OK, the stupid ads that have come up recently are driving me crazy.

1. The one claiming Obama wants to teach sex ed to kindergartners. People, there's a whole lot more to sex ed than just the one physical act, and the curriculum planned is intended to be age appropriate with an opt-out clause. I haven't had a chance to look at the curriculum, but my guess would be the kindergarten curriculum is about learning what that thing is between the legs, and what's an appropriate touch and what's a 'bad' touch by someone else. If we're lucky they'll teach a little toilet paper hygiene and hand-washing after using the bathroom, too. I despise scare techniques in ads, and this is one I don't like one bit.

2. The claim that McCain can't send an email in an attempt to make it look like he doesn't know about modern technology. I found this ad extraordinarily insensitive to the physically impaired community. That's like blaming a blind person for not seeing the street signals. McCain has trouble using his arms and hands, so he dictates and his staff does the typing for him. The Obama ad writers didn't bother to fact-check that one, or they would have found that out in a few minutes by using the modern technology of google searching. I can't believe they never heard of a dictation machine, either--it's in common use all over the country every day. Furthermore, McCain landed multi-million dollar, ultra-high tech fighter jets on the postage-stamp size decks of aircraft carriers moving 35 knots or so. Don't tell me the man doesn't understand technology. Obama should fire the person(s) who thought it would be appropriate to put that ad on the air.

/rant

I have never seen it in my lifetime. Could Palin, McCain, Powel, or George Bush do this? I don't think they can.Last I checked, Bush won the presidential election of both 2000 and 2004 (inb4 butthurt Gore/Kerry supporters saying NO HE DIDN'T BAWWW). The press has been hounding Sarah Palin for an interview, and around half the country favors McCain.

Obama's lipstick comment was made right after Palin's speach. The crowd even picked up on the comment. Watch the youtube video again. It's all about timing. They knew where he was going.For the purposes of discussion, we'll assume he was taking a shot at Palin. So what? It's politics, which has turned into calling your opponent an ******* as cleverly as possible. It's essentially people who have taken a high school social structure to a professional level.

John Hagee was endorsing McCain. McCain didn't go to his church for 30 years. McCain didn't endorse or support John Hagee. Obama went to Rev. Wright's church for 30 years, he called him uncle, he was married by the guy, and his kids were baptised by the guy. They are two different things.Once again I'm forced to say "So what?". Wright criticized the US' behavior, and, to my delight, actually got angry about the ****-ups of our government, which is a welcome change from the apathy of our current generation ("Hey what do you think of Sarah Palin?" "Who?").

I'm genuinly curious. Between the two canidates, Obama has the most controversy surrounding him. I just wanted to know what his supporters were thinking.I'm thinking "He's not McCain". McCain has said he'll make sure we stay in Iraq, Palin has said she wants Roe vs. Wade overturned, because in her world women can just pop out one little rugrat after another and not have to worry about their financial situation or potential health risks.

And I honestly think that McCain nominating Palin is far more sexist than anything anyone has said, a woman being nominated for the Vice Presidency simply because she's a woman and not because she's the best person for the job goes against everything women's rights groups in the past have fought for.

The claim that McCain can't send an email in an attempt to make it look like he doesn't know about modern technology. I found this ad extraordinarily insensitive to the physically impaired community. That's like blaming a blind person for not seeing the street signals. McCain has trouble using his arms and hands, so he dictates and his staff does the typing for him. The Obama ad writers didn't bother to fact-check that one, or they would have found that out in a few minutes by using the modern technology of google searching. I can't believe they never heard of a dictation machine, either--it's in common use all over the country every day. Furthermore, McCain landed multi-million dollar, ultra-high tech fighter jets on the postage-stamp size decks of aircraft carriers moving 35 knots or so. Don't tell me the man doesn't understand technology. Obama should fire the person(s) who thought it would be appropriate to put that ad on the air.Jae I think I mentioned this last night when you brought up this subject in Skype but John McCain isn't some cripple that can't use a computer because he has a disability, he's just an old guy that hasn't bothered to learn how to use a computer. If you seriously think that lifting your arms is necessary to type I would appreciate it if you could post a video of you typing, although iirc you aren't a cavewoman and are quite proficient at typing.

As for your assertion that McCain landed "multi-million dollar, ultra-high tech fighter jets" and therefore understands technology:

We can pack the same amount of processing power those jets had in a case the size of a wristwatch Flying a plane != being able to navigate a modern OS to perform what could now be considered basic tasks


Honestly I think your bias towards McCain and/or Palin has clouded your judgment if you're willing to make a comparison like that -- it's tantamount to him responding to any question he doesn't want to answer with "I was in a prison camp for 5 and a half years".

1. The one claiming Obama wants to teach sex ed to kindergartners. You are correct. the ad is quite bogus. (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/off_base_on_sex_ed.html)

Jae I think I mentioned this last night when you brought up this subject in Skype but John McCain isn't some cripple that can't use a computer because he has a disability, he's just an old guy that hasn't bothered to learn how to use a computer.As I understand, technology is suppose to help us, not hinder us. If using a computer is going to be so slow for him that dictating to staff is faster, what are you going to do when you have to respond to a zillion pieces of communication a day?

If you seriously think that lifting your arms is necessary to type I would appreciate it if you could post a video of you typing, although iirc you aren't a cavewoman and are quite proficient at typing. I certainly bend my elbows and move my arms up a bit and forward when I type, but I didn't crash a plane and have the crap beat out of me for years, either. It takes a lot of hubris for you to determine what his physical limitations should let him do. Does Obama type every single thing for his office and campaign? I'd be betting he doesn't. Are you going to give Obama a hard time for having staff who research and type for him? I would hope not. Both candidates need staff to do a lot for them.
Further, who cares whether he knows about the ins and outs of Linux or Windows? Is that going to make a difference in deciding how to respond to a Palestinian-Israeli conflict or a hurricane disaster?

