant barrage of accusations and innuendos tossed Obama’s way is causing voter fatigue and straining the sensibilities of fair-minded Americans. So much so that legitimate discourse about Obama’s ability to be president of the United States are being obscured.

To be sure, there are questionable acts taking place on the Democratic side of the ticket. And as McCain pointed out during last night’s third and final presidential debate, he has been quick to repudiate overreaching and unfair statements by his supporters directed at Obama. He wishes Obama would be as quick to demand fairness from his out-of-line faithful.

But the attacks on McCain pale in comparison with those on Obama. Which have become so vitriolic that the Secret Service is investigating whoever shouted “kill him” at a GOP rally The “him” presumably being Obama.

Last night as I moderated the post-debate conversation in the Obama McCain Debate Room on Paltalk.com, I struggled with untold numbers of incorrect assertions being made by Obama in text and on the microphone. So much so that I felt a bit like an apologist for Obama.

For the record, it’s not about Obama. It’s about fairness.

One caller, for example, proclaimed that Obama “supports terrorist groups.” When I asked him to name one group he “supports” the closest he could come up with is Obama’s relationship with Weatherman founder Bill Ayers. The organization conducted its bombing campaign against the Vietnam War when Obama was 8. While his association with Ayers, who has been described as both a “former terrorist” (never convicted) and Chicago’s citizen of the year is a fair issue to raise, it’s a bit of a stretch to say that Obama supports a terrorist group,since the organization the caller cites is no longer in existence.

Then there were those who repeatedly proclaimed in text in the virtual auditorium on Paltalk that Obama is a Muslim. Of course, he also was a member of a Christian Church that was headed by a controversial minister and his judgment in maintaining that relationship has also been questioned. But significant number of voters believe that Obama is, indeed, a Muslim (time precludes a close examination of the implications of that phobic belief) .

Then there was the caller who asked, in an alarmist tone, what the Obama campaign is hiding by not producing his birth certificate, She’s certain that the Democratic candidate for president is constitutionally unqualified to be on the ballot because he was born in Kenya, not Hawaii as claimed.

I read to that caller the results of the investigation of this claim by Factcheck.org, an arm of the University of Pennsylvania. Factcheck actually saw the original document. And reports that it does, indeed, have a raised seal (the allegation is that the campaign has failed to produce the original certificate with the prerequisite embossed seal).

Two responses from the doubtful on that one. The credibility of Factcheck and the assertion, promulgated by those who have never seen the document, that it is a copy.

All this static obscures potentially real concerns that could be raised about Obama. So for that reason alone, it’s not a good tactic.

More importantly, the character assassinations (and there have been those against Sarah , Palin and McCain as well) are not only unhealthy for this campaign. They are bad for the nation in the long run.

Each of us have made decisions that we’d like to take back in our lives. Presumably, well qualified fellow Americans who might otherwise aspire to public service to their nation will look at this campaign and conclude that the potential damage to their reputation and to their families and personal and business relationships outweighs the desire to answer that call.

Remember this during the next presidential campaign when we might be asking ourselves why the best potential candidates aren’t running.

Evelyn Butts registers Sharday Shaw in Philadelphia

–

Photo credit: Jenne Turner/Public Interest GRFX

“That one,” Barack Obama. He’s really a thorn in John McCain’s side isn’t he?

Perhaps McCain’s worse moment during last night’s second presidential debate was when he referred to Obama as “that one.” McCain pointed at Obama. But couldn’t bring himself to direct his eyes at the younger Democrat.

McCain made the comment in answer to a question about energy.

“It was an energy bill on the floor of the Senate loaded down with goodies, billions for the oil companies, and it was sponsored by Bush and Cheney,” McCain said.

“You know who voted for it? You might never know. That one. You know who voted against it? Me.”

“That one.” Not “Senator Obama.” Not “my opponent.” “That one.”

Was McCain being dismissive of Obama because of his age or relative lack of experience? Both are legitimate campaign issues of course. But demeaning a man who may very well be the next president of the United States by referring to him as “that one” during a debate is poor form.

Read the rest of this entry »

The first 2008 presidential debate is over and, the morning after the night before finds a raging secondary debate being conducted. Over who “won” last night’s verbal dual.

In The McCain Obama 2008 Debate Room in Paltalk Studio A on Paltalk.com, voters were given the opportunity to share their own reactions. The lively discussion lasted into the wee hours of Saturday morning.

“Obama wiped the floor with McCain,” one Democratic said.

“Everyone is saying McCain won,” was the comment of a Republican.

But does it really matter who “won” the debate? Was that the purpose? To determine who is the better debater? Or is reason they debate to clarify their positions to the American people?

In some areas, the two, naturally, disagreed. In a few, there was agreement. And in several, what they agreed upon was that they “fundamentally disagreed.”

There was also opportunity for each candidate to correct or clarify accusations made by the other.

If one was listening closely, one heard that John McCain and Barack Obama both basically favor a bailout of Wall Street and checks and balances to prevent a recurrence of the financial mess the nation faces. Details remained elusive. So they settled on differing over the reason for the crisis.

McCain made the most dramatic suggestion about how to better prioritize the federal budget as a result of the nation’s financial woes, by cutting out huge amounts of spending … a “spending freeze” is what he called it. Obama countered that would be “using a sledge hammer when you need a scalpel.” This is the kind of fundamental difference that could help someone who is undecided determine who to vote for.

Read the rest of this entry »

Democratic and Republican political strategists Hank Sheinkopf and Jeffrey Wisenfeld sounded like two brothers with different mothers as they verbally clashed on News Talk Online on Paltalk over whether Barack Obama or John McCain should be elected president. But on one issue they agreed completely.

“They should be put in jail,” Democrat Sheinkopf declared, referring to those responsible for the nation’s economic mess.

“Absolutely,” responded Republican Wisenfeld.

Of course, on other issues, the partisans differed. Sheinkopf believes America is not well liked around the world, and that an Obama administration would go far to change that image.

Wisenfeld believes McCain is better suited to protect the nation from its enemies.

Wisenfeld also predicts that McCain will surprise those expecting Obama to handily win tonight’s presidential debate. Time will tell whether that will happen. But, clearly, McCain has a lot more to gain, and Obama more to lose.

Read the rest of this entry »