Is this the nastiest, meanest Presidential campaign of modern times?

[RickJay]

The 2004 campaign was nasty, but at least to my perception this one is way, way past it. It's now pretty much open season for Republicans to claim "liberals" are un-American terrorists. The Democrats are winning and haven't quite gone that far but their own primary was unusually vicious, with plentiful race-baiting and attempts to change campaign rules to the advantage of various candidates, and I've no doubt they'll crack open the artillery if things get close these last few weeks.

The stuff I'm seeing on TV is just beyond the pale. Two major networks have abandoned all pretense of objectivity. The talking heads are saying things I would expect of campus radicals or Nazi henchmen. I just saw a clip of Dennis Miller babbling about Obama and I'm pretty sure he was drunk. I don't recall Reagan and Mondale saying shit like this about each other, or even Clinton and Dole. Or even Bush and Gore.

Is this the worst it's ever been?

[Governor Quinn]

Originally Posted by RickJay

Is this the worst it's ever been?

Before I continue, it would help to know what your definition of modern times is.

Obviously, the 19th century is out (and campaigns were really vicious then), but I'd like to know when you think modern times began before I can make any nominations.

[DanBlather]

I've been paying attention since '68 and this is by far the worst. The Senate campaigh in Oregon is dreadful as well. Way, way over the top.

[Invisible Chimp]

Having just seen "W." tonight I was reminded of Willie Horton again, which is in the movie. Is this really worse than Willie Horton?

[elelle]

I think it is, and simply because the game is played by totally different rules, even in the space of four years.

The political game is now played in quick minutes, with an array of broadcast media outlets, and a 24/7 internet sphere. It gets nasty because the game is now based on quick judgement to deal with that milieu, and that type of judgement isn't necessarily the best for longterm goals. I'm not sure what we can do about that sort of reactionary approach, besides coming to a skidding halt of examination.

To me, it's immensely sad that it also burns out the voters in thinking they can do anything to help their own country. I pay a whole lot of attention to issues, and work hard to educate myself to vote conscientiously, but, this crap is burning me out .

[Squink]

They haven't killed any of the Democratic candidates yet, but yeah, this is a bad year.

[dalej42]

I remember 1988 very well and this is far worse. Dukakis was beaten early in that campaign.

This is the worst one in a long time. Shouts of "Kill Him" and "Terrorist" The 1988 get out of jail free cards were making fun of Dukakis' prison furlough program. Ok, they were making fun of a policy, but no one advocated his assassination.

I will be glad when this one is over. I don't like the way it makes me feel about McCain supporters.

[RickJay]

Originally Posted by Governor Quinn

Before I continue, it would help to know what your definition of modern times is.

Obviously, the 19th century is out (and campaigns were really vicious then), but I'd like to know when you think modern times began before I can make any nominations.

I would say with the advent of mass media as we currently understand it, which would mean at least wire service and radio. So, basically, after World War I.

[Mr. Moto]

Has anyone tried to sway this election yet using forged documents?

[Plan B]

No cites available here, but IMHO 2000 and 2004 were much worse. GWB, the only POTUS to earn degrees from Harvard and Yale, has been treated like an absolute moron because of occasional slips of the tongue. OTOH, the attacks on Palin have been pretty awful - I think they came up with 91 false rumors during the first two weeks. Also this seems to be the first time that there's been a sustained pattern of attacks on a candidate's children. And The NYT went after Cindy McCain this weekend, but hasn't had time to investigate Michelle Obama.

To be fair there's only been a few wackos attacking McCain in over the top nasty ways. Not enough to matter.

I don't think that Obama or Biden have been treated unfairly. Most Republicans just seem to accept that Biden makes a lot of gaffes, much more than Bush ever did. How much have you heard about them? Like within the last day or so, he said the word "JOBS" has three letters. No big deal, when I heard about it there was no commentary except that if Palin had said that.....

As for Obama, I wish McCain and the MSM would go after him a lot more. Not personally, but things that reflect on his view of America. Still not enough pressure to answer questions about Ayers, Raines, Rezko, "spread the wealth around," etc.

[Invisible Chimp]

I have a short political memory to draw on as I was 9 in '88, so I don't really remember Willie Horton first hand. I think all political campaigns are vicious in the moment, but this won't seem as bad after the fact and we put some distance from it.

