Matthew Burton site admin

Obama: Embrace Aug 11, 2008

This ad is a response to McCain's "Celeb" ad. In my opinion, it's the lowest the Obama campaign has stooped so far.

There is no basis for saying that McCain is "Washington's biggest celebrity." There are many better-known people in Congress: Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry to name a few Democrats.

Nor is there any basis for saying McCain has provided "almost nothing for families like yours." This is a really slimy tactic, I think. This is not about facts; it's just about saying bad things to make the viewer dislike John McCain without any good reason.

Also, the ad says McCain "lurches to the right, then the left." You could also call that "reaching across the aisle." There is nothing wrong with breaking from the party line. It should be praised.

McCain: Broken Aug 7, 2008

The ad says we're worse off than we were four years ago.

But during a recent debate, McCain said we are BETTER off than we were 8 years ago.

Taken at face value, this implies that 2000-2004, possibly the four most tumultuous and worrisome years in U.S. history, were an improvement for our country.

It probably should not be taken at face value, however. It is rather clear that McCain's words during the debate were an effort to keep from criticizing the president.

Obama: Low Road Aug 4, 2008

Here are the sources of "Baloney" and "the low road". I could not find the others.

Obama: Pocket Aug 4, 2008

Re: "another $4 billion in tax breaks," this is somewhat misleading. This claim is derived from McCain's support of a tax cut for ALL companies, from 35% to 25%. Oil companies would benefit from this, but McCain's policy does not give them special treatment.

Re: McCain's $2 million from oil companies, I believe this article is the cited source. The numbers in the article only account for donations since May, but the numbers don't add up to 2 million. OpenSecrets has the tally at $1.3 million.

Obama has accepted $400,000 from the oil industry.

McCain: Troops Jul 26, 2008

I've updated this comment given recent developments.

Regarding the claim about cameras: This has become a very controversial claim. Essentially, the ad is claiming that Obama canceled the trip upon learning he wouldn't be able to get press from it. This is a big supposition. The following can be confirmed:

-Obama had, at one point, planned to visit Ramstein Air Base. -Obama has recently visited other wounded troops at other military facilities when no reporters or cameras were present. The Pentagon's "No Cameras" rule was in effect at these visits as well, so the campaign was aware of the rule before planning the Ramstein visit. -The Obama Campaign's actual reason for canceling the trip is unclear, but it seems to be because an Obama campaign advisor, retired Air Force Major General Scott Gration, would have accompanied him. Because Gration is a campaign staff and not Senate staff, the Pentagon interpreted this as a campaign visit. The Pentagon press secretary said:

"Sen. Obama is more than welcome to visit Landstuhl or any other military hospital around the world. But he has to do so, just as any other senator has to do so, in his official capacity. It is not acceptable to do so as a candidate."

Given all of this, this ad's claim seems very presumptuous and probably incorrect: McCain could not have known why the visit was canceled, and now that the facts are coming out, it appears as though McCain's suspicions are wrong.

There is plenty more research about this issue here and here.

Regarding the claims about meetings on Afghanistan and funding the troops, they are misleading. See the earlier ad for more information.

McCain: Troop Funding Jul 26, 2008

Regarding "voted against funding our troops": Obama did vote against one Iraq funding bill, because it did not include a timeline for withdrawal. He has voted FOR other funding bills in the past, including, most recently, June 26, 2008.

McCain was not present in the Senate that day and did not vote.

Here is the official roll call for that vote.

McCain: Pump (Gas prices) Jul 25, 2008

The non-partisan FactCheck.org has a great analysis that explains how dishonest this ad is. A few highlights:

--The Energy Information Administration says that if we started to drill more in the US, it would take 20 years for it to seriously affect oil prices.

--The ad says Obama is to blame, but McCain has said several times that the oil problem is "30 years in the making" and the fault of politicians in DC. McCain has been a senator for 21 years, Obama for 3.

McCain: Troop Funding Jul 21, 2008

Pot calling the kettle black.

Regarding "Never held a hearing": this refers to Obama's record as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's subcommittee on Europe. It is true that he has never held a meeting on Afghanistan on this subcommittee. However, he did attend the general committee's meeting on Afghanistan in March 2007.

