Michelle Obama rumor- October surprise

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by jon1856

Shinerbock-Not sure if you read the entire posting of/for that link.
For it goes well beyond what you posted.
And I have yet to see anyone, including the original Blogger, debunk the debunkers.
And the people I spoke to a few weeks ago still say that it NEVER happened and thus NEVER existed.
And what say yours?

They're McCain and senior GOP people, and they're about half and half.

If this tape is real, I'm not sure how you would debunk the "debunkers." After all, the debunking bloggers are merely drawing inferences like everyone else (though they may be strong inferences).

My point was solely that Rainbow Push is not an organization which stays out of partisan politics, and thus they're biased just like everyone else.

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

They're McCain and senior GOP people, and they're about half and half.

If this tape is real, I'm not sure how you would debunk the "debunkers." After all, the debunking bloggers are merely drawing inferences like everyone else (though they may be strong inferences).

My point was solely that Rainbow Push is not an organization which stays out of partisan politics, and thus they're biased just like everyone else.

"If this tape is real"-Shiinerbock, if it is real the best way to debunk the debunkers is to show it. And it has not shown up anywhere.
NO ONE, that I know, in three different "camps" believe it ever happened or existed.
But as I posted before, this is not the first time ever that people have said falsehoods about others just to have them out there to be "heard" and remembered. Very few will bother to follow-up to see what proof exists.
In some ways this is like what happened with USDS and the six Fraternities involved the the drug busts. Six were said to have been involved in the very first PR's.
SAE National had a press release within 48 hours showing that NO active Brothers or Pledges were involved. Yet it took school over two weeks to correct/update their information on SAE and two others. And I never saw correction in any of the mass media.

And, I fear and believe, that this is only the opening shot of what we all will see until November. And even Fox News said, just yesterday, that even with the two candidates saying that they will "play nice" that it still will be politics as what is now the norm.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by jon1856

"If this tape is real"-Shiinerbock, if it is real the best way to debunk the debunkers is to show it. And it has not shown up anywhere.
NO ONE, that I know, in three different "camps" believe it ever happened or existed.
But as I posted before, this is not the first time ever that people have said falsehoods about others just to have them out there to be "heard" and remembered. Very few will bother to follow-up to see what proof exists.
In some ways this is like what happened with USDS and the six Fraternities involved the the drug busts. Six were said to have been involved in the very first PR's.
SAE National had a press release within 48 hours showing that NO active Brothers or Pledges were involved. Yet it took school over two weeks to correct/update their information on SAE and two others. And I never saw correction in any of the mass media.

And, I fear and believe, that this is only the opening shot of what we all will see until November. And even Fox News said, just yesterday, that even with the two candidates saying that they will "play nice" that it still will be politics as what is now the norm.

A) I agree, it'll be a dirty election cycle. I'm actually looking forward to it.

B) You're right that the best way to prove the naysayers wrong would be to prove it, but consider the reality here. If it is real, and if some political entity has it, what benefit would they gain from showing it now? They could simply wait for the hype to blow over, allow people to conclude that it was fake, and spring it at an inopportune time (which is what my people have said: That if real, it is being held).

C) What I heard weeks ago when it broke was that about half the contacts I know believe, for whatever reason, it was real, and about half didn't. If real, I highly doubt that many have first hand knowledge, as I'm positive the McCain campaign doesn't have it (though they would certainly be able to exercise some persuasion over usage) and the GOP proper doesn't have it.

D) There will be more stuff like this. I think so because I strongly believe there is stuff "like" this out there (Obama has been pitched softballs, true vetting will continue in coming months) and because the GOP is far superior than the left when it comes to pure political strategy. Further, as we agree, it will be dirty and I expect these types of rumors to continue, on both sides, throughout the cycle.

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

A) I agree, it'll be a dirty election cycle. I'm actually looking forward to it.

B) You're right that the best way to prove the naysayers wrong would be to prove it, but consider the reality here. If it is real, and if some political entity has it, what benefit would they gain from showing it now? They could simply wait for the hype to blow over, allow people to conclude that it was fake, and spring it at an inopportune time (which is what my people have said: That if real, it is being held).