[gonzomax]

Originally Posted by Mr. Moto

Has anyone tried to sway this election yet using forged documents?

Especially forged documents which were truthful. Those are the worst kind. The secretary said I did not write that letter but I wrote one like it.

[gonzomax]

What Rove and his pals did to McCain in 2000 was criminal. Swift boated him as badly as they did Kerry. They have no low limit.

[Governor Quinn]

Originally Posted by RickJay

I would say with the advent of mass media as we currently understand it, which would mean at least wire service and radio. So, basically, after World War I.

In that case...

I would like to nominate 1928 as being a rather horrendous campaign in certain parts of the United States, 1936 was fairly ugly and, in some ways, symbolizes a streak in politics of the late 1930s/early 1940s that's rather familiar to politics now, 1964 opened a door that can't be sealed back up, and certain campaigns either by specific candidates (Wallace 1968) or against them (the anti-Socialist campaigns of 1920) are fairly rank.

[DianaG]

Originally Posted by Plan B

And The NYT went after Cindy McCain this weekend, but hasn't had time to investigate Michelle Obama.

Cindy McCain is a drug addict who stole from charity to support her habit, and I've heard very little about that this election season. That's as it should be, IMO, but I heard waaaaaaaaaay more about whether Michelle Obama is "really proud of America". And I'm just sayin'... when you start raising questions about the other guy's "associations", you should maybe glance over your shoulder at the person you married.

[jtgain]

The first election I really remember was 1988, and every election since then I've heard that this one was the "worst one ever" as far as negative ads.

People hate negative ads in the abstract, but get one that works like Willie Horton, or Clinton saying that Dole wanted to feed old people dog food, or that crazy flip-flop ad with John Kerry's white legs showing on his sailboat, people react. People have emotions and negatives spread better than positives.

[gonzomax]

Originally Posted by Plan B

No cites available here, but IMHO 2000 and 2004 were much worse. GWB, the only POTUS to earn degrees from Harvard and Yale, has been treated like an absolute moron because of occasional slips of the tongue. OTOH, the attacks on Palin have been pretty awful - I think they came up with 91 false rumors during the first two weeks. Also this seems to be the first time that there's been a sustained pattern of attacks on a candidate's children. And The NYT went after Cindy McCain this weekend, but hasn't had time to investigate Michelle Obama.

To be fair there's only been a few wackos attacking McCain in over the top nasty ways. Not enough to matter.

I don't think that Obama or Biden have been treated unfairly. Most Republicans just seem to accept that Biden makes a lot of gaffes, much more than Bush ever did. How much have you heard about them? Like within the last day or so, he said the word "JOBS" has three letters. No big deal, when I heard about it there was no commentary except that if Palin had said that.....

As for Obama, I wish McCain and the MSM would go after him a lot more. Not personally, but things that reflect on his view of America. Still not enough pressure to answer questions about Ayers, Raines, Rezko, "spread the wealth around," etc.

Do you think a rich and powerful family like the Bushs actually have to work for degrees. ? Ever here of gentlemens Cs. What school would risk pissing off the powerful families when they want endowments ,speakers and the prestige of having their schools associated with the big shots. Bush sounds like a stumble bum for a good reason.

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by Plan B

I don't think that Obama or Biden have been treated unfairly.

You don't think it was unfair for Palin to say that Obama is "palling around with terrorists", even though the article she cited for that claim actually said "the two men do not appear to have been close. Nor has Mr. Obama ever expressed sympathy for the radical views and actions of Mr. Ayers, whom he has called 'somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8'"? You wouldn't call that an unfair characterization of Obama's actions?

You don't think it's unfair for conservatives to accuse Obama of covering up his alleged "Muslim past"?

You don't think the whole Swiftboat thing in 2004 was unfair to John Kerry?

In short, you don't seem to think that lying about political candidates counts as "unfairness", as long as the candidates are Democrats.

[XT]

The Bush/Kerry election was pretty nasty. I'm not sure that this one has risen to that level of nastiness, though admittedly it's going to be pretty subjective. I guess it depends on where you cut off 'modern times' though. Some of the elections in our early history were VERY nasty...making this contest or even the Bush/Kerry contest seem almost cordial...

-XT

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by Plan B

OTOH, the attacks on Palin have been pretty awful

Especially the ones from members of her own party, eh?
Christopher Buckley, conservative Republican columnist:

Sarah Palin is an embarrassment, and a dangerous one at that. [...]