As for your assertion that McCain landed "multi-million dollar, ultra-high tech fighter jets" and therefore understands technology:

We can pack the same amount of processing power those jets had in a case the size of a wristwatch Flying a plane != being able to navigate a modern OS to perform what could now be considered basic tasks

Yeah he was using that technology long before the rest of us moved from slide rules to calculators.
Naw, flying a fighter jet doesn't require any technology knowledge. Just advanced avionics, understanding of aerodynamics and engineering, propulsion, physics, meteorology.... Yep, I guess knowing how to double click my mouse on my Guild Wars icon trumps that.

Honestly I think your bias towards McCain and/or Palin has clouded your judgment if you're willing to make a comparison like that -- it's tantamount to him responding to any question he doesn't want to answer with "I was in a prison camp for 5 and a half years".
When did I say I was voting for McCain? Hint--I voted Democratic in my state primary. For Obama, no less, when the race was very close between Clinton and him.
It's your judgment that's being clouded if you refuse to see blatant errors that could end up costing Obama the election if they don't get it turned around right now. I've watched enough presidential campigns now that I have a feel for how it's going, and the tide has changed from a significant groundswell for Obama to a more neutral level and perhaps even an edge for McCain. McCain is gaining because he's doing nearly everything right from a campaign standpoint while Obama and his team have gotten off message. By all rights, with such a great dissatisfaction for Bush and the Republicans, Obama should be so far in the lead that McCain tastes nothing but dust, but that's not happening. Obama can't count on winning just because he's not from Bush's party. He has to tell voters what he's going to do in office, and why he's better at doing it than McCain, not Bush. He has to do it with clarity, and he needs to do it now.

As I understand, technology is suppose to help us, not hinder us. If using a computer is going to be so slow for him that dictating to staff is faster, what are you going to do when you have to respond to a zillion pieces of communication a day?I'm not asking for him to answer those zillion pieces of communication every day, I'm just saying he should know how to use a computer. Flying a plane != being able to navigate a modern OS to perform what could now be considered basic tasks

<snip>

It takes a lot of hubris for you to determine what his physical limitations should let him do. Does Obama type every single thing for his office and campaign? I'd be betting he doesn't. Are you going to give Obama a hard time for having staff who research and type for him? I would hope not. Both candidates need staff to do a lot for them.
Further, who cares whether he knows about the ins and outs of Linux or Windows? Is that going to make a difference in deciding how to respond to a Palestinian-Israeli conflict or a hurricane disaster?See above. I didn't say "oh he should be the sysadmin for his campaign website and write all the code for it", so if you keep insisting that I'm making unreasonable requests of him by making things up, I'll just ignore those sections of your posts since saying "basic computer knowledge" three times is two times too many.


Yeah he was using that technology long before the rest of us moved from slide rules to calculators.
Naw, flying a fighter jet doesn't require any technology knowledge. Just advanced avionics, understanding of aerodynamics and engineering, propulsion, physics, meteorology.... Yep, I guess knowing how to double click my mouse on my Guild Wars icon trumps that.Oh that's right I forgot he designed every plane he flew and has degrees in physics and engineering. Even if the previous sentence was true, it still has no relevance since he never took the time to learn how to use a computer.

When did I say I was voting for McCain? Hint--I voted Democratic in my state primary. For Obama, no less, when the race was very close between Clinton and him.You voted Democratic when you had a choice between Democrats?

It's your judgment that's being clouded if you refuse to see blatant errors that could end up costing Obama the election if they don't get it turned around right now. I've watched enough presidential campigns now that I have a feel for how it's going, and the tide has changed from a significant groundswell for Obama to a more neutral level and perhaps even an edge for McCain. McCain is gaining because he's doing nearly everything right from a campaign standpoint while Obama and his team have gotten off message. By all rights, with such a great dissatisfaction for Bush and the Republicans, Obama should be so far in the lead that McCain tastes nothing but dust, but that's not happening. Obama can't count on winning just because he's not from Bush's party. He has to tell voters what he's going to do in office, and why he's better at doing it than McCain, not Bush. He has to do it with clarity, and he needs to do it now.McCain's ads are far worse. Furthermore, I'm pretty sure that last comment is just a re-phrasing of a GOP talking point, last I checked Obama has talked about his policies and not just how he's better than McCain in whatever area.

Belief in Obama........ah, the audacity of hope. :rolleyes: :lol: Also, if you had a kindergarden age child who's teacher was friendly with a known pedophile, would the question of someone's "acquaintances" be meaningless to you as well. Afterall, if the teacher had no convictions/record of charges...Fact is, a person's friends and acquaintances are a sign of their judgement. If you don't buy that, try applying for sensitive govt postions and see where that philosophy gets you. Simply saying "I want to do X" is no sign of anything other than positioning. If you find a person's integrity questionable, you have trouble believing anything they say about their stated intentions. Afterall, you question McCain in part b/c you believe he no longer has the integrity you once thought he had.
---------------------------------------------
Seriously, b/c a guy doesn't use email (or hasn't bothered to learn to use that system), he's unqualified? What nonsequitur bs. You do know that won't hurt someone in the office, right? Where email can be handled by employees, staff.... What's next.....no ipod, OMFG!!! he can't be president.. how's he gonna listen to Ludacris!?! Oh, wait, McCain's to old to be that "hip" anyway. :lol: And really, Jmac, even you have to realize that Jae was saying she supported BO, even in the primary. IIRC, she's stated elsewhere that she intends to vote BO over McCain. He probably hasn't used a typewriter much either over the last 30 years or so. Using your logic, most older people who resisted learning how to use "technological mainstays" like a vcr should not be in a position of any responsibility either. "Look, he's to stupid to do X, b/c he can't even program his own VCR/DVD player". :lol: If McCain's ads seem worse to you, maybe you should watch something else besides Keith Obermann or reading the Daily Kos. ;)

Also, if you had a kindergarden age child who's teacher was friendly with a known pedophile
Where did this come from and what does it have to do with Obama? I must warn you libel is bad.

I'm not asking for him to answer those zillion pieces of communication every day, I'm just saying he should know how to use a computer. Why? What advantage is it to him? What's he going to get out of computer use that his staff can't do already? Research? Staff does it. Emails? Staff prints them out, he dictates answers to staff. Typing documents? Staff for that, too. If he didn't already have staff for all this, then yes, computer facility would be mandatory.

