Obama/Biden vs. McCain/Palin

[UK]

With all the political passion on this forum, is anyone involved in either campaign? Meaning volunteer work, voter registration, etc.?

I've done some volunteer work as far as voter registration, although not enough with working two jobs.

It's been more strategic work than execution/pounding the pavement from my end.

[UK]

With all the political passion on this forum, is anyone involved in either campaign? Meaning volunteer work, voter registration, etc.?

I've done some volunteer work as far as voter registration, although not enough with working two jobs.

It's been more strategic work than execution/pounding the pavement from my end.

Fwiw, I stay bi-partisan as far as recruiting efforts despite my pro-left stance. I'm not involved with moveon.org but rather focus on the increase of the 18-29 demographic.

[Jocephus]

[/youtube]

im shamelessly bumping this

[ghostrunner]

Obama saying that he never heard Wright say things like "[expletive] America!" and saying that he did hear him say controversial things are not contradictory statements, much less evidence that he's a liar.

Palin has only agreed to an interview as a result of the pressure that has been placed on his campaign to put her up for an interview. And even then, it is in a very restricted, non-live format that allows Palin the opportunity to walk out at any time. She has hand-picked which reporter is given the privilege, as opposed to people like McCain, Biden, and Obama, who have done numerous interviews and will continue to do as many as they can to get their message on network TV for free as often possible. Obama even just completed an interview with O'Reilly, who is about as biased an interviewer as you can get (after Limbaugh).

There is no way she wasn't going to do an interview. Now she's doing one (a whole two weeks after being named the running mate) and she's "responding to pressure." I'm not sure how well it would be received if she walked out of an interview, but since when do politicians not dictate the format of this stuff? The Democrats wouldn't even debate on Fox several months ago. She's never run for national office before and is adjusting her language to be compatible with McCain's campaign. It's not that unusual, and I expect that she'll be doing more interviews as they go.

I don't understand the hang-up on the interview thing anyway. What's the charge? They're disguising her incompetence? Does she seem incompetent? Democrats were putting bets on how long before she'd withdraw before her convention speech, and now she's probably on her way to being the next Republican nominee for President in a few years. She's too extreme? She's a conservative (I assume self-described) and is religious. She believes in creationism, is pro-life, and pro-guns. She doesn't like explicit sex-ed classes. This isn't a deal breaker for most voters.

[clement]

but I don't care what the President thinks about it.

Even though it's the president who has the responsibility of appointing federal judges? Why do you think the religious right are frothing over the Palin nomination? It's not only symbolic, it has very real implications in the direction the country goes. In 2000 I wouldn't have been too concerned about McCain making such appointments. But since he's been willing to sell out his principles for the last 8 years to get back in the good graces of the party base, why wouldn't he continue to do it as president if he's pressured to do so?

[planet planet]

the more liberal websites and media are working themselves back into anti-Bush mode, both astonished at what they perceive as her inexperience, combined with outrage at her community organizer comments. They can't make her the new Bush if they want to get anywhere.

Why? What's wrong with anti-Bush mode? If we're going to go broken record on this campaign, i.e. POW war hero, we need to hear more about Bush's tenure, not less. Did you see the excerpts from her speech at the Alaskan pentecostal church? This is not heresay and smoke and mirrors, i.e. Swift Boat, these are factual events/coverage and it's high time voters see these events. By all means, couple them with party spin, but the more factual information that's out there for voters to digest, the better.

Because Obama has succeeded not by being anti-Bush, but by being for something. That's what makes him appealing to moderates. I'm not saying don't criticize Bush himself, but don't create another Bush in the process. In the end voters didn't care what was said at Obama's church, and I don't think they care about hers. The bridge is fair game, but for example it hasn't been shown that proven that she's absolutely for injecting creationism into curriculum. I've seen at least one statement from her to the contrary. Even if it were, voters don't care about it that much. People who are already voting for Obama do, but not the average voter IMO. I don't like it, but I don't care what the President thinks about it.

Biden can go after her, but in my opinion Obama should not. To the extent he does it will be recorded and repeated and he should not be seen as being concerned about her, and he shouldn't be adding to her fame. Adding to the chorus of her critics isn't going to help him at all. It's also weird from the voter's perspective to hear him talking about the VP when he's not even competing with her. I don't recall McCain mentioning Biden once.

Fair enough, good points, ghostrunner. My only issue with taking the high road is that Obama hasn't succeeded in light of the last eight years as well as he should have so far. If he sit on his hands while reiterating his positions, more aggressive Republican tactics could sway voters in swing states like CO and OH at the last minute. We've seen it happen time and time again. The "high road" needs to be redefined for me. If factual events are off limits, then the Dems might as well concede.