Kathleen Parker, conservative Republican columnist:

[...] I watch her interviews with the held breath of an anxious parent, my finger poised over the mute button in case it gets too painful. Unfortunately, it often does. My cringe reflex is exhausted. [...]

If BS were currency, Palin could bail out Wall Street herself.

If Palin were a man, we’d all be guffawing, just as we do every time Joe Biden tickles the back of his throat with his toes. But because she’s a woman — and the first ever on a Republican presidential ticket — we are reluctant to say what is painfully true.

David Frum, conservative Republican columnist:

I think she has pretty thoroughly — and probably irretrievably — proven that she is not up to the job of being president of the United States [...] Dan Quayle never in his life has performed as badly as Sarah Palin in the last month.

[Jolly Roger]

I can't find the link to the comments part of this, (its 0645 here, I'm just waking up and I haven't had my coffee yet) but apparently some folks believe that the crowd at Obama's speech in Missouri are photoshopped. After all, how could he possibly have 100,000 show up>

I don't understand why anyone would think Obama or his campaign, supporters and the Secret Service would lie about the crowd estimate. It'd be far too easy to debunk and I think if it was a fake picture McCain/ Palin would be All Over It calling Obama a liar.

[IClaudius]

Originally Posted by Plan B

No cites available here, but IMHO 2000 and 2004 were much worse. GWB, the only POTUS to earn degrees from Harvard and Yale, has been treated like an absolute moron because of occasional slips of the tongue. OTOH, the attacks on Palin have been pretty awful - I think they came up with 91 false rumors during the first two weeks. Also this seems to be the first time that there's been a sustained pattern of attacks on a candidate's children. And The NYT went after Cindy McCain this weekend, but hasn't had time to investigate Michelle Obama.

To be fair there's only been a few wackos attacking McCain in over the top nasty ways. Not enough to matter.

I don't think that Obama or Biden have been treated unfairly. Most Republicans just seem to accept that Biden makes a lot of gaffes, much more than Bush ever did. How much have you heard about them? Like within the last day or so, he said the word "JOBS" has three letters. No big deal, when I heard about it there was no commentary except that if Palin had said that.....

As for Obama, I wish McCain and the MSM would go after him a lot more. Not personally, but things that reflect on his view of America. Still not enough pressure to answer questions about Ayers, Raines, Rezko, "spread the wealth around," etc.

The cognitive dissonance of this post is pretty staggering. There's just too much to cover here - so I'm limiting myself to your weak defence of Bush.

Notwithstanding that I can agree GWB's intellect has frequently been unfairly caricatured in media, it's a huge strawman argument you're engaging in here. You’re selectively mocking the unfair bits, whilst ignoring all contrary evidence of meaningful shortcomings.

Fact is, Bush is a classic example of someone who drifted through entire episodes of his life on the coattails of inherited privileges he lucked into on the basis of his family's wealth, connections and prestige. It is a matter of record that he is the black sheep of the family, compared to Jeb, who lived a frat-boy lifestyle until he found Christianity and political opportunity conveniently at around the same time, after several failed business ventures mind.

Yes, he attended an ivy league education. But what do you honestly think that means for a person of Bush's lineage? Are you simply not prepared to think about the reality of dynastic elites and wealthy benefactors in America, and how that works with admissions? And what about his grades? Looking at his "c" average, are you suggesting his graduation on that basis is really signifying much, when you take into consideration the enormity of the support he can draw upon, and the comparative intellectual depth of his father?

Look, I fully concede that Bush is a more complicated figure than he has been painted at times. At least once in office, he has been ostensibly reading a respectable amount of American history - which doesn’t quite neatly align with the stereotype. On that score, he's certainly more engaged with history and ideas than the blank slate Palin, though it's arguable that he was much closer to that state prior to entering office.

I do I take him at his word that he has actually read these works. But what does that say, I’m not sure. I think the disaster he has wrought certainly provides ample incentives for him to run to history as a way of trying to reconcile his lot in life with the history of the office's challenges, and to discover shoehorned parallels, like with Truman, which might bear the weight of rehabilitating his self esteem and stature in historical terms.

