That’s not a fact. It’s an opinion, and a bizarrely inaccurate one at that.
Is that a wonderful typo for dredge or did you mean Drudge? You just invented a new verb, my friend!
Look, the only thing stupider than pre-announcing you going negative would be for the McCain campaign to pretend they were going negative. And since the boreal bimbo did go negative this weekend, I don’t think they were pretending.
BTW, negative ads on the issues - like McCain not getting the economy, are fine with me. Negative bullshit like Ayers (and yes, Keating) are less fine, but I’m okay with them in retaliation.
Are you okay with McCain’s negative ads on sex education and Ayers?
And when they hit rock bottom, their response is “Drill, Baby, Drill!”
You are correct. I saw a time without a date on the article and assumed that meant it was recent.
But in essence, I quoted the study because I thought Obama had been running a pretty clean campaign, and regardless how I feel about his policies, that is impressive. Study pointed out that this particular ad/site isn’t an anomaly like I thought it was.
It turns out I simply live in an uncontested state. 
Your concern for the success of Obama’s campaign is quite touching. It reminds me of something I once heard-“Sincerity is everything-once you learn to fake that, you’ve got it made.”
Even more bizarre is that I have the same opinion as the the Senate Ethics Committee and the chief investigator of the case.
No. I think they are both bullshit. I wouldn’t try to defend them.
Yet another example of right-wingers trying to set the bar so much higher for the left, in an attempt to make failure the only possible perception.
“But Edwards makes millions and lives in a mansion-- how can he talk about helping the working class?”
“But Al Gore’s home uses more energy than any other homes in his county-- you actually think he cares about the environment?”
“But Barack Obama is some supposed Messiah-- and now he’s sullying his reputation by playing politics?”
How about this: I thought John McCain had the honor and integrity of a Naval officer, and I thought Sarah Palin was a good Christian woman. How do they justify, to their God and to their Code of Honor, lying about their opponent?
And even* still* more bizarre, different from John McCain himself! (at least, pre-2008 John McCain)
Obama set the bar himself, and had been doing quite well. But he has made this negative ad central to his campaign! Go to his website. Front page: http://www.barackobama.com/index.php
What’s featured there? Healthcare, Economy, and Keating!
Good. It’s unfortunate that things have come to this, but there comes a time when you have to say, no more bullshit, and come out swinging. I know there are movies on this theme - all I’m coming up with now is Straw Dogs and that’s not the best example.
You don’t want to make Obama angry. 
I don’t think the average voter has a problem with ‘negative’ ads, I think what people are sick and tired of is the deep voiceover, misleading, scare tactic negative ads. The ones this parody print ad is based on.
I don’t think the Obama Keating tactics rise (or sink) to this level.
I’ve got no problem with negative advertising. I’ve got a problem with dishonest advertising, or political advertising whose purpose is to make an election turn on trivialities rather than the real issues voters face.
I haven’t watched the video yet; I’ll look at it at home tonight. But if Obama’s linking McCain’s attitude towards bank regulation in the 1980s, and its consequences then, with his attitude towards bank regulation in more recent years and its present consequences, I can’t see that I would have a problem with that. Sure, it’s negative. But I can’t see how it’s either dishonest or trivial.
Oddly enough I am sure that you are at least partly right. Team Obama has actually planned and prepared for various contingencies. If McCain does not go negative then keep the focus on the economy and his policies being the same as Bush’s. If McCain tries to distract from that message with mudslinging (the old news stories that people have already heard) then both point out the politics as usual mudslinging nature of the attack and take your free hit back that that swing at you allows. So doing you manage both to dodge the hit and land a solid one of your own at no cost to your own brand. Voters respect hitting back, and Keating is actually relevant to the fiscal fiasco we are in right now.
Yes the response was in the can ready to go if McCain tried to Swiftboat his way back up. Not so hard to predict that McCain might go as negative as possible. You’d have to be stupid to not have a response planned to it. It would have stayed in the can if McCain didn’t hit first, but it was indeed at the ready.
What was hard to predict was that Team McCain would go negative so ineffectually and be so unprepared for the counterpunch, but hey, that’s McCain’s way.
i live in a state where we are bombarded by ads. mccain had been negative for months. i’ve seen the obama keating ad and it is nowhere as bad as some of the ones mccain did.
today, sen. obama was interviewed on a radio show. he stated that his campaign will not throw the first punch, but it will throw the last.
mccain is trying for the look who his friends are; he makes dangerous decisions. keating is fair game in that. mccain’s relationship with keating is much closer than obama’s with ayers and rezco.
after the recent clips of palin’s church i don’t believe they would try to go with wright. of course, then again there are a few more weeks to go.
I think it smells of desperation. They’ve got precious little and the economy thing is creaming the Reps (fairly or not it is polling clearly against the Reps more than the Dems). They need something. I think their announcement they were going to go negative was just to lay the groundwork to throw everything and the kitchen sink at Obama in the fervent hope that something sticks.
Unfortunately for the Reps they just cannot get America’s focus off the economy. It is a rather spectacular meltdown and people are justifiably scared and pissed. As a result this all comes off as McCain flailing around ineffectually. Obama, being a politician at the end of it all, landed a neat counter-punch. I guess McCain was hoping Obama would be a campaign neophyte and doggedly adhere to the “high ground”. Now McCain is crying “no fair” and that makes him look worse still.
Politics as theater…this is a good show.
Because you don’t bring a knife to a gunfight and expect to come out on top.
And if anyone asks about whether Obama has what it takes to be president, there’s your answer. Imagine if the current administration had prepared for contingencies in either Iraq or New Orleans. This is very impressive.
When you do, please note:
- Rob Bennet, the investigator reading the accusations in the video, recommended that Glenn and McCain be removed form the investigation.
- No mention is made whatsoever that McCain was cleared.
- McCain has a ridiculous combover in some segments, and classic 80’s eyeglasses in others.
I suspect #3 is the real reason to circulate the video.
Why oh, why won’t the Obama campaign let McCain besmirch Obama’s character without reprisals? How dare Obama bring up shit that McCain doesn’t want anyone to remember? It’s so unfair and wrong! Why, Obama will have to turn in his angel wings now.
Or-- how ridiculous is this OP? So ridiculous that my sarcasm may be mistaken for agreement with it, if I didn’t add this second paragraph.