C) What I heard weeks ago when it broke was that about half the contacts I know believe, for whatever reason, it was real, and about half didn't. If real, I highly doubt that many have first hand knowledge, as I'm positive the McCain campaign doesn't have it (though they would certainly be able to exercise some persuasion over usage) and the GOP proper doesn't have it.

D) There will be more stuff like this. I think so because I strongly believe there is stuff "like" this out there (Obama has been pitched softballs, true vetting will continue in coming months) and because the GOP is far superior than the left when it comes to pure political strategy. Further, as we agree, it will be dirty and I expect these types of rumors to continue, on both sides, throughout the cycle.

Yes-it will be as dirty, if not even more so, than any other. However, unlike what you posted, I am not forward to it at all. For I do not believe it is needed in any way shape or form.
And I missed posting something I was told: While not happy that event never took place, thus no tape, they were rather happy that "story" was out and being talked about. And whether or not the people talking about it believed in it or not, just being out there just made them happy.

And this year, the GOP is going to have a major problem on their hand if mud is a major or significant component of their political strategy. Or their supporters-I.E. "Swift Boaters".

So lets full up the bath tubs, get the showers running. And stock up on soap and laundry detergent.

[UGAalum94]

I don't know. Do you really think the video will make any difference? Anyone who was likely to be put off would be put off already and anyone who wants to vote for him will excuse it. I don't really see a bunch of people who will be surprised and swayed if it turns out that Mrs. Obama has made seemingly radical, racially motivated commentary in her day.

Go back to the senior thesis. Would it really shock you to know that her commentary about race in America didn't end there?

Plus, I think it will have a short media life span in the mainstream press and only be replayed on FOX and right-wing blogs, which aren't really aimed at folks like to be Obama voters anyway.

This video if it was going to do damage would have delivered the most damage when it could have helped Clinton get the nomination. I don't think it's like to drive anyone out of the Obama camp into the arms of McCain, Barr, McKinney or anyone else who might end up on the general election ballot.

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I don't know. Do you really think the video will make any difference? Anyone who was likely to be put off would be put off already and anyone who wants to vote for him will excuse it. I don't really see a bunch of people who will be surprised and swayed if it turns out that Mrs. Obama has made seemingly radical, racially motivated commentary in her day.

Go back to the senior thesis. Would it really shock you to know that her commentary about race in America didn't end there?

Plus, I think it will have a short media life span in the mainstream press and only be replayed on FOX and right-wing blogs, which aren't really aimed at folks like to be Obama voters anyway.

This video if it was going to do damage would have delivered the most damage when it could have helped Clinton get the nomination. I don't think it's like to drive anyone out of the Obama camp into the arms of McCain, Barr, McKinney or anyone else who might end up on the general election ballot.

For the most part, I agree.
And just another reason to wonder about it...

[shinerbock]

I am usually a fan of clean elections, but I think mudslinging is necessary this year. Obama will not stray far from his tested remarks, because his true colors are too extreme for general consumption. So we'll say it for him.

I think too much is at stake in this election to worry about playing clean. Maybe I'll feel bad about it later, but that's another discussion.

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

I am usually a fan of clean elections, but I think mudslinging is necessary this year. Obama will not stray far from his tested remarks, because his true colors are too extreme for general consumption. So we'll say it for him.

I think too much is at stake in this election to worry about playing clean. Maybe I'll feel bad about it later, but that's another discussion.

You say that while you are a fan of "clean" elections, but think that this year we (the people, the Nation) need "mudslinging"??
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mudslinging
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_campaigning

Why???
And just what is wrong with positions, beliefs, policies and in general facts/truths?
And just how do "you" know, at this point in time, what either candidate will be saying over the next few mouths?

And as I posted before, EVERYONE has BOOKS; if anyone goes "south", they better be ready to be hit as hard if not harder.
And faster.