The argument by Obama's campaign is that he's out of touch with modern life because he doesn't use a computer. I'm saying that argument is bogus because he has used plenty of modern tech--it just doesn't happen to be a computer.

See above. I didn't say "oh he should be the sysadmin for his campaign website and write all the code for it", so if you keep insisting that I'm making unreasonable requests of him by making things up, I'll just ignore those sections of your posts since saying "basic computer knowledge" three times is two times too many.Where have you said 'basic computer knowledge' in this thread once, let alone twice? If you said it in skype last night, my apologies--I don't have access to skype at work.

It may be an unreasonable request if you're asking him to do something that is physically difficult to do with any speed or efficiency due to a. impairment and b. having staff to handle that already. I don't care if he gets information by typing in urls himself or staff typing it for him, as long as he gets appropriate information.

Oh that's right I forgot he designed every plane he flew and has degrees in physics and engineering. Even if the previous sentence was true, it still has no relevance since he never took the time to learn how to use a computer.Did I say he designed the planes? No. However, you have to know a lot of flight science to fly planes, know how to read weather forecasts and maps so you know where the storms are so you avoid them, etc. That requires facility with modern tech.

You voted Democratic when you had a choice between Democrats?I had a choice to vote in either primary because WI allows that--I chose the Democratic one.

McCain's ads are far worse. Furthermore, I'm pretty sure that last comment is just a re-phrasing of a GOP talking point, last I checked Obama has talked about his policies and not just how he's better than McCain in whatever area.Obama does at his rallies and needs to--the recent ads aren't however, and that's what a lot of people see.

I'm not rephrasing a GOP talking point--have you seen the polls lately? Depending on the news source, Obama is only a couple points ahead, or is in fact now behind McCain. He should be double digits ahead of McCain, and the fact that he's not means he's not doing what he did last winter/spring when he attracted so many people to the polls and so many people to go to his website and donate to show their support for him. He needs to recapture that message and that excitement.

Why? What advantage is it to him?Because it's 2008 and nearly everything is run by computers.

The argument by Obama's campaign is that he's out of touch with modern life because he doesn't use a computer. I'm saying that argument is bogus because he has used plenty of modern tech--it just doesn't happen to be a computer.If you're referring to the planes he flew, that's NOT modern technology.

Where have you said 'basic computer knowledge' in this thread once, let alone twice? If you said it in skype last night, my apologies--I don't have access to skype at work.Ugh. Flying a plane != being able to navigate a modern OS to perform what could now be considered basic tasks

Did I say he designed the planes? No. However, you have to know a lot of flight science to fly planes, know how to read weather forecasts and maps so you know where the storms are so you avoid them, etc. That requires facility with modern tech.PLANES FROM THE 1960s ARE NOT CONSIDERED MODERN TECHNOLOGY BECAUSE THAT WAS NEARLY 50 YEARS AGO AND FURTHERMORE IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TOPIC AT HAND

Where did this come from and what does it have to do with Obama? I must warn you libel is bad.

Nice jump there, sithy. :rofl: ~snipped~ If you know someone that has ties to questionable people, you end up questioning them and their values as well. BO has all kinds of ?? around him and his character (to be "fair", many people in politics do). You may wish to ignore them b/c you favor his policy positions, but that doesn't make them go away. They, like his policy positions, are fair issues in a political campaign. It's not a matter of "this pundit or that", anyone that looks at the facts in any election on any candidate has to square what they are hearing with what they believe about someone's charachter. Hence, in the example of the pedophile, I was trying to suss out exactly when associations became a problem for you in assessing someone else's credibility. Hope that helps. :)

You're not making any sense, you're just spouting out exaggerative hypothetical's with no comparable application.

I should point out that Tony Rezko (et al) != pedophile. Drawing the comparison between a pedophile and a white collar criminal is incredibly silly. In politics it's really fairly unavoidable to have no ties to someone who got a little greedy. :)

By the way guys, just do what I do and mute the TV when the campaign ads come on. ;)

~snipped~

@inyri--I never stated Rezco=pedophile. You people are frankly making hysterical leaps. There are more ?? around BO than Tony Rezco. Please try to keep your blind faith/adoration of BO in check. You guys are looking silly.

Usually, I settle for channel surfing. :) Of course, I do that for commercials most of the time anyway.

OK, this is NOT supposed to be a fan-boy/rah-rah thread for either Obama or McCain. I want to see an analysis of how the campaigns are being handled, and that means looking at all the warts as well as the good stuff. If you want fan-boyism, go to the candidates' websites--you'll get all you want there. I respect both candidates, but I'm going to call a mistake a mistake when I see one. If the candidates' fallibility is too uncomfortable for some of you, then this may not be a thread that you'll want to participate in.

I'm still trying to figure out what Totenkopf is talking about.:confused:

I'm not rephrasing a GOP talking point--have you seen the polls lately? Depending on the news source, Obama is only a couple points ahead, or is in fact now behind McCain. He should be double digits ahead of McCain, and the fact that he's not means he's not doing what he did last winter/spring when he attracted so many people to the polls and so many people to go to his website and donate to show their support for him. He needs to recapture that message and that excitement.That's one way of looking at it. Another would be that McCain's doing better. There is more than one possible explanation for why the horse race has tightened.

Obama's record breaking $66 million dollar haul (and 500,000 new contributors) from last month tells me that the above premise isn't well supported by the facts.

That's one way of looking at it. Another would be that McCain's doing better. There is more than one possible explanation for why the horse race has tightened.
I thought McCain had been doing everything right in the last month--say what you want about her, naming Palin VP was brilliant in terms of rallying the party. The Republicans and conservatives are absolutely ga-ga over this, and it's fired up the party to a degree I hadn't anticipated.

Obama's record breaking $66 million dollar haul (and 500,000 new contributors) from last month tells me that the above premise isn't well supported by the facts.I think that's more likely a post-convention donation bump--McCain also got huge funds, and that kind of donation surge has happened in previous election cycles, even when the candidate was clearly way behind. I couldn't quite pinpoint why I was thinking there was a problem with the message being unclear until I realized Obama's saying one thing and some of his staff are saying something else. He needs to get his rogues back in line so everyone's on the same page. Granted, some of those people are there to say the things that Obama can't, but they can't look disorganized in the process.

