Pot, meet kettle.

Liberty how do you refute Raines actually saying this in an interview?

"taken calls from Barack Obama's presidential campaign seeking his advice on mortgage and housing policy matters."

And ten years vs. two years. Hmm.

The point is that McCain can't criticize Obama's campaign when he and his advisors/managers are receiving financial help from the same company, regardless of the amount.

McCain's campaign manager isn't just on their payroll (bad enough) but they also lied about it!

Whate happened to that investigation about the mortgage sweetheart deals a bunch of senators got?

The linked article has a good account of Raines' actual relationship with the Obama campaign. Here's the link again.

its normal politics at this point.
both are equally as bad

>both are equally as bad

I think that's what the McCain campaign is counting on. Yes, both campaigns have run negative ads, so at first glance it may seem they're the same, but McCain has stooped much, much lower.

That is your opinion Torg. Not even all the your liberal compadres see it as one more than the other. They have both played ridiculous ads. Saying one is worse is silly.

I agree, Caterpillar, both are equally as bad. I don't care "who has done it more", blah, blah, blah - two wrongs don't make a right and just cuz someone else does something bad to you, doesn't mean it is then ok for you to do the same bad thing to get back at them. It is very unfortunate that this is our "politics as usual"....

That is so funny that you say that, GS, because for a second I thought, "Should I say this is just my opinion?" but then I literally thought, "No, it's obvious that it's my opinion. No need to say so explicitly."

So it's funny to me that you said that. I assume, in kind, that you mean that saying one is worse is silly, in your opinion.

> I don't care "who has done it more", blah, blah, blah - two wrongs don't make a right and just cuz someone else does something bad to you, doesn't mean it is then ok for you to do the same bad thing to get back at them.

Martini, I think that opinion and the many others like you are one of the greatest accomplishments of the McCain campaign. They have maneuvered excellently in this respect.

This story doesn't talk about an Obama ad. It talks about a McCain ad. It also talks about a McCain claim that his top adviser's firm had no connections, when in fact the firm had connections until last month.

torg, sorry to disabuse you of your false notion (at least in my case)...that is a bit of wisdom passed down from my mama, not from McCain....I happen to be leaning towards voting for Obama, actually - but that doesn't mean that I have to like the fact that his campaign stoops to a low level at times, and defend those actions blindly as "ok cuz the other guy is worse".

Both candidates are in bad positions because of "politics as usual." Because of my support of Obama I do feel the McCain camp has been worse and they started it (said in a whiny little kid voice, natch). It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't position for them BOTH.

As far as this post goes, I think it just goes to show that hypocrisy is both human nature and omnipresent in politics. And maybe my political stripes are showing, but I do feel like the McCain campaign is trying to elevate it to an art form. IMO, of course.

the straight talk express has taken a detour into b***s*** town

so glad people are talking about this. THIS is the story mccain wanted swept under the rug yesterday.

It's rather shameful to attack your opponent for something of which you yourself are guilty.

Agreed, Jude. Especially when your opponent is innocent and you are lying about him and have lied about your own misdeeds.

And yes, yy. This is what we should have been talking about yesterday.

I think both candidates have stooped low in this campaign. But this one involves a blantant lie about McCain's campaign manager and the money he is taking from Freddie Mac. McCain should clarify this and not ignore it.

True, how is it innocent when before the hubbub started Raines himself said it was true?

Raines said what was true? Raines stated he has not advised the Obama campaign.

Wait, so an ad that directly and accurately quoted the Washington Post is a lie because the Washington Post says it's a lie??? Well, was the Washington Post lying in the articles published in July and August or is it lying now? And if Raines did say that he advised Obama but now says that he did not, was he lying then or now?

Hey Martini!

"taken calls from Barack Obama's presidential campaign seeking his advice on mortgage and housing policy matters."

A Post reporter named Anita Huslin interviewed him on July 16 and he said this.

Hey, Bella!!!