I have no interest in hazy internet rumors, but other than that, can we challenge touted virtues the GOP champions on route to the White House? As far as clement's "As The Mud Turns" comment, mudslinging has been an unfortunate part of politics as long as political parties have existed. I understand the exacerbated, detail oriented effect a result of a highly passionate, yet divided American populace. I am a member of Obama's voter registration campaign and the more votes, the fairer the process.

[haltz]

im shamelessly bumping this

If I answer my cell phone and get blitzed by fire I'm going to be pissed.

[ghostrunner]

but I don't care what the President thinks about it.

Even though it's the president who has the responsibility of appointing federal judges? Why do you think the religious right are frothing over the Palin nomination? It's not only symbolic, it has very real implications in the direction the country goes. In 2000 I wouldn't have been too concerned about McCain making such appointments. But since he's been willing to sell out his principles for the last 8 years to get back in the good graces of the party base, why wouldn't he continue to do it as president if he's pressured to do so?

That's going to be true no matter who the Republican is. Even then, it's one of many issues the President deals with.

There are a ton of checks and balances in the way. A nomination has to be made, it has to be approved by the (currently Democratic) Congress, and then the specific issues we're concerned about have to come up. If they do, they have to go through local, state, and federal courts. So the short of it is no, it's not a big concern on my list. I consider it, but it's not a major factor.

[clement]

Well just taking the Supreme Court into account, it's really a tenuous balance at this point. We've had Republican administrations nominating justices for 20 of the past 28 years. We've already seen the results of that in a number of cases. If not for one "mistake" by G.H.W. Bush, it could be a lot worse. 4 or 8 more years of Republican rule and we'll be there. It's a big issue to me.

[ghostrunner]

the more liberal websites and media are working themselves back into anti-Bush mode, both astonished at what they perceive as her inexperience, combined with outrage at her community organizer comments. They can't make her the new Bush if they want to get anywhere.

Why? What's wrong with anti-Bush mode? If we're going to go broken record on this campaign, i.e. POW war hero, we need to hear more about Bush's tenure, not less. Did you see the excerpts from her speech at the Alaskan pentecostal church? This is not heresay and smoke and mirrors, i.e. Swift Boat, these are factual events/coverage and it's high time voters see these events. By all means, couple them with party spin, but the more factual information that's out there for voters to digest, the better.

Because Obama has succeeded not by being anti-Bush, but by being for something. That's what makes him appealing to moderates. I'm not saying don't criticize Bush himself, but don't create another Bush in the process. In the end voters didn't care what was said at Obama's church, and I don't think they care about hers. The bridge is fair game, but for example it hasn't been shown that proven that she's absolutely for injecting creationism into curriculum. I've seen at least one statement from her to the contrary. Even if it were, voters don't care about it that much. People who are already voting for Obama do, but not the average voter IMO. I don't like it, but I don't care what the President thinks about it.

Biden can go after her, but in my opinion Obama should not. To the extent he does it will be recorded and repeated and he should not be seen as being concerned about her, and he shouldn't be adding to her fame. Adding to the chorus of her critics isn't going to help him at all. It's also weird from the voter's perspective to hear him talking about the VP when he's not even competing with her. I don't recall McCain mentioning Biden once.

Fair enough, good points, ghostrunner. My only issue with taking the high road is that Obama hasn't succeeded in light of the last eight years as well as he should have so far. If he sit on his hands while reiterating his positions, more aggressive Republican tactics could sway voters in swing states like CO and OH at the last minute. We've seen it happen time and time again. The "high road" needs to be redefined for me. If factual events are off limits, then the Dems might as well concede.

I have no interest in hazy internet rumors, but other than that, can we challenge touted virtues the GOP champions on route to the White House? As far as clement's "As The Mud Turns" comment, mudslinging has been an unfortunate part of politics as long as political parties have existed. I understand the exacerbated, detail oriented effect a result of a highly passionate, yet divided American populace. I am a member of Obama's voter registration campaign and the more votes, the fairer the process.

If Obama goes that road, he's in danger of losing me. He can and should go after McCain on factual issues. He can and should go after Palin (and the bridge and all that) via McCain, i.e.:

"John McCain says his running mate said no the bridge, but he knows that's not true"

"John McCain says I'm too inexperienced, and then picks a two year governor. Which is it Senator?"

He can't be just complaining about her though, which is what I heard today. She's a level below him, and he shouldn't get drawn into that.

Just to add, and be more specific:

As Admiral Ackbar would say, she's a trap. She's nearly bulletproof on the Republican side, barring some catastrophic past revelation. She's got the sympathy of people who see about twenty different stories being thrown around about her, and who are already distrustful of the media. She can take nearly all the hits the Democrats throw at her, and it will only solidify McCain's base and possibly get them some sympathy votes. It's a loser for them. She may deserve criticism, but she's now the strength of the ticket. Any shells lobbed at her are wasted and will fall away. McCain is the weakness, so you go after him. And that's especially true for the Democratic nominee. The best thing Obama can do is not say her name again. It's not about being right, it's about winning the election.