GreekChat.com Forums - 2008 Presidential Election: Who are you voting for?

GreekChat.com Forums (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/index.php)

- News & Politics (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/forumdisplay.php?f=207)

- - 2008 Presidential Election: Who are you voting for? (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/showthread.php?t=99799)

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrackerBarrel (Post 1727673)

Which is another reason that its a mistake for Obama to respond by going negative as well. "Stop changing the subject" doesn't work nearly as well when you're talking about the same thing, so questioning each others character is directly on point now.

I agree completely.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrackerBarrel (Post 1727670)

I think McCain will take that trade-off. The people you can associate him with are typical associations that you could make to anyone who has been in Washington for a long time. The problem Obama will run into with his associations are that they aren't your typical "damn corrupt Washington" ties, they are non-mainstream radical figures which have the potential to scare some people away from Obama. You play it up as "Wait, maybe he isn't the kind of change we've been waiting for after all, I would never hang out with those nutjobs and I can't imagine anyone who would."

McCain also has the benefit of a degree of seperation. He works with people who work with people who might not be too popular. Obama is friends with and works directly with the nutjobs in his case.

Look at it this way, no matter how many unpopular things McCain advisers have done, none of them put together a group to bomb the Capitol building, got on stage and screamed about conspiracies and "God Damn America!" or helped pay for his house next door to theirs with embezzled funds from deals that McCain helped him get. If Obama legitamizes this campaign tactic by responding in kind he's making a mistake because his connections at least sound worse.

again..it shows that McCain has poor judgement in picking his associations...especially if he insists on keeping them around.

ETA

Didn't McCain ealier this year shy away from attacking Obama and Wright?

Does anyone remember the North Crarolina Repus that McCain had them remove an ad smearing Obama and Wright saying: "I'm making it very clear, as I have a couple of times in the past, that there's no place for that kind of campaigning, and the American people don't want it."

I guess he has changed his mind and made a place at the table...I wonder if he will say anything to Sarah since she is now bringing it back up.

Not that she wants anyone investigating her pastor who says that God will punish those "slip slidin' Americans...."

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid (Post 1727685)

Didn't McCain ealier this year shy away from attacking Obama and Wright?

That still seems to be the policy. Palin mentioned it in an interview with Kristol that's in the NY Times today. She said:

Quote:

"To tell you the truth, Bill, I don't know why that association isn't discussed more, because those were appalling things that that pastor had said about our great country, and to have sat in the pews for 20 years and listened to that — with, I don't know, a sense of condoning it, I guess, because he didn't get up and leave — to me, that does say something about character. But, you know, I guess that would be a John McCain call on whether he wants to bring that up."

It sounds to me like they're pressuring McCain to let them start bringing it back up, and in my opinion he should let them. It's one of the more inflammatory relationships which Obama had to describe someone who by most standards is pretty out there as his spiritual adviser.

And it's pretty standard for conservative evangelicals to talk about how God isn't going to be happy about the moral decay of our country. Most Americans know that, but very few have had a pastor who yelled conspiracy theories and used the phrase "God damn America!" and if they're going to try to paint Obama as having a history of associating himself with radicals that's one of the associations they can pretty easily use to make their point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrackerBarrel (Post 1727693)

That still seems to be the policy. Palin mentioned it in an interview with Kristol that's in the NY Times today. She said:

It sounds to me like they're pressuring McCain to let them start bringing it back up, and in my opinion he should let them. It's one of the more inflammatory relationships which Obama had to describe someone who by most standards is pretty out there as his spiritual adviser.

And it's pretty standard for conservative evangelicals to talk about how God isn't going to be happy about the moral decay of our country. Most Americans know that, but very few have had a pastor who yelled conspiracy theories and used the phrase "God damn America!" and if they're going to try to paint Obama as having a history of associating himself with radicals that's one of the associations they can pretty easily use to make their point.

well if he wanted to 'expose the truth', then why didn't he run with it then?

Oh yeah cuz he thought that Hillary would do his dirty work so he wouldn't have to and the Repubs would have looked 'cleaner' for not getting too far involved...so now guess what...that attempt failed then and now John has to choose to whether or not he wants to get his hands dirty.

For anyone who's interested, Michelle Obama is going to be Jon Stewart's guest on the Daily Show tonight (he's currently reviewing the debate - and it is lol-worthy).

I've made up my mind and will cast my vote for an independent candidate...Ralph Nader

http://nicedeb.files.wordpress.com/2...uck_norris.jpg

Chuck Norris for the Kick the Gonads Party

So besides the head-spinning reality that polls now show Obama leading in Virginia and West Virginia possibly breaking toward Obama (whoa!), these Senate races are hella interesting -- Elizabeth Dole is struggling and Al Franken is in the lead now in MN! LOL! http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...nate_elections

Quote:

Originally Posted by nittanyalum (Post 1729435)

. . . and Al Franken is in the lead now in MN! LOL! http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...nate_elections

So the world really may be coming to end?! Maybe Obama really is the Anti-Christ, 'cause Al Franken in the Senate has to be one of the signs of the Apocolypse. :D

Quote:

Originally Posted by nittanyalum (Post 1729435)

Thanks, you just had to go and ruin my Friday....haha.

SNL popularity is quite high right now. Makes sense to me that Franken is doing well :)

Vote for me, Al Franken

I like looking at the polls, and there seem to be an oogabillion of them. How do large polls (Gallup, Rassmussen, etc) 'find' who they poll?

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSigkid (Post 1729442)

Thanks, you just had to go and ruin my Friday....haha.

Aw, well I hate to put a stink on your Saturday too, but ... 55% Expect Obama Victory; Only 15% Think McCain Will Win

;):p

ETA: PhiGam & SECDom better get to work! ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrackerBarrel (Post 1727693)

...but he can't CrackerBarrel! It was McCain who said that that the Reverend Wright-Obama relationship has no place in politics. Will John go back on his word? It wouldn't surprise me if he did.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ajuhdg (Post 1729503)

I like looking at the polls, and there seem to be an oogabillion of them. How do large polls (Gallup, Rassmussen, etc) 'find' who they poll?

Seriously! I've never been polled, and I don't know anyone who has!

Quote:

Originally Posted by MysticCat (Post 1729441)

So the world really may be coming to end?! Maybe Obama really is the Anti-Christ, 'cause Al Franken in the Senate has to be one of the signs of the Apocolypse. :D

I am waiting for some idiot at a McCain/Palin rally to say Obama is the Anti-Christ! That would just be icing on the cake! :) lol.