But are we supposed to simply ignore the way he has governed in office as a measure of his basic depth and curiosity as a person in all this? I mean, what about the chronic insularity he has displayed? It is a matter of record that one of the worst problems with his administration, was that he deployed no effective cabinet management, and simply let underlings fight it out to determine the core policies of his administration, frequently in defiance of his own explicit directives. What does that say about him? Even Reagan, who wasn’t exactly a intellectual paragon, actually deployed a minimum level of competence in having a cabinet strategy and listening to advice and putting egos in place. Bush, by contrast, let Cheney-Addington almost run a shadow government, fatally undermining the objective of having unambiguous and clear national policies, as they engaged in turf wars with the State Department, and he had Rice come in and bring him up to speed with basic knowledge with crib-notes versions of geopolitics and history.

Also, what about his approach to disagreement? Any claim to intellect I think has to go hand in hand with a openness to dissent. But Bush, from the start of his campaigning all the way to the end of his term, has been happy hide behind hand-picked audience, pre-vetting questions, and press management – which used access black lists to isolate journalists who offer hard questions. Now maybe this is acceptable to US conservatives these days to have vacuous paper symbols as leaders- but in my country, which has a rich Parliamentary tradition, we expect our leaders to be able to face questions and answer them coherently as a sign of their basic fitness for office. At this point, I’m basically embarrassed for you that you appear to have such low standards for what is basic competence.

And this is to say nothing of the continuous bad judgement he has shown in office, time and time again, on issue after issue. That he sought preferment for high positions in the executive and judiciary, on a criteria of familial or personal loyalty, rather than qualification. I could go on and on.
Oh, and to dismiss the linguistic torture Bush has engaged in over the years, the mixed metaphors, the made-up words, the misapplied terminology, and the basic butchery of English is just such weak sauce.

The comparison with Biden is completely off. Biden shows nothing like the frequency of fuzzy-mindedness of Bush. Biden has some gaffes, sure, but they sit alongside a clearly thoughtful policy brain, which engaged with the issues, and he is entirely capable of unscripted sophisticated conversation about any issue of the day. This is nothing like Bush, who exhibits a probability approaching 1, for linguistic abortion whenever he is allowed an unscripted moment, and even when he is reading a teleprompter, problems are frequent. Now, we can debate about whether that really means he can’t be a sophisticated thinker or not, but there is no equivalency there if you’re being intellectually honest about it.

[Jolly Roger]

Originally Posted by Jolly Roger

I can't find the link to the comments part of this, (its 0645 here, I'm just waking up and I haven't had my coffee yet) but apparently some folks believe that the crowd at Obama's speech in Missouri are photoshopped. After all, how could he possibly have 100,000 show up>

I don't understand why anyone would think Obama or his campaign, supporters and the Secret Service would lie about the crowd estimate. It'd be far too easy to debunk and I think if it was a fake picture McCain/ Palin would be All Over It calling Obama a liar.

Found it. My thanks to Captain Carrot for having the link in his post in this thread.

[Clu-Me-In]

I fear mightily for Obama's safety and for the safety of his family.

I fear that the personal attacks by McCain-Palin has served to wake up the racial hatred that has been laying dormant in some folks for quite sometime now. Many feel freer now to let it loose at Obama - the terrorist, the Arab, the Fascist, the Socialist, the Communist, the Muslim, the illegal Alien, the one who is "not like us" or " not one of us."

I fear that what we have seen in this election is a microcosm of what things could be like if Obama wins this election.

I fear that there will be an even deeper distrust and cynicism that will permeate deeply into the American populace and perhaps rip a wider hole in the fabric of our future as a country.

I fear that the disastrous standing of our economy will give rise to scapegoating, finger-pointing and outright hostility for anyone who is not of "mainstream" America.

With cause, I fear for my country.

[astro]

Originally Posted by IClaudius

I do I take him at his word that he has actually read these works. But what does that say, I’m not sure. I think the disaster he has wrought certainly provides ample incentives for him to run to history as a way of trying to reconcile his lot in life with the history of the office's challenges, and to discover shoehorned parallels, like with Truman, which might bear the weight of rehabilitating his self esteem and stature in historical terms.

Hmm... excellent point.

[Hostile Dialect]

Originally Posted by Governor Quinn

I would like to nominate 1928 as being a rather horrendous campaign in certain parts of the United States, 1936 was fairly ugly and, in some ways, symbolizes a streak in politics of the late 1930s/early 1940s that's rather familiar to politics now, 1964 opened a door that can't be sealed back up, and certain campaigns either by specific candidates (Wallace 1968) or against them (the anti-Socialist campaigns of 1920) are fairly rank.

