It’s been a long while since one of the Democratic presidential candidates when after the Republican presidential candidate, so this was a very welcome development.
Democratic Sen. Barack Obama said Thursday that Sen. John McCain reversed his position on President Bush’s deep tax cuts in order to win the Republican presidential nomination, one of his sharpest criticisms yet of the Arizona senator he hopes to face this fall.
Criticizing GOP efforts to extend major tax cuts from Bush’s first term and to eliminate the estate tax, Obama said: “These are all steps that John McCain rightly said were irresponsible when they first came up.”
“He made a decision to reverse himself on that,” Obama told reporters as he flew from Chicago to Washington for a series of Senate votes on budget issues.
“That was how, I guess, you got your ticket punched to be the Republican nominee,” he said of McCain. “But he was right then, and he’s wrong now.”
McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said in a statement that if Obama is nominated, “the American people will have a clear choice: John McCain will cut taxes while Senator Obama will raise them, hurting our economy and costing jobs for hardworking Americans.” Of course that’s what McCain’s spokesman said. We probably could have written the quote before it was uttered.
The point is, Obama didn’t go after Hillary Clinton; in the midst of a heated Democratic primary, he went after John McCain.
Can we have more of this please? Say, every day for the foreseeable future?
I’m increasingly of the opinion that this prolonged Democratic primary process is going to seriously undermine the party’s chances of winning in November, but I’ll concede that there are some clear advantages — most notably, we can watch two Democratic heavyweights go after the Republican candidate at the same time, while the GOP has two moving targets.
This benefit disappears, of course, when the Dems go after each other, which is all the more reason for them to target McCain. It might even help them make the case to superdelegates: “Look at how effectively I’m going after John McCain now. If you’d like to see more of this in the fall, I’m your candidate.”
Frankly, I’m almost indifferent to which issue(s) Dems pick to go after McCain — I’m more interested that they go after McCain — but taxes is as good as any. The Arizona senator is clearly vulnerable on the issue — he’s flip-flopped, he’s offering tax cuts that his campaign admits he can’t pay for, he’s embracing the policies of a wildly unpopular president, and he’s advocating more irresponsible cuts that most Americans realize won’t help them anyway. Indeed, gone are the days that a Republican can just shout “tax and spend!” and hope voters will recoil. Americans have heard all the tax-cut rhetoric from McCain’s mentor (George W. Bush), and they realize the policies don’t actually help them in any way.
So, Clinton and Obama, by all means, go after McCain on taxes. And foreign policy. And health care. And energy, education, poverty, homeland security, and everything else. Just don’t destroy each other.
In one of my favorite movies, “Office Space,” Bill Lumbergh puts up a soul-crushing banner in the workplace that reads, “Is this good for the company?” and encourages every employee to ponder this question with “every decision you make.” I’d like the Clinton and Obama campaigns to consider a similar banner for their headquarters: “Is this going to help Democrats win in 2008?” If you’re repeating Republican talking points, you’re not helping. If you’re praising Republican candidates, you’re not helping. If you’re intentionally dividing the Democratic electorate with ugly attacks based on race or gender, you’re really not helping.
If you’re challenging John McCain on an important policy matter, you’re helping.
No Trackbacks To “Obama takes on McCain over taxes“
Hillary who? Interesting new ‘ignore Hillary’ strategy.
…Most notably, we can watch two Democratic heavyweights go after the Republican candidate at the same time, while the GOP has two moving targets.
Yes! The Obama and Clinton campaigns should discuss this, if they haven’t already, spending at least some time doing precisely this. It’s not as if McCain can win almost any policy debate on the merits. Despite the MSM’s widespread boredom and hatred over policy discussions, they’d even have to cover at least the sound bite version of the critique to go with their “Clinton and Obama attack McCain on Health Care” headline.
It’s been a long while since one of the Democratic presidential candidates when after the Republican presidential candidate
Now, this is the way it should be. Obama attacking McSame, and Hillary attacking McSame.
The best way to get more of this is to get Shillary out of the race. Then we can focus on winning the Presidency instead of the primary.
Hey Hillary supporters…that thing just beyond the end of your nose is the welfare of the country. Try focusing on that instead of getting the nomination for a candidate who can’t win the GE.
