OT: 2008 Elections/Politics thread, Part 3

[JRod]

Oops. May want to rethink this one, guys...

param><param name="allowFullScreen" <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/bQ2I0t_Twk0&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>




From Forbes during the 2000 campaign

http://www.forbes.com/asap/2000/0529/053_print.html

In certain ways, McCain was a natural Web candidate. Chairman of the Senate Telecommunications Subcommittee and regarded as the U.S. Senate's savviest technologist, McCain is an inveterate devotee of email. His nightly ritual is to read his email together with his wife, Cindy. The injuries he incurred as a Vietnam POW make it painful for McCain to type. Instead, he dictates responses that his wife types on a laptop. "She's a whiz on the keyboard, and I'm so laborious," McCain admits.

Maybe they can point out in their next ad that Sarah Palin's infant son has funny looking eyes or something?

You stay classy, Obamanistas...

It's pretty easy to support your guy when they are being attacked but not when they are doing the attacking.

Remind me when you've called McCain out for making taking a pot-shot at Obama.

[XXXIV]

It's pretty easy to support your guy when they are being attacked but not when they are doing the attacking.

Remind me when you've called McCain out for making taking a pot-shot at Obama.

You are funny man...

[RobVarak]

It's pretty easy to support your guy when they are being attacked but not when they are doing the attacking.

Remind me when you've called McCain out for making taking a pot-shot at Obama.

I'm not calling him out for taking a pot shot. I'm calling him out for being a fool.

Running an ad which backfires by reminding people of the fact that McCain's service and sacrifice is not only classless but stupid.

[JRod]

It's pretty easy to support your guy when they are being attacked but not when they are doing the attacking.

Remind me when you've called McCain out for making taking a pot-shot at Obama.

I'm not calling him out for taking a pot shot. I'm calling him out for being a fool.

Running an ad which backfires by reminding people of the fact that McCain's service and sacrifice is not only classless but stupid.

Then that would depend on what is Obama's source.

I would imagine this is where it started, Yahoo doing some sort of Youtube thing with the Republican candidates. See below.

So in 2000, he states that his wife types for him. In the Republican Primary season, he says he's computer illiterate. Obama puts out an ad which uses the quote from John McCain.

McCain didn't say he couldn't type because of the injuries he suffered. In the yahoo video he clearly says that he's computer illiterate.

I would agree with your last post except for the fact that John McCain doesn't say he has limited use with a computer because of his past inflictions.

Sorry about the computer code that shows up.

<div><object width="512" height="322"><param name="movie" value="http://d.yimg.com/static.video.yahoo.co ... ver=2.2.30" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="AllowScriptAccess" VALUE="always" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#000000" /><param name="flashVars" value="id=6206369&vid=1884558&lang=en-us&intl=us&thumbUrl=http%3A//us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/i/bcst/videosearch/1488/56961404.jpeg&embed=1" /><embed src="http://d.yimg.com/static.video.yahoo.co ... ver=2.2.30" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="512" height="322" allowFullScreen="true" AllowScriptAccess="always" bgcolor="#000000" flashVars="id=6206369&vid=1884558&lang=en-us&intl=us&thumbUrl=http%3A//us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/i/bcst/videosearch/1488/56961404.jpeg&embed=1" ></embed></object><br /><a href="http://video.yahoo.com/watch/1884558/6206369">Mac or PC?</a> @ <a href="http://video.yahoo.com" >Yahoo! Video</a></div>

[FatPitcher]

It's pretty easy to support your guy when they are being attacked but not when they are doing the attacking.

Remind me when you've called McCain out for making taking a pot-shot at Obama.

I'm not calling him out for taking a pot shot. I'm calling him out for being a fool.

Running an ad which backfires by reminding people of the fact that McCain's service and sacrifice is not only classless but stupid.

I don't think the topic is out of bounds...I mean, you don't want some backwards techophobe running things.