I thought McCain had been doing everything right in the last month--say what you want about her, naming Palin VP was brilliant in terms of rallying the party. The Republicans and conservatives are absolutely ga-ga over this, and it's fired up the party to a degree I hadn't anticipated. Many of them are. Some of them are not.

I think that's more likely a post-convention donation bump--McCain also got huge funds, and that kind of donation surge has happened in previous election cycles, even when the candidate was clearly way behind. I repeat: "record breaking".

McCain also got huge funds? Source please, as I was under the impression that he was taking public campaign financing for the general election (thereby cutting him off from further private campaign contributions).

I couldn't quite pinpoint why I was thinking there was a problem with the message being unclear until I realized Obama's saying one thing and some of his staff are saying something else. He needs to get his rogues back in line so everyone's on the same page. Granted, some of those people are there to say the things that Obama can't, but they can't look disorganized in the process.Examples please?

And in your attempt to be fair and balanced, will you be leveling equally rigorous criticism against McCain as well? Or is there a separate (but not equal) set of standards for Senator Obama?

I thought McCain had been doing everything right in the last month--say what you want about her, naming Palin VP was brilliant in terms of rallying the party. The Republicans and conservatives are absolutely ga-ga over this, and it's fired up the party to a degree I hadn't anticipated.I really hope they realize how much of an idiot she is. What kind of public figure sets the security answer on the Yahoo email account they handle government business with to their ZIP CODE?

The Republican party ra-ra's all the time. If they picked Romney they'd be Ra-Ra'ing.

Many of them are. Some of them are not.

I repeat: "record breaking".Point taken, but still not surprising.

McCain also got huge funds? Source please, as I was under the impression that he was taking public campaign financing for the general election (thereby cutting him off from further private campaign contributions)I'll have to look it up when I get home and edit it in.

Examples please?I'll find those--may take awhile because this is more of a gut feeling that I'm still trying to fully sort out. Bear with me on that--it's really hard for me to articulate this disquiet I have about what's going on in Obama's campaign right now that make me worry that he could lose if he doesn't fix it asap.

And in your attempt to be fair and balanced, will you be leveling equally rigorous criticism against McCain as well? Or is there a separate (but not equal) set of standards for Senator Obama?Most people here in Kavar's have covered a lot of McCain's faults in the campaign already. Don't get me wrong--I'm not a McCain fan-girl by any means, but I can appreciate when both camps do things right and sigh in frustration when they do something wrong. The best analogy I can think of to explain that sentiment is a Bears-Packers game--I love the Bears, but I can nail them to the wall for their faults, and when Favre was on the Packers' team, I surely could appreciate the skill with which he played the game, even if he mowed over my favorite team. Obviously football is not nearly as important, but I hope that explains the feeling I'm trying to get at.

Obama is dazzling, to be sure, and has tremendous gifts and I think he'll bring a lot to the Presidency--things that McCain can't bring. However, he's dazzled so many here that they're missing some of the things that could put a win at risk. Likewise, so many here are so anti-Republican that it's blinded their ability to see the things that could secure him a win if the Obama team doesn't address those properly.

However, he's dazzled so many here that they're missing some of the things that could put a win at risk.That may be true, however when I ask for specific examples so that I might better understand what you're referring to, you tell me that it's "more of a feeling" that you have. Not saying that it's wrong, but I think we have to agree that it's clearly not objective.

That may be true, however when I ask for specific examples so that I might better understand what you're referring to, you tell me that it's "more of a feeling" that you have. Not saying that it's wrong, but I think we have to agree that it's clearly not objective.
Oh, definitely not objective. Some of it's purely gestalt--I've seen patterns emerge in elections cycles in the past and I see certain patterns emerging here, but there's no way to objectively quantify that. Asking for politics to be objective is like asking politicians to be completely honest--it's not going to happen.

Some of it is things like this:
"As for the tight campaign, David Axelrod, Mr. Obama's chief strategist, said, "We never anticipated anything but a close race and now [after the political conventions], it's settled back to where we expected it to be, which is a very close, competitive race." (link) (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/18/obama-urged-to-sharpen-rhetoric/)
Horse hockey. The campaign expected to be way ahead months ago and were confident of a win. This is just spin.

This is what they need to be hammering home:
Biden ended the first day of his tour by urging college students to imagine a nation more respected overseas and committed to change at home. He told about 4,500 people...that U.S. standing worldwide had been hurt by the Bush administration. An Obama presidency would change that, he said.

"Imagine a country where we lead by the power of our example and not by the example of our power," Biden said. (link) (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/17/biden-says-wall-street-woes-awoke-mccain-to-crisis/)

The Saddleback answer 'it's above my pay grade' when asked when a baby's human rights start. Obama needed to be honest about his pro-choice beliefs there. It sure as heck isn't going to be above his pay grade when he's President. However, I respect the fact that he later was also honest enough (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/07/obama-abortion-answer-at-saddleback-was-too-flip/) to admit it was a flip answer and that he shouldn't have said it that way.

His stance on war is a bit muddied--it's gone from 'bring the troops home asap' to 'well, let's make sure the Iraqis are OK, and Afghanistan is where we should be'. I think in this case it's recognition of reality on his part, but it comes off as having being a floating policy unless it's couched properly. The move by the Bush administration to bring troops home and shorten deployments of those who are still there has taken some of the possible impact away from anything Obama could say now, however.

The move to suppress shows or ads negative to Obama. I still don't believe that Obama would ever have approved the email to tell people to call into WGN radio (http://confessionsofageekymom.blogspot.com/2008_08_01_archive.html) to tell them not to air someone just because they don't like what he had to say. I'm not sure what the staffer who decided to do that was smoking that day.

The complete bonehead political comment of the week (yes, I know it's only Wed/early Thur, but I don't think anyone will top this one): McCain saying the economy was strong in the face of government bailouts of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, Lehmann brothers going bankrupt and Merrill Lynch being sold to prevent bankruptcy, soaring gas prices, and a 504 point Dow Jones stock market plummet.

Yeah, I'm not sure what economy McCain was talking about, but it sure isn't the one I live in.