And here we have Jay, somebody who clearly didn’t read the post.
sure glad its sunday so that the obnoxious hbo ads will be gone…lets hear it folks.
Jay @ 5:
And why are some of voting for Hillary just because she’s a woman? I wanted Edwards and now I choose Obama. I’m not black and I resapect women.
Obama is just acting the like the front runner that he is…
yeah Misty because i clearly attacked Hillary’s race and gender by saying she shouldn’t still be here.
Sorry man, the people who love politics have taken over our primary process. The Republicans are going to laugh their way to the WH as the Clintons drag us into oblivion….again.
Just in time for the fifth anniversary of the U.S. invasion, presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain made an unannounced visit to Iraq. Unfortunately for him, this week’s anniversary highlights that at almost every turn, John McCain has been disastrously wrong about Iraq.
For the details, see:
“Forever Wrong: Five Years of John McCain on Iraq.”
gc @ 7:
Amen. Can’t see the movie here anyway.
with all due respect to mr. benen, the source of that article is terrible journalism.
“mr. obama said……” it’s not just that mr. obama says that mr. mccain reversed his position on tax cuts. it’s a FACT. mr. mccain DID indeed reverse his position on tax cuts.
whoever wrote the original article needs to do some very simple fact checking.
What i’ve been thinking since Super Tuesday didn’t end things: republicans have to hedge their bets on who to attack while anointing McCain with a big target on his forehead. Though it seems now they can safely focus on Obama, even if the Democrats don’t wanna say it yet he will be the nominee. As everyone with a longer view of events has been advising him to do, Senator Obama has to bring a much more radical economic stump speech to Pennsylvania, act as if Senator Clinton has already dropped out of the race and attack John McCain with the truth of his positions.
Man in the Mists @ 6:
Well, since everyone who criticizes Obama is a racist then it stands to reason that everyone who criticizes Hillary is a misogynist.
The notion that pouring tax giveaways into the pockets of big corporations and the super rich stimulates the economy is a fallacy. Corporations don’t create new jobs just because they are flush with new capital, they create new jobs to meet greater demand for their products. The rich don’t necessarily buy more consumer products than the rest of us.
Wealth does not trickle down, it percolates up.
The only way to really stimulate the economy is to use tax revenue from the wealthy and corporations to invest in infrastructure development to employ people in construction and social services who will use that money to spend on goods and services to create demand and stimulate the economy from the bottom up. This is basic Keynesian economics, an historically proven formula to keep a capitalist economy functioning. The Reagan era disrupted that proven method leading to to instability we have today.
Snowball @ 16:
Exactly. We need to junk “trickle down” economics and start using “trickle up” economics…
Yay, Barack! This is where the discussion should be and this is where it should stay. Bravo to you for taking the high road as always.
[Deleted-Sitemonitor]
Swashbuckler @ 15:
Well, the point is to divide and conquer. That’s the only way McSame can win.
Swashbuckler@17
Well, at least we can agree on one thing.
Obama is going to raise taxes, what is their to argue about?
CheneyIsADick @ 20:
But in this case it’s the Obama-ites dividing us and McCain conquering and that’s the last thing this country needs…
Forget the Clinton Obama tit-for-tat, focus on the issues.
Why is McCain hiding his tax returns? Does he have something to hide?
chris @ 22:
Chris, do you make more than 1 million a year> If so, you really ought to move out of your parents basement.
Jay, I think you kinda missed the point of the original post. With TWO candidates, with large numbers of supporters, each with their own resources it would be much MUCH easier to keep McCain under constant attack while McCain will have to divide his resources to deal with BOTH attackers simultaneously.
If Clinton dropped out of the race (regardless of the reason) McCain would be able to focus his resources solely on countering everything Obama can come up with. (Whatever attacks Obama uses against McCain could always be met with the “I thought you were a uniter, who was wanting to reach across the aisle? Why the “hostility?” That argument won’t work against Clinton, as she’s already painted by both Dems and Repubs as the anti-christ.)
