Obama/Biden vs. McCain/Palin

[TimeForGuinness]

If Joce says chill, we should chill

I agree. Just look on the bright side and see how much progress this country has made. Just 175 years ago none of the racist, secessionist politicians were female.

(chuckles)

[TimeForGuinness]

Interesting article about where the candidates stand on key issues: http://www.newsday.com/news/local/polit ... ory?page=1


...not like anyone cares because it doesn't include *THE MOST IMPORTANT* topics like: abortion, gay rights, etc...

(rolls eyes)

[ghostrunner]

I heard Obama commenting on Palin earlier. He mentioned the bridge, which is valid, but otherwise he has got to stop that. The Presidential candidate can't be commenting on the other VP pick in his stump speeches. He referenced the bridge and then said something to the effect of "you can't just remake yourself." The bridge is fair game, but he has to criticize her through McCain (who has repeated the claim), and not come off complaining about her new popularity, which is how he sounded to me. As soon as I heard it, I was cringing, because it's the first time I've heard him do this.

Unlike Biden and his plagiarism issues all her stuff is coming out at once, so she looks like she's being beaten up. I can count at least 10 complaints that have come against her. Many of them are proving to be exaggerated or untrue, like the book banning story. Some are personal, like the family and religious stuff, so people are sympathetic to her. That leaves legitimate questions like the bridge (though taking too much credit isn't new for politicans) and troopergate lost in the shuffle.

Instead of keeping to the high road that Obama had laid out and was largely succeeding with, the more liberal websites and media are working themselves back into anti-Bush mode, both astonished at what they perceive as her inexperience, combined with outrage at her community organizer comments. They can't make her the new Bush if they want to get anywhere.

Any comments on her have to come from Biden and Obama's spokespersons, and he should be hammering her on only legitimate, provable flaws.

As far as her not talking to the media, she's apparently got a one on one interview scheduled with Charles Gibson on Thursday. So again, the complaints about this have been too numerous and premature and are coming off badly, IMO.

[planet planet]

the more liberal websites and media are working themselves back into anti-Bush mode, both astonished at what they perceive as her inexperience, combined with outrage at her community organizer comments. They can't make her the new Bush if they want to get anywhere.

Why? What's wrong with anti-Bush mode? If we're going to go broken record on this campaign, i.e. POW war hero, we need to hear more about Bush's tenure, not less. Did you see the excerpts from her speech at the Alaskan pentecostal church? This is not heresay and smoke and mirrors, i.e. Swift Boat, these are factual events/coverage and it's high time voters see these events. By all means, couple them with party spin, but the more factual information that's out there for voters to digest, the better.

[GatewaySnayke]

Well, I think Obama/Biden do have to go after her in the stump speeches. The minute McCain made Palin the VP pick, he basically admitted that this election is about her. He's become a non-factor in his own presidential campaign and that's largely because he picked such a polarizing person.

Sure, they can attack McCain for using poor judgement on a "far-right lunatic who thinks the troops were on a mission from God" but this Palin thing is unprecedented.

[clement]

Obama saying that he never heard Wright say things like "God damn America!" and saying that he did hear him say controversial things are not contradictory statements, much less evidence that he's a liar.

Palin has only agreed to an interview as a result of the pressure that has been placed on his campaign to put her up for an interview. And even then, it is in a very restricted, non-live format that allows Palin the opportunity to walk out at any time. She has hand-picked which reporter is given the privilege, as opposed to people like McCain, Biden, and Obama, who have done numerous interviews and will continue to do as many as they can to get their message on network TV for free as often possible. Obama even just completed an interview with O'Reilly, who is about as biased an interviewer as you can get (after Limbaugh).

I saw doc's post too. Controversial, but a lot of truth in it in my opinion... but far too complex an issue to debate on the internet.

I just saw a report on CNN where Palin was in attendance at her church the week before getting picked by McCain and some guy (a former Jew, now Christian) gave a speech and said that attacks on Israel are God's punishment for Jews who have not embraced Christianity. Now back to "As the mud turns".

[Freed Roger]

Save us from the Good people.

[planet planet]

With all the political passion on this forum, is anyone involved in either campaign? Meaning volunteer work, voter registration, etc.?

[Leroy]

With all the political passion on this forum, is anyone involved in either campaign? Meaning volunteer work, voter registration, etc.?

Me.

But I'm BiPartisan. I show up for the free drinks and don't look back.

[ghostrunner]

the more liberal websites and media are working themselves back into anti-Bush mode, both astonished at what they perceive as her inexperience, combined with outrage at her community organizer comments. They can't make her the new Bush if they want to get anywhere.

Why? What's wrong with anti-Bush mode? If we're going to go broken record on this campaign, i.e. POW war hero, we need to hear more about Bush's tenure, not less. Did you see the excerpts from her speech at the Alaskan pentecostal church? This is not heresay and smoke and mirrors, i.e. Swift Boat, these are factual events/coverage and it's high time voters see these events. By all means, couple them with party spin, but the more factual information that's out there for voters to digest, the better.

Because Obama has succeeded not by being anti-Bush, but by being for something. That's what makes him appealing to moderates. I'm not saying don't criticize Bush himself, but don't create another Bush in the process. In the end voters didn't care what was said at Obama's church, and I don't think they care about hers. The bridge is fair game, but for example it hasn't been shown that proven that she's absolutely for injecting creationism into curriculum. I've seen at least one statement from her to the contrary. Even if it were, voters don't care about it that much. People who are already voting for Obama do, but not the average voter IMO. I don't like it, but I don't care what the President thinks about it.

Biden can go after her, but in my opinion Obama should not. To the extent he does it will be recorded and repeated and he should not be seen as being concerned about her, and he shouldn't be adding to her fame. Adding to the chorus of her critics isn't going to help him at all. It's also weird from the voter's perspective to hear him talking about the VP when he's not even competing with her. I don't recall McCain mentioning Biden once.