Kerry ignored it for days. That was the bad move.
It is a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t situation. Either way you’re going to run into the, “Where there’s smoke, there’s fire,” crowd, or the “I know it’s not true, but let’s make the son-of-a-bitch deny it,” group.
Obama is dealing with it as best he can. I’m not going to back seat drive on it; I only hope that time shows that he dealt with it correctly.
Problem is, doses of the truth only work with a media devoted to *telling *the truth more than to getting ratings. All it takes is the usual “this side says this, that side says that, now here’s Dan with the weather” pap for them to *appear *objective and responsible while still having the effect of giving lies credence.
This time is different, well, how?
Well, so far the differences are that Obama responded immediately, and that the media are not doing a “he said, she said” deal on it. Today, both in my morning paper and on CNN online, they referred to “long discredited allegations”. I don’t know what Fox is doing; I don’t watch it.
How do you think Obama should deal with it? Give up and give the nomination to Clinton?
No, he’s doing the right thing as far as it goes. But it might help if he went on the offensive himself and made a point about McCain’s supporters spreading lies. He’d have to do it in commercials, though.
Frankly, if Obama waits a good long time, then goes hard negative (but truthful) close to the elections, it might work. No reason to throw mud more than once. Stay clean, stay clean, hit hard.
I guess it may depend on what you think is more important in making a terrorist: ideology or action.
Obviously, action. Unless he’s a Catholic and is as culpable for his thoughts as his actions. 
I thought all Christians were culpable for their thoughts as well as their actions?
It’s one of the more insidious aspects of Christianity, that causes me to reject it as a philosophy, even if I could get myself to believe it as a religion, if that makes any sense. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
It wasn’t tried 4 years ago. Obama ain’t no Kerry.
The media needs to pressure McCain to respond to this.
Nope. For the undecideds who haven’t yet firmed up their views of the candidates (yes, kiddies, the country mostly ain’t like the SDMB), IOW, the people who will decide the election, the time they are doing so is now. For them, if a negative image gets formed now, it sticks. That’s what McCain’s “celebrity” ads are for.
Cite?
He’s winning.
We’ll know on November 4. Not before. Just FTR, Kerry was further “ahead” at this point than Obama, IIRC.
Gawdamighty, man, have you never seen a US election before?
What would you suggest? If you had the power to make anything happen, what would you do to prevent McCain from winning this time around?
“Nominate Clinton” is a valid answer. But I feel like Clinton would have a much more coordinated machine running up against her at this point.
Bill Clinton had it figured out - don’t try to work through the media Heathers or even sweet-talk them, go *around *them, right to the people directly. He didn’t make the usual Dem-candidate mistakes, and it worked. Obama doesn’t seem to be nearly as extroverted, and that does seem to handicap him, but he could apply the lesson too.
“Nominate Clinton” is, in fact, the right answer, as you suggest, but to say so, much less explain why, is simply asking for a load of abuse from the True Believers. Yes, she’d have a more coordinated machine opposing her, but it would be one that nobody still convinceable would be affected by. There wouldn’t be any way for them to drive up her negatives any higher than they’ve been for the last 16 years. Obama is still vulnerable in that area, though, and needs to get off the beach in Hawaii and face it directly, if he doesn’t want a one-way ticket to Dukakisville.
As I’ve said before in other threads, the idea of three such dominant people together each with some degree of justice believing that s/he has the greatest claim to be the leader (Hillary, because in a “partnership presidency,” she would view herself as the senior partner; Bill because he’s the only one who’s been president before, and Obama because he’s the one who had actually been elected president) is just a nightmare. Instead of spending his precious time on governing, Obama would have to spend a large of him time stomping down on the Clintons. Hillary alone might be managable, but not both. His and her Cabinet posts? Very good chance. But not VEEP.
And, as always, HRC carries as many negatives as she does positives - there are a fair number of people right on this board who would drop Obama like a burning coal if he were to nominate HRC, if I remember correctly and they haven’t changed their minds. HRC would definitely bring in some votes (although not so very many). The problem is that she would also drive out some votes, and decrease the likelihood of some undecideds ever coming around. I don’t understand this attitude, but I’ve encountered it, because I’ve encountered it too many times from fairly liberal Democrats, let alone Republicans, to discount it.
What’s with the “???” part? The central strategy of recent GOP nominees has been to drive up the Dems’ negatives. They couldn’t do it to Clinton, as you know, and such efforts would likely have backfired. Even at max, her negatives weren’t all that high - and, for that matter, mostly consisted of people who would never vote Dem anyway. The electoral-vote polls during primary season showed her comfortably ahead of McCain.
Obama’s negatives certainly can be raised, McCain is hard at work doing it right now, and it’s having an effect. The electoral-vote polls during primary season, well before the predictable shit has had a full chance to take hold, showed him at best neck-and-neck, which is where he’s falling back to right now.
A slim plurality of Dem primary voters chose either not to go with the likeliest winner or that Obama would simply use his superhero powers to conquer the forces of Evil anyway, We now have to hope the rookie can get the job done somehow anyway. How comfortable are you about that?
Just out of curiosity, why do you hate Obama so much?
Elvis, I’ve met a number of liberal centrists who would say “Bill Clinton is OK, but I can’t stand Hillary!” I’d ask them why, and they could never give me a reason. This is in New Jersey and very eastern PA. The conservatives, on the other hand, hate her with the burning flame of a thousand suns; her nomination as VEEP would probably increase their mobilization.
I’ve never understood this attitude about her; I like her myself. But it’s there, and I don’t think the few people HRC would pick up for Obama would outweigh the negatives she would bring to the ticket.