Oh, definitely not objective. Some of it's purely gestalt--I've seen patterns emerge in elections cycles in the past and I see certain patterns emerging here, but there's no way to objectively quantify that. Asking for politics to be objective is like asking politicians to be completely honest--it's not going to happen. I guess I'm just wondering why any of us should be persuaded by your opinions moreso than any others. Like those of people that do this for a living, etc.

Again, not saying you're wrong, just trying to figure out which way is up.

Some of it is things like this:
(link) (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/18/obama-urged-to-sharpen-rhetoric/)
Horse hockey. The campaign expected to be way ahead months ago and were confident of a win. This is just spin. And this is opinion.

This is what they need to be hammering home:
(link) (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/17/biden-says-wall-street-woes-awoke-mccain-to-crisis/) Ok. And that they're doing that says what?

The Saddleback answer 'it's above my pay grade' when asked when a baby's human rights start. Obama needed to be honest about his pro-choice beliefs there. It sure as heck isn't going to be above his pay grade when he's President. I think this may be the part where you and I have a fundamental disagreement over which responsibilities belong to the President and which don't. Seems to me that this one should be answered by the medical community.

So I disagree that it won't be above his pay grade. His job will be to lead the country, not settle medical issues (a boundary which Bush happily crossed)

His stance on war is a bit muddied--it's gone from 'bring the troops home asap' to 'well, let's make sure the Iraqis are OK, and Afghanistan is where we should be'.Interesting. I've followed his campaign for quite some time and have never sensed any lack of clarity as to what he meant. I feel he's been pretty clear the whole time, but that's just my interpretation.

I think in this case it's recognition of reality on his part, but it comes off as having being a floating policy unless it's couched properly. Indeed I can see how it might come off that way to some. I guess he's not going to be able to please all the people all the time.

The move by the Bush administration to bring troops home and shorten deployments of those who are still there has taken some of the possible impact away from anything Obama could say now, however. I'm sorry? :confused:

I think it would definitely impact his ability to say "see? I was right the whole time." or "Even Bush agrees with my policies", or if McCain switches his stance "flip-flopper", etc.

The move to suppress shows or ads negative to Obama. I still don't believe that Obama would ever have approved the email to tell people to call into WGN radio (http://confessionsofageekymom.blogspot.com/2008_08_01_archive.html) to tell them not to air someone just because they don't like what he had to say. I'm not sure what the staffer who decided to do that was smoking that day. Firstly, this is speculation on your part. Secondly, I don't see how sending out an email encouraging supporters to boycott a radio program constitutes "suppression".

The complete bonehead political comment of the week (yes, I know it's only Wed/early Thur, but I don't think anyone will top this one): McCain saying the economy was strong in the face of government bailouts of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, Lehmann brothers going bankrupt and Merrill Lynch being sold to prevent bankruptcy, soaring gas prices, and a 504 point Dow Jones stock market plummet.

Yeah, I'm not sure what economy McCain was talking about, but it sure isn't the one I live in.Yep. I agree.

I guess I'm just wondering why any of us should be persuaded by your opinions moreso than any others. Like those of people that do this for a living, etc.Because it's interesting to talk about these things and hear each other's thoughts on it, and because we're not trying to sell newspapers or gain market share with viewers, so we might turn up something unique in the discussion that those who do this for a living might miss, ignore, or suppress.
Again, not saying you're wrong, just trying to figure out which way is up.
And this is opinion.Yes, some of it's opinion.

Ok. And that they're doing that says what? They should do more of it.

So I disagree that it won't be above his pay grade. His job will be to lead the country, not settle medical issues (a boundary which Bush happily crossed)It becomes his pay grade when he appoints justices to the Supreme Court.

Interesting. I've followed his campaign for quite some time and have never sensed any lack of clarity as to what he meant. I feel he's been pretty clear the whole time, but that's just my interpretation.My understanding was his message early on was 'bring them home now.' I remember him saying when he was elected he'd bring the troops home as soon as he got in office. Granted, it's been a year so I may not have that 100% right.

Indeed I can see how it might come off that way to some. I guess he's not going to be able to please all the people all the time. Well, no one can make everyone happy all the time, but he just needs to be careful with the presentation of the message.

I'm sorry? :confused:If Bush is bringing troops home, it takes some of the wind out of the sails of the anti-war plank. I would hope that Bush isn't doing that for political reasons, but I don't know with him anymore.

I think it would definitely impact his ability to say "see? I was right the whole time." or "Even Bush agrees with my policies", or if McCain switches his stance "flip-flopper", etc.Well, maybe Obama should point that out and take advantage of that.

Firstly, this is speculation on your part. Secondly, I don't see how sending out an email encouraging supporters to boycott a radio program constitutes "suppression". The email wasn't to boycott the program. The email (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-obama-wgn,0,4402551.htmlstory) advised people to call into WGN to tell the radio station not to air the program. That's different from a boycott.

Because it's interesting to talk about these things and hear each other's thoughts on it, and because we're not trying to sell newspapers or gain market share with viewers, so we might turn up something unique in the discussion that those who do this for a living might miss, ignore, or suppress. I agree with every point you make here, however none of it addresses what I posted.

Yes, some of it's opinion. Please help me understand which part of your opinion I should be considering fact.

They should do more of it. And what would "more" look like? Where is the quota coming from? Who is setting the bar?

It becomes his pay grade when he appoints justices to the Supreme Court. That's appointing Supreme Court Justices, which is something completely different.

My understanding was his message early on was 'bring them home now.' I remember him saying when he was elected he'd bring the troops home as soon as he got in office. Granted, it's been a year so I may not have that 100% right. Bring them home from Iraq, yes. Permanently? I don't know, but talk of redeployment to Afghanistan doesn't strike me as being inconsistent with getting them out of Iraq. I also don't see anything inconsistent with wanting something now and talking about how one will do make it happen once they are in a position to do so.
Well, no one can make everyone happy all the time, but he just needs to be careful with the presentation of the message. I think that's probably sound advice for all politicians. I'm still trying to understand why you feel it applies to Obama specifically in this cycle. It still seems like we're at the "gut-feeling" part and I suspect that I'm going to have to settle for that answer.