Um, details?

[Mosier]

Nothing in this election cycle is worse than "if you knew John McCain fathered an illegitimate black child, would you be less likely to vote for him?" from 2000. Nothing in this election cycle is worse than the Swiftboating that happened in 2004, either.

Clu-Me-In, what I gather from your post is that you expect the election of a half black president to increase racial tension in the US. Try as I might, I can't wrap my head around this argument. The fact that a part black president is on the verge of being elected shows that Americans are much more tolerant of minority races than you're trying to argue.

[Shayna]

Originally Posted by Kimstu

Especially the ones from members of her own party, eh?
Christopher Buckley, conservative Republican columnist:

Kathleen Parker, conservative Republican columnist:

David Frum, conservative Republican columnist:

Don't leave out Peggy Noonan:

But we have seen Mrs. Palin on the national stage for seven weeks now, and there is little sign that she has the tools, the equipment, the knowledge or the philosophical grounding one hopes for, and expects, in a holder of high office.

. . .

But it's unclear whether she is Bushian or Reaganite. She doesn't think aloud. She just . . . says things.

. . .

She is not as thoughtful or persuasive as Joe the Plumber, who in an extended cable interview Thursday made a better case for the Republican ticket than the Republican ticket has made. In the past two weeks she has spent her time throwing out tinny lines to crowds she doesn't, really, understand. This is not a leader, this is a follower, and she follows what she imagines is the base, which is in fact a vast and broken-hearted thing whose pain she cannot, actually, imagine. She could reinspire and reinspirit; she chooses merely to excite. She doesn't seem to understand the implications of her own thoughts.

. . .

In the end the Palin candidacy is a symptom and expression of a new vulgarization in American politics. It's no good, not for conservatism and not for the country. And yes, it is a mark against John McCain, against his judgment and idealism.

Or Andrew Sullivan, who voted for McCain in the primaries. and cannot stand Sarah Palin, so he'll be voting for Obama on November 4th.

Yeah, when the vice presidential candidate incites her crowds to yell out "kill him", "traitor", and "terrorist," and then doesn't immediately rebuke them and have them dragged out on their asses, it doesn't get any uglier than that. It's repulsive.

[garygnu]

Originally Posted by Plan B

...I don't think that Obama or Biden have been treated unfairly...

Has any other candidate for President ever been accused of being a terrorist? Is it unfair to claim Obama is a lying traitor that wants nothing more than to kill Americans after being sworn in?

[The Second Stone]

In 1968 they shot Bobby Kennedy through the heart and killed him. This was after shooting his brother through the head in 1963. (It is awfully suspicious to me that GHWB can't remember where he was when he heard the news. Every other American alive can remember where they were. Oh, and he was suing Gov. Connolly at the time too.) It is awfully suspicious to me that Lee Harvey Oswald (who I do think was a shooter) managed to be the first and only major assassin of a major politician to do it from cover and not brag about the whole act.

Every campaign is dirty. This one is no dirtier than most. The campaign where Chambliss smeared Cleland is the most disgusting for things said. Killing Bobby Kennedy was the dirtiest campaign in American history.

[Robot Arm]

1972 was pretty nasty, including the Canuck Letter.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Mosier

Clu-Me-In, what I gather from your post is that you expect the election of a half black president to increase racial tension in the US. Try as I might, I can't wrap my head around this argument. The fact that a part black president is on the verge of being elected shows that Americans are much more tolerant of minority races than you're trying to argue.

He/she is obviously saying that the people who ARE still racist will go absolutely berserk if Obama gets in. Especially with the Republicans whipping them up.

[astro]

Originally Posted by The Second Stone

In 1968 they shot Bobby Kennedy through the heart and killed him. This was after shooting his brother through the head in 1963. (It is awfully suspicious to me that GHWB can't remember where he was when he heard the news. Every other American alive can remember where they were. .

That's an absurd assumption re young people remembering exactly where they were when some political got killed. I was born in 1958 and I have no precise memory of *exactly* where I was when I heard MLK got shot or Reagan got shot or the Pope got shot. Your assumption that these events are going to imprint everyone, young or old, emotionally is ridiculous.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by astro

That's an absurd assumption re young people remembering exactly where they were when some political got killed. I was born in 1958 and I have no precise memory of *exactly* where I was when I heard MLK got shot or Reagan got shot or the Pope got shot. Your assumption that these events are going to imprint everyone, young or old, emotionally is ridiculous.