Both Raines and the Obama campaign say he has never been an adviser to Obama. Someone working for the campaign called him a few times.

Torg, are you reading what I am posting. Before the sh!t hit the fan Raines was bragging about being an advisor. Are you so blinded by your devotion you can't see anything that doesn't fit with your views?

>Torg, are you reading what I am posting.

>Are you so blinded by your devotion you can't see anything that doesn't fit with your views?

Just to be clear, these are the parts of your post I'm ignoring because I think they're rude.

>Before the sh!t hit the fan Raines was bragging about being an advisor.

As far as I know, he took a few calls from a campaign staffer. If you can show me something about this bragging, though, I'm happy to see it.

Torg, they aren't rude. They are what I am picking up from you.

Raines was quoted in the Washington Post as saying he had had "taken calls from Barack Obama's presidential campaign seeking his advice on mortgage and housing policy matters." Hence, he claimed to be an advisor to Obama's campaign. Three times. And no one contradicted him until after the $hit hit the fan.

[>Torg, are you reading what I am posting.

>Are you so blinded by your devotion you can't see anything that doesn't fit with your views?

Just to be clear, these are the parts of your post I'm ignoring because I think they're rude.]

GWAD -- I love a good cat fight! :popcorn:

My opinion is they are rude. I suspect if I had said the same thing to you, you'd agree.

If you think I've just rubbed off on you, though, I invite you to point out to me where I have asked someone if they have read what I have posted, if their devotion is blinding them, or something similar.

But to the point, I think this is another area where McCain is hoping the public will think, "They both did it! It's a tie!" without bothering to notice that McCain's chief advisor, campaign manager Rick Davis was on Freddie Mac's payroll until a month ago whereas someone who works for the Obama campaign called Raines, who worked for Fannie Mae four years ago, to ask him a few questions.

good point TS... there's a big difference.

According to Sarah Palin's interview with Katie Couric, Rick Davis removed himself from the firm that took payments from Freddie Mac. When Katie then asserted that Rick Davis still has a stake in the firm, and therefore would get that benefit, and asked if that was a conflict of interest she just repeated her previous statement and danced around asking the question directly.

The difference here is the money changing hands, IMO. Was anyone from Obama's campaign paying Raines or vice versa?

"..without bothering to notice that McCain's chief advisor, campaign manager Rick Davis was on Freddie Mac's payroll until a month ago whereas someone who works for the Obama campaign called Raines, who worked for Fannie Mae four years ago, to ask him a few questions."

When you put it that way.. LOL!

Keep in mind the market collapse is a Republican mess. "Deregulation" is their company motto.

They Privatize profits and Socialize debt.
- Bill Clinton

Fact Check: Obama has received $526,000 in contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac combined. He is the largest recipient of such contributions behind Sen. Chris Dodd. This whole process began in the late 90's with an experiment in social engineering. Bill Clinton along with other eager Democrats and Republicans decided the best way to make low income wage earners more productive and more secure would be to give them access to low interest mortgages. A well-intentioned idea that spiraled out of control as the lending standards kept being lowered. It might make some mad on this topic thread, but the fact is the Democrats fought for these relaxed standards (Dodd and Rep. Barney Frank were quite vocal about opposition to these relaxed standards and they killed John McCain's challenge to it 2 plus years ago). The Bush administration warned congress a lot, but not vociferously and they were wrong for that. The problem worsened when conditions in the housing market changed. I did a muliple resource check on this information. Both parties are to blame, but the truth is the Dems fought harder for this social engineering. Bottom line, you can't give loans to people who can't pay them back and you can't trust unscrupulous lending institutions not to exploit them and you can't trust Wall Street institutions not to trade and speculate on financial institutions - like banks who make bad loans to people who can't pay them back... Hence the difficulty we are in. Worst of all, only 5% of these loans are bad. Everybody else has been meeting their obligations, but the other 5% ruined it for all when they fell victim to the higher cost of living brought on by the energy cost spike.