If Bush is bringing troops home, it takes some of the wind out of the sails of the anti-war plank.I guess I'm just not seeing why "It's a good start that should have happened a long time ago, but we will not rest until..." wouldn't be effective. Followed up with "I told ya so" afterwards or something.

Bush approved 8,000 to come home later this year. That's less than 1/3 of the soldiers we sent for "The Surge", so I know that we still have a long way to go.

Well, maybe Obama should point that out and take advantage of that.
The email wasn't to boycott the program. The email (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-obama-wgn,0,4402551.htmlstory) advised people to call into WGN to tell the radio station not to air the program. That's different from a boycott.And this...
Tell WGN that by providing Kurtz with airtime, they are legitimizing baseless attacks from a smear-merchant and lowering the standards of political discourse....is different from "telling them not to air the program".

Obama did absolutely nothing to prevent the show from airing, so claims that he attempted to "suppress" negative press seem a little far-fetched to me. Perhaps you have other examples though that are much clearer?

Thanks for your post.

McCain's old school attitude shows - by his not learning how to use a personal computer. Yes, he probably has more important things to do or his staff can answer emails for him.

But the point is that he doesn't bother to keep in touch with the modern generation, he's part of the old school. All over the world, modern politicians have learnt to use the computer. Even the Prime Minister of Singapore, who's very old school, was determined enough to learn how to use the computer.

Yes, use of the computer does not help in foreign policy. But the point again is more of his attitude and bias. The internet generation are vocal, savy, appreciate quick thinking and decision making. Sticking to old ways of doing things (like someone said about a dictation machine) - doesn't cut it.

Old school is also bad because the US economy and all its ills are not gonna to drastically changed for the better without someone with new ideas, thinking, new paradigm shift, nimble enough to change tack when necessary.

I still say that Obama is the Man for Change! He's young but will be savy and nimble enough to overcome the steep learning curve that he is bound to face. In this new global generation, McCain's experience counts for nothing because the experience will not be relevant.

If the guy can't type without difficulty because his arms/fingers/shoulders don't work well, why would he choose a piece of technology that works worse for him just because it happens to be the latest and greatest? That's like saying you're not hip because you don't have a cutting edge CPU and video card in your rig. It's not like he hasn't seen one--there are plenty in his office and his wife types some stuff for him on her laptop. Both men are going to have staff doing their net research for them and their typing for them. The daily emails I get from the Obama campaign are all written by his staff, not Obama. Are you going to nail Obama for dictating statements to his staff instead of typing them himself to send to me and everyone else wanting to hear from and about him?

I don't care what technology either men use to get their information and do their job, as long as they are able to get good information quickly and can get the job done efficiently. I expect both men to concern themselves with issues like the war, healthcare, the financial crisis, education, energy, and other things far more important than photoshopping custom commandos or IMing 4chan links to their buddies.

I agree with every point you make here, however none of it addresses what I posted.Ah--you're asking me why my opinion should persuade. That wasn't particularly my intent. I don't have the same resources that those working in the field have access to, so the best any of us can do is voice opinions and ideas, and I enjoy hearing what other people have to say about this issue.

Please help me understand which part of your opinion I should be considering fact. I'm trying to remember to use 'I think' in opinion statements--had that beaten out of me in HS English because the English teacher said "Your paper already states what you think. Saying 'I think' is redundant."

And what would "more" look like? Where is the quota coming from? Who is setting the bar?What does 'more' look like? :D Anything 'more' than what they were doing at that point is 'more'.
The bar is very simple: winning the election. Anything that doesn't allow them to accomplish that needs to be ditched and anything that helps that needs to be enhanced.

That's appointing Supreme Court Justices, which is something completely different.Why is it different? He's going to appoint Justices that will have a direct say on any abortion cases that come to the Supreme court. That is at his pay grade level.

I guess I'm just not seeing why "It's a good start that should have happened a long time ago, but we will not rest until..." wouldn't be effective. Followed up with "I told ya so" afterwards or something.Well, he could do that too--hadn't thought about that option.


Bring them home from Iraq, yes.
Sorry--I did mean just Iraq. Afghanistan is a different situation.
Tell WGN that by providing Kurtz with airtime,
...is different from "telling them not to air the program".
Please explain to me how this could be construed as anything other than telling WGN not to air the program with Kurtz. Furthermore, the email never said to boycott the program--it told people specifically to call WGN about the program.

Obama did absolutely nothing to prevent the show from airing, so claims that he attempted to "suppress" negative press seem a little far-fetched to me. Perhaps you have other examples though that are much clearer?I was speaking specifically about what was in the Tribune article, (NB--the link isn't pointing to the article I'd originally quoted, apparently--I'll try to see if I can get that fixed because I couldn't find it readily.)
If you had heard all calls that came in that night and the next day after the show had already aired, you'd have heard callers telling WGN they shouldn't air or have aired the show. You might be able to pull up podcasts of the shows both that night and the next day so you can hear what I heard--I'll see if I can get specific links for you on that.
If Obama supporters are calling radio and TV stations to tell them not to air programs or ads that might be negative to him, what would you call it, other than suppression? To be fair, I think Obama himself would express disappointment about any smears, but I don't think he'd tell people not to air air something just because it opposes him. He certainly has a right and possibly even a responsibility to pursue appropriate legal action on slander or libel. However, people are going to assume, rightly or wrongly, that Obama condones the activity of his campaigners on this kind of thing if he doesn't clarify that internally with his team and possibly publicly.

Ah--you're asking me why my opinion should persuade. That wasn't particularly my intent. I don't have the same resources that those working in the field have access to, so the best any of us can do is voice opinions and ideas, and I enjoy hearing what other people have to say about this issue.Intent or no, you put forth the comment that his campaign was making mistakes that put his run at risk, but have not offered concrete examples.

We tend to evaluate the positions that people hold based on their reasons for doing so. I've asked you for your reasons and thus far the response seems to be that you don't have any.

I'm trying to remember to use 'I think' in opinion statements--had that beaten out of me in HS English because the English teacher said "Your paper already states what you think. Saying 'I think' is redundant." Yes, it is amazing how some teachers shape our thinking. :)

I am not sure how this is applicable to what we're discussing though. Back in post #23 you made an assertion (which I am lead to believe is your opinion, pending sources which make it fact). In post #24, I pointed out that it is opinion. In post #25, you stated that only some of it was. In post #26, I asked for clarification on which part was not.

