I can say with certainty that if McCain had stopped that speech and called that man out, stating his disapproval in no uncertain terms, that he would have shown some leadership qualities. The fact that he didn’t and that Palin didn’t means to me that they tacitly condone such slings and behavior. No they are not responsible for the shit spewn by their supporters. They ARE responsible for showing leadership when such things occur. They have chosen to not do so.
Going back even further than Kerry, George McGovern didn’t fight back and ended up losing to Nixon in a landslide. That’s why you have to respond.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27008437/
Well, it’s a good thing they aren’t asking the American people to give them a job that requires leadership ability… oh, wait…
Yes and no.
I have already posted (rather strongly on a couple of occasions) that judging a candidate simply by some undefined number of that candidate’s supporters is very stupid.
On the other hand, when people unrelated to the Obama campaign made attacks on Governor Palin and Obama publicly stated that those attacks were wrong and that he would fire people in his campaign who participated in those attacks, one of the more strident opponents of Obama on this board claimed that Obama “had” to do that to look good even though he “knew” that others would continue to do the dirty work for him. Here we have evidence of both McCain and Palin simply standing by and not even bothering to condemn the hateful actions carried out in their presences. Clearly, Obama did not “have” to issue his statements, (McCain and Palin certainly did not), and he has demonstrated far more integrity (on this issue) than his opponents have.
Obama retaliates !?!?!
Maybe she should have said that he was “neighboring” around with a terrorist.
The problem is, Obama only has one house, so it is easier to tell who is neighbors are.
I’d like to go back a few months to a comment by Karl Rove and expand on your analogy a bit.
Obama would actually be the guy at the country club function with the martini in his hand, making comments about a rival that are astute but the rival and his friends characterize as snide and mean.
On this particular night, the rival (of course, McCain) gets blind drunk, takes a swing and is taken down by Obama with jujutsu – actually using the rival’s own force against him – with nary a martini spill or a muss of his tuxedo.
It’s really only appropriate to characterize it that way if DrDeth is likely to change his vote as a result.
'cos that would be going up against a Cecilian when Deth is on the line. Get it?
No, the difference is that Iraq never threw a sucker or any other type of punch. The Taliban did, which is why invading Afghanistan is justified and invading Iraq wasn’t.
Maybe McCain will justify the attacks by saying Obama was hiding ads of mass destruction or something.
Obama standing over McCain:
I’ve got here the truth, the most powerful political weapon in the world. Now, I don’t remember if I’ve used up all my money on ads or not. You feeling lucky, punk?
Just was reading that now they’re bringing up McCain’s early-to-mid 1980s associations with the World Anti-Communist League, which was tied to Iran-Contra and ostensibly helped to finance (run?) death squads in Central America. McCain “allegedly” resigned from this group after he learned what they were up to.
And resigned again two years later, after Jack Anderson wrote some columns on the WACL’s ties to Nazis and anti-semitic crazies. You can’t quit an outfit like that too many times. :rolleyes:
Well, McGovern also got very little support of any kind from the Democratic establishment.
Here’s something interesting. Even the Republican/conservative folks on this forum – while believing that bringing up the Keating 5 is “slinging mud” – have stated that this is a different tack for the Obama campaign, which has otherwise run a clean campaign.
Apparently Cindy McCain disagrees. In her opinion, Obama has “waged the dirtiest campaign in American history.”
So: Revealing some arguable facts/opinions about something that actually happened in McCain’s past, behavior that the congress called ‘poor judgment’ and that McCain himself regrets/labels a mistake = the dirtiest campaign in U.S. history.
Claiming that Obama’s a terrorist’s “best friend” and continues to “pal around with terrorists”; ignoring slurs and violent threats against Obama; calling him anti-American and “dangerous”; and dismissing years of helping a community as having no responsibilities = noble, clean campaigning.
I understand being protective of your husband. But this is utterly ridiculous.
Well, we only have her word that she’s off the drugs now, don’t we?
As others have pointed out, this is a lousy analogy. A sucker-punch is what you do when someone isn’t expecting a fight at all. McCain couldn’t possibly sucker-punch Obama, given that the two are in a fight already. And Obama’s response couldn’t possibly be a sucker-punch, given that the two are in a fight already.
As for pounding McCain on the issues already working well, I repeat: that wasn’t enough after the Pub convention. Obama has decided that he needs to go negative to counteract McCain’s negative attacks. Pardon me if I trust his political instincts more than yours.
Cervaise, I appreciate the distinction.
Daniel
Here’s my take on the perceived switch in Obama’s tactics:
Sarah Palin said Obama “palled around with terrorists”. That’s the political equivalent of calling him a cunt. If Obama had ignored this, he would have looked like a spineless pussy. Spineless pussies who let soulless creationist bumpkins walk all over them, generally don’t win elections. That’s why he went negative. He knew that to stay “above the fray” once the attacks had gotten as vile as they had, would make him look like a weakling. He is pursuing this new strategy for the same reason he pursued his previous strategy: It’s a vote winner.
I also think it was strategically brilliant for the campaign to wait until now to go negative for two more reasons:
-
They knew McCain would start slinging more and more mud as the election got closer and have carefully chosen the direction and focus of their counter punches for greatest accuracy and effective; and
-
Now that Obama has started to swing back, there will be a shorter time period in which he will be perceived as having gone negative, as well as having the advantage of it being able to accurately say McCain went there first and has stayed low for the longer period of time.
(P.S. Who else thinks Cindy’s comment that “Obama has waged the dirtiest campaign in American history” is a setup up for them to attack Michelle? Let’s just say, of all the cans of worms that McCain has opened lately, he doesn’t want to open that one.)
Well, I have it on good authority that Cindy McCain is a cunt, so really, what else would you expect from her?
For McCain’s sake, I hope not. Obama would bring the thunder down.
I’m going to have to side with the distinguished Senator from Arizona on this one. Or at least it seems he’s correct, and who am I to disagree, from the few glimpses I’ve had of her.