Like many (most?) of us, in the last few days I’ve come to the point of really being ready for this presidential campaign to be over.  I’m feeling pretty good about my candidate’s chances, but I must admit I’m still quite nervous about it.  No matter what the polls say, I think I’m going to have a bit of pleasant surprise when (if) Obama is elected.  In the mean time, as you might have noticed, I’m doing a political purge via a few blog posts regarding what I’ve been thinking about lately concerning the election.  Tonight, it’s McCain’s robocalls.

Recently McCain took some heat from the liberal media (in this case, Fox News) about the hypocrisy of not only sliming Obama with robocalls but hiring the same firm to do it that was used by the Bush campaign to slime McCain in the 2000 primaries.  If you’re not familiar with that story from 2000, you can read more about it in a NY Times article from last year (link).  An few excerpts:

A smear campaign during the primary in February 2000 here had many in South Carolina falsely believing that Mr. McCain’s wife, Cindy, was a drug addict and that the couple’s adopted daughter, Bridget, was the product of an illicit union. Mr. McCain’s patriotism, mental well-being and sexuality were also viciously called into question.

and

People in some areas of South Carolina began to receive phone calls in which self-described pollsters would ask, “Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?”

It was a reference to Bridget, who was adopted as a baby from an orphanage in Bangladesh and is darker skinned than the rest of the McCain family. Richard Hand, a professor at Bob Jones University, sent an e-mail message to “fellow South Carolinians” telling recipients that Mr. McCain had “chosen to sire children without marriage.”

Literature began to pepper the windshields of cars at political events suggesting that Mr. McCain had committed treason while a prisoner of war in North Vietnam, that he was mentally unstable after years in a P.O.W. camp, that he was the homosexual candidate and that Mrs. McCain, who had admitted to abusing prescription drugs years earlier, was an addict.

Here’s the video of McCain being asked about employing those same robocallers:

Back in 2000, McCain said:

I promise you I have never and will never have anything to do with that kind of political tactic.

Now, McCain makes the excuse, without coming right out and saying it (because the 2000 smears were so nasty that they don’t want to name them), that the smear from 2000 about McCain having an illegitimate black baby is “far different” and “dramatically different” from McCain now insinuating that Obama sympathizes with domestic terrorists.  Really?  I don’t think so.  McCain defends the robocall as “accurate”, but we all know it’s not really about a few dry facts…it’s about implying that Obama is a terrorist sympathizer.  That is downright nasty and is NOT far different from what happened in 2000.

Notice that McCain also continues to claim that at the last debate Obama refused to repudiate the statements that Congressman John Lewis made in which he expressed his view that McCain and Palin have been “sowing the seeds of hatred and division” at their rallies in a fashion reminiscent of George Wallace (read a sympathetic take on Lewis’ statements here).  That’s ridiculous too.  I watched the debate and heard the repudiation myself.  From the debate transcript (link):

OBAMA: I mean, look, if we want to talk about Congressman Lewis, who is an American hero, he, unprompted by my campaign, without my campaign's awareness, made a statement that he was troubled with what he was hearing at some of the rallies that your running mate was holding, in which all the Republican reports indicated were shouting, when my name came up, things like "terrorist" and "kill him," and that you're running mate didn't mention, didn't stop, didn't say "Hold on a second, that's kind of out of line."

And I think Congressman Lewis' point was that we have to be careful about how we deal with our supporters.

Now...

MCCAIN: You've got to read what he said...

(CROSSTALK)

OBAMA: Let -- let -- let...

MCCAIN: You've got to read what he said.

OBAMA: Let me -- let me complete...

SCHIEFFER: Go ahead.

OBAMA: ... my response. I do think that he inappropriately drew a comparison between what was happening there and what had happened during the civil rights movement, and we immediately put out a statement saying that we don't think that comparison is appropriate.

And, in fact, afterwards, Congressman Lewis put out a similar statement, saying that he had probably gone over the line.

The important point here is, though, the American people have become so cynical about our politics, because all they see is a tit- for-tat and back-and-forth. And what they want is the ability to just focus on some really big challenges that we face right now, and that's what I have been trying to focus on this entire campaign.

Don’t get me wrong.  It’s not that I think Obama has run a squeaky-clean campaign either.  He’s made questionable claims about McCain on more than one occasion.  While we’re on the subject of Obama’s campaign, let me also recommend an article by Ruth Marcus that I read today (link).  She observes, as many of us have, that Obama’s promise of “a new kind of politics” (which, admittedly, it what first got me excited about him) hasn’t really been demonstrated in his campaign (which turned out to be quite conventional).  Honestly, I rationalize it as him having to do what he had to do to get elected, and I hold out hope that once elected he’ll start walking the talk.  Marcus throws some cold water on that view:

What evidence is there that a President Obama would govern differently than candidate Obama campaigned? Would a President Obama press policies -- on teacher accountability, on climate change, on trade -- that discomfit Democratic Party interest groups? Does he have the spine to stand up to the inevitably overreaching demands of congressional Democrats? Does he have some magical, Republican-whisperer ability to quell a political opposition that will be determined from Day One to frustrate his program and regain power?

Obama's closing argument offers reassuring words, undergirded by his evident instinct for consensus and pragmatism.

I know how he wants to govern. I'm not convinced he can pull it off.

Neither am I, but I can hope.