Obama/Biden vs. McCain/Palin

[lukethedrifter]

I'm curious why I have the perception that some our middle of the road independents seem to be looking for a reason to vote McCain. There seems to be a more vigorous defense of Palin and a holding Obama and the Dems to a higher standard of politics. Obviously, I may be wrong about that perception but my current theory is that it's a response to a fairly left/progressive leaning board, sort of a devil's advocate response which I completely understand. My backup theory is that some find it very difficult to vote against the John McCain story.

[ghostrunner]

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.:

You should note that while McCain was lying without shame with regards to Obama's energy plan and Obama did not fight back that McCain started gaining ground. McCain has gained so much ground because there's been little in the way of offense. McCain has managed to play offense on almost every issue and has distorted everything Obama stands for in some way or the other.

It's silly to expect that Obama never gets his hands dirty. Most of his supporters want to see him launch an offensive assault against McCain. And if they have to tear some people down along the way -- so freaking be it.

And I disagree that attacking Palin is bad for him because Palin is the strength. John Kerry's military experience was a HUGE strength and the Republicans made that an even bigger negative against him. The Republicans make their opponents biggest strength a weakness. Palin is both the strength and weakness. You can't use rules of the past to try and win this election. Sarah Palin is not John Edwards, Dick Cheney, etc. She is the most significant VP nominee in my lifetime, so going after her is something they have to do.

EDIT: Adding to the VP stuff, the Republicans completely wiped out Edwards' credibility four years ago and they didn't do it via Kerry.

Those are different situations entirely. Kerry wasn't loved by his base in the least. He was just "not Bush." I wouldn't overestimate the swift boat stuff either. Kerry was a bad, boring candidate of the sort Democrats have put up for the last 20 years outside of Clinton. That's why he lost.

Obama can attack McCain on issues and even get a little dirty, but only with McCain. It doesn't make sense for a nominee to go after a running mate. It lowers him and makes him look worried. It also lends her credibility. They can go after her all they like, but it's not going to get them anywhere, unless they have real, provable, substantive material. To the extent they do, it should be Biden and the spokespersons. And they should mention John McCain's name, so the attack is on him for choosing her.

The flurry of stories so far is creating a boy who cried wolf situation. I bet she'll stop talking about the bridge in the next week or so. They can get her on that, but time's running out and it's going to take more real, provable things like that down the road to do any damage.

I don't remember Edwards' credibility being ruined at all. Maybe among Republicans, but that's a cake walk. He was pretty well-liked this time around, and had Hillary not been running, I imagine he'd have been the favorite.

[ghostrunner]

Newsweek is fisking chain emails? lol

FWIW, "teaching both sides" is just as bad (or offensive, to me anyway) and because she registered republican doesn't mean she wasn't an AIP member. Her husband was and more than one person involved in the party in Alaska has said she was as well. Snopes has the book list thing covered already, and the initial conversation that it stemmed from is weird at best.

I think the article has her saying students should "debate both sides," which is different. She's saying it doesn't have to be part of the curriculum.

There's already a class for debating ideals and issues...it's called philosophy.

How many public high schools offer philosophy though?

why not start? why force it into a science class...why not a history class?

I don't know. I've never had a class of any sort where philosophical discussions didn't come up. That's a good thing and part of learning. People are too hard core about this, IMO. I'm not saying teach both, but I'd be all for having the discussion and letting the science win.

[Popeye_Card]

Those are different situations entirely. Kerry wasn't loved by his base in the least. He was just "not Bush." I wouldn't overestimate the swift boat stuff either. Kerry was a bad, boring candidate of the sort Democrats have put up for the last 20 years outside of Clinton. That's why he lost.

Obama can attack McCain on issues and even get a little dirty, but only with McCain. It doesn't make sense for a nominee to go after a running mate. It lowers him and makes him look worried. It also lends her credibility. They can go after her all they like, but it's not going to get them anywhere, unless they have real, provable, substantive material. To the extent they do, it should be Biden and the spokespersons. And they should mention John McCain's name, so the attack is on him for choosing her.

The flurry of stories so far is creating a boy who cried wolf situation. I bet she'll stop talking about the bridge in the next week or so. They can get her on that, but time's running out and it's going to take more real, provable things like that down the road to do any damage.

I don't remember Edwards' credibility being ruined at all. Maybe among Republicans, but that's a cake walk. He was pretty well-liked this time around, and had Hillary not been running, I imagine he'd have been the favorite.

I feel the same way about Kerry. I wasn't even going to vote until I learned Ohio had a same-sex marriage ban ammendment on the ballot, so I went to vote against that, and to vote against anyone who would support that (i.e. Bush). Kerry was just a random guy, as I think was shown by the poll I started a couple weeks ago.

So here's the question, if Obama '08 was running against Bush '04, would Obama win? EDIT: I ask this because Obama is possibly the most endearing candidate the Democrats have had since Kennedy. Yes, even moreso than the sax-playing Clinton.

[JL21]

So here's the question, if Obama '08 was running against Bush '04, would Obama win?

Given how close the '04 race was with the Dem's sending a corpse out to campaign, I'd imagine that Obama '08 would win.

Both would lose to the '85 Bears, though.

[Popeye_Card]

Newsweek is fisking chain emails? lol

FWIW, "teaching both sides" is just as bad (or offensive, to me anyway) and because she registered republican doesn't mean she wasn't an AIP member. Her husband was and more than one person involved in the party in Alaska has said she was as well. Snopes has the book list thing covered already, and the initial conversation that it stemmed from is weird at best.

I think the article has her saying students should "debate both sides," which is different. She's saying it doesn't have to be part of the curriculum.

There's already a class for debating ideals and issues...it's called philosophy.

How many public high schools offer philosophy though?

why not start? why force it into a science class...why not a history class?

Because college kids can barely handle a real philosophy class. I don't think high school kids are capable of it.

Plus you would have to get it into the curriculum. Good luck, with the lack of funding public schools already have, and the relative lack of success the current curriculums have in math, science, etc. I just don't think it's important to teach at school. Philosophy is something kids can learn at home, or wait until college.

[haltz]

I'd be all for having the discussion and letting the science win.

There's no resolution beyond acknowledging that some people believe it for faith-based reasons. That belongs somewhere besides a science classroom.

[Popeye_Card]

So here's the question, if Obama '08 was running against Bush '04, would Obama win?

Given how close the '04 race was with the Dem's sending a corpse out to campaign, I'd imagine that Obama '08 would win.

Both would lose to the '85 Bears, though.

If Ditka ran as an independent, would Obama lose the Chicago vote?

[BW23]

Terrific.

She still has no business making decisions for our country. Or monkeys for that matter.

Neither does Obama, and he's running for president.

This is the CliffsNotes version of this thread.

That was kinda my point. Although my response would be following about 10 like Snayke's if we're really talking about making it realistic of this thread.

[cardsfansince82]

So here's the question, if Obama '08 was running against Bush '04, would Obama win?

Obama would win that race pretty easily. Kerry was about as bad a candidate in terms of likeability to the average voter and he still lost by a hair. I said it earlier but I never thought Bush could get re-elected. John Kerry was a big part of that becoming a reality.