On the other hand, McCain is the highest ranking Republican on the Armed Services Committee, and he has missed all six of this committee's meetings on Afghanistan over the last two years. Source

Obama: America's Leadership (Loose nukes) Jul 21, 2008

Lugar, the Republican Senator mentioned in the ad, has confirmed the accuracy of it. He and Obama traveled to the former Soviet Union in 2005 and then drafted the mentioned legislation. Source

RNC: "Balance" Jul 8, 2008

I suppose there's nothing wrong with trying different approaches, nor is it wrong to call this "balanced."

However, the ad attacks Obama unjustly: "For conservation, but he just says no to lower gas taxes...no to more production." This is completely consistent. I don't see how anyone FOR conservation would encourage us to keep buying oil, and that is exactly what McCain is doing by trying to lower the gas tax.

Obama's energy strategy may not provide quick fixes, but it is certainly more consistent than McCain's.

For more on whether the gas tax cut would actually work, go here.

Campaign Money Watch ad: McCain and Airbus Jun 23, 2008

This is more of a footnote than an analysis:

Campaign Money Watch provides this document on their Web site that sources each statement.

Obama's Nomination Claim Speech, Part 5: Iraq, The Military, and Foreign Policy Jun 23, 2008

"What's not an option is leaving our troops in that country for the next hundred years."

Everyone needs to understand that John McCain does not advocate leaving 120,000 troops in Iraq for 100 years. When McCain said that we could be in Iraq for 100 years, he said,

"We’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That would be fine with me, as long as Americans, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. It’s fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world."

This does not mean that we will maintain our current presence there at all costs. He means we'll stay there to keep it stable, ONLY IF it is stable. How long should we would stay if it remains this violent? He did not say.

Obama is going to quote the "100 years" thing over and over. Just keep in mind what McCain meant when he said it.

Here's a deeper analysis.

Obama on withdrawing from Iraq May 27, 2008

Dan,

the simplification lies in Obama's pledge to withdraw within 16 months. This comes at the very beginning of the video, which tails off into a related matter: the president's working relationship with military commanders. I forgive Obama for interpreting Gibson's question so technically; he is a lawyer, afterall. But the heart of this question is about how soon Obama would withdraw from Iraq. On that note, he reaffirmed his pledge, so that's why I said he was oversimplifying the problem.

Voters who want us out of Iraq soon will point to this video as evidence of Obama's stance on this issue, and if they do so on this Web site, I want them to know it's more than just a matter of telling military commanders, "Come home." It's a matter of possibility as well.

Clinton on the capital gains tax May 27, 2008

At around 2:30, Clinton answers the question regarding the capital gains tax. She does not say yes or no. Instead, she gives the best answer in light of Obama's response: We'll have to wait and see.

This would be fine. However, in this ad, she implies that she will raise it. It's unfair of her to say whatever benefits her at the time instead of taking a consistent stance.

Clinton: Back on the Right Track May 27, 2008

Her comment at the beginning is about capital gains: most "Wall Street money managers" incomes are from capital gains, money earned by investments. Such income is taxed at a lower rate than ordinary income.

After this comment, the voiceover says Clinton will "end loopholes for special interests," which, in the context of her opening comment, implies that she is committed to raising the capital gains tax. But in the Philadelphia debate with Obama, she was non-committal on this question:

MR. GIBSON: Would you propose an increase in the capital gains tax?

SENATOR CLINTON: You know, Charlie, I'm going to have to look and see what the revenue situation is...

Obama got this question first and got hurt by it, so Clinton was perhaps protecting herself.

Either way, these two videos are an example of Clinton saying whatever benefits her most at the time.

McCain: 2013 May 25, 2008

This ad evokes positive emotion for McCain by painting a rosy picture of the future, then putting McCain's image at the end. The goals it talks about are all good ones: nobody DOESN'T want the Middle East stabilized or better energy technology or more confidence in our economy. That is the problem with this ad. It doesn't say anything about HOW he intends to do them. Anyone can make such an ad, even those with no qualifications.

McCain on the state of the nation May 19, 2008

If you are unsure who you are going to vote for, this might be the most informative two minutes you could watch. If you agree with McCain's answer, vote for him. Otherwise, don't.