If you would like to retract the comments made in post #25, then we can both acknowledge that it is opinion and move on. Otherwise, I'll still be left wondering which part is fact and what your high school english teacher has to do with any of this.

What does 'more' look like? :D Anything 'more' than what they were doing at that point is 'more'. That's not specific, Jae. They could spend 24 hours a day doing this and your only direction is "more". Isn't it up to them to decide what their message is, how often it's repeated (by them), etc? It is their campaign after all.

The bar is very simple: winning the election. Anything that doesn't allow them to accomplish that needs to be ditched and anything that helps that needs to be enhanced.This may or may not be true, however I think Senator Obama has stated more than once that he will not follow the "do/say anything to win" way of doing things. In this, I think your bar and his differ.

Why is it different? He's going to appoint Justices that will have a direct say on any abortion cases that come to the Supreme court. That is at his pay grade level.Yes, appointing judges will be his job. Being a judge is will not be. I hope that helps to clarify.

Furthermore, it shouldn't be a judge's decision either. It should be left to medical profession to decide.

Well, he could do that too--hadn't thought about that option. Fair enough :)

Sorry--I did mean just Iraq. Afghanistan is a different situation. Cool :)

Please explain to me how this could be construed as anything other than telling WGN not to air the program with Kurtz.:eyeraise:
Tell you what, since you're the one put forth the assertion that that is what the message is, how about you provide your argument for that instead of shifting the burden of proof to me. The message says X. If you think it says Y, that's fine, but that's on you to argue.

Furthermore, the email never said to boycott the program--it told people specifically to call WGN about the program.Which still does not constitute "suppression".

I was speaking specifically about what was in the Tribune article, (NB--the link isn't pointing to the article I'd originally quoted, apparently--I'll try to see if I can get that fixed because I couldn't find it readily.)
If you had heard all calls that came in that night and the next day after the show had already aired, you'd have heard callers telling WGN they shouldn't air or have aired the show.I'm not understanding how the actions of individuals are related to the action of Senator Obama. How many callers? What percentage of total calls aired did this make up? What instructions were given to the screeners? You may think I'm nitpicking, however I think you're jumping to conclusions based on part of the story (which happened to be within the control of at least one party which may or may not have had an agenda).

You might be able to pull up podcasts of the shows both that night and the next day so you can hear what I heard--I'll see if I can get specific links for you on that. I look forward to seeing the link(s).

If Obama supporters are calling radio and TV stations to tell them not to air programs or ads that might be negative to him, what would you call it, other than suppression? Assuming that all my above questions can be answered satisfactorily, that still doesn't explain how Obama's campaign is suppressing "negative press".

Jae, in the interest of understanding your point, I asked for other examples. Thus far you've opted to remain focused on this one. Do you have other examples or not?

To be fair, I think Obama himself would express disappointment about any smears, but I don't think he'd tell people not to air air something just because it opposes him. Oh, ok. So his campaign isn't suppressing negative press (per your assertion in post #23) after all? Done and done, then.

He certainly has a right and possibly even a responsibility to pursue appropriate legal action on slander or libel. However, people are going to assume, rightly or wrongly, that Obama condones the activity of his campaigners on this kind of thing if he doesn't clarify that internally with his team and possibly publicly.Again, this seems to be largely based upon interpreting message X as message Y. If you interpret message X as message Y, then all of these things are probably very valid concerns. If you interpret message X and message X however...

Thanks for the response, Jae. :)

I have not formed an opinion about these, but I wanted to place some fresh ads or ad fall out news. I will comment on them later. I just want to get them out there.

New York Times: Dubious Claims in Obama’s Ads Against McCain, Despite Vow of Truth (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/us/politics/26ads.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin&oref=slogin)

CBS: Obama's Attack On McCain's Age Immature (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/19/politics/uwire/main4459717.shtml)

Biden Calls Obama Attack Ad “Terrible” (http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/09/22/biden-calls-obama-attack-ad-terrible/)
You-Tube Clip Here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SKjTqgjq8E)

McCain's Cancer Past Propels PAC Attack Ad (http://www.queerty.com/mccains-cancer-past-propels-pac-attack-ad-20080925/)
You-Tube Clip Here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ju6fSLOtm-4)

These are just the new ads and ad articles.

-----

Out of all the ads that could have occured, the one that got me steamed was the attack on McCain's melanoma. Obama himself is not connected to the ad, but Howard Dean is connected to the group.

Original article: Liberal PACs Ready Attack Ad on McCain’s Health (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/25/liberal-pacs-ready-attack-ad-on-mccains-health/)

"Hope and Change" is a group lead by Howard Dean's brother. I'm a little lost for words. I know that politics can bring out the darkness. We have seen several punches from each side, but there is something to be said about this ad. What I don't understand is why has Obama kept quite.

Intent or no, you put forth the comment that his campaign was making mistakes that put his run at risk, but have not offered concrete examples.Getting distracted by Palin instead of focusing on McCain, and more importantly the issues that are most important to voters. It appears they've since corrected that. Overreacting--or surrogates overreacting--to negative comments about Obama, as happened in two WGN incidents and the 527 Ayers ads. Flippantly saying "it's above my pay grade" (which he also corrected), when he should have just been up front about his abortion stance. Biden saying Roosevelt spoke to America on TV after the stock market crash in '29 (!) and saying Hillary Clinton is more qualified than he is to be VP. Saying our energy crisis could be substantially improved if we just maintained proper tire pressure (would certainly use less gas, but hardly an adequate answer). Any one of these things by themselves is pretty small. String them together with the fact that Obama has a much smaller edge in the polls than I thought he should have at this point, and it makes me uneasy.

Yes, it is amazing how some teachers shape our thinking. :)It's not that big of a deal, just a particular aspect of my writing style that I thought I'd clarify so you're aware in the future. I've generally assumed pretty much everything in this forum is someone's opinion, except for something like science/medical studies, specific facts, or something like that.