And there's been various studies showing those sorts of memories to be generally false, anyway.

[RickJay]

Originally Posted by The Second Stone

(It is awfully suspicious to me that GHWB can't remember where he was when he heard the news. Every other American alive can remember where they were. Oh, and he was suing Gov. Connolly at the time too.)

I'm sorry, but are you actually accusing George H. Bush of being involved in the assassination of John F. Kennedy? And you're basing that on the allegation he can't remember where he was when it happened? He wasn't even in politics then.

I suppose this is an insane request, but I was kind of hoping this thread would be as non-partisan as possible. I'm wondering about the tone of the campaign in general, including primaries, not your personal hatred of the Republicans or Democrats.

Der Trihs; That's a very interesting claim. I can see how this sort of thing can be changed by time; memory's very malleable. Do you have any links?

[Captain Carrot]

Originally Posted by The Second Stone

The campaign where Chambliss smeared Cleland is the most disgusting for things said.

Oh, I don't know about that. I'd say that the election of 1800, in which one of the candidates (either Adams or Jefferson, can't remember which) accused the other of having fathered a black child out of wedlock, which was a lot worse back then, might be more despicable. Of course, it also doesn't meet the qualifications of the OP, so...

[lee]

Originally Posted by Jolly Roger

I don't understand why anyone would think Obama or his campaign, supporters and the Secret Service would lie about the crowd estimate. It'd be far too easy to debunk and I think if it was a fake picture McCain/ Palin would be All Over It calling Obama a liar.

They might think that because McCain did just that. McCain's campaign often accuses Obama of doing what McCain's campaign would do in their place.

[Key Lime Guy]

Originally Posted by RickJay

Der Trihs; That's a very interesting claim. I can see how this sort of thing can be changed by time; memory's very malleable. Do you have any links?

I'm not Der Trihs, but go here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=22Z...sec=frontcover

and scroll to p. 274-75. (The literature on this subject is voluminous, but this gives a decent introduction.)

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Originally Posted by Clu-Me-In

I fear mightily for Obama's safety and for the safety of his family.

I fear that the personal attacks by McCain-Palin has served to wake up the racial hatred that has been laying dormant in some folks for quite sometime now. Many feel freer now to let it loose at Obama - the terrorist, the Arab, the Fascist, the Socialist, the Communist, the Muslim, the illegal Alien, the one who is "not like us" or " not one of us."

I fear that what we have seen in this election is a microcosm of what things could be like if Obama wins this election.

I fear that there will be an even deeper distrust and cynicism that will permeate deeply into the American populace and perhaps rip a wider hole in the fabric of our future as a country.

I fear that the disastrous standing of our economy will give rise to scapegoating, finger-pointing and outright hostility for anyone who is not of "mainstream" America.

With cause, I fear for my country.

Fear for us poor people working for Obama's campaign. We got a threat from the KKK recently. The FBI was in our office to follow up on it.

[Marley23]

I think 2004 was worse. Maybe I'm tempting fate but in most ways, I think the primaries were worse than the general election: McCain has brought up William Ayers a lot but has left the Rev. Wright stuff, which stirs up a lot more racial anxieties than Ayers does.

It seems to me that the press likes to portray every campaign as THE WORST, because that's an interesting story and allows for rampant cynicism, but I don't think that's so. Liberals were tied to terrorists and America-haters in 2002 and in 2004. If anything I think it was worse then, because today much of the public sees that tactic for what it is and it's no longer working as well.

[The Second Stone]

Originally Posted by astro

That's an absurd assumption re young people remembering exactly where they were when some political got killed. I was born in 1958 and I have no precise memory of *exactly* where I was when I heard MLK got shot or Reagan got shot or the Pope got shot. Your assumption that these events are going to imprint everyone, young or old, emotionally is ridiculous.

That's idiotic. Of course a child is not going to remember. But a young adult or an adult is. I remember exactly where I was when I heard Reagan got shot, or the Pope, or even RFK, even though I was only 5.