McCain on Sandra Day O'Connor and Supreme Court nominees May 18, 2008

Refuses to give a straight answer. He's saying O'Connor was a bad choice, but doesn't want to speak badly of her or Reagan, so to smooth things over, he finishes by pandering to Reagan fans.

McCain on the future number of U.S. troops in Iraq May 18, 2008

You have to give McCain credit for telling it like it is, and for, in his words, "unequivocally putting his career and political fortunes on the line." He is doing exactly that. He is telling us the sad truth: We are going to be in Iraq for a while. It is rare that a politician tells the whole country exactly what they don't want to hear. But we must be told.

Others want you to believe that leaving is easy. It isn't. It is very important that everyone understand that, especially those who, like me, are against the war.

If there is one part of this video to keep in your memory, it is this:

"We've got troops right next door in Kuwait. We'll probably have them there for a long time. We have troops in Bosnia. We've had troops in South Korea for some 50 years."

At first, our presence in those countries wasn't the least bit peaceful. But now it is. McCain has been vilified for saying we could be in Iraq for 100 years. Just because we are in Iraq, it doesn't mean the current conditions will persist that whole time.

However, he SHOULD have ideas for changing those current conditions. Just because he says "Things will get better," doesn't mean they will.

Obama on the capital gains tax May 18, 2008

"Fairness" is a pretty poor rationale for such a policy. If the capital gains tax goes up, it goes up for everyone. I'm not willing to be taxed more just so rich people can be as well. Hurting everyone is not my definition of "fair." Evidence should guide his policy here, and the evidence says this is a bad idea. And Obama does not dispute that.

Obama on withdrawing from Iraq May 18, 2008

This is really important if Iraq matters to you. In reality, withdrawing from Iraq will not be as quick or as simple as Obama makes it sound. Even his top adviser on Iraq recommends keeping over 60,000 troops in Iraq through 2010. In 2006, Obama said, "I am not suggesting that this timetable be overly rigid. ... The redeployment could be temporarily suspended if the parties in Iraq reach an effective political arrangement that stabilizes the situation...it is conceivable that a significantly reduced U.S. force might remain in Iraq for a more extended period of time."

This New Republic article is critical for understanding the finer points of what Obama is proposing. Points off for not telling the whole story.

Obama and Clinton on Obama's connection with Bill Ayers May 18, 2008

This is an important clip, and here's why: at 2:13, Clinton does something very underhanded.

Obama used to work on the board of directors for a Chicago anti-poverty charity. Clinton uses that AGAINST him here, and hopes you won't notice. She implies that because Bill Ayers was also associated with the charity, the charity is rotten, as is everyone else associated with it (including Obama).

This upsets me. She's hoping that I'll just become more concerned about Obama's connection to Ayers, regardless of the nature of the connection. We're smarter than that, I hope.

Obama on gaffes May 18, 2008

Good for Obama for having the guts to say these are stupid questions. Granted, it was at a time where his back was against the wall, but he did it gracefully and professionally. And he's right.

Clinton on honesty and her statements regarding Bosnia May 18, 2008

Clinton says she "said some things that weren't in keeping with what she knew to be the case." This is a fancy way of saying "I lied." This is yet another question wasted on something immaterial, but Clinton gives a bad answer. It scares me, because she has trouble being forthright about a mistake.

Obama on whether Clinton can win, and his statements regarding small towns May 18, 2008

This is a throw-away question, but Obama wins points for being forthright and for not obfuscating like Clinton did (see the previous clip).

Clinton on not backing the UN inspections amendment to the Iraq war bill Apr 21, 2008

The Levin amendment could have kept us out of Iraq if Saddam had allowed UN inspectors in. Clinton says she voted against the amendment because it "suggested that the United States would subordinate whatever our judgment might be going forward to the United Nations Security Council."

But when Levin introduced this amendment, he said:

"My resolution affirms that, under international law and the U.N. Charter, the United States has at all times the inherent right to use military force in self-defense, affirming the fact that there is no U.N. veto over U.S. military action." (http://levin.senate.gov/senate/statement.cfm?id=211525)

In the end, Clinton uses this challenge to her judgment as an opportunity to attack Bush's judgment. But Bush isn't running.