Muslim’s got angel wings now? 
Sorry, I guess I must have used big words in my OP. Can you point out where I said any of that?
McCain has been using negative ads against Obama for a while now. Obama’s stance has been to hammer the issues and ignore negativity. Polls have been agreeing with Obama. Now, Obama takes a misleading negative ad, and makes it central to his campaign? You don’t react with a certain amount of ‘WTF?’
You know, it’s really odd, but when McCain and Palin smear Obama with barely relevant accusations of associations with people he happens to live in the same neighborhood with, I can’t remember ever hearing a disclaimer at the end saying “but there really isn’t anything to this partisan attack except bullshit and hot air.”
There’s no disclaimer from the Republicans, is there? Then I guess everything is even.
Another argument of the truly desperate.
She wasn’t quoting you; she was mocking you.
Yes, very big words. Like “sully” and “reputation”.
So, McCain has been using negative ads against Obama for a while now. And Obama should just. . . take it? Is that what you are trying to say? Explain s. .l. . o. . w. . l. . .y because I’m stupid, just like you insinuated.
H…i…s…c…u…r…r…e…n…t…s…t…r…a…t…e…g…y…o…f…i…g…n…o…r…i…n…g
…i…t…w…a…s…w…o…r…k…i…n…g…S…o…w…h…y…c…h…a…n…g…e…i…t…
His current/previous strategy didn’t need to address it, because the McCain campaign wasn’t so blatant about it – right up to the “palling around with terrorists” bullshit. Why wouldn’t he want to address it now? It’s solid strategy, despite what you apparently think.
I didn’t say it wasn’t good strategy. I’m saying that’s its contrary to his message to date, which also happened to be a good strategy, as evident in the polls.
Think about it. Obama wins election running a clean campaign vs Obama wins election, getting down and dirty. Which one do you think represents change to the political process?
Actually the fact of the matter is that McCain really DID do something wrong.
Feel free to read the rest of the thread for links and cites refuting you.
Oh, Jane, you ignorant slut. Keating is one of the four tabs in one of the sections on the front page of his website. Right now, they’re focusing on it because they just released the damn ad!
You mean the few links you’ve provided that haven’t said what you’ve claimed?
Then what the hell are we arguing about?
Sure Obama is ahead, but why wouldn’t he fight fire with fire? Especially now that McCain is lashing out?
It’s not like Obama made some campaign promise to only run political ads featuring rainbows, puppy dogs and cute little kids playing hopscotch.
His message had nothing to do with not responding to smears. And, unless you can predict the future, the choice is losing with a clean campaign vs winning with a campaign that strikes back when attacked.
Since our national policy is and should be striking back hard when the country is attacked, I don’t see any problem with Obama’s response. When did he ever say he was a pacifist?
Can I step in here and Sinaijon. I am an unabashed Obama supporter and I think this is a legitimate question to ask. I think he has clearly stated that he does not believe the McCain ads and is simply trying to get a debate going as to whether this topic is something Obama should bring up given that Obama is leading my a healthy margin.
Is there a risk? My first thought was that hsi was not necessarily a good idea either. But I think it is ok. While I don’t like this tactic, I think it is perfectly fair and not detrmiental to Obama’s overall message.
The choice might also be winning with a clean campaign vs achieving a blowout of epic proportions by striking back when attacked. A congress with 62 Democratic senators has got to be sounding pretty good to Obama right now.
How about we see what McCain himself has to say about it:
Something can be ethically wrong without being legally wrong. McCain disagrees with you that he did nothing wrong.
I think that Sinajion is trying to set up a false dichotomy.
His argument appears to be, “Never say anything negative about your opponent, ever. Never mention indiscretions from their past, even if they are relevant to the economy. Never mention any failures of judgment directly related to the current economic crisis. Never say anything negative, in any way, forever. Also, never defend yourself; never respond in kind when your opponent starts to drag your name in the mud. If you cannot uphold these ideals, you are just as bad as the dirtiest, lyingest, mudslingest, Karl-Roviest politician.”
If this is his position, then it is a false dichotomy.
Nobody is saying that Obama should be McCain’s punching bag. Nobody ever said that Obama should entirely ignore the Republican smear machine — John Kerry tried it, and it didn’t work. Instead, Obama smothers any flames before they can ignite. This is judged prudent.
When John McCain starts bringing up tenuous, barely relevant connections to people who may once, possibly, have done or said something wrong, people Obama is not responsible for, Obama has every right to point out direct relevant connections to John McCain’s own personal mistakes. The allegations against Obama mean virtually nothing; how is Obama to blame for actions of a 60s radical when he, Obama, was eight years old? But McCain was directly, personally, unequivocally involved in the S&L scandal. Apples and oranges.
The two are not equal, in my mind. The difference is like saying, “So what if I murdered somebody? You once talked to the wife of a murderer, so you’re just as bad!”
McCain is trying to establish that he has credentials of experience and good judgment. Is it unfair to bring up examples of his past BAD judgment?
NONSENSE.
Charles Keating was very well known at the time in Scottsdale and Phoenix as a go-getter flamboyant Real Estate wunderkind. He had some very private business relationships with Cindy McCain that John McCain never allowed to come to the forefront(one of the reason he pretty much copped a plea). The McCain family had a very personal relationship with Chuck Keating. They summered and vacationed together and Mr. Keating hosted a series of fundraisers for John McCain. They were a very tight family/friend group.
There is a very good reason why John McCain was rebuked by the Senate Ethics Committee for intimidating regulators on behalf of one of his biggest campaign donors and great family friend, Charles Keating Jr.
Central!?
On October 6th… central.
Sir, the word does not mean what you think it means.
Ah, I see that it is not me who does not understand. Thank you for clearing up my misunderstanding.