If you would like to retract the comments made in post #25, then we can both acknowledge that it is opinion and move on. Otherwise, I'll still be left wondering which part is fact and what your high school english teacher has to do with any of this. See above. HS teacher has no other relevance other than clarifying where I'm at in communication style.

That's not specific, Jae.Did you ask for specifics? No. :)

They could spend 24 hours a day doing this and your only direction is "more".The amount needed to have an impact on American voters, then. I don't know how much that would have to be, but it seems to me when they've focused on those issues in the primaries and once he'd secured the votes needed for the nomination, he gained ground.
Isn't it up to them to decide what their message is, how often it's repeated (by them), etc? It is their campaign after all.Of course it is, not that I think they'd ever care about what I, or pretty much anyone else here, is saying on a Star Wars forum.

This may or may not be true, however I think Senator Obama has stated more than once that he will not follow the "do/say anything to win" way of doing things. In this, I think your bar and his differ.I should have specified "within the confines of ethical behavior" then. I never meant to imply that they should ever do something unethical to get ahead. I sure hope they won't, though I've found that to be a generally naive hope in most major-level elections, and Obama's campaign is generally a refreshing change.

Yes, appointing judges will be his job. Being a judge is will not be. I hope that helps to clarify.It doesn't negate the influence he would have indirectly.

Furthermore, it shouldn't be a judge's decision either. It should be left to medical profession to decide.Well, it's a judicial/political matter anyway, we have to deal with that. I don't know if it will ever be a purely medical issue.

Tell you what, since you're the one put forth the assertion that that is what the message is, how about you provide your argument for that instead of shifting the burden of proof to me. You're not answering my question. The email itself said: ""Tell WGN that by providing Kurtz with airtime, they are legitimizing baseless attacks from a smear-merchant and lowering the standards of political discourse...It is absolutely unacceptable that WGN would give a slimy character assassin like Kurtz time for his divisive, destructive ranting on our public airwaves,"

What's the logical conclusion an average reader would draw from that? Boycott the program? No, because boycott wasn't mentioned directly or even implied with that. The logical conclusion a reader would draw from that is to call WGN and say "Don't give airtime to Kurtz because it's wrong", and that's what I heard from a lot of callers that next morning--WGN was wrong for airing Kurtz and should never have aired him in the first place.

What other possible option is there than that this was an effort to get Kurtz off the air? I'm not seeing another option, but if you've thought of one that works better, great, please tell me, because that would certainly alter the conclusion I made on that. That's what I'm trying to ask you here. :)

Which still does not constitute "suppression".See above.

I'm not understanding how the actions of individuals are related to the action of Senator Obama. How many callers? What percentage of total calls aired did this make up? What instructions were given to the screeners? You may think I'm nitpicking, however I think you're jumping to conclusions based on part of the story (which happened to be within the control of at least one party which may or may not have had an agenda).Those are all valid questions, and Milt Rosenberg is quite conservative so I might expect some bias against pro-Obama callers if I didn't know Rosenberg was generally fair-minded. However, WGN in general is a little left of center, with the Kathy/Judy show in the morning being quite liberal, but I still heard the same type of calls regardless of the political spectrum of the program hosts. Obviously WGN's stance was 'we have the right, in a country that values free speech, to air what we want and we're not going to let anyone pressure us to not put someone on the air just because they don't like the guest'. Again though, what kind of reaction can we expect from a sensationalist "stop the smears!!oneone!!!1111!!!" email?

I look forward to seeing the link(s).
Kurtz interview (from this page) (http://feeds.feedburner.com/wgnradio/x720uncut):
Part 1 (http://caster.wgnradio.com/uncut/x720uncut-0005-080827.mp3)
Part 2 (http://caster.wgnradio.com/uncut/x720uncut-0006-080827.mp3)
Part 3 (http://caster.wgnradio.com/uncut/x720uncut-0007-080827.mp3)
Part 4 (http://caster.wgnradio.com/uncut/x720uncut-0008-080827.mp3)
Part 5 (http://caster.wgnradio.com/uncut/x720uncut-0009-080827.mp3)
Part 6 (http://caster.wgnradio.com/uncut/x720uncut-0010-080827.mp3)
Part 7 (http://caster.wgnradio.com/uncut/x720uncut-0011-080827.mp3)
Part 8 (http://caster.wgnradio.com/uncut/x720uncut-0012-080827.mp3)

Part 6 is where the calls begin.

John Williams speaks (http://caster.wgnradio.com/podcasts/jwpod-154-080904.mp3) to Zack Christensen (Extension 720 producer) about the enormous response to Rosenberg's show. I can't pull up the podcasts for the Spike O'Dell and Kathy and Judy shows the morning after the Kurtz interview where there were also many callers. I can pursue contacting WGN if you're really interested.

The Freddosso interview (http://wgnradio.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=44585&Itemid=467)



Assuming that all my above questions can be answered satisfactorily, that still doesn't explain how Obama's campaign is suppressing "negative press".The Obama Action Wire is linked directly from Obama's own site (Fight the Smears page) (http://www.fightthesmears.com/search), and is coming from the campaign itself.

Jae, in the interest of understanding your point, I asked for other examples. Thus far you've opted to remain focused on this one. Do you have other examples or not?
An episode with another WGN guest (http://www.chicagotribune.com/chi-080916-obama-wgn,0,4104167.story).
AP article (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D92PL7400&show_article=1) about the Obama campaign wanting to block negative ads and asking the Dept. of Justice to intervene.

Oh, ok. So his campaign isn't suppressing negative press (per your assertion in post #23) after all? Done and done, then.Depends I guess on how you define 'suppressing negative press', but it looks like the Obama Action Wire section of his campaign is pursuing this with some recklessness that doesn't seem to me to be characteristic of Obama himself. I could never see Obama being so sensationalist, and I think he needs to do something to tone down what looks to me to be a loose cannon.

Oh--I forgot about finding you a link showing record contributions for McCain in August, and here it is. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/09/15/ST2008091500526.html). Obama also had a record month and had made a ton of money as you noted also. McCain has indeed opted for public money which limits contributions to him, but the RNC is receiving a ton of donations, as is the DNC, and both of those groups will be funding campaign needs.

Thanks for the response, Jae. :)I appreciate the time you've taken too.