Unfortunately, when Palin makes snarky comments about Obama's community service being irrelevant and trivial, many voters take her at her word. When McCain proclaims that Obama is going to raise taxes, many voters don't take the time to do the research to realize that Obama's tax plan will almost exclusively only hurt the richest of the rich.
You're still claiming this only goes one way? When Obama says, "my opponent will.... In my plan, I'll..." do you think Joe and Cindy Moderate are researching the ins-and-outs of McCain's plan either? You think that Obama is perfectly representing McCain's plans in his speeches?
And don't say that he hasn't compared his plan to McCain's. He most certainly has. He's spent a great deal of time doing it. That's not mud slinging. That's simple policy debate. It's one-sided, but no one is blaming anyone for publicly representing their side over their opponents.
And you keep talking about this stuff going both ways, but mud-slinging truly wasn't the theme at the Dem. convention, but clearly was at the Republican convention. It's really not going both ways, despite your assumption that it probably is.
You keep talking about the convention as if it's some vacuum and that nothing before that matters. As if we're voting tomorrow and we have to base our votes on the how well the "other" convention speakers represented their party. My point all along is that mud has and will be slung by many people on both sides. Lots of people have said lots of things about both candidates, and lots of the time it's not flattering. One parties definition of "truth" is another parties definition of "inflammatory". This will go on and on, so much so that it's going to be difficult for one party to gain the advantage over the other because of mud slinging.
Here's an example...
When Palin says "this is a man who's authored two memoirs, but not a single major law or even a reform, not even in the state Senate", people assume that it's true, rather than stopping to consider that she may be misinformed.
Has he himself personally authored a major law or reform? (Honest question, I don't know and don't really care, for that matter.)
Because if he hasn't then that's the truth, despite you viewing it as an attack. It might even be a misleading statement, but no moreso than one that you've thrown out again and again on the forum and one that has been bandied about by dems for awhile... "McCain has voted with the president 90% of the time".
Have you looked up what % Obama has voted with the president? After all, a large portion of votes in Congress are unanimous in support of a resolution or proclamation, (i.e. congratulating the Jayhawks on the national championship, etc.)
So, your statement is a truth, though a misleading one, and it can be construed as an attack by the other side. And on and on the merry-go-round goes...