Snowball @ 24:
Kinda hard to forget until there’s a nominee…
Swashbuckler @ 23:
Snowball @ 24:
Exactly. Never mind the rest of the primary. McSame is the bad guy.
Jolly Sapper @ 27:
Yeah, but the underdog will not do that because they have to beat the frontrunner…
Jolly Sapper @ 27:
Jolly I can’t argue with your logic on that. I wish it had been so three debates ago.
Think back to Iowa and New Hampshire. We had strong candidates and we knew we were going to win the GE. Now largely because of a Clinton strategy of race baiting, pulling the experience card (saying John McCain and her have the vitamins but Obama doesn’t) and divisive campaigning in TX. I’d say the odds that a dem will occupy the WH in januay are a little less than even.
bryanci @ 13:
And here we have the base absurdity of our current paradigm. The FACT that the US Government has trained and funded death squads, killed civilians and engaged in state terrorism is a “controversial opinion” that must be “denounced & repudiated”, it doesn’t jive with truthy buzz we’ve been riding. Anything said publicly is by definition a matter of opinion or only existing “according to sources i’ve spoken with”. This is now a hearsay nation, (insert outlandish accusation about your most hated political figure here)
there is a disturbing false equivalence. Hillary and her minions have been attacking Obama and somehow he’s attacking hillary. Hillary squanders away her 60-40 edge in the black vote through her increasingly racist attacks and somehow Obama has to answer for it.
So finally, someone listens to an Obama speech to see what he’s supposed to be about and its,”Obama takes on McCain over taxes”.
Thanks so much! It’s about time.
As far as the inheritance tax goes, it was instituted as a safeguard to mitigate the deleterious effects of inherited wealth creating a new American aristocracy which is an anathema to a democratic society. It is not double taxation, it is a one time tax on unearned income, much like lottery winnings are taxed. It is the individual who inherits the wealth who did nothing to earn it that is being taxed only once, it is not the money that is being taxed or the deceased relative. It is probably has best been referred to as the “Paris Hilton” tax. To continue to function as a democratic society, we need it to help prevent the further rise of an idle, unproductive elite who already have greater influence in our government than the principle of one person one vote permits.
Swashbuckler @ 23:
you should have a look at your own posts.
BaScOmBe whose saying “NO REPUGS” @ 33:
BaScOmBe whose saying “NO REPUGS” @ 33:
Any dummy with grade 8 math could tell you tax cuts for rich isn’t way to deal with a record deficit and trillions of dollars of debt. Mc Cain is a shameless ass kissing, flip flopping, braindead old man. Any suggestion at all that he could win just exposes the national IQ average.He should be referred to as he is. Just GOP cannon fodder with no real chance of winning anything. Except maybe in America ?
Swashbuckler @ 30:
“The underdog has to beat the front runner”. Damn, that was brilliant!
Jay @ 31:
If McCain was able to win the GE I would have to thinkthat there has to be something in the water. We would have to be insane to vote him in. Then again, not to say the election couldn’t be stolen. Diebold anyone? Charlie Black is a lobbyist for United Laboratories who is trying to buy Diebold. Charlie Black also works for McCains campaign.
The Right Wing has been trying to take out the Clinton’s since 1993.
Revenge, deceit, conniving, and “dirty tricks” you name it.
We’re shocked Hillary is now on the receiving end of the same?
LOL give me a break
Does this really need to be a Clinton vs. Obama thread? If you don’t have the flexibility to switch from the primaries to talk about issues of the general election, you’re asking to lose.
Republicans will lower your taxes by ensuring you have less income to start with.
Tax cuts ….I love it. When will you guys finally take away your goverments visa,m/c,discovery,amex……..etc. The longer it goes the further you will have to dig yourselves out.
Right now as I see it you’re still diging down not up
L.A. Confidential @ 40:
Leave Hillary Clinton alone!
Poor taste, or prescient?
http://www.crooksandliars.com/.....ttraction/
Don’t forget Tibet.
Boycott Chinese Goods. (Good luck)
“Can we have more of this please? Say, every day for the foreseeable future?”
From Obama we will. From Clinton, unlikely. Her only hope is to tear Obama down as much as possible, than sneak away with the nomination by convincing superdelegates to overturn ObamaR