Lou Dobbs was still a tool tonight, with his laughing comment about how the Democratic party will “seat” the delegates, but “disenfranchise” them. If you’ve told them they’re votes don’t count, and the vote is symbolic only, they are already disenfranchised.
Obama’s on fire!
It’s weird how close they are. I can’t imagine either one of them is comfortable.
When the camera goes to both of them I’m watching Obama and what his hands are doing, and vice the verse for her…their body language is…not comfortable.
Oops… we should be posting this to the debate thread.
Damn! :dubious:
Well, Obama’s no economist either, AFAIK.
McCain is the oldest person ever to run for office, and while his odds of making it through the next four years are pretty good, it’s not a sure thing. Expect a lot of attacks on his VP candidate as well.
From “the democrats,” yes. From the actual candidates, I really doubt it - it would be seen as horribly tacky, and it sure didn’t work against Reagan.
I don’t get the scare-quote, lower-case d thing, but… do you think that Democrats are particularly given to petty attacks, moreso than Republicans? And, if so, have you, um, paid attention to the last several campaign cycles? Even the first I remember, the election of 1976, was filled with cracks about Jimmie Carter’s big goofy grin and association with peanuts.
I’m expecting it mostly from groups whose funding is difficult to trace.
No, and they weren’t scare quotes, they’re regular quotes. What I said was that the actual candidates are not going to say McCain is too old or likely to keel over or anything like that. I don’t think they’ll go any father than “John McCain AND Sarah Palin/Mike Huckabee/Tim Pawlenty/Voldemort say they don’t want to [xyz].” Picking on McCain for being old would be interpreted as tacky, and it wouldn’t be effective. I’ve heard a few people who will vote Democratic (DP members, or “the democrats”) say that McCain is too old. But I’d be shocked if the candidates make it an issue.
You won’t see the Democrats talking about how old McCain is. But they’ll make a big point out of how vigorous and healthy Obama (or Clinton) is and let the voters do the math.
Luckily, he’s smart enough not to say he doesn’t really understand economics to a newspaper.
The question was what would the Democrats use against McCain. Obviously neither of them (nor any president I’m aware of) was a professor of economics. But neither Democrat has said that they’re largely ignorant about the top issue this election.
Still, one thing I don’t expect the Democrats to use against the Republicans this year is a consistent and inspiring economic program. Because we haven’t got one, not so far as I can see. Just some general directions which are obviously preferable to the current general directions, but which don’t present obvious solutions to the instant problems. I’m terribly afraid we’re going to be seeing a recession or worse this year or next year no matter who wins the elections, and I don’t see how it can be averted.
That’s true, since we’re in a terrible mess. Though Obama is not an economist, he did teach at the University of Chicago, and probably absorbed some just being on campus. I did when visiting my daughter when she was a student. I even started publishing economics papers after that. 
The Repubs are going to have a hard time convincing us to let them continue running the economy. Iraq and the economy are both bigger weights on the Republicans than they are on the Democrats, and you can expect Dems to alternate attacks between those two issues.
Americans don’t care so much about wire tapping or Guantanemo or gay marriage or immigration right now. The environment wont be a major issue to press against McCain, because he’s much closer to the liberal side on that issue than most other Repubs.
Except you, apparently.
Just for the record, did you call the same tactics used against Kerry “Swift Boating”, or are you just vomitting your bias all over the thread?
Not sure what you are saying here. If you mean that the media proves over and over that it is liberal, then yes, you are correct.
Unfortunately, the McCain accusation is not known largely to be true. The National Guard documents were forgeries. And the Halperin memo I mentioned was authentic - Halperin did really tell his newspeople that they should be slanting their coverage against Bush, because he was afraid Bush would win re-election.
So if you are saying the reaction is to blame the media for what they actually did, well, duh.
Well, it’s not like any of you are gonna do it. Too many of you (folks like howye, for instance) are busy telling the Dems that dirty tactics are perfectly fine.
I used the same tactics - pointed out, for example, that Kerry really did lie about his service in Viet Nam, and that most of those who served with him did not feel that he was a good candidate for Commander-in-Chief.
if you call it “vomiting” to point out falsehoods, that’s pretty stupid.
I forgot to point out the other response from Democrats, at least on the SDMB - knee-jerk tu quoquess. Nothing new or original, IOW.
Regards,
Shodan
How so differently? I know that the term has pejorative connotations, but the reality is that is a tactic and one that Obama will likely use in a way not very unlike Clinton would have used it. Except that he’ll be more successful at it. The tactic is to avoid overt partisan attacks and instead to claim the middle, boxing your opponent in to their core only.
The election will come down to only a few actual issues in which Obama and McCain palpably differ, the most significant being about Iraq. Healthcare won’t be a general election theme. Immigration won’t because they are not too far apart. Same for climate change. Triangualtion will result in Obama capitalizing on any move that McCain makes to rev up the RR as an opening to further cement his hold on the middle on any other issues.
I think that Obama will explicitly avoid going negative because it detracts from his packaging as being against that. Which doesn’t mean that he won’t punch back quickly as he has shown he can do. I actually will be unsurprised to see Obama offhandedly dis the NYT for their McCain piece - as a political calculation that would play well.
Obama can win on the issue of most importance to most voters and claim the middle more effectively on others. The rest will be based on intangibles and there it will be a reprise of Kennedy looking vibrant to Nixon’s disheveled. Appeal to the future vs appeal to the the past.
Shodan, please tell me what “liberal” actually is right now, at this point in history, versus what “conservative” is. Seriously. I mean I know a lot of people who call themselves “conservatives” who have very little in common with each other’s POVs. Some have particular POVs that are much more similar to my “liberal” ones! And what I think of as “liberal” is very dissimilar to what many others have labeled as such.
Is being against Bush “liberal”? Then a majority of America is now liberal. Is having concluded that Iraq was a mistake “liberal”. Then too America has a liberal POV. Is wanting to act on Global Climate Change liberal? Then some of the RR who promote “good stewardship” are bastions of liberal bias. Is fiscal responsibility “conservative”? Then the Republicans have proven themselves to be anti-Conservative. Is keeping government out of our personal lives being “conservative”? Then again Republicans are fighting against Conservative ideals what with federal involvement with No Child Left Behind and invasions of our privacy.
Once you have adequately defined what is “liberal” and what is “conservative” maybe we can examine if the media has a biased presentation to one or the other. Or if such a claim is just a fictional creation. Personally I think that the media has a “say whatever viewers will tune in to watch/listen to” bias. But I’m just a cynic.