And at that point, WE all lose.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

I am usually a fan of clean elections, but I think mudslinging is necessary this year. Obama will not stray far from his tested remarks, because his true colors are too extreme for general consumption. So we'll say it for him.

I think too much is at stake in this election to worry about playing clean. Maybe I'll feel bad about it later, but that's another discussion.

By any means necessary, huh. The ends justifies the means.

Nothing turns me off of a candidate faster than dirty campaigning -- whether he's doing it himself or whether it's being done on his behalf by his surrogates.

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

By any means necessary, huh. The ends justifies the means.

Nothing turns me off of a candidate faster than dirty campaigning -- whether he's doing it himself or whether it's being done on his behalf by his surrogates.

^^^Agree.
Unfortunately, what generally happens is one side will start it all rolling and then the other side has a rather hard chose to make:
1) Ignore it and stay on message.
2) Fight back
A) In defense
B) In attack
And I think most of us can agree that "1" generally does not work all too well.

IMVHO, what we have already seen is just the very start: A surrogate group will say or do something and the target will address the issue and "ask" their opponent to stop it.
The opponent wit either reply that he will try or he just has no control over the group.
And the matter stays in the news cycle for a few more days and the only true winner is the surrogate group.

[DeltAlum]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

By any means necessary, huh. The ends justifies the means.

Nothing turns me off of a candidate faster than dirty campaigning -- whether he's doing it himself or whether it's being done on his behalf by his surrogates.

Agree.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by jon1856

You say that while you are a fan of "clean" elections, but think that this year we (the people, the Nation) need "mudslinging"??
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mudslinging
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_campaigning

Why???
And just what is wrong with positions, beliefs, policies and in general facts/truths?
And just how do "you" know, at this point in time, what either candidate will be saying over the next few mouths?

And as I posted before, EVERYONE has BOOKS; if anyone goes "south", they better be ready to be hit as hard if not harder.
And faster.

And at that point, WE all lose.

I don't know what you're asking.

Nothing is wrong w/ positions, beliefs, etc...

I know that Barack won't disclose his far-left leanings, because he's a politician and he wants to be elected.

It'll be dirty, and it'll be on both sides. I think history and common knowledge indicates the right is better at this stuff. Whether we can do it without turning off the country or not, who knows. Sometimes you turn off the country and still manage to win, depends on what mud is being slung.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by DeltAlum

Agree.

By whatever means necessary? To a certain degree, yeah. If it turns you off, you're going to be turned off this cycle, by both sides.

[UGAalum94]

I don't feel like I want to see a really dirty campaign, but I think I understand some of what Shinerbock is saying.

If Obama is permitted to stay within the range of platitude, pre-written speeches, and basically scripted interactions with the press and public, he might carry the day on charisma.

But, if you suspect as Shinerbock does, that Obama at heart is a much more far left figure that the public presently realizes, then you see a need for the truth to come out.

I may be misunderstanding him, but I don't think he mean sullying Obama with anything other than his own past and the past of his close associates or even the fringiness of some of his supporters.

And, I think that studies have been done that demonstrate as much as we all like to say we hate negative campaigning, it actually is very effective in swaying a lot of the electorate.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I don't feel like I want to see a really dirty campaign, but I think I understand some of what Shinerbock is saying.

If Obama is permitted to stay within the range of platitude, pre-written speeches, and basically scripted interactions with the press and public, he might carry the day on charisma.

But, if you suspect as Shinerbock does, that Obama at heart is a much more far left figure that the public presently realizes, then you see a need for the truth to come out.

I may be misunderstanding him, but I don't think he mean sullying Obama with anything other than his own past and the past of his close associates or even the fringiness of some of his supporters.

And, I think that studies have been done that demonstrate as much as we all like to say we hate negative campaigning, it actually is very effective in swaying a lot of the electorate.

You're right, but you give me a little too much credit. Though I'd be personally conflicted about using arguably baseless attacks on Obama, if it kept him from getting the presidency, I'm not sure I could oppose such things this year. I sincerely believe this election cycle is that important.