But in this case it was horrible politics. Aside from calling even more attention to McCain's time as a P.O.W. (which Democrats accused Republicans of exploiting), I am sure it offended people who themselves are not very computer literate, and that crowd slants older and is more likely to vote. Meanwhile, who would it appeal to most? The 18-29 group, which is already on Obama's side and is unlikely to vote.

I can't even begin to understand how the Democrats have managed to fumble away this year's presidential election. First by nominating the wrong person for president, next by nominating the wrong person for vice president, and finally with this past week of attacks. Even if the attacks were on target instead of aimed at their own shoelaces, the only reason Obama has gotten this far is because he was perceived as being reasonable, idealistic, and above the fray, which jived with his status as a relative newcomer to national politics. Now he's just another politician doing what politicians always do...which is to be expected, certainly, but which will alienate supporters who were previously willing to give him a pass on his thin resume because they thought he was different.

[JRod]

It's pretty easy to support your guy when they are being attacked but not when they are doing the attacking.

Remind me when you've called McCain out for making taking a pot-shot at Obama.

I'm not calling him out for taking a pot shot. I'm calling him out for being a fool.

Running an ad which backfires by reminding people of the fact that McCain's service and sacrifice is not only classless but stupid.

I don't think the topic is out of bounds...I mean, you don't want some backwards techophobe running things.

But in this case it was horrible politics. Aside from calling even more attention to McCain's time as a P.O.W. (which Democrats accused Republicans of exploiting), I am sure it offended people who themselves are not very computer literate, and that crowd slants older and is more likely to vote. Meanwhile, who would it appeal to most? The 18-29 group, which is already on Obama's side and is unlikely to vote.

I can't even begin to understand how the Democrats have managed to fumble away this year's presidential election. First by nominating the wrong person for president, next by nominating the wrong person for vice president, and finally with this past week of attacks. Even if the attacks were on target instead of aimed at their own shoelaces, the only reason Obama has gotten this far is because he was perceived as being reasonable, idealistic, and above the fray, which jived with his status as a relative newcomer to national politics. Now he's just another politician doing what politicians always do...which is to be expected, certainly, but which will alienate supporters who were previously willing to give him a pass on his thin resume because they thought he was different.

They didn't fumble it away. If it was Obama/Clinton then we would be revisiting 1992 and Billy Bobs exploits. Or the republicans would be questioning who's really going to run this country.

Palin is doing what McCain could never do -- energize the base. That's great for McCain who goes from certain defeat to in the race. Both guys are neck and neck on the aggregate of polls.

I find it funny people say Obama is playing politics. Then McCain launches negatives ads with a small amount of truth. Is John McCain not running advertisements. John McCain is running that ads on Obama. Well they aren't quite the same because if you are a McCain supporter attack ads on Obama are ok. If you are a suppoter of Obama, the ads towards McCain are acceptable.

[Teal]

It's pretty easy to support your guy when they are being attacked but not when they are doing the attacking.

Remind me when you've called McCain out for making taking a pot-shot at Obama.

I'm not calling him out for taking a pot shot. I'm calling him out for being a fool.

Running an ad which backfires by reminding people of the fact that McCain's service and sacrifice is not only classless but stupid.

Then that would depend on what is Obama's source.

I would imagine this is where it started, Yahoo doing some sort of Youtube thing with the Republican candidates. See below.

So in 2000, he states that his wife types for him. In the Republican Primary season, he says he's computer illiterate. Obama puts out an ad which uses the quote from John McCain.

McCain didn't say he couldn't type because of the injuries he suffered. In the yahoo video he clearly says that he's computer illiterate.

I would agree with your last post except for the fact that John McCain doesn't say he has limited use with a computer because of his past inflictions.

Sorry about the computer code that shows up.

And how, if he can't use a computer...COULD HE KNOW HOW TO USE A COMPUTER?!? Geez, Louise. It's not like we'll be fighting a war against W.O.P.R. anytime soon.
Obama made a big mistake here. Big. That is, if the media crawl out of his ass long enough to see it for what it is.

[Jared]

There is a July NYT article where McCain says he is learning how to use a computer...so the limitation isn't because of his disability. Otherwise, how could he be learning it?