Originally Posted by RickJay

I'm sorry, but are you actually accusing George H. Bush of being involved in the assassination of John F. Kennedy? And you're basing that on the allegation he can't remember where he was when it happened? He wasn't even in politics then.

I suppose this is an insane request, but I was kind of hoping this thread would be as non-partisan as possible. I'm wondering about the tone of the campaign in general, including primaries, not your personal hatred of the Republicans or Democrats.

Der Trihs; That's a very interesting claim. I can see how this sort of thing can be changed by time; memory's very malleable. Do you have any links?

Who is George H. Bush? I said George Herbert Walker Bush (GHWB), the 41st President of the United States and running for US Congressman at the time. 43 is GWB, George Walker Bush, and its a safe bet he was drunk somewhere.

Am I accusing GHWB of being involved? A man who was suing one of the victims? A grown man who was a US Congressman from Texas who doesn't remember where the hell he was when it happened? When every other American old enough to remember remembers where they were? Sure, why not. http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/bush.htm And where was GHWB? Here's the photo: http://www.tomflocco.com/Docs/63/BushJfkBookDepo.htm Standing right out in front of the depository.

[FinnAgain]

Originally Posted by Mr. Moto

Has anyone tried to sway this election yet using forged documents?

Do the claims that Obama forged his birth certificate and isn't a real American citizen count?

[Telemark]

Originally Posted by The Second Stone

That's idiotic. Of course a child is not going to remember. But a young adult or an adult is. I remember exactly where I was when I heard Reagan got shot, or the Pope, or even RFK, even though I was only 5.

Apparently we're the same age. I have absolutely no memory of the Pope or RFK being shot. I have memories of Reagan being shot, but it's mostly of the TV coverage later in the day. I have no idea where I was when I first heard the news. Your experience is not universal. It's silly to expect that everyone remembers things the way you do.

[UTejas]

While this might not fall under modern times, this humor article has a pretty funny rundown of some way more nasty, mean presidential campaigns in US history.

http://www.cracked.com/article_16680...e-somehow.html

[The Second Stone]

Originally Posted by Telemark

Apparently we're the same age. I have absolutely no memory of the Pope or RFK being shot. I have memories of Reagan being shot, but it's mostly of the TV coverage later in the day. I have no idea where I was when I first heard the news. Your experience is not universal. It's silly to expect that everyone remembers things the way you do.

I'm not saying they would have my memories, but no one old enough to remember does not remember where they were when they heard the the President had his head blown off. I used to interview people for a job I had, and no one, no matter how senile, couldn't tell you where they were and what they were doing. The only comparable events were Pearl Harbor and 9/11. You do remember exactly what you were doing on 9/11 when you heard? I was on the toilet and a friend called and told me.

[The Flying Dutchman]

Originally Posted by RickJay

Is this the worst it's ever been?

Have you considered the Johnson vs Goldwater campaign and the daisy ad ?

Or the Democratic primaries with Kennedy vs Carter 1980.

[gonzomax]

I thought this one was very calm until McCain lost ground. Then he sicced his attack dog with lipstick on Obama. She has been as nasty as possible. But overall. I do not think this nears the things the Bush campaign did with swiftboating and rovean ads. Right now McCains people are using a company to make nasty phone calls to scare the voters. They are the ones Bush used against McCain before. It still has a long way to go to meet that level.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

The anti-Obama rhetoric is about as mean as I've ever seen. I don't think I've ever seen a candidate seriously accused of being the anti-Christ before. I thought the right's hatred for Clinton was bad, but the hatred for Obama is so irrational and so literally fantastic in its allegations that I think it does break new ground.

It's all the more remarkable that Obama doesn't give it back.

[vison]

Originally Posted by The Second Stone

I'm not saying they would have my memories, but no one old enough to remember does not remember where they were when they heard the the President had his head blown off. I used to interview people for a job I had, and no one, no matter how senile, couldn't tell you where they were and what they were doing. The only comparable events were Pearl Harbor and 9/11. You do remember exactly what you were doing on 9/11 when you heard? I was on the toilet and a friend called and told me.

What on earth are you driving at?

[Telemark]

Originally Posted by The Second Stone

I'm not saying they would have my memories, but no one old enough to remember does not remember where they were when they heard the the President had his head blown off.

I'm telling you. We're the same age, and I don't remember. I remember some things from later in the day -- it was an important day, but I don't recall when and where I was when I heard. Your experience is not universal.