Yet another non-story...

(though I must admit that the ad is dumb just becauuse of the content, not for any exaggerated injury connection.)

[TheHiddenTrack]

I can't even begin to understand how the Democrats have managed to fumble away this year's presidential election. First by nominating the wrong person for president, next by nominating the wrong person for vice president, and finally with this past week of attacks. Even if the attacks were on target instead of aimed at their own shoelaces, the only reason Obama has gotten this far is because he was perceived as being reasonable, idealistic, and above the fray, which jived with his status as a relative newcomer to national politics. Now he's just another politician doing what politicians always do...which is to be expected, certainly, but which will alienate supporters who were previously willing to give him a pass on his thin resume because they thought he was different.

They both have repeatedly talked about how they weren't going to run typical campaigns. Guess what? McCain got nervous and started to go after Obama. And because of the excitement that Palin has brought and the negative ads, the momentum appears to be on McCain's side. So, like everyone suspected, Obama is responding. They are both being hypocritical but I do think McCain's campaign "started it." And I also think the McCain campaign has been less factual in their assertions and more negative.

As Rob says:

Seriously, every time I see some snivelling talking head unload a steaming pile of, "Americans are tired of the bickering and negativity," I want to treat my TV like Palin treats a wolf. In addition to being an affront to thinking people everywhere, this sentiment ignores history and human nature. We want blood. And we should expect candidates to pound on each other to determine the highest elective office in the nation.

So who decides what is too much? Who decides when candidates cross the line? The voters do. Rob seems to think there's no way out of this process and seems to like it (I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm characterizing you incorrectly). So I'd agree with Rob that right now it appears that the Americans aren't really "tired of the bickering and negativity."

FP I'm surprised that your surprised with how this election has gone. Negative campaigning in general works until it turns on you. And the republicans are better at running these types of campaigns. Now I'm not saying that republicans are the only ones doing it, but in this particular instance (and in the two past presidential campaigns) they have been more negative and (considering they won) more effective campaigners.

What it comes down to is the voters and until they actually get tired of the "bickering and negativity" this is what we get. And, like Rob said, maybe that's what humans want and there's no way out of this. History and biology would seem to support this assertion. For anything to change it would take political campaigns that simply don't think the end justify the means. I think McCain learned his lesson in 2000 and I think Obama is learning it right now. But in any case, this election is still going to come down to few states that are still very close. I think it's time for the Democrats to learn from Rove because otherwise they are just going to have failed candidates who give bitter and fiery speeches at conventions every four years. And it's funny because the Democrats have their own Roves all over the internet (so don't interpret this as me saying the democrats are more noble then the Republicans, we all know the far left competes or out competes the far right). I think if they want to win they need to employ these guys and learn how to frame issues better and manufacture controversies (seems like they may be heading that direction with the "house" issue and now the "internet" ad).

[FatPitcher]

They didn't fumble it away. If it was Obama/Clinton then we would be revisiting 1992 and Billy Bobs exploits. Or the republicans would be questioning who's really going to run this country.

Palin is doing what McCain could never do -- energize the base. That's great for McCain who goes from certain defeat to in the race. Both guys are neck and neck on the aggregate of polls.

I find it funny people say Obama is playing politics. Then McCain launches negatives ads with a small amount of truth. Is John McCain not running advertisements. John McCain is running that ads on Obama. Well they aren't quite the same because if you are a McCain supporter attack ads on Obama are ok. If you are a suppoter of Obama, the ads towards McCain are acceptable.

If the Democrats had Clinton/Obama or even Obama/Clinton, they would be much less vulnerable. True, some old Clinton stuff would be dredged up, but that would probably annoy voters more than persuade them.

I don't think McCain was headed for certain defeat. I think they were/are saving some of their heaviest-hitting stuff for the last month of the race.

I never said McCain's campaign was pure and innocent.

In any case, the sheer amount of unimportant and misleading accusations out of both camps lately is depressing.

The distinction I am drawing is that Obama's attacks lately have been inept to the point of backfiring, and McCain's haven't, not that one is more justified or honest than the other.

By the way, if you vote Republican this year, you're dimwitted: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/13/opini ... rbert.html

I was surprised when I read the transcript of the unedited Palin interview. Usually, when you edit something, you do it for brevity and snappier presentation rather than actually changing the meaning of what is said, as ABC's edit did in several cases, especially with regard to Russia.

[Teal]

And I also think the McCain campaign has been less factual in their assertions and more negative.

[JRod]

What it comes down to is the voters and until they actually get tired of the "bickering and negativity" this is what we get. And, like Rob said, maybe that's what humans want and there's no way out of this. History and biology would seem to support this assertion. For anything to change it would take political campaigns that simply don't think the end justify the means. I think McCain learned his lesson in 2000 and I think Obama is learning it right now. But in any case, this election is still going to come down to few states that are still very close. I think it's time for the Democrats to learn from Rove because otherwise they are just going to have failed candidates who give bitter and fiery speeches at conventions every four years. And it's funny because the Democrats have their own Roves all over the internet (so don't interpret this as me saying the democrats are more noble then the Republicans, we all know the far left competes or out competes the far right). I think if they want to win they need to employ these guys and learn how to frame issues better and manufacture controversies (seems like they may be heading that direction with the "house" issue and now the "internet" ad).

And there's enough evidence to show that running the "high road" campaign just flat out doesn't work.

McCain lost to Bush in 2000. Bush used outside groups to character assassinate McCain.

Kerry is a prime example of it. The swift boats ad ripped apart his service and you could say he took the high road in incompetently not responding. What happened he lost to Bush.

Rove politics work. Positive politics don't. If there was a successful positive or rather less nasty campaign, then others might take that road. Sadly the news media will laugh you right out the election.

Who's to blame? Probably everyone.

[Teal]

David Plouffe says in a campaign strategy memo; "We will respond with speed and ferocity to John McCain's attacks and we will take the fight to him, but we will do it on the big issues that matter to the American people."

Like disco balls and computer screens?

[Teal]

This just in:

McCain actually spent 5 1/2 years in a real Hilton in Hanoi, not the Hanoi Hilton-at least to hear Randi Rhodes tell it:
<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/tt8Sgt6K9YE&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed>

I didn't realize she was there...

[JRod]

The real Palin?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/po ... ref=slogin

It was from the NY Times so it has to be false. Even the ink they print on has a liberal tint to it.

She's not another McCain, she's another Cheney!

[TheHiddenTrack]

I'll admit that I suffer from bias and confirmation bias just like everyone does, but I do think McCain's campaign has been less factual and more negative than the Obama campaign has. Of course I'm only talking about things coming directly from campaigns because otherwise it would be impossible to judge. If you'd like to compare, find your top 10 distortions or negative things coming from the Obama campaign and then I'll pick my top 10 from McCain's and we can compare. And, once again, I'm not saying Obama's campaign has been perfectly clean, far from it.

[TheHiddenTrack]

It was from the NY Times so it has to be false. Even the ink they print on has a liberal tint to it.

As Stephen Colbert has said, "We all know reality has a well known liberal bias." I just read that article a few minutes ago, far more condemning than the seattletimes article I posted. Rob was right, the "hit jobs" keep on coming.

[FatPitcher]

The real Palin?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/po ... ref=slogin

It was from the NY Times so it has to be false. Even the ink they print on has a liberal tint to it.

She's not another McCain, she's another Cheney!

Good grief. They go through her life with a fine-tooth comb, and all they come up with is a bunch of piddly accusations from political enemies. At least they didn't accuse her of sexing a lobbyist, I guess.

If they are willing to go to such extreme lengths to "inform" us about Palin, I wonder how far they will go when it comes to actual Presidental candidates. Looking forward to seeing the story next week on how Obama's former roommate thought he had bad breath and didn't flush once.

[GTHobbes]

Rob was right, the "hit jobs" keep on coming.

And JRod was also right. She is coming across more and more like another Bush/Cheney. Sad.

[JRod]

It was from the NY Times so it has to be false. Even the ink they print on has a liberal tint to it.

As Stephen Colbert has said, "We all know reality has a well known liberal bias." I just read that article a few minutes ago, far more condemning than the seattletimes article I posted. Rob was right, the "hit jobs" keep on coming.

I guess the question then is how should they do it?

If they do any investigatory journalism it looks like hit jobs. If they write fluff pieces they look like Faux News. The problem here is not the validity of the story but who wrote it. In this case, NY times, which has a liberal perception by America.

Does the American people deserve to know everything about Palin's past political positions?

No one would dismiss Senator Obama's 8 years in the Illinois State Senate. No one dismissed Bush Jrs record as the Governor of Texas. Here if you find out what type of person Palin is by looking into her stint as Mayor and Governor. I think we have the right to know. Are these hatchet jobs?

My definition of a hatchet job is to distort fact in order push an agenda. By default, just because the Times has released some dubious articles in the past, doesn't disqualify this piece of journalism. If the merits of this article are confirmed by other articles, then that establishes multiple sources and reporting.

Though supporters of Palin, will say any article that is negative towards McCain/Palin is a hatchet job.

You know stories like this are always glossed over by the public before an election takes place.

I clearly remember hearing about Clinton's happy-fun times and thought to myself, this guys an adulterer. We knew it but accepted it until it bit us all. We had reports that Bush wasn't sharpest tool in the shed, but change was the order of the day. Eight years later, Al Gore wasn't such a bad option. Surely he couldn't have f***ed up things worse.

No we have reports about Palin's style. It's not just one or two stories of how she was vindictive towards others, there's patter while she was in the Mayor's and Governor's office. The pattern has been confirmed by multiple news sources and individual sources.

Like I said, humans only believe in what they want to believe. We'll convince ourselves of untruths if that makes us feel better about ourselves than accept reality.

[JRod]

The real Palin?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/po ... ref=slogin

It was from the NY Times so it has to be false. Even the ink they print on has a liberal tint to it.

She's not another McCain, she's another Cheney!

Good grief. They go through her life with a fine-tooth comb, and all they come up with is a bunch of piddly accusations from political enemies. At least they didn't accuse her of sexing a lobbyist, I guess.

If they are willing to go to such extreme lengths to "inform" us about Palin, I wonder how far they will go when it comes to actual Presidental candidates. Looking forward to seeing the story next week on how Obama's former roommate thought he had bad breath and didn't flush once.

I mean with this with zero malice...

Except it wasn't done by political enemies. Some of these people also had quotes where they said, "We love Sarah Palin."

Unless I misread, where did the article go personal? You brought up, jokingly, about Obama's roommate. That implies the article went into finding personal relationships not professional ones to get quotes.

As for as actual Presidential candidates, we've had two years of it. With Palin, we have around 50 days to figure out if McCain made the right decision. Fifty days to discover just who is one heartbeat away from the leader of the free world.

Shouldn't we be more cautious this time? I think everyone will agree that last 8 years haven't been our best as a nation. If Palin has to go through the ringer but we learn the McCain/Palin is simly the right choice for America, than the process of finding out just who is Sarah Palin, was well worth it.

[FatPitcher]

Rob was right, the "hit jobs" keep on coming.

And JRod was also right. She is coming across more and more like another Bush/Cheney. Sad.

That was the whole point of the story, to promote the "McCain/Palin = Bush" message of Obama's campaign. Pretty pathetic that they put in all this effort to help their guy and could only come up with a handful of gripes more fit for a network reality show than a political story.

They could easily do a similarly angled story about any politician they cared to, especially ones who rock the boat and make enemies like McCain and Palin. I suspect no Democrats will have all their emails searched by the Times in the hope of finding something, anything, to bring them down a notch.

[FatPitcher]

The real Palin?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/po ... ref=slogin

It was from the NY Times so it has to be false. Even the ink they print on has a liberal tint to it.

She's not another McCain, she's another Cheney!

Good grief. They go through her life with a fine-tooth comb, and all they come up with is a bunch of piddly accusations from political enemies. At least they didn't accuse her of sexing a lobbyist, I guess.

If they are willing to go to such extreme lengths to "inform" us about Palin, I wonder how far they will go when it comes to actual Presidental candidates. Looking forward to seeing the story next week on how Obama's former roommate thought he had bad breath and didn't flush once.

I mean with this with zero malice...

Except it wasn't done by political enemies. Some of these people also had quotes where they said, "We love Sarah Palin."

Unless I misread, where did the article go personal? You brought up, jokingly, about Obama's roommate. That implies the article went into finding personal relationships not professional ones to get quotes.

As for as actual Presidential candidates, we've had two years of it. With Palin, we have around 50 days to figure out if McCain made the right decision. Fifty days to discover just who is one heartbeat away from the leader of the free world.

Shouldn't we be more cautious this time? I think everyone will agree that last 8 years haven't been our best as a nation. If Palin has to go through the ringer but we learn the McCain/Palin is simly the right choice for America, than the process of finding out just who is Sarah Palin, was well worth it.

I agree. And the Times has done more real digging in 10 days on Palin, the Vice-Presidential candidate, than they have in 2 years on Obama, the Presidential candidate. It's truly pathetic.

Edit: and judging by the newsworthiness of what they included in the article, they are basically taking the shotgun approach, throwing out every little stupid thing they can find and hoping something sticks. It's sad when a campaign stoops to that, and downright disgusting when a supposedly objective media outlet does.

[JRod]

Edit: and judging by the newsworthiness of what they included in the article, they are basically taking the shotgun approach, throwing out every little stupid thing they can find and hoping something sticks. It's sad when a campaign stoops to that, and downright disgusting when a supposedly objective media outlet does.

The shotgun approach isn't too hope something sticks. It's the idea of today's media to put everything out there for the public.

Do you have any proof that they have done more digging on these ten-short days with Palin than Obama in two years? Or is that just your perception?

We have 50 some days left. She's been on the national stage for 10 days. Obama for two years. Obama's "dirt" came up over 2 years. Obama is mostly a known commodity. Has the NYT ran an article on how he has run his Senate office? All the information on Palin is coming at once. That creates the perception of a hit job being done.

Then again, McCain/Palin stated that in the two years as Alaska's governor and mayor of a small town, she has more executive experience than Obama/Biden together. By making that statement she opens up her executive style because that's the record she is claiming to be stronger than her opponents.

Are these trite facts? What else do we have as a barometer that she has "it" to be President? Her word. Her family. The republican party telling us that she's a good person.

The other problem is that in two short years in state office, you aren't going to do enough to develop a huge record. And as a small-town mayor you just don't have enough big issues that show what kind of President someone will be. Dealing with a bad City Attorney and Iran are not exactly comparable. So what we are left with is combing over a very "green" candidate with no national experience. The results are finding about these things because is what exists.

[FatPitcher]

I have no problem with them doing digging on Palin. Good for them. But the article is clearly written to do political damage, not to inform. It throws around various accusations but breezes on to another one without giving a full picture. For example, what were the qualifications of the classmates Palin hired? How did they compare to the people removed? Bears "in danger"? But technically "endangered" or not? And of course, they couldn't be bothered to get a response from the McCain campaign about any of it. It's long on opinions, accusations and he said/she said but short on real information.

As far as "stuff coming out" about Obama over two years, I think that is a crock. Pretty much anything negative that has come out has been from bloggers and opposition campaigns, not from the media. Has the NYT filed requests for all of Obama's emails from when he was in the Illinois Senate? Have they interviewed 30 Democrat and 30 Republican colleagues, rivals, and enemies of his from Chicago? Have they done any articles on how much of a failure his public housing and education initiatives were? Have they even attempted to see if there is more of a link between Ayers and Obama than Obama has admitted to? Or